those of the notaries, bought and sold, subject to the approval of the authorities.

On winding up the estate of a client dying possessed of landed property, and leaving infant heirs, the family notary is obliged to employ an avoué to obtain a decree of sale from the tribunal, which then takes the entire direction of the proceedings, lots the property, fixes the upset price, the day of the sale, etc., etc., receives the purchase-money, or directs how it is to be disposed of. The sale takes place before the tribunal by auction, or à la bougie, as it is called, nobody but the avoués being allowed to bid. Those gentlemen are remunerated by a commission payable by the client or clients who employ them.

The following graphic description of the proceedings at a sale before the tribunal is from the pen of a French advocate:

"The registrar reads a very short summary of the conditions of sale, limited to the description of the property and the naming of the upset price, and announces the amount of the costs incurred up to the sale. He then lights a taper, and declares the auction opened. A judge of the tribunal presides at the operation. A hundred francs!' 'A hundred and ten,' cries an avoué; a hundred and twenty,' a hundred and thirty,' 'two hundred!' 'Two hundred francs,' repeats the registrar in a rasping voice; 'no one speaks; the second taper is going out; I light the third!' The deepest silence reigns; you might hear a fly. The third taper flickers-is just going out-when another avoué rouses himself. Two hundred and five francs,' 'two hundred and ten,' 'two hundred and twenty,' two hundred and fifty!' And the biddings, which seemed over, are renewed with more spirit than ever. At last the three tapers have been lighted one after the other and burnt out, the property is knocked down to the avoué who bid last, and who must within three days declare the real purchaser and produce his acceptance of the bargain.

"Any one may make a higher bid through an avoué within eight days from the auction, provided the advance be at least one-sixth. In that event a new auction takes place in the same form as the first. "At the opening of the auction, the registrar, as I have said, announces the amount of the taxed costs incurred up to the sale; but the simple purchaser who thought he had only that amount to pay would be rather surprised when Rabelais' quarter of an hour came, the bill of costs being generally doubled by the subsequent expenses, for notification of the sale, clearing the title from the judgment, etc., etc., etc."

If there is no bid before all three tapers, which are not unlike long wax matches, are burnt out, the sale is postponed to another day, when a lower upset price is declared, and the same process is gone through; and so on ad infinitum, until the upset price is low enough to attract a bid a few francs above it.

A purchaser at a sale before the tribunal is placed at a great dis

advantage. He must employ an avoué to bid for him, and the same avoué often acts for two or three intending buyers; if he is declared the purchaser he has to pay, in addition to the sum his avoué has bid for him, all the costs of the suit and legal proceedings both before and after the sale, the total amount of which is only ascertained some time afterwards; and lastly, he is liable to be outbid during eight days, and if he has set his heart upon the property, to have to pay (and especially if he is an Englishman) an enhanced price for it, and all the additional costs attending the new sale. I say especially if he is an Englishman, because the French provincials usually attribute to our countrymen the possession of much more money than brains; riche et bête, comme un Anglais, being an expression often used by the untravelled Frenchman.

I am informed that a purchaser at a sale before the tribunal must count on having at least thirty per cent. for costs, and sometimes considerably more, added to the price at which the property is knocked down to him. An eminent notary tells me that, on small transactions, the law costs payable by the purchaser at one of these sales often run up to three and four times the amount of the purchase-money. The same gentleman has given me the following statement of the results of some recent small sales before the tribunal which have come under his own notice:—

So it is evident that the tribunal which is supposed to protect the interest of infants practically does them great injury, as their property would sell for much more if the purchaser was not obliged to take into account the heavy costs he will have to pay in addition to his bill. In fact, the substance of the infant is often wantonly sacrificed in order to pay the lawyers' costs. Everybody complains of this crying abuse, but it seems the avoués play into each others' hands, and are so banded together to preserve their profitable monopoly that no French statesman has yet had the courage to insist on a reform. If the monopoly were abolished, the callings of notary and avoué amalgamated, the profession thrown open to all persons of proved good character able to pass a severe examination as to their legal qualifications, and an equitable table of fees framed by competent authority, the most prominent evils of the present system would doubtless disappear, and buyers and sellers would soon learn to look on sales before the tribunal with less repugnance and dread than they do now.

On sales by private contract the purchaser will usually find his

notary's bill, including stamp duty, amount to about ten per cent. on the purchase-money. My own small purchases have amounted to 74,230 francs paid to the vendors, and my notary's costs for the transfer of the property amount to 7,466 francs.

Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal Elections.-The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the working of the existing machinery of Parliamentary and Municipal Elections has at last been issued. It contains many recommendations as to prospective legislation and as to governmental action, some of which are tolerably sensible and some of which are intolerably absurd. By far the most important point which the Committee had to consider, was the marking of the ballot papers, and what kind of a mark it is that vitiates a vote. Immediately on the passing of the Act, before any actual dispute had arisen, there were different opinions entertained on this subject; and the matter has become of great moment, because of the difference of opinion between the Court of Common Pleas in England and the Second Division of the Court of Session in Scotland.

It certainly does not look well that an Act which applies both to Scotland and England should receive one interpretation in the one country and another in the other country; so that of two candidates grinding at the mill, one in Dumfries and the other in Carlisle, who have been returned in precisely the same circumstances, the one would be taken and the other would be left. This Select Committee warmly approves of the view taken by the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Woodward v. Sarsons. The Committee strongly recommend that a short bill should be passed immediately, declaring the law to be in accordance with the judgment in Woodward v. Sarsons, and giving effect to the opinion above expressed by the Committee. The Committee further suggest that the Home Office should forward to every returning officer the case and judgment in Woodward v. Sarsons.

