which he might be arrested or compelled to put in special bail, i.e., real and substantial bail.

Naturally his power of paying a debt was increased by being put behind the bars. All the learning-or most of iton this subject to be found in Petersdorff and Tidd (Uriah Heep's favourite author), is now fortunately effete.

That the members of the Upper Canada House had the same privilege from arrest as a member of the Imperial House of Commons is certain-and that not only during the sittings of the House, but for forty days before and forty days after: Reg. v. Gamble and Boulton (1832), 9 U. C. R. 546, and several other cases down to Cox v. Prior (1899), 18 P. R. 492. Accordingly the sheriff had reason to consider himself lucky in escaping the fate of others who had been guilty of somewhat similar acts.

Upon the first day of the first Parliament of James I. in 1603, a complaint was made that Sir Thomas Shirley, who had been elected a member of the House of Commons, was arrested four days before the sitting of the Parliament and imprisoned in the fleet. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued and he was discharged. Precedents were looked unto and the plaintiff at whose suit and the sergeant by whom the arrest was made were sent to the Tower. The Warden of the Fleet, who had persisted in refusing to obey the writ of Habeas Corpus and deliver up his prisoner, was ordered to be committed "to the place called the Dungeon or Little-Ease in the Tower." Afterwards" delivering his prisoner" and "upon his knees confessing his error and presumption and professing he was unfeignedly sorry, the Speaker pronounced his pardon and discharge, paying ordinary fees to the clerk and the sergeant." And in February, 1606, an attorney who had procured the arrest of Mr. James, a member of the House of Commons, and the officer who had arrested him, were "for their contempt committed to the custody of the sergeant for a month, which judgment was pronounced against them kneeling at the bar, by Mr. Speaker."

It is to be hoped that Sheriff Sheehan was duly grateful for the clemency shewn him.

On Monday, 8th July, the House waited upon the Lieutenant-Governor with their address to His Majesty, expressing their horror and abhorrence of "the sacrilegious murder in France," and hoping that a conduct so baneful to every precept of Religion and Law may serve to rivet the loyalty and

attachment of our fellow-subjects, as it has ours, to the best of Kings and of constitutions the most excellent." Louis XVI. had been executed the January before. This was "the sacrilegious number," sacrilegious because Louis was King by Divine Right-and notwithstanding that his right to the Crown was statutory, the doctrine of Divine Right was dear to George III. It was, of course, George III. who was the best of Kings, and the constitution as it then existed unre

6

'Wraxall tells us that it was King George's opposition to the claims of his American subjects that was the cause of his unpopularity with the English people; and it is, beyond doubt, true that as soon as peace was declared in 1783, granting independence to the North American Colonies, he recovered all his lost favour with his people. There never was a King more generally loved than he, except during the years of the Revolutionary War.

Everybody

formed the most excellent of constitutions. knows that it was the perfection of reason acquired by long study, observation and experience, and refined by learned and patriotic men in all ages-as Simcoe put it in his speech from the throne," equally abhorrent of absolute monarchy, absolute aristocracy or tyrannical democracy."

It may not be without interest to see who attended the meetings of the Houses of Parliament.

During the Session of 1792, the following Legislative Councillors are noted in the proceedings as being present at some time: William Osgoode, James Baby, Robert Hamilton, Richard Cartwright, Jr., John Munro, Alexander Grant and Peter Russell. In 1793 all these were also in attendance, and in addition, Richard Duncan attended, having been sworn June 17th, 1793. He had been appointed in the previous August, and hailed from Rapid Plat.

As is the case with the Legislative Council, I do not know of any record kept of the attendance of members of the Assembly; but from the proceedings it is clear that of the sixteen members elected for the assembly in the first Parliament at least thirteen were in attendance at some time during the first session. The names of all but Joshua Booth and Parshall Terry appear as taking some part-Philip Dorland, of course, could not act.

In the second session I find the names of thirteen recorded as taking some part in the proceedings, Major Van Alstine among them. Those whose names do not appear are Hugh Macdonell, Parshall Terry and Nathaniel Pettit.

This was a very fair attendance, but it does not seem that all attended every day, as Sept. 18, 1792, a resolution was

passed that nine members should make a House; and this number was reduced on Oct. 10, to eight.

