the publication was due to the exertions of individual members. The House itself took no cognizance of names; but concerned itself merely with the numbers. The grave constitutional objections to this form of voting, had not escaped the notice of parliamentary reformers. Lord John Russell, in his speech on parliamentary reform in 1819, said : 66 We are often told that the publication of the debates is a corrective for any defect in the composition of this House. But to these men, such an argument can by no means apply; the only part they take in the affairs of this House, is to vote in the majority; and it is well known that the names of the majority are scarcely ever published. Such members are unlimited kings, bound by no rule in the exercise of their power, fearing nothing from public censure, in the pursuit of selfish objects, not even influenced by the love of praise and historical fame, which affects the most despotic sovereigns; but making laws, voting money, imposing taxes, sanctioning wars, with all the plenitude of power, and all the protection of obscurity; having nothing to deter them but the reproach of conscience, and everything to tempt the indulgence of avarice and ambition.” 1

It was not, however, until 1836, — four years after the passing of the reform act, that the House of Commons adopted the wise and popular plan of recording the votes of every member; and publishing them, day by day, as part of the proceedings of the House. So stringent a test had never been applied to the conduct of members; and if free constituencies have since failed in their duty of sending able and conscientious representatives, the fault has been entirely their own.

The Commons have since extended the principle of pub

a breach of privilege, as "destructive of the freedom and liberties of Parliament." Com. Journ. xi. 572. In 1782, the Opposition published division lists, the ministerial members appearing in red letters, and the minority in black. - Wraxall Mem. ii. 591.

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., xli. 1097.

Strangers

licity still further. The admission of strangers to debates had been highly prized; but the necessity of excluding present at di- them during a division, had never been doubted.1 visions. Yet in 1853 it was shown by Mr. Muntz 2 that they might be permitted to remain in the galleries, without any embarrassment to the tellers; and they have since looked down upor the busy scene, and shared in the excitement of the declaration of the numbers.

Divisions in

In these important changes, the Commons have also been followed by the Lords. Since 1857, their Lordthe Lords. ships have published their division lists daily; and during a division, strangers are permitted to remain in the galleries and in the space within the rails of the throne. In a minor, yet not unimportant change, the personal re

Names of members on committees.

sponsibility of members, as well to the House as to the public, has been extended. In the Commons, since 1839, the name of every member addressing questions to witnesses before select committees, has been published with the minutes of evidence; and in 1852 the same practice was adopted by the Lords. It displays the intelligence, the knowledge, and the candor of the ques tioners; or their obtuseness, ignorance, and prejudice. It exhibits them seeking for truth, or obstinately persisting in error. Their presence at each sitting of the committee, and their votes upon every question, are also recorded and published in the minutes of proceedings.

tary reports

One other concession to the principle of unrestricted Publication publicity, must not be overlooked. One of the of parliamen- results of increasing activity and vigilance in the and papers. Legislature, has been the collection of information, from all sources, on which to found its laws. Financial and statistical accounts,—reports and papers upon every question of foreign and domestic policy, — have been multiplied in so

1 In 1849 a committee reported that their exclusion was necessary. 2 Report of Select Committee on Divisions, 1853.

2 Resolutions, March 10th, 1857.

remarkable a manner, since the union with Ireland, that it excites surprise how Parliament affected to legislate, in earlier times, without such information. These documents were distributed to all members of the Legislature; and, by their favor, were also accessible to the public. In 1835 the Commons took a further step in the encouragement of publicity, by directing all their papers to be freely sold, at a cheap rate.1 The public have since had the same means of information, upon all legislative questions, as the House itself. Community of knowledge, as well as community of discussion, has been established. If comments are justly made upon the extravagance of parliamentary printing,— if voluminous "blue books are too often a fair object of ridicule, — yet the information they afford is for the public; and the extent and variety of the documents printed, attest at once the activity of members, and the keen interest taken by the people, in the business of legislation.

comments upon Parlia ment.

