election, but they declared the sitting members duly elected."

In a subsequent case (Roxburgh, F. & F. 467), the riots were of a most serious character. Some of the voters who had voted against the inclination of the mob were assaulted, had their clothes torn off them, and were then thrown into the river. The lives of several were put in danger from the violence made use of. In consequence of the violence used towards those who had voted, many voters refrained from going to the poll. The polling was adjourned for two hours at some of the polling places, in consequence of the riots. The committee however upheld the electionthey resolved, "That at the last election for the county of Roxburgh, riotous and tumultuous proceedings took place, in consequence of which prosecutions were instituted, and certain of the offenders were convicted. That the committee are of opinion that the riots were not of such a nature, nor of so long a duration as to prevent the votes of the electors being taken."

In a more recent case, Cork County, Bar. & Aust. 534 (1842), the petition complained, that the election had not been free, that there had been an organized system of agitation throughout the county to deter electors from voting for the petitioners, and that by these means the election had been obtained. It appeared in evidence, that serious riots had taken place in some parts of the county, and that several voters who had supported the petitioners had been assaulted and seriously hurt, that an adjournment had been applied for on account of these disturbances, and had been refused as unnecessary. That at the close of the election, a majority of the whole number of electors

remained unpolled. The case was very fully argued ; it was urged, that as the agitation was systematic, and of such a nature as to deter persons of ordinary courage from going to the poll, and as the majority of the electors had not polled, the election and return ought to be set aside, without calling upon the petitioners to carry the evidence further; for, if some were detained from voting by reason of the violence used, others might have been terrified into giving their votes for the candidates they were opposed to for the sake of personal safety. On the other hand, the Coventry case, P. & K. 1833, and the Roxburgh case, F. & F., were relied upon as establishing the principle, that the petitioners are bound to prove that the majority at the election was the result of the violence used, before a committee will declare the election void; that the returning officer was not bound to adjourn the poll, as that was a matter entirely in his discretion. The committee resolved that the sitting members were duly elected (a).

In the case of New Ross, 1853 (b), the petition contained an allegation, "That the election of the sitting member was carried by violence, threats, and intimidation on the part of himself and his friends." Evidence was given in support of this allegation by a

(a) When this resolution was moved in the committee, an amendment was proposed, that "The system of outrage and violence was of such a nature at the late election for the county of Cork as to be calculated to strike terror into the minds of the electors of that county, and to destroy all freedom of election." The committee which consisted of seven members, divided; three in favour of the amendment, four against it.

(b) Printed Minutes, 16, and 2 P. R. & D. 198.

gentleman who had been a candidate at the nomination, but who had withdrawn before the polling commenced: he stated that when he attempted to canvass, a mob collected around him; that he was hooted at and pelted; that on going to his committee room he was followed by the mob, and was unable to leave until guarded by the police; that the Riot Act was read and the military were called out; that the moment he came to his committee room the windows were all shattered to pieces with stones; that he then withdrew from the contest, not as it would appear from fear of personal consequences to himself, but "because he could not possibly be at the head of the poll, and representations were made to him, that by asking persons to fulfil their promises to vote for him a great injury would be done to themselves, as a system of exclusive dealing had been threatened." At the close of the petitioner's case, the committee stated that they thought there was no case of intimidation made out.

In the Cork case (a), in the same session, a great deal of evidence was given in support of charges of intimidation and disturbance. The committee declared the sitting members duly elected, and reported to the House "That the evidence adduced shews, that during the last election riotous and tumultuous proceedings took place in the said city, and that serious outrages and assaults were committed on the persons and property of several electors and others—that intimidation was exercised upon and threats used towards several voters for the purpose of influencing their votes (b).

(a) 2 P. R. & D. 233.
(b) Ante, p. 147.

That in consequence of a riotous disturbance at one of the polling-booths in the Lee Ward, the deputysheriff adjourned the poll till the next day, when it was again opened and the polling proceeded with."

In the case of Clare, 1853, serious riots had taken place; and evidence was given that the effect of the riot and intimidation which had taken place at Six Mile Bridge, had been such as to deter several of the voters from polling. It appeared that the petitioner had polled only four votes less than one of the members returned. The numbers being for Sir J. F. Fitzgerald, 1152 for Mr. C. O'Brien, 1141, and for Mr. Vandeleur, the petitioner, 1139. The committee reported that the sitting members were not duly elected-that a system of intimidation had been organized at the late election for the county of Clare, which resulted in a riot at Six Mile Bridge, deterring voters from exercising their franchise-that it appeared that a mob, professing to be supporters of the petitioner, created a riot in Kilrush, but that it had not been proved that any elector was prevented thereby from exercising his franchise-that the sitting members had not in any way encouraged or been cognizant of the riotous proceedings" (a). Printed Minutes, 108 Journ. 50-106, and 2 P. R. & D. 244.

These cases seem to establish this rule, that the

(a) Whenever the sitting members can be shewn to have encouraged riotous proceedings at an election, they will forfeit their seats on the ground of having exercised undue influence, although it cannot be proved that the result of the election was affected thereby. And the same result will follow if their agents have been guilty of such conduct without their knowledge. Ante, p. 157.

election will not be invalidated by reason of the riots, unless it be proved to the committee by the petitioners that the result of the election was affected thereby. The principle may be sound, but the difficulty lies in establishing by evidence what has been the effect of the disturbance. In cases where a riot has occurred at a late period of the election, there is not the same difficulty, for all that preceded the disturbance could not have been affected by it; and it would be comparatively easy for a committee to decide what effect a riot had had upon the election, by ascertaining the number of voters who had not polled at its commencement. But in cases where systematic intimidation and violence have preceded and accompanied the whole business of the election, who can say that the result has not been affected by them? How difficult to bring positive evidence of it. If some of the voters have been threatened with ill usage, while others are treated with actual violence for voting in a certain way, how can it be known what the other electors may have done in consequence? Some abstain from voting, others vote against their consciences and their expressed intentions.

But how can this be proved? Are all the voters to be called to say they would have voted differently but for the violence? This would be very dangerous in principle, and it can hardly be expected that any men would make such an admission; it is clear that the canvass books, shewing lists of promises, are no evidence of the intentions of the voters. Roxburgh, F. & F. 474.

Mr. Rogers, in his work on Elections, p. 240, says, "As soon as a serious riot has been proved, the freedom