in others the question of costs must be made the ground of special application. Besides those cases which arise before the committee, parties may become liable in two other instances to the payment of costs, viz., 1st, when the petition is withdrawn before a committee is appointed; and, 2ndly, when costs are awarded by the Examiner of Recog nizances. 2. Costs when Petition withdrawn.] Power is given by section 8 of 11 and 12 Vict. c. 98, to a petitioner to withdraw his petition at any time after it has been presented, on giving a written notice to the Speaker, the sitting member, and to any party admitted to defend ; such notice informing these parties that it is not intended to proceed with the petition. In such a case the petitioner will be liable to the payment of such costs and expenses as have been incurred by the sitting member, or other party complained of in the petition, and also to the payment of such costs as have been incurred by any party admitted to defend. These costs will be ascertained on taxation before the Examiner of Recognizances, or the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons, in the same way as other costs are taxed. This will be described hereafter. Under the 28 Geo. 3, c. 52, there being no power to withdraw a petition in the manner now provided by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98 (a), the question often arose before committees, whether such notice had been given to the sitting member of the intention not to prosecute the (a) A similar power was given by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103. petition, as to relieve the petitioner of his liability to costs. In the cases of Shaftesbury, 1 Peck. 18; Inverness, ib. 109; Penryn, ib. 251; Evesham, ib. 471, the committees did not vote the petitions to be vexatious when no evidence was produced to attack the seat. In the Midhurst case, 2 Peck. 146; Ilchester case, 2 Peck, 274, the committees voted the petitions to be frivolous and vexatious, although no evidence was called, and notice had been given that it was not intended to prosecute the petition. In the Bishopscastle case, 1 Peck. 469, it did not appear that any notice,had been given of the intention to abandon the petition, but no evidence was produced by the petitioners, and the counsel for the sitting member renounced all claim to costs; the committee, however, resolved, that the petition was frivolous and vexatious. See Orme on Elections, 494. When it is intended not to prosecute a petition, timely notice should be given in writing, so that all unnecessary expenditure may be saved. 3. Costs awarded by Examiner.] The Examiner of Recognizances, when he is inquiring into the validity of the objections alleged against the recognizance, or sureties, has power under section 15 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, to award costs, if he shall think fit, to be paid by either party to the other; these costs are to be taxed, and recovered as costs awarded by committees. 4. Petition reported frivolous or vexatious.] “Whenever any committee appointed to try an election petition, reports to the House that such petition was frivolous or vexatious, the parties, if any, who have appeared before the committee in opposition to such petition, shall be entitled to recover from the petitioners or any of them, their full costs and expenses." No evidence called.] If the petitioners have given no notice in writing, of their intention to abandon their petition, and upon the meeting of the committee they decline to proceed with their case, there can be little doubt that a committee at the present time would report the petition to be frivolous and vexatious (a). Probably an exception would be allowed, if it could be satisfactorily proved to the committee, that some one or more witnesses had died so recently that notice could not be given in time, the evidence of such witnesses being shewn to be essential to the prosecution of the inquiry. In the Midhurst case, 2 Peck. 146, it was sworn before the committee, that the evidence of a deceased witness was material, but the counsel who gave this testimony declined to state the nature of the evidence that would probably have been given, on the ground of professional confidence; the committee, it would appear, were not satisfied, and they reported the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. Where five of the most material witnesses had died after the presentation of the petition, the committee determined that the petition did not appear to be frivolous or vexatious; Honiton, 2 Fraz. 246. See also Hedon, 1826, cited in note to Portarlington case, P. & K. 241. At the present time, as notice may be given, the petition ought to be withdrawn before the committee is appointed. If the petitioners were unable to proceed with their (a) Rochester, 2 P. R. & D. 344. case, in consequence of the abduction of their witnesses, by the agents on the other side, (as in the St. Alban's case, 1851,) a committee would, no doubt, report that the petition was not frivolous or vexatious. In the Dover case, 9th March, 1821, cited in P. & K. 241, the petition was voted frivolous and vexatious, because no sufficient notice had been given to the returning officer, who had, in consequence, been put to considerable expense. It does not appear how this question of want of notice was raised; it is clear, that, now, such an objection, which is an objection to the constitution of the committee, could not be entertained by them. Ante, p. 329. Where a petition was presented by the advice of counsel, but the petitioners afterwards declined going into evidence to support the allegations contained in it, being satisfied that the two opinions of counsel, upon which they had acted, were erroneous in point of law, the committee reported the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. Bodmin, 2 Fraz. 336. Case abandoned after opening.] When the petitioners have opened their case, and called evidence upon it, and then have abandoned the further prosecution of the inquiry, committees have in some instances reported the petition to have been frivolous and vexatious. In the Lancaster case, C. & D. 195, the committee sat for two days hearing evidence on the allegations in the petition; on the third day the counsel for the petitioners stated to the committee, that want of money rendered it absolutely impossible for the petitioners to proceed. The committee resolved the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. In the Sutherland case, 2 Fraz. 157, two petitions were presented; the evidence offered in support of one was decided to be inadmissible, and that petition was withdrawn; the other petitioner then stated, that he had no evidence to offer: the committee reported the second petition to be frivolous, but not the first. Where the petitioners withdrew, in consequence of the committee allowing evidence to be produced by the sitting member, to shew that the petitioners knew that their witnesses were unworthy of credit, the committee decided that the petition was frivolous and vexatious. Londonderry, P. & K. 277. On final decision of Committee.] When a petition has been prosecuted without reasonable and probable grounds of success, or, where the law on the subject is quite clear, committees have, in general, pronounced the petitions to be vexatious. Thus, where the claim of the right of election was in direct opposition to a well known determination of the House of Commons, and the charges preferred against the returning officer were groundless, and contradicted by the acknowledgment of the petitioner himself at the election, the committee decided the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. East Grinstead, 1 Peck. 334. So also, where the eldest son of a Scotch representative peer was objected to for want of qualification, the committee resolved that the petition was frivolous and vexatious. Rochester, C. & D. 238. It was clear, peer or lord that a Scotch representative peer was a In the 2nd Maidstone, F. & F. 681, where no evidence was brought forward to shew that the sitting |