While the utmost publicity has thus been gradually extended to all parliamentary proceedings, a greater Freedom of freedom has been permitted to the press, in criticizing the conduct of Parliament. Relying upon the candor of public opinion for a justification of its conduct, Parliament has been superior to the irritable sensitiveness, which formerly resented a free discussion of its proceedings. Rarely has either House thought fit, of late years, to re strain by punishment, even the severest censures upon its own debates and proceedings. When gross libels have been published upon the House itself, or any of its members, the House has occasionally thought it necessary to vindicate its honor, by the commitment of the offenders to custody. But it has rightly distinguished between libels upon character and motives, and comments, however severe, upon political conduct. In 1810, Mr. Gale Jones was committed to Newgate, for publishing an offensive placard announcing for discussion in a debating society the conduct of two members, 1 Reports on Printed Papers, 1835.

Mr. G. Yorke and Mr. Windham. Sir Francis Burdett was sent to the Tower, for publishing an address to his constituents, denouncing this act of the House, and denying its right of commitment. Twenty years later, both these offences would probably have been disregarded, or visited with censure only. Again, in 1819, Mr. Hobhouse was committed to Newgate for violent, if not seditious, language in a pamphlet. A few years afterwards, such an offence, if noticed at all, would have been remitted to the AttorneyGeneral, and the Court of Queen's Bench. In 1838, Mr. O'Connell, for a much grosser libel than any of these, was only reprimanded in his place, by the Speaker. The forbearance of both Houses has maintained their dignity, and commanded public respect. Nor has it been without other good results; for, however free the commentaries of newspapers, they have rarely been disgraced by the vulgar scurrilities which marked the age of Wilkes and Junius, when Parliament was still wielding the rod of privilege over the press. Universal freedom of discussion has become the law of our political system; and the familiar use of the privilege, has gradually corrected its abuses.

Early peti

The relations of Parliament with the people have also been drawn closer, by the extended use of the tions to Par- popular right of petitioning for redress of grievliament. ances. Though this right has existed from the earliest times, it had been, practically, restricted for many centuries, to petitions for the redress of personal and local grievances; and the remedies sought by petitioners, were such as Courts of Equity, and private Acts of Parliament have since been accustomed to provide. The civil war of Charles I. encouraged a more active exercise of the right of petitioning. Numerous petitions of a political character, and signed by large bodies of people, were addressed to the Long Parliament.1 Freedom of opinion, however, 1 Clarendon, Rebell. (Oxford Ed., 1826), i. 357; ii. 166, 206, 207, 222; ▼ 460; vi. 406.

was little tolerated by that assembly. The supporters of their cause, were thanked and encouraged its incautious opponents, if they ventured to petition, were punished as delinquents. Still it was during this period of revolution, that the practice of addressing Parliament upon general political questions had its rise. After the Restoration, petitions were again discouraged. For long periods, indeed, during the reign of Charles II., the discontinuance of Parliaments effectually suppressed them; and the collecting of signatures to petitions and addresses to the king, or either House of Parliament, for alteration of matters established by law, in church or state, was restrained by Act of Parliament.2

cal.

Nor does the Revolution appear to have extended the free use of petitions. In the next ten years, pe- Rarely politititions in some numbers were presented, chiefly from persons interested, relative to the African Company, the scarcity and depreciation of the coinage, the duties on leather, - and the woollen trade; but very few of a general political character. Freedom of opinion was not tolerated. In 1690, a petition from the city of London, hinting at a repeal of the Test Act, so far as it affected Protestant Dissenters, could hardly obtain a reading; and in 1701, the Commons imprisoned five of the Kentish petitioners, until the end of the session, for praying that the loyal addresses of the House might be turned into bills of supply. During the reigns of Queen Anne, and the first two Georges, petitions continued to pray for special relief; but rarely interposed in questions of general legislation. Even the ten first turbulent years of George III.'s reign, failed to develop the agency of petitions, among other devices of agitation. So little indulgence did Parliament then 1 Ibid. ii. 221, 348; Com. Journ. v. 354, 367, 368; Rushworth Coll. v. 462, 487.

2 13 Chas. II. c. 5. Petitions to the King for the assembling of Parlia ment were discountenanced in 1679 by proclamation (Dec. 12th).

8 Parl. Hist. v. 359.

4 Somers's Tracts, xi. 242; Parl. Hist. v. 1255; Ibid. App. xvii. xviii.