Quarterly Notes.

The erroneous statement, due to a mistake of a telegraph operator, that the Basque Provinces were to be placed in a state of siege during the elections, perhaps served to draw more attention to Spain than it might otherwise have received during the Parliamentary crisis. Some of the questions treated in our able contemporary the Revista de los Tribunales, will, we think, be found to deserve study, as throwing considerable light on the progress of Spanish Thought on important Juridical and Political problems of the day. In several of its numbers, published during the last half of 1878, the Review which we cite has discussed the Reform of Legal Study, a subject fruitful of interest, and treated by the practised pen of Manuel Torres Campos: the Scientific Development of the Fundamental Conception of Law in the 19th Century, an elaborate Essay, in which the principal modern theories are passed in review, by Sr. Duran-y-Bas: besides publishing a Discourse, pronounced at the opening of the Session of the Madrid Scientific and Literary Athenæum, by Sr. Moreno Nieto, on The Modern Political Problem. It has also translated, and to that extent made its own, an Italian view of The Just Representation of all Electors, by Dr. Attilio Brunialti. Under the present circumstances of the country in which these various subjects have been given a prominent place in Legal Literature, it may not be without interest to see what is the line of Juridical and Political Reform which appears to commend itself to the mind of cultured Spain. Dr. Brunialti's Essay is specially introduced by an editorial note, as germane to the consideration of the Electoral Law actually in preparation. Although, therefore, it was written in view of the modification of the laws of a different country, its publication under its new form shows that its matter was held applicable to the case of Spain. "If it be conceded," says the writer, "that some Electoral Reform will shortly take place, of what kind will it be? Will it be limited to increasing the number of the electors, or will it go further, and attempt to secure the just representation of all electors?" This last, of course, is the goal at which both Dr. Brunialti and the Revista de los Tribunales aim.

It is interesting to observe that Dr. Brunialti claims for Electoral Law Reform that it is of no party. "Liberals and Conservatives," he says, " alike agree in this, if in nothing else." That is a remarkable fact to start with, and one which ought to secure the attainment of the desired object by the most expeditious and least dangerous road possible. That the Elective Chamber as distinguished from the Senate, the House of Commons as distinguished from the House of Lords, ought to be the true representative of the body from which it derives its being (ie., the People), is an axiom of Dr. Brunialti which no one accustomed to Constitutional Government would for a moment deny. It is on the further question, how best to make the Elective Chamber thus truly representative, that differences of view make themselves manifest. That in any deliberation the voice of the majority must prevail is self-evident. It was so in the Agora, and in the Landesgemeinde, and it must be so in all Representative Assemblies. But the minority now-a-days rarely secedes, though we have had one great recent example. Under Representative Institutions, Dr. Brunialti points out, there is necessarily a certain loss of personal power. In the Agora or the Landesgemeinde each citizen could influence the debate by his speech. But when he has entrusted his vote to a representative he has lost a proportional part of his influence. The decision belongs of right to the majority, but representation is the right of every elector. The Genevan Publicist Considérant, wrote to his countrymen in 1846 that the confusion of two entirely distinct things, the representative vote and the deliberative vote, was a fundamental error of modern times. In similar strains M. Naville wrote that the confusion of these two ideas not only created fictitious majorities, but also took away from the minority the sovereign right of decision. And Louis Blanc, in 1848, declared that the "absolute reign of the majority over the minority is not the Government of the People by itself, but simply the Government of the lesser number by the greater." It may be well to remember that Bluntschli may be cited in the same sense.

The principal Electoral systems of Europe and the United States are passed under review by Dr. Brunialti. His favourite, after weighing all the chief pros. and cons., is Hare's Quotient, with modifications. This system Brunialti regards as an ideal towards which approximation may gradually be made through the diffusion of popular education. In fact, it may be said that his scheme is Proportional Representation.

But what, we may inquire, is the precise meaning to be attached to this phrase? Does the proportion apply to numbers only, or to education, general and political, and social position? The answer seems in truth to be that each of these is to be considered to a certain extent as a factor in the perfect or ideal scheme of Representation. When first introduced into political language, or rather, perhaps, into the language of Electoral Reform, the word "proportional" appeared, says Brunialti, to be accurate to say proportional representation was, at any rate, an advance on the expression "representation of minorities" previously employed, because, as Hare observes, "the question is not one of majorities and minorities, but of an Electoral body with all its shades of opinion, which, when they reach a certain development, have a right to representation." Nevertheless, Brunialti admits that objections may be brought against the use of this expression, which it is contended ought not to be used in its formal sense, but rather as Mill and others would use it, in its relation to the imposts which the elector pays, and to his intellectual capacity and social position. This may seem something of a change of front; but it is perhaps one not unknown in other branches of "practical politics." The expression which Brunialti himself favours, and thinks best adapted to set forth the true bearing of the reform he desires, is "the just representation of all electors." What this name fails in as a reform cry seems to be its length. "Proportional representation" is a phrase that may easily be in ore omnium. Dr. Brunialti's amendment is one rather for the student of (shall we say?) theoretical politics. The quotient system has been tried we learn, in several societies and clubs in Italy, and been found to work well. On the other hand, the existing system is, in Dr. Brunialti's eyes, condemned by the logic of facts, such for instance as he finds ready to hand in the figures of recent elections in Great Britain, and the United States, as well as in Italy and Germany. Then, taking his figures as they would work on the Hare system, Brunialti shows us what would be the results in a given borough in Italy, choosing Vicenza as his example with a body of 9,540 electors, seven deputies to elect, and three parties dividing the votes. If 4,320 are recorded for the A. side, 3,750 for B., 1,470 for C., the total number of electors divided by that of the deputies gives a quotient of 1,363, which goes 3 times in 4,320 (A.), twice in 3,750 (B.), once in 1,470 (C.). Hence the result is arrived at that the A. party has a right to three deputies, the B. party to two, and C. to one. It

