other did not; the committee refused to come to a decision upon either case until they had heard the whole.

Right of Returning Officer to appear.] The returning officer whose conduct has been complained of in a petition, has often been allowed to appear as a separate party by counsel, before the committee. See Rogers's Elect. Com. p. 56. It is there stated in a note, that "the usage of committees to admit returning officers charged in the petition, to a defence by counsel before the committee, grew out of an objection to their being heard as witnesses to explain transactions in which they were charged to have been participators. As there would now be no objection raised to the examination of the returning officer, on the ground that he was a party to the suit (a), it is doubtful whether he will again be allowed to appear separately by counsel.

Petitions read.] When the committee have decided in what order they will proceed, the petitions are read by the clerk.

In the case of petitioners complaining of a double return, the "counsel for the person who shall be first named in such double return, or whose return shall be immediately annexed to the writ or precept shall proceed in the first place."

Preliminary Objections.] When the petitions have been read, the counsel for the petitioners proceeds at unless the counsel on the other side has any preliminary objections to make against the committee's proceeding further in the case.

once to open

the case,

(a) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2. Act to Amend the Law of

Evidence.

The objection most frequently here taken is as to the right of the petitioners to petition, and their mode of stating such right. As has been already observed, the petitioners ought to shew on the face of their petition that they are such persons as have a right to do so (a); but when the right is not stated with technical accuracy, a committee is seldom disposed to give weight to the objection. Caermarthenshire, 1 Peck. 289; Boston, 1 Peck. 434; Drogheda, K. & O. 200 (b).

The parties defending the seat may shew that the petitioners have not in fact any right to petition, as that they are not voters, or had no right to vote. In a recent case, Harwich, 1848, the counsel for the sitting member objected that the petitioner was not an elector for the borough of Harwich; that although he was on the register, and had voted, yet he did not reside at Harwich, and had no right to vote. The committee resolved, "that the petitioner having claimed to vote, and having actually voted, they were of opinion that they must proceed with the case." Printed Minutes (c).

In the Aylesbury case, 1848, the counsel for the sitting member was allowed to object, that the petitioner who alleged upon his petition that he had a right to vote, had in truth no such right. If the petitioner whose right to vote is questioned, is upon the

(a) N. Cheshire, 1 P. R. & D. ; 2nd Sligo, 1 P. R. & D. (b) In the Nottingham case, C. & D. 197, a committee, after they had sat for five days, allowed a preliminary objec tion of this nature to prevail. Such a precedent is not likely to be followed at the present time.

(c) 1 P. R. & D. 72.

register, and was not objected to at the last revision, it seems to be quite clear that the committee cannot entertain the objection, unless the disqualification has arisen subsequently to the revision. Notwithstanding the decision in the Harwich case cited above, it may be doubted whether a voter, who since the registration prior to the election, has become disqualified, has any right to petition, though he did vote at the election.

Where a candidate-petitioner refused to take the qualification oath at the poll, he was not allowed to proceed in his petition. Penryn, 1827 (a). It has been doubted whether a person who from his religion cannot take the oaths required, though otherwise qualified, can petition. It is clear that the want of qualification would prevent him from being heard to claim the seat, but as an unqualified candidate, or the candidate whose religious opinions would prevent him from taking the oaths, was still a candidate at the election, it may be doubted whether a committee would refuse to hear the petition on that ground. Taunton case, 1831 (b).

Objections are sometimes taken to the further proceeding with the petition, on the ground that there are interlineations in it. Where these appear in the petition, the petitioner must explain how and when they were made, or those parts of the petition which are affected by them will have to be abandoned. Southampton, P. & K. 214; Portarlington, P. & K. 238.

(a) See Chambers's Dict. p. 447.

(b) As to signature to petition; 2nd Harwich, 1 P. R. & D.

In the Lyme Regis case, Bar. & Aust. 456, the petitioner was called upon to shew that the interlineation was made before the petition was signed, or otherwise the allegations interlined would have to be abandoned.

Objection to the Constitution of the Committee.] No objection can be entertained against the legal constitution of the committee, for when they have been sworn at the table of the House, the legality of their appointment cannot be called in question (a).

In a recent case, 2nd Harwich, 1851, an objection was taken on the part of the sitting member, that the returning officer whose conduct was complained of in the petition, had not received fourteen days' notice as required by the act-and the committee went into evidence on the subject. This it is submitted was clearly incorrect, for the objection, if well founded, affected the legality of the appointment of the committee-which, as we have seen, cannot be questioned after they have been sworn; nor can any objection be taken to the form or substance of the recognizances. Sect. 17 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98.

Though the committee have power to entertain any objection to the petition on the ground that it is not an election petition, they cannot, it is submitted, entertain an objection that it is not a petition to the House of Commons, or that it has been improperly signed (b). See St. Alban's, 1851, Printed Minutes, and Aylesbury, 1851.

(a) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 99, s. 68.

(b) Supposing the signature to the petition to have been forged, could the committee entertain the objection? If the person whose name was forged appeared to support the peti

Case Opened.] When any preliminary objections taken have been disposed of, the counsel for the petitioners opens the case-stating the general facts and circumstances. In cases of bribery he either mentions the names of the persons alleged to have been bribed, and the parties bribing them, or hands in a list of such names to the committee, giving at the same time a copy to the other side. In the Derby case, 1848, the list of persons bribed, handed in by the petitioners, was objected to, because against some of the names there appeared the names of forty-two persons as having given the bribe. It was said this gave no information. It was answered for the petitioner that the bribery took place at the committee room, and they could not tell who paid the money. The committee thought the list ought to be amended-and five names were then given as the parties who gave the bribes (a).

In the 2nd Harwich, 1851, it was objected that the list was not sufficiently specific, as several names were given as the persons bribing in each case, and the time and place of the bribery were not stated. The committee thought the list satisfied the requirements of the resolution.

It must be borne in mind that the preliminary resolutions usually read to the parties by the chairman do not contain any mention of the exchange of lists of

tion he would seem to sanction the use made of his name. This would be an infraction of the resolutions of the House, ante, p. 278, but it seems doubtful whether the select committee could refuse to try the petition referred to them on that ground.

(a) 1 P. R. & D. 100.