believe she knew anything about it. When I laid down near the man the woman said I would not lay down there for a gold watch. After I laid down I went to sleep-when I waked up I was going away but something seemed to tell me I the River and found the stone and brought it over must murder that man and then I went over to on my head and I thrown it down on the man's head. I believe it was twice or three timeswhich, I am not prepared to say but it was more than once I throw it on his head. I throw'd the stone away. I turned round and stood there. Something come into my mind to see if he had any money about him. I went round and put my hand in his pocket and found threepence. I stood there abit-it was not long. I can't say how long. the Policeman came and looked over the gate. I looked on the man. While I looked on the man Whatever made me do it I can't think. It was not for money. I had no thought of money. I can't think why I done it.

+ The mark of
Taken before me,

WILLIAM BISGROVE.

W. OAKLEY, Governor, Somerset County
Prison, Taunton.
Witness-HENRY BERRY, Deputy-Governor.
Investigation having satisfied the Home
Office that the story thus told was substantially
true, SWEET was very properly reprieved.

We have heard many doubts thrown upon
the truth of the story, because of the singu-
lar account given by the murderer of his
inducement to the commission of the crime.
He saw a man sleeping by his side; a sudden
impulse came into his mind to kill that man,
and he did kill him. Can such things be? He
had no revenge to gratify; it was
not for
gain; wherefore then so terrible a crime?
The answer is, that the opportunity suggested
it.

have been committed has been or shall be after she was married Mrs. Keech went with | drinking. I went with the woman but I don't awarded or issued or the successor or successors her husband to Jamaica, where he had an in office of such Judge or Judges respectively, appointment giving him an income of 100%. to pronounce such person or persons contuma-a-year only. In consequence of the small cious and in contempt, and within ten days after ness of the income, it appeared that she was such person or persons shall have been so pro- obliged to put up with many privations; her nounced to be contumacious and in contempt, to health suffered, and she returned to England at signify the same to the Lord Chancellor, Lord the end of 1845 or the beginning of 1846. She Keeper, or Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal has been in England ever since, and Mr. Keech, of England for the time being respectively, when- as far as was known, had been abroad ever since ever the person or persons who shall have been the greater part of the time in Jamaica, where so pronounced contumacious and in contempt he succeeded in obtaining an appointment of a shall be domiciled or residing in England, more lucrative character. The contention on in the form annexed to an Act of Parliament, the part of Mrs. Keech was, that the circum53 Geo. 3, c. 127, intituled "AnAct for the better stances under which they have been living Regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England, separate amounted to a desertion of her by the and for the more easy Recovery of Church-rates defendant. She said in her evidence that when and Tithes," and thereupon and in case the per- she left Jamaica her husband put her on board son so reputed to be in contempt shall not be a the vessel, and that they parted kindly. She peer, lord of Parliament, or member of the said also that there was no arrangement for a House of Commons, a writ de contumace capiendo separation, and that he agreed to allow her 301. shall issue from His Majesty's Court of Chan- a-year. She also said that until 1852 they corcery, directed to the same persons to whom writs responded on kind terms. She said further that de excommunicato capiendo were by law returnable he wrote to her in 1851, but that she had debefore the passing of the said Act of Parliament, stroyed the letter. Then she was asked, "What and the same shall be returnable in like manner did he say?" and her answer was, "He said as the writ de excommunicato capiendo had been You are to come out directly, and the money theretofore by law returnable, and shall have for your passage will be at my agent's; and if the same force and effect as the last-mentioned you don't come I shall disappear, and you will see writ, and all rules and regulations not altered no more of me."" Now, said the Judge Ordinary, by the said Act, 53 Geo. 3, and which before the this language leads one to suppose that it is very passing of the said Act applied to the said writ likely he had on some former occasion intimated de excommunicato capiendo and the proceedings his desire to see her out at Jamaica. Mrs. Keech following thereon, and particularly the seve- maintains that it was not so, and the court ral provisions contained in a certain Act, has no means of judging, though it looks 5 Eliz. c. 33, intituled "An Act for the rather as if he had intimated he would like due Execution of the Writ de excommunicato her to go out. Her answer to that was that capiendo," shall extend and be applied to the she was in bad health, suffering from neuralgia, said writ de contumace capiendo, and the pro- and that she could not come. She wrote out to ceedings following thereon, as if the same were ask him to allow her to use the money he had in this Act particularly repeated and enacted, sent home for her passage for her own purposes. and the proper officers of the Court of Chancery That he refused to assent to, and the consein England and Ireland, as the case may be, quence was that she never went out. There the are authorised and required to issue such correspondence seems to have ended. She heard writ de contumace capiendo accordingly, and all no more of him until the year 1856, when she sheriffs, gaolers, and other officers in England succeeded, through the medium of some people and in Ireland, as the case may happen to living in Jamaica, in ascertaining where he was, be, are required and authorised to execute and, finding that he was in Jamaica, leading a the same by taking and detaining the body of loose life, she got her brother in law or a cousin, the person or persons against whom the said Mr. Clarke, to write to him for an allowance. writ shall be so directed to be executed, and He then made her an allowance of 50l. a year upon the due appearance of the party or parties for herself, and 25. to her mother, by way of so cited, and not having obeyed as aforesaid, or remuneration to her for having supported his the due submission of the party or parties so wife in England. This continued up to Oct. having committed contempt in the face of the 1860. Then he wrote and said his circumstances court or otherwise, as hereinbefore is men- were altered, that he had lost his appointment, tioned, the Judge or Judges of such ecclesias- and was no longer able to make an allowance. tical court, whether in England or in Ireland, Under these circumstances the court was asked as the case may be, shall pronounce such party to pronounce that he deserted his wife. or parties absolved from the contumacy and contempt as aforesaid, and shall forthwith make an order upon the sheriff, gaoler, or other officer in whose custody he, she, or they shall be, in the form to the said Act of the 53 Geo. 3, annexed, for discharging such party or parties out of custody, and such sheriff, gaoler, and other officer shall, on the said order being shown to him, as soon as such party or parties shall have discharged the costs lawfully incurred by reason of such custody and contempt, forthwith discharge him, her, or them.

