Page images
PDF
EPUB

"nal Occur

rences of

ordered to

The Long Parliament, in 1641, had permitted the publication The "Diurof its proceedings in the "Diurnal Occurrences of Parliament (which continued until the Restoration), but prohibited the Parliament," printing of speeches without leave of the House. For printing 1641-1660. a collection of his own speeches, without such leave, Sir E. Dering was expelled the House and imprisoned in the Tower, and his book was ordered to be burned by the common hangman.1 The prohibition was continued after the Restoration; but in Votes and 1680, to prevent inaccurate accounts of the business done, proceedings the Commons directed their "votes and proceedings," without be printed, any reference to the debates, to be printed under the direction of 1680. the Speaker.2 Thenceforward till the Revolution, we are almoss entirely indebted for our knowledge of the parliamentary debate to the private memoranda and letters of members, which have since been published. Andrew Marvell, member for Hull, sent regular reports to his constituents during the eighteen years from the Restoration to 1678. Anchitell Grey, who represented Derby for thirty years, took notes of the debates from 1667 to 1694, which were published, nearly a hundred years afterwards, in 1769. Locke, indeed, at the instigation of Shaftesbury, ventured, in 1675, to write and publish a report of a debate in the House of Lords, under the title of "A Letter from a Person of Quality to a Friend in the Country;" but the Privy Council ordered it to be burnt by the hangman. Debates were also frequently published anonymously in news-letters and pamphlets. After the Revolution frequent Resolutions were passed by both Debates Houses, from 1694 to 1698, to restrain "news-letter writers" published from "intermeddling with their debates or other proceedings," mously in or "giving any account or minute of the debates." But not- news-letters, withstanding these Resolutions, and the punishment of offenders, privilege was unable to prevail against the craving for political news natural to a free country; and from the accession of the House of Hanover imperfect reports of the more important and maga discussions began to be published in Boyer's " Political State of zines. Great Britain," the London Magazine, and the Gentleman's Magazine, under the title of the "Senate of Great Lilliput," or the "Political Club," and with either simple initials, or feigned names for the speakers. The difficulties of reporting when notes had to be taken by stealth and the memory was mainly trusted to, naturally led to serious inaccuracies, which were often aggravated by intentional misrepresentation. Dr. Johnson, who wrote the parliamentary reports in the Gentleman's Magazine from November 1740, to February 1743, is said to have confessed that "he took care that the Whig dogs should

[blocks in formation]

anony

Complaints of unfairness.

Contest with the printers,

1771.

[Further contest] with the

Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London.

The Lord
Mayor
(Brass
Crosby) and
Alderman
Oliver com-
mitted to the
Tower.

not have the best of it." 1 In a debate on the subject in 1738, initiated by Mr. Speaker Onslow, Sir Robert Walpole humorously complained of the misrepresentation to which members were subjected. "I have read some debates of this House," he said, "in which I have been made to speak the very reverse of what I meant. I have read others of them 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." 2 Later reporters, moreover, too often indulged in offensive and scurrilous nicknames.

In 1771 notes of the speeches were published in several journals, accompanied, for the first time, with the names of the speakers; and Col. George Onslow, member for Guildford, and a nephew of the late Speaker, who had been provoked by the opprobrious terms applied to him by some of the reporters, precipitated a conflict between the House and the Press by making a formal complaint of several journals “ as misrepresenting the speeches and reflecting on several of the members of this House." Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government Proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as "not being accused of having committed any crime." These proceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment,

1 See Dr. Johnson, Life of Cave; Nichols, Literary Anecdotes; Hunt, Fourth Estate, and May, Const. Hist., ii. 37.

2 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., x. 810.

was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates had been pursued without any interference or restraint.1

Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now Reporting encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its still a breach of privilege. influence—its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single Member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and capri- Exclusion of ciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of strangers. Commons any one member by merely "spying" strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal without putting the question. This power was exercised in 1849, and, after an interval of twenty-one years, in 1870. Its subsequent enforcement in 1872, 1873, and in later years, caused considerable inconvenience, and at length in 1875, the House was induced to adopt a modification of the rule. By a Resolution Resolution passed in May of that year, while leaving the personal discretion of the of the Speaker unfettered, he was directed that whenever the 1875. presence of strangers should be brought to his notice by a member, he should, forthwith, without any debate or amendment, put the question of their withdrawal for the decision of all the members present. Although not made a Standing Order, this Resolution, in the absence of further instructions from the House, has since been acted on by the Speaker in every case which has subsequently arisen.

House,

reporting.

of division

lists.

After the destruction of the Houses of Parliament by fire in Facilities 1834, separate galleries were assigned for the accommodation afforded for of reporters, and in 1845 the presence of strangers in the galleries and other parts of the House not appropriated to members was for the first time officially recognised in the orders of the House of Commons. The daily publication of the Division lists as part of Publication the proceedings of the House-which alone was wanting to complete the publicity of its proceedings and the responsibility of members, was not adopted by the Commons until 1836, an example which was only followed by the Lords in 1857. Previously it had been impossible to ascertain, in the great majority of cases, what members were present at a division and how they voted, the Houses themselves taking no cognisance of names, but only of numbers. On questions of great public interest, the exertions of individual members usually secured the publication of the names of the minority, and this practice-notwithstanding it was declared by the House of Commons in 1696 to be a breach of privilege destructive of the freedom and 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., xvii. 59–163.

