1837. fore the House on distinct interests, or complaining, or com

plained of upon distinct grounds, whose right to be elected or returned may be affected by the determination of any such Select Committee, each of the said parties shall successively strike off a member from the thirty-three members chosen by lot, until the same number be reduced to eleven;" and he contended that it was the duty of the House to determine, from the nature of the case, and that the House ought to inquire into the allegations of the petition. He then proceeded to examine the allegations against the sheriff contained in the petition.

1st. Improper conduct of the sheriff in selecting as his assessor a member of the General Association, without giving Mr. Bunbury an opportunity of objecting.

2nd. That the sheriff and assessor neglected to remove a deputy who had been guilty of partiality.

3rd. That the sheriff improperly refused to place on the poll, persons who were duly qualified to vote.

4th. That the sheriff placed on the poll persons who were not qualified, and who did not produce certificates of registration, or affidavits of registry, although the names of such particular persons had, by course of law, been struck off, by virtue of the warrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

5th. That such persons were placed on the poll by virtue of the registry prior to the warrant of the Speaker, and the report of the Committee, which registry the said report declared to be null and void.

6th. That notwithstanding the report and order and erasure of names, and notwithstanding certified copies thereof were duly served on the sheriff and assessor, prior to admitting such voters, the sheriff persisted in placing them on the poll.

7th. That the sheriff placed on the poll electors who had not been registered six months prior to the teste of the writ.

8th. That the sheriff, contrary to the Statute, permitted 1837. several barristers to attend and act at the same time, such barristers being members of the general association.

9th. That the sheriff and assessor, after the final termination of the poll, struck off a good vote in favour of Mr. Bunbury.

10th. That the sheriff permitted several persons to poll who were not only not registered, but who had not taken the oaths, and whose affidavits were not lodged with the clerk of the peace.

He also referred to that part of the prayer of the petition which was applicable to the sheriff. He then contended that the high sheriff was substantially and gravely interested in the determination of the petition before the House, and entitled, within the fair construction of the Act of Parliament, to be allowed to strike the list as a party.

Mr. Thesiger stated, that he was taken by surprise, not having received any intimation of the course intended to be pursued. He contended that sect. 36 did not apply to the case before the House; that it was the invariable course in petitions of that nature, to insert charges against the returning officer, if the conduct of the returning officer had been improper; and that the case before the House, was not either within the letter or spirit of the Act.

Mr. Austin followed on the same side, and said, that if he had contemplated the course which had been taken by his learned friend, he would have been prepared at the bar with authorities against the extraordinary claim which his learned friend had been instructed to make.

Under the circumstances, he could only refer to the names of cases, observing at the same time, that the great object which was contemplated by the Acts of Parliament. regulating the trial of controverted elections, was to provide a fair and impartial tribunal, which clearly could not be had on this occasion, if the sheriff of Carlow, whose politics

1837.

were alleged to be the same as those of the sitting member, should be held to he entitled to a strike, which would in reality give the sitting member two strikes instead of one. That there was a recent authority on this case, which was strongly in point, and in his mind perfectly conclusive; viz. the Ipswich case, which had heen discussed in the Common Pleas before Tindal, C. J., viz. Ranson and others v. Dundas and another. In that case (1) it was contended, that the certificate of the Speaker, touching costs, was invalid, inasmuch as the returning officer who had been complained against was entitled to notice, and to a strike, for the reasons alleged by his learned friend. After a very full hearing, it was held by the Court of Common Pleas, that a party precisely in the situation of the sheriff of Carlow was not entitled, under any of the Acts of Parliament relating to this subject, to interfere in striking the Committee.

He also further stated, that in the Colchester and other cases, examined in Mr. Serjeant Peckwell's Preface to his Reports, (2) the subject had been discussed and decided against the right to strike under similar circumstances. He then went on to state, that under the authority of the Grenville Acts, Committees of the House of Commons were empowered, not only to report on the merits of the election, but also on any other proceedings touching the conduct of the election; under which last authority it was, that they were in the habit of considering and reporting upon the conduct of returning officers, and any other persons misconducting themselves in election proceedings. He confidently relied, that the House would not come to any hasty determination, in favor of allowing the sheriff to take any part in striking the list, but, if they entertained any doubt upon the point, would order counsel to be further instructed.

(1) 3 Bing. N. C. 123.

(2) 1 Peckw. Introd. 48.

Mr. Maule shortly replied. He stated that his learned 1837. friend had no right to complain of being taken by surprise, as he was evidently well prepared, and that the application was most reasonable and just. That it was evident, from the Act before them, which he had already quoted, that in certain cases, a returning officer was entitled to the protection given by the strike, and if ever such protection ought to be given, it was in a case where the petition contained such grave charges against the sheriff; concluding with a prayer, that such steps may be taken, aud directions given, as will effectually prevent and restrain the present high sheriff, or any future high sheriff, from permitting to vote, or place on the poll at any future election, persons who have been struck off the registry; and also that such proceedings may be taken, or orders given, as will in future prevent and restrain the sheriffs of the said county from making undue returns of members to serve in the House for the said county."

After the counsel had closed the argument, of which the above is a brief abstract, the House divided, affirming by a majority, that they had a right in certain cases to grant the privilege claimed by the sheriff of Carlow; but on further discussion, and a second division, they decided that this was not a case in which they would grant the sheriff's application.

CASE II.

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.

The Committee was appointed upon the 25th of March, 1835, and consisted of the following Members:

John Maxwell, Esq. (Chairman) Lanarkshire.

Mr. Harrison, K.C.; Mr. Thesiger, K. C.; Mr. Wrangham; & Sir W.B. Riddell.
Agents-Mr. Baker, London; Mr. M'Guire, Dublin.

Sitting Members-Daniel O'Connell, Esq. & Edward Southwell Ruthven, Esq.
Counsel for the Sitting Members—

Mr. Joy, K. C.; Mr. D. Pollock, K. C.; Mr. Bligh; Mr. Austin; & Mr. Hutton.
Agents-Sir R. Sidney, London; Mr. John J. Murphy, Dublin.

The House will postpone the

FOUR petitions were presented to the House of Commons against the return made for the county of ballot when the city of Dublin. They were signed by the same

a notice has

been given parties, and contained similar allegations. The first by the agents of the was presented upon the 25th of February, the second

(1) Vacated his seat upon the 20th of April, 1835, by the acceptance of the office of Surveyor General of the Ordnance.

(2) Excused attendance on the 30th March, 1835, upon account of illness.