Page images
PDF
EPUB

is claimed is, after he has been decided to have the majority of legal votes, disqualified from sitting.

Recrimination.) Whenever the petition claims the seat, whether the petitioner be the candidate or an elector, and although the claim of the seat is abandoned on the hearing of the petition, the sitting member has a right to recriminate; that is to say, to shew that the person for whom the seat is claimed has no right to sit. Kirkcudbright, 1 Lud. 72; Great Yarmouth, F. & F. 665. It makes no difference whether the petition is from the candidate or electors. Ennis, K. & 0. 434. A different opinion was said to have been expressed in the Galway case, P. & K. 518, in notis; but the rule, as here laid down, has been constantly acted upon. Middlesex, 1 Peck. 294, see note to 2nd Montgomery, P. & K. 464.

When on the hearing of the petition the claim to the seat is abandoned, the sitting member will not by such abandonment be deprived of the right of giving recriminatory evidence. Coventry, 1 Peck. 99; New Windsor, 2 Peck. 188. Although, where the petition does not claim the seat, no evidence of a recriminatory character can be given, still, in order to discredit the witnesses for the petitioner, they may be asked as to acts of treating and bribery in which they have been themselves implicated. Southwark, Cliff.117; Hertford, P. & K. 554; Great Yarmouth, 1848, Minutes, p. 7(a).

In cases where the sitting member is permitted to recriminate, he is not confined to retorting the charges alleged against himself, but may bring forward any

(a) 1st Lancaster, 1 P. R. & D. 43; see also Southampton, 2 P. R. & D. 50; Tynemouth, ib. 135; Maldon, ib. 145.

circumstances which will shew that the person for whom the seat is claimed is disqualified from sitting. Dover, P. & K. 422, in notis; Middlesex, 1 Peck. Introd. xxi; New Windsor, 2 Peck. 188.

The reason why recriminatory evidence may be adduced against the petitioner is this, that if he be declared duly elected, it is then too late to present any petition against him. See Great Yarmouth, F. & F. 665, observations on Dublin case; 2nd Peterborough, 2 P. R. & D. 295 (a).

Adjournment.] The committee have power to ad. journ for twenty-four hours, but for no longer period, unless they have first obtained the leave of the House; they are required to sit from day to day, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 73. Special applications are frequently made to committees to adjourn. Thus, on the ground of the absence of a material witness who had been served with a Speaker's warrant but who was abroad when the committee met, an adjournment of ten days was applied for and granted by the House. Southampton, 2 P. R. & D. 47; East Grinstead, 1 Peck. 339. An adjournment was granted because the mayor was too unwell to attend the committee with the poll. New Sarum, P. & K. 243. Where the parties have themselves been guilty of default an adjournment is usually refused. An application for an adjournment to admit of the petitioner producing the town clerk to prove the poll was refused in the 2nd Montgomery, P. & K. 469. There are a great number of conflicting deci sions on this subject collected in Chambers's Dict. of Elect. Law, p. 127; 2nd Sligo, 1 P. R. & D. 210.

(a) Ante, p. 339.

In a case where summonses had been forwarded in time, according to the usual course of post, to secure the attendance of the witnesses at the meeting of the committee, but the money for their travelling expenses was not transmitted until afterwards, the committee refused an application for an adjournment till the witnesses should arrive. 2nd Athlone, Bar. & Arn. 226. Unless due diligence has been taken to secure the attendance of the witnesses, the committee usually refuse to grant an adjournment. Lincoln, P. & K. 378.

In the St. Alban's case, 1851, several adjournments were granted by the committee, in order to enable the petitioners to procure the attendance of their witnesses. There were, however, some very special circumstances in that case; several of the witnesses, after they had been served with the warrants to attend, absconded, and others were proved before the committee to have been kept out of the way to avoid service (a).

Sometimes where an unexpected decision of the committee has taken the parties by surprise, an adjournment is allowed. In the Lyme Regis, 1848, the petitioner proposed to go on with the scrutiny in the first instance; the committee having decided that they would proceed with the charges of bribery, the petitioner's counsel applied for an adjournment to enable him to procure the attendance of the witnesses necessary for this part of the

case ;

the committee agreed to adjourn for twenty-four hours, and the chairman stated that after that time it was possible the committee

(a) The informality in the mode of adjourning the committee in this case has been adverted to, ante, p. 315, “Committees."

would adjourn for twenty-four hours further, to enable the petitioners to bring up their witnesses. 1 P. R. & D. 27.

An adjournment was allowed until the next day, that it might be seen what effect a particular decision had on the petitioner's case. Southampton, P. & K. 237; Carlow County, P. & K. 399; see cases cited in Portarlington, P. & K. 240.

An application to adjourn for one day on the ground that the witnesses had only just arrived in London, and had not been examined in consequence of the miscarriage of the letters sent to require their attendance, was refused. 1st Lancaster, 1 P. R. & D. 43. Absence of counsel is no reason for an adjournment. Sligo, 1856, 2 P. R. & D. 345. Where the case of scrutiny, which had been pursued for many days, was abandoned in consequence

of the decision of the committee upon a class of cases, the committee agreed to obtain leave from the House for an adjournment, in order to enable the petitioners to obtain witnesses from Ireland to proceed with a fresh branch of the case, viz., the want of qualification in the sitting member. Dublin, 1 P. R. & D. 204; see also adjourdment on the ground of surprise, 2nd Sligo, 2 P. R. & D. 298.

In cases of scrutiny, an adjournment is often granted to enable the agents on either side to confer together, and see what cases they can agree to abandon as untenable. By this mode of proceeding considerable expense is saved to the parties. See 2nd Lancaster, 1 P. R. & D. 153.

When once a point has been decided, committees in general refuse to allow the case to be re-opened. Dundalk, 1 P. R. & D. 96.

Applications for Costs.] A resolution similar to the one given above (a), is usually passed at the commencement of the proceedings, with regard to costs; viz., that the question of costs must be raised immediately after the decision on the particular case, unless the committee decide otherwise ; sometimes for convenience, the question of costs is postponed. The subject of costs will be considered hereafter.

Abandonment of Defence.] When the sitting member, or those defending the seat on his behalf, withdraw from the contest, the petitioner, if he claim the seat, must then prove his majority. Waterford, 1 Peck. 239. In a note to this case it is observed, that in the 2nd Seaford case, 1786, 3 Lud. 138, the sitting members having declined to defend their seats, the committee resolved, that the petitioners were duly elected without hearing any evidence on their part. The Dumbartonshire is there cited as adopting the same practice; but it appears, however, that in that case, 3 Lud. 139, an agent of the sitting member attended, and said, he was instructed to admit the majority to be for the petitioner.

In the Longford County case, P. & K. 201, and in the Mallow, P. & K. 268, when the sitting member had withdrawn, the petitioner proved his majority. See also Oxford, P. & K. 69..

A question arose, in the Carlisle case, 1848, as to what proof should be given that the sitting member no longer defended his seat. The counsel for the petitioners stated, that the agents of Mr. Dixon had written a letter stating that Mr. D. did not mean to

a

(a) Ante, p. 322.

« EelmineJätka »