It is perfectly clear that the offence of contumacy cannot be committed until the judgment is made complete by being embodied in an Order in Council, and notice thereof has been given to the defendant. That having been done, and the illegal practices being persisted in, the writ de contumace capiendo may issue.

We hope, however, that Mr. Mackonochie will fall in with the very temperate suggestions of the Archbishop of Canterbury elect, and mitigate the zeal which must inevitably lead to the enforcement of the penalties imposed by the

Act of Will. 4.

Upon the general question of desertion the Judge Ordinary said, The desertion of a wife means that the husband wilfully separated himself from his wife against her consent." The grounds upon which he thought the present case did not come within the provisions of the Act of Parliament are clear upon the facts, and he noticed that the husband was willing to assent to the divorce. But adultery being established, he decreed judicial separation on that ground alone.

A CONFESSION.

Ar the winter assize at Taunton, two men,
Bisgrove and Sweet, were tried for the murder
of a third. The prisoners had been the last
persons seen in the company of the deceased,
who was found dead in a field, with his skull
broken in by heavy blows. The evidence
against Bisgrove was clear, but as to Sweet,
though certainly very strong, it was not entirely
satisfactory. The jury, however, found both of
them "guilty," and both were sentenced to
death, and would certainly have been executed,
but for the remorse of Bisgrove, who, in his cell
after his conviction, made the following extra
ordinary confession :-

Somerset Prison, Taunton, 16th Dec. 1868.
William Bisgrove a Convict under sentence of
Death for murder says-

I

I desire to state I done the murder I went to the River and picked up the stone. I brought it over and throw'd it on the man's head. I picked three pence out of his pocket. Sweet had nothing to do with it. I don't know that he know I done it, I never said nothing to him or he to me. can't say if he see me done it but he never help did it, I throw'd the stone back over the river over the hedge just where I told the Policeman. I should not like for Sweet to have to suffer for me. I was very worse for beer. I had been all day

The victim was asleep and helpless; the thought came into the dull brain of his companion, just wakened from a drunken sleep, "how easily could I kill him!" In a brain more accustomed to rapid exercise, the suggestion of murder would have been subdued by other thoughts suggested by that very thought, as of the consequences of the crime, the wickedness of it, and so forth, and these would have restrained the impulse to do what the imagination had pictured. But in torpid minds vivid ideas are so rare that, when they arise, they become impulses to action, and there is an almost irresistible desire to realise the thought. Thus the murderer, under the impulse of his imagination, went to the brook where he had seen the stone that had suggested the means-crushed with it the head of his sleeping victim, and restored the stone to its place in the brook. He says simply, and we believe truly, "Whatever made me do it, I can't think." He did not know; but the psychologist knows.

