These lists are referred by the general to the select committee; and no objection can be taken to any voter except those stated in the list. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 74. This is a statutable direction and is most strictly observed.

A common way of preparing the lists is to form them into classes, with headings containing the objec tions against the voters in each class. See Weymouth, Bar. & Aust. 108, where the names were bracketed together, with a reference to objections prefixed as headings of the lists. This was held to be sufficient compliance with the act.

In another case, in the list of voters objected to, there was written against the name of a voter, not the heads of objection themselves, but only a reference to the objections stated against the name of another voter; this was held to be a sufficient compliance with the act. Lyme Regis, Bar. & Aust. 462.

In the 2nd Lancaster case, 1848, Minutes, 17th May (a), objection was taken to the mode in which the petitioner's lists had been prepared. At the top of a page was written "The following is a list containing the names of the voters objected to, by and on behalf of the petitioner, with the several heads of objection, distinguishing the same against each voter named," the objections stated were the receipt of parochial relief: a number of names followed this heading to the list, and there were three or four pages of names attached to the first page, but which other pages had no separate

(a) The Minutes of the 2nd Lancaster case were not printed; the points decided in that case, which are cited in this Chapter, are taken from the original Minutes in the House of Commons. See also 1 P. R. & D. 147.

heading. ficient.

The committee considered the lists suf

Votes to be added to Poll.] In cases of scrutiny it is frequently sought to add names to the poll as well as to remove them from that of the adversary. It has never been required in any of the enactments on this subject, that lists of the votes intended to be added, should be handed in.

In the Rutlandshire case, Journ. 1711, prior to the Grenville Act, the House required the sitting member to deliver in lists of the voters he intended to add to

his poll.

In the Bedfordshire case, 2 Lud. 392, no lists were given in of rejected votes intended to be added to the poll. The committee resolved "that the parties should deliver to each other on the next day, a list of all such persons as they meant to add to the poll; and that the consideration of all such votes should be deferred till all the votes already objected to should be decided." See Orme on Elections, p. 324; 2 Roe. 228.

Though lists of such votes intended to be added, need not be delivered into the general committee, notice ought to be given by the parties on either side, to the others, with regard to such votes. If notice had not been given, a committee would probably refuse to proceed in the inquiry until the lists had been interchanged.

Accuracy required in the Lists.] Care should be taken in the preparation of the list of voters, to insert every ground of objection intended to be relied upon, to state such grounds of objection distinctly, and to insert the name of the voter accurately, with his right number on the register. Committees have frequently refused

S

to entertain any objection to a voter where there has been a misnomer. Middlesex, 2 Peck. 50. Humphry Tunkinson, was objected to as Henry Tomkinson. The committee refused to enter upon it. In the Galway case, P. & K. 525, W. Mitten was objected to as W. Miller; the variance was held fatal. So also in the Dublin case, F. & F. 203, where Beresford Collins was objected to as Ramesford Collins, and John Furley was objected to as James Furley, and James Egan as James Eugn, the committee held the misnomers to be fatal. But in the same case they held, that where Wm. Lawlor was objected to as Wm. Lowler, the discrepancy was not of such a description as to prevent the vote being gone into. In the Fowey case, C. & D. 166, in the list of persons intended to be added to the poll, Francis Watty was described as Thomas Watty, the committee allowed evidence to be given of identity; but where Wm. Nicholls the elder was called the younger on the list, there being two of the name in the parish, the committee refused to consider the vote. It is impossible to reconcile or explain the decisions of different committees, and in some instances the decisions of the same committee.

In the Dublin case, a voter whose name was Patrick Faulkner was entered in the poll book as Matthew Faulkner. In the list of voters objected to he was called Patrick, and there was nothing in the list to identify him with the person voting. The committee decided that the identity should have been stated in the list of objections, and refused to allow the vote to be questioned (a). In the same case, a voter named

(a) 1 P. R. & D. 199.

Lanley was objected to as Ladley, the committee refused to allow the vote to be questioned (a).

Where there were two persons of the same name in the barony, and there was nothing in the list to distinguish which of the persons was meant, the committee refused to enter on the vote. Galway, P. & K. 521 (b). In the Monmouth case, K. & O. 411, however, the committee allowed evidence to be given to explain which of two persons of the same name, living in the same street, was the person objected to. If the number of the voter on the register had been given in this case there would have been no difficulty.

In a list given in, an erroneous number was given as the number of the voter on the poll-book. The objection was waived. Kingston-upon-Hull, K. & O. 426. The number on the poll-book could not assist in identifying the voter; had the number on the register been given erroneously, the objection would probably have

been fatal.

Where a voter was described in the list of objections as residing at the place attached to his name in the register, but which was not his residence in fact, the committee considered the description sufficient. Whiteside's case, 2nd Lancaster, 19th May, 1848.

The ground of objection must be accurately stated. Where the actual objection intended to be raised against the voter was, that he was a letter carrier in the employ of the Post-office, and the objection stated

(a) 1 P. R. & D. 200.

(b) See also on same point, Dundalk, 1 P. R. & D. 97, Byrne's case.

in the lists was, that "he was at the time of the election employed in the collection of the revenue," the committee would not permit the case to be entered upon. Belfast, F. & F. 604; and see Wigan, Bar. & Aust. 185. Where a voter was objected to on the ground that he had been bribed, evidence was allowed to be given that he had made a wager on the result of the election. Windsor, K. & O. 194.

As the allegations in a petition, praying for a scrutiny, are in very general terms, it is the more necessary that the objections in the lists delivered, should be specific. Rochester, K. & O. 96–115; Youghall, F. & F. 402.

2. Practice in cases of Ecrutiny.] In cases of scrutiny the inquiry into each vote is a separate case, and is opened, answered and decided upon by itself.

Where upon a scrutiny the banking account of a private individual was produced by the banker's clerk, in order to prove the payment of a cheque drawn by that individual in favour of the voter, whose vote was under investigation, upon the objection that he was bribed by the payment in question; the committee would not allow a general inspection of the account to the party calling for its production, but confined it to the entries relating to the voter. Whicker's case, Lyme, B. & Aust. 525.

During the inquiry into the validity of a vote a question was asked, in cross-examination, for the purpose of shewing agency in a certain person who had been mentioned: the question was objected to as irrelevant to the inquiry as to the validity of the vote. The