disqualification. The committee unseated Mr. Swann for the bribery; but they refused to give the seat to Mr. Anderdon, the petitioning candidate. In the Inverkeithing case, 1819 (a), similar arguments were used, but though the committee unseated Mr. Campbell for bribery, they refused to give the vacant seat to Mr. Primrose, who had given notice of the bribery at the time of the election. In the year 1848, the same point was considered upon two occasions, and the committees came to opposite conclusions. Though the matter in point of law was then the same as in the cases already cited, it arose in a different way. The demand of the seat in the two cases referred to, viz., the 2nd Horsham, and the 2nd Cheltenham, was made upon a petition against an election following upon one previously declared void, and the matter in issue was the conduct of the candidate at the first election. So far as the eligibility of a person, who had been a candidate at both elections was concerned, they were to all intents and purposes one election; and the question, whether notice given at the second election, of bribery said to have been committed at the first, entitled the unsuccessful candidate to the seat, was precisely the same as if the whole had taken place at one election. In the second Cheltenham case, 1848 (b), the facts were as follow:-The Hon. C. F. B., who had been unsuccessful at the general election in July 1847, petitioned against the return of Sir W. J., but as the claim of the seat which had been made in the petition (a) Corb. & Dan. 182. was not persevered in, no recriminatory evidence was given against the petitioner, and no resolution was come to with regard to him. The election was declared void, and a new writ issued. The Hon. C. F. B. and Mr. A. G. were then the candidates at the election, which took place in June 1848. Very general notice was given to the electors by the friends of Mr. A. G., that the Hon. C. F. B. had committed acts of treating at the general election in 1847, and that he was thereby ineligible. The Hon. C. F. B. was returned, and was petitioned against on account of the treating alleged to have taken place at the election in 1847; and the seat was claimed for Mr. A. G. on account of the notice which had been given of the ineligibility of the sitting member. The committee resolved, "that the Hon. C. F. B., being a candidate at the election for the said borough held on the 30th of July, 1847, was, through his agents, guilty of treating at such election, and that the Hon. C. F. B., in consequence thereof, was, at the last election, held on the 29th of June, 1848, incapable of being elected, or sitting in Parliament, for the said borough." The seat was then claimed for Mr. A. G. It was admitted on behalf of the sitting member, that the notice of the ineligibility had been served upon a sufficient number of electors, supposing the sitting member to have been disqualified at the time of the election. An objection was then taken to the form of the notice, because it did not state the specific acts of bribery and treating alleged against Mr. B.; but the principal points relied upon were, that the facts could not be said to be notorious, that they had not been ascertained by any competent tribunal, and that the charge itself had been contradicted when made at the election. The committee refused to give the vacant seat to Mr. A. G. (a). In the 2nd Horsham, 1848, the facts were similar to those in the Cheltenham case, and were proved in the same way. The committee resolved, "that Mr. F., being a candidate at the election for the borough of Horsham, held on the 29th of July, 1847, was by himself and his agents guilty of treating at such election; and that Mr. F., in consequence thereof, was, at the last election in June, 1848, incapable of being elected, or sitting in Parliament for the said borough. The seat was then claimed for Lord E. H., who had been the unsuccessful candidate at the last election in June, 1848. The notice which had been given to the electors was the same in substance as the one used at the Cheltenham election; the arguments used were the same, but the committee came to a different conclusion, and gave the seat to the petitioner (b). It is clearly impossible to reconcile these two decisions. They were decided within a week the one of the other, by tribunals of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The 2nd Clitheroe case, 1853, was precisely similar (a) The decision was not unanimous; on the question whether Mr. A. G. was duly elected, the committee divided. Ayes, 2: Capt. Harris, Sir W. Clay. Noes, 3: Mr. Roundel Palmer, Mr. Ogle, Mr. Thicknesse. (b) Here the committee divided. Ayes, 3: Dr. Bowring, Mr. Bunbury, Mr. Monsell. Noes, 2: Hon. H. Corry, Mr. Branston. In this case the committee proceeded to strike off the votes of those who voted after receiving notice, as in a case of scrutiny. It is not necessary in such cases as these to deliver lists of the voters to be struck off. Tavistock, 1853, infra, “Scrutiny." in its general facts to the Horsham and Cheltenham cases of 1848. The member returned at the general election was unseated for bribery and treating. A fresh writ issued; Mr. Aspinall, the unsuccessful candidate at the time of the general election, was returned, but was petitioned against by Mr. Fort, the other candidate at the second election. The peti tion set forth, that Mr. Aspinall was ineligible by reason of corrupt practices at the election in 1852 (@); that notice of such ineligibility had been given by the 6 (a) The allegation in the petition was, "That it was proved before the said select committee, and the fact was, and became open and notorious to all parties, that at the said election in July, 1852, the said J. Aspinall had been guilty of corrupt practices." An objection was taken by the counsel for the sitting member to any evidence of treating being given on this allegation. The committee resolved, "That under the general allegation contained in the petition of corrupt practices at the election of 1852, whereby the said J. A. was incapacitated and ineligible from sitting or being chosen to sit in this present Parliament for the said borough of Clitheroe,' it is competent to the petitioner to give evidence of bribery or corrupt treating under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, at or previous to the election of 1852; but, inasmuch as the allegation of the petition, as regards that election, is confined to a charge of corrupt practices against Mr. A., without such specific mention of his agents as is contained in the subsequent allegation, with reference to the election of 1853, the committee are of opinion, that evidence of bribery and corrupt treating cannot be admitted under the terms of the petition, as regards the election of 1852, unless it shall be proved that such bribery or corrupt treating were committed by Mr. A. himself, or by an agent with his consent or knowledge." The committee probably excluded treating within the statute of Wm. 3, because the word "corrupt" is not used therein. All such distinctions are done away with by the new act. The allegations in the petition were very informally stated; and it may be questioned whether any evidence of treating should have been given under them. petitioner, and that he ought to have been returned. The committee reported, "that Mr. Aspinall was not duly elected; that he, being a candidate at the election for the said borough held in July, 1852, was guilty of treating at such election." A claim of the seat was then made on the part of the petitioner, but the committee, after argument, refused to give the seat to him, and declared the election void. They made a special report to the House on the state of the law on this subject. "That from the proceedings before the committee, they think it right to draw the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to the effect of notice to the electors of disqualification, in the case of a candidate, who is returned by a majority of votes. By the common law, the principle seems to be firmly established, that where a candidate is in point of fact disqualified at the time of an election, all votes given for him with knowledge of the fact upon which such disqualification is founded must be considered as thrown away. This knowledge may be established either by distinct notice or by notoriety; and it will in all cases be inferred, that where the voter is aware of the facts, he is aware of the legal deduction from those facts, however intricate and doubtful they may be. It is obvious that on these principles it may be contended, that in all cases, without exception, where notice of disqualification is served on a sufficient number of voters by the majority, and where the fact of such disqualification existing at the time of the election is subsequentiy established, the candidate who was in a minority on the poll is entitled to the seat; and some cases before election committees appear to have been decided on principles which lead |