defend his seat as he was a partner in a Government contract; the committee said, they would not feel justified to allow this to pass, as a matter of fact, without investigation; evidence was then given on the subject of the contract. In this case the seat was not claimed; the election, therefore, was void.

Report of Committee.] The final determination of the committee is reported by the chairman to the House. It has also been the practice in modern cases to report specially on the number of persons bribed, and the amounts given; also any other circumstances that they think ought to be notified to the House. 103 Journal, 1848, Reports of that session; also cases in Bar. & Aust. and Bar. & Arn. Reports (a).

Sometimes the committee find it necessary to make a special report to the House during the progress of the proceedings, when they are unable to procure the attendance of witnesses, and when witnesses have misbehaved in giving evidence.

Commissions to Ireland.] Commissions to Ireland to examine witnesses under the 42 Geo. 3, c. 116, have never been frequent. Of late they have been seldom applied for. It was stated by Mr. Harrison in the Dublin case, F. & F. 110, that from the date of the act until the year 1835, a period of thirty-two years, only four commissions had been granted; that in 1833, there were fourteen Irish petitions, and eleven in 1831, but that no commission was issued in either of those years. In the session of 1835, two commissions were granted in the Dublin and Westmeath cases, F. & F.

(a) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 87. See 2nd Peterborough, 2 P. R. & D. 291.

Considering the facility and expedition with which witnesses can now be brought from the most distant parts of Ireland to London, it may well be doubted whether any applications will be made in future for commissions, and whether they would be granted if they were made.

It is quite discretionary with the committee whether they will grant or withhold the commission.

The cases on this subject are Waterford, 1 Peck. 218; Drogheda, C. & D. 111; Cork, K. & O. 288; Dublin, F. & F. 110; Westmeath, F. & F. 615.

CHAPTER VIII.

PETITIONS ON THE GROUND OF IRREGULARITY AT

THE ELECTION.

1. Want of title in the Returning Officer. 2. Irregularities at the Nomination.

3. Denial of Poll, when demanded.

4. Improper appointment of Poll Clerks and Deputies.

5. Impediments in taking the Poll.

6. Insufficient Notice of holding the Election. 7. Poll not kept open according to law.

8. Illegal adjournment of Poll.

9. Punishment of misconduct in Returning Officer.

PETITIONS are sometimes presented complaining of some irregularity in the manner of holding the election: it is therefore important to consider what effect any irregularity, or departure from statutory direc tions as to forms, may have upon the validity of the election (a).

1. Want of title in the Returning Officer.] This want of title has in many cases been held to be no

(a) The greater part of the contents of this Chapter have been already alluded to incidentally in the 2nd Chapter, under the head of Proceedings at the Election.

ground for impeaching the validity of an election or return. A great number of cases on this point are to be found in the Journals.

Winchelsea, 24th May, 1624. A return by a mayor, who was an intruder into the office, was reported to be good. Clithero, 2nd Feb. 1693. Where the returning officer was not of age, the sitting member was, nevertheless, declared to be duly elected. In another case, where the petition alleged that there was a radical defect in the election of the mayor who had acted as returning officer, and returned the member, the committee held the election valid, and declared the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. 2 Fraz. 356. In a case where the lawful returning officer refused to take the poll properly, and the poll was then taken by others, and the return made by them, the election was held good. Cricklade, April, 1689. See 1 Doug. 419. In a work of great authority on the subject of Elections, it is said, "Elections made under an usurping presiding officer, where there has been the form of an election, have been uniformly supported." Heywood Boroughs, 61. See also 1 Roe on Elections, 443, and R. v. Davie, 2 Doug. K. B. 568.

In a recent case, Wakefield, Bar. & Aust. 295, this matter was much considered, and very fully argued. In that case Mr. H. had been returned for the borough of W.; the committee decided that he was at the time of the election the returning officer de jure, and therefore ineligible. The petitioners then proceeded to claim the seat for the other candidate at the election, on the ground of the disqualification of Mr. H., when it was objected that the election must he considered as altogether void, because Mr. B., who had acted as

returning officer, and who had made the return, could have had no authority; and it was urged that by the statute 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 25, "the precept is to be delivered to the proper officer of every such borough &c. to whom the execution of such precept doth belong or appertain, and to no other person whatsoever;" and also, that the legally constituted returning officer alone could administer the bribery oath required by 2 Geo. 2, c. 24, and the oath under the 81st section of 6 Vict. c. 18. The committee declined to declare the election void on the ground stated by the counsel for the sitting member; and they decided that the petitioner was duly elected.

2. Irregularity at Nomination.] A popular impression exists, that the returning officer ought, when there are more candidates than are required to supply the vacancies, to take a show of hands, and that the omis sion to do so is an irregularity.

The modern practice is, no doubt, in the first place to take a show of hands, but formerly there were several rude modes of expressing the opinion of the electors, which constituted an election by the view; either holding up of hands, calling out the names of the candidates, or by dividing into separate bodies. 1 Whitl. 393. In Com. Dig. Parliament, (c. 11), “It may be judged who are elected by hearing of the voices, or view of the hands held up." When however, a poll was demanded, these forms were unnecessary.

In Faulkner v. Elger, 4 B. & C. 455, Bayley, J. says, "The common law mode of election is by show of hands, or by poll, and the party electing is then said to have a voice in the election.