Nor is this seemingly motiveless impulse to crime a novelty in our courts. In the personal experience of the writer, several such instances have occurred, chiefly in cases of murder and of

arson.

In Devonshire, some years ago, there burning; the offenders were chiefly house serwas a long series of house burning and rick vants and farm boys. Asked by the counsel who defended them why they had done it, the answer of all, in almost the same terms, was, "I don't know. I had heard tell of a fire; I wanted to see one, and I could not help trying it." Solitary ideas take possession of a dull mind with a vividness and a power of which minds having many thoughts can form no conception, and we believe that a much larger portion of crime is attributable to this source than has yet been suspected.

Then comes the question, are such persons> morally--and should they be made legallyresponsible for the crimes so committed? This is too large a question to be answered now; perhaps we may return to it.

A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THE following communication has been made by the sub-committee of the JurisprudenceDepartment of the Social Science Association, on Trades' Unions to the Royal Commission on Trades Unions, on the subject of the appointment of a Public Prosecutor:

1, Adam-street, Adelphi, 5th Dec. 1868. Sir, The committee of the Law Amendment Society, having considered your letter conveying to them the request of the commissioners for inquiry into the organisation and rules of trades' unions, that they would give the reasons, with special reference to trades' union outrages, why

JAN. 2, 1869.]

they desire the appointment of a public prosecutor in England, have instructed me to make the following statement:

The general subject is one which has for many years engaged the earnest attention of the society, and the committee wish, in the first place, to make some remarks upon it applicable, not only to trades' union offences, but to all other crimes (a.) They cannot but look on the system of private prosecution as a remnant of that state of barbarism in which every man had to defend himself, by his own individual efforts, from attack and robbery. Instead of the duty of prosecution being cast on the person who has been injured, the committee regard this person, for reasons pointed out in the quotations given below, as the very worst to discharge it; while considering that he has no more chance than any one else of suffering again from the particular offender, and that very possibly it is from the fault of the State in not providing a sufficient police force that he has suffered at all, he is the very man who can least reasonably be called upon to bear a new burden. The injustice and inconvenience inflicted on indireluctance to prosecnte, no doubt often lead to the viduals by the present system, and the consequent impunity of offenders; and it is probable that this is one of the causes of that increased prevalence of crimes of violence against person and property, which is now so loudly complained of by the public. The actors, indeed, may be comparatively few in number, and are often well known to the police: but against them, owing, in great part, to the want of a public prosecutor, with competent subordinate officers, the powers of the law, resistless as they would otherwise be, are now half paralysed.

THE LAW TIMES.

remedying such defects would consist in the
appointment of public prosecutors, and on this
subject we refer to the opinions stated in the
Appendix."

A select committee was appointed by the House
of Commons in 1855, to report on the Bill intro-
duced by the late Mr. J. G. Phillimore, Q.C., which
had for its object the establishment of a system
of public prosecution, and the evidence taken by
that committee showed that such a system had
long been in existence in Scotland with complete
Mr. Moncreiff, then Lord Advocate,

success.

states:

"The system proceeds upon the principle
that it is the duty of the State to detect crime,
apprehend offenders and punish them, and that
independently of the interest of a private party.
The Scotch system acknowledges the right of
a private party to prosecute, but the duty of
public prosecution is altogether irrespective of
that."

The late Lord Campbell, before the same com-
mittee, remarks: "I have considered the subject
(of a public prosecutor) very attentively, with a
into England the system of a public prosecutor,
view to see whether it was possible to introduce
which I know has been found so very beneficial in
Scotland. In Scotland I have had an opportunity,
from my own observation, of seeing that the
system there established works admirably, both in
the Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Court of
Edinburgh, and the Assizes. I am in the habit of
attending the assizes there, and I see with my own
eyes how the system works; and I confess I am
of opinion that it works most admirably, I think
that the prosecutions are better conducted in
Scotland than they are in England, because I have
observed that the cases are more carefully got up,
and there are very few acquittals, although I see
no improper convictions."

