PUBLIC A.D. 1934. Insufficient space in reign of James I. Elizabeth.-Ten Parliaments; of about a year and a half each on an average; the longest continuing seven years, ten months, and ten days; the shortest, one month and twenty-five days. James I.-Four Parliaments; one extending over seven years, ten months, and twenty-one days; another, about two months; another, a year; and the fourth, two years. Charles I.—Five Parliaments; the Long Parliament of twelve years, five months, and seventeen days; the others of very short existence. Charles II.-Four Parliaments; one of the duration of sixteen years, eight months, and sixteen days; the others very short, one lasting only seven days. James II.-Two Parliaments; one of two years, four months, and sixteen days; the other, one month and four days. William III.-Five Parliaments; the longest lasted six years, six months, and twenty-two days; the others about two years each. Anne. Five Parliaments; none lasting five years. The Septennial Act was passed 1716, and repealed the Triennial Act, which had been passed in 1641. Complaint of the frequency of the assembling was made in Richard II.'s time; and, 'in a Parliament,' says Stowe, 'at London was granted to the King, a tenth of the Ecclesiastical Persons and a fifteenth of the secular, upon condition that no other Parliament should be holden from the Calends of March till Michaelmas.' A year's duration for a parliament was considered as a remarkable event in 1606. The first of March, a Parliament beganne which lasted nigh one whole yeere, for after the Knights of the Parliament had long delayed to grant the King a subsidie, yet in the ende being overcome they granted the tax demanded.'-Stowe. In the reign of James I. a protest against the insufficient accommodation of the present House of Commons was urged, and a representation to the following effect appears on the Lords Journals. 'Whereas the Members of the Commons House of Parliament by reason of more Charters granted by his Majesty as also by their attendance in greater multitudes than heretofore hath been usual, do want convenient room to sit in the place accustomed to their meeting and many are thereby forced to stand in the entrance and midst of the house contrary to order: it is required on the behalf PUBLIC RECORDS. A.D. 1834. Selections. precedents of the said House that the Officers of his Majesty's works do immediately give order for the erecting and fitting such and so many rooms and seats as the House may sit and attend the service with more ease and conveniency, and this shall be your warrant.' Why then are fragments only of constitutional precedent Ancient adopted? Professing all the time the most superstitious and im- quoted. moderate reverence for ancestorial wisdom, on what principle is that wisdom sliced and hewn, and made to tell exactly where it is in opposition to the existing interest of the public and nowhere else? Why are not Parliaments ambulatory, and thereby in accordance with strict constitutional propriety? Why does not the King feed his Parliament? Why does not Mr. Hume demand his expenses, as by the present state of Parliamentary Law he is entitled to them? Why are not Parliaments monthly, according to ancient precedent? Why, but because it is not found convenient in modern times? Is it then found convenient, to have an inconvenient house? Why is this to be the excepted case, in which a demand for convenience which is at least as old as James the First, is to be voted nugatory and contrary to good taste? There is a taste concerned, but of a more substantial kind. There is some jobbery to be carried on by the powers of darkness; some way or other in which the existence of a premium against the attendance of Members of the House of Commons, is to work into the hands of the enemies of the people. A ministry does not cultivate stench from pure antiquarian propensities; there is something vastly more home-spun at the bottom if it is looked for. The perpetual presence of the people's watchmen is a nuisance and a bore; and as any given quantity of noxious gas may be more easily breathed by relays of men than by the same small number of individuals, there is a regular system for driving out the people's agents by making the house too hot to hold them. PUBLIC A.D. 1837. Mode of Its defects. REFORM IN PRINTING EVIDENCE TAKEN COMMITTEES. A Pamphlet privately printed anonymously, and circulated to TH HE present practice of taking evidence by Committees of the House of Commons is this: The evidence of a witness is obtained by a vivâ voce examination, notes of which are made by a short-hand writer; except in the case of Election Committees, a transcript of these notes is sent to the witness usually on the day following his examination, to enable him to correct any accidental inaccuracies, &c. The transcript having undergone the witness' alterations, is received by the Committee-clerk, and by him forwarded to the printer. Members of Committees and others who have been present at these examinations must have observed certain inconveniences attending this practice. One consequence always liable to ensue, and which sometimes does ensue, from placing the evidence in the power of the witness before it is printed, is, that evidence given at a viva voce examination before the Committee, undergoes such subsequent alterations from the witness, that it assumes when printed an entirely different character, though published as, and ostensibly professing to be, the evidence verbally