GEMS FROM "HANSARD."

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4904, 9 December 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

GEMS FROM "HANSARD."

No. 111. PABLIAMENTABY affectations.

One need not recur to Hamlet's advice to his mother, " Assume a virtue, if you have it not," in order to account for and justify most of the affectations that are common to Legislative bodies. The majority of any such body, in any British community, may safely be said to be " honorable " men and members. They speak and act in a way which Britons generally, if empanelled as a jury, would hold to be honorable ; or of men who intend to be what is meant by that word, though they may be faulty in putting intent into speech or action. It is well that the minority should be assumed to belong to one of those classes ; and, therefore, that each should be to each, in his place in Parliament, "an honorable member." Unless there ia proof of dishonorableness, the affectation which has led to that form of nomination is rightly adhered to. Affectations embodied in the rules and the forms of Legislative bodies are almost wholly useful. Talk of heir red-tapeism, or cumberousness, or antiquity, is often indulged in; but a Parliament that is not unwise will maintain and enforce them.

Yet there are Parliamentary affectations which are ridiculous always, and which can be made very offensive. When an Opposition—say in the Assembly of Laputa—affects to believe that a Government is composed of men who, though they may, for convenience sake, be honest socially, are politically rascals and thieves, that Opposition is guilty of folly, or worse. Some of them may really be character-blind, and so bigoted as to be satisfied that all of which they disapprove is wrong; but the larger number of those who take part in the affectation are only mistaken men. They may desire office ; but they should recognise that if the people did not discriminate respecting affectations, to attain office would be but to achieve disgrace. Affectations as to the relations between the Government and the newspaper Press are equally common, offensive, and calculated to be dangerous. Most of us know that it is arrant nonsense to affect a belief that the newspaper writer who supports a Government policy must have been " bought" or " bribed," that he is only a " hireling" or a " miserable hack." The majority in oroutof Parliament knows that amongst those things that certainly have two sides, political questions are included. But many Parliamentary talkers cannot resist the temptation to assail a Government when they differ from its policy, and dislike its members personally ; and they revel in a safe assault upon " newspaper fellows," who have sinned by not. recognising their merits. There be " able editors " of newspapers—not in Laputa —to whom, as nothing which is cleanly or fair is to them agreeable, the idea of foulness or corruption is ever, present. They have not been "bought" or "bribed," they are not worth it in literary power, and they are not be trusted on the lowest ground of observing the terms, of a bargain. But they itch to be bought, and they cannot suppose it possible that an offered bribe could be refused. Nothing is more certain than that "bribery of the Press" is very rarely attempted any- | where; or than that almost every such ' attempt is a' failure; or than that the man who i 3 given to scribbling offensively about bribery by a Government, is the man who is likely to be open to a bribe. As a matter of fact, too, amongst those scribblers are men known to prefer the Opposition side in politics upon conviction—conviction that it affords most opportunities for "slashing articles," and from the belief that such articles draw subscribers and pence. The discussions, whether Ministers were disqualified, which were so frequent towards the close of the session, and so bitter, bristle with affectations of the most astounding kind. Sir George Grey indulged in them ; as, for instance, on the 18th September, when he said:— " Probably upon the few remarks I may make this evening on this subject, the position of almost every public man in this colony may depend, in consequence of misrepresentations which have, doubtless, been carefully set afloat. . . • What' appeared to me to be the hardship of the case is this: that the majority of us are isolated in this town of Wellington from our constituents —that the Government have, by means I cannot approve of, acquired control over the Press, which has been exercised, undoubtedly, for the purpose of preventing the speeches of honorable gentlemen who think with me from being reported aud made known to thepublic." That involves " getting at" editors and reporters. Two assertions may safely be made: No man ever was in possession of proof that any editor over instructed any reporter not to report any member of. any Legislative body, with the object of preventing views or opinions opposed to those of a newsI paper being made public. No editor ever retained upon a newspaper any reporter as to whom there was fair reason for thinking that

