Members returned for two places. Double returns. elections was transferred by statute to the courts of law Chapter (see p. 654). XXIII. bers should At the commencement of each session, the house agrees Sessional orders, Apto resolutions dealing with the case of members who are pendix I." returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom. This order regulates the manner of choosing When memfor which place a member will sit when he has been withdraw, returned for more than one, and his withdrawal from the see p. 350. house, if debate arose upon the matter of his election. When the time limited for presenting petitions to the court against his return has expired, and no petition has been presented, he is required to make his election within a week, in order that his constituents may no longer be deprived of a representative.1 This election may either be made by the member in his place or by a letter addressed to the Speaker. When a petition has been presented against his return for one place only, he cannot elect to serve for either. He cannot abandon the seat petitioned against, which may be proved to belong of right to another, and thus render void an election which may turn out to have been good in favour of some other candidate; neither can he abandon the other seat; because if it should be proved that he is only entitled to sit for one, he has no election to make, and cannot give up a seat without having incurred some legal disqualification, such as the acceptance of office, or bankruptcy. Upon this principle, on the 24th May, 1842, Mr. O'Connell, who had been chosen for the counties of Cork and Meath, elected to sit for the former, directly after the report of the election committee, by which he was declared to have been duly elected for that county.5 When there is a double return, there are two certificates Notice of 1103 C. J. 99. 100. Mr. O'Connell, 24th May, 1842, 97 ib. 302; Mr. Gathorne Hardy, 21st Feb. 1866, 121 ib. 104; also 141 ib. 28; 142 ib. 4. 3 Mr. C. Villiers, 8th Dec. 1847; Mr. Callan, 19th March, 1874; Mr. Parnell, 11th May, 1880, 103 ib. 99; intention Case of Mr. O'Connell, 1841, 96 Chapter Return amended, endorsed on the writ,' and both the names are entered in the return books. Both members may therefore claim to be sworn, and to take their seats: 2 but after the election of the Speaker, neither of them can vote until the right to the seat has been determined; because both are, of course, precluded see p. 658. from voting where one only ought to vote; and neither of them has a better claim than the other. The practice of making such returns, though apparently prohibited in England by the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 7, was sanctioned by the law and usage of Parliament. In Scotland the making of double returns was directed by the Scotch Reform Act, 1832 (s. 33). In Ireland, on the other hand, a double return was expressly prohibited.* By sec. 2 of the Ballot Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33, the law of the United Kingdom regarding double returns is assimilated," which provides that where there is an equality of votes between any candidates, and the addition of a vote would entitle a candidate to be declared elected, the returning officer, if a registered elector, may give such additional vote, but shall not, in any other case, be entitled to vote at an election for which he is returning officer." Sessional ference of The house, also, agrees to resolutions in condemnation Interorders, Ap- of irregular practices to influence the freedom of election peers and regarding the votes of peers, and the interference of pendix I. 1 The ancient form of an indenture was abolished by the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, 1st sch. s. 44. 2 Report, Oaths of Members, 1848, Q. 23-25. In 1852, three members were returned for Knaresborough. They were all sworn at the table, 8th Nov., and directed by Mr. Speaker to withdraw below the bar. In 1859, there were double returns for Knaresborough and Aylesbury, when the members were sworn in the same way. So also in May, 1878, when there was a double return for South Northumberland. 3 See Helston Election Petition Report, 1866, 121 C. J. 436, 486. 35 Geo. III. c. 29, s. 13, and 4 Geo. IV. c. 55, s. 68, repealed by Rogers on Elections, part i. 6 In the South Northumberland election, 1878, the sheriff declined to give his casting vote, and made a double return. See debates in the Lords, 27th June, 1853, 128 H. D. 3 s. 791: 5th July, 1858, 151 ib. 926. 927. Opinion of attorney-general, 24th Nov. 1882, 275 ib. 121. In 1872, the legal question of the right of peers to vote, or to be entered upon the register of voters, was conclusively decided by the Court of Common Pleas. The Earl of Beauchamp and the Marquess of Salisbury, having had their ministers. Election 1868, and later Acts. peers and lord-lieutenants and bribery at parliamentary Chapter elections. On the 10th December, 1779, the Commons resolved that it was "highly criminal in any minister or ministers, or other servants under the Crown of Great Britain, directly or indirectly to use the powers of office in the election of representatives to serve in Parliament, &c." 2 By the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at &c., Act, Elections Act, 1868, the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879, and the statute 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, the trial of controverted elections is confided to two judges, selected, as regards England, from the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; as regards Ireland, from the Court of Common Pleas at Dublin; and names struck off the register by the 1 In February, 1868, two bishops 68 ib. 844; 26 H. D. 796. 989, &c. 2 37 C. J. 507. XXIII. XXIII. to be tried election Chapter as regards Scotland, from the Court of Session. Petitions Election complaining of undue elections and returns are presented petitions to these courts instead of to the House of Commons, as by two judges. formerly, within twenty-one days after the returns to which they relate, and are tried by two judges of those courts, within the county or borough concerned. The house has Trial of no cognizance of these proceedings until their termination : petitions. when the judges certify their determination, in writing, to the Speaker, which is final to all intents and purposes.1 The judges are also to report whether any corrupt practices have been committed with the knowledge and consent of any candidate; the names of any persons proved guilty of corrupt practices; and whether corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election.2 They may also make a special report as to other matters which, in their judgment, ought to be submitted to the house. Provision is also made for the trial of a special case, when required, by the court itself, which is to certify its determination to the Speaker. By sec. 5 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, the election court is directed also to report to the Speaker whether candidates at elections have been guilty by their agents of corrupt practices. The judges are also to report the withdrawal of an election petition to the Speaker, with their opinion whether the withdrawal was the result of any corrupt arrangement. All such certificates and reports are communicated to the house by the Speaker, and are treated like the reports of election. committees under the former system. They are entered in the journals; and orders are made for carrying the determinations of the judges into execution. A report that 1 On the 1st June, 1874, Mr. O'Donnell (lately member for Galway) appeared at the bar and claimed to make a statement before the certificate of the judge, by which he was unseated, was read: but the Speaker informed him that it appeared from the judge's certificate that he was disqualified from sitting, and that he therefore was not entitled to be heard, 129 C. J. 184. ment, see p. 199. 2 The Election Petitions Act, Shorthand 1868, s. 24, directs that notes of writer of Parliaevidence given at an election trial shall be taken by the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, whose transcript shall be sent to the Speaker with the judge's certificate. The shorthand writer does not report proceedings on the withdrawal of a petition. Commis sions. Proceed house in election. XXIII. corrupt practices have extensively prevailed is equivalent Chapter In addition to these inquiries by election judges, if upon A few words will suffice to explain the proceedings of the ings of the house, so far as its judicature is still exercised in matters of matters of election. It being enacted by sec. 50 of the Election Petitions, &c., Act, 1868, that "no election or return to Parliament shall be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act," doubts were expressed whether this provision would not supersede the jurisdiction of the house, in determining questions affecting the seats of its own members, not arising out of controverted elections. It is plain, however, that this section applied to the questioning of returns by election petitions only. Under the procedure in force before the Election Petition Act, 1868, when returns were questioned, by petition, the matter was determined by the statutory tribunal; otherwise the house uniformly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction. And such continues to be the position of the house, after the judicature of its election committees had been transferred to the judges. In the autumn of 1868, an election petition had been presented to the Court of Session in Scotland, complaining of the election of Sir Sydney Waterlow for the county of Dumfries, on the ground of his holding a government contract. In the ensuing session, however, the petition having been withdrawn, a select committee was appointed to" consider |