delivered to the Committee. Another consequence is, that the printing of the evidence and its distribution to the Members of the Committee is delayed, frequently to the serious detriment of the inquiry. There is little or no check on the extent or character of the alterations which a witness may choose to make. The discrepancies created between the real and substituted evidence can be detected only by those present at the examinations, by the Members of the Committee who attend, the Committee-clerks, or any others whom the indulgence of the Committee admits into the committee-room. PUBLIC A.D. 1837. Selections. The Members of a Committee hearing evidence have few motives to peruse carefully and critically the evidence when printed, more particularly whilst it is fresh in their recollection, and is presumed Part II. to be the same as that delivered verbally before them. The Member who draws up the report reads the evidence a long time after he heard it, and wonders at the different effect it assumes in print. He scruples to charge a witness with garbling his evidence; indeed he may not call to mind that a witness has had the opportunity of garbling it. The Committee-clerk is not always present, and as it is not his duty, so he has no motive to notice or complain of the extent of alterations made by a witness. Strangers who are present may have very reasonable suspicions of the character of a witness, but their ears, eyes and mouths are presumed to be shut to all the proceedings passing in a committee-room. The evils of positive falsification of evidence are too palpable to need exposition. But there are lesser evils which attend any alterations made in evidence taken vivâ voce. Some matters are insusceptible of thorough investigation except by means of a vivâ voce examination. Inquiries into a witness' conduct, his character, state of intelli- Witnesses' gence, competency, and into particular matters of fact, can only be effected by personal examination and verbal reply. The essential worth of such evidence consists in the mode in which it is given. Allow a witness the unbounded and uncontrolled licence of making changes, which the present system allows,1 and there is no fact ever so clearly stated at the time of examination that cannot afterwards be mystified; no conduct undefended before the Committee which cannot be glossed over and palliated; no ignorance so gross that it cannot be made to assume the semblance of profound wisdom; and no stuttering hesitation that may not be metamorphosed into flippant readiness of speech. Besides, the effect of such changes is not confined to the answers of the witness, but reacts on the questions. The altered answer makes the witness appear very acute and wise, and his examiner very obtuse and foolish. A witness on one occasion, besides changing almost every answer of 1 On some occasions Committees have been alive to the necessity of preserving evidence as verbally given. The Committee on General Darling did not permit even any revision. In such a case, as well as in inquiries conduct. PUBLIC A.D. 1837. Illustrations of defects. one day's examination, garnished the substituted evidence with such occasional repartees to the Chairman as the following: "You are assuming and stating matters of which you have not an atom of proof;" "That question differs not from the one you have just put, except that it is more verbose;" "This is mere banter;" "That would be rather an Irish mode of proceeding;" "You are manifestly only diverting yourself," &c. A story is current that a Committee desired to investigate the competency of an architect of some celebrity. A vivâ voce examination proved that his pretensions were hollow; but when his evidence appeared in print it was found to corroborate and sustain his reputation. The fact was, the architect's business and reputation were managed by skilful subordinates. The vivâ voce examination was the evidence of the architect himself, exactly that which the Committee desired to possess; the printed evidence being furnished by his assistants, was the very thing which the Committee did not want. Similar conduct of other witnesses might also be instanced, but a most complete illustration of the inconveniences of the present system may be seen in the examples which follow these observations. The permission of the Chairman of the Committee on the Record Commission having been obtained, these examples are selected from the fasciculi of evidence taken before the Committee, which were circulated more widely than is usual,-to each Record Commissioner, as well as to the Members of the Committee. The discovery occurred by accident, but in time to prevent the final printing off of the greater part, though not the whole, of the altered evidence. The altered evidence of four days' examination was cancelled, and the evidence as actually spoken ordered to be printed verbatim. An explanation moreover is requisite to reconcile some apparent contradictions in the evidence as now published. A Commissioner appeals to the evidence, and states facts which are not borne out by the evidence in its present state, but which are nevertheless perfectly consistent with truth. Mr. Cooper, the Secretary of the Record Commission, is the witness whose evidence affords the present illustrations: He was asked (Ev. 2389), "Will you furnish the Committee with the sum expended in books from March 1831 to March 1833?" He answered thus before the Committee and the Bishop of Llandaff, who was also present, |