Times and the Daily News had published evidence and documents laid before its Committee on Foreign Loans, then sitting. He referred to a resolution passed in 1827, to the effect that the publication of any such evidence, not reported to the House, was a breach of its undoubted privileges, and moved that the printers of the papers in question should be called to the bar. This was agreed to, and three days afterwards the printers attended to the summons. By this time, however, opportunity had been given to all parties in the House for reflection, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Disraeli) met the proposal of Mr. Lewis that the printers should be called in, by an amendment that the Foreign Loans Committee should report specially upon the matter. After some discussion, in the course of which Sir W. V. Harcourt (Attorney-General under Mr. Gladstone's Government) declared that the House had been got into an "undignified mess," Mr. Disraeli's resolution was carried, and also another, that the printers should be discharged from further attendance.

Power of the Reporters.-On the subject of reporting, Lord Lyttelton, in a letter to the Birmingham Post in 1871, wrote: "I do not complain of the reporters. To do so would be unjust in my casefoolish in any case; for we are absolutely at the mercy of those excellent and formidable personages, and to complain would make matters very much worse. I will tell two anecdotes. Mr. Cobbett, during the short time he was in Parliament, incessantly abused the reporters (whom he always called 'reporthers') for not fully reporting him. The consequence was that they ended by not reporting him at all. The late Lord Monteagle, when Mr. Spring Rice, in the House of Commons, once said something the reporters did not like. They sent him a formal warning that, unless he publicly apologised, reported he should not be. He did not apologise, and reported he was not for two years. At last the spell was broken by Mr. Murray, the bookseller, starting a new paper, called the Constitution. To ingratiate himself with Mr. Rice he reported his speeches, whereupon the others gave in."

Reporting Freaks.-Although members of Parliament are indebted in the main to the reporters for the generally faithful, and sometimes improved, versions of their speeches given to the public, yet it must be admitted that the reporters of a past generation occasionally committed freaks at the expense of members, either in retaliation for such a step as clearing the galleries by drawing attention to "strangers," or merely by way of indulging their own sense of humour. An instance of the latter kind occurred in the case of Mr. Wilberforce. He was short in stature, and having alluded to potatoes in a debate, the reporter (probably Hibernian) put the following ludicrous passage into his speech: "For potatoes, Mr. Speaker, potatoes, Sir, make men healthy; potatoes make men tall. More especially do I feel this, because, being under the common size, I must ever lament that I was not fostered under that genial vegetable, the potato." The worthy member complained of this to the House, as an indignity offered to the representative of a large constituency; but the House would see only the humorous side of the question, and greeted his statement with shouts of laughter.

Emphasizing a Speech.-Mr. Martin, of Galway, once made a speech in which some very peculiar passages occurred, and the reporter underlined them. The printer of the paper, in which the report appeared as written, was called to the bar, but offered to prove that the report was an exact transcript of the member's words. “That may be,” said Mr. Martin, "but did I spake them in italics?"

PARLIAMENTARY USAGES, &c.

Presence of the Sovereign in the Early Parliaments.The following is extracted, with abbreviation, from the learned and careful work of Professor Stubbs : "The King's presence was deemed necessary at the opening and generally at the close of the session, but most frequently his duty was discharged when he had directed the Chancellor to state the causes of summons, and to thank the estates for their attendance. The Chancellor was his spokesman in most cases when he approved the election of the Speaker. His decision on petitions was expressed by an indorsement which the clerk of the Parliament read on the last day of the session as the King's answer. It was very seldom that he spoke, or was recorded to have spoken; and when it is recorded it is with exceptional solemnity. It is in 1363, after Edward III. has been more than thirty years on the throne, that we find him first distinctly making his will known to the Commons by his own mouth; they thank him for having done this in the last Parliament, from which we infer that he had spoken on the occasion of the dissolution. The Parliament of 1362 was that in which the use of English in legal transactions was ordered; that of 1365 was opened with an English speech, and it may be inferred that in giving the estates leave to depart, Edward himself had spoken in English, and that where in other cases the address of thanks is not said to have been spoken by the Chancellor, it was spoken by the King. In the last interview which he had with his Parliament, at Sheen in 1377, the parting words are put in his mouth. The days of serene supremacy passed away with Edward III. Richard II. is more than once said to have uttered haughty words in Parliament. He discussed in a long speech to the Commons the foreign policy which he had adopted, and acted as his own minister. The succeeding kings took a still more prominent part in Parliament. Henry IV., whose claim to the crown, spoken in English, made the occasion an era of constitutional progress, not only signified his wishes to the Parliament, but deigned to argue with the Commons; he laid himself open to the good advice of the Speaker, and condescended on various occasions both to defend himself and to silence his interlocutor; he soon learned that his dignity would not survive too great familiarity, and had to reprove the loquacity of the Speaker. Edward IV., who imitated the more popular usages of the rival House, likewise made speeches to both Lords and Commons; and in particular, in dissolving his first Parliament, addressed the Speaker in simple and touching language of gratitude and promise.