In this view, as the commissioners are no doubt well aware, the committee are far from standing alone; and they believe, indeed, that few who have The present Lord Chief Justice of England, studied the subject would express a contrary opinion. The appointment of a public prosecutor then Attorney-General, was also examined before has been recommended on several occasions by favour of a public prosecutor. Among the results high authorities. The Criminal Law Commis- the select committee, and gave strong evidence in sioners reported in its favour many years since, says that cases are brought to trial which are only and cited the evidence of various witnesses of of his own experience, Sir Alexander Cockburn great weight in support of their recommendation. want of some superintending and controlling Among others, the late Lord Denman (eighth imperfectly got up, and they break down from report, appendix, p. 211) stated as follows:"Our procedure for the purpose of preliminary power to get the evidence together and see that it tions, which are often hazarded from inadequate inquiry is open to great objection. The injured is complete. He speaks of ill-advised prosecuparty may be helpless, ignorant. interested, corrupt. He is altogether irresponsible yet his motives. He also refers to cases of collusion and dealing with the criminal may effectually defeat cases where the prosecution is stopped by hushjustice. On general principles it would evidently money, and concludes by expressing his opinion be a public prosecutor, under whose sanction be desirable to appoint a public prosecutor, and that it would be very desirable that there should indictments should be conducted, and without I have little doubt that such an officer might be invested with the necessary powers in such a manner as would be free from all reasonable objec-whose sanction they should not be compromised. tion, while it promoted the public interest by insuring the discovery of truth."

Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C. (appendix, p. 210) remarked: "I think many prosecutions are instituted which would be avoided by the exercise of a sound discretion, and a long and extensive experience in criminal courts has confirmed me in the opinion that incalculable benefits would accrue from the appointment of public prosecutors."

The committee of the Justices Clerks' Society (pp. 329, 321) express themselves very strongly as to the injustice and inefficacy of the present mode of bringing persons to justice for offences against individuals and against society, and recommend the appointment of a public prosecutor to superintend and regulate criminal proceedings through all their stages. They refer to the opinion of Lord John Russell, expressed when Home Secretary in 1839, and to the recommendations contained in the report of the county rate commis

sioners.

Mr. J. Pitt Taylor, in an article contributed to the Law Magazine, and extracted in full, (in one of their appendices) by the commissioners, says of the existing system of private prosecution: "On the one hand, the accusatorial duties are too often conducted in the worst spirit, and criminal courts of justice become subservient to the purposes of passionate, vindictive, and personal animosity; on the other, the most notorious offenders not unfrequently escape conviction from the ignorance, unwillingness, or negligence of the party injured, and the consequent failure of such proof as a little care might easily have afforded; or the ardour of the prosecutor is cooled, and the interest of the public betrayed, by the secret offer of some pecuniary recompense." And the commissioners remark (p. 24): The intrusting the conduct of the prosecution to a private individual opens a wide door to bribery, collusion, and illegal compromises. Independently of these obvious objections attending such a course, it frequently happens that there is no person who can legally be called upon to prosecute, as in cases The direct and obvious course for of homicide.

(a) A paper by Mr. Robert Stuart, Q.C., on this subject, contributed to the society in 1861, and containing information of which the committee have availed themselves, is inclosed herewith

It has been a subject of disappointment to the
Law Amendment Society, that after the strong
evidence which has thus been given (and they
could adduce a multitude of other witnesses) in
favour of a system of public prosecution, and the
remarkable weight of the authorities in its sup-
port, no step has been taken by the Government
to establish it in this country. The delay is the
more surprising, as the advocacy of such an insti-
tution does not rest on theory alone, but on the
fact of its proved efficacy in Scotland, as above
narrated. The committee, therefore, avail them-
selves with gladness of the opportunity to illus
trate the need that exists for a public prosecutor
by the example of the peculiar kind of offences
concerning which it has been the painful duty of
the commissioners, in process of their business, to
make inquiry.

It will be admitted that, if there be a necessity
for a public prosecutor to bring to justice isolated
offenders, and to deal with crimes of a private
nature, much more is such an officer required to
grapple with organised violence, and to protect
peaceable citizens against the terrorism of num-
bers. In such cases all the usual difficulties
which may beset an individual in conducting a
prosecution, and consequently the incentives to
inaction, are largely increased. If the burden of
loss of time and money is found too heavy in
ordinary cases, how much is added by the weight
of personal danger which, as the evidence taken
by the commissioners shows, is frequently in-
curred! It is too much to expect that any private
person, and certainly any one of the weekly wage
class, should venture on a prosecution, nominally,
perhaps, of individuals, but really of a powerful
society, possessed of funds and influence out of all
a fact that atrocious crimes have been committed
proportion to his own. It has been established as
at Sheffield, and that no one has dared to bring
the criminals to justice; Nay, more, owing to the
impotency of the law in its ordinary course, the
revelation of those crimes has had to be purchased
at the terrible price of immunity for guilt, even
for that of murder. The committee believe that
such crimes would not have remained unpunished,
and might have been fewer in number and less
heinous in their nature, if a public prosecutor had
existed at Sheffield to enforce the law and protect
the public.

The committee are supported in that belief by the experience of one of their members, Mr. Frederic Hill, who was at one time inspector of prisons in Scotland, and resided during a considerable part of his life in that country. He has pointed out (a) that the Scotch system of public prosecution has acted advantageously in checking outrages by trades unions; and that no such offence has been known at Glasgow for the space of five-and-twenty years, the last on record having been made, by the procurator-fiscal in that city, the subject of a protracted investigation, which resulted in the trial, conviction, and imprisonment of the offenders. How much loss and a quarter of a century ago, been similarly enforced at Sheffield! mischief might have been averted if justice had,

The committee trust and believe that the outrages which have formed the subject of inquiry by localities and trades; that the bulk of the working men who support trades unions throughout the commissioners, have been confined to a few the country desire that these organisations should be used for legitimate objects only; and that they has occasionally been made of the otherwise lawful power of combination. As an act of jusrepudiate with indignation the wrongful use which tice to the weekly wage class, it is consequently desirable that the full powers of the law should tend in the public mind to confuse the innocent be employed to put down a class of offences which with the guilty, and to implicate the honest many powers of the law can never, in the opinion of with a few criminal conspirators. But those full the committee, be adequately exercised without the creation of a public prosecutor.

The committee must add that such an officer would, if possible, be still more requisite in the acts, by combinations of employers against workanalagous cases of intimidation, or other illegal men. In many such cases none but an independent prosecutor, backed by the authority of the State, could be expected to undertake criminal proceedings against the offenders.

For these reasons the committee submit to the beneficial as it would be in other respects, would commissioners that the office of public prosecutor, such outrages as have come under their notice, be found peculiarly valuable for the repression of and of other crimes of a similar character; and commissioners will make a strong recommendathe committee therefore venture to hope that the for the appointment of such an official without further delay.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

G. W. HASTINGS, Honorary Secretary. The Secretary of the Trades' Union Commissioners.

ELECTION LAW.

PROSECUTION OF THE PETITION. SHOULD the court refuse permission to withdraw the petition, which is a very improbable contingency, unless a corrupt contract between two boroughs to pair off be clearly shown, what could come of it after all?

No power is given by the statute to the court course the court could adopt in such event would But is this a to compel the parties to proceed, and the only be to proceed without them. possible course? The Judge could not go down

to the town on a sort of roving commission, in utter ignorance of the facts beyond the allegations in the petition, which are general, and can in no way help him to discover the cases on witnesses to be summoned. Nothing more could which those allegations were founded, or the be done than this. The Judge would go down, open the court, nobody would appear to support But if the petition is not withdrawn it will the petition, and he would dismiss it with costs. be necessary to make speedy preparation for trial.

man

It is absolutely necessary for this purpose meet them? To charge a that the respondent should know what are the charges against him, or how otherwise can he prepare to generally with bribery, or treating, or intimidation, is like charging him with murder or arson accused of murdering, or whose house he generally, without informing him whom he is is charged with having burned. It would be deemed a monstrous injustice to allow such an accusation to be preferred, or for a day to be permitted to elapse without requiring the accuser to state particulars. In the election

(a) In a paper read to the society, of which a copy is inclosed herewith. Of course Mr. Hill is alone respon sible for the opinions and facts stated in this paper other than the passage referred to above, which has been verified by inquiry.

petition the law has most unjustly allowed indefinite accusation, but it has been most properly provided by the rules that particulars may be ordered by the court as in causes at Nisi Prius. Common justice would require that the particulars should be ordered at the earliest practicable moment, so that the party implicated may know what is the exact offence of which he is accused, and that he may prepare to meet and refute it if he can. The Judges have not, at the moment we write, determined at what time they will order such particulars to be given; but Mr. Justice WILLES appeared to intimate that, in his opinion, six days before trial would suffice. That is the time allowed for the cross delivery of the lists of the votes to be objected to in the case of a scrutiny, but surely it would be very insufficient where the accusation is a general charge of bribery and treating, involving serious penalties, to say nothing of the wrong done by permitting indefinite accusations to be made by angry opponents for many weeks before the answer can be given.

