Parceners.

(A) Of what Thing there may be Parceners.

TO the paffage cited from Co. Litt. 165. b. in pl. 1. &c. of the fect. to which this is a fupplement, Mr. Hargrave has fubjoined the following note:

"In a late conteft about the office of Great Chamberlain, which "arofe in confequence of the late Duke of Ancafter's leaving two "fifters his co-heireffes, one of whom was married to Mr. Burrel, "the then Attorney-General made a report in conformity to the "doctrine here ftated by Lord Coke, as to the office of high confta"ble; and this report, of which I have a copy, contains a very "learned investigation of the fubject. But afterwards, when the "cafe came before the lords, the judges gave it as their opinion, "that the office belongs to both fifters; that the husband of the eldest is "not of right entitled to execute it; and that both fifters may execute it "by deputy to be appointed by them, fuch deputy not being of a degree in"ferior to a knight, and to be approved of by the king. See Journ. "Dom. Proc. 25. May 1781, the Printed Cafes of the feveral Claim"ants, and the Parl. Reg. for 1780, 1, v. 4. 258 to 297. Harg. "note S. Co. Litt. 165. b.”

16Vin. 168

(E) What Privileges the eldest or her Issue shall have. 16Vin. 171.

то

O the paffage cited from Co. Litt. 166. b. in pl. 3. of the fect. to which this is a fupplement, refpecting the privilege of an eldeft co-parcener to prefent to an advowfon, Mr. Hargrave has fubjoined the following note:

"Acc. P. 18. E. Quare Impedit 176. Poft. 186. b. 3 Co. 22. b. 2 Inft. 365. 2 Ro. Abr. 346. Mallory's Quare Impedit, 145. "Three judges alfo held accordingly, Eaft. 23 Eliz. in Harris "and Haies v. Nichols, Cro. Eliz. 18. But Anderfon, Chief Juf"tice, doubted, whether a grantee fhould have the privilege. In "Kielway there is a cafe of 18 Hen. 7. in which Frowicke, Chief "Juftice, is made to give it to the grantee of the eldest fifter, only where it has been once exercised by herfelf. But he af terwards doubted his own diftinction, and feemed to incline "to the grantee's right generally; in confequence of which the "report concludes thus: ftude bene et quære. Keilw. 49. Upon the whole therefore it feems, that the point is not quite fettled; and to determine it properly would require a very careful examif nation of the numerous cafes cited by Ld. Coke here and in the fecond

fecond Inftitute. See 7 Ann. c. 18. I was led into this note, "by a reference to the cafe from Cro. Eliz. in a Coke upon Lit"tleton of the late Mr. Beverfbam Filmer; and by an opinion of "the fame very learned gentleman, in which he represents the "point to be doubtful, and therefore diffuaded accepting the "title to the next prefentation of an advowfon belonging to three "fons as heirs in gavelkind, unless they would all join in the grant." Harg. note 2. Co Litt. 166. b.

16Vin. 175. (L) Oufter. What shall be faid a Diffeifin by one

of the other.

IN a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, the cafe was, that a Roman Catholic died seised of certain lands, leaving two fons, R. and 7. By the Irish statute 2 Anne, eftates in fee fimple or fee tail belonging to Roman Catholics, defcend in gavelkind; but, on the death of the Catholic R. entered alone, and held the fame until his death, for fixty-two years, and in the mean time fettled the fame by fine and recovery, to which 7. his brother was privy. On the death of R., in 1766, leaving two daughters, J., the leffor of the plaintiff, brought an ejectment against his two nieces, for two-thirds of a moiety of the lands whereof his brother died feised, as co-heir in gavelkind with his brother, and recovered them by default. He then brought an ejectment against the widow of R. for the other third of the moiety, which the claimed as her dower, and alfo under the fettlement. On the trial the judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff; upon which a bill of exceptions was tendered, fetting out in substance this case, which was returned into B. R. in Ireland, and thereupon the court gave judg ment for the defendant. A writ of error was then brought in B. R. at Westminster, and it was argued for the defendant, that fixty-two years fole poffeffion, and the fine, were a bar to this action by common law; that this was a question, not between jointtenants, or tenants in common, but tenants in gavelkind, who were male coparceners; that the true ftate of the law as to coparceners was this, 1ft, If both enter, there must be actual oufter, to make a diffeifin. 2dly, If one enters generally, and takes the profits, this is no diffeifin. 3dly, If one enters Specially, as in the prefent cafe, claiming right to the whole, and taking the whole profits, this is a diffeifin; but after her death, the fifter may enter, unless barred by the statute of limitations. 4thly, If, after a special entry, one by feoffment or fine, deftroys the coparcenary, and takes back an estate in fee and dies, the entry of the fifter is barred. Here R. entered alone in 1704, took the whole profits, fettled the estate in 1727, with the privity of J.; levied a fine, and died after fixty-two years poffeffion. The entry of 7. is therefore clearly barred, and he cannot maintain any ejectment. The court faid, that the ftatute 2 Anne, made the lands of Roman

