ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Chapter

whether Sir Sydney Waterlow is disqualified from sitting XXIII. and voting as a member of this house, under the statute 22 Geo. III. c. 45;" and on receiving the report of this committee, which declared him disqualified, a new writ was issued for the county of Dumfries. Thus the very same question which might have been determined, upon petition, by an election judge, was adjudged by the house itself. The house is, in fact, bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its members, and to issue writs in the room of members adjudged to be incapable of sitting. In Case of 1870, O'Donovan Rossa, a convict then in prison, and Rossa. sentenced to penal servitude for life, for felony under the Treason-Felony Act, had been returned as member for the county of Tipperary. The house took action, and ordered the issue of a new writ.3

O'Donovan

John

The case of John Mitchel, in 1875, further illustrates the Case of position of the house, in relation to elections, and the legal Mitchel. disqualifications of its members. John Mitchel had been returned for the county of Tipperary without a contest. No question could, therefore, arise as to the election or return, the sole matter for determination being the qualification of the member. It was notorious that he was an escaped convict, and had not completed the term of transportation to which he had been sentenced. The facts of the case were proved; and his legal disqualification was clearly established to the satisfaction of the house. A new writ was accordingly issued; and John Mitchel was again returned. But, on this occasion, there had been a contest; and the house therefore left the merits of the election and return to be determined under the Election Petitions Act. Mr. Moore, the other candidate, having given due notice of the disqualification, proved his claim to the seat, and the return was amended accordingly. On the 28th February, 1882, the house resolved that Michael Davitt, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for fifteen years,

1 124 C. J. 12. 43. 82. 88.
294 ib. 48; 103 ib. 102.

3125 C. J. 27; 199 H. D. 3 s. 122;
and see supra, p. 34, n. 3.

Under 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, s. 3; 9
Geo. IV. c. 54, s. 33.

$ 130 C. J. 49. 52. 239; 222 H. D.

3 s. 493.

P.

2U→

Proceedings of

XXIII.

and being then imprisoned under such sentence, was in- Chapter
capable of being elected or returned as a member.1 A
similar resolution was agreed to on the 20th August, 1895,
in the case of John Daly, who had been adjudged guilty of
felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life; while on
the 2nd March, 1903, a new writ was ordered for the city
of Galway in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, who had
been adjudged guilty of high treason.2 In such cases as
these, the jurisdiction and duty of the house cannot be
questioned, as the incapacity of a felon is expressly declared
by statute. A petition relating to an election, but not
questioning the return of the sitting member, may properly
be received.1

return

Where it has been determined that the sitting member Error in was not duly elected, and that some other candidate was amended, determina- duly elected, and ought to have been returned, the Clerk of see p. 639.

house upon

tion of elec

p. 652.

tion trials. the Crown is ordered to attend, and amend the return, by substituting the name of the duly elected candidate for the name of the other candidate. In the case of a double Double return, the Clerk of the Crown is ordered to attend and return, see amend the return, by rasing out the name of one of the parties, and what relates to him in the return. When the election is void, a new writ is ordered, unless the house shall think fit to suspend its issue. In the case of the Wigton election, 1874, the judge reported that the Right

1 137 C. J. 77.

2 150 ib. 353; 158 ib. 40.

333 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 2. See 266 H. D. 3 s. 1842, and especially the speech of the attorney-general. 194 ib. 1185.

No notice can be taken of a determination until reported to the house. On the 27th April, 1866, Mr. Mills, member for Northallerton, had been declared not duly elected; but no report had been made to the house, and the division on the second reading of the Reform Bill was expected the same evening. As every vote was important, the question was canvassed whether Mr. Mills

could vote. It was admitted that
his vote could not be disallowed:
but on taking counsel with his
friends, he very properly desisted
from voting.-Mr. Speaker Denison's
Diary, p. 192.

Tipperary Election, 27th March,
1875, 130 C. J. 236; Evesham Elec-
tion, 1881, 136 ib. 5, &c.

797 ib. 203; 124 ib. 173; Montgomery Election, 1848, 103 ib. 218; Dumbartonshire Election, 1866, 121 ib. 156; South Northumberland Election, 1878, 133 ib. 333; Saint Andrew's District of Burghs Election, 1885, 141 ib. 46.

Chapter Hon. John Young was duly elected: but it appearing that
XXIII. since his election he had been appointed a judge of the
Court of Session, in Scotland, a new writ was issued.1

8

5

4

Where there have been special reports concerning bribery, Special or riots at elections; the conduct of returning officers; reports. undue influence, and spiritual intimidation; the alteration of the poll; 6 the absence, misconduct, or perjury of witnesses; defects or uncertainty in the law; the propriety of suspending the writ;9 or any other exceptional circumstances; 10-the house has taken such measures as were required by law or usage, or as appeared suitable to The short- the occasion. It has been usual, in such cases, to order a copy of the judgment delivered by the judge, and the minutes of evidence, to be laid before the house.

hand

writer's notes, see

p. 655, n. 2.

The penalties inflicted for corrupt practices at elections Penalties for corrupt may have the following effect upon the composition of the practices." House of Commons. "A person may, at an election, be disqualified for being elected by reason of corrupt practices committed at an election previous thereto. So also a person not disqualified before an election may, during the election, become disqualified by reason of corrupt practices being committed at such election: but the latter disqualification can only arise ex post facto upon an investigation into such election. This disqualification always existed at common law," and the statutory provisions to which reference will be made are "intended only to give fuller effect to the common law of Parliament." Under sec. 4 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, a candidate for parliamentary election who is reported by an election court as tion courts personally guilty of corrupt practices, is incapacitated,

Reports from elec

[blocks in formation]

Extensive corrupt practices.