All these speeches were made by the King either in full Parliament-that is, in the presence of both Houses-or in the House of Lords to the lords who were then and there in attendance upon him."

The Opening Speech to Parliament.-The opening speech, declaring to a Parliament the cause of its summons, in early times was usually, but not necessarily, delivered by the Chancellor. Professor Stubbs notes that from 1347 to 1363 the Chief Justice made it; the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in 1401; the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1344, 1368, 1377, 1399, and 1422; the Chancellor in 1343, 1363 (in English), and generally after 1368. The Bishop of Winchester in 1410, the Bishop of Lincoln in 1453 and 1467, the Bishop of Rochester in 1472, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1431, supplied the place of the absent Chancellor.

Recent Speeches from the Throne.-Following the example of her immediate predecessors, Queen Victoria from her first accession read from the throne the speeches prepared by her Ministers for Parliamentary occasion. The death of the Prince Consort led to the absence of her Majesty from state ceremonial for some years, and Parliament was opened and prorogued by Royal Commission; but in 1866, when the Queen again met the Houses, she reverted to ancient practice by deputing the reading of the speech to the Lord Chancellor. On several occasions in later years (between 1878 and 1880, for instance), the Lord Chancellor, when acting as chief of the Royal Commission, has prefaced the reading of the speech by the declaration, "My Lords and Gentlemen,-We are commanded to deliver to you her Majesty's speech in her Majesty's own words.”

A King Reading his Speech under Difficulties.-Mr. James Grant relates that, at the opening of the session of Parliament in 1836, King William IV. gave a proof of his good nature and simplicity of manners. The day was uncommonly gloomy, which, added to an imperfection in the King's visual organs consequent upon his advanced years, and to the darkness of the old House of Lords, rendered it impossible for him to read the speech with facility. Most patiently did he struggle with the task, often hesitating, sometimes mistaking, and at others correcting himself. On one occasion he stuck altogether, when, after two or three attempts to make out the word, he was obliged to give it up, and turning to Lord Melbourne, who stood on his right hand, he said, in a tone sufficiently loud to be audible in all parts of the house, "Eh! what is it?" Lord Melbourne having whispered the obstructing word, the King proceeded to toil through the speech; but by the time he had got to the middle the librarian brought him two wax tapers. The King then suddenly paused, and, raising his head, he addressed the Lords and Commons on the spur of the moment, in a perfectly distinct voice, in these terms: My Lords and Gentlemen,-I have hitherto not been able, from want of light, to read this speech in the way its importance deserves; but, as lights are now brought me, I will read it again from the commencement, and in a way which, I trust, will command your attention." He then again began at the beginning, and read through the speech in a manner which would have done credit to any professor of elocution.

The Speaker of the Lords.-It is singular (writes Sir T. E. May) that the president of this deliberative body is not necessarily a member. It has frequently happened that the Lord Keeper has officiated for years as Speaker, without having been raised to the peerage; and on the 22nd November, 1830, Mr. Brougham sat on the woolsack as Speaker, being at that time Lord Chancellor, although his creation as a peer had not yet been made out. The woolsack, indeed, is not strictly within the House, for the Lords may not speak from that part of the chamber, and if there on a division, their votes are not reckoned.

The Speaker of the Commons.-The House of Commons (says Sir G. C. Lewis) were at first a set of delegates summoned by the Crown to negotiate with it concerning the payment of taxes. They might take advantage of the position of superiority which they temporarily occupied, to remonstrate with the Crown about certain grievances upon which they were generally agreed. In this state of things, it was important that they should have an organ or spokesman with sufficient ability and knowledge to state their views, and with sufficient courage to contend against the displeasure of the Crown. Since the Revolution of 1688, and the increased power of the House of Commons, the functions of the Speaker have undergone a change. His chief function has been no longer to speak on behalf of the House. That which was previously his accessory has become his principal duty. He has been simply chairman of the House, with the function of regulating its proceedings, of putting the question, and of maintaining order; but, as their debates have become more important, his office of moderator of these debates has acquired additional importance.

