proof of qualification for this business, and they recommended a special examination in order to test the fitness of all new applicants for admission. They did not propose to apply this test in the case of any persons who might be merely conducting the opposition to a Bill. The recommendations of the Committee, however, were not adopted by either House, and, subject to the rules enforced by the House of Commons, the profession of parliamentary agent remains a perfectly open one. CHAPTER XXIV. Lode of examination in Lords, 1641. EVIDENCE: SHORTHAND WRITERS: POWER TO ADMINISTER OATHS: WITNESSES. IN the Lords one method of examination before Committees was by interrogatories; and it was therefore ordered, in 1641, "that when any Committee do return any examinations into this House, they shall return the interrogatories upon which In Commons. the witnesses were examined."1 The same method was adopted by the Commons in examinations at the bar;2 written questions, to be put to witnesses there by Mr. Speaker, were sometimes prepared by Committees, or agreed upon by the House. In the Committees of both Houses notes of the evidence were probably taken by the chairman or Committee clerk. That some record was kept of statements made by witnesses there is clear from reports frequently made during the eighteenth century by Committees in the Commons, and entered in their Journals. Evidence at the bar was sometimes given in writing; or witnesses after examination at the bar were ordered to put their testimony in writing. Two members, Mr. White and Mr. Prideaux, were appointed to take notes of the evidence at the Earl of Strafford's impeachment in 1640; and power was given to the managers to employ two other persons for this purpose, "though they be not of the House."6 14 Lords' Journ. 442; November 16, 1641. 21 Com. Journ. 824; February 23, 1625. 3 Ib. 827, 829; March 1 and 2, 1625. 9 Ib. 293; January 14, 1673 (Duke of Buckingham's case). Ib. 327; April 30, 1675 (Impeachment of Lord Danby). 49 Com. Journ. 322; April 23, 1675. 51 Ib. 584; April 20, 1621. 9 Ib. 643; October 30, 1680. 6 2 Ib. 108. Divorce Bill, In the famous proceedings upon the Norfolk Divorce Bill Norfolk in 1691, it was ordered 1-" that the evidence shall be taken in 1691. writing by the clerk, who shall read what he hath taken to the witnesses before they go from the bar; and if counsel on either side observe anything to be omitted or mistaken, counsel may offer to have it rectified before the witness goes from the bar." writers first Parliament, A great improvement upon this method of taking evidence Shorthand was adopted in the same case eight years afterwards. engaged in Shorthand writers were then employed for the first time, 1699. nearly a century before any reference to them appears in proceedings of the other House. Upon the Norfolk Divorce Bill of 1699, the House of Lords ordered-" that the shorthand writers, who took the witnesses' evidence, do dictate to a clerk, in order to be transcribed, what the witnesses have said; and that the examinations, with the shorthand writers' books and papers, are to be sealed up and kept by the clerk until the next day the House shall proceed on this matter; and then what is transcribed shall be read at the bar in the presence of the witness."2 At this period the practice was that witnesses should sign the transcribed depositions when these had been read to them.3 In 1700, Lady Sir Edmund King's testimony upon Lady Anglesea's Sepa- Separation Anglesea's ration Bill was also taken in shorthand, and the Lords Bill, 1700. ordered that it should be "transcribed from the shorthand writer, against to-morrow, at eleven o'clock; and that the witness then attend to have it read to him."4 little used It is difficult to believe that an art of such utility in recording Shorthand evidence and shortening proceedings should have been used in in Parliament during cases of this importance, and should then have been neglected. eighteenth Yet, although commonly resorted to for the reports of civil century. and criminal trials throughout great part of the eighteenth century, in Parliament, where it would have rendered Trial of Warren Hastings. essential service, shorthand has left hardly any trace during that period. Statements made before Committees must have been recorded, for in Lady Ferrers's Separation Bill, in 1758, evidence given by witnesses to the Committee on her petition was afterwards read at the bar, and confirmed by them there.1 Probably these depositions were taken in longhand by the Committee clerk.2 Occasionally, this evidence, or part of it, was read in the House of Lords, if the proceedings in Committee were questioned, or to justify amendments in a Bill.3 In one case witnesses corrected, before the whole House on the third reading of a Bill, part of their evidence in Committee.1 It was upon the trial of Warren Hastings, in 1788-9, that the Commons' Journals first mention the use of shorthand. On this occasion again the House of Lords was beforehand with them, and ordered, "that the minutes of the verbal evidence, as taken by the clerk, which has been or shall be given upon the trial, and all the written evidence produced and read, be printed from day to day for the use of the members of this House only." 5 The "evidence as taken by the clerk" was no doubt that taken by the shorthand writer employed by the clerk. Light is thrown upon this statement by the mention of a now familiar name, upon a motion made soon afterwards in the Commons, "that Mr. Gurney, one of the shorthand writers of the notes taken at the trial of Warren Hastings, Esq., in Westminster Hall, be called in." His evidence was desired in proof that certain words to which exception had been taken were used at the trial by Mr. Burke. 122 Lords' Journ. 290. 2 A Committee of the House of Bristol Gaol Bill, 1792; 39 Lords' Journ. 486. 5 38 Lords' Journ. 93; February 26, 1788. 6 According to Mr. Gurney's evidence, Burke charged Warren Hastings with murdering Nuncomar by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey. The House declared that it had not authorized the managers of the im Elections Act, Even after this striking service rendered upon an historical trial which lasted 145 days, shorthand was only occasionally called to the aid of Parliament. It seems to have been first brought into prominent notice at inquiries into controverted elections before the Committees of the Commons, which were generally the signal for a lively struggle between parties. Shorthand writers were then found so useful that they obtained Controverted statutory recognition in an Act of 1802 for regulating these 1802. protracted trials. This statute provided that every Election Committee should be or might be attended " by a person well skilled in the art of writing shorthand," who was to be appointed by the clerk of the House, and sworn by the chairman "faithfully and truly " to take down the evidence, and transcribe it for the use of the Committee. A Committee of the Commons appointed in 1803 reported that, according to information given to them by members who had served on Election Committees, "in all cases where this measure had been adopted much benefit had resulted to the parties by expediting the inquiry and thereby lessening its expense. The Committee recommended a scale of charges, two guineas for the attendance of every shorthand writer, and one shilling per sheet of seventy-two words for a transcript of his notes; these expenses to be defrayed by the parties.3 So satisfactory was the experiment tried in 1803, that, during the same Session, shorthand writers were occasion 4 of shorthand writers to ar Parliament, 1813. ally employed in Committees on private Bills. In 1813, Appointment both Houses passed substantially the same resolutions for the appointment of a shorthand writer "who shall, by himself or sufficient deputy, attend when called upon to take minutes of evidence at the bar of this House or in Committees." Employment of a shorthand writer in Committees on by the peers. peachment to make such a charge, and that Mr. Burke ought not to have spoken these words.-34 Com. Journ. 320; May 4, 1789. 1 The trial lasted over seven years, from February, 1788, to April, 1795, when an acquittal was pronounced 2 42 Geo. III. c. 84. 3 This scale, contained in the table of fees in 1803, is still in force. 4 MS. letter of Mr. W. B. Gurney to secretary of Mr. Speaker, 1813. |