[ocr errors]

Publication of parliamentary

reports and papers.

Political results of reporting.

Conflict between the Commons and the Courts of Law as to publication of papers affecting character.

Stockdale v. Hansard, 1859.

liberties of Parliament "--was persisted in, and latterly a list of the majority was also similarly published. The official daily publication of the Division lists was followed up by the adoption by the Commons in 1839, and by the Lords in 1852, of the practice of publishing the names of members serving on Select Committees, with the questions addressed by them to witnesses; and a few years previously, in 1835, the Commons admitted the public into "community of knowledge as well as community of discussion" by directing all parliamentary reports and papers to be freely sold at a cheap rate.

[ocr errors]

The entire people," it has been well observed, 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 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.'

[ocr errors]

The revolution which has taken place since the eighteenth century in the relations between the House of Commons and the people is forcibly brought out by the conflict which occurred in 1836 between the House and the Courts of Law consequent upon the publication of the parliamentary reports and proceedings. In 1771 we have seen the Commons in conflict with the magistrates of London to uphold the privilege of the inviolable secrecy of the proceedings of the House; in 1836 the object of their contention with the Courts of Justice was the privilege of publishing all their own papers for the information of the nation. Certain reports of the Inspectors of Prisons, printed by Messrs. Hansard in obedience to the orders of the House of Commons, contained severe animadversions on a book written by a Mr. Stockdale, who thereupon brought an action for libel against the printers. It having been proved that the book was of an indecent character, a verdict was given for the defendants on a plea of justification; but Lord Chief Justice Denman, before whom the cause was tried, observed incidentally that "the fact of the House of Commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their parliamentary reports, was no justification for them, or for any bookseller who publishes a parliamentary report containing a libel against any man." This denial of parliamentary privilege was met by a declaration of the Commons that the power of publishing their proceedings and reports was "an essential incident of the constitutional functions of Parlia

1 May, Const. Hist., ii. 53.

ment," and that any person instituting a suit as to, or any Court deciding on, a matter of privilege contrary to the determination of either House, would be guilty of a breach of privilege. Stockdale at once proceeded to bring other actions, and on the issue whether the printers were justified by the privilege and order of the House, the Court of Queen's Bench unanimously decided against them. The sheriffs levied the amount of damages, and the House vindicated its privileges by committing Stockdale and his attorney Howard, and also the sheriffs. While in prison, Stockdale repeated his offence by bringing other actions, for which his attorney's son and clerk were committed; and the deadlock was at length only removed by the passing of an Act of Parliament providing that all such actions should be Right of stayed on the production of a certificate or affidavit that the Parliament to publish paper complained of had been published by the order of either established House of Parliament.3 The right of a newspaper to publish by Act 3 & 4 a fair and faithful report of the debates and proceedings in Parliament without any authorisation from either House, was determined in 1868 by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Wason v. Walter, that no action for libel would lie Wason v. Walter, against the proprietor of the Times for so doing.* 1868.

IV. Growth of Religious Liberty.

Vict. c. 9.

ration and

growth of

Protestant Nonconformity, fostered instead of being crushed (IV) Toleby the very efforts of the Church to enforce unity, had gained considerably in numbers, organisation, and political weight, Religious during the reigns of the last two Stuarts; and the important Liberty. services of the Dissenters, in combining with the Church to bring about the Revolution of 1688, were rewarded by the Toleration Toleration Act. This famous statute was far indeed from granting religious Act, 1 Will. freedom; it repealed none of the Acts by which conformity c. 18. with the Church of England was exacted, and left the civil disabilities of Nonconformists under the Corporation Act of 1661 and the Test Act of 16735 intact; but it recognised, for the

1 Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & E. 1 (1839) [Denman's Broom's Const. Law, p. 875, and note, p. 968].

2 Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex, 11 Ad. & E. 273 (1840) [Denman's Broom's Const. Law, p. 961].

3 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9. Subsequently Stockdale's attorney, Howard, brought two actions against the officers of the House, which, on the grounds of excess of authority and informality in the Speaker's warrant, were given in the plaintiff's favour. But on a writ of error the judgment in the second action was reversed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber. Howard v. Gosset, 10 Q.B. 352 [Denman's Broom's Const. Law, p. 970].

4 Wason v. Walter, 8 Best & Smith, 671. A still more famous case of Privilege in which The Times was concerned was that which, arising out of the publication in The Times of Letters affecting Mr. Parnell's conduct in connection with Irish affairs, gave rise to a protracted trial before a Special Commission. As to which cf. Law Magazine and Review, No. cclxix., p. 394, for August, 1888.-C.] 5 Supra, p. 493.

& Mary,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »