« 이전계속 »
EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL Esqks.
BARRISTERS AT LAW.
PRINTED FOR J. & W. T. CLARKE, LAW BOOKSELLERS,
FROM the nature and constitution of the Tribunal before which cases of controverted Elections are tried, the proceedings necessarily run to considerable length, not only in the arguments which arise on points of Law or Practice, but also in the statement and proof of Facts upon which it is equally the duty of a Committee to decide. This mixture of matter renders the task of the Reporter more difficult than it would be if he had simply to report the proceedings of a trial at Nisi Prius, or an argument in Bank, in/which the subject of discussion is generally reduced to a few distinct points. Those Gentlemen who have reported the earlier Election Cases have given a very detailed account of the proceedings of the Committees before which they were heard; and the Profession are much indebted to them for the accuracy with which they have reported not only the points of Parliamentary Law which were then decided, but also the more minute Rules of Practice which Committees have laid down for their future guidance. With these
rules it was important the public should be made acquainted, and that could only be done in an intelligible manner, by giving an accurate history from day to day of the proceedings. Mr. Serjeant Blosset, who commenced his Reports at a later period, and when the course of proceedings before Committees was better understood, and the more prominent points of Parliamentary Law had become defined and familiar, adopted a more compendious method of reporting. It has been the wish of the Editors to keep, as much as possible, this valuable model in view, but at the same time, where practicable, to render their Reports more concise. They have therefore not reported any case, or parts of cases, where matters of fact and not of law were in issue; and in such as they have reported, they have endeavoured to state the points raised, the evidence given, and the argument of counsel, as shortly as could be done consistently with perspicuity.
The decisions of the Committee on the Bossiney Election having been overruled by subsequent determinations, the Editors have thought it best to omit that case: they have also to regret that, having been themselves prevented from attending the proceedings in the case of Tamworth, it has not been in their power to procure such a note of what took place, as they could with propriety submit to the public.