would seem as though this amount of representation ought to satisfy everybody, though it may be observed that one deputy (probably a neutral) is not reckoned. For this apparent omission we are not accountable.

Turning now to the question what chance this "ideal system. has of being carried out in practice, Dr. Brunialti seems to us to rely greatly on the fact that compromise enters largely, and that of necessity, into our administrative systems. The many objections which can be brought forward, the many difficulties which can be raised, are not passed over. But the advocate of Hare's system thinks, with Stuart Mill, that it deserves as much consideration in the region of politics as railways and telegraphs among material reforms. Calhoun said that Parliamentary government was a government of compromise. It is argued, we presume, by the advocates of proportional representation that when they are strong enough they will find. their opponents ready to give in. Whether this will first be the case in Italy or in Spain, we do not presume to forecast. But that the day will come when the "just representation" which he supports shall be adopted, Dr. Brunialti is firmly convinced. It will be with representation, he believes, as with Mont Blanc. A few years ago how few were the climbers! Yet now whole bands of friends are constantly making the ascent. "Excelsior" thus seems to be the cry of the advocates of this Electoral Reform which is to make us all satisfied with ourselves and with others.

The subject of Copyright has been lately brought before the Law Amendment Society, through a paper by Mr. J. Leybourn Goddard, who enjoyed the special advantage of having been Secretary of the Royal Commission. In the course of his Paper Mr. Goddard showed by some amusing instances what a dense ignorance prevailed in many minds as to the nature of Copyright, requests having been freely made to the Secretary that he would "take out Copyright" for certain persons, as though he were a Registrar of Patents for Inventions. Mr. Goddard manifested the bent of his own views as being strongly on the side of Sir Louis Mallet, who appended a separate Report of his own, advocating the Royalty system. This plan is also supported by Mr. Macfie, of Dreghorn, in the first volume of a book on "Copyright and Patents for Inventions" (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark. London: Hamilton & Adams), in which he

has reprinted an Essay on Literary Property, by Lord Dreghorn of the Court of Session, first published in 1772, founded on notes of the pleadings of the learned Judge as Counsel in an Edinburgh "cause célèbre," turning on the interpretation of the 8th of Anne. The Royalty system does not want for ability in its advocates, but it does not appear to have the command of anything more than a respectable minority in this country. Sir Travers Twiss, who presided over the Law Amendment Society's meeting, gave a lucid résumé of modern Continental Legislation on the subject, including in his survey some Legislations which had escaped the attention of the reader of the Paper. Sir Travers's own view appeared to be rather in favour of a definite period, irrespective of the author's life, and for which he suggested that sixty years would be a suitable limit. We still think, however, that the conditions of existing European Legislation being, as we have already shown in these pages, based on the author's life, render that the only practicable basis for International Conventions. In the discussion, which was very well sustained, several interesting facts were brought out. M. Clunet, editor of the "Journal de Droit International Privé,” gave a most graphic sketch of the position taken up by French Artists at the Art Copyright Congress in Paris last year, and stated that there were good grounds for believing the present Belgian Government to be favourable to the idea of an International Copyright. He also confirmed the fact that the Spanish Bill (printed by us, Law Magazine and Review, No. CCXXIX., August, 1878) had passed into law, and that therefore the duration of Copyright in Spain has been extended from fifty to eighty years. Mr. Carmichael showed, by reference to the action of recent Congresses on Literary and Artistic Property, and the Bills laid before several Continental Parliaments, that the tendency of modern Legislation was to increase the duration of Copyright, and expressed the view that the term proposed by the British Royal Commission would not be found adequate to meet this tendency. Dr. Tomkins gave some of his experiences of one of the earliest meetings in favour of International Copyright, held in the United States, and believed that the feeling there was now much stronger in favour of coming to an agreement. The discussion mainly took an International view of the question, which is the view most requiring immediate attention, but also the one which the reader of the Paper, in his reply, said that he had especially endeavoured to avoid. But some subjects refuse to be thrust aside.