and publishers became familiar with the Black Rod, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Newgate. At length, in 1771, at the instigation of Wilkes,2 notes of the speeches, with the names of the speakers, were published in several journals.3 of repor ters. These papers had rarely attempted to give a correct and impartial account of the debates: but Misreprehad misrepresented them to suit the views sentations of different parties. Dr. Johnson is said to have confessed that he took care that the Whig dogs should not have the best of it; and, in the same spirit, the arguments of all parties were in turn perverted or suppressed. Galling as was this practice, it had been less offensive while the names of the speakers were withheld: but when these were added, members were personally affronted by the misconstruction of their opinions and arguments, and by the ludicrous form in which they were often presented. The chief complaints against reporting had arisen from the misrepresentations to which it was made subservient. In the debate upon this subject in 1738, nearly all the speakers, including Sir W. Wyndham, Sir W. Yonge, and Mr. Winnington, agreed in these complaints, and rested their objections to reporting, on that ground. The case 1 Woodfall, Baldwin, Jay, Millar, Oxlade, Randall, Egglesham, Owen, and Knight, are amongst the names of publishers committed or censured for publishing debates or proceedings in Parliament. Such was the extravagance with which the Lords enforced their privilege, that in 1729, a part of their Journal having been printed in Rymer's Fœdera, they ordered it to be taken out and destroyed.— Lords' Journ., xxiii. 422. 2 Walpole's Mem., iv. 278. 3 The London Evening Post, the St. James' Chronicle, the Gazet teer, and others. was well and humorously stated, by Sir R. Walpole. 'I have read some debates of this House, in which I have been made to speak the very reverse of what I meant. I have read others, wherein all the wit, the learning, and the argument has been thrown into one side, and on the other, nothing but what was low, mean, and ridiculous; and yet, when it comes to the question, the division has gone against the side which, upon the face of the debate, had reason and justice to support it. So that, had I been a stranger to the proceedings, and to the nature of the arguments themselves, I must have thought this to have been one of the most contemptible assemblies on the face of the earth.' In this debate, Mr. Pulteney was the only speaker who distinctly objected to the publication of the speeches of members, on the ground that it looks very like making them accountable without doors, for what they say within.'1 Offensive adjuncts to Indeed, it is probable that the early jealousies of Parliament would soon have been overcome, reporting. if the reports had been impartial. The development of the liberty of the press was checked by its own excesses; and the publication of debates was retarded by the unfairness of reporters. Nor were the complaints of members confined to mere misrepresentation. The reports were frequently given in the form of narratives, in which the speakers were distinguished by nicknames, and described in opprobrious terms. Thus, Colonel George Onslow was called little cocking George,' the little 2 Cavendish Deb., ii. 257. 6 1 Parl. Hist., x. 300. 2 2 scoundrel,' and 'that little paltry, insignificant insect.' The Colonel and his cousin were also spoken of in scurrilous comments, as being like 'the constellations of the two bears in the heavens, one being called the great, and the other the little scoundrel.'3 To report the debates in such a spirit, was at once to violate the orders of the House, and to publish libellous insults upon its members. Parliament had erred in persisting in the prohibition of reporting, long after its occasion had passed away; and the reporters had sacrificed a great public privilege, to the base uses of a scurrilous press. The events of the first ten years of this reign had increased the violence of public writers, and embittered the temper of the people. The North Briton' and 'Junius ' had assailed the highest personages, and the most august assemblies, with unexampled license and audacity. Wilkes had defied the House of Commons, and the ministers. The city had bearded the king upon his throne. Yet this was the time chosen by an unpopular House of Commons, to insist too rigorously upon its privileges, and to seek a contest with the press. against and Wheble, On the 8th February, 1771, Colonel George Onslow made a complaint of 'The Gazetteer and Complaints New Daily Advertiser,' printed for R. Thompson Thompson, and of the Middlesex Journal,' 1771. printed by R. Wheble, as misrepresenting the speeches, and reflecting on several of the members 2 Ibid., 377, n. 1 Cavendish Deb., 258. of this House.' The printers were ordered to attend, --but not without serious warnings and remonstrances from those who foresaw the entanglements, into which the House was likely to be drawn.' They kept out of the way, and were ordered to be taken into custody. The Sergeant proceeded to execute the order, and was laughed at by their servants.2 Thus thwarted, the House addressed the king to issue a proclamation, offering a reward for their apprehension. against other 6 Meanwhile, the offences for which the House was Complaints pursuing Thompson and Wheble, were practised by several other printers; and printers. on the 12th March, Colonel Onslow made a complaint against the printers of six other newspapers. The House had not yet succeeded in apprehending the first offenders, and now another host. was arraigned before them. In some of these papers, the old disguises were retained. In the St. James's Chronicle' the speeches were entitled 'Debates of the representatives of Utopia ;'3 Mr. Dyson was described as Jeremiah Weymouth, Esq., the d--n of this country,' and Mr. Constantine Phipps as Mr. Constantine Lincoln.'4 None of the errors of Parliament have been committed, without the warnings and protests of some of its enlightened members; and this further onslaught upon the printers was vigorously resisted. The minority availed themselves of motions for adjournment, amendments, and 1 Cavendish Deh., ii. 257. 3 Ibid., 383. 2 Ibid., 324. One represented Weymouth, and the other Lincoln. other parliamentary forms, well adapted for delay, until past four in the morning. During this discussion there were no less than twenty-three divisions, -an unprecedented number.1 'Posterity,' said Burke, 'will bless the pertinaciousness of that day." All the six printers were ordered to attend at the bar; and on the day appointed, four of the number appeared, and a fifth,-Mr. Woodfall,-being already in the custody of the Black Rod, by order of the Lords, was prevented from attending. Two of them, Baldwin and Wright, were reprimanded on their knees and discharged; and Bladon, having made a very humble submission, was discharged without a reprimand. Evans, who had also attended the order of the House, went home before he was called in, in consequence, it was said, of an accident to his wife. He was ordered to attend on another day: but wrote a letter to the Speaker, in which he questioned the authority of the House, and declined to obey its order. Lastly, Miller did not attend, and was ordered into custody for his offence.3 Wheble taken before Wilkes. On the 14th March, Wheble, who was still at large, addressed a letter to the Speaker, inclosing the opinion of counsel on his case, Alderman and declaring his determination to yield" no obedience but to the laws of the land.' The next day, he was collusively apprehended by Carpenter, a printer,—by virtue of the proclamation,—and taken before Alderman Wilkes ! This dexterous and cunning agitator had encouraged the printers to resist 2 Ibid., 395. 1 Cavendish Deb., ii. 377. • Parl. Hist., xvii. 90, n. ; Com. Journ., xxxiii. 250-259. |