trates, the House could scarcely have flinched from the vindication of its privileges.1 But Parliament has no means of punishing a popular offender. The Lord Mayor, on leaving the House, accompanied by the Sergeant-at-Arms, was surrounded by the crowd, who took the horses from his carriage, and bore him to Temple Bar. Here they shut the city gates, and would have rescued him from custody, but for the adroitness of the Lord Mayor, who assured them he was going home, accompanied by his friends. He slept that night at the Mansion House, and early the following morning reached the Tower, without observation. Here the prisoners received every mark of public attention and sympathy. Visited by the most distinguished leaders of the Opposition, - attended by deputations, -flattered in addresses, complimented by the freedom of many cities, and overloaded with presents, their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was a long-continued ovation. They failed to obtain their release under writs of habeas corpus, as the legality of their commitment could not be impeached; but on the 8th May, after six weeks' confinement, the prorogation of Parliament set them at liberty. Attended by a triumphal pro 1 Lord Chatham condemned all the parties to this contest. "Nothing appears to me more distinct than declaring their right to jurisdiction, with regard to printers of their proceedings, and debates, and punishing their member, and in him his constituents, for what he has done in discharge of his oath and conscience as a magistrate." Lord Chatham to Colonel Barré, March 26th, 1771.-Chatham Corresp., iv. 136. Lord Chatham, writing to Earl Temple, April 17th, 1771, said, "Great is the absurdity of the city in putting the quarrel on the exercise of the most tenable privilege the House is possessed of,-a right to summon before them printers printing their debates during the session. Incomparable is the wrongheadedness and folly of the Court, ignorant how to be twenty-four hours on good ground; for they have most ingeniously contrived to be guilty of the rankest tyranny, in every step taken to assert the right." Grenville Papers, iv. 533. See also Junius, Letter xliv. - cession, they proceeded from the Tower to the Mansion House; and the people exulted at the liberation of their popular magistrates.1 henceforth Thus ended this painful and embarrassing conflict. Ieporting Its results were decisive. The publication of debates permitted. was still asserted to be a breach of privilege; but the offence was committed with impunity. Another contest with the press, supported by a powerful opposition and popular sympathies, was out of the question; and henceforth the proceedings of both Houses were freely reported. Parliament as well as the public has since profited by every facility which has been afforded to reporting. The suppression of the names of the speakers, and the adoption of fictitious designations, had encouraged reporters to introduce other fictions into their narratives; and to impute arguments and language, which had never been used, to characters of their own creation. But reporters were still beset with too many diffi- Its difficulties, to be able to collect accurate accounts of the culties. debates. Prohibited from taking notes, they were obliged to write mainly from memory. If notes were taken at all, they were written surreptitiously, and in fear of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Nor was this the only impediment to reporting. The accommodation for strangers was very limited; and as no places were reserved for reporters, they were obliged to wait upon the stairs, sometimes for hours,- before the doors were opened, in order to secure admission. Under such restraints, imperfections in the reports were to be expected. However faithfully the substance of the debates may have been rendered, it is not conceivable 1 Memoirs of Brass Crosby, 1829; Almon's Life of Wilkes; Ann. Reg., 1771, 59 et seq.; Adolphus, Reports interrupted by exclu sion of strangers. that the language of the speakers could have been preserved; and it was probably no vain boast of Dr. Johnson, when, to a company lost in admiration at one of Mr. Pitt's most eloquent speeches, he exclaimed, "That speech I wrote in a garret, in Exeter Street." 