ODD PAPERS

Southland Times, Issue 21091, 24 May 1930, Page 13

ODD PAPERS

PARLIAMENTAR Y REPORTING

(By

"Q.R.S.”)

When Parliament is in session, we have become so accustomed to having the latest reports of the proceedings of the Legislature dished up in the morning newspaper with our eggs and bacon that it is doubtful if we have ever paid heed to the struggles formerly waged by the Press in its desire to give to the public the fullest information on all questions discussed on the floor of the House. It is interesting to trace the development of this privilege. Of all the privileges of the British Parliament, the one which has undergone the greatest modification, and of which the practical abandonment has produced the most momentous political results, is that which concerns the secrecy of its proceedings. The original motive for secrecy of debate was the anxiety of the Members to protect themselves against the action of the Sovereign, but it was soon found equally convenient as a veil to hide their proceedings from the constituencies. It was only after a prolonged struggle that the rights of the electors, and of the public at large, to know what the representatives, of the Nation were doing in Parliament was at length virtually conceded. Debates were frequently published anonymously in newsletters and pamphlets. In the year ■1694 Resolutions were passed by both Houses of the English Parliament to restrain “news-letter writers” from “intermeddling with their debates or other proceedings,” or “giving any account or minute of the debates.” But notwithstanding these Resolutions, and the punishment of offenders, privilege was unable to prevail against the craving for the political news natural to a free country; and, from the accession of the House of Hanover, imperfect reports of the more important discussions began to be published in certain magazines under a pseudo title and with either simple initials, or feigned names for the speakers. The difficulties of reporting, when notes had to be taken by stealth and the memory was mainly trusted to, naturally led to serious inaccuracies, which were often aggravated by intentional misrepresentation. Dr Johnson, who wrote the Parliamentary reports in the “Gentleman’s Magazine” in 1740, is said to have confessed that “He took care that the Whig dogs should not have the best of it.”

In a debate on the subject in 1738, Sir Robert Walpole humourously complained of the misrepresentation to which members were subjected. In 1771, notes of the speeches were published in several journals, accompanied, for the first time, with the names of the speakers. One of the Members, who had been provoked by the opprobrious terms applied to him by some of the reporters, precipitated a conflict between the House and the Press by making a formal complaint of several journals “as misrepresenting the speeches and reflecting on several of the members of this House.” Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend at the bar of the House and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. From the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint.

Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence, its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters-long continued beset with difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the powers of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers were frequently and capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons, any one member, by merely “spying” strangers present, could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal without putting the question. This power was exercised in 1849, and, after an interval of twenty-one years, in 1870. Its subsequent enforcement in 1872, 1873, and in later years, caused considerable inconvenience, and, at length, in 1875, the House was induced to adopt a modification of the rule. By a Resolution, passed in that year, while leaving the personal discretion of the Speaker unfettered, he was directed that whenever the presence of strangers should be brought to his notice by a Member, he should, forthwith, without any debate or amendment, put the question of their withdrawal for the decision of all Members present. Although not made a Standing Order, this Resolution, in the absence of further instructions from the House, has since been acted on by the Speaker in every case which has subsequently arisen. After the destruction of the House of Parliament by fire in 1834, special facilities were afforded for reporting, separate galleries being assigned for the accommodation of the journalists, and, 'in 1845, the presence of strangers in the galleries and other parts of the House not appropriated by members was, (or the first time, officially recognized in the Orders of the House of Commons. The daily publication of the Division Lists as part of the proceedings of the House —which, alone, was wanting to complete the publicity of its proceedings of Members—was not adopted by the Commons until 1836, an example which was followed by the’ Lords only in 1857. Previously it had been impossible to ascertain, in the great majority of cases, what Members were present at a division and how they voted, the Houses themselves taking no cognizance of names, but only of numbers. On questions of great public interest, the exertions of individual members usually secured the publication of the names of the minority, and this practice—notwithstanding it was declared by the House of Commons in 1696 to be a breach of privilege “destructive of the freedom and liberties of Parliament” —was persisted in, and latterly, a list of the majority was also similarly published. The official daily publication of the Division Lists was followed up by the adoption of the Commons, in 1839, and by the Lords in 1852, of the practice of publishing the names of Members serving on Select Committees, with the questions addressed by them to witnesses; and a few years previously, in 1835, the Commons admitted the public into “community of knowledge as well as community of discussion” bv directing all parliamentary reports and papers to be freely sold at a cheap rate. “The entire people.” it has been well observed, “are now present, as it were, and assist in the deliberations of Parliament.” An orator addresses not only the assembly of which he is a member, but, through him, the civilized world. His influence and his responsibilities are alike extended. • Publicity has become one of the most important instruments of parliamentary government. The people are taken in to counsel by Parliament, and concur in approving or condemning the law’s, which are there proposed; and thus the authority of an ancient writer,is verified to-the very letter: “Laws they are not, which public approbation hath not made so.”