Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/235

Rh Three general systems of legislative reporting have been used. The British Parliament has come to tolerate, but it does not officially recognize the reporter and therefore all reporting has been through the reporters of individual newspapers or through press agencies. Hansard's Debates were long made up of the various newspaper reports carefully collated and since no official report is authorized by Parliament itself, if the newspapers are compelled to suppress a debate, it is lost forever.

This system has had in it so many elements of confusion that in 1874 the House of Commons instituted an inquiry in regard to parliamentary reporting in foreign countries and in the colonies. The resulting report brought together much valuable information and showed that the prevailing method was for reporting to be the work of private enterprise. But Austria, France, Germany, Italy ,and the United States at that time used the system of official reporting, while several of the smaller British provinces provided for their legislative reporting through a contract system

Excellent as was the report in itself, it brought no immediate relief for a troublesome situation in England. But a few years later, in 1878, a Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting presented the results of an elaborate inquiry concerning the comparative merits of official reports and reports made by private enterprise. The inquiry on which the Report was based showed conclusively the existence of two radically different ideas in regard to the use to be served by parliamentary reports. Certain representatives of the press wished reports that would interest their readers, while the Parliamentary Committee was concerned with the question of what constitutes an official record. During the inquiry the superintendent of the reporters on The Times was asked: “Do you never elaborate a little personal encounter and pass over more solid discussions?” And he replied: