tion really contained no valid objection. At the time that the petition was presented it was not requisite that the member should have a qualification. He might have had it when he was elected, and when he took his seat, and have parted with it before the date of the petition.

With reference to the course of proceeding on petitions alleging want of qualification, it is for the petitioner to make out the absence of the qualification, and not for the sitting member to prove that he has one. Tavistock, 2 P. R. & D. 10 (a). The whole of the allegations with regard to want of qualification must be gone into at once. A committee will not decide separately on the sufficiency of statement, and suffici ency of the qualification itself. Lincoln, P. & K. 378. Dublin, 1 P. R. & D. 204. The order in which allegations with regard to want of qualification are taken, when there are charges of a different character in the petition, will be considered hereafter (b).

It only remains further to be observed that, when the want of qualification on the part of a candidate is known at the time of the election, the opposing party should take care to give timely notice of the ineligibility arising therefrom, in order that votes afterwards given for such candidate may be considered as thrown away (c). And the notice should be so framed as to inform the electors distinctly of the objection afterwards intended to be relied upon. For instance, if it be that the member has not at the time of his election

(a) Coventry, P. & K. 349. Dover, ib. 417. (b) Chapter on "Practice."

(c) Ante, p.

224.

the requisite qualification, it should be so expressed (a) ; or, if it be that he has refused to make a declaration when duly requested, or has neglected to do so for twenty-four hours, the notice should point out the specific objection; so again, if the objection be to the sufficiency of the statement in the declaration when made, that should be so stated. The giving of the seat to a candidate who is supported by only a small portion of the constituency, is so serious an interference with the principles of representation that committees ought to require the strictest proof before they hold that the votes of electors have been thrown away. The rule however is now well established that, when due notice has been given of an existing disqualification, the votes of all those who poll for the ineligible candidate are thrown away (b). When this notice has been given generally to all the electors before they come to the poll, either by means of placards, or handbills distributed to them, it is not necessary to prove notice to individual voters, Tavistock, 2 P. R. & D. 5. If the notice of ineligibility were not given generally, but only to a few electors and after a large portion of the constituency had polled, then the petitioners should be in a condition to prove express notice to these ticular voters, and the claim of the seat before the committee would have to be conducted like one of scrutiny, and it would be advisable to deliver lists of

(a) 2nd Drogheda, K. & O. 213.

par

(b) R. v. Hawkins, 10 East, 211. Claridge v. Evelyn, 5 B. & A. 81. Leominster, C. & D. 1. Fife, 1 Lud. 455. Flintshire, 1 Peck. 526. Cork, K. & O. 391. Belfast, F. & F. 601. 2nd Drogheda, K. & O. 213. Wakefield, B. & Aust. 270. Tavistock, 2 P. R. & D. 5.

N

the voters proposed to be struck off as in a case of scrutiny, 2nd Horsham (a). When however the disqualification is notorious, this is not necessary, for general notoriety stands in the place of express notice.

It will be no answer to a candidate claiming the seat to say, that the member returned asserted positively to the electors when his qualification was questioned that he was duly qualified, Belfast (b). In this case the sitting member had taken the oath of qualification at the election. See also Tavistock, 2 P. R. & D. 5.

When the demand of the qualification is made after the election and refused, as the electors could have no knowledge of such refusal when they voted, the election will be merely void, Weymouth, 1730, 1 Lud. 450. So also if the demand of the qualification were made during the day of polling, as the candidate has twentyfour hours within which to make it after the request to him, no votes given for him in the mean time would be thrown away on the ground that he had neglected to comply with the statute.

It has been already pointed out that by the 8th section of the modern statute, if a member sits or votes before he has complied with the provisions of the act "his election shall be void and a new writ shall issue." It might happen that no opportunity would be given to question the validity of the election by an election petition, on the ground that the member at the time he took his seat gave in an untrue, or insufficient statement of his qualification. For instance, if a member were not to take the oaths and his seat until after the

(a) 1 P. R. & D. 240.

(b) F. & F. 601.

time for questioning his election by petition had elapsed, no election petition could be presented against him on the ground that he did not possess the qualification which he gave in to the Clerk of the House. The House itself would not now have the power of instituting such an inquiry. All such questions are now governed by statute.

If the member sat and

voted without making any declaration at all, the House would probably, upon being informed of that fact, declare the election void, and if the time for petitioning had passed they would issue a new writ. It would however be open to any one to indict the member for knowingly making an untrue statement (a), and probably, upon conviction of this misdemeanor, the House would expel such member on account of his misconduct, as has been done on similar occasions, Wootton Basset, 1812, Tipperary, 1857. A member who could not truly make the requisite declaration in the House might inform the Speaker by letter of his want of qualification, as was done by Mr. Southey in 1826 (b), and when the fourteen days after his return were passed a new writ would be issued.

(a) R. v. De Beauvoir, 7 C. & P. 17.

(b) May's Law of Parliament, 2nd Edit. 436.

CHAPTER V.

ELECTION PETITIONS.

1. What are Election Petitions.

2. Form of the Petition.

3. Who may petition.

4. The Recognizance.

5. Presentation of the Petition.

6. Proceedings after Presentation of Petition.

7. Who may object, and grounds of objection to Recognizance.

8. Renewed Petitions not necessary.

9. Petitions in case of Double Return.

10. Who may defend the Election or Return. 11. Defence of Seat in case of Double Return. 12. Withdrawal of the Petition.

THE Legislature has of late provided several modes of inquiring into corrupt practices at elections. Some of them, however, do not in the result affect the seats of the parties returned. It is proposed, therefore, to consider at present only that class of Election Petitions which are presented for the purpose of disputing the validity of the election or return. The mode of proceeding on petitions, alleging General Bribery