PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5072, 26 June 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.

Because we do not choose to cumber our columns with all the nonsense that is talked in Parliament, and do not report the lengthy speeches of tedious and foolish members, some members of the New Zealand Parliament have more than once pronounced the New Zealand Times corrupt and biassed. Of course they had a comfort for their neglect in that perpetual production of talk, that record of what is not said, the New Zealand Hansard. But they may find further consolation in the fact that certain members of the British House of Commons are worse off than they. A Mr. Biggar, not finding his foolishness reported in the papers, endeavored, without success, to have an official and full report of the proceedings in Parliament published (like our Hansard) at periods throughout the session. Of course Mr. Biggar was unsuccessful ; but for the sake of the Biggars (no Hibernian pun is intended) wbo are in the New Zealand Parliament, we reprint what the leading London papers said of his attempt: The Times (April 21) remarks If the House of Commons desires to have an official report of its speeches printed three or four days, or a week, or a fortnight, after they have been spken, by all means let it gratify its wish. It will not interfere with our report, which will be in the hands of the public a few hours after the conclusion of the debate. The enterprise, however, suggests some curious considerations. Are the members to be reported word for word, as Mr. Bright insists ? If so, the result will probably tend more to the diversion of the public than the dignity of the House. Or are they, on the other hand, to edit their speeches, revised and corrected, or, as the advertisements say, “with extensive additions ” ? In other words, is the official report to be the record of something that was never said in the House at all.

The Standard (April 21) says:—Knowing that it is to the interest .of the newspapers to satisfy them, the public will be well content to leave a discretion to editors .as to the reports they will give, and the matter they will suppress. For all public and general purposes the newspaper reports would retain in respect of the official report the same position which they now hold with regard to Hansard. We even doubt whether by the political classes, the official reports would be read, though they might be taken for reference. Bbt if Parliament should ever think it worth while to spend the money the country will hardly feel the expenditure. At present, however, the House is not prepared even to inquire into the matter, for the motion was rejected by a majority of 152 to 128; The Morning Advertiser (April 21) declares: —lt is quite true, as was admitted in the course of the debate, that the modern newspaper can no longer give its former space to Parliament ; but it is true, as. was also stated, that the public have been educated out of their taste for long reports. On this head Mr. Tracy’s argument was most infelicitous. The hurry and distraction of life in our day are fatal to prolixity. In this respect the papers have measured the public taste, which the official report will not answer. It is preposterous to think that such a system of reporting will form a means of public political education, as well as a legislative archive and history. Assuredly the carrying out of the proposal of Mr. Tracy will not reawaken the public interest the decline of which Mr. Gladstone regretted to perceive. The Morning Post (April 21) affirms : —lt is for the public to say whether or not they are satisfied with the present system of Parliamentary debates. They are contented with the reports which they find in their newspapers. It is not in their interests that night’s motion was brought forward. Tf they had reason to complain they would cot he slow to do ho. Members who think that the Press does not give sufficient prominence to their speeches, nave the remedy in their own hands. They are at liberty to publish them. Whether any one would read them is another matter. But how many persons would read an official record of the debates in Parliament which could not be published until two days after they had occurred ?