There had always been a difficulty in England of securing attendance of members of the House of Commons; and one statute, 6 Henry VIII., ch. 16, was passed punishing the absence of a member by deprivation of pay. No other punishment has ever been enacted in England.

In Ireland they were cursed with absentee members. In one instance it is said a member was an absentee for twenty years but no means were taken to compel attendance.

In Scotland absentees were liable to a fine. It is said: "By ancient law absentees were liable to be unlawed and amerced in fines"; the fines were substantial, and “without prejudice of what further censure Parliament shall think fit to inflict."

In the Upper Canada Parliament there does not appear to have been any necessity for such measures.

(EDITORIAL.)

THE PANAMA CANAL.

The international status of the Panama Canal continues to be a prolific source of discussion by magazine writers, and the different issues involved have been taken up on both sides of the Atlantic from the standpoint of international law. The documents which ought to be considered in order to obtain a thorough understanding of this question are:

1. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of April 19th, 1850; 2. The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of Nov. 18th, 1911, and 3. The Bunan-Barilla Treaty of Nov. 18th, 1903. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was intended to control the neutrality of any canal between the Atlantic and Pacific.

The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty directly referred to the present Panama Canal, now being completed, the object in view of the high contracting parties being to follow, as nearly as possible, the lines laid down by the convention of Constantinople, October 29th, 1888, which were then agreed upon by the signatories as the regulations governing the

Suez Canal.

The Bunan-Barilla Treaty provided for the acquisition, by the United States, of a strip of land 10 miles in width, through which the Panama Canal is cut.

The basic principles underlying the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty are as follows: the two contracting parties bound themselves not to obtain any exclusive control of such ship canal, and not to acquire, either directly or indirectly, the commerce or navigation through such canal which should not be open on the same terms to the subjects and citizens of other countries, and to protect contractors in the making of such canal on fair and equitable lines, to withdraw protection if unfair discrimination were made in favour of the commerce of one of the contracting parties over the commerce of the other. Article 8 of the Act bearing on this matter is here quoted in full.

"Article VIII.-The Government of Great Britain and the United States, having not only desired in entering into this convention to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection by treaty stipulations to any other practicable communications whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America; and especially to the inter-oceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of

.. Panama. In granting, however, their joint protection to any such canals or railways as are by this Article specified, it is always understood by Great Britain and the United States that the parties constructing or owning the

same shall impose

no other charges or conditions of traffic

thereupon than the aforesaid governments shall approve of as just and equitable; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the subjects and citizens of Great Britain and the United States on equal terms, shall also be open on the like terms to the subjects and citizens of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as Great Britain and the United States engage to afford."

of contemplating the construction of the canal by private The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, on the other hand, instead enterprise, deals specifically with its construction and financing by the United States, and the removal of any objection which might have arisen under the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty being one of the contracting parties. The guiding principle to the construction of the canal by the United States, as was, however, neutralization of the canal when completed.

Article 3 provides that the United States should adopt the rules embodied in the convention of Constantinople for the free navigation of the Suez Canal: (1) The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise-such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable. (2) The United States is to be at liberty to maintain military police for the protection of the canal. (3) Provisions are added regarding the vessels of war of a belligerent. (4) No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, (5) Waters adjacent or within three military miles of the canal shall be regarded as within its ambit. (6) The plant, and so forth, part of the canal shall enjoy immunity. Article 4. No change of territorial sovereignty or of international relations of the country or countries traversed by the canal shall affect the general principle of neutralisation.

Apparently the reason of the United States in granting immunity from tolls to the coasting vessels of its own nationality, was, in some measure, to obtain a return for the enormous sum of £80,000,000 which it is assumed that the canal will cost. In order to support this view, much ingenuity has been exercised by apologists for the action of the United States in endeavouring to evade the issue as to whether or not such action was discrimination, and a violation of the basic principle of the Clayton-Bulwer and Hay-Pauncefote Treaties. From the speech by President Taft, published in this issue, a thorough comprehension of the views held by him is to be obtained, and there is no doubt that both the President and his advisers, and the people of the United States, appreciate that the action of the United States, with reference to coastwise shipping, was a mistake. This is borne out by the speech of Mr. Root, in the Senate at Washington, with reference to the matter, which justifies the confidence the Government of Great Britain had in the good faith of the United States, and its reverence for the sacredness of treaty obligations.