Reporting, an important branch of journalism, has already been incidentally discussed at NEWSPAPER; the methods by which, as a rule, it is practicable are dealt with at SHORTHAND. Here some account of the history of parliamentary reporting, in many respects the most important, is given.
Accounts of single speeches, and, at times, of entire debates in the English parliament, have come down to us from a very early period. The earlier volumes of the Journals of the House of Commons contain short notes of speeches; the later volumes record nothing but the votes and proceedings. Sir Symonds d'Ewes edited the Journals of Queen Elizabeth's Parliaments; and the Commons' Journals contain notes of speeches in the parliaments of James I. Rushworth, assistant-clerk in the Long Parliament, 1640, took down in a species of shorthand any speech of importance; and his account of Remarkable Proceedings in Five Parliaments forms one of the most valuable portions of his Historical Collections. 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 outline of the debates in parliament. In the reign of George I. the Historical Register, published annually, professed to give reports of parliamentary speeches. The Gentleman's Magazine began a monthly publication of the debates, the number for August 1735 containing a report of the debate in the House of Lords on the previous 23d January. Cave, the publisher, continued the practice in succeeding numbers, and his systematic proceedings 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 arguments. Thus furnished, Cave and his associates would adjourn to a neighbouring 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 into form was the work of a future day 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 Houses; 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—as by the Commons in 1588 and by the Lords in 1698. The Commons followed up several previous 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; and the result was another thundering 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 Gentleman's Magazine; and 'Debates in the Political Club,' in the London Magazine. Dr Samuel 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. 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 thirty years later that the parliamentary debates descended from the magazines to the newspapers. The latter had, however, for some time resolved to report the debates, 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.
The ever-memorable contest between parliament and the press began at the close of the year 1770. The House of Commons followed up another solemn threat by prompt action; and the Lord Mayor of London and Alderman Oliver were sent to the Tower for refusing to arrest some printers of reports on the warrant of the Speaker, John Wilkes taking an active share in the controversy. The city of London loudly protested against the arbitrary proceedings of the House, and the whole country responded to the appeal. The power of parliament to imprison ceases at the end of the current session, and on the day of prorogation, July 23, the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver marched out of the Tower in triumph, and at night the city was illuminated. Next session the House of Commons tacitly acknowledged itself beaten. The printers defied the House, continued to publish their proceedings, and slept, notwithstanding, secure in their beds. In a short time the House of Lords also conceded the point, and the victory was complete; though it is still in the power of any member, who may call the Speaker's attention to the fact that 'strangers are present,' to exclude the public and the reporters from the House. This power has frequently been exercised during living memory, but on such occasions some one or more members who have dissented from this course have taken notes of the speeches, and have avowedly sent them to the newspapers.
The old machinery of newspaper reporting was susceptible of immense improvement. One of the Woodfalls (a brother of the Woodfall of Junius) had so retentive a memory that when editor of the Morning Chronicle he used to listen to a debate in the gallery, and write it out next day, the taking of notes being at that time forbidden. His successor established a corps of parliamentary reporters to attend the debates of both Houses every night in succession. He thus brought out the night's debate on the following morning, anticipating his rivals by ten or twelve hours. The improvement in the reports of the debates from the period of the American Revolution until the year 1815 was but gradual. At the close of the French war, however, the publication of parliamentary debates became an object of national importance, and in the course of a few years assumed its present full, detailed, and accurate character. Increased facilities for the discharge of their important and arduous duties were from time to time given to the reporters, who till then had no means of entering the Strangers' Gallery except those which were common to the public generally. Amongst the professional parliamentary reporters of this period Charles Dickens was conspicuous. He was at work for the Morning Chronicle in 1834, and was one of the best reporters of his time.
The system of parliamentary reporting underwent a change of great importance about 1847, when the electric telegraph was brought into general use by companies formed to work it. They proposed to supply papers out of London with London news, and a report of parliamentary debates was part of the news thus supplied. In order to get this report the Telegraph Company obtained admission to the gallery for its reporters, and thus broke the monopoly which the London daily newspapers had up to that time enjoyed. Subsequently, when the electric telegraphs passed into the hands of the government, the parliamentary reports for newspapers out of London were provided by press agencies, and the accommodation in the Reporters' Gallery had to be increased for them. With the growth of provincial newspapers the demand for more reports than the agencies supplied was felt, and the more powerful newspapers endeavoured to secure special reports for themselves by the assistance of reporters who were engaged on the London press. In this way they were able to get and publish reports often much longer than those printed in London. This, however, was only done at great inconvenience, and an effort was made to obtain for leading provincial newspapers a right of admission to the Reporters' Gallery. These claims were considered by a special committee of the House of Commons, which in 1879 reported in favour of them; next year the long-coveted privilege was granted, and the representatives of some of the provincial papers take their regular 'turns' (relieving one another at short intervals) along with those of the metropolitan dailies. See Pendleton, Newspaper-reporting in the Olden Times and To-day (1890).