in a full company than a thin one, as there would be a greater number of persons to give evidence against the misrepresentation.'

3

,1

2

In 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. The Lords also discussed the same important subject with closed doors. 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 several later occasions, the reports of the debates in both houses have been interrupted from the same cause.5

4

But when the fear of punishment was abated, the reports became more systematic; and were improved in character and copiousness. There were still de

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 occasion unhappily led to the withdrawal of the privilege, which they had long enjoyed, of being present at the debates of the House of Commons. Feb. 2nd, 1778. London Chronicle, cited in note to Parl. Hist., vol. xix. p. 673. Hatsell, Prec., ii. 181, See also Grey's Deb., iii. 222. Parl. Hist., xix. 674, n.

n.

2 4th June. Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 1487.

3 Ibid., 1489; Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 135.

Hans. Deb., xv. 325.

E.g., 4th and 5th March, 1813, during debate concerning the Princess of Wales. Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 430. In 1849, the doors of the House of Commons were closed against strangers for nearly two hours; and no report of the debate during that time was published. In 1870, strangers were twice excluded,

lays, 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!

results of

The entire people are now present, as it were, and assist in the deliberations of Parliament. Political An orator addresses not only the assembly reporting. of which he is a member; but, through them, the civilised world. His influence and his responsibilities are alike extended. 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

No

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.' 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 labouring for the interests of the people.

Reporting, instead of being resented by Parlia

Reporting still a breach of privilege.

ment, is now encouraged as one of the main sources of its influence; while the people justly esteem it, as the surest safeguard of liberty. Yet such is the tenacity with which ancient customs are observed,-long after their uses have ceased to be recognised,-that the privilege itself has never been relinquished. Its maintenance, however, 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, candour, and good faith of the modern school

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, 301 (13th ed.). See also an interesting essay of Sismondi, 'De la Délibération Nationale:' Études sur les Constitutions des Peuples Libres, 131.

of reporters, have left nothing for Parliament or the public to desire.

for the

dation of

The fire which destroyed both Houses of Parliament in 1834, introduced a new era in re- Galleries porting. Though, for many years past, accommothe reporters of the daily press had en- reporters. joyed facilities unknown to their predecessors, they still carried on their difficult labours 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.

of strangers

In 1845, the presence of strangers in the galleries and other parts of the House, not appro- Presence priated to members, was for the first time recognised. recognised 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 publicity of parliamentary proceedings, Publicaand the responsibility of members. The tion of conduct of members who took part in the lists.

division

debates, until recently a very small number,-was debates,—until 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. In either case the publication was due to the exertions of individual members. The House itself took no cognisance 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:'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

1 At the dissolution of 1689, division lists were first published by the Whigs and Tories, to influence the elections.-Macaulay's Hist., iii. 535. In 1696, the Commons declared the printing the names of the minority a breach of privilege, as 'destructive of the freedom and liberties of Parliament.'-Com. Journ., xi. 572. Mr. Burke wrote, in 1770: Frequent and correct lists of voters on all important questions ought to be procured.'-Present Discontents, Works, ii. 325. In 1782, the opposition published division lists, the ministerial members appearing in red letters, and the minority in black.-Wraxall Mem., ii. 591. In Ireland, before the Union, 'the divisions were public, and red and black lists were immediately published of the voters on every public occasion.'-Sir Joseph Barrington's Personal Sketches, i. 195.