COB MILES WALKER MATTING STLAET CUNNINGHAM MJ WATEilLOW & SQN3 Limited, LONPON AVALL, l^ONDON. THE LIBRARY OF THE OF UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE LAW RELATING L'O CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. THE LAW RELATING TO CORRUPT PRACTICES ■PRACTICE ON ELE ECTIONS WITH AN ?^' APPENDIX OF STATUTES, EULES AND FOEMS, BY MILES WALKEE MATTINSON, <^ OF gray's inn, baeristek-at-law ; joint author of "precedents of pleadinc. STUAET CUXNINGHAM MACASKIE, OF gray's inn, barrister-at-law ; author of " LAW of executors and administrators," and A " TREATISE ON BILLS OF SALE." LONDON: PUBLISHED BY WATER LOW AND SONS LIMITED, LONDON WALL, E.C. 1883. LONDON: PEINTKD BY WATKRLOW AND SONS LIJIITED, LONDON WALL, E.C. >- •< 2 "=3; rriHE sweeping changes in the Law for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections effected by the Act of 1883 have rendered obsolete existing works on the subject, at the same time that the increased stringency of punishment enacted has heightened the importance of a clear comprehension of the whole subject by all persons concerned in the conduct of elections. In these circumstances the Authors present to the Profession and the Public this work, in which they have sought to engraft what has been newly enacted by the Legislature upon sucli of the old learning as has been retained, and so to offer a complete view of the whole law relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections as it will prevail throughout the United Kingdom on the 15th of October. . The Act of 1883 is not a code of the Laws against Cor- ruptiofi : it is only an Amending Act. To grasp the subject resort must be had to four distinct sources, viz., the Common Law of Parliament, the unrepealed sections of the Acts for the Preven- tion of Corruption prior to the legislation of this year, the Act of 1883 itself, and the reported decisions of the Election Judges. There were two methods open to the Authors in treatiag of the Laws relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections, One was to follow a course, not uncommon, of merely editing the Act of 1883 412706 ii PREFACE. and presenting it with notes appended to its sections explanatory of their meaning and indicative of the changes in the law. But the Authors felt that this would be but an inadequate and con- fusing treatment of a subject of great inherent complexity, and would have the necessary effect of making their work a sealed book to all save lawyers. They accordingly discarded this method, and, instead, arranging and methodising the whole learning of the subject in what has seemed to them the most intelligible order, they have inserted the provisions of the new Act in those parts of the Statement into which they seemed naturally to fall. The Authors hope it will be found that a discussion of no part of the law has been omitted by them, and that they have not failed to note in its appropriate place any decision of authority ; while they trust their anxiety to give all the references in contemporary reports to cases quoted will add to the practical usefulness of the book in the hands of the Profession. M. W. M. S. C. M. 1, The Cloisters, Temple, E.G., bth Septemher, 1883. CONTENTS. Table I. Showing all the Offences which avoid an Election. Table II. Showing the Punishments, Incapacities, and Penalties inflicted on Offenders. Table of Cases. PARTI. THE FORFEITURE OF THE SEAT. Chapter I. Corrupt Practices. Section 1. — Bribery. Section 2. — Treating. Section 3. — Undue Influence. Section 4. — Personation, and Aiding and Abetting Personation. Section 5. — False Declaration. Chapter II. Illegal Practices which Avoid the Election if committed by any Agent. Chapter III. The Candidate's Agents within the meaning of Chapters I. and II. Chapter IV. Illegal Practices which Avoid the Election if committed by the Election Agent. Section 1. — Offences which become Illegal Practices when com mitted by the Candidate or his Election Agent. Section 2. — Illegal Practices which only Avoid the Election when committed bv the Candidate or his Election Agent. iv CONTENTS. Chapter V. The Employment of a Corrupt Agent. Chapter VI. General Corruption. Chapter VII. The Office and Duties of the Election Agent, and Election Expenses. Section 1 . — His Appointment. Section 2.— The Nature and Amount of Election Expenses. Section 3. — The Payment of Election Expenses. Section 4.— The Return and Declaration of Election Expenses. Chapter VIII. Practice and Procedure. Section 1. — On Applications for Relief. Section 2. — On Election Petitions. Section. 3. — On a Scrutiny. Section 4. — Evidence on Election Petitions. Section 5. — The Awarding and Taxation of Costs. PART II. THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS. Chapter I. Their Detection and Prosecution. Chapter II. Their Punishment. Section 1. — By Election Commissioners. Section 2. — By the Election Court. Section 3. — By a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Section 4. — By the Court of Assize. Section 5.