permitted to take his useful knowledge to the colonies, where it will be without use; and the other two have been suffered to remain in a state of painful suspense, for nearly a twelvemonth, with the effect of preventing them turning to other pursuits-a circumstance rather extraordinary, seeing that it was upon the declaration of the Chancellor, made on his behalf by the Attorney-General, that he was so much satisfied with the work of the Commission, that the grant was continued. Surely justice, as well as mercy, should prevail in a body consisting of so many dignified judges, some of whom have known the struggles that merit often has to encounter. We are satisfied that the true state of the case has never been the subject of consideration by the members of the Commission; and we beg to direct their attention to it as a matter which affects their dignity and honour, as well as the efficacious usefulness of the Commission itself.

arono. I moit Teoq e you pull ads ye A Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usages of Parliament. By Thomas Erskine May, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, &c. &c. Third edition, revised and enlarged. 1855.

THE

HE publication of a new edition of Mr. Erskine May's standard work presents an opportunity of reviewing the progress which our Legislature has made in reforming itself and its own proceedings, and of considering what improvements are still wanting to bring our ancient institutions more into accordance with the spirit and requirements of our own times.

We propose to confine our remarks principally to matters of legal interest, the treatment of which belongs, more peculiarly, to this journal; and shall endeavour, in a few pages, to indicate the direction taken by the laws affecting the Parliament. "Bit

by bit reform" is the prevailing principle of all our legislation, and its operation will not be less desirable here, than in other departments of law.

The reforms in our representative system in 1852 must be excluded from our consideration, as being rather within the region of political discussion; yet we cannot help noticing that those great measures appear to have afforded a starting-point for all subsequent amendments of the law.

As ancient as Parliament itself was the law that there should be an interval of forty days between the summons of a new Parliament and its meeting. Even in the days of King John such a time was deemed ample for giving notice to electors in all parts of England, for completing the election of members, and assembling them, in full Parliament, at Westminster. Yet, on the union of Scotland, this period was further enlarged to fifty days; and so, in spite of improved communications, and the more speedy transmission of intelligence, it remained until 1852. Lord Brougham then introduced a bill for shortening the period, and Parliament very cautiously consented to an interval of thirty-five days. It may often be of great political importance to summon a new Parliament with less delay, and we believe that twenty-eight days might safely have been adopted as sufficient for all the purposes of a general election. There is no place in Scotland or Ireland which is not reached by the third day's post from London. Within ten days every borough election may be held, and in three weeks after the issue of the writs, every knight of the shire will be returned. A week would still be left for the assembling of all the members of the new Parliament, the first three days of which are occupied by the taking of oaths and other preliminary formalities. When there happened to be no pressure for time, a larger period would be allowed; but on occasions of urgency, as where Parliament is suddenly dissolved in the middle of a session, even a month is sometimes found an inconvenient interval for the suspension of all legislative authority, and Parliamentary control.

Several improvements have recently been made in the laws relating to elections, which tend to shorten and facilitate the

proceedings connected with them. According to ancient custom all writs were directed to the sheriff, who addressed precepts to the returning officers of the several boroughs within his jurisdiction. After the election these precepts were returned to the sheriff, by whom they were transmitted to the Crown Office. The delays arising from adherence to this practice were obviated in 1853,1 by issuing out writs directed to the returning officers, and returnable by them, without the intervention of the sheriff.

By the Reform Acts the days of polling had been reduced, both in counties and boroughs, to two days. In 1836 the polling was reduced in cities and boroughs to one day; and after various attempts to apply the same rule to counties, it was at length agreed to in 1853. It will be remembered that the Universities having been excepted from the operation of the Reform Act, retained its ancient privilege of keeping open the poll for sixteen days. Mr. Gladstone's election in 1852 exemplified the evils and abuses of the old law, which had already been corrected elsewhere, and the time of polling was consequently restricted, at future elections, to five days. It need scarcely be observed that this longer period, still allowed for the Universities, was considered necessary to enable the constituency to travel from all parts of the country, over which they are scattered. The very circumstance, however, of so large a part of the voters being non-resident, causes us to regret that an experiment was not tried of collecting their votes without requiring their personal attendance. The propriety of abolishing polling-places altogether, and substituting a general system of voting-papers, has already been discussed in the press; but no serious attempt to establish such a system has yet been made in Parliament. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, in his Bribery Bill of last session, proposed a partial adoption of the principle; but his clauses were omitted by the select committee to whom the Bribery Bills were referred. The Universities would be well adapted for inaugurating the experiment. It would be more beneficial there than in any other place, as the voters are subjected to heavy travelling expenses. It would be less open to fraud and electioneering tricks, as the voters are generally of 1 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78. 2 16 Vict. c. 15.

