the voter's title; it was contended, on the other hand, that the fact of the barrister having adjudicated on the claim, was sufficient evidence that a proper written claim had been made. The committee decided that the orginal claim must be produced.

In Whysall's case, Wigan, Bar. & Aust. 175, in order to prove that a voter had made a claim to be registered, the overseer was called, who stated that he had received a notice of claim purporting to be given by the voter, and that he had made out a list of claims; having produced a copy of the list, the overseer was asked if the list contained the names of all persons whose names had been sent in as claimants. The committee decided that the question could not be put. It was then proposed to shew, from the list signed by the revising barrister, that the case had been adjudicated upon. The committee resolved, "That the revising barrister's list, now produced, does not afford, of itself, conclusive (a) evidence that the name of E. W. was inserted in the list of claims." The committee afterwards admitted in evidence a notice of claim produced by the assistant overseer, without proof of the signature of the claimant, and though it did not state his place of abode. The decision of the revising barrister upon the claim was then proved by the person who had objected to the claim at the revision. Bar. & Aust. 179.

It is observed by Mr. Rogers (b), “It would seem that as this is an appeal from the judgment of the

(a) Quære primâ facie.
(b) Rogers on Com. p. 139.

revising barrister, whatever the barrister actually had before him, and upon which he adjudicated, whether the original claim, or the printed copy furnished by the overseers, would be sufficient evidence."

In Norris's case, Bedford, F. & F. 434, the written claim was not called for. In the Carnarvon case, P. & K. 459, the original claim was not produced or called for; but upon proof that the list of claimants produced before the barrister had been lost, the committee allowed printed copies of it to be given in evidence.

In a recent case, 1st Harwich, 1851, Minutes, 222, evidence was given that a claim had been objected to, and decided upon by the revising barrister, without the production of the original claim, or the list of claimants made by the overseers.

In Bagshawe's case, before the same committee, Minutes, p. 239, parol evidence was given that the voter was a claimant at the revision, and that the barrister inserted the name in the lists.

CHAPTER XII.

GENERAL BRIBERY.

1. Proceedings in cases of Compromise.

2.

when further Inquiry recommended.

3. Petitions alleging general Bribery.

4. Petitions, when Election petition withdrawn. 5. Inquiry by Commissioners, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57.

IN consequence of the facility with which cases of bribery were made out, by means of the enactment 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, considerable alarm was created in the minds of the parties petitioned against in the session of 1842, and a great number of the inquiries then pending were smothered, by means of compromises entered into among the different parties.

A committee of the House was appointed to inquire into these transactions, the history and proceedings of which, are given at length in the report of the Nottingham case, Bar. & Arn. 140.

In order the more effectually to prevent such corrupt compromises for the future, the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, intituled, "An Act for the better discovery and prevention of Bribery and Treating at the Election of Members of Parliament," was passed in August 1842.

The 1st section of that statute recites, "That the laws then in force were insufficient for the discovery of bribery; that it was expedient to give further powers for that purpose, and to collect evidence on which to found further proceedings in regard to places where bribery has been generally or extensively practised.”

1. Proceedings in cases of Compromise.] It is then enacted, "That whenever charges of bribery, which have been made either in the petition, or stated, by way of recrimination, shall be withdrawn or abandoned, or not bona fide prosecuted before the committee, the committee shall have power to examine into, and ascertain the circumstances under which these charges of bribery shall have been withdrawn or abandoned. So that the committee may ascertain whether there has been any compromise or covert arrangement or understanding in order to avoid the discovery of bribery at the election" (a).

The committee, in prosecuting such an inquiry, may call before them, as witnesses, the sitting member, or the candidate, their several agents, and all other persons concerned in the abandonment of the charges of bribery. Such witnesses must, however, be examined according to the ordinary rules of evidence.

On the trial of the 1st Horsham Petition, 22nd March, 1848 (see Printed Minutes), the counsel for the sitting member stated, that he could not deny that treating to a considerable extent had taken place at the election, under the authority of the agents of the sitting member. Some witnesses were then called by

(a) See Rochester, 1856, 2 P. R. & D. 344.

the petitioners to prove the treating. The committee then called upon the counsel for the petitioners to state his views upon the other parts of the petition which alleged bribery.

The counsel stated, that he did not intend to proceed any further in the prosecution of the petition. The committee, after declaring the election void, resolved, "That, with reference to an allegation contained in the petition of the existence of bribery at the last election for the borough of Horsham, the counsel for the petitioners be requested, in accordance with the resolution of the committee, to produce the list of the names of the electors alleged to have been bribed, and those of the persons who are charged with having given the bribes." The counsel then stated, that, although he had been prepared to substantiate by evidence (so far as he could judge from the instructions contained in his brief) the charges of bribery alleged in the petition, yet, having now, as counsel for the petitioners, obtained all that they required, he withdrew from any further prosecution of the case. Thereupon the committee resolved, "That the agents be called in, and examined with reference to any cir cumstances which may have led to the forbearance to prosecute the charges of bribery alleged in the petition." The agents accordingly were examined by the committee; very little light, however, was thrown upon the transaction, and the committee then came to the resolution, "That the circumstances attending the forbearance to prosecute the charges of bribery contained in the petition, do not appear to the committee to call for any special report with reference to such