Dogberry. Flat burglary, as ever was committed. The process of coining treasons by the Commons of Charles II. was strikingly exhibited in the Impeachments of Lord Clarendon, Lord Danby, and Chief Justice Scroggs. It was advocated even after the Revolution. Sir J. Hawles, SolicitorGeneral of William III., in his remarks on Fitzharris's trial, whose offence he properly considered not to have been High Treason, but who had been impeached for that crime, observes, that, "in all times Parliaments have practised, and, it is necessarily incident to all supreme Powers, in all Governments, to enact or declare extravagant crimes to be greater than by the established law they are declared to be." It is conceived that this doctrine is not maintainable upon any sound principle. It was eloquently protested against by Lord Strafford1; and the spirit of the Constitution may be thought to have been correctly expounded by Lord Chatham, in replying to a speech of Lord Mansfield, "We all know what the Constitution is; we all know that the first principle of it is, that the Subject shall not be governed by the arbitrium of any one man, or body of men, less than the Legislature, but by certain laws to which he has virtually given his consent, which are open to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand." (3) Miscellaneous Matters, relating to Parliament. Various matters of constitutional importance relating to Parliament in the reign of Charles II. deserve attention, which are not adverted to by Blackstone or Fox, though they materially affect the question of the vigour of the Constitution at that era. The miscellaneous matters concerning Parliament, which will 1 The contemporary historian May says of Strafford's person and eloquence and the effect of the latter on the ladies, Non formosus erat, sed erat facundus Ulysses, be here adverted to, are (a) The Constitution of Parliament; (b) The Wages of Members; (c) The Speaker; (d) Supply; (e) Publication of Votes and Debates; (f) Privilege; (g) Order of Business. (a) The Constitution of Parliament. Whoever is of opinion that the Constitution of the country was improved, at least in some important particulars, by the Parliamentary Reform Bill of William IV., will, probably, have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the Constitution of Parliament in the reign of Charles II. was imperfect. It may be noticed, that Evelyn mentions-among the "desiderata which, in his time, were "plainly wanting to the consummate felicity of the nation, and of absolute necessity to its recovery from the atrophy and consumption it laboured under the disproportion of the boroughs capable of electing members, by which the major part of the whole kingdom are frequently outvoted, be the cause never so unjust, if it concern a party interest1." Charles II. was the last Sovereign who exercised the prerogative of creating an elective franchise, which he did in one case, that of the borough of Newark, in the 29th year of his reign. It was resolved by the House of Commons, in 1677, that by virtue of the Charter of Charles II. the town of Newark had a right to send burgesses to serve in Parliament. Afterwards, it would appear, that the King deemed it safer policy to corrupt instead of swamping his Commons. When it is considered that in addition to the wholesale borough-making of Henry VIII., Mary added twenty-one, Elizabeth sixty, James I. twenty-seven 1 Evelyn states a grievance which has not been remedied by the Reform Bill: "Will ever those swarms of locusts, lawyers and attornies, who fill so many seats, vote for a public Register, by which men may be secured of their titles and possessions, and an infinity of suits and frauds prevented?" A Register has not yet been obtained, but it has been advocated by distinguished lawyers (not locusts) in both Houses. new members, it may be reckoned an improvement in the Constitution, that this branch of the royal prerogative became, in the reigns after that of Charles II., obsolete, and has since been expressly, to use Blackstone's expression, "lopped off." It is a provision in the Bill of Rights, that "Elections for Members of Parliament ought to be free." The Constitution had not adequately provided for this desideratum in the reign of Charles II. With regard to elections for Boroughs,—by the arbitrary powers of the Commissioners under the Corporation Act, and the sacramental test, and oath of non-resistance which that Act imposed, the Court acquired, for a considerable time, an undue influence in elections for Parliament. In some of the vacancies, towards the close of the Long Parliament, and in the three short Parliaments which succeeded it, the Corporations, especially that of London, had, in spite of political and religious trammels, returned Members to swell the ranks of the Country Party. Upon the dissolution of Charles's last Parliament, the Court, in order to recover its influence over elections, as well as over jury-panels, instituted, under pretext of law, those lawless