— By the High Court in Suits for Penalties. ' Appendix Index. M '< Q PI i^li 5 •»-=! bod 2 >> — 5 ~ 2 "IP ■rsS -Ifii of--'" ^' — 5pS lacS K oo.n :;? -.S S S S B g t &j S i- » " - S-2 f ~ -Jill I! >--o c ® ft g ^uft-^o o ^-^i ;E Ceo C*P^ : 5 c- -- ■ > 1 .S.S'J^'o ; ft~g O ; rills = s- o :- P ^ © fc eta s s « : s— jjOb5>..da.S _L i|p|i5| u~- . C3 i&alisi" * ■•as §|?Sgl P.-S'^" SI) =^•^0 ^-as* 'l|-2-S£.3^ -llisl'i a I £5 i- a — i-i p. o ft s r£.c;go- ^, tn o o -^ r^ cy ' o is Pi cS CO c3 bo S el ■-4J « •31 o J" '^'^ .S d S .a p" ^ . o 5 b CO ■D I— ( 'o 9 ^ CO CS O) 03 =* .2 ^ ^ ^ 6C ^ J?-^ a;;^.^ 5-^ S t- 8 d I o d cs , < ^ ^ ;^ oj -t^ =: O CO l-H O CD d rt oo-rt o a 9 d ^ C5 H -e o s -g p ^•2 ':^ o o Ph S B 5P^ z in H Z |-a|| H 11 SP=i c fa ? HH < Ph PL, d ■^ r, TABLE OF CASES. Aldridge v. Hurst • PAGE 140, 142, 150 Barnstaple Beal V. Smith Belfast. Berwick . Beverley Bewdley Blackburn Bodmin Bolton Boston Bradford Bradlaugh v. Clarke Brecon Bridgwater Bristol Britt V. Robinson . 173 . 144 . 25,34 144, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157, 160, 166 19, 162 37, 42, 68, 71, 73, 75, 81, 144, 165 6, 10, 52, m, 69, 76, 162 69 . 59, 72, 145, 166 , 11, 16, 29, 149, 165 9, 41, 42, 103, 159, 163 . 129 9, 43, 142 Carrickfergus . Carter v. Mills . Cashel Clark V. WaUond Clark's Case Clitheroe (-Cheltenham Chester Cooper V. Slade . Coventry 15, 33, 40, Dover Down Drinkwate Drogheda Dublin Dudley Durham Evesham V. Deakin 84 21, 145 21, 40 14, 29 . 135 75 140, 144 56 . 155 19, 159, 163 146, 159 15, 16, 37 56, 145, 158, 166 . 163 . 49, 55 . 155 104, 162 . 15,68 : 105 . 12,69 158 PAGE Galwav (1) 50, 54, 102, 106, 136, 163 Galway (2) .... 101 Gloucester ... 55, 142 Gravesend . 21, 26, 80, 150, 165 Greenock . . . . .158 Guildford . . . . 6, 160 Hackney . Harwich 69, 73, 74 Hartlepool Hargreaves v. Scott Hastings 15, 16, 17, Hereford . Hertford . Hill V. Peel Hindle v. Waring Horsham . Huguenin r. Baseley Hughes V. Meyrick James v. Henderson Joyce V. O'Donnel Kidderminster . King's Lynn Kingston-upon-HuU Kirkwood v. Webster Knaresborough . Launceston Lenham r. Barbe Lichfield Limerick . Longford Lord Rendlesham v Londonderry Louth 49, 27, 39, . " . 166 78, 145, 161, 163 . 142 . 171 20, 24, 39, 40, 162 139, 143, 144 75 170, 172 . 136 15 53 . 173 152 . 151 7, 39, 136 . 161 . 139 . 171 158 22, 26 . 144 50, 103, 160, 161 82, 105 53, 105, 144, 165 " ard . 97 11, 72,80, 160 39, 43 Haw Mackley r. Chilling-worth . . 173 Malcolm r. Parrv . 84, 154, 156 Mallow . '. . . 7, 140 TABLE OF CASES. Maidstone Maude ik Lowley Marshall v. James Mayo McLaren v. Home Moore v. Kennard Moore v. Scully Morton v. Galway PAGE 45 . 140 . 135 166 14i), 173, 174 . 143 . 155 . 135 Neild V. Batty . . . .152 North Durham . . 52, 105, 142 North Norfolk . 50, 51, 52, 55, 69, 83, 100, 159, 163 Northallerton . . . 53, 54, 163 Norwich 10, 68, 83, 85, 101, 104, 144, 153, 155, 161 Nottino-ham . . . .106 Oldham Oxford Pease v. Norwood Penryn Petersfield Pickering v. Sturtin Plymouth . Poole Pontefract Renfrew TJothwell's Case 19, 153, 156 12 136, 139 23, 114, 171 52, 165 . 140 15, 30 44, 105, 165 45 . 154 56 Salford 10, 85, 105, 106, 136, 145, 163 SaHsbury (1) . . . 13, 73, 164 SaHsbury (2) Sandwich . Shrewsbury SUgo . 31, 73, 105 14 10, 73, 138, 140 . 8, 103 Southampton 7, 20, 27, 86, 153, 163, 171 PAGE Stafford . . . .27, 55, 84 Staleybridge . .15, 55, 72, 145 Stevens v. Tillett . . . 21 Stowe V. Jollifee . 97, 151, 154 Stroud . 9, 21, 75, 146, 150, 164 Tamworth 8, 12, 26, 39, 84, 104, 163, 171 16,17,27,74, 78 74 74 . 150 . 139 171,172 160,161 155,172 . 173 . 151 80 27, 38, 41, 165 23, 146 . 143 . 171 Westburv, 25, 42, 52, 69, 73, 77, 165 Westminster . 6, 14, 41, 61, 73, 75, 77, 145, 161, 162, 165 Wigan . 31, 42, 78, 145, 146, 149, 159, 165 Wigtown . . . .155, 166 Will's Case .... 56 Windsor (1) 8, 25, 26, 28, 45, 48, 51, 68, 69, 162 Windsor (2) . . ' . 51, 73, 162 Woodward v. Sarsons . 155, 166 Worcester . . . 160, 166 Taunton (1) Taunton (2) Tewkesbury Thirsk Thomas v. Wylie Tillett V. Stracey Tipperary . Trench v. Nolan Turnbull v. Janson Tyrone Wakefield . Wallingford Waterford Wells V. Wren Wentworth v. Lloyd Yates V. Leach . Yorkshire, S.W. Riding Youghal . 135, 155 145, 153 26, 41, 43, 85 THE LAW EELATING TO COEEUPT PEACTICES AT ELECTIONS. TTTE purpose treating of the law relating to corrupt and illegal practices at elections ; first, with reference to the effect of corrupt and illegal acts upon the Seat, and, secondly, with reference to their consequences to Individuals. P A E T I. THE FORFEITURE OF THE SEAT. An election, upon petition, is avoided and the seat forfeited by: I. Any ccrrupt act committed by the sitting member or any one of his agents, or by — II. Any of the illegal practices enacted by Sections 7 and 28 of the Act of 1883, whether committed by the sitting member or any one of his agents, or by — III. Any illegal practice enacted by the Act of 1883, committed by the sitting member, or by his election agent ^ or by — IV. The employment of an agent convicted of or re- ported for corrupt practices by the candidate personally, or by- Y. General corruption by ichomsoever committed, subject in certain cases to the possibility of relief under Sec- tion 22, 23, or 34 of the Act of 1883. 