Samuel Johnson - The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Volume 10

The government of this country has long and justly been considered the best among the nations of Europe; and the English people have ever evinced a proportionate desire for information in its proceedings. But in the earlier days of our constitution, we shall find that much jealousy on the part of our rulers debarred the people from access to the national deliberations. Queen Elizabeth, with a sagacity that derived no assurance from the precedents of former times, foresaw the mighty power of the press, as an engine applied to state purposes, and accordingly aroused the spirit of her subjects, by causing the first gazettes to be published in the year of the armada [Footnote: See sir J. Mackintosh's Defence in the Peltier case.]: and D'Ewes's journals of her parliaments contain the earliest reports of parliamentary debates.

The first volume of the commons' journals comprises the debates from the accession of James the first, to the cessation of parliaments under Charles the first. The publication, in 1766, of a member's notes, furnished authentic debates of the session in 1621. Rushworth, in his voluminous collections, presents us with many of the debates during the civil wars. Gray's more regular debates succeeded. From these, until the times that followed the glorious revolution in 1688, we have no reports of parliamentary proceedings, interesting as they must have been, on which we can place any more reliance, than on those of Dr. Johnson, which, we shall presently see, cannot pretend to the character of faithful reports, however deservedly eminent they are as eloquent and energetic compositions. But the revolution was not immediately followed by a liberal diffusion of parliamentary intelligence, for the newspapers of William's reign only give occasionally a detached speech. That sovereign scarcely allowed liberty of speech to the members of parliament themselves, and was fully as tyrannical in disposition as his predecessor on the throne; but, happily for the English nation, he was tied and bound by the strong fetters of law.

The stormy period that ensued on William's death, is somewhat illustrated by Boyer's POLITICAL STATE. The HISTORICAL REGISTERS which appeared on the accession of George the first, may be considered as more faithful depositories of political information than Boyer's partial publication. The spirited opposition to sir Robert Walpole excited an unprecedented anxiety in the nation to learn the internal proceedings of parliament. This wish on the part of constituents to know and scrutinize the conduct of their representatives, which to us appears so reasonable a claim, was regarded in a different light by our ancestors. But the frown of authority in the reign of George the second began to have less power to alarm a people whose minds were undergoing progressive illumination. A general desire was then loudly expressed for parliamentary information, which Cave sought to gratify by the insertion of the debates in the GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE. The jealousy of the houses, however, subjected that indefatigable man to the practices of stratagem for the accomplishment of his design. He held the office of inspector of franks in the postoffice, which brought him into contact with the officers of both houses of parliament, and afforded him frequent and ready access to many of the members. Cave, availing himself of this advantage, frequented the houses when any debate of public interest was expected, and, along with a friend, posted himself in the gallery of the house of commons, and in some retired station in that of the lords, where, unobserved, they took notes of the several speeches. These notes were afterwards arranged and expanded by Guthrie, the historian, then in the employment of Cave, and presented to the public, monthly, in the Gentleman's Magazine. They first appeared in July, 1736 [Footnote: Gent. Mag. vol. vi.], and were perused with the greatest eagerness. But it was soon intimated to Cave, that the speaker was offended with this freedom, which he regarded in the light of a breach of privilege, and would subject Cave, unless he desisted, to parliamentary censure, or perhaps punishment. To escape this, and likewise to avoid an abridgment of his magazine, Cave had recourse to the following artifice. He opened his magazine for June, 1738, with an article entitled, "Debates in the senate of Magna Lilliputia;" in which he artfully deplores the prohibition that forbids him to present his readers with the consultations of their own representatives, and expresses a hope that they will accept, as a substitute, those of that country which Gulliver had so lately rendered illustrious, and which untimely death had prevented that enterprising traveller from publishing himself. Under this fiction he continued to publish the debates of the British parliament, hiding the names of persons and places by the transposition of letters, in the way of anagram. These he contrived to explain to his readers, by annexing to his volume for 1738, feigned proposals for printing a work, to be called Anagrammata Rediviva. This list, and others from different years, we give in the present edition, though we have rejected the barbarous jargon from the speeches themselves. A contemporary publication, the LONDON MAGAZINE, feigned to give the debates of the Roman senate, and adapted Roman titles to the several speakers. This expedient, as well as Cave's contrivance, sufficed to protect its ingenious authors from parliamentary resentment; as the resolution of the commons was never enforced.

The debates contained in the following volumes, commence with the 19th November, 1740, and terminate with the 23d February, 1742-3. The animated attempts that were made to remove sir Robert Walpole from administration, seemed, in Cave's opinion, to call for an abler reporter than Guthrie. Johnson was selected for the task; and his execution of it may well justify the admiration which we have so often avowed for those wonderful powers of mind, which, apparently, bade defiance to all impediments of external fortune.

He was only thirty-two years of age, little acquainted with the world; had never, perhaps, been in either house, and certainly had never conversed with the men whose style and sentiments he took upon himself to imitate. But so well and skilfully did he assume, not merely the sedate and stately dignity of the lords, and the undaunted freedom of the commons, but also the tone of the respective parties, that the public imagined they recognised the individual manner of the different speakers. Voltaire, and other foreigners of distinction, compared British with Greek and Roman eloquence; and ludicrous instances are detailed by Johnson's biographers, of praises awarded to Pulteney or to Pitt, in the presence of the unsuspected author of the orations which had excited such regard [Footnote: See Boswell, and sir John Hawkins.]! For Johnson confessed, that he composed many of the speeches entirely from his own imagination, and all of them from very scanty materials.

This confession he undoubtedly made from his love of truth, and not for the gratification of vanity. When he heard that Smollett was preparing his History of England, he warned him against relying on the debates as authentic; and, on his death-bed, he professed that the recollection of having been engaged in an imposture was painful to him. That this was a refined scrupulosity the most rigid moralist must allow; but, nevertheless, it is matter for congratulation, that the liberality of parliament no longer subjects its reporters to the subterfuges which we have thus briefly attempted to describe. And a comparison of this age and its privileges with the restrictions of former times, may not be without its use, if, by reminding us that we were not always free, it teaches us political contentment, suggests to us the policy of moderation, and enables us to love liberty, and yet be wise.