he " burked" or misrepresented the speeches of any member of any Legislative body, simply because he did not agree with the member's opinions, or thought them opposed to the opinions advocated bythenewspaperuponwhich he was employed. A third assertion may be ventured. Any person having control of a newspaper, and desiring to injure Sir George Grey politically, would probably wish that the honorable gentleman should be very fully_ reported. Nothing could more speedily convince the public that great natural ability does not necessarily prevent a man from being an utterly impracticable politician, and that natural amiability is consistent with a bitter and a biting tongue. Two or three hard facts are forgotten or ignored by those who make such attacks as that made by Sir George Grey. First, that a newspaper is not a carpet bag, but that the "matter" it will contain is a rigidly fixed quantity. Second, that the " space" allotable | to the report of any day's sitting of a Parliament is a constantly varying quantity, roughly arrived at by an estimate of the importance of the day's proceedings, relatively to that of the various other " matter" for which space mustbe found. Third, that when the space to be given to the Parliamentary report has been decided, the use to be made of that space must be left to the decision of the reporters ; that reporters are not more than men ; and that men do differ as to the value of speeches—especially when the maker of a speech stands as judge on one side, and on the other there is a reporter who has to estimate only the comparative value of that speech, and has to use many merely professional factors in arriving at his judgment. Mr. Stout is understood to pride himself that he is a logical speaker. But in the debate from which we have quoted, he mixed his affectations and was 'generally illogical. Said he:—

" I submit that the morning paper does unfairly represent the action of the Opposition, and has done so from the beginning of the session. It has said everything of the Opposition that is unfair, and has characterised them in a manner I shall not repeat. As far as the remarks of the hon. member for the Thames are concerned, he only says that Ministers have control over the public Press of the colony. It depends entirely on what is meant by control. If by control is meant the receiving special reporters and representatives of the Press into the private rooms of Ministers, who afterwards telegraph that Ministers say so-and-se, I think there is control of the Press. Hon. members may hold their own opinions as to what control is, but that is what I conceive to be control over the Press." This is weakness. Mr. Stout's leader made a complaint which would represent a very real grievance if it had any reality; but Mr. Stout's complaint means no more than this—an editor who, according to the views he advocates, must consider the Opposition unwise in principle and wholly unreasonable in action, has not praised or approved of the Opposition! And did Mr. Stout really believe in that stupid affectation of explaining what he thought was meant by "control of the Press"? Sir George Grey's " control" would be a grievous wrong; his charge was a most offensive one, unless it could be shown to be well-founded. Mr. Stout's "control," at the worst, amounts to saying that some reporters try to get information from the best source; and that in the instance quoted by Mr. Stout, " Ministers," after denying that they had received the writs of which so much was heard, had dared to add that " Grey is frightened to proceed for tear of costs." That opinion was, at the time, so commonly expressed, that Ministers' imprimatur was scarcely needed to give it force. Mr. Stout should again try to define " control of the Press," if he does not want people to believe that all his talk about it last session was nonsensical affectation.

Mr. Stout and others were guilty of most unjust affectations about the Hansard reporters. No one who is not densely ignorant can possibly sympathise with the indignation which party excitement caused Mr. Stout to affect to feel. Of course, the Hansard staff stopped reporting as soon as "stonewalling" was commenced on that memorable Thursday. Any Hansard staff will again stop reporting when a similar waste of time is begun. That the one thing was done,*is a fact; that the other will be done is inevitable —unless " stonewalling" becomes an art for the indulgence in which it is thought worth while to keep a staff of reporters twice as strong as is ordinarily needed. Even that "unless" is not sufficiently a saving clause. It is quite conceivable that no men could be found who would, at any price, continue the heartbreaking, soul-deadening labor of "taking" in shorthand, and then " writing out," the drivel that makes the bulk of " talk against time." The treadmill " grinding " wind, or the crank driven against a regulated spring, is not an ennobling form of labor. But either would be less offensive and degrading than that of reporting a " stonewall" debate. Much weariness of mind must be known to reporters. They have to deal with plenty of what (in their irreverence) they call twaddle, though they know it is talked in sober, sad earnestness, and is meant to enlighten and convince; but that they should ever labor to record what they know to be drivel talked only to kill time, and talked on through heavy night hours, all but unbrokenly, is nit conceivable. When the "stonewalling" had been brought to a close, the Hansard men resumed work, as a matter of course; but Mr. Stout permitted himself to say this :