1 2 THE LAW RELATING TO CHAPTER I. CORRUPT PRACTICES. CoRKUPT PRACTICES are expressly defined by the Act of 1883. Section 3 is as follows : — " The expression, ' corrupt practice,' as used in this Act, means any of the following offences, namely : Treating and undue influence, as defined by this Act, and bribery, and personation as defined by the enactments set forth in Part 3 of the 3rd Schedule to this Act, and aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring the commission of the offence of personation, and every offence which is a corrupt practice within the meaning of this Act shall be a corru.pt practice within the meaning of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868." And Section 33 of the Act of 1883 makes it a corrupt practice knowinsly to make a false declaration accompanying the return of election expenses. Therefore, under the first head of corrupt practices, it appears that an election is defeated and the sitting member loses his seat if he is guilty of any of the following acts, viz., either 1. Bribery ; 2. Treating ; 3. UxDUE Influence ; 4. Personation and Aiding, Abetting, Counselling, AND Procuring the Commission of Personation; 5. A False Declaration ; whether any one of these corrupt acts is committed by him personally, or by anyone whom the law construes as his agent for the purposes of the election. It is proposed, in the first instance, to examine the authorities as to what constitutes the offences named, and then to discuss the meaning which has been given to the word " agent " in this connection. COIUU'PT PRACTICRS AT ELFXTFOXS. Section I. — Bribery. The Act of 1883 contains no new definition of bribery. On the contrary, Section 3, already quoted, expressly incor- porates the definitions of bribery contained in former Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts into the Act of 1883, and in the third schedule of the Act those definitions are set out in detail. It is necessary that in this place we should give Statutorj' their fuU text. Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices Pre- bribery, vention Act, 1854 (the 17 & 18 Vic. c. 102), provides : ^^'^2 V?' " The following' persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly — " 1. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by him- Sub-sec. l. self or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give or lend, or shall oflfer, promise, or promise to procure, or endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of an}' voter, or to or for anj'^ other person in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election : " 2 Every person who shall, directly or indirectlj'-, by him- Sub-sec. 2. self or by any other person on his behalf, give or promise, or agree to give or procure, or offer, pro- mise, or promise to procure or to endeavour to procure any office, place, or employment to or for any voter, or to, or for any person on be':alf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election : " 3. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by him- Sub-sec. 3. self or by any other person on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or 4 THE LAW RELATING TO deWioIsof agreement as aforesaid to or for any person in bribery. Order to inducB such person to procure or endea- c' 102 8. 2.^ vour to procure the return of any person to serve in Parliament, or the vote of any voter at any election : Sub-sec. 4. "4. Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, or procurement or agreement procure, or engage, promise, or endeavour to procure the return of any person to serve in Parliament or the vote of any voter at any election : SuD-sec. 5. " 5, Every person who shall advance or pay or cause to be paid any money to or to the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who shall knowingly pay or cause to be paid any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part ex- pended in bribery at any election. Provided always, that the aforesaid enactment shall not extend, or be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any legal expenses bond fide incurred at or concerning any election," Sec. 3. Section 3 of the same Act provides : "The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly — Sub-sec. 1. " ]. Every voter who shall, before or during any elec- tion, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf receive, agree, or con- tract for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote, or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any election. Sub-sec. 2. " 2. Every person who shall, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person, on his behalf receive any money or valuable con- sideration on account of any person having voted CORRUPT PRx^CTICES AT ELECTIONS. 