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. still a Reporting, instead of being resented by Parliament, Reporting is now encouraged as one of the main sources of its breach of influence; while the people justly esteem it, as the privilege. 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 of reporters, have left nothing for Parliament or the public to desire. for the accommo reporters. The fire which destroyed both Houses of Parliament Galleries in 1834, introduced a new era in reporting. Though for many years past, the reporters of the daily press had dation of enjoyed 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 Presence and other parts of the House, not appropriated to mem- recognised. bers, was for the first time 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. Publica tion of di A further change was still wanting to complete the vision lists. publicity of parliamentary proceedings, and the responsibility of members. The conduct of members who took part in the debates,-until recently a very small 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 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, 1 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. In 1782, the Opposition published division lists, the ministerial members appearing in red letters, and the minority in black.-Wraxall Mem., ii. 591. 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. present at The Commons have since extended the principle Strangers of publicity still further. The admission of strangers divisions. to debates had been highly prized; but the necessity of excluding them during a division, had never been doubted. Yet in 1853 it was shown by Mr. Muntz3 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. in the In these important changes, the Commons have also Divisions been followed by the Lords. Since 1857, their Lord- Lords. ships 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.4 In a minor, yet not unimportant change, the personal Names of 1 Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., xli. 1097. 2 In 1849 a committee reported that their exclusion was necessary. VOL. I. F F 3 Report of Select Committee on Divisions, 1853. 4 Resolutions, March 10th, 1857. members on committees. Publication of parliamentary papers. 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 candour of the questioners; 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. One other concession to the principle of unrestricted publicity, must not be overlooked. One of the results of reports and increasing activity and vigilance in the 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 remarkable a manner, since the union with Ireland, that it excites surprise how Parliament affected to legislate, in earlier times, without such information. These documents were distributed to all members of the Legislature; and, by their favour, were also accessible to the public. In 1835 the Commons took a further step in the encouragement of publicity, by directing all their papers to be freely sold, at a cheap rate. The public have since had the same means of information, upon all legislative questions, as the House itself. Community of knowledge, as well as community of discussion, has been established. If comments are justly made upon the extravagance of parliamentary printing,-if voluminous 1 Reports on Printed Papers, 1835, "blue books" are too often a fair object of ridicule, -yet the information they afford is for the public; and the extent and variety of the documents printed, attest at once the activity of members, and the keen interest taken by the people, in the business of legislation. comments While the utmost publicity has thus been gradually Freedom of extended to all parliamentary proceedings, a greater upon Parfreedom has been permitted to the press, in criticising liament. the conduct of Parliament. Relying upon the candour of public opinion for a justification of its conduct, Parliament has been superior to the irritable sensitiveness, which formerly resented a free discussion of its proceedings. Rarely has either House thought fit, of late years, to restrain by punishment, even the severest censures upon its own debates and proceedings. When gross libels have been published upon the House itself, or any of its members, the House has occasionally thought it necessary to vindicate its honour, by the commitment of the offenders to custody. But it has rightly distinguished between libels upon character and motives, and comments, however severe, upon political conduct. In 1810, Mr. Gale Jones was committed to Newgate, for publishing an offensive placard announcing for discussion in a debating society the conduct of two members, Mr. G. Yorke and Mr. Windham. Sir Francis Burdett was sent to the Tower, for publishing an address to his constituents, denouncing this act of the House, and denying its right of commitment. Twenty years later, both these offences would probably have been disregarded, or visited with censure only. Again, in 1819, Mr. Hobhouse was committed to Newgate for violent, if not seditious, language in a pamphlet. A few years afterwards, such an offence, if noticed at all, would |