§ LORD SUDELEYMy Lords, in rising to call your attention to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Parliamentary Reporting, appointed by the Government, and which Report has been communicated to your Lordships' House, I feel that it is only necessary to do so to insure a satisfactory settlement of the question. At present, and for many years past, the reports of Parliamentary proceedings in both Houses of Parliament have been entirely dependent upon the voluntary efforts, so far as the production of these reports is concerned, of the newspaper proprietors, whose interests, very often, will not allow of their giving a full report. For a more complete record of our proceedings, in both this House and the other House of Parliament, we are indebted to Mr. Hansard for the only trustworthy report of the Parliamentary debates which are in 22 existence. It is well known that for many years that gentleman has devoted himself to the extremely laborious task of collating, correcting, and supplementing the reports which appear in the newspapers, of the debates, both in this and the other House of Parliament; and we must all gladly acknowledge that he performs that duty with great ability and energy, and with the most untiring courtesy. Unfortunately, however, the necessity for complying with the great demands upon the space of the newspapers renders it extremely difficult to devote many columns to the publications of our proceedings. The difficulty, we know very well, is owing to the increase of population, the commercial activity of the country, the advance of science, which has rendered it comparatively easy to transmit news rapidly from almost every part of the world, and various other causes. The consequence has been that the space devoted to Parliamentary reports has become less and less. And there is another element, and that is one which, no doubt, greatly actuated the managers of newspapers—namely, that the public like to see reports of, what I may term, highly special and sensational intelligence extended to their utmost limits, far better than any details of Parliamentary debates. The result has been that, year after year, the reports of debates not only here, but in the other House of Parliament, have been everywhere curtailed. My Lords, there is also another cause which leads to the curtailment, and to the inaccuracy of the reports of the debates which take place in your Lordships' House, and that is the extreme difficulty of hearing, especially in the Reporters' Gallery; and the complaint made by the reporters is that even if they have instructions to report the debates fully they experience the greatest difficulty in carrying out their instructions. I have myself often noticed the anxious and even painful expression with which the reporters regard the speaker, and strain forward their necks in their endeavours to hear him distinctly, and some have gone so far as to say it is perfect torture. If that difficulty is felt by experienced reporters, even when those noble Lords who occupy important and responsible positions are speaking, how much more difficult it must be in the case of those 23 who only occasionally address your Lordships, and who often speak in a tone that is difficult to be heard even in the body of the House. It is very easy to see how almost impossible it is for Mr. Hansard to collate a correct report of the proceedings under such circumstances, and it is well known that even lately, and on several occasions, speeches and even lengthened reports of the debates appearing in the newspapers have gone out to India and to the Home Colonies, having a very different tone from that which characterized them in this House, and conveying very opposite impressions of what your Lordships may have said. Now, my Lords, if this be the case in regard to the debates in your Lordships' House, it seems to me that it is high time that some remedy should be applied.
My Lords, so long ago as the year 1877 a discussion took place upon the question of Parliamentary reporting in the other House of Parliament. In the course of that discussion opinions were expressed against having an official report; but a strong desire was manifested in favour of strengthening the hands of Mr. Hansard so that his record of the proceedings of the House of Commons should be a thoroughly good one. Well, my Lords, in the course of the following autumn negotiations were entered into between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hansard, and in December of that year an agreement was made that for a small subsidy of £2,000 a-year Mr. Hansard should employ reporters in the Gallery, who should report the discussions on Private Bills, by order, upon all matters in Committee on Public Bills and in Supply, and all discussions continued after half-past 12 o'clock at night; and, generally, that he should improve the tone of the debates, so far as reporting is concerned. Then, my Lords, in the following year, 1878, a Committee was appointed to investigate the whole matter. That Committee sat throughout the whole of the Session, and was re-appointed in the present Session, and have only lately made their Report. That Report confirms very fully the views which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took at that time. In their Report the Committee state that, although they deprecate an official report, they think that the temporary agreement made by the Chancellor of 24 the Exchequer has had a very satisfactory result, and they state that the Committee are of opinion that the arrangement with Mr. Hansard is a very good one, because it provides for a record of the proceedings which are not otherwise reported, but for which record, Mr. Hansard, not the House, is responsible, and they recommend a continuance of the arrangement; but they also express an opinion that Mr. Hansard should make provision for a more frequent publication of the debates, even although it may be attended with an increased cost, and, consequently, impose an additional charge upon the Votes, if it should appear that the present contribution is not sufficient. They further recommend that proper accommodation should be made for Hansard's reporters in the Gallery. My Lords, remarkable as it may appear, Mr. Hansard not only has no special reporter in the Gallery of your Lordships' House at all; but, at the present moment, there is not even a seat in your Lordships' Gallery which may be thus occupied. Surely, my Lords, this is a state of things that cannot be satisfactory; and not only is it unsatisfactory to the outside public, but I think that your Lordships will admit, when you receive the proofs of your speeches for the purpose of correction, that it is eminently unsatisfactory to your Lordships. I remember very well, some years ago, that the late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), on one occasion, said that it took him two hours to correct a speech that only took him one hour to deliver, although he at that time had far greater facilities for comparing his speech as reported in the public Press than your Lordships have now, in order to see what you have actually said, as there were then four newspapers that reported fully. My Lords, I could quote many other instances, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by doing so; but I may mention that I recently wrote a note to Mr. Hansard, and asked his opinion upon this question. I will read a letter which I received in reply. It is as follows:—
§ "July 31st, 1879.
