itself (a) it appears that some important words contained in the petition have been omitted in the report. The petition alleged "That it was proved before the select committee, and the fact was, and became open and notorious to all parties that, at the said election in 1852, Mr. A. had been guilty of corrupt practices, &c.” It has been before pointed out (b) that in the Coventry case, P. & K. 345, where the allegation in the petition was "that the petitioners believe that Mr. B. has not the requisite qualification, evidence was allowed to shew that he had given in an insufficient particular in obedience to the Standing Order of 1717.” The petition ought to contain the general facts and circumstances, intended to be adduced before the committee, in order to invalidate the election or return. The circumstances intended to be relied on must not be introduced as matter of recital, but should be charged as matter of complaint. Where it was recited in the petition that certain persons were candidates at the election, and that one of them was Sir A. Hume, High Sheriff of the County of H., and the petitioner on the trial, attempted to shew that Sir A. H. was ineligible, because he was high sheriff, there being no other allusion to his ineligibility, except by the description in the recital, it was resolved, that the point could not be argued, as the ineligibility was not an allegation in the petition. Petersfield, 3 Doug. 3. So also where a petition recited, that the poll commenced at nine o'clock on certain days named, and closed on each of those days at the hour of three o'clock, but no complaint was made in the petition, that the time of (a) 108 Jour. 571. polling was shorter than was allowed by law; it was held that this was mere matter of recital, and not of complaint. London, 2 Peck. 271. Variances in Petition.] A committee of the House of Commons is seldom disposed to attach importance to technical objections to the wording of the petition, or to variances between the allegations and the evidence, when no one can have been misled thereby. Where a petition alleged that the poll was taken on the 22nd June, but it appeared in evidence that it was taken on the 29th June, the committee without hearing the petitioner in answer to the objection, determined to proceed with the case. Reading, Bar. & Aust. 422 (a). The petition ought to be addressed, as other petitions are, to the House of Commons; but if a petition not so addressed, has been received by the House, no objection can afterwards be taken to it on that ground before the committee. In a very recent case, St. Alban's, 1851, an objection was taken by the counsel for the sitting member, to the petition being considered by the committee; on the ground that it did not state on the face of it, to what tribunal it was addressed, inasmuch as the words "To the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled," or words to that effect, were entirely omitted; the committee overruled the objection, on the ground that the fact of (a) Objections to the form of election petitions are seldom made in modern times, as these documents are usually prepared by persons thoroughly conversant with the subject. A large body of precedents is to be found in the Journals of the House of Commons, particularly in those of the session following a general election. the petition having been received by the House, sufficiently designated it as a petition to the House of Commons. See Printed Minutes, p. 4 (a). Signature of the Petition]. The petition should be signed by the petitioners themselves, with their names or marks. By a resolution of the House, 1689, it was resolved, "That all petitions presented to this House, ought to be signed by the petitioners with their own hands, by their names, or marks." And it was by another resolution, in the year 1774, resolved, "That it is highly unwarrantable, and a breach of the privileges of this House, for any person to set the name of any other person to any petition presented to this House." Many cases are to be found in the Journals of the House of Commons, where election petitions have been rejected, on its appearing to the House that they have been improperly signed. See these collected in Chambers's Dict. of Election Law, p. 454. This matter was much considered recently, by a committee appointed to inquire into certain matters connected with the presenting of an election petition, against the Aylesbury election in 1851, when certain persons were reprimanded by the House for signing the name of another person as petitioner without his authority. See Printed Report, 1851. When the signature of a person has been improperly affixed to a petition presented in his name, the House ought to be petitioned on the subject, that the election petition may be rejected by them. This may be done as in the Aylesbury case by the party whose name has (a) 1 P. R. & D. 279. been improperly used, and also by the parties petitioned against. The House will then appoint a committee, to inquire especially into the matter. But it would appear, that when the petition has been dealt with by the House, as an election petition, and has been referred in due course, to a select committee for trial, it is then too late to take an objection to the signature to the petition. It is a matter of privilege, rather than one affecting the merits of the petition. In a recent case, the counsel for the sitting member required, that proof should be given that the petition was signed by the parties, whose names it bore; it was answered, that the petition having been regularly referred to the committee, by the proper authorities, it must have been treated by them as regular; the time for inquiring into its regularity, being before its reference to the committee. The committee were of opinion that the objection was one that could not be sustained. 2nd Harwich, 1851, Printed Minutes (a). When the irregularity affects some only of the signatures to the petition it will be proceeded with as the petition of those who have actually signed it. Seaford, 3 Lud. 2; Honiton, 3 Lud. 143. Interlineations]. It remains only further to be observed that care should be taken in the preparation of the petition, to avoid as much as possible, all interlineations and erasures:-as, if these occur they may afford ground for a preliminary objection. Vide infra, Chapter on Practice; and see Southampton, P. & K. 214; Portarlington, ib. 238; Lyme, Bar. & Aus. 456. (a) 1 P. R. & D. 318. 3. Who may Petition.] Having thus briefly considered the substance, and form, of an election petition, the next point to be considered is, who are the parties, who by law are entitled to present such a petition: these also are defined in the 2nd section of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98. The petitioner may be: 1st. Some person who voted, or had a right to vote at the election to which the petition relates, or 2ndly. Some person claiming to have a right to be returned, or elected at such election, or 3rdly. A person alleging himself to have been a candidate at the election. If the petition be that of any person, other than one of those here described, it would be the ground of a preliminary objection before the committee. There fore, if the petitioner, though claiming to have had a right to vote at the election, had really no right to vote, he would not be entitled to petition. In the Aylesbury case, 1848, 1 P. R. & D., 82, an objection was taken to proceeding with the petition, on the ground that the petitioner had no right to vote at the election. In another case, however, where the petitioner was on the register, and had voted, the committee would not allow the question to be raised. Harwich, 1848, Printed Min. In the Chester County case, 1848 (a), the petitioners were required to prove that they had a right to vote. As the person voting may have had no right to vote at the time of election, it would appear that the decision in the Harwich case was an incorrect one (b). It has been already observed, that (a) 1 P. R. & D. (b) Vide infra, Practice. |