Sect. 2.

p. xxv. and

The abjuration oath may also be required of electors Vid. Appen. by virtue of the stat. 6 Ann. c. 23. s. 13, and the person refusing to take the same, or, being a quaker, to declare to the effect thereof, cannot be admitted to vote. This oath must be taken, if required, by any candidate or other person present at the election.

xxvii.

P. xiv.

The above oaths and declarations are only to be taken, if duly required, and are to be administered by the sheriff, his under-sheriff, or sworn clerk or clerks, appointed for taking the poll, or they may now be adminisVid. Appen. tered by the commissioners, if any be appointed, who, by 42 of G. 3. c. 62, are empowered to administer all the oaths, except the bribery oath, which, by the 43 G.3.c.74, can now only be administered by the returning officer or officers, or his or their deputies, or any of them, according Vid. Appen. to the stat. 2 G. 2. c. 24, which, by s. 1, requires every elector at every election, before he be admitted to poll, to take the oath therein, or, if a quaker, to affirm, in case the same shall be demanded by either of the candidates, or any two of the electors.

No. xii.

Bribery oath.

Penalty.

H. C. 446.

The power of the commissioners does not extend to the administration of this oath, but the statute requires the officer or officers, or other deputies, presiding or taking the poll, to administer the same under a penalty of £. 50, and enacts, that no elector shall be admitted to poll who refuses to take the same, if legally demanded of him. But it seems, by the Gloucestershire case, 1777, that if the elector first refuse the bribery oath, and afterwards tender himself to take it, his vote ought not to be refused; the committee, in that case having resolved nem. con. “That the voter might be permitted to take the oath and vote any time during the poll."

If the voter do not understand the above oaths in Roe p. 644. English, it seems they ought to be administered to him, in such language as he does understand, and that his vote ought not to be refused on that account.

With respect to Moravians, the stat. 22 G. 2. c. 30.

Sect. 2.

Moravians

s. 1. enacts, that such persons being required on lawful occasions to take an oath, may, instead of the usual form, may affirm. be permitted to affirm according to the directions of that act.

106.109.

No oaths, but those which are expressly required by Glanv. 104. law, should in any case be administered to electors. 1 Journ. Though the administration of illegal oaths to electors (as 708. was the case in Cirencester, 21st May, 1624,) will not void the election; yet it has been declared by the house to be illegal, and a misdemeanor in the returning officer to administer to electors any oaths but those expressly warranted by law; and in the Bristol case, 20th December, 9 Journ. and 8th January, 1680, the mayor and sheriffs were ordered to be sent for in custody, to answer at the bar of the house for their offence in so doing.

On the other hand, the law strictly enjoins the administration of such oaths as are imposed by act of parliament, and the 'persons whose duty it is to administer them, are bound to perform that office, and a refusal so to do when legally required, will be resented and punished by the house of commons.

84.

In the Westminster case, 16th Dec. 1708, the house 1 Journ. 49 resolved, that the high bailiff, "in defiance of the law, arbitrarily and illegally refused to tender the oath of abjuration when required so to do, and thereby that he was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor." And it was ordered that he be committed to Newgate.

SECT. 3. Of Riots during Elections.

ANY interruption of the proceedings at an election by riot and tumult, is a great violation of the freedom of elections; wherefore, it is highly important to prevent and repress any tendency to a breach of the law in this

Sect. 3.

Roe p. 318. to p. 326.

32 Jour. 95.

In case of interruption

of the pro

riots, the

house of commons

particular, as such interruption may have the effect of avoiding the election.

It is the duty, not only of the returning officer to do his utmost to carry into effect the exigency of the writ, and therefore to resist any interruption to the proceedings thereunder; but it is also the duty of magistrates, whether applied to or not, to assist in preserving the public peace.

There being a responsibility to the house of commons, in respect of the proceedings at the election, such proceedings are under their particular superintendence and protection; resort to which may be had in cases of difficulty (immediately, if they are sitting,) in addition to the ordinary aid and powers of the law.