§ "4, Paper Buildings, Temple, E.C.
§ "My LORD,—In answer to your inquiry, I have not changed the opinion I expressed to your Lordship in 1877—that official reports of the debates in the Imperial Parliament are becoming more and more a necessity, and that the 25 want of such a record of the reasoning and argumentative part of legislation is of great detriment to the deliberate functions of Parliament, and to the due administration of the Executive Government.
§ "It is true that since that opinion was given the defect has been materially supplied in the other House of Parliament, through the arrangement made with me in 1877–8, by which some stages of debates are now specially reported; and I am informed that the result is so satisfactory that nothing better is desired. But this applies to the House of Commons only—the House of Lords is left in the same condition as heretofore.
§ "Now, my Lord, it seems to me to amount to a great defect in our Parliamentary system, that the deliberations of an Assembly which consists of, presumably, the highest educated class in the Empire, and certainly embraces within its numbers the most accomplished statesmen and diplomatists, the most experienced lawyers, and the greatest commanders and administrators, should be lost to the country.
§ "And I would remind your Lordship that no small part of these cultivated intellects have been translated from the House of Commons, where their utterances were fairly reported, to the House of Lords, where they are hardly reported at all.
§ "It is, I may say, a national disaster that such an Assembly should have no sufficient record of its deliberations.
§ "There is no difficulty as to the remedy. A staff of skilful reporters could be readily organized or trained.
§ "They should consist of gentlemen of education, capable of dealing intelligently with subjects of the highest politics, and should be provided with accommodation—as is done for the reporting staff of the Colonial and Continental Legislatures—on the floor of the House.
§ "I do not think the expense should be a consideration; but it would be small in comparison with the importance of the object.
§ "I have the honour to be
§ "Your Lordship's faithful servant,
§ "THOMAS C. HANSARD.
§ "The right hon.
§ Lord SUDDELEY."
§ My Lords, all that I now ask is that what has been done in the House of Commons should be done in your Lordships' House; for it seems to me that your Lordships are at least entitled to have as good a report as the other branch of the Legislature, and it is of the greatest importance that what your Lordships say should be properly reported, especially as the number of hours we sit, as compared with the Sittings of the House of Commons, is extremely small. No doubt, some difficulty may arise as to where Mr. Hansard's reporters may have to sit; but I am informed that there really would be no serious difficulty in putting his reporters 26 on the floor of the House, and it would not be inconsistent with the dignity of this House that they should sit at the Table, as our clerks do, in wig and gown. I think we might readily find some place, if not at the Table of the House, a little behind at another table, and as it would be only necessary to provide seats for two, arrangements might be made so that they might not interfere with the convenience of the House. However, my Lords, this is mere matter of detail, which is capable of easy settlement. So far as the newspapers are concerned, of course, we cannot oblige them to give us longer reports; but I think that the proper thing to do would be to give the reporters, at any rate, an opportunity of hearing and reporting what your Lordships say, if they like to do so. It was only a short time ago that the noble and learned Earl who sits on the Woolsack made a proposal which, I have been told, was thought to be of a most revolutionary character. He proposed that the Galleries should be doubled, for giving additional accommodation for ladies; and if that is ever carried out, it seems to me that if you were to put the newspaper reporters in the centre of each side Gallery, immediately over your Lordships, a very great improvement would be made, and the reporters would hear the debates very much better. Another plan might be that the Reporters' Gallery should be brought further forward. I do hope that something will be done, at any rate, to secure at least as much as has been obtained in the House of Commons. No one can doubt that every facility should be given to the public Press for hearing in both Houses. My Lords, the Question which I have to put is—Whether the Government will take into consideration the expediency of making some arrangement for having better reports taken of the debates in this House, similar to that which has already been adopted in the other House of Parliament during the past two Sessions, and which the Select Committee have recommended should be continued and extended?
LORD DENMANMy Lords, I do not myself think that it is worth while to pay any individuals for the sake of a verbatim report. What is of more importance is the impressions we produce upon each others' minds by what we say in the course of debate; and if anything wrong 27 has taken place, and the report of what we have said gives rise to any misconception abroad, we have the privilege of coming down here and addressing your Lordships, and repairing the error if the reporter has made any mistake. I must confess that I have felt it a little hard, when occasionally my name has appeared in the newspapers, accompanied by the remark, "after a few words," as if what I had said was not worthy of being reported; and I would rather have my name omitted altogether. I am aware that it is said that "brevity is the soul of wit;" and on one occasion the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said that he wished the debates of your Lordships' House should be short; but I do hope that your Lordships will not adopt anything that will tend to make you responsible for the reports which appear of what is said in this House. There is really no authority to report our speeches at all. What we say is to convince one another, and to influence each others' votes, and I think it will be a much more dignified course to pursue if we remain as we are, and not change our mode of proceedings in any way, rather trusting to the common sense of what is uttered to secure for those utterances a proper report, thus leaving our words to work their own way, and produce their own natural effect, without the necessity of making any of the changes which the noble Lord has proposed.
§ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDMy Lords, I think that this is rather a difficult subject, and I do not quite understand what is the real object which the noble Lord who has introduced the subject wishes to obtain. He complains, or the House generally complains, that the declarations made in this House, either by Members of Her Majesty's Government or by influential Members of the Opposition, not being reported with accuracy or at length, great misconception is occasioned thereby in foreign countries or in our own Colonial Dependencies; and, certainly, if that be so, it is a very great evil. But, my Lords, I cannot in any way collect from the noble Lord that the arrangements which have been made in the House of Commons, which he wishes to be applied to this House, would meet the difficulty, or tend to remove it in any way. The arrangement made in the House of Com- 28 mons with Mr. Hansard, as I collect it from the noble Lord, is, no doubt, as far as it goes, a very good arrangement for the purpose of securing for the House of Commons a correct record of what has taken place. But, my Lords, I apprehend that we want something more than that. We do not want merely to have a correct record to be found only in Mr. Hansard's Volumes, to which we may subscribe, or which we may refer to if we do not subscribe, but which will not affect public opinion, because the world in general will not take its views of what occurs in Parliament from this particular record, however authoritative it may be, as an accurate record of the proceedings of the House of Commons. But that is, really, not what is required. We want more than that. We desire that the reports of what takes place in the two Houses of Parliament should be accurately—that is to say, with fair accuracy—conveyed to the millions, I should say, who read the English newspapers. Well, you may obtain that in the House of Commons either by the journals themselves, or the Government or the Houses of Parliament establishing a body of reporters, so skilled, so accomplished, and so experienced, that they will furnish a report similar in its general character to that which we have for many years enjoyed, but still more remarkable for its finish and accuracy. But, my Lords, although you may, in the House of Commons, feel it your duty to establish a body of reporters, and thereby obtain very desirable advantages, still, in this House, where the debates are generally much shorter, where they are uncertain, but where, occasionally, subjects are discussed at much greater length, it would be almost impossible to establish a body of reporters similar to that which has been indicated as having been established in the House of Commons, and which could not be obtained without incurring considerable expense. I do not see exactly how the object which the noble Lord desires, which is that we should have a condensed record, is to be obtained by adopting the arrangement that has been made in the House of Commons. The arrangement which has been made there will, no doubt, secure an accurate record of what takes place; but it cannot secure that it shall come into the hands of the nation, so that they may be per- 29 fectly acquainted with what their Representatives think and say. I think that the best course we can take, under existing circumstances, is really not to endeavour to follow exactly the arrangements which the House of Commons has adopted, but to appoint a Committee of our own, and if your Lordships approve of the suggestion, I will move, next Session, that there shall be a Committee appointed to consider and report upon the question, in order to see what are the best steps to be taken to secure what you want—namely, an accurate and efficient Report of the proceedings of your Lordships' House.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI am very glad that the noble Earl opposite has come to the conclusion which he has indicated. I quite concur with the noble Lord who introduced the subject that it is one of considerable importance, and I was just saying to him that I should make the same suggestion to your Lordships which the noble Earl has made. There is, however, one point on which I think there is some misconception, and that is with respect to this House being such a very bad place to hear in. I have myself noticed, on more than one occasion, when Her Majesty has opened Parliament in person, and when the House has been crowded in every part, that every single word that fell from Her Majesty when reading the Speech has been distinctly heard from one end of the House to the other; and also that when the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack reads the Speech from the Throne, and your Lordships are silent, every word reaches the ears of all who are in the House. I think, my Lords, that a great deal of the difficulty that occurs is occasioned by ourselves and by the tone in which we speak. We mutter; we talk to each other in colloquial tones across the Table, and we do not at all facilitate the work of the reporters. I think that if we all addressed the House in the manner which I am bound to say the Prime Minister generally does, the complaints made by the reporters of the speakers being inaudible in the Gallery would be much rarer than they are. The question is a very difficult one; but it is one that is very important to the House. Many of us, and especially those who fill, or have filled, an official position, have, I think, no right to complain of the way in which 30 the reporters treat us; but when independent Members make unexpected speeches, and contribute valuable remarks, which are condensed into a few lines, a great loss is sustained by the public. I think it will be an advantage if the noble Earl will carry out his suggestion, and move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject, so that we may have the opportunity of hearing some evidence, not only from Mr. Hansard, but also from those newspaper reporters who are so generally in attendance upon your Lordships' House.