REPORTING, PARLIAMENTARY, accounts of single speeches, and, at times, of entire • debates in the English parliament, have come down to us from a very early period, and in the voluminous work entitled the Parliamentary History of England, we possess the most valuable historical work in our language. The earlier volumes of the journals of the house of commons contain short notes of speeches, which the clerks made without the authority of the house; but all the later volumes record nothing but the votes and proceedings—the res geske, in fact. Sir Symonds d'Ewes, who may be considered our _first parliamentary reporter, has left us a journal of queen Elizabeth's parliaments. The session of 1621 was also reported from notes taken by a member. The commons' journals contain notes of speeches in the parliaments of James I. and James 11. Husuworth, assistant-clerk in the long parliament, 1640, took down in a species of short-hand any speech of importance, and furnished Charles I. with a copy of the king's own speech when lie made the attempt to seize the five members. His account of Remarkable Pro ceedings in Parliament forms one of the most valuable portions of his Historical Collections. We tire also indebted to Thin.loe and Gray for notices of what occurred in parliament. During the reign of William III., a member now and then sent a copy of his speech to the newspapers, for printing which, however, they were sometimes called to account. In the reign of queen Anne, a monthly pamphlet, called the Political State, gave an out line of the debates in parliament. In the reign of George I., the Historical Register, published annually, professed to give reports of parliamentary speeches. The Gentle man's Magazina began a monthly publication of the debates, the number for Aug., 1735, containing a report of the debate in the house of lords on the previous Jan. 23. Cave, the publisher, continued the practice in succeeding numbers, and his systematic proceed. Tugs are thus described by sir John Hawkins: "Taking with him a friend or two, he found means to procure for them and himself admission into the gallery of the house of • commons, or to some concealed station in the other house, and there they privately took down notes of the several speeches. and the general tendency and substance of the argu ments. Thus furnished, Cave and his associates would adjourn to a neighboring tavern. and compare and adjust their notes; by means whereof, and the help of their memories, they became enabled to fix at least the substance of what they had lately heard and remarked. The reducing this crude matter in:o form was the work of a future Qay and an abler hand—Guthrie, the historian, whom Cave retained for the purpose." There - was, however, no publication of the debates during the sitting of the homes; parliament was always prorogued before anything said in the course of the session was given in the magazine. At first. the names of the speakers were cautiously indicated by the first and last letter only, and in many cases the speaker's name was wholly omitted. Growing bolder by degrees, Cave printed the names at length. The house of commons soon took
the alarm. The publication of the debates of either house had been repeatedly declared to be a high breach of privilege. Sir Symonds d'Ewes gives ns a resolution of the lower house in the 31st Eliz. 158S, that "speeches used in be not any of them made or used as table-talk, or in any wise delivered in notes of writing to any persons what ever, not being members of this house." In 1698 the lords agreed to a standing order, which is still unrepealed, declaring " that it is a breach of the privilege of this house for any person whatsoever to print, or publish in print, anything relating to the proceedings of the house, without the leave of this house." The commons followed up several pre vious resolutions to the same effect, by ordering, in 1728, that it is an indignity to, and a breach of, the privilege of this house, for any person to presume to give, in written or printed newspapers, any account or minute of the debates or other proceedings; that upon discovery of the authors, printers, or publishers of any such newspaper, this house will proceed against the offenders with the utmost severity." In 1738 speaker Onslow called the attention of the house to the breach of its standing orders by Cave and others. Sir Thomas Winnington exhorted the commons nOt to be less jealous of their privileges than the other house, which had lately punished some printers for publishing their pro. tests. "What will be the consequence," lie asked, "if you allow these reports to go on unchecked? You will have the speeches of this house every day printed, even during your session, and we shall be looked upon as the most eontemptible assembly on the face of the earth." The result was another thundefing resolution against the publication of debates "either while parliament is sitting or during the. recess,' and a threat to proceed against offenders with the "utmost severity." The reports, notwithstanding, still appeared, but under the disguise of "debates in the senate of Lilliput," in the Gentle ?Ma Magazine; and "debates in the political club," in the London Magazine. The celebrated Dr. Johnson was employed by Cave in the composition of his parliamentary debates, and the reports from 1740 to 1743 are held to have been entirely prepared by him; sometimes with the assistance of the above-mentioned Guthrie, who had a good memory, and used to home as much as he could recollect from the house; and sometimes, according to &swell, with no other aid than the names of the orators and the side they took. When it was observed to Johnson that he dealt out reason and eloquence pretty equally to both parties, he remarked; "I took care that the Whig dogs should not have the best of it." It was not till 30 years later that the parliamentary debates descended from the magazines to the newspapers. The hitter had, how ever, for some time resolved to report the debates (Woodfall's Junius, iii. 345), and they took advantage of the popular excitement arising out of the Luttrell-Wilkes election for Middlesex, to try the right of the house to interdict the publication of its proceedings.