Now, as to this recommendation, it is clear that it is unseemly in itself and unjust to candidates, that the same Act should receive a different interpretation in the two countries. It is also clear to our mind that the view of the English Court as to the directory character of the directions for marking votes is the right one. And it is further clear that a short bill introduced and passed last year, and even at the beginning of this session, would have been of great benefit to the public. But we are not so clear that there is an immediate necessity for such a bill now. It is not required for England, because it would only declare that to be law which the English Court has already declared to be law. It would have been useful in Scotland if it had been passed before the School Board elections, which are now nearly over. At present the same question which arose in the Wigtown case and in WoodVOL. XX. NO. CCXXXIII.—MAY 1876.

T

ward v. Sarsons, as to the marking of votes, is pending in the Court of Session in the Musselburgh municipal election case, where, if the Common Pleas view prevails, the pursuer has a majority of one; and if the Second Division view prevails, the defender has a majority of one. This case is to be tried before seven judges this month. If this tribunal should hold that the majority of the judges in the Second Division gave a wrong judgment, and should take the same view as the judges in the Common Pleas, what use is there for a Bill declaring that to be law which the Courts in England and Scotland have declared to be law already? Of course, if the Second Division view of the Act is supported by the seven judges, that is a different matter. But we shall know this before any Act can be carried. We do object strongly to the multiplication of Acts of Parliament; and as regards the proposed amending Act, we are willing to give odds that it will be a case of floundering out of one quagmire into another.

Then as to the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Home Office should forward to each returning officer a copy of the case and judgment in Woodward v. Sarsons, this it appears to us is either a job for the benefit of a printer, or a piece of heedless impertinence. For our own part we differ entirely from the views of the majority of the judges in the Wigtown case, and, as our readers know, we have never had any doubt about the matter. But still the judgment is the judgment of the supreme judges in the kingdom of Scotland. It would be a strong thing, and we venture to say it would be a wrong thing, for a returning officer in Scotland to go against that. It would also be a strong thing, and we venture to add, it would be a wrong thing, for the Home Office to suggest to returning officers that they should ignore the judgment of the Supreme Court. There are three functions in the constitution of every government-legislative, judicial, administrative. The suggestion of the Committee is that those who have the control of the administrative function should reprimand those who exercise the judicial function in order to repair the blunders of those who manage the legislative department.

Of course these remarks do not apply to the case of returning officers in England. But returning officers in England or elsewhere ought to know the existing law themselves, or ought to know where to get information on the subject, without the assistance of the Home Office. If the Home Office once begin to issue reports of decisions, it is difficult to see where the thing is to stop.

The Committee further recommend that the special provisions for the assistance of illiterate voters should be repealed. Surely here, once more, the Committee are travelling beyond the record. As we understand there was no authority given to them to consider the propriety of altering or limiting the franchise, and the franchise

1 The Report is inaccurate in stating that four Scotch judges were present. Lord Moncreiff took no part in the case; of the three remaining judges, Lord Benholme dissented.

would obviously be greatly restricted if no special provisions were made for the case of those who cannot read. The sole duty entrusted to the Committee was "to inquire into the existing machinery of parliamentary and municipal elections, with power to suggest amendments in the same." People who could not read or write were entitled to vote before the Ballot Act was passed, and we do not see why the new system of voting should be worked so as to deprive them of their vote. The Act is not a disenfranchising one; it is a mechanical means intended for the purpose of giving greater protection to persons already in possession of the franchise. There may be persons whose want of education prevents them from obtaining the complete protection afforded by the Act; this is their misfortune, that is all. Secrecy in voting may be important, but the right of voting is more important. We are against disenfranchising illiterates, and we are against doing so by a side wind.

It has been stated by some of the witnesses examined before the Committee that most of the illiterates would be able to find the candidates' names without assistance from the presiding officer. In fact they might be "coached" by the agents or friends of the candidates, might be told to put the cross opposite, say, the fourth name on the ballot paper. But in the first place, this "coaching" is a haphazard system of voting, and leads to great risk of error. Consider the case, for instance, of a School Board election, where there are twenty candidates, and each elector has fifteen votes, which he may pile up or distribute as he likes. In the second place, it involves as great a violation of secrecy of voting as the existing plan. In the third place, we think that the duty of securing a full and free expression of the opinion of a constituency is an official duty, and that we ought not to rely upon irresponsible onlookers or partizans for its performance.

Another recommendation is that in any amending Act it should be declared that the marked copy of the register and the counterfoils should be put up in separate packets. There is certainly a little confusion between Rule 29, which relates to making up the packets, and Rules 41 and 42, which relate to the right of inspection; but it appears to us there is nothing in Rule 29 compelling one to make up the two things in the same packet, and so take away the right of inspection. In Scotland we have had no doubt about the matter, and in England the view of the existing law taken by the Committee was rejected, Stow v. Jolliffe, 43 Law Journal Reports (C.P.) 173. Even if the view they have taken were correct, a presiding officer would do no harm by making up the counterfoils and the register separately. It could not be said that this non-compliance with the rule was against the principles of the Act, or that it affected the result of the election.

The Committee recommend the issue of a circular from the Home Office directing returning officers as to their duties. Well and good, that is to say if the circular itself is well and good, and not like the last one of the same kind, in which even the time