The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-26 00:00:00

JOAN BROGDRN.

ORI MN AL GOLD CHAIN MANUFACTORY,
a, lIIIINIUSTTA4T/JZT COVENT•O4III.DIN

JOHN BROGDEN'S GOLD OHLINS.

JOHN BROOD/CH% GOLD GL AHD CHAINS.

JOHN BROOMS'S GOLD ALBERT CHAINS.

JOHN BROGDENS GOLD BROOCH 0 HAMS.

LONDON must have • SUPPER and MUSIC
ZOOK for Gentlemen. -Remember, we wait for you at
"SPAM.* alter the Covent-gotta= Pantomime, sad the
Theatres.

Vitt otirorttiO.

urMA&LIr

TIEN r 111111216, A ROIL6ITIC ArfACHIIINT. Noma W.
Amp and Campton : Ma Ads Cavendlak—BlLOTßAß BAY.
Nam& *Ahern and sacksioas : Ida Noah Nowa —1(1413178
IN Tin SAYILLRICIT.—And A K 133 IN THY DAIL

rznicsiors.

ma inartige, "Mob IT DI
Print TOO LATh TO =ND. Mesas. V O. Msivals.
I. Mead, D. Murray, b. Wham, 1. Vithank J. G. for., G. X.
ray, aid M. °Woad ; Maim I. Moors sad I. lodpra

LYCZUIf.

Tao ram', THE iiiiiiiiious ersANoze. Kr. H.
Widdkounb.—rag Manila OF B.AVANBWOOO. Mown.
Firobter. Sord u 2, Vezln. Inset', Widdlcomb. Filsosidak. Imo
aisedames Ternan.lOnrorthy, Lamm O. Lading.

BLITANWI A.

Tan THE CASUAL WARD.—Wra. Howard Pawl.
—lllr. J. King, brave Cozwala ad Ike Loatim—Joiany Day,
akia champion Walker. —The Grand Pale TOltlite. Kn. B. Lae.
K. and madame Ettataanbaolt—And Ohm; Ong of Gymnast&

HIGH WATER AT LONDOIF-FRIDGE.
MI DAY Koran& 114 14m..... Mimosas. Ob. Os.
To4loo4oW—. Morning. Ob. Ths.....Misrooss, O. 67..

LONDON. MONDAY. FEBRUARY 26.

lie nothing has the House of Commons departr I
further from ancient tradition than in the light in
which it regards an election petition. At the be-
ginning of the 17th century, complainants alleging
that their representative bad been irregularly re-
turned to parliament were not permitted to re-
tract such assertions at their own free will; their
petition could not be withdrawn without the con-
sent of the judges to whom it had been presented.
This was the ruling of the General Committee of
elections in 1623: they held that the House of Com-
mons had a duty to perform in such a case ; that the
whole kingdom, which it represented, was interested
in every election ; and that no " underhand com-
bination " should frustrate investigation into
those returns that had been challenged ;n
due form. The House of Commons of the present
day is hardly, in the matter of contested elections,
"so exact to preserve the public ;nterests, as
curious also and inventive for the private :" it no
longer maintains the right which the whole commu-
nity has in each particular return. The result
is, that constituents are free to assert corruption
against their representatives, and to withdraw those
assertion's even with greater impunity than the
legislature intends that they should enjoy.
It may be difficult to apply the maxims of 1623
to existing conditions of parliamentary life : but
certain evils attend this wide divergence from prin-
ciples laid down by Glanville, Coke, and Belden.
A contested election has become a trick in the game.
of politics : a set-off by one aide of the House
against the like move by the other : and a Conser-
vative member finds his seat disputed because a
Liberal return has been challenged by the agent
for the party to which he belongs. Petitions
are also presented with an even baser object ;
solely to dip into the pocket of the sitting member,
to make him pay away money with yet more pro-
fusion in the committee-room than In the borough.
So powerful are the agents, the withdrawal of
petitions is so entirely a matter of party compro-
mise, that even when members snowed '1 getting
rid of a threatened contest they but rarely recover
from their opponents the expenses thus occasioned.
The law, indeed, provides that a petition shall
only be withdrawn on payment of these costs to
the sitting member ; but in practice, as happened
to Mr. Wynne in 1859, be may be subjected to the
annoyance for several weeks of an impending but
frivolous petition, and be compelled to pay for
this annoyance into the bargain.

Motives such as these prevail so largely, that a
classification of the petitions presented after a
general election would afford but a doubtful teat of
the general prevalence of electoral corruption, or
of the relative degrees in which it may have been
resorted to by the opposing parties in the house.
Supposing, however, that the laws which govern
the initiation and withdrawal of these proceedings
are operating now as heretofore, a °entreat of the
number of petitions recently presented against the
number laid upon the table of the house after the
two last general elections will show, to some extent,
Low many returns may ultimately be contested,
and how many members it is probable will be
unseated. Forty-eight returns are this year
challenged, involving the seats of seventy-one
members. So far the opening of the present
parliament closely parallels the commencement of
its two predecessors, in 1857 and 1859. Petitions
were presented in those years against 49 and 41
elections ; and the seats of 72 and 61 members were
thus questioned. Of these bat gin 1857 and 11 in
1859 were declared void by the committees ; and of
these threatened contests but 25 and 22 arrived at
the maturity of a trial. If, then, parliamentary
agents and committees act according to the manner
in wbich they conducted themselves in those two
sessions, it may be expected that about 25 retnt.ms
will be contested, and that perhaps a dozen seats
will be taken from their present occupants•
And it may be also anticipated that these
investigations will not be terminated before
the approach of the Whitsuntide recess. After
the general election in 1852 petitioning reached
an altitude since unknown. To quote Mr.
Milan's explanation of this phenomenon, "the
agents presented petitions like a pack of cards; s
fast as one side dealt one petition, the other dealt
another, and so it went on ;" and the result was that
158 seats were contested, 46 committees were called
into action, and 36 representatives were unseated.
The petition presented against Mr. Chichester Foe-
tescee's return has evoked comments naturally sug-
gested by what appears to be a factious proceed-
ing, and it is certainly to be regretted that
in all probability June will have been entered upon
before the Secretary for Ireland is seen is parlia-
ment. A recent article in a contemporary journal
correctly explains the reason why Mr. Fortesone is
denied the power of presenting himself at once to
his constituents for re-election ; it is not because

~.1411411 J •