Case of Sir dett, 1810. the ministerial candidate) for obstructing and insulting him in the discharge of his duty. The Commons decided to hear the parties by counsel, and after ordering Murray to give bail for his appearance from time to time, finally resolved that he should be committed to Newgate, and should receive his sentence on his knees. This humiliating command he steadily refused to obey. Sir, I never kneel but to God,' was his haughty reply to the Speaker;1 and the Commons were obliged to content themselves with ordering that he should be kept under the closest restrictions in Newgate, without pen, ink, or paper, and that no person, not even his servant, should be admitted to him,— a severity which, on account of his ill-health, was soon afterwards relaxed. On suing out his writ of habeas corpus in the King's Bench, the Judges unanimously refused to discharge him, on the ground of their want of jurisdiction to judge of the privileges of the House of Commons or of contempts against them.3 As the authority of the House to commit extends only to the duration of the session of Parliament, Murray soon obtained his liberty, amidst the plaudits of the people, who regarded him as a martyr in the cause of popular freedom. On the first day of the following session a motion was carried for his re-committal; but it was then found that he had withdrawn beyond sea, out of reach of the serjeant-at-arms.* In 1810, the Commons having committed to Newgate Francis Bur- the publisher of an offensive placard announcing for discussion in a debating society the conduct of two members of Parliament, Sir Francis Burdett denied the authority of the Commons, in his place in Parliament, and enforced his denial in a published address to his constituents. He was himself adjudged by the House guilty of contempt, and The 1 Lord Orford, Memoirs of last ten years of reign of George II., i. 24. By a standing order of the Commons, in 1772, the offensive custom of requiring prisoners to kneel at the bar of the House was renounced. Lords, though silently discontinuing the practice, still affect to maintain it, in cases of privilege, by continuing the accustomed entries in their Journals.May, Const. Hist. ii. 75. 3 State Trials, viii. 30. 4 Lord Mahon, Hist. of Eng. iv. 29. committed to the Tower by the warrant of the Speaker, but not until the aid of the military had been called in to overcome his forcible resistance. He then brought actions for redress against the Speaker and the serjeant-at-arms. The Commons, instead of treating these actions as a contempt of their authority, wisely directed the Speaker to plead and submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the result the Court of King's Bench, and, on appeal, the Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, successively upheld the authority of the House.1 of Debates. Of all the privileges of Parliament, the one which has Publication undergone the greatest modification, and of which the practical abandonment has produced the most momentous political results, is that which concerns the secrecy of its proceedings. secrecy. The original motive for secrecy of debate was the anxiety Motives for of the members to protect themselves against the action of the Sovereign, but it was soon found equally convenient as a veil to hide their proceedings from the constituencies. To print or publish the speeches of gentlemen in this House,' said Mr Pulteney in 1738, 'looks very like making them accountable without doors for what they say within; and it was only after a prolonged struggle that the right of the electors, and of the public at large, to know what the representatives of the Nation were doing in Parliament was at length virtually conceded. nal Occur The Long Parliament, in 1641, had permitted the pub- The 'Diurlication of its proceedings in the 'Diurnal Occurrences of rences of Parliament' (which continued until the Restoration), but Parliament,' 1641-1660. prohibited the printing of speeches without leave of the House. For printing a collection of his own speeches, without such leave, Sir E. Dering 3 was expelled the House 1 Ann. Register for 1810, p. 344; Hansard, Deb. xvi. 257, 454; and May, Const. Hist. ii. 76. Cobbett's Parl. Hist. x. 806. 3 [This was Sir Edward Dering, of Surrenden Dering, 1st Bart. (cr. 1626), Lieutenant of Dover Castle, the head of an ancient Kentish house, and ‘a man of talents and learning,' as he is described in the account of the family in Burke's Peerage.-ED.] 1680. and imprisoned in the Tower, and his book was ordered to be burned by the common hangman. The prohibiVotes and tion was continued after the Restoration; but in 1680, proceedings ordered to to prevent inaccurate accounts of the business done, be printed, the Commons directed their 'votes and proceedings,' without any reference to the debates, to be printed under the direction of the Speaker. Thenceforward till the Revolution, we are almost entirely indebted for our knowledge of the Parliamentary debates 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 Houses, from 1694 to 1698, to restrain 'news-letter writers' news-letters, from 'intermeddling with their debates or other proceedings,' or 'giving any account or minute of the debates.' But notwithstanding 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 discussions began to be and maga published in Boyer's 'Political State of 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 Debates published anony mously in zines. 1 Comm. Journ. ii. 411 (Feb. 2, 1641). 2 Comm. Journ. ix. 74. of unfair ness. 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 not have the best of it.'1 In a debate on the subject in 1738, initiated by Mr. Speaker Complaints 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.' Later reporters, moreover, too often indulged in offensive and scurrilous nick-names. 2 1771. In 1771 notes of the speeches were published in several Contest with the printers, 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 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. and aldermen of London, 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 and with the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, Lord Mayor 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 Crosby) and of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular Oliver com- ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint.1 The Lord (Brass Alderman mitted to the Tower. Reporting still a breach Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is of privilege. now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence-its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, Exclusion of 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 capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons any one strangers. 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. xvii. 59-163. |