5 or refrained from voting, or lia\ang induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election." Section 49 of tlie Representation of the People Act, 1867 so & 3i Vic. (the 30 & 31 Vic. c. 102), is as follows :— ""■ ^^'"' '• ■*^- " Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly pajang any rate on behalf of any ratepayer for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, thereby to in- fluence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punishable accordingly ; and any person on whose behalf and with whose privityj any such payment as in this section is mentioned, is made, shall also be guilty of bribery and punishable accordingly." The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 31 & 32 Vic. (the 31 & 32 Yic. o. 48, s. 49), contains an exactly similar • ' " • provision with reference to acts of the kind done in Scotch constituencies. The Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 44 & 45 Vic. 1881 (44 & 45 Yic. c. 40, s. 2), provides : '• ^^' '• "• "Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly pay- ing any fee for the purpose of enabling any person to be registered as a member of the general council and thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying such fee on behalf of any person, for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly ; and any person on whose behalf and with whose privity, any such payment as in this section mentioned, is made, shall also be guilty of bribery and punishable accordingly." Applying these sections to the subject under considera- Effect of tion, viz., the effect of bribery upon the seat, the general ^gg^i^oQ result is, that if a candidate or any one of his agents, gives or lends, or offers, or promises to procure, or to endea- vour to procure (1) any money; (2) valuable consideration ; THE LAW KELATIXG TO Effect of Ktatutory definition of bribery. Bribery, though nothing received. Motive of the briber the test. Stronger evidence re- quisite when offer only (3) office, place, or emplojanent, to or for any voter or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or if lie shall corrirpf I// do any of the above-mentioned acts on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election, then the offence of bribery is com- plete and the seat lost. There are other special acts which are defined as amounting to bribery. They will be treated of in due course ; but the effect of the more material sections is as we have stated. It will be observed that to constitute the full offence of bribery, it is not necessary that the person bribed should actually have received anything. " Every person who shall" .... merely "agree to give," &c., or even "oiTer, promise," &c., is guilty of bribery. Nor is it neces- sary that the person to whom the offer is made should even accept the promise, or be in any way influenced by the ccJrrupt overture. '• When bribery is alleged," said Martin, B. in the Westminster Case (L.T., n.s., 238 ; 1 O'M. & H., 89), "the question is as to the motive of the briber and not as to the effect on the bribed. It is whether the alleged briber intended to influence or icduce the vote, not whether the vote was actually in- fluenced." Therefore, to adopt the illustratiim used by Mr. Justice Willes, in the Blackburn Case (1 O'M. & H ,* 202 ; 20 L.T., n.s., 826), if a voter is bribed with half-a-crown and he accepts the bribe and then goes and votes against the party from which he received it, still the corrupt act of giving the money (or promising it) will defeat the whole election. So it has been held that givii g, or offering to give a bribe to a person who was on the register, but who, owing to a disqualification arising from non-residence, was not entitled to vote, and did not vote, is none the less bribery (Gai/dford Case, 1 O'M. & H., 15; 19 L.T., n.s., 729). It should be observed that in one or two cases learned judges have pointed out that where the bribery charged is that of corrupt q/fers merely the evidence required to prove COKRUrT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 7 it should be stronger than where money actually passed. {Cheltenham Case, 1 O'M. & H., 64 ; Mallow Case, 2 O'M. & H., 22.) This, however, is only a suggestion as to the light in which evidence, on a subject where misunderstanding is so possible, should be viewed, and it must not be taken as in any way infringing upon the well-established law that where the fact of a corrupt offer is once established, the consequence is the loss of the seat. The Kiddenninster Case (2 O'M. & H., But offer may 170) affords a good illustration of a corrupt offer