Perhaps before this paper is published the Judges will have determined at what time after the petition lodged or before trial they will order the delivery of particulars of the indefinite accusations contained in the petition. In such case it will be notified in a postcript.

There are three distinct classes of petitions. 1st. Where the prayer is merely to avoid the election of the member against whose return it is lodged.

2nd. Where it prays that the petitioner or some other person may be declared to have been duly elected.

3rd. Where both of these are prayed for. We will first consider the case of the petitions which pray only that the election of the respondent may be declared to be void.

It is not necessary in this place to specify all the grounds upon which such a petition might be based; suffice it to say, that whatever personal disqualification may exist, as being a contractor with the Government or holding an office under the Crown, and such like, may be raised in this form. At present we confine attention to the usual grounds of bribery, treating, and corrupt practices.

These affect the seat only, if committed by the member himself or by his agent.

Personal bribery or treating by the member, although invariably charged in the petition, is, of course, extremely rare. Consequently, the question resolves itself into one of agency. An act of bribery or treating, or undue influence, being proved to have been done by B., was B. such an agent of the sitting member that he is responsible for the acts of B.

The

The decisions of committees of the House of Commons as to what constituted agency have been so various and contradictory that it is impossible to deduce from them any principle or rule whatever. As it was a question for the arbitrary opinion of the tribunal, partisanship was enabled to operate in this guise without openly proclaiming itself. Notoriously, according to the bent of the committee so were too often the decisions as to agency-most strict when a friend was to be saved-most lax when an opponent was to be ousted, and precedents sufficient to satisfy the conscience were to be produced in any number on either side. judges will now be called upon for a formal decision what constitutes agency, and they will doubtless take a much stricter view of it than those who, without legal training or legal minds, were required to decide a difficult legal question in the House of Commons. It is scarcely credible that the Judges will depart from the definition of agent which they are accustomed to recognise in all other matters, or to subject a member to the severe penalty of loss of his seat by the act of another, for any lesser proof of agency than would be required for a claim of debt in an action of tort, or on an indictment for a crime. They will probably hold that for an agent to subject the principal to responsibility for his acts, he must be employed by the principal, and the act must be one within the scope of his employment. It is monstrous to say, as was decided in one case, that a man sent casually by an agent of the candidate to carry an order about the hustings, is an agent of the candidate, so that the latter shall be responsible for an act of bribery by this casual servant. No less absurd is the case that held agency to be proved by a partial presence with the candidate on the canvass,

without any proof whatever of employment.
Moreover, the rule that there is no implied
agency to do a wrongful, much less a criminal's
act, will doubtless be held by the judges to
extend to agency for election purposes as to all
other agency. This important question must
arise very early in the forthcoming inquiries,
and it will probably be reserved for argument
and decision by the full court.

Since the above was written, the question
as to particulars has been decided, Where
the petition charged in general terms bribery,
treating, and other corrupt practices, the order
made was that with respect to the general term
"other corrupt practices," the petitioners should,
within three days, state what are the corrupt
practices intended to be charged, and in default:
to be limited to evidence upon the definite
charges of bribery and treating. Where these
latter practices have been charged against the
sitting member, the order has been that par-
ticulars of the names of the parties alleged to
have been bribed or treated, should be deli-
vered to the respondents three days before the
day appointed for trial. Where a scrutiny is
demanded, lists of the votes to be objected to on
both sides are to be exchanged six days before
the day appointed for trial.

The Scotch court has followed the same practice
as the English court with respect to delivery of
particulars. It will be seen by a brief report
below that where bribery, treating, and corrupt
practices were charged in general terms against
the respondent and his agents, three days before
trial, notice of the particular cases of bribery
and treating were to be given, with such details
as might be necessary to enable the respondent
to prepare his defence. But only four days
from the date of the order were allowed for
particulars to be given of the offences charged
under the comprehensive term "corrupt prac-
tices "-failing which no evidence upon that
allegation would be permitted at the trial.