" I would like to know how it is that the reporters happen to choose a particular time when a particular motion is on, of taking up the reporting again. If the reporters have this power over the proceedings of this Parliament, then I can only say that not only is the freedom of discussion abridged, but the freedom of this Parliament is put an end to. The Opposition is placed in this position: they have no Press in Wellington to represent them, or report them fairly. If Hansard is also to be a party organ,, it is time that Hansard was swept away. If this is to be the conduct of Hansard in future, I, for one, shall do my best to oppose any sum being placed on the Estimates for it. It would be better not to have our debates reported at all than to have them reported in this partisan manner." Would it not be a gross injustice to Mr. Stout to suppose that any portion of these remarks was other than affectation ? It was offensive and unjust, because, unlike the Press, Hansard cannot hit back, when any honorable and learned member strikes a blow. Mr. Beader Wood was about the only member of the Opposition who talked reasonably upon this point : he talked, indeed, as he always does, except when he is fighting somebody to whom he has an aversion ; and, as he talked reasonably, he of course pointed out that the Hansard staff could not have reported the debate had they been required to do so ; and that Mr. Stout had spoken neither well nor wisely in alleging that Hansard was, or was being made, a " partisan" publication.

There is much of affectation in what is said, within and without the walls of the Assembly, as to ffantard being made useless because members correct the reports of their speeches. Some editors argue that what is wanted in Hansard is a verbatim report of the words uttered by each speakor; but assuredly one session of such reports would secure their discontinuance. So many members would appear ridiculous, that they would not support a vote for continuing the exhibition. They would appear ridiculous not because tb.6y are worse speakers or looser thinkers thau average British legislators, but because only a few amongst even-trained speakers will bear verbatim reporting. If that which is valuable has to be selected by the reporters—if they are to put into fair English that which they suppose was meant to be said—and if such a report is to be published as an authoritative one, then the speakers ought to revise the proofs. If, occasionally, a member expunges an offensive word, or softens an obnoxiously hard phrase, he-does what he ought to bo encouraged to persist in doing, despite all the horror .that may be expressed.by those who cannot distinguish between affectations and honest realities. Such corrections are so many • small homages to good taste and good foeling.' No one instance can be recalled ,- in - which reason has been given for believing that a.member has so altered

his revises as to change, or wrongly to modify opinions expressed in the House. Mr. Barff affected holy indignation respecting the mode in which somebody had altered the report of Mr. Wakefield's notable apology for certain newspaper articles. Mr. Barff did nut say that he believed Mr. "Wakefield to be the offender; but what he said left no doubt as to what he thought: " The House will be laughed at if we are to have an enquiry into a question of privilege, or rather two questions of privilege, the one following the other, which, culminates ultimately in an apology which I would rather have thrown myself over the edge of the wharf than have made, if it is found that the apology appears in a form which seems rather to glorify the hero of the occasion than otherwise. These are things that really require attention.,, .

II am not going to express an opinion as to whether the members of the Reporting Debates Committee are well acquainted with what reporting should be or not. I know the chairman has had some experience, but of the other members I know nothing. I hope the chairman of that committee, at all events, and if there are any other persons on it who know anything at all about reporting, that they will take such action as to prevent the prostitution of Hansard to the basest purposes." Mr. Barff has been followed by editors of country papers, who have cited the supposed alterations as showing that the money spent upon Hansard is wasted. The misfortune is, so far as Mr. Barff and his followers are concerned, that Mr. Wakefield did not alter the report at all, nor was the reporter's manuscript altered by anybody in a way to call for complaint. Mr. Barff did not allow for the effect of manner and tone in making the apology, and when he saw that the words did not read as abjectly .as they had sounded, he jumped to the Conclusion that all that was abject had been removed by corrections. Mr. Wakefield, we thinfi, stated in the House that he did not see the revise of his apology. Whether he did or did not, the chief reporter's evidence puts it beyond doubt that the report was essentially a verbatim one, and that no corrections whatever were made, by anybody, except that the official proofreader made a few trifling verbal alterations. All this was proved in the House, and appears in Hansard; the session ended five weeks ago; but some editors still write as though terrible results must flow from the way in which the wary Wakefield wickedly weakened that report ! Any such fear is affected ; or it comes of ignorance which iB not affected, and which is reprehensible.