amounting to bribery, though the persons to whom it was made received nothing under it. There the respondent the night before the election, in the course of a speech, said : " When we have won the election we will have an entertainment together." lie repeated this after the election, and m pursuance of his promise sent down a large sum of money to be spent in organising a fete. The entertainment was not, in fact, held, but Mr. Justice Mellor decided that the corrupt promise made on the night before the polling constituted bribery, and the i-espondent was unseated. It is not necessary that the bribe should bo made Bribe need directhj to the voter or to the person sought to be bribed, dircctls^'^'^^ If, though in fact it is given or made to some third person, the Court is satisfied that through such third person it is intended that the voter shall actually receive the benefit of it, or be influenced by it, that is enough ; as when colourable payments are made to the children of vdters for fancied services in order that their parents may be in- duced to vote in a particular way. Mr. Justice Willes, in the Southampton Case (1 O'M. & IT., 223), referred to such a case and drew this distinction. If payments are made to young Payments to children forming part of a family in respect of services really ^e Lribcs'to^ rendered by them, the payments are to be regarded as made thuir parents. to their parents, and if the latter vote at the election, their votes must come off on a scrutiny. But if payments are made to young children who have rendered no services, or nominal services, with the view of influencing their parents who are voters, that will be bribery which will afiect the seat. No doubt the latter proposition is as sound now a.s» THE LAW KELATING TO Bribe need not be given directly. Bribing women may affect the seat. Time when bribe aiven. Immaterial how long before. Suggested limitation. when the learned judge first laid it down some years ago ; but with regard to the first it must be remarked that Sec- tion 17 of the Act of 1883, makes it an illegal employment involving the sacrifice of the seat, when committed by the candidate or his election agent, to employ for payment any persons over and above the limited number specified in the Schedule. This would seem to include children and to affect the election when they are employed by the persons specified in excess of the number allowed. In another case it was laid down that treating (and d fortiori bribing) women with a view of influencing their husbands^ brothers or sweet- hearts, who were voters, would avoid the election (per Willes, J., in the Tamivorth Case, 1 O'M. & H., 86 ; the Poole C^s^, 31 L.T., n.s., 171). With regard to the time at which the bribery is committed, it is immaterial how long before the election the bribe is given. The law on this point was stated emphatically and clearly in the Sligo Case (1 O'M. & H., 302) : " Any act committed previous to an election, no matter at what distance of time, mth a view to influence a voter at a coming election, whether it is one, two, or three years before, is just as much bribery as if it was committed the day before the election ; nay, more, if a man commits bribery in the first week of a Parliament, and if he sues for the suff'rages of that constituency in the last week of the seven years which precede the dissolution, that act committed six years before can be given in evidence against him, and his seat will not hold an hour." Lord Blackburn in the Windsor Case (31 L.T., n.s., 136), suggested a limitation to the generality of this rule — viz., that a bribe given a long time before the election only invali- dates the subsequent election if it is possible that it may still be operating on the mind of the voter. Therefore in the cases put by his lordship, where (1) a bribe is given to a voter and he dies before the election ; or, (2) where a bribe is given but before the election both the briber and the voter repent and the money is returned, he stated the election would not be avoided ; but having regard to the stringency of Sections *4 and 5 of the Act of 1883, which, without any qualification CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 9 whatever, incapacitate a person from sitting in Parliament for a term specified therein who has been guilty of any corrupt practice in reference to an election, it is doubtful whether in the cases put the seat would now be safe. When something is given to a voter after he has voted, it must Effect of be noted that in the words of the Act the giving of the thing "^J^^^ tl^^ou is only bribery where it is given " corruptly." The distinc- tion which has been drawn is this : Where money or money's worth is given to a voter before he votes in order to induce him to do so, the law infers the corrupt act, which is the material element in bribery ; but where money or moiiey's worth is given to a man after