1 Nor were any further facilities conceded to reporters, after the struggle of 1771. Lord Malmesbury, speaking of Mr. Pitt's speech, 23rd May, 1803, on the renewal of hostilities with France, said: "By a new arrangement of the Speaker's, strangers were excluded till so late an hour, that the newspaper printers could not get in, and of course, no part of Pitt's speech can be printed."2 A sketch of this speech, however, has been preserved; but the whole debate was very imperfectly reported.3 Even so late as 1807, it was noticed in the House of Lords, that a person was taking notes in the gallery.4 Another interruption to which reporting was still exposed, was the frequent and capricious exclusion of strangers, at the desire of a single member. On the 29th January, 1778, seven years after the contest with the printers, Colonel Luttrell complained of misrepresentation in a newspaper; and said he should move the exclusion of strangers, in order to prevent the recurrence of such a practice; upon which Mr. Fox made this remarkable observation: "He was convinced the true and only method of preventing misrepresen tation was by throwing open the gallery, and making the debates and decisions of the House as public as possible. There was less danger of misrepresentation 2 Corresp. and Diary, iv. 262. 3 Parl. Hist., xxxvi. 1386. 1 Sir J. Hawkins' Life of Dr. John- the works of his own imagination. son. The editor of Cobbett's Parlia--Prefs. to vols. xi. and xii. mentary History bears testimony to the general accuracy of Dr. Johnson's reports, and discredits the statements of Sir John Hawkins and others, who had regarded them as 4 Court and Cabinets of George III., iv. 150; not mentioned in the Parl. Debates. in a full company than a thin one, as there would be a greater number of persons to give evidence against the misrepresentation." On the 14th June, 1798, the debate on Mr. Sheridan's motion for a committee on the state of Ireland, was lost to the public, by the exclusion of strangers. In 1810, Mr. Yorke enforced the exclusion of strangers during the inquiries, at the bar, into the expedition to the Scheldt; when Mr. Sheridan vainly attempted to obtain a modification of the rule, which vested in a single member, the power of excluding the public. And on some later occasions, the reports of the debates in both Houses have been interrupted from the same cause.* But when the fear of punishment was abated, the reports became more systematic; and were improved in character and copiousness. There were still delays, and other shortcomings: but mainly by the enterprise and ability of Almon, Woodfall, and Perry, the system of reporting and printing the debates gradually attained its present marvellous rapidity and completeness. And what a revolution has it accomplished! The entire people are now present, as it were, and Political assist in the deliberations of Parliament. An orator 1 Parl. Hist., xix. 647. A few days afterwards strangers, were ordered to withdraw. This order was enforced against the gentlemen; but the ladies, who were present in unusual numbers, were permitted to remain. Governor Johnstone, however, remonstrated upon the indulgence shown to them, and they were also directed to withdraw. But they showed no disposition to obey this ungracious order, and business was interrupted for nearly two hours, before their exclusion was accomplished. Among the number were the Duchess of Devonshire, and Lady Norton. The contumacy of the ladies on this oc casion unhappily led to the with- Feb. 2nd, 1778. London Chro- 4 Even so late as 1849 the doors results of reporting. addresses not only the assembly of which he is a member; but, through them, the civilised world. Publicity has become one of the most important instruments of parliamentary government. The people are taken into counsel by Parliament, and concur in approving or condemning the laws, which are there proposed; and thus the doctrine of Hooker is verified to the very letter: "Laws they are not, which public approbation hath not made so." While publicity secures the ready acceptance of good laws by the people, the passing of bad laws, of which the people disapprove, is beyond the power of any minister. Long before a measure can be adopted by the legislature, it has been approved or condemned by the public voice; and living and acting in public, Parliament, under a free representation, has become as sensitive to public opinion, as a barometer to atmospheric pressure. Such being the direct influence of the people over the deliberations of Parliament, they must share, with that body, the responsibility of legislation. They have permitted laws to be passed, they have accepted and approved them; and they will not afterwards allow them to be disturbed. Hence the remarkable permanence of every legislative settlement. There has been no retrogression in our laws or policy. The people, if slow to perceive the value of new principles,-hold fast to them when once acknowledged, as to a national faith. No circumstance in the history of our country, -not even parliamentary reform, has done more for freedom and good government, than the unfettered liberty of reporting. And of Though equal publicity prevails in the United States, their legislation is more sudden and impulsive, and remarkable, therefore, for its instability.-De Tocqueville, Démocratie en Amérique, i. 242 (13th ed.). See also an interesting essay of Sismondi, "De la Délibération Nationale: " Etudes sur les Constitutions des Peuples Libres, 131. |