Thus ended this painful and embarrassing conflict. Reporting henceforth permitted. Its results were decisive. The publication of debates 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. Its difficulties. But reporters were still beset with too many difficulties, to be able to collect accurate accounts of the 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 sometimes for hours, upon the stairs, 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 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 1 Sir J. Hawkins's Life of Dr. Johnson. The editor of Cobbett's Parliamentary 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 the works of his own imagination. - Prefs. to vols. xi. and xii. Nor were any further facilities conceded to reporters, after the struggle of 1771. Lord Malmesbury, speaking of Mr. Pitt's speech, 23d 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." A sketch of this speech, however, has been preserved; but the whole debate was very imperfectly reported.2 Even so late as 1807, it was noticed in the House of Lords, that a person was taking notes in the gallery.3 1 clusion of Another interruption to which reporting was still exposed. was the frequent and capricious exclusion of Reports interstrangers, at the desire of a single member. On rupted by exthe 29th January, 1778, seven years after the strangers. 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 misrepresentation 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 in a full company than a thin one, as there would be a greater number of persons to give evidence against the misrepresentation." 4 1 Corresp. and Diary, iv. 262. 2 Parl. Hist. xxxvi. 1386. 3 Court and Cabinets of George III. iv. 150; not mentioned in the Parl. Debates. 4 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 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.8 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! Political results of reporting. The entire people are now present, as it were, and assist in the deliberations of Parliament. An orator addresses not only the assembly of which he is a member; but, through them, the civilized 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 on this occasion unhappily led to the withdrawal of the privilege, which they had long enjoyed, of being present at the debates of the House of Com mons. Feb. 2d, 1778. London Chronicle, cited in note to Parl. Hist. vol. xix. p. 673. Hatsell, Prec. ii. 181, n. See also Grey's Deb. iii. 222. Parl. Hist. xix. 674, n. Parl. Hist. xxxiii. 1487. 2 Hansard's Deb. xv. 325. 8 Even so late as 1849 the doors of the House of Commons were closed against strangers for nearly two hours; and no report of the del ate during that time was published. 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 at mospheric 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.1 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 all the services which the press has rendered to free institutions, none has been greater than its bold defiance of parliamentary privilege, while laboring for the interests of the people. Reporting Reporting, instead of being resented by Parliament, is now encouraged as one of the main sources of its influence; while the people justly esteem it, as the still a breach of privilege. surest safeguard of liberty. Yet such is the tenacity with which ancient customs are observed, — long after their uses have ceased to be recognized, — that the privilege itself has never been relinquished. Its maintenance, how 1 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:" Études sur les Constitutions des Peuples Libres, 131. ever, is little more than a harmless anomaly. Though it is still a breach of privilege to publish the debates, parliamentary censure is reserved for wilful misrepresentation; and even this offence is now scarcely known. The extraordinary ability, candor, and good faith of the modern school of reporters, have left nothing for Parliament or the public to desire. dation of re porters. The fire which destroyed both Houses of Parliament in Galleries for 1834, introduced a new era in reporting. Though the accommo- for many years past, the reporters of the daily press had enjoyed facilities unknown to their predecessors, they still carried on their difficult labors, in the strangers' gallery. In the temporary Houses, separate galleries, for the accommodation of reporters, were first introduced; and this significant change has been perpetuated in the present buildings. Presence of strangers recognized. In 1845 the presence of strangers in the galleries and other parts of the House, not appropriated to members, was for the first time recognized by the orders of the House of Commons; yet this tardy recognition of their presence, did not supersede the ancient rule by which they could be excluded on the word of a single member. A further change was still wanting to complete the publicPublication of ity of parliamentary proceedings, and the respondivision lists. sibility of members. The conduct of members. who took part in the debates, until recently a very small number, was now known; but the conduct of the great majority who were silent, was still a secret. Who were present, how they voted, and what members composed the majority, and therefore the ruling body, — could not be ascertained. On questions of unusual interest, it was customary for the minority to secure the publication of their own names; but it was on very rare occasions indeed, that a list of the majority could also be obtained.1 In either case 1 In 1696, the Commons declared the printing the names of the minority |