Writs suspended.

XXIII.

during seven years from the date of the report, from being Chapter
elected for any constituency, and for ever from sitting for
the constituency where the corrupt practice took place.
Under sec. 5, a candidate who is reported as guilty by his
agent is incapacitated, during seven years from the date of
the report, from being elected for the constituency where
the corrupt practice took place. Under secs. 6 and 38, any
person who is convicted on indictment, or who is reported
by an election court, or by election commissioners to have
been guilty of a corrupt practice, is incapacitated for being
elected to any constituency, during seven years from the
date of the conviction, if convicted, or, if reported, from the
date of the election. These incapacities are imposed in
addition to the election being avoided.1

By the Corrupt Practices Act, 1863, election committees
were required to report whether corrupt practices had
extensively prevailed, and consequent provision was made
for the institution of prosecutions by the attorney-general.
This duty is now laid upon the public prosecutor by sec. 45
of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1888, who, when
informed that corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed in
any election, shall, subject to the regulations under the
Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, make such inquiries and
institute such prosecutions as the circumstances of the case
appear to him to require; and thus the intervention of the
house, in such cases, is rendered unnecessary by the direct
operation of the law.

When general and notorious bribery and corruption have been proved to prevail in parliamentary boroughs, the house has suspended the issue of writs, with a view to further

Rogers on Elections, part ii. 17th ed. (revised 1900), p. 33. For the proofs of agency in election inquiries and its results, see ib. pp. 152. 360.

2 Liverpool, 1831, 86 C. J. 458. 493; Warwick, 1833, 88 ib. 611; 89 ib. 9. 579; Carrickfergus, 1833, 88 ib. 581. 599; Hertford, 1833, ib. 578. 649. In the three last cases, the writs were suspended until the dis

2

solution in Dec. 1834. Meanwhile
bills of disfranchisement, or for pre-
venting bribery in these boroughs,
were pending. Stafford, 1835; writ
suspended until 1837, until there
was no prospect of passing a dis-
franchisement bill; see debate, 13th
Feb. 1837, on issue of writ, 90 ib.
262; 91 ib. 792. Sudbury; writ sus-
pended from 14th April, 1842, till
1st Aug. 1843, 97 ib. 188. 467, &c.;

Chapter inquiry, and proceedings for the ultimate disfranchisement
XXIII. of the corrupt constituencies by Act of Parliament.1

sions of

An effectual mode of investigating corrupt practices at Commiselections was also established by 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, inquiry. which provided for the appointment of a royal commission of inquiry, upon a joint address of both houses of Parliament, or in consequence of a report from the election judges.2 Addresses were agreed to in the cases of Canterbury, Cambridge, Maldon, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Tynemouth, in 1853; Galway, in 1857; Gloucester and Wakefield, in 1859; Lancaster, Great Yarmouth, Reigate, and Totnes, in 1866; Beverley, Bridgwater, Cashel, Sligo, Dublin, and Norwich, in 1869; Norwich and Boston, in 1874; Boston, Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, Knaresborough, Macclesfield, Oxford, and Sandwich, in 1880; and Worcester, in 1906; and in 1869, commissioners were appointed, by statute, to inquire into corrupt practices reported, by an election judge, to have been committed. by the freemen of Dublin.

founded on

In pursuance of the reports of election commissioners, Bills by the Reform Act of 1867, the four corrupt boroughs of Lancaster, Great Yarmouth, Reigate, and Totnes were sioners.

Disfranchisement Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c.
53. Ipswich, 1842; writ suspended
from 25th April until 1st Aug. 1842,
97 C. J. 221. 554. Yarmouth, 1848;
writ suspended from 14th Feb. until
30th June, 103 ib. 213; freemen dis-
franchised by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 24.
Harwich, 1848, 103 ib. 330. 702. In
1851, an Act was passed for inquiring
into bribery at St. Albans, 14 & 15
Vict. c. 106; and the borough was
disfranchised by 15 & 16 Vict. c. 9.
Barnstaple; writ suspended from
22nd April, 1853, until 11th Aug.
1854. Cambridge; writ suspended
from 3rd March, 1853, until 11th
Aug. 1854. Canterbury; writ sus-
pended from 22nd Feb. 1853, until
11th Aug. 1854. Wakefield and
Gloucester; writs suspended from
July, 1859, until 20th Feb. 1862.
See 156 H. D. 3 s. 771; 157 ib. 1637;

161 ib. 247; 163 ib. 1070, &c. Nor-
wich; writ suspended in 1875, 130
C. J. 247; Act passed in 1876, for-
bidding any election during the Par-
liament, 39 & 40 Vict. c. 72. Wigan
Election, 1880; writ suspended until
Nov. 1881. On several other occa-
sions, writs have been suspended for
shorter periods until the printing
of evidence; e.g. Nottingham, 1843;
Harwich, 1848; and Clitheroe, 1853.
1 Copies of disfranchisement bills
are served upon the returning officer
before the second reading, 99 C. J.
443; 103 ib. 366. Lancaster, Great
Yarmouth, Reigate, and Totnes,
1866; Bridgwater and Beverley,
Sligo and Cashel, 1870; Norwich
and Boston, 1876, 131 ib. 325.

See Rogers on Elections, part ii.
17th ed. (revised 1900), p. 251.

reports of commis

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »