Page images
PDF
EPUB

lution of the committee, " that they would not hear evidence of bribery, affirmed the principle that the proceedings of one election cannot be inquired into at another ; but it would appear that the committee considered that charges of treating, falling within the act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, might be inquired into at any time during the continuance of the Parliament, if an occasion for presenting a petition with regard to the place should occur. In answer to that it is submitted, that when once the time for petitioning against an election has elapsed, if no petition has been presented, the matters of that election, so far as the validity of the return is considered, are at rest for ever;

and when a petition has been presented and withdrawn, it is the same as if no petition had ever been presented. The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22, ought to have been read in connection with the established rules of the common law, and the statute for the trial of petitions. And when the act said, that a candidate who treated was ineligible for the rest of the Parliament, there can be no doubt that the Legislature meant to say, that a candidate “proved to be guilty," or as in the new act, “ declared to be guilty,” should thereupon be incapacitated for the remainder of the Parliament. The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 36, will probably remove any doubts on this subject for the future. The question, however, might still be raised again.

This question with regard to the times at which

[ocr errors]

66

applied only to cases where the member purchased the borough, and not to cases of bribery of voters. It was never contended that the incapacity under the 49 Geo. 3, c. 118, existed before the facts had been adjudicated upon by a committee.

it is competent for an election committee to inquire into corrupt practices, suggests another matter of considerable public importance, and that is, how far the House of Commons has power to order the issue of a writ for a new election, while a petition not claiming the seat, but alleging corrupt practices, is pending against the former one. The connection of this with the other matters here considered will be apparent from what took place in the Southampton case, 1853.

In the month of December, 1852, Sir A. Cockburn, who had been returned as one of the members for the borough of Southampton in July in that year, was appointed to the office of Attorney General. He thereupon, by force of the provisions of 6 Anne, c. 7, s. 26, immediately vacated his seat; but was capable of re-election so soon as a new writ should issue. A petition, however, had been presented against his return and that of the other member, which alleged bribery and treating against the sitting members and their agents, but did not claim the seats for the unsuccessful candidates. On the 29th December a new writ for Southampton was moved for in the room of Sir A. C., who had, since his return, accepted the office aforesaid. The opinion of the Speaker was then requested, whether a new writ could issue under these circumstances. The Speaker is reported to have said (a), “ that in the case of an election petition complaining of an undue return, or of the return of a member in consequence of bribery, but not claiming the seat for another person, it was competent for the House to issue a new writ; but in the case of a peti

[ocr errors]

(a) 123 Hansard, 1742.

man

tion complaining of the undue return of a member, and claiming the seat for another person, it was not competent for the House to issue a new writ pending the petition, inasmuch as the House in that case could not know which of the two members had been duly elected."

An honorable member (a) then observed, " that as the petition merely prayed that the election should be declared void, it did not appear to him that any injury could be done to the petitioners by the issuing of a new writ, because the opposing candidate had only to serve a notice that the honorable and learned gentle

was disqualified for sitting in that House in consequence of having been guilty of bribery, and then if he should afterwards be found guilty of this charge by the committee who had been appointed to try the petition, he would consequently be disqualified, and the person opposing him would be declared the sitting member.” It was also stated by the honorable member (6) who moved that the writ should issue, " that he had been requested by Sir A. C. to say, that he would not have consented to vacate his seat, if he had not felt certain that the persons who had made the charge-which he believed was perfectly unfounded — were competent to renew the charge in the event of his being re-elected.”

The writ for a fresh election accordingly issued. The election took place in January, 1853. Sir A. Cockburn and Mr. B. Cochrane were the candidates. In accordance with the opinion expressed in the

(a) Mr. Fitzstephen French.
(0) Mr. Hayter.

All the

House of Commons, that there might be a retroactive species of disqualification, notice was given to the electors of the alleged bribery and treating at the former election in July, 1852. Sir A. C. was again returned, and a petition was presented against this return, setting forth charges of bribery and treating at the former election ; the fact that a petition was then pending against the first election, and had been so pending at the time of the last election; that notice had been given to the electors of these facts, and that the learned Attorney General was ineligible, and the petitioner ought to have been returned. allegations of corrupt practices in this petition referred to the election in July.

When the first petition came on to be tried in the month of February, 1853, Sir A. Cockburn appeared before the committee, and stated (a) “That the petition before the committee affected the return of July, 1852, the period of the general election, but that such was not the return under and by virtue of which he was returned for the borough, inasmuch as having, since that return, accepted the office of her Majesty's Attorney General, he had been brought within the provisions of the 6 Anne, c. 7, s. 26; that he had in consequence vacated his seat, and was now Parliament under and by virtue of a return to a new writ issued under the same section of the said act ; that at the time of his acceptance of the office this petition was pending; but that, as the seat had not been claimed in the petition, á new writ had been issued at once, on the ground that the said 26th

sitting in

(a) 2 P. R. & D. 47.

section operated without any restraint or qualification, as though the member were dead; that when the writ issued, it was open to the petitioners against the first return to take advantage of any matter of exception to that return upon the new election ; that such exception had been taken in this case, and a petition had been presented against the last return of January, 1853, but that such petition had not been referred to this committee: that the anomaly of the case was this; that whatever might be the decision of this committee, yet that such decision, whether declaring him duly elected or the contrary, would not affect his seat, as he must continue to sit until after the trial of the other petition. That he therefore appeared under protest before the committee (with the same counsel as agents as appeared for the other sitting member), so that he might not be affected by either having withdrawn himself, or not having appeared before the committee.” The chairman then intimated, that the committee were of opinion, that the petition having been referred to them by the House, they must proceed in the usual way, in the absence of any specific application being made to them. The case accordingly went on, and the sitting members were declared duly elected. There can be no question that the argument of the learned Attorney General was quite correct, that if the committee on the first petition had found him guilty by himself or his agents of bribery or treating, it could not have in ány degree affected the validity of the return on the second election. Such a decision in the month of February, 1853, could not have had a retrospective effect so as to have rendered him ineligible at an elec

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »