and the whole arrangement was submitted to and ap- Maidstone proved by the solicitor of the navy board. The assignment was executed on the 22nd of July, and it was taken two days afterwards to the commissioners, who thereupon gave orders to their clerk to write to the different yards to say that W. was no longer a contractor; and one of the commissioners being called as a witness, stated that they did not consider W. as a contractor subsequently to the execution of the assignment, but only as surety for V.; W. and V. were general partners as paper dealers, but it was proved that since the assignment all the dealings by V. with the navy board had been carried to a separate account, and that none of the paper supplied under the assignment of the contract had come from the joint stock. Case. 1831. for the petitioners. It was contended for the petitioners that no assign- Argument ment could be sufficient for the purpose of releasing the liability of W.; for, till the original contract was cancelled, or a release given, he continued liable; but that, admitting a contractor could discharge himself by merely assigning his contract, still, inasmuch as the contractors had bound themselves in case of any default of their assignee, "to be accountable and to answer for and make good the same, in like manner as if no such transfer or assignment had taken place," they expressly resumed their liability in case of the assignee's default; so that, at all events, they were conditionally liable. On the other side it was said that it was part of the Argument original contract that an assignment might be made for the sitting with consent; that, after the assignment, W. was only member. liable as surety, and that sureties were not within the letter or spirit of the Act; and that, upon the clause cited, W. could only have been compelled to make good any default of the assignee by a pecuniary compensation, and could not have been called on to deliver paper. That it could not be pretended that W. would have been liable if an action had been brought against him for the penalties; and therefore he is not disquali Maidstone fied, for the same words which create the disqualification create the liability to the penalties. Case. 1831. The Committee determined that Mr. W. was not disqualified. Action for Felton v. Easthope-(MS.)-Sitt. after Trin. Term. 1822 (a). ACTION FOR PENALTIES. This was an action for penalties for bribery under Penalties. 2 Geo. 2, c. 24 (repealed). To render a person liable under that statute, the acts of bribery must have been committed by "himself or any person employed by him." Upon the trial of the action, the agent by whom the acts of bribery were committed, was the principal witness. Abbott, C. J., told the jury that "it was perfectly true, if an agent who may be employed for various purposes to canvass, &c., does, without the knowledge, privity, or approbation of the principal, promise a sum of money, the principal is not liable to be sued under this Act for the penalty. No person is liable to be sued for that penalty unless that which was improperly done was done by his authority. If an agent bribes voters with or without the knowledge and direction of the principal, it will void the election: the principal is to that extent liable, but not so in an action of this sort. It must be proved to be done with the knowledge and authority of the principal." (a) From notes of the late Mr. Harrison, Q.C. VACATING OF SEATS. REPORT OF COMMITTEE AS TO VACATING OF SEATS UPON The Committee reported that they had resolved as follows: "(1) That the fact of succession to a Peerage of England, or of Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom, disables the person so succeeding from being elected to, or from sitting or voting in, the House of Commons. (2) That it has been the general practice of the House of Commons to abstain from declaring the seat of a member vacant, and ordering a fresh election in his room, on the ground of succession to a peerage entitling the holder to sit in the House of Lords until the member has been called up to the House of Lords' by receiving a writ of summons from the Crown to sit in that House. The reason for the practice appears to us to be, not that the mere fact of succession does not in itself disable the member so succeeding, but that the occurrence of that fact with its disabling consequences ought not to be assumed and acted upon without clear proof, and that the writ of summons, in cases in which such a writ can be issued, is the best and safest proof of which the circumstances admit. The rule, in other words, is a rule not of law but of evidence. Where, as in the case of a Scotch peerage, the succession does not entitle the holder to sit in the House of Lords, and there can therefore be no writ of summons, the House of Commons has (since the Act of Union with Scotland) been accustomed to declare the seat vacant upon such evidence of the death of the predecessor, and of the succession of the member affected, as it thought fit and sufficient. (3) That when a member has succeeded to a peerage entitling him to a seat in the House of Lords, and delays or refuses to apply for a writ of summons, the House of Commons is entitled, and may, in the interest of the constituency, be bound to ascertain the fact of the succession by such inquiry and upon such evi Vacating of Seats. of Seats. Vacating dence as it considers appropriate to the case. (4) That we do not think that the Order of Reference requires us to express any opinion upon the question whether, and under what conditions (if any), a person succeeding to a peerage ought to be allowed to divest himself of the disability arising from the status of a peer for membership of the House of Commons. It follows, from the propositions above stated, that the existing law and practice of Parliament do not, in our opinion, admit of such a proceeding." REPORT OF COMMITTEE AS TO THE SUCCESSION TO THE The following is the text of the report : "The Select Committee appointed to inquire and report whether the Honourable William Waldegrave Palmer, commonly called Viscount Wolmer, has since his election to this House succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne in the peerage of the United Kingdom, have agreed to the following report:-The Committee met and had produced before them, on behalf of Lord Selborne, the patent dated the 23rd of October, in the thirty-sixth year of the Queen's reign creating Sir Roundell Palmer and his heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, Baron Selborne in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and the patent dated the 30th of December in the forty-sixth year of the Queen's reign creating Baron Selborne, Earl of Selborne in the peerage of the United Kingdom; the certificate of marriage of the late Earl of Selborne, on the 2nd of February, 1848, the certificate of the birth of his eldest and only son, William Waldegrave Palmer, commonly called Viscount Wolmer, on the 17th of October, 1859, and the certificate of burial of the first Earl of Selborne on the 8th of May, 1895. The Committee having considered the matters referred to them, and having taken evidence thereon, report that the Hon. William Waldegrave Palmer, commonly called Viscount Wolmer, has since his election to this House succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne in the peerage of the United Kingdom."'" APPENDIX II. 387 STATUTES. 7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 7. [1696.] An Act to prevent false and double returns of Members to serve in Parliament. return WHEREAS false and double returns of members to serve in Parliament are an abuse of trust in a matter of the greatest consequence to the kingdom, and not only an injury to the persons duly chosen by keeping them from their service in the House of Commons, and putting them to great expense to make their elections appear, but also to the counties, cities, boroughs, and cinque ports by which they are chosen, and the business. of Parliament disturbed and delayed thereby. Be it False therefore enacted and declared *** that all false returns wilfully made of any *** member to serve in Parliament are against law, and are hereby prohibited. And in case that any person or persons shall return any Returns member to serve in Parliament for any county, city, the last contrary to borough, cinque port, or place contrary to the last determinadetermination in the House of Commons of the right of Commons election in such county, city, borough, cinque port, or adjudged place, that such return so made shall and is hereby Ante, adjudged to be a false return. prohibited. tion of the false. p. 145. grieved to recover 2. And be it further enacted that the party grieved Party (to wit) every person that shall be duly elected to serve in Parliament for any county, city, borough, cinque port, double damages or place, by such false return, may sue the officers and and full persons making or procuring the same and every or costs. |