proceedings which resulted in the seizure of the Charters of the Corporations. The result, as regards Parliamentary elections, was perceived in the first Parliament subsequently summoned, that of James II., when, among a multitude of instances of Court influence, we are informed by Evelyn, that "many mean and slight persons, gentlemen's servants, clerks, and persons neither of reputation nor interest, who had been recommended by the Court were set up, and many of them returned, by means of new Charters changing the electors." He says, it was reported that "Lord Bath carried with him into Cornwall no fewer than fifteen Charters, so that some called him the Prince Elector." With regard to County elections,—the King, through the imperfection of the law in the reign of Charles II., frequently exercised an undue influence by means of Sheriffs of his own appointment. Sir Samuel Barnardiston, of the Country Party, who was foreman of the Grand Jury in the case of the famous Ignoramus of Lord Shaftesbury's indictment, had been returned Member for the County of Suffolk, in the year 1674, by a majority of seventy-eight voices; nevertheless the Sheriff made a double return of Sir Samuel Barnardiston, and his opponent Lord Huntingtour. Sir Samuel Barnardiston brought an action against the Sheriff for making a knowingly false and malicious return, and recovered before Sir M. Hale £1000 damages. The case was removed, by writ of error, to the Exchequer Chamber, and was there decided contrary to the opinion of Sir M. Hale; some of the Counsel who had been engaged against Sir S. Barnardiston in the proceedings below, having been made Judges for the purpose of sitting in error upon them. The judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was confirmed in the House of Lords in the reign of Charles II., and again, subsequently to the Revolution, after an interval of fifteen years. On the latter occasion, five Peers entered the following Protest: 1. "Because it is a denying Sir Samuel Barnardiston the benefit of law, which gives relief in all wrong and injury; and, though this be an action of the first impression, yet there being a damage to the plaintiff, the Common Law gives him this action to repair himself; and, if it were not so, there would be a failure of justice, which cannot be admitted. 2. “Because the allowing this reversal tends towards giving the power and encouragement to Sheriffs to make false and double returns, by which means the right of elections will be avoided; and it tends thereby to the packing of a House of Commons, which may overturn the whole frame of the government, and establish what religion and government may be thought fit by a packed Parliament." A Statute was passed in the reign of William III. to prevent false and double returns of Members to serve in Parliament, whereby the right of action in the party aggrieved was established; which was intended to remedy a defect in the Constitution that had been made apparent by the unsuccessful proceedings on behalf of Sir Samuel Barnardiston. Wilful delays, neglects, or refusals to return any person who ought to be returned, are provided against by a Statute of Victoria; and it is enacted in the Reform Act, that any Returning Officer shall forfeit £500 to the party aggrieved for contravening any of the provisions of that besom of corrupt usages. On the bribery and treating of Voters for Members of Parliament, Evelyn observes, "Witness the confused, debauched, and riotous manner of electing members qualified to become the representatives of a nation, with legislative power to dispose of the fate of kingdoms, which should or would be composed of worthy persons of known integrity and ability in their respective counties, but who are not able to fling away a son's or daughter's portion to bribe the votes of a multitude, more resembling a pagan bacchanalia, than an assembly of Christians or sober men, upon the most solemn occasion that can concern a people; or stand in competition with some rich scrivener, brewer, banker, or one in some gainful office, whose face or name, perhaps, they never saw or knew before." The influence of demagogues over the swinish multitude does not appear to have been an evil of Evelyn's day. There was a standing order of the House of Commons made in 1677 against treating beyond the amount of £10, except in a person's own dwelling-house; in 1669 a Bill had been read for this purpose only a first time. By an Act of Victoria against bribery, treating, and undue influence, the Constitution has been rendered, in this respect, more perfect in theory; but what impregnable bulwark shall, in practice, guard the political Danae from a shower of gold? It will scarcely be questioned that the constitution of Parliament has been improved since the reign of Charles II., with regard to the tribunal for deciding Election Petitions. Long before the Reform Act, there would appear to have been a general conviction that election petitions were more fairly decided by select |