he has voted the burden of proving a corrupt arrangement or understanding between him and the candidate or his agent prior to the voting is thrown upon those suggesting bribery. " If money is given to a man before an election to induce him to vote or refrain from voting, it is ipm facto bribery, and has the effect of disqualifying the candidate from being elected ; but if the money is given after the man has voted it must be shown to have been given corruptly." (Martin, B., in the Second Bradford Case, 19 L.T., n.s., 72^; Brecon Case, 2 O'M. & H., 44.) It may well be doubted, however, whether in the practical I^ittle practi- T . , , ^ n ii • • o i cal difference. conclusion to be drawn from the givmg ot money to a voter immediately after an election there is much distinction between such a case and the case where it is given before. Possibly the fact of the gift in the former case may be ex- plained consistently with the honesty of the giver, but apart from some satisfactory explanation, the mere circum- stance that a voter received money or money's worth for voting would afford a very strong presumption that he re- ceived it in fulfilment of a corrupt bargain. In the case suggested by the present Lord B ram well in the Stroud Case (2 O'M. & H., 184), the inference of a corrupt arrange- ment would not be drawn. " For instance," said his lord- ship, " such a thing as this might happen, if a man voted and got turned out of his situation and went to anybody for charity, and a man said, ^I am sorry for you, here is a sovereign,' that would not be a corrupt payment, though 10 THE LAW RELATING TO Amount of bribe immaterial. it might be said to have been given on account of the man having voted a particular way. Nevertheless, in almost every case where a payment is made in consequence of a voter having voted, it would be a corrupt giving, unless some reason, such as I have suggested, could be given." The amount of the bribe is ©f no importance when the fact that it was given as a bribe is established. It is strange that there was once some doubt on this point. Baron Martin intimated in the ^alford Case (1 O'M. & H., 142 ; 20 L.T., n.s., 127) that when the sum spent in bribery did not exceed half-a-crown and it was not brought home to the candidate personally, that such bribery would not be suffi- cient to forfeit the seat. The doubt which has arisen on the subject and crept into some works of authority is entirely founded upon this dictum, which, however, was obiter, as his lordship found the particular bribes suggested had not in fact been proved. On the other hand Mr. Justice Willes, in the Blackburn Case (1 O'M. & H., 202; 20 L.T,, 823), distinctly stated that in his view a bribe of half-a- crown given to a voter, though it did not in fact influence his vote, would upset the election. Mr. Baron Channell, in the Shrewsbury Case (2 O'M. & H., 87), said that he ag-reed with Mr. Justice Willes rather than with Baron Martin, and that in his view, when once the act of bribery is made out the Court cannot consider whether it is significant in amount or insignificant. And in the Norwich Case (2 O'M. & H., 41), Mr. Justice Keating decided that a single act of bribery without reference to the sum given, avoided the election. Taking the plain words of the Act of 1854, which defines bribery as the giving, &c., of any money or valuable consideration, and the current of authorities quoted above, it cannot be doubted that the law now is that if the sitting member or his agent has given a bribe, no matter how small the sum or comparatively valueless the thing, the election is defeated. The inference is the stronger since the passing of the Act of 1883, as it must be carefully noted that the 22nd Section which, under very stringent conditions, relieves a candidate from the consequences of an agent's m CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 11 misconduct where the same is of a "trivial, unimportant and limited character," applies only to cases of treating, undue influence and illegal practices, and has no applic ation to a case of bribery. To pay a debt of a voter, to release him from prison that he may vote is an act of bribery {Londonderry Case, I O'M. & H., 275). The fonii, in which the bribe is given is immaterial. If, The form of though the money is given under the name of a payment immaterial for services rendered, it is leally a reward for voting, the offence is proved. The Court will look at the substance of the transaction and not allow itself to be hoodwinked by a mere name. A common way in which the law against bribery has been sought to be evaded has been by pay- Paj-inj? voters ments made to voters for services alleged to have been for services o may be rendered in connection with the election, as where voters bribery. have been appointed canvassers, messengers, watchers, clerks, and so forth and paid^ — generally in excess of the