HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



89 



in the press as to enable it to con- 

 trol parliament. He now saw 

 that the uniform and constant ad- 

 mission of strangers led to a most 

 mischievous tendency — no less 

 than to change the character of a 

 representative government, which 

 presumed confidence in the repre- 

 sentative body, into that of a de- 

 mocracy, in which everything was 

 done by the people. The House 

 ought to maintain those regula- 

 tions and orders which had so 

 long prevailed. He would assert 

 that the rights of the House were 

 now in danger of being lost from 

 misuse. 



Lord Folkestone thought it de- 

 sirable that the publicity of their 

 proceedings should notexperience 

 anymaterialinterruption. Had the 

 publication of these been in no in- 

 stance connived at, he was by no 

 means prepared to deny that he 

 might, atthepresentnioment,have 

 opposed the introduction of such a 

 practice for the first time. Yet as 

 the public had been allowed regu- 

 larly to receive a report of the pro- 

 ceedings in parliament, he was de- 

 sirous that no casual interruption of 

 that permission should occur. He 

 was also solicitous that as a change 

 had taken place in the circum- 

 stances of the country, and even 

 in thecharacterof parliament, that 

 change should be accompanied by 

 corresponding changes in other re- 

 spects. His right honourable friend 

 had said, that the idea of a repre- 

 sentative body implied that of the 

 confidence of the persons repre- 

 sented. He wished it might be so : 

 not only in theory but in fact. And 

 yet there were many persons who 

 I concurred inlhinking, notonly that 

 the House had not the confidence 

 of the country, but that it did not 

 deserve to have that confidence. 



Most assuredly it was anill-advised 

 mode of obtainingthe generalcon- 

 fidence to shut the nation out from 

 obtaining information on an in- 

 quiry of the greatest magnitude, 

 and towards the result of which 

 every eye wassteadily and anxious- 

 ly directed. — Mr. Yorke protested 

 against the supposition that it was 

 necessary for a member, who 

 should move to enforce a standing 

 order, to state the reasons which 

 induced him to do so. He had 

 moved the order on the present 

 occasion, from a consideration of 

 the many mis-statements which 

 went forth to the public last year, 

 on a very important inquiry be- 

 fore that House. They were now 

 performing their great function as 

 the grand inquest of the nation. 

 The grand jury of a country never 

 admitted strangers during the 

 time of their examining evidence. 

 A right honourable gentleman had 

 asked why they had not proceeded 

 in the same manner in the course 

 of a memorable inquiry last year ? 

 He regretted most sincerely that 

 they did not ; and he took shame 

 to himself that he had not then 

 enforced the standing order. The 

 standing order in question was a 

 most ancient order; the principle 

 on which it was founded was, 

 perhaps, interwoven in the ori- 

 ginal constitution of the House. 

 Under God, the maintenance of 

 the commonwealth was owing to 

 the support of the privileges of 

 that House, which privileges were 

 essential to the support of their 

 authority. 



Mr. Tierney observed, that be- 

 tween the situation of a grand jury 

 and that in which the House now 

 stood there was a striking differ- 

 ence. The proceedings of the 

 grand jury were not published at 



