persons bribed and of instances of treating. These lists are given in in order to save the time that would otherwise be spent in opening all the cases of corrupt dealings in detail. The practice of handing in such lists has of late become very general, but it is never necessary to do so. The counsel may always, if he thinks fit, open all the cases of bribery, treating and undue influence in detail. A great number of objections were taken to the sufficiency of these lists in the sessions of 1848 and 1853. In addition to the cases already mentioned, it was decided that an act of bribery alleged to have been committed by a person omitted from the list could not be gone into. Lincoln, 1 P. R. & D. 77. If the name has been mentioned in the opening speech, but accidentally omitted from the list, it may be added. Bridgenorth, 2 P. R. & D. 21. So also in cases of treating, if the place in question has been neither referred to in the opening speech of counsel nor mentioned in the treating list, no evidence can be gone into with regard to it. Bodmin, 1 P. R. & D. 134. Kidderminster, ib. 265. But where notice had been given to the other side of the name of a house accidentally omitted from the treating list handed in to the committee, the petitioners have been allowed to have such house afterwards inserted. Aylesbury, 1 P. R. & D. 86.

Application is frequently made to the committee during the investigation for leave to amend these bribery and treating lists. Clitheroe, 2 P. R. & D. 31. Guildford, 2 P. R. & D. 107. In the latter case the committee considered that the giving of the names of six or seven persons as the individuals who had given the bribes was not a compliance with their resolution, and they

desired that the lists should be amended. They refused to adjourn for that purpose, but postponed the cases with regard to which the statement was to be amended, and directed the counsel to proceed with those cases in which the names of one or two individuals were set forth as the persons bribing.

Where the list of persons alleged to have been bribed contained the names of twenty-five individuals, who were the committee of the sitting member, as the persons bribing, the chairman, when this list was objected to as an evasion of the ordinary resolution, stated that the committee were not prepared at present to make any order on the subject. The committee afterwards, when some evidence had been given, resolved "that with reference to acts of bribery alleged to have been committed by persons exceeding five in number, the counsel for the petitioners will be limited to evidence of acts done by the committee in their collective capacity." And when application was on a future day made to amend the lists by substituting for the names of the committee the names of four persons, the committee resolved" that the counsel for the petitioners having been aware from the commencement of the case that objections would be raised to the sufficiency of the lists, are not entitled at this period of the proceedings to amend the list with reference to a particular case." The evidence which had been given in this case was then expunged from the minutes (a).

Where an objection was taken to the sufficiency of the description of a voter in the bribery list, in consequence of there being two persons of the same name

(a) Peterborough, 2 P. R. & D. 260.

on the register, the committee directed the agent for the petitioners to identify all voters with regard to whom further information was required by the numbers on the register, before the rising of the committee (a).

It is not necessary that either the time when, or the place where, the alleged acts of bribery were committed should be stated either in the opening speech. Southampton, B. & Aust. 379; Cambridge, B. & Arn. 171; or specified in the lists; 2nd Harwich, 1 P. R. & D. 317. As to treating, see Bodmin, 1 P. R. & D. 135.

Separating the Case.] It often happens that a petition contains several distinct allegations, some of which would, if proved, render the election void, while the others claim the seat for the unsuccessful candidate. It is usually the practice, in such cases, to keep the different parts of the case quite distinct,-it being left in general to the option of the petitioner's counsel as to which part of the case they will proceed with in the first instance; that part of the case which tends to disqualify the sitting member, or avoid the election, being usually taken first. This division of the case often takes place by arrangement between the counsel on each side. Wakefield, Bar. & Aust. 276. But a committee frequently assents to such a division as this, at the proposal of the petitioner's counsel, though objected to by the other side. Athlone, Bar. & Arn. 117. Thus, where a petition alleged that the election was void on account of an irregularity in the conduct of the election, viz., the premature closing of the poll, and also contained charges of bribery against the sitting member and his agents, the committee determined

(a) Liverpool, 2 P. R. & D. 249.

to decide on the question of irregularity in the first instance, against the application of the counsel for the sitting member that the whole case should be gone into at once, and notwithstanding the charges of bribery had already been opened for the petitioners. 2nd Harwich, 1851 (a). Where a petition alleges disqualification on the part of the sitting member, and that notice thereof was given at the election, the most convenient course is to prove the disqualification or want of quali fication in the first instance. But counsel are usually allowed to proceed with their case as they think best. 2nd Maidstone, F. & F. 673; Belfast, F. & F. 600; Dublin, 1 P. R. & D. 204.

In the Coventry case, P. & K. 345, the committee, after the whole case had been opened, refused to take the question of want of qualification before the charges of riot and intimidation, at the request of the counsel for the sitting member. In the 2nd Barnstaple, 1855, the petition alleged want of property qualification against one of the sitting members, and corrupt prac tices against both, the committee, when the whole case had been opened, directed that the allegation relative to insufficiency of qualification on the part of Mr. G. should be first proceeded with. Pr. Mins. p. 2.

Where a petition contained an objection to the member's qualification, and also prayed a scrutiny, the committee. declined, at the suggestion of the counsel for the sitting member, to compel the petitioners to commence with the objection to the qualification. Dublin, 1 P. R. & D. 193.

Where a petition alleged bribery, treating, riot,

(a) 1 P. R. & D. 319.

intimidation, and prayed a scrutiny, the committee desired the petitioners to proceed, first with the charges of bribery and treating, then with those of intimidation and riot, and, finally, with the scrutiny. Upon the counsel for the petitioners stating that he was not then prepared to proceed with the cases of bribery and treating, the committee decided, that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case (though they did not wish the present decision to be a precedent, considering that if bribery was alleged in the petition it ought to be the first point gone into), they would permit the case of intimidation and riot to be proceeded with first (a).

Occasionally, committees interfere to compel the adoption of a particular course. In the Lyme Regis, 1848 (b), the petition charged bribery, and prayed a scrutiny. The petitioner's counsel proposed to proceed in the first instance with the scrutiny: the committee resolved: "That when there is a charge of bribery against the sitting member or his agents, it ought to be gone into first, and not reserved until after a scrutiny;" when the charge of bribery had been disposed of as against the sitting member, the committee refused to proceed with the scrutiny until the bribery had been disposed of on both sides, this however is an exception to the usual practice.

Though the different parts of the case are usually taken separately, each part must be concluded before another is entered upon. For this purpose corrupt practices are usually considered as one portion of the

(a) Clare, 2 P. R. & D. 245.

(b) 1 P. R. & D. 26.