the sons of peers; and no reports of the debate reached the public. Gower be cleared. In the next session, the same tactics were resumed. Lord On the 10th December, the Duke of Manchester rose, to desires the make a motion relative to preparations for the war with House to Spain, then believed to be impending; when he was interrupted by Lord Gower, who desired that the House might be cleared. He urged as reasons for excluding strangers, that the motion had been brought on without notice; that matters might be stated which ought not to be divulged; that, from the crowded state of the House, emissaries from Spain might be present; and lastly, that notes were taken of their debates. The Duke of Richmond attempted to arrest the execution of the order; but his voice was drowned in clamour. Lord Chatham rose to order, but failed to obtain a hearing. The Lord Chancellor attempted to address the House and restore order; but even his voice could not be heard. Lord Chatham, and eighteen other peers,-indignant at the disorderly uproar, by which every effort to address the House had been put down,--withdrew from their places. The messengers were already proceeding to clear the House, when several members of the House Members of Commons, who had been waiting at the bar to bring Commons but were up a bill, desired to stay for that purpose; turned out with the crowd,-several peers having gone Lords. down to the bar, to hasten their withdrawal. They were presently called in again; but the moment they had delivered their message, and before time had been allowed them to withdraw from the bar,-an outcry arose, and they were literally hooted out of the House.1 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 1318–1320; Walpole's Mem., iv. 217; Chatham Corresp., iv. 51. of the excluded from the Misunderstanding between the two Houses. Furious at this indecent treatment, the members hastened back to their own House. The first result of their anger was sufficiently ridiculous. Mr. George Onslow desired the House to be cleared, "peers and all." The only peers below the bar were the very lords who had in vain resisted the exclusion of strangers from their own House, which they had just left in indignation; and now the resentment of the Commons,-provoked by others, was first expended upon them. In debate, the insult to the Commons was warmly resented. Various motions were made:- for inspecting the Lords' journals; for demanding a conference upon the subject; for sending messages by the eldest sons of peers and masters in Chancery, who alone, it was said, would not be insulted; and for restraining members from going to the Lords without leave. But none of them were accepted.' The only retaliation that could be agreed upon, was the exclusion of peers, which involved a consequence by no means desired,— the continued exclusion of the public. In the Lords, sixteen peers signed a strong protest against the riotous proceedings of their House, and deprecating the exclusion of strangers. An order, however, was made that none but persons having a right to be present, should be admitted during the sitting of the House; and instructions were given to the officers, that members of the House of Commons should not be allowed to come to the bar, except when announced as bringing messages; and should then immediately withdraw. To this rule the Lords continued strictly to adhere for the remainder of the session; and none of their debates were reported, unless notes were com 1 Dec. 10th and 13th, 1770; Parl. Hist., xvi. 1322; Cavendish Deb., ii. 149, 160; Walpole's Mem., iv. 228. 2 Parl. Hist., xvi. 1319-1321. municated by the peers themselves. The Commons were less tenacious, or their officers less strict; and strangers gradually crept back to the gallery. Lord Chatham happily expressed his contempt for a senate debating with closed doors. Writing to Colonel Barré on the 22nd January, 1771, he says, "I take it for granted that the same declaration will be laid before the tapestry on Friday, which will be offered to the live figures in St. Stephen's;" and again on the 25th he writes to Lady Chatham, "Just returned from the tapestry."2 The mutual exclusion of the members of the two Houses, continued to be enforced, in a spirit of vindictive retaliation, for several years.3 with the In the Commons, however, this system of exclusion Contest took a new turn; and, having commenced in a quarrel printers, with the Peers, it ended in a collision with the press. 1771. Colonel George Onslow complained of the debates which still appeared in the newspapers; and insinuating that they must have been supplied by members themselves, insisted upon testing this view, by excluding all but members. The reports continued; and now he fell upon the printers. of debates. But before this new contest is entered upon, it will Publication be necessary to review the position which the press occupied at this time, in its relation to the debates of Parliament. The prohibition to print and publish the debates, naturally dates from a later period than the exclusion of strangers. It was not until the press had made great advances, that such a privilege was declared. Parliament, in order to protect its freedom of speech, had guarded its proceedings by a strong fence of pri 1 Chatham Corresp., iv. 73. 2 Ibid., 86. 3 Debate in the Commons, Dec. 12th, 1774; Parl. Hist., xviii. 52; Burke's Speeches, i. 250. 4 Feb. 7th, 1771; Parl. Hist., xvi. 1355, n.; Cavendish Deb., ii. 244. vilege; but the printing of its debates was an event beyond its prevision. Progress of. In 1641, the Long Parliament permitted the publireporting. cation of its proceedings, which appeared under the title of "Diurnal Occurrences in Parliament." The printing of speeches, however, without leave of the House, was, for the first time, prohibited.1 In particular cases, indeed, where a speech was acceptable to the Parliament, it was ordered to be printed; but if any speech was published obnoxious to the dominant party, the vengeance of the House was speedily provoked. Sir E. Dering was expelled and imprisoned in the Tower, for printing a collection of his speeches; and the book was ordered to be burned by the common hangman.2 The prohibition to print debates was continued after the Restoration; but, in order to prevent inaccurate accounts of the business transacted, the House of Commons, in 1680, directed its "votes and proceedings," without any reference to debates, to be printed under the direction of the Speaker. Debates were also frequently published, notwithstanding the prohibition. When it served the purpose of men like Lord Shaftesbury, that any debate should be circulated, it made its appearance in the form of a letter or pamphlet. Andrew Marvell reported the proceedings of the Commons, to his constituents at Hull, from 1660 to 16785; and Grey, for thirty years member for Derby, took notes of the debates from 1667 to 1694, which are a valuable contribution to the history of that time.1 After the Revolution, Parliament was more jealous than ever of the publication of its proceedings, or of any allusion to its debates. By frequent resolutions2, and by the punishment of offenders, both Houses endeavoured to restrain "news-letter writers" from "intermeddling with their debates or other proceedings," or "giving any account or minute of the debates." But privilege could not prevail against the press, nor against the taste for political news, which is natural to a free country. Towards the close of the reign of Anne, regular but imperfect accounts of all the principal debates, were published by Boyer. From that time, reports continued to appear in Boyer's "Political State of Great Britain," the "London Magazine," and the "Gentleman's Magazine," the authors of which were frequently assisted with notes from members of Parliament. In the latter, Doctor Johnson wrote the Parliamentary reports, from the 19th of Nov., 1740, till the 23rd of Feb., 1743, from the notes of Cave and his assistants. The names of the speakers, however, were omitted.* Until 1738, it had been the practice to give their initials only, and, in order to escape the censure of Parliament, to withhold the publication of the debates, until after the session. In that year, the Commons prohibited the publication of debates, or proceedings, “as well during the recess, as the sitting of Parliament;" and resolved to "proceed with the utmost severity against offenders." 5 After this period, the reporters, They were published in ten volumes 8vo. 1769. 2 Commons, Dec. 22nd, 1694. Feb. 11th, 1695, Jan. 18th, 1697, &c.; Lords, Feb. 27th, 1698. 3 Boyer's Political State of Great Britain, was commenced in 1711. 5 April 13th, 1738. Parl. Hist., x. 800. |