member had been unseated on the former petition, for matters that disqualified him from standing again, the committee decided the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. See also Bolton, 2 P. R. & D. 222; Sligo, 1856, ib. 346; Guildford, ib. 114.

5. Opposition reported frivolous or vexatious.] It is enacted by section 90 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, that, whenever a committee reports to the House that the opposition made to any petition, by any party appearing before them, was frivolous or vexatious, the petitioners shall be entitled to recover from the party with respect to whom such report is made, the full costs and expenses which such petitioners have incurred in prosecuting their petition.

Whether it be that petitioners are in general sufficiently satisfied with succeeding on their petition, so that they have no desire to press for costs, or that committees are unwilling to visit a sitting member with so heavy an affliction, in addition to the loss of his seat, it is certain that it has rarely been the case that the opposition to a petition has been decided to

be vexatious.

"committees

It is observed by Mr. Rogers (a), seem to have been slow to report the opposition made by the person in possession of the seat to be frivolous or vexatious."

In the 2nd case of Southwark, Cliff. 343, when the committee decided that Mr. Thelluson was ineligible, by reason of the conviction of treating by the former

(a) Rogers on Com. P. 257.

committee, they at the same time resolved, that his opposition to the second petition was not frivolous or vexatious. In like manner in the 2nd Canterbury case, Cliff. 361, though the sitting members were decided to be ineligible, by reason of the former decision, the opposition was decided not to be frivolous.

It may be observed, however, with regard to these cases of notorious ineligibility, that if a candidate who had been resolved to have been guilty of bribery or treating, were now to stand on the vacancy so created, a committee would probably consider his election vexatious, and visit him with costs if he opposed the prayer of the petition. At the time that the cases in Clifford, were decided (1796), the law was not so well settled as it is at present; and further, in the second Canterbury case, there was a doubt as to what were the grounds of the decision of the first committee.

In the Fife case, 1 Luders, 455, where the member was ineligible by reason of office, no resolution appears to have been come to, whether the opposition to the petition was vexatious or not. So also in the Kirkcudbright case, 1 Luders, 72, it does not appear that any application was made for costs, or that the committee came to any resolution on the subject.

In a more recent case, 2nd Newcastle-under-Lyme, Bar. & Aust. 583, the committee, though they unseated the member on account of his having been declared by a committee to have been guilty of bribery by his agents at the previous election, came to no resolution. with regard to the opposition to the petition. It does not appear that any application was made for costs in this case.

When members have been unseated, on account of

bribery or treating by their agents, committees have not been in the habit of considering their opposition vexatious. Hertford, P. & K. 541; Warwick, P. & K. 535; Oxford, P. & K. 58. If a member was found guilty of personal bribery, a committee would probably consider his opposition vexatious; when he is charged with bribery or treating by his agents, he has a right to presume that they are innocent, until the contrary is proved, and, therefore, to oppose the prayer of the petition. 1st Cheltenham, 1 P. R. & D. 186.

When the sitting member or his agents have been concerned in the abduction of witnesses, in order to prevent the investigation of the allegations in the petition, there is no doubt that a committee, upon finding the charges in the petition to be proved, would declare the opposition to be frivolous and vexatious. See Ipswich, K. & O. 373.

In the Flintshire case, 1 Peck. 526, the sitting member was notoriously under age, he had given notice to the Speaker, some time before the appointment of the committee that he did not intend to defend his seat; the committee, however, resolved, that his election and return were vexatious.

In a case where the sitting member had no property qualification at the time of the election, and the cir cumstance was well known to him, the committee decided the election to have been vexatious, although he had given notice before the appointment of the committee, that he did not intend to defend his seat. Tiverton, P. & K. 269; see also Mallow, P. & K. 266.

In the Derby case, 1848, 1 P. R. & D. 104, the defence of the seat was abandoned in the middle of the case, as it appeared unanswerable that illegal pay

ments had been made by the agents of the sitting member without his knowledge; the committee refused to grant costs on the ground that the opposition was frivolous and vexatious.

6. When no one appears to oppose.] It is further provided, by section 91, That, whenever no party has appeared before any committee in opposition to such petition, and such committee reports, that the election or return, or the omission or insufficiency of a return complained of in such petition was vexatious or corrupt, the petitioners shall be entitled to recover from the sitting members (if any), whose election or return is complained of, if the members have not given the notice before mentioned, and from any person admitted to oppose the petition, the full costs and expenses to which the petitioners have been put.

In the Tiverton case, P. & K. 271, in a note, it is observed it is very questionable whether costs can be recovered in a case, where the sitting member has given notice of his intention not to defend his seat and no one appears to oppose.

In the Tiverton case, the sitting member gave notice on the 21st February that he did not intend to defend his seat: the ballot for the committee being at that time fixed for the 28th. The order for considering the petition was thereupon discharged, and the committee was not appointed until the 10th of May, when the committee resolved that the election was vexatious.

Unfounded Allegations.] By section 93 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, it is provided, That if either party make before the select committee any specific allegation with

regard to the conduct of the other party, or his agents, and either bring no evidence in support of it, or such evidence that the committee is of opinion that such allegation was made, without any reasonable or probable ground, the committee may make such orders as to them may seem fit, for payment by the party making such unfounded allegations to the other party, of all costs and expenses incurred by reason of such unfounded allegation.

In the Bewdley case, 1848, Minutes, 169, at the close of the case against the sitting member, an application was made, by his counsel, for costs in the cases of alleged bribery, which had not been gone into by the petitioners; there being ten cases in the list handed in, of which only three had been brought before the committee, and one case only was found to be proved. It was opposed, on the ground that the 92nd section of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103 (the same enactment as in the present statute) applied only to the general allegation of bribery or treating in the petition, both of which had here been proved, and not to the specific cases included in the lists; which were handed in, not in compliance of any statutory regulation, but in accordance with a resolution of the committee. The committee refused to give costs in these cases.

In the same case of Bewdley, Minutes, 337, the sitting member, in recrimination, preferred charges of bribery and treating against the petitioning candidate and his agents. Several cases of bribery were stated in the list handed in. Four of them were charges of personal bribery against the candidate; on three of these no evidence was offered. As to the fourth charge, the committee had said that it did not require