Catholics

Catholics defcend in gavelkind, that was its whole effect, and then the adverfe poffeffion of one gavelkind tenant, would not operate as the poffeffion of both. That was a qualified rule, and in the prefent cafe the acts of ownership, fine, &c. made an actual oufter, and the ftatute of limitations operated as an extinguishment of the remedy of the one, and not as giving the estate to the other. Davenport v. Tyrrell, 1 Black. 675.

Parliament.

[A]

(B) Who may fit and have Privilege in the Houfe 16Vin. 185.

1. 15 GEO.

of Commons.

EO. 2. c. 22. Commiffioners of revenue in Ireland; of the navy, clerks in the following offices; treafury, auditors, tellers, or chancellor of exchequer's offices; admiralty, paymaster of army or navy, fecretaries of ftate, falt, ftamps, apples, wine-licence, hackney-coaches, hawkers and pedlars, or having office in Minorca or Gibraltar, except commiflion officers in regiments, are excluded from being members of the house of commons.

2. 22 Geo. 3. c. 45. Every person who fhall directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other to his ufe, hold any contract made with the commiffioners of the treasury, navy, or victualling-office, or the mafter-general, or board of ordinance, or any other perfon, for the account of the public fervice; or fhall in purfuance of any fuch contract, furnish any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares, or merchandize to be ufed in the fervice of the public, fhall be incapable of being elected, or fitting, or voting in the house of commons during the time he fhall hold fuch contract.

3. 33 Geo. 2. c. 20. Members, before they vote or fit in parliament fhall deliver in a schedule of their qualifications according to 9 Ann. and fwear to it, except eldeft fons of peers, or perfons qualified to be knights of a fhire, members of universities, or Scotch members.

4. 14 Geo. 3. c. 58. repeals 1 H. 5. and fo much of 8th, 10th, and 23d H. 6. as relates to refidence of electors or elected.

5. 10 Geo. 3. c. 41. The fpeaker, during recefs of parliament, may iffue his warrant to the clerk of the crown, to make out a writ for electing a member in the room of one dead during recefs, on the death being certified under the hands of two members; he muft give notice in the gazette, and not iffue warrant till fourteen days after, nor unless the return of the deceased member was brought in fifteen days before the end of the feffion preceding his death.

6

6. The

6. The fpeaker is not to iffue his warrant for a new election, unless the death was certified, fo that the notice might be given 14 days before the meeting of parliament, nor where a petition was depending at the laft prorogation or adjournment. 15 Geo. 3c. 37. f. 1.

Sect. 2. He may iffue his warrant on a member becoming a peer, in the same manner as if he were dead.

(B) As to Elections.

1. 18 GE EO. 2. c. 18. Every elector, if required, fhall fwear he has a freehold of 40s. per annum, and what and where, and whether he has had it a year, or come to it by descent, marriage, marriage-fettlement, devife, or promotion; that it was not granted on purpofe to qualify; his place of abode; that he was twenty-one, and has not polled before.

3

Sect. 3 and 4. Elector must have been affeffed to the land tax within twelve months before, except for chambers, &c. not usually affefled; and duplicates of affeflment fhall be kept among the records of the quarter feflions.

