PARLIAMENT AND THE PRESS.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.")
the able article entitled "The Latest Experiment in Lon- don Journalism," the attention of your readers is directed to the many evils that may arise from there being a great Journalistic- monopoly established, when a single individual may be the "owner of the sole political journal published in Great Britain." Should such a circumstance ever occur, a greater evil and a worse calamity than any you have specified must be its inevitable con- sequence,—and that is, the loss of that influence which Parliament
• Fitzpatrick's "Life of Dr. Doyle," voL L,
possesses, and ever must retain, so long as its deliberations are fully known and accurately communicated to the people.
It is now something more than twenty years since I was con- nected with the London morning Press, and from my long ex- perience I can affirm that nothing could be more fair, more full, normore impartial, in accordance with the merits of the respective speakers, than the reports of the debates in both Houses of Par- liament. In the Times, Chronicle, Herald, Morning Post, and Daily News, the best men that could be found were employed ; and amongst these men, as each distinguished debater arose there was a generous rivalry, and an honourable competition to give the orator's speech in the very words in which he had spoken. The public then could feel perfect confidence that they fully knew what was both said mild done in both Houses.
Suppose all this is put an end to,—that there is but one news- paper, and but a single corps of Parliamentary reporters ; that there is no longer rivalry, nor competition ; that the public can only learn what the one set of reporters choose to tell them ; that they dislike a particular member and "put him into Coventry," as was on one occasion done by the Times with Spring Rice, and at another time attempted with Daniel O'Connell; or sup- posing the same course be pursued towards a particular section of politicians, what redress would there be for the injured, or by what means could the public learn it had been deceived? In course of time, the truth would ooze out, and the people would learn that what was placed before them as " a Parliamentary debate" was not what actually occurred, but only so much as the proprietor of " the sole political morning paper " chose to com- municate. Need I point out what would be the consequences if the English people lost the confidence they now repose in Parliament, if they fancied there was an impacsable barrier placed between public opinion and their representatives, and that neither could act nor react upon the other?
It is within my own knowledge that wrong would have been done to particular Members, if there had not been rivalry and competition amongst the five London morning papers as to the excellence and fairness in their Parliamentary reporting. It was that competition that made Spring Rice known in three papers, though silenced in the columns of one ; and it was the same com- petition that aided O'Connell in his quarrel with the Times re- porters. And let me now recall a fact which was mentioned by Sir Robert Peel, when referring to the Parliamentary reporters, viz., that though he was personally under obligation to them for the care they had taken in placing his opinions before the public, and though he was known to have considerable patronage at his com- mand, the only favour he was ever asked for by a Parliamentary reporter was to frank a letter.
Another fact I cannot refrain from mentioning, as it is within my personal knowledge, and shows, I think, the value and im- portance of competition and rivalry in Parliamentary reporting. In the years 1836 and 1837 the present Prime Minister did not stand very high in public opinion, and had rendered himself odious to the Liberal party by his letters signed "Runnymede." He made about this period—I think it was early in 1837—a speech in the House of Commons which was very briefly and poorly re- ported in all the morning papers, with one exception, and that exception was the Morning Chronicle, then the leading organ of the Whig party. The same day the following dialogue occurred between the editor of the Morning Chronicle, Mr. Black, and the reporter :- Editor: "Oh ! Mr. —, I was astonished to see the length at which you gave D'Israeli's speech. It is three or four times as long as the report in any other paper. I thought you had more tact and judgment than to do anything like that."
Reporter : "Have you read the speech of D'Israeli as reported in the _Morning Chronicle?"
Editor: "No, not one word of it."
Reporter: "Very well, then, all I ask of you is to read it, and when you have read it, tell me what you think of it, and whether any man who had the power of reporting a speech so excellent could be justified in marring, mangling, abridging, or suppressing it."
The editor returned some time afterwards to the reporters' room, and it was to say, "It is a capital speech, and you were quite right in giving every word of it." The reporter was an Irishman, a Roman Catholic, and of course not an admirer of Mr. D'Israeli.
But how would Mr. D'Israeli have then stood if there had been but one morning newspaper published in London, and what is to be the fate of future politicians and embryo Prime Ministers if the fears you express should ever be realised, and that "Mr. Walter is one day to be the owner of the sole political morning paper published in Great Britain ?" With all my Press recollections strong upon me, and with the knowledge of the generosity of the
Times and the Walters to some of my friends—Sheridan, Tyas, Woods, Thornton, &c.—I can only say that if the monopoly is to be theirs, I know of no hands so worthy to wield it.—I am,
Previous page
