July.
Last month the House of Lords' discussed the possibility of limiting not prohibiting the reading of speeches in its debates. Quointly enough this discussion produced some of the best sspecthes ever heard in the House and the whole debate was at an exceptionally high level. Nor did a single member resort to the written speech. 'The Interest of their Lordships' observ tions lay not 90 much in their treatment of the case for or against read speeches -as_ in the= piquant] revelations with which they adorn their arguments,. There _s, sometimes, much misapprehension con the subject.
'The eloquence] which depends' on. no. notes. or manuscript 1s. nots: spontaneous as the artistry of the orator sugests, Burke's impassioned orations were usually-committed to paper' Defore he ventured to address the House. It is a commonplace that budget speeches—not only in.the House of Commons—are learnt by heart, The late Lord Birkenhead jumped into fame byt virtue of a audacious maiden speech with which the then unknown Smith truculently chastised the victorious hordes of the party opposed to his own shattered remnant. Every word of that] speech had been carefully prepared and practised by the young champion ithe night before. In. later years he retained the art, Having {o make a speech on an important topic, he gave a correspondent an advance typed copy running into several foolscap pages and asked! that his speech as delivered should bbe. checked with the manuscript before publication. The reporter eventually returned to the effec with the comment that Lord Birkenhead had not deviated by a syllable from the manu setipt. Indeed he had even pre~ pared for and accurately worded an interruption and. his answer. The exigencies of debate must limit the extent of this method of preparation, but the point to note is that the reading of the speech rather than the elaborate prepara-ton of itis the real cause of complaint, Speaking for the Government with a dim dence which he tributed to his comparatively recent elevation to the House of Lords, Viscount Halifax pointed out that, in making official pronouncements of considerable importance. and complexity, it was probably essential that the precaution of yeading from manuscript should be taken. This certainly has the advantage of guarding against the experience of the late Duke of Devonshire who, being asked to state the policy of "Her Majesty's Government" in regard to a most important European crisis, relied on his memory and made an interest~ ing stalement to the House. As he sat down his sleeve was tugged by nis parliamentary private secretary' and a whispered conversation followed. Immediately His Grace rose and, hardly concealing his boredom, intimated to their Lordships that in regard to the statement just made by him they should note that it represented the exact reverse of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. certain famous oceasion—Viscount {Halifax's predecessor in the Viceroyalty of India had reason to remember it—M:. David Lloyd George, as Prime Minister, was to make from a carefully prepared manuscript, a considered state ment on British policy in India, of which country Mr. Lloyd George always' had the vaguest notions. An emotional accident caused him to throw the manuscript aside, and, fon his own account, to deliver a most eloquent, epigrammatic and means inaccurate speech on India, her future, present and past For several weeks afterwards unfortunate Government officials in India from the Viceroy downwards had to expound the meaning of the Lloyd-Georgian phrases to highly suspicious Indian politicians and Legislatures. Lora Halifax' point was good, but there is every ground for asking that, in reading a speech, the Government spokesman should endeavour to give the proper shades: of expression and, above all, should appear to understand what he 1s yeading. The private member who perpetrates—or attempts to perpetrate—the reading of a speech. eserves no quarter whatever. After the debate in the House of Lords it is exceedingly unlikely that he will get it.
In the course of the debate the' disclosure was made that so often official statements are committed to paper because, owing to the complexity and volume of public business, the statesman charged with making the speech has not had the time to master the subject under review. It was also observed that the development of the use of the stenographer had tended to relieve this strain by inducing men to throw off certain items of in~ formation in the course of dictation. Having thus recorded. the facts on paper; they feel that they cane acquitted of any obligation charge: their over-burdened memory with them: " It does not take much imagination to perceive] that this inevitably enhances the superficiality. of public utterances and the artificiality of: discussions, whether in print or through oratory. Tt does not apply to politicians alone. The question, however, Is whether the world Is right in permitting this make-believe to unchecked. Should not something be done to relieve the strain on the heavily worked Cabinet Mini ster—or humbler politician? The danger of reducing everything to the formula of advance preparation cannot be ignored. Some believe that it has played a large part in bringing the proceedings of the League of Nations into disrepute. The other day in the House of Commons the debate on '*Sanetions" was electrified or galvanized by one of Mr, Lloyd George's most brilliant essays in invective, satire, ridicule and eloquent patriotism.—Bur the rules gave the House only three hours for the discussion. Mr. Baldwin had arranged to wind up and had actually prepared his speech on philosophically disarming lines. Playing for safety, Me. Baldwin dared not risk the highly complex machine by departing from' his brief. The Government could not be defeated, but the damaging attack of Mr. Lloyd George remain unanswered except by a sentence or two of chivalrous compliment paid by Mr. Baldwin before plunging into the prepared apologia, And it should not be forgotten that this tendency to exclude improvisations and to settle everything in advance has directly cleared the way for the abuse of democratic machinery by dictatorships. The microphone is a great lovelier and nothing pleases the dictator better than to bring every-tone down to the lowest possible level—his opportunity is then secure.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.