The practice as to particulars may now be
taken as settled, and that it may be better
remembered we restate it formally.

1. Where the petition charges bribery and
treating by the respondent or his agents,
a list of the persons alleged to have been
bribed and treated, with such particulars
as may give to the respondent fair notice
of the offence intended to be proved, will
be ordered to be given three clear days
before the day appointed for trial.
2. Where, in addition to the specific charge of
bribery and treating, the petition alleges
corrupt and illegal practices," or other
charge of a general nature, not being a
definite offence, the petitioner will be
ordered to give within four days from the
date of the order, notice of the nature of
the specific offences intended to be
charged by such general terms.

3. Where the petitioner claims to have had
a majority of legal votes (i. e., a scrutiny),
a list of voters whose votes are to be
objected to, specifying the nature of each
objection and, as far as possible, classified,
is to be delivered to the respondent six
clear days before the day appointed for

the trial.

4. In the like case, the respondent is to
deliver in like manner and in the like
time a like list of the votes given to the
candidate for whom the seat is claimed
to whom it is intended to object on the
part of the respondent.

be given by petitioners charging bribery, &c., against the respondent.

7. The particulars so given are not conclusive upon the parties, but the court may, upon good cause shown, and on terms, order further particulars at any time, even during the progress of the trial.

THE WORKING OF THE PARLIAMEN-
TARY ELECTIONS ACT.
We report this week several decisions given at
chambers in the matter of summonses arising on:
of election petitions, and we may usefully here
shortly state the effect of these decisions, and
the principles which they show the Judges are
inclined to follow in the trial of these petitions.
We have been favoured by Messrs. REED and
Co., of Gresham-street, with a transcript of
the shorthand writer's notes in a matter relating
to the Salford Petition, and we find that remarks
were made by Mr. Justice WILLES which cannot
be inserted in a report, but which indicate the
course likely to be taken. And first he makes
some observations upon the proof of agency. His
Lordship said, "Before committees unquestion-
ably a man's agent bribing, although he knew
nothing about it, voided the election. One sees
the extreme desirableness of holding to that as
matter of policy. How it may turn out when
it gets before dry lawyers to settle one does
not choose to anticipate." These remarks are
curious. Does the learned Judge mean to say
that lawyers will require some stronger argument
than expediency to induce the court to fix a
member with the penalty of the act of an agent
of which he knew nothing? We can hardly
suppose that it is intended to go as far as this,
but the remarks of the learned Judge certainly
suggest the conclusion that "dry lawyers" will
not be contented with the frequently loose
proof of agency accepted by the committees,
and even if the proof be satisfactory will take
other circumstances into consideration if the
illegal act done by an agent be shown to have
been diametrically opposed to the instructions
of the principal, and in direct violation of the
terms of the employment or agreement.

Then there is another important matter as to the computation of time, and compelling the attendance of witnesses, which our reporter may possibly deal with, but which it is advisable to notice at once. "Particulars," said his Lordship, "are to be given six days before the trial. The object of that was that there should be abundant time for the petitioner to examine his witnesses before he gave the particulars. Notice of trial, by the rules, is to be given fifteen days before. Sundays do not count, and if the notices are given before Christmas, Christmasday will not count. That would be three days out, and make eighteen days' notice. The petitioner must have nine days, certainly a full week, to subpoena his witnesses, and he does that before he gives particulars of the persons who are bribed. The rule makes full provision for the petitioner to put the screw upon his witnesses to attend before he gives the particulars to his opponent, and then it gives full opportunity to his opponent to prepare himself to meet the case as made by the witnesses. If those witnesses should be taken out of the way, as it is to be hoped they will not, then the law provides certain salutary means by which any police officer in any part of the kingdom may, by order of the Judge, take such witness under a process of contempt, and bring him to the court or lodge him in gaol."

