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.1 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! 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 deł 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. 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 still a breach of privilege. 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 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 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 porters. press had enjoyed facilities unknown to thei predecessor, 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 until recently a very small who took part in the debates, 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 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 :-"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. 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 Strangers 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 upon the busy scene, and shared in the excitement of the declaration of the numbers. Divisions in the Lords. Names of members on committees. In these important changes, the Commons have also been followed by the Lords. Since 1857, their Lordships 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 responsibility 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 Resolutions, March 10th, 1857. |