Misrepresentations being in fear of parliamentary privilege, were still Dr. These papers had rarely attempted to give a correct of reporters. and impartial account of the debates; but had misrepresented them to suit the views of different parties. 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 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. The London Evening Post, the St. James' Chronicle, the Gazetteer, and others. 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 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.' Indeed, it is probable that the early jealousies of Offensive Parliament would soon have been overcome, 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,"2 1 Parl. Hist., x. 300. VOL. I. 2 Cavendish Deb., ii. 257. E E adjuncts to reporting. Complaints against Thompson and Wheble, 1771. "the little scoundrel," and "that little paltry, insignificant insect."2 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. On the 8th February, 1771, Colonel George Onslow made a complaint of "The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser," printed for R. Thompson, and of the "Middlesex Journal," printed by R. Wheble, "as misrepresenting the speeches, and reflecting on several of the members 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 1 Cavendish Deb., ii. 258. 3 Ibid., 379. to be taken into custody. The Sergeant proceeded to execute the order, and was laughed at by their servants.1 Thus thwarted, the House addressed the king to issue a proclamation, offering a reward for their apprehension. Meanwhile, the offences for which the House was Complaints against pursuing Thompson and Wheble, were practised by other several other printers; and on the 12th March, printers. 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; "2 Mr. Dyson was described as "Jeremiah Weymouth, Esq., the d-n of this country," and Mr. Constantine Phipps as "Mr. Constantine Lincoln." 3 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 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.4 Burke afterwards said of these proceedings: "Posterity will bless the pertinaciousness of that day."5 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 1 Cavendish Deb., ii. 324. 2 Ibid., 383. 3 One represented Weymouth, and the other Lincoln. Wheble taken be man Wilkes. 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.1 On the 14th March, Wheble, who was still at large, fore Alder- addressed a letter to the Speaker, inclosing the opinion of counsel on his case, 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 the authority of the House, and had concerted measures for defying its jurisdiction, and insulting its officers. He immediately discharged the prisoner, and bound him over to prosecute Carpenter, for an assault and false imprisonment. He further wrote a letter to Lord Halifax, the Secretary of State, acquainting him that Wheble had been apprehended by a person who " was neither a ccnstable nor peace-officer of the city," and for no legal offence, but merely in consequence of the proclamation, "in direct violation of the rights of an Englishman, and of the chartered privileges of a citizen of this metropolis," and that he had discharged him.2 1 Parl. Hist., xvii. 90, n.; Com. * Parl. Hist., xvii. 95. Journ., xxxiii. 250-259, |