Middlesex, 8th December, 1768, the sheriffs acquainted the house, that a numerous, daring, and outrageous mob, appeared that day at Brentford, at the election of a ceedings by knight of the shire for the said county, and obstructed the freedom of the said election, and had by force and violence prevented the said sheriffs from going on with may be applied to for the poll; that several of the poll-books were missing, and that the said sheriffs had adjourned the poll till the next morning; and therefore they applied for directions how to proceed in taking the poll, and desired the protection of the house.

directions

and for pro

tection.

Such appli

cation ap

proved of by the house.

Resolution

of the house

for the pre

The order of the house thereupon was, "That the speaker do inform the sheriffs, that this house doth highly approve of their conduct in making application for the directions of this house, how they shall proceed on account of the daring and outrageous mob, which appears this day to have interrupted the freedom of the election for the said county."

The house then gave directions as to the holding the poll, and that an application should be made to the

magistrates of the county, acquainting them, " that it

Sect. 3.

servation of

is the order of this house that the said magistrates do attend the said election, and do appoint a proper num- the freedom ber of constables, and take every other means in their of election, power to preserve the peace and freedom of the said

election."

officer.

The further order of the house was, " that Mr. Speaker and protecdo assure the said sheriff of the support and protection tion of the returning of this house, in the execution of their duty,* and that this house will proceed with the utmost severity against any person who shall dare to violate the freedom of the said election."

The house has not only thus afforded its protection to guard the proceedings at the election from violence and outrage; but where it has been discovered that particular persons have been the contrivers and promoters of the riot and tumult, they have, in many instances, passed resolutions against them; some offenders they have committed to custody; and, in a recent case, directed a prosecution to be instituted against such persons by the attorney-general.

Moreover, in a case where there has been, on the part of the magistrates present, an obvious want of exertion and effort to preserve peace, and the freedom of election, they came to a resolution of censure against such magistrates.

14 Jour. 24 that riots at

Resolutions

an election

In the case of Southwark, 10th December, 1702, the committee reported, and the house resolved, that the tumult and riot (on account of which the election was avoided) was committed by the servants and agents of sioned by Charles Cox and John Cholmley, esquires, (the members particular returned.)

were occa

persons.

So in that of Coventry, 20th November, 1722, in resolv- 20 Jour. 60. ing that there were notorious and outrageous riots, &c.

The office of sheriff of Middlesex is always filled by two persons, who are in all legal proceedings styled "the sheriff of Middlesex," in the singular number; but " the sheriffs of Loudon."

Sect. 3.

20 Jour. 60.

2 Peck. 382. 385.

85.

they stated, that they were caused by the agents and friends of the petitioners, who were the authors, contrivers, and promoters of the said riots, tumults, and seditions.

And they further resolved, "That it appeared to the house, that Charles Buggs was one of the principal contrivers and promoters of the riots, tumults, and seditions, at the late election of citizens to serve in parliament for the city of Coventry."

And he was ordered into custody.

Similar resolutions and orders were at the same time made against seven other persons.

In the case of Knaresborough, 24th January, and 26th 60 Jour. 14. and 27th February, 1805, where there was no execution of the precept by reason of riots, the committee, after stating that circumstance in their report to the house, (March 1,) and that the bailiffs and returning officers were prevented from proceeding to the election, by a violent tumult which took place in the borough on the 30th July then last past, the day appointed by the proclamation for holding such election; further stated, by a resolution reported at the same time, that it appeared to them," that seven persons (naming them) were principally concerned in instigating or committing the outrages that took place in the said tumult, whereby the returning officers were prevented from holding an election of a member to serve in parliament for the said borough."

60 Jour. 112. 113.

60 Jour.

141.

The report being made, a new writ was ordered on the same day.

The report was taken into consideration by the house on the 14th March, when, after reading from the journal the entries in the case of Shaftsbury, 14th February,