Mr. Ross refers to publication of speeches. Publication is still
prohibited in theory. Mr. Ross perhaps is not aware that the prohibition
of publication of speeches rests on a foundation independent of the old
sessional order against the presence of strangers,--on a series of
resolutions declaring publication to be a breach of the privileges of
Parliament, to be found in the Journals of 1642, 1694, 1695, 1697, 1703,
1722, and 1724.

We unfortunately cannot settle in your columns whether, as Mr. Ross
asserts, "if a member in debate should inadvertently allude to the
possibility of his observations being heard by a stranger, the Speaker
would immediately call him to order;" but my strong belief is, that he
would not: and I hope, if there are any members of the House of Commons
who have time to read "Notes and Queries," that one of them may be
induced to take a suitable opportunity of obtaining the Speaker's
judgment.

"Yet at other times," Mr. Ross goes on to say, "the right honourable
gentlemen will listen complacently to discussions arising out of the
complaints of members that strangers will not publish to the world all
that they hear pass in debate." If this be so, I suppose the Speaker
sees nothing disorderly in a complaint, that what has been spoken in
Parliament has _not_ been published: but I read frequently in my
newspaper that the Speaker interrupts {125} members who speak of
speeches having been published. "This is one of the inconsistencies,"
Mr. Ross proceeds, "resulting from the determination of the House not
expressly to recognise the presence of strangers." Inconsistency there
certainly is,--the inconsistency of making publication a breach of
privilege, and allowing it to go on daily.