Sect. 5. Perfons not qualified, voting, or voting more than once, forfeit 40%.

Sect. 6. Taxes or rates are not to be deemed charges within the meaning of this act.

2. 31 Geo. 2. c. 14. Perfons holding their eftates by copy of court-roll are not thereby entitled to vote for counties; if they vote they forfeit 50l. to any candidate for whom they did not vote.

3. 3 Geo. 3. c. 15. A freeman fhall not vote, unlefs admitted twelve months before the first day of election, except entitled to freedom by birth, marriage, or fervitude.

4. 3 Geo. 3. c. 24. requires annuities to be registered with the clerk of the peace twelve months before the day of election.

5. 10 Geo. 3. c. 16. and 11 Geo. 3. c. 42. after the day appointed to confider a petition, the first time there are one hundred members prefent, the names of forty-nine present are to be drawn out of the whole houfe; each party names one not drawn; each party then ftrikes out alternately one of the forty-nine till they reduce them to fifteen; thefe fifteen make a committee to determine the election; thirteen must be prefent. None can vote who have not been prefent every fitting; they have power to fend for perfons, papers, &c. and to examine on oath. Notice is to be given to all parties; if there were more than two parties interested, the thirteen ballotted members nominate the two nominees. This act is made perpetual by 14 Geo. 3. c. 15.`

6. In an action on the ftatute for bribery at an election, the plaintiff had a verdict; two objections were taken: 1st, That the perfon bribed did not vote according to the bribe; but the court held, that the offence of the perfon giving the bribe was complete, although the other fhould afterwards repent. 2dly, It was ob

jected

jected that the declaration was not proved, as the perfon bribed had given a note to return the money if he did not vote according to the bribe, and that it was therefore a loan and not a gift as stated in the declaration; but the court held it to be clearly a bribery by gift under colour of a loan, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. Sulfon v. Norton, 1 Bl. Rep. 317.

7. It was ruled, that bribery at elections was punishable at common law, and continued to be fo, notwithstanding the ftat. 2 Geo. 2; but that fince that ftatute, on account of the heavy penalties therein, the court ought to be cautious of granting an information for the offence. Rex v. Pitt, 1 Bl. Rep. 380.

8. Action on the statute of bribery, and verdict for the plaintiff. The counfel for the defendant took three objections. 1ft, That the declaration stated the party to have been bribed to vote for L. and Lord E. whereas the evidence was, that it fhould be for L. and his friend. 2d, That the declaration ftated Lord E. and C. to have been candidates at the election, whereas no evidence was given to prove that averment. 34, That it ftated the perfons bribed to have had a right to vote, of which no evidence was given, except the fact of their having voted. These exceptions were overruled. Combe qui tam v. Pitt, 1 Bl. Rep. 523. S. P. (As to the last point,) Rigg v. Gugenven, 2 Wilf. 395.

9. The defendant being bribed at an election, in order to indemnify himself, (according to the 2 Geo. 2.) made affidavit of the fame offence against the perfon who bribed him; upon which one of the candidates brought an action against the perfon giving the bribe, and another perfon brought the action against the defendant. The question was, whether he was indemnified or not? It was objected that the defendant was not indemnified, not having been plaintiff in the other action; but the court held the affidavit a fufficient difcovery. The next objection was, that there was not due dilligence ufed in that profecution, as that the verdic in the prefent action was prior to it; but this was overruled, the want of diligence appearing to have been accidental. Lastly, It was objected, that the conviction in this action being prior to the other, the indemnity could not operate against it: but the court held, that although the conviction muft follow, yet the indemnity arifes from the difcovery. Execution was therefore tayed by rule of court. Sutton v. Bibop, 1 Bl. Rep. 665.

10. It was ruled, that an action on the 7 & 8 W. 3. for a falfe return was within the ftatute of jeofails; that flature being remedial; and that fuch action lay, although there was no refolution of the House of Commons afcertaining the right of election. Wynne, Bart. v. Middleton, 1 Wilf. 125.