was possible till the action was tried, and until the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the defendant might exercise an option of paying damages instead of restoring the actual goods. The earliest regulations with regard to the action of replevin are to be found in the Statute of Marlborough (Marlebridge), 1267, cap. 21. For the early history, see Blackstone's Commentaries, iii. 145 seq. Only goods and cattle can be the subjects of an action for replevin. Although the action can be brought for the wrongful taking of goods generally, as long as the initial taking was wrongful and it was from the possession of the owner, it is practically confined to goods taken by an illegal as opposed to an excessive distress (see Distress and Rent, § Legal).
REPNIN, the name of an old Russian princely family, the first of whom to gain distinction was
Prince Anikita Ivanovich Repnin (1668-1726), Russian general, and one of the collaborators of Peter the Great, with whom he grew up. On the occasion of the Sophian insurrection of 1689, he carefully guarded Peter in the Troitsa monastery, and subsequently took part in the Azov expedition, during which he was raised to the grade of general. He took part in all the principal engagements of the Great Northern War. Defeated by Charles XII. at Holowczyn, he was degraded to the ranks, but was pardoned as a reward for his valour at Lyesna and recovered all his lost dignities. At Poltava he commanded the centre. From the Ukraine he was transferred to the Baltic Provinces and was made the first governor-general of Riga after its capture in 1710. In 1724 he succeeded the temporarily disgraced favourite, Menshikov, as war minister. Catherine I. created him a field-marshal
See A. Bauman, Russian Statesmen of the Olden Time (Rus.), vol. i. (Petersburg, 1877).
His grandson, Prince Nikolai Vasilevich Repnin (1734-1801), Russian statesman and general, served under his father, Prince Vasily Anikitovich, during the Rhenish campaign of 1748 and subsequently resided for some time abroad, where he acquired “a thoroughly sound German education.” He also participated in the Seven Years' War in a subordinate capacity. Peter III. sent him as ambassador in 1763 to Berlin. The same year Catherine transferred him to Warsaw as minister plenipotentiary, with especial instructions to form a Russian party in Poland from among the dissidents, who were to receive equal rights with the Catholics. Repnin convinced himself that the dissidents were too poor and insignificant to be of any real support to Russia, and that the whole agitation in their favour was factitious. At last, indeed, the dissidents themselves even petitioned the empress to leave them alone. It is clear from his correspondence that Repnin, a singularly proud and high spirited man, much disliked the very dirty work he was called upon to do. Nevertheless he faithfully obeyed his instructions, and, by means more or less violent or discreditable, forced the diet of 1768 to concede everything. The immediate result was the Confederation of Bar, which practically destroyed the ambassador's handiwork. Repnin resigned his post for the more congenial occupation of fighting the Turks. At the head of an independent command in Moldavia and Walachia, he prevented a large Turkish army from crossing the Pruth (1770); distinguished himself at the actions of Larga and Kagula; and captured Izmail and Kilia. In 1771 he received the supreme command in Walachia and routed the Turks at Bucharest. A quarrel with the commander-in-chief, Rumyantsev, then induced him to send in his resignation, but in 1774 he participated in the capture of Silistria and in the negotiations which led to the peace of Kuchuk-Kainarji, In 1775-76 he was ambassador at the Porte. On the outbreak of the war of the Bavarian Succession he led 30,000 men to Breslau, and at the subsequent congress of Teschen, where he was Russian plenipotentiary, compelled Austria to make peace with Prussia. During the second Turkish war (1787-92) Repnin was, after Suvarov, the most successful of the Russian commanders. He defeated the Turks at Salcha, captured the whole camp of the seraskier, Hassan Pasha, shut him up in Izmail, and was preparing to reduce the place when he was forbidden to do so by Potemkin (1789). On the retirement of Potemkin (q.v.) in 1791, Repnin succeeded him as commander-in-chief, and immediately routed the grand vizier at Machin, a victory which compelled the Turks to accept the truce of Galatz (31st of July 1791). In 1794 he was made governor-general of the newly acquired Lithuanian provinces. The emperor Paul raised him to the rank of field-marshal (1796), and, in 1798, sent him on a diplomatic mission to Berlin and Vienna in order to detach Prussia from France and unite both Austria and Prussia against the Jacobins. On his return unsuccessful, he was dismissed the service.
See A. Kraushar, Prince Repnin in Poland, 1764-8 (Pol.) (Warsaw, 1900); “Correspondence with Frederick the Great and others” (Rus. and Fr.), in Russky Arkhiv (1865, 1869, 1874, Petersburg); M. Longinov, True Anecdotes of Prince Repnin (Rus.) (Petersburg, 1865). (R. N. B.)
REPORT (O.Fr. report or raport, modern rapport, from O.Fr. reporter, mod. rapporter, Lat. reportare, to bring back, in poetical use only, of bringing back an account, news, &c.), an account or statement of events, speeches, proceedings, the results of investigations, &c., “brought back” by one who was present either casually or sent for the specific purpose, hence reputation, rumour. A special sense, that of a loud noise, as of the explosion of firearms, appears as early as the end of the 16th century. For the reports of speeches, parliamentary debates, &c., in the daily press see Reporting below, and for the particular form of law reporting see English Law; American Law.
REPORTING, the art or business of reproducing in readable form, mainly for newspapers, but also for such publications as the Parliamentary or Law Reports, the words of speeches, or describing in narrative form the events, in contemporary history, by means of the notes made by persons known generally as reporters. The special business of reporting is a comparatively modern one, since it must not be confounded with the general practice of quoting, or of mere narrative, which is as old as writing. There was no truly systematic reporting until the beginning of the 19th century, though there was parliamentary reporting of a kind almost from the time when parliaments began, just as law reporting (which goes back to 1292) began in the form of notes taken by lawyers of discussions in court. The first attempts at parliamentary 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 indications of speeches. Later, the Gentleman's Magazine began to publish reports of parliamentary debates. Access to the Houses of Parliament was obtained by Edward Cave (q.v.), the publisher of this 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. Dr Johnson for some years wrote the speeches, and he took care, as he admitted, not to let the “Whig dogs” get the best of it; the days of verbatim reporting were not yet come, and it was considered legitimate to make people say in print what substantially was supposed to represent their opinions. There was a strict parliamentary prohibition 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. A standing order was 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, with the result that they appeared without the proper names of the speakers, and under the guise of “Debates in the Senate of Lilliput,”