5. When such a petition (2. e., praying a scru- These are important matters connected with tiny) contains also a prayer for a void procedure, and we may now observe that, as election, on the ground of bribery, treat-reported in the case of the Salford Petition ing, and corrupt practices by the respon- appearing in our reports to-day, it has been dent or his agents, the like particulars ordered that particulars under section 6 are to will be ordered as above described in be given three days before the day of trial; but cases where the seat is not claimed, but that within four days of the date of the order the prayer is only for a void election. the petitioners must leave with the master and 6. When the respondent intends to recrimi- give the respondents particulars in writing of nate, as he may if the seat is claimed by the nature of the corrupt or illegal practices the petitioner, he must give to the peti- charged in general terms in the petition, and tioner six clear days' notice before the that failing to do this the petitioners are to be trial of the nature of such charges (that restricted to the charges the nature of which is is to say, if he intends to bring a counter specified in the petition. It would appear that charge of bribery, treating, or other the looseness in drawing petitions which chaspecified illegality, and whether as done racterised the old procedure before committes by the candidate, or his agents, or both), has been attempted under the new practice, and and he must, also, three days before the may be continued if the petitioners are prepared trial, deliver a list of the particular cases to give proper particulars. Mr. Justice WILLES under each charge by which he proposes remarked, on the petition before him, "It is as to support it, precisely as is required to general as can be; but I find no fault with

the petition, because, although one had hoped that these petitions would have been drawn with more care, it is better to be content with them in that general form, and then let the petitioners give proper particulars." We should think that petitioners, for their own sakes, would henceforth draw their petitions so as to exclude the necessity of giving particulars, and especially to avoid the possibility of being restricted to the charges the nature of which is specified, in the event of a failure to give particulars within four days of the date of the order.

A further matter discussed on this occasion relates to the question what evidence is to be excluded by the failure to give particulars. Rule 7 says, that "no evidence shall be given against the validity of any vote, nor upon any head of objection not specified in the list, except by leave of the court or Judge, upon such terms as to amendment of the list, postponement of the inquiry, and payment of costs as may be ordered. And the 8th rule (which refers to a respondent claiming the seat for some person, while the 7th refers to the petitioner claiming the seat) has a similar provision. "At present," says Mr. Justice WILLES, "it appears to me the effect of not giving particulars ought not, looking to the 7th and 8th rules, absolutely to exclude evidence. You cannot exclude evidence called by the Judge. That being so, it was thought proper where particulars were required as a matter of course by the 7th and 8th rules that if the particulars were not given pursuant to those rules the evidence should not be absolutely excluded, but that it should not be given except by leave of the Judge. If I should think it necessary to do so, that same ground, which was very much considered indeed, seems to apply to all par

comes back whenever he likes. There is a bed
always ready for him, and he occupies one room
exclusively at night. Claimant considers Synnot
has a right to come there when he likes, and would
not exclude him, even if he sought admittance at
an unreasonable hour of the night. Claimant
looks upon Synnot as his guest, not as his lodger.
week for his board, nothing for his lodging.
Synnot pays claimant's wife about six shillings a

The barrister held that the claimant did not hold separately and as sole tenant within the meaning of the statute, and rejected the claim. Butt, Q.C., Waters, and Coppinger for the appellant.

Macdonough, Q.C., Falkiner, Q.C., Norwood, Atkinson, and J. Clarke Lane for the respondent.

Held (dissentientes O'Brien, J. and Fitzgerald, B.), teat the claimant did occupy separately and as sole tenant within the meaning of the Act, and that the decision should be reversed.

Attorney for appellant, J. MacSheehy.
Attorney for respondent, J. F. Goodman.

Saturday, Nov. 14. EDWARDS (app.); LANG (resp.). Residence-Amending qualification. Claim in respect of a shop, parlour, and drawingtion to the rooms named, also occupied, as part of It was proved that the claimaint, in addithe same lodgings, a small room or closet; that the room omitted was the one in which he slept, and which he occupied as his bedroom, and that he never slept in any of the other rooms.

The barrister held there was no evidence of claimant having resided in any of the three rooms claimed for, and that he had no power to supply the omission of this sleeping-room from the claim. Butt, Q. C., Waters, and V. Coppinger, for the Norwood, Atkinson, and J. Clarke Lane, contra. appellant; Macdonough, Q. C., Falkiner, Q. C.,

The COURT (dissentiente O'Hagan, J.) were of opinion that this closet, being proved to be part of the same lodgings, the barrister should have amended, by adding it to the qualification.

Attorney for appellant, J. M'Sheehy.
Attorney for respondent, J. F. Goodman.