priety of so closing it seems to have been, Was the result of the election affected by it? The 70th section of the Reform Act gives a similar power to the returning officer since the passing of that act; and cases may be supposed, where the returning officer would act discreetly in finally closing the poll before four o'clock. If all the constituency had been polled out, or if only a few voters remain unpolled, and the majority was so decided that the balance could not be altered by the votes of such unpolled electors, and a riotous disposition began to manifest itself, so that the returning officer was apprehensive that the poll books might be destroyed, would he not, in such cases, be justified in closing the poll before the legal limit? It may be said he has power to adjourn, but then the poll must be kept open the whole of another day, and the result of the election would remain the same. If this question should again be raised and fully discussed, it is most probable that a committee will come to the same conclusion as that in the Limerick case, that, unless the election is affected by the premature closing of the poll the election will not be held void.

8. Illegal Adjournment of Poll.] The decisions which have taken place on the subject of the illegal adjournment of the poll, throw some light upon the question already considered of the premature closing of the poll, and seem to add weight to the views there expressed. In the Colchester case, 1 Peck. 506, the committee among other matters resolved, “That the adjournment of the poll on the second day of election, no sufficient cause appearing to make such adjournment necessary at the time, and in the circumstances

attending thereon, was highly improper and contrary to law: that, on the third day of the poll another adjournment took place which was also highly improper and contrary to law; that at the same time they did not consider the omission of any form prescribed by the directory act, 25 Geo. 3, c. 84, as sufficient to make the election void."

An express authority to adjourn the poll in cases of riot, is now given to the returning officers in England by 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 45, s. 70, and 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 36, s. 8; in Scotland, by 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 65, s. 32; in Ireland, by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 68, s. 18 (a).

In the Roxburgh case, F. & F. 475, the poll had been adjourned for two hours on account of the riots and disturbances that had taken place at some of the polling places, but the notification of adjournment required by the Scotch Reform Act not having been properly given the polling was resumed on the same day. The committee held that this illegal adjournment did not invalidate the election. In Mr. Rogers's valuable work on Elections, p. 34, it is observed: "an illegal adjournment of the poll would hardly vitiate an election, unless it were shewn that the result was affected by it."

9. Punishment of Returning Officer.] If the conduct of the returning officer at an election has been so improper as in the opinion of the select committee to call for censure, and to render him liable to the penalties inflicted by the House in cases of misconduct, they should report specially to the House, and the House will then deal with him as they think proper. In some

(a) Ante, p. 39.

cases the returning officer, when so reported, has been ordered into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and has then been brought before the House to be reprimanded and then discharged. Liskeard, 2 Peck. 326; Great Grimsby, 1 Peck. 74.

In cases of gross misconduct he will be committed to Newgate. Middlesex, 2 Peck. 19.

CHAPTER IX.

PETITIONS ON THE GROUND OF RIOTS, &c., AT
ELECTION.

1. Riots and Intimidation, their effect on validity of Election.

2. When Poll Books, &c., destroyed.

3. Interference of Persons in Authority.

1. Riots, &c., at an Election.] What effect the occurrence of riots, and intimidation at an election may have upon the validity of such election, must next be considered.

In the Journals of the House of Commons, and in some of the older reports of cases, there are to be found a great number of instances where elections have been declared void on account of the occurrence of riots (a). It must be remembered, that at the date of these decisions sheriffs and other returning officers were not armed with the same powers of adjourning the poll in

(a) Glan. 143; Pontefract, 1 Jour. 797: Southwark, 10 Jour. 25; Coventry, 15 Jour. 278; Knaresborough, 2 Peck. 312; Morpeth, 1 Doug. 147; Nottingham, 1 Peck. 85; Galway, 1827, 82 Jour. 61; and see cases cited in note to Coventry case, P. & K. 338 (1833).

case of riot, and of quelling disturbances, that they have at the present day. It would appear that in most of the cases above referred to the disturbances were of such a nature that it was impossible to proceed with the business of the election.

In the Morpeth case, 1 Doug. 417, the conduct of the mob was so outrageous that they compelled the returning officer, after he had declared the result of the election, to make a false return, and insert the name of the member who was in a minority. In the Galway case, 1827, the riots were proved to have been of a most alarming nature. In the Coventry case, 1827 (referred to in Coventry case, P. & K. 335), the election was not avoided, though the committee reported that during the election riotous and tumultuous proceedings had taken place in the city, and that grievous outrages and assaults had been committed on the persons of several electors and others during the said election." This question has been a good deal discussed on several occasions since the passing of the Reform Act.

In the Coventry case, P. & K. 335, it was proved that there was great rioting during the time of polling ; that several of the petitioners' voters had been driven away from the hustings, but that at a later period of the day many of the voters for the petitioners were enabled to poll, and that if all the electors who remained unpolled at the close of the election had voted for the petitioners, the petitioners would not have had a majority. The committee resolved, "That the conduct of the sheriffs of the city of Coventry was highly culpable in not taking sufficiently prompt and efficient measures for securing order and regularity during the