Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/422

Rh 404 R E P R E P years ago existed steelbow leases, by which the landlord stocked the farm with com, cattle, implements, &c., the tenant returning similar articles at the expiration of his tenancy and paying in addition to the ordinary rent a steelbow rent of 5 per cent, on the value of the stock. United States. Agricultural rents are, from the different position of the cultivators of the land, of less importance than in England. The law is in general accordance with that of England. The tendency of modern State legislation is unfavourable to the continuance of distress as a remedy. In some States, such as Ohio and Tennessee, it never existed. Fee farm rents exist in some States, like Pennsylvania, which have not adopted the Statute of Quia Emptores as a part of their common law. (J. Wt.) KEPLEVIN. Since the article DISTRESS (q.v.) was written the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, has made some changes in the law of replevin in England. The period of five days during which the tenant or owner of goods may replevy by 2 Will. <fc Mary c. 5, 1, is extended in the case of holdings within the Act to fifteen days, on the tenant or owner making a request in writing to that effect and giving security for additional costs. A summary remedy in the nature of replevin is given, a court of summary jurisdiction having a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the county court conferred upon it in the case of distress on a holding within the Act. REPORTING. The curious among those who seek to trace political developments may, without any great strain on the imagination, find an intimate relation between the growth of newspaper reporting and the growth of demo- cratic institutions; at any rate the two have always been found together. The history of reporting in Great Britain brings out the relationship with much clearness. There was no truly systematic reporting until the beginning of this century, and not until many years afterwards did it grow to be a most important, if not the most important, feature in newspapers. There was parliamentary reporting of a kind almost from the time when parliaments began. Single speeches, and even some consecutive account of particular proceedings in parliament, were prepared. But long after newspapers were commonly published no effort had been made to give reports either of the proceedings of parliament or of those of any other assembly dealing with the public interests. The first attempts at parliamen- tary reporting, in the sense of seeking to make known to the public what was done and said in parliament, began in a pamphlet published monthly in Queen Anne's time called The Political State. Its reports were mere indica- tions of speeches. Later, the Gentleman's Magazine began to publish reports of parliamentary debates. Access to the Houses of Parliament was obtained by Cave, the publisher of the magazine, and some of his friends, and they took surreptitiously what notes they could. These were subsequently transcribed and brought into shape for publication by another hand. There was a strict prohibi- tion of all public reporting ; but the Gentleman's Magazine appears to have continued its reports for some time without attracting the attention or rousing the jealousy of the House of Commons. The publisher, encouraged by immunity from prosecution by parliament, grew bolder, and began in his reports to give the names of the speakers. Then he was called to account. The latest standing order on the subject at that time was one passed in 1728, which declared " 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." Under this and other standing orders, Cave's reports were challenged, as were those of other publishers in other magazines. They were denounced by resolution ; and threats of prosecution were made, with the result that the reports appeared still, but without the proper names the speakers, and under the guise of "Debates in the Senate of Lilliput " or some other like title. Long afterwards, in the latter half of the century, the newspapers began to report parliamentary debates more fully, with the result that, in 1771, several printers, including those of the Morning Chronicle and the London Evening Post, were ordered into custody for publishing debates of the House of Commons. A long and bitter struggle between the House and the public ensued. John Wilkes took part in it. The lord mayor of London and an alderman were sent to the Tower for refusing to recognize the Speaker's warrant for the arrest of certain printers of parliamentary reports. But the House of Commons was beaten. In 1 772 the newspapers published the reports as usual ; and their right to do so has never since been really questioned. Both Houses of Parliament, indeed, now show as much anxiety to have their debates fully re- ported as aforetime they showed resentment at the intrusion of the reporter. Provision has been made in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons for reporters. There are galleries in which they may take notes, and writing rooms in which those notes may be extended. In short, reporting is now one of the best marked of parliamentary institutions. But parliamentary reporting is only a small part of such work in newspapers. The newspapers in the be- ginning of this century rarely contained more than the barest outline of any speech or public address delivered in or in the neighbourhood of the towns where they were published. As parliamentary reporting began to grow, so did local reporting. After the peace of 1815 a period of much political fermentation set in, and the newspapers began to report the speeches of public men at greater length. All the attempts that were made from time to time to repress public meetings and demonstrations of dissatisfaction with the existing order of things did but increase the demand for reporting. It grew as the fetters were struck off public institutions. With the Reform Act of 1832 it got a great start forward; and the Municipal Reform Acts gave it a still stronger impulse. Then the proceedings of town councils could be reported, and every local newspaper took care that this was done. It was not, however, until well into what may be called the railway era that any frequent effort was made by newspapers to go out of their own district for the work of reporting. The London newspapers had before this led the way. In London alone were there daily newspapers. The proprietors of these papers had been compelled by the requirements of the public to make provision for the systematic reporting of the proceedings of parliament. For many years after the right to report those proceedings had been practically established, the work was done in a dilatory and clumsy fashion. Early in the present century, however, greater freedom of access to both Houses was given, and the manager of the Morning Chronicle established a staff of reporters. They began the system which with improvements has continued to this time. Each reporter took his " turn " that is, he took notes of the proceedings for a certain time, and then gave place to a colleague. The reporter who was relieved at once extended his notes, and thus prompt publication of the debates was made possible. Reporters had been found to supply the demand, and it had become the habit of the proprietors of the London newspapers to employ these men, out of the session of parliament, in reporting the speeches of public men in the country. The practice grew until there was a good deal of competition among the papers as to which should first issue a report of any speech of note. Railways were not ; and reporters had frequently to ride long distances in post chaises, doing their best as they jolted along the