A Critical Casting Vote.-The casting vote of the Speaker has at times exercised an important influence on public affairs. For instance, the resolutions which led to the impeachment of Lord Melville were carried (in April, 1805) only by the casting vote of Mr. Speaker Abbot. Mr. Mark Boyd in his "Reminiscences" gives the following particulars :"Mr. Pitt, the Prime Minister, was strong on the side of Melville, his friend and colleague, but the opposing party was zealous and powerful. The fierce debate ended with an even vote-216 members declared for Lord Melville, 216 voted for his guilt. Lord Melville's fate was thus placed in the Speaker's hands, to be decided by that one vote. Yet it was long before the Speaker could give his vote; agitation overcame him; his face grew white as a sheet. Terrible as was the distress to all who awaited the decision from the chair, terrible as was the Speaker's distress, this moment of suspense lasted ten long minutes. There the Speaker sat in silence; all were silent. At length his voice was heard; he gave his vote, and he condemned Lord Melville. One man, at least, that evening was overcome. Mr. Pitt was overcome; his friend was ruined. At the sound of the Speaker's voice, the Prime Minister crushed his hat over his brows to hide the tears that poured over his cheeks; he pushed in haste out of the house. Some of his opponents, I am ashamed to say, thrust themselves near, to see how Billy looked.' His friends gathered in defence around, and screened him from rude glances. During a quarter of a century-indeed, almost ever since he had been a boy-Mr. Pitt

had battled it in Parliament. His experience there was not victory only, but often defeat. This defeat, however, he sank under; it was his last -he died ere many months had passed. The death of that great man was hastened by Speaker Abbot's casting vote."

A Sympathetic Speaker.-Writing to the Queen (as it was the custom for the leader of the House of Commons to do) on the 13th of August, 1860, Lord Palmerston said: "Members are leaving town, but the tiresome ones, who have no occupation of their own, and no chance of seeing their names in the newspaper when Parliament is up, remain to obstruct and delay by talking. The Speaker, who has not been quite well, grows as impatient as any official who has hired a grousing moor and cannot get to it, and a few nights ago, when a tiresome orator got up to speak just as an end to the debate had been expected, the Speaker cried 'Oh! oh!' in chorus with the rest of the House."

The Speaker and Party Relations.-It was remarked of the Speaker by the Quarterly Review, in 1878, "So anxious is he to appear absolutely impartial, that, though necessarily chosen from one of the great parties in the State, we believe we are accurate in saying that no one of the three most recent occupants of the chair has ever entered the political club of his party after accepting his high office."

The Mace of the Commons.-There is a more intimate relation between the Speaker's mace and our legislative proceedings than most persons are aware of. Hatsell says: "When the mace lies upon the table, it is a House; when under, it is a Committee. When the mace is out of the House, no business can be done; when from the table and upon the Serjeant's shoulder, the Speaker along manages." The mace is held in the custody of the Crown when Parliament is prorogued, and returned to the Speaker when it meets again. The present mace dates from the time of the Restoration, and bears the initials C.R.

The Mace Slighted by the Black Rod.-Mr. Arthur Onslow (afterward third Speaker of that name) makes the following note in Hatsell respecting an incident which occurred in the time of his uncle: "When the Speaker, Sir Richard Onslow, went up with the House to demand justice against Dr. Sacheverell (1710), as the mace was going into the House of Lords before the Speaker, the Black Rod endeavoured to hinder it by putting his black rod across the door; on which the Speaker said, 'If he did not immediately take away the black rod, he would return to the House of Commons.' The Black Rod desired him to stay a little, and he would acquaint the lords. The door was shut, and Mr Speaker and the House staid without. After a little time the door was opened, and Mr Speaker with the mace went in. As Mr Speaker was going to the bar, the Black Rod attempted to interpose himself between the Speaker and the mace; upon which the Speaker said aloud, 'My lords, if you do not immediately order your Black Rod to go away, I will immediately return to the House of Commons.' Then Lord Chancellor Cowper directed the Black Rod to go from thence. Then Mr. Speaker, with the mace, went up to the bar. The Black Rod was then ordered to bring the prisoner, and was going to put him on the right hand of Mr Speaker, who