a higher class, and by their dispersion, less exposed to the designs of canvassers and election agents. And if any fraud should be attempted, there are means by which it could most readily be exposed. We are fully aware of the frauds which have been notoriously practised in the election of Poor-Law guardians, and in railway proxies: but have there been no frauds and abuses in the present system of voting? Is it not admitted that a contested election, with its low acts, its bribery, intimidation, cajolery, and drunkenness, is a disgrace to our boasted civilization? To limit these notorious evils to one day has been esteemed a wise provision of the law: to suppress the more open and flagrant of them by a new system of voting, is surely worth a trial. A strong opponent of the ballot was so much struck by the tranquillity and order prevailing in Paris during a general election, even with universal suffrage, that he became almost a convert to secret voting; but secrecy forms no part of the proposed system of voting-papers, which yet would serve all the order and facilities of the ballot. We are satisfied that if such an organization of securities and checks could be devised, that this system of voting would ensure a more faithful representation of a constituency, and expose voters to less undue influences, than the present machinery of hustings and pollingbooths; and we still hope to see the proposal earnestly made, and properly investigated in Parliament. While hundreds of millions are safely transferred from hand to hand every year by means of cheques, bills of exchange, powers of attorney, and other writings, it were strange indeed if means could not be found for recording votes without the personal attendance of the voters at the crowded polling-booth.

We believe that Parliament has engaged seriously in a war against bribery, the success of which, however, is more than doubtful. In carrying out existing laws, election committees have erred rather on the side of severity, and certainly cannot be accused of affording undue protection to sitting members. By several Acts,1 ample means have been provided for discovering and punishing acts of bribery after they have been committed; and the Corrupt Practices Act of last session seriously

1 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102; 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57.

addresses itself to the more important function of preventing their commission. The payment of all the expenses of candidates through an election officer, and the publication of the election accounts, by making bribery more difficult, may reasonably be expected to diminish it; but its entire suppression cannot be hoped for by any such means. As well might we trust to revenue officers for the prevention of smuggling. Low import duties are more effectual for that purpose than an army of coast guardsmen ; and, in the same way, constituencies too large to be bribed, will secure the virtue both of candidates and electors better than all the dreaded array of election officers, Parliamentary committees, and commissions of inquiry. Even the solemn declaration of the sitting member absolving himself from all corrupt practices, which, after unusual controversy and honest differences of opinion, was at last omitted from the Bribery Act, would, we fear, have disappointed its advocates. There is nothing so elastic as an electioneering conscience; and for other political purposes oaths have proved but a sorry security. It was well pointed out by Sir Fitzroy Kelly that every sitting member, by the new law of evidence, is exposed to the chance of being examined before an election committee, and swearing in the presence of his peers, his political opponents, and possibly his treacherous friends, that he has paid nothing but the legal expenses of his election. Certain of a cross-examination, and not knowing what facts may have been detected by his adversaries, a guilty member must indeed be bold and unscrupulous to brave such an ordeal. The lowest of consciences has a pious horror of being "found out."

Before we quit the subject of elections we must add a few words concerning the trial of controverted election cases. The Commons have hitherto maintained their jurisdiction so tenaciously, that no proposal for seeking the aid of any wisdom but their own, has yet found favour in their eyes. They have endeavoured to improve the constitution of their own committees, and it cannot be denied that every successive experiment has been an improvement on the last. The present system was the best that could be devised by the ingenuity and experience of the late Sir Robert Peel. No statesman ever maintained