the whole proceeding constitutes one election. There are two polls; but the return on the first being void on account of the incapacity of the returned member to sit, in consequence of his bribery, there must be a second poll in order that a valid return may be made." The correctness of this argument is proved by the invariable practice of committees. In the case of Hindon, 1777 (a), the election of General Smith and Mr. Hollis was declared void for bribery. Gen. Smith stood again and was returned, but was unseated on petition on account of his incapacity to stand. In the Honiton case, 1782 (b), the committee decided, that a candidate unseated for bribery was ineligible to fill the vacancy thus created. In the Kirkcudbright case (c) the committee came to the same decision. In a great number of other cases the same principle has been affirmed. The member, found guilty of bribery by himself or his agents, was unseated by force of the common law, and not by any statute ; and the incapacity to be re-elected on the vacancy then created was the consequence of the common law rule of Parliament. It is obvious therefore, that an unsuccessful candidate, who had bribed at the first election, might be petitioned against on that account if he stood again on the vacancy. : It has however been contended that this rule ought not to have been applied to cases of treating because the words "such election" in 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, s. 2, ought not to be construed to mean any election but the one at which the treating took place. (a) 36 Journ. 94; Cliff. 184; 4 Doug. 287. (c) 1 Lud. 72; 2nd Canterbury, Cliff. 361. Lord Glenbervie observes upon this (a): "The statute, however, has been understood otherwise; and the words "such election" are explained to mean any election made to fill the particular seat for which the first writ issued, which, although a new writ issues, the second election is to do, for it cannot be said to have been supplied by the first, nobody having been thereby entitled to take possession of it." It may, however, be questioned whether it is by inter. preting the words "such election" as including the second election, that the rule has been extended to cases of treating. When a person elected was unseated by force of the Treating Act, the common law disqualification immediately attached to him, and he became incapable of standing on the vacancy. But whether it be from the construction put upon the words "such election," or by force of the common law, the result was the same, and it has been uniformly recognised to be the law of Parliament. It is sometimes said that the 2nd Norwich committee, 3 Luders, 499 (b), came to a different conclusion. Their report does not contravene the general practice. The member unseated was returned again, and retained his seat on petition. But, as the first petition contained allegations which merely made the first election void, and as evidence was given upon them, the second committee had no means of deciding why the member was unseated by the first committee. Another case has been often cited as having gone too far the other (a) Doug. 410. (6) In the report of the case it is stated that a private communication was made by the chairman to the fearned reporter as to the grounds of their decision. See Clifford, p. 200. way, and as having extended the statutable or common law incapacity, whichever it was, to the whole Parliament; Thetford, 1700 (a). From that time down to the present the rule has been acted upon, that a member unseated for treating was in the same position as a member unseated for bribery. In the 2nd Southwark case, Cliff. 131, all the former cases are reviewed. In the 2nd Maidstone case, F. & F., it was admitted by the counsel for the sitting member, that no distinction could be raised between bribery and treating as grounds of disqualification. (a) This case has been so uniformly quoted by different authors, from Lord Glenbervie down to the present time, as proving that the House of Commons on that occasion extended the incapacity too far, that it is with diffidence that it is now questioned whether any such construction was ever put upon the act. Mr. Sloane had been unseated for treating, he was rechosen, and the question of his eligibility was discussed in the House. A large party of his friends wished him to retain his seat, and they proposed as a motion "that Mr. Sloane is capable of serving in this present Parliament for the said borough." And this motion was negatived on division by 144 to 112. The majority in negativing this motion merely declared that Mr. Sloane was not duly elected, and was at that time ineligible. The particular words used by those who framed the motion were probably intended to assert no more than that Mr. Sloane was well elected, and could therefore serve in the present Parliament. 13 Journ. 251. In the Stockbridge case in 1689, the House of Commons appear to have assumed that they had the power of excluding a person from the representation of a place for the remainder of the Parliament. Mr. Montague was petitioned against for bribery, and the committee of privileges reported the evidence to the House, and their resolution that W. M. was not duly elected. The House agreed with this resolution, and resolved further, "That Wm. Montague, Esq., be disabled from being elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Stockbridge.” 10 Journ. 286. The same rule applies to a candidate whose conduct has not been investigated; New Malton, 1808, Minutes; Camelford, C. & D. 239; 2nd Horsham, 1848; 2nd Cheltenham, 1848; 2nd Clitheroe, 1853. The effect of the decision of a committee that a candidate has been guilty, by himself or his agents, of bribery, treating, or undue influence, now creates a much more extensive disqualification. The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22, created a similar disqualification for the Parliament, but only, in cases of treating, when the candidate was cognisant of it, or paid the expenses (a). The question of the power of a committee to inquire into what took place at the former election is still of importance, as far as the case of the candidate is concerned. It must be remembered, that is only when the second election follows upon a void election, that this inquiry can take place. If a good election were to intervene between the one declared void for corrupt practices and the one afterwards petitioned against, the committee would have no jurisdiction to inquire into what was done at the first election; because the last election did not form any part of the void elec-▾ tion. If a member not petitioned against after a general election, were afterwards to vacate his seat and be again elected for the same place, it would not be competent for the committee, in the event of a petition against the second election, to hear any charges connected with the proceedings at the first. (a) The 49 Geo. 3, c. 118, incapacitated a person purchasing the return, for the remainder of the Parliament. So also if, upon the death of a member, a person who had been a candidate when such member was elected, were to be himself returned for the place, no inquiry could take place as to whether corrupt practices had been committed by him or his agents at the first election. Although the commission of corrupt practices disqualifies for the remainder of the Parliament, it does so, only after a declaration of guilt by a committee. And the candidate, in the case here supposed, had no such declaration against him at the time he stood as a candidate upon the second election, which was entirely distinct both in law and fact from the first. It has been already mentioned, that in one case a committee allowed an inquiry to take place into the proceedings of a former election; Dungarvan, 1854. This course seems to have been adopted in consequence of the construction put upon one of the repealed sections of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102. The 22nd section of that act provided, "that every candidate for any county, &c., who should by himself, or for or with any person, or in any manner, directly or indirectly, give or provide, or cause or knowingly allow to be given or provided, wholly or partly at his expense, or pay wholly or in part any expenses incurred for any meat, &c., at any time either before, during, or after any such election, &c., should be incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament for that county, &c., during the Parliament for which such election should be holden." It will be seen that the language of this enactment differs somewhat from that of the 36th section of the new act. The wording of the enactment in the former section was, that every candidate who shall treat shall be incapable of sitting, &c., and not, every candidate who |