remuneration ordinarily given to persons in their station. From the earliest times the law has been that this "colourable" employment of voters with the real view of paying them for their votes was briber^'. One of the leading cases on this subject is the JBosfbii Case (44 L.T., The £ois(o>i n.s., 288; 3 O'M. & H., 153). The acts of bribery ^"''' complained of in the petition there consisted mainly of the employment on the polling day of a large number of persons, the bulk of whom were voters, to act as watchers. They were ranked in the election accounts amongst " clerks, messengers, tickers, canvassers and watchers;" they were paid at rates varying from 10s. to 2s. 6d. a day, and there appear to have been about 300 or 400 of them. The Court was of opinion, on the facts, that the object in em- ploying all these persons was not to obtain bond fide services from them but to influence their votes and the sitting member was unseated accordingly. The judgment, which was given by the late Lord Justice Lush with the con- Lush, L.J., currence of the other judge (Mr. Justice Manisty), is worth ^^ ^^^'^ ^ ' a perusal as well for the review of the authorities it con- tains as the clear and emphatic language in which the law 12 THE LAW RELATING TO PajTnent for ' ' colourable ' ' service. Judgment of Lush, L.J. Review of the authorities on the subject. Payment of voters not neeessarilij bribery. on the subject is expressed. " In view of all these circum- stances, cau we come to any other conclusion than that the employment of this large body of voters was a colourable employment and a pretext for finding them a day's wages in order to induce them to vote ? It is immaterial whether the object was to gain over voters from the other side or to prevent them going over to that side. The Act forbids and makes penal any attempt to influence a vote by such means. We need hardly say that it is no answer to a charge of violating the Bribery Act in this way, that it is a common practice, or that it was resorted to in self-defence and as a means of counteracting illegal practices on the other side. Sitting here in a court of justice we cannot accept such a plea. We have reason to fear that the prac- tice is too common, notwithstanding the warnings wliich have been given in previous decisions. In 1869, Mr. Justice, now Lord, Blackburn, reported the employ- ment of voters as watchers, who rendered no service of any value, as a corrupt practice. In the same year, in the Tamicorth Case, the late Willes, J., had to consider a case where the agent had been authorised to engage a few men, none of whom were to be voters, whereas the man on the polling day engaged 130, of whom 29 only were voters. He came to the conclusion that the agent employed them, not to advance the interest of his employer, but to gain popularity for himself; but he emphatically said, that if he had arrived at the conclusion that the object was to engage one voter to vote for his employer, who would otherwise have voted for his opponent, he should have declared the election void. In 1874, Baron Bramwell deprecated the practice as shown in the Durham Case, and warned future candidates of the danger they incurred by following such a practice. And in 1875 I had to declare in the Norwich Case that the election was void, solely on the ground of the colourable employment of voters as messengers on the polling day." (See also Oxford Case, 3 O'M. & H., 154.) On the other hand, the mere employment and payment of a considerable number of voters in connection with an election, CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. i:^. when there was hot id file work for them to do, and they were not paid substantially in excess of the ordinary re- muneration, did not, prior to the Act of 1883, invalidate the election (The Salisbury Case, 4 O'M. & H., 23). Nor is it now a corrupt practice, defeating the election, wlien com- mitted by any agent, thougb, as will be seen later on, it is (except under certain strict limitations) an illegal employ- ment, avoiding the election, when committed by the candidate or his election agent. Prior to the new legislation. Law prior to the law was this : If persons were colourably employed and ^ paid for work they never did, in order to influence their votes, this was bribery, and if done by any agent of the candidate, the election was defeated. But if persons were hond fide paid for work which they really did, it was not bribery, though inasmuch, as by the 30 & 31 Vic. c. 102, s. 11, voters who have received any payment in connection with the election, are disqualified from voting, on a scrutiny their votes would be struck ofl". Now it is conceived that the colourable Law on this employment and payment of voters to secure their votes, is ^*^^^ ^^'^' as much bribery as ever, and when it is committed by atiij agent, the seat is lost. On the other hand, when the employ- ment and payment of voters is bond fide, and wben they are not employed by the candidate himself or his election agent, though the votes given must come off on a scrutiny, and though the persons employing and the persons knowingly employed, are liable to certain penalties mentioned later on, it is submitted the seat will not be afi'ected. But under the Act of 1883, to employ and pay any voters, except the few specified in the schedule, is an illegal employment, and an illegal employment, when committed by a candidate, or his election agent, becomes an illegal practice, and vitiates the election. The way in which the law will now operate may be illus- The present trated thus : A is an agent of the sitting member at the j^i^gfj-ated election (though not his election agent). He bond fide employs B, who is a voter, and pays him for work he really performs. The election is not defeated ; though on a scrutiny, B's vote must come off, and both A and B are liable to punishment. A is an agent of the sitting u THE LAW RELATING TO Bribery cloaked under pay- ments. Hiring rooms in public- houses. Bribery cloaked under payments. member at the election (though not his election agent). He pays B a sum of money under the name of wages, but really to get his vote. This is bribery, and the election is vitiated. A is the election agent of the candidate. He bond fide (but in excess of the proper number) employs B,. who is a voter, and pays him for services he really rendered. This is an illegal prac- tice when committed by an election agent and the election is defeated. Other instances of bribery, cloaked under the pretence of payment, are where excessive prices are paid for things bought or rooms hired which are not wanted, with a view of influencing the vote of the persons who receive the money. Thus, in the Westminster Case (1 O'M. & H., 90; 20 L.T., n.s,, 238) it was suggested that the respondent through his agents had paid unusual sums for the right of placarding, in order to secure the votes of the per- sons paid. The loirned judge was not satisfied that the charge was made out, but he stated emphatically that if it were proved that money had been paid with such an object, it would be bribery. So, where cabs are colour- ably hired for the purpose of procuring the votes of their owners (the Carrickfergus Case 3 O'M. &H., 91) or as in the S'tndwich Case (3 O'M. & H., 158) where a large number of rooms were hired in public-houses with a view of securing the vote and interest of the innkeepers. ' " There is no difference," said the Lord Justice Lush in this case, " in substance between a colourable hiring of a voter's room as a committee-room, and the colourable hiring of the voter himself as a messenger. The object in each case is to secure his vote. The only difference between the two cases is the form of the disguise." It may be mentioned that the three cases last given are all specially dealt with by the Act of 1883. The hiring of committee-rooms in excess of the limit allowed, and the hiring of windows or boards from electors are made illegal practices (Sec. 7), which avoid the election, if committed by any agent; and the hiring of cabs in connection with the conveyance of voters, is an illegal hiring (Sec. 14), which avoids the election when committed CORKUPT PRACTJCES AT ELECTIONS. 15 by the election agent. The offences are complete under the new Act, without any reference to the question whether the voters, boards, or cabs were hona fide needed. Analogous to bribery under the colour of pavino- wages Bribery to S 1 J • !• XI • T J • -u -1 compensate tor work done, or a price lor things supplied, is bribery voter for loss under the pretence of compensating a voter for loss of time °^ *'"^^' and for travelling expenses. It has always been held that promising to pay a voter his day's wages, so that he may be no loser by coming to vote, was an act of bribery (the Stale y- bridge Case, 20 L.T., n.s., 75; 1 O'M. & H., 67; Eastings Case, IQ O'M. & H., 219; 21 L.T., n.s., 234.) "It is clear that as the law is framed and as the statute is worded, to pay a person for coming to vote, giving him his day's wages or making up to him his loss of time for the purpose of voting at an election, would be a bribe. The words of the Act are clear beyond all question on this point." [Per 'S>\dickhviVn, ^., in Hastings Case, ({uoieA. supra.) Equally Or pay for a the payment of a substitute to do the voter's work while he ^" '^ ^' is away voting is bribery. (The Phj)nouth Case, 3 O'M, & H., 107.) So with regard to travelling expenses, to promise to pay a So to promise voter his travelling expenses if he comes and votes for a par- travelling ticular candidate is bribery. This was first clearly decided expenses. in the case of Cooper v. Slade. (6 House of Lords' Cases 747; 27 L.J., Q.B , 449; 4 Jurist, n.s., 791.) The action gZ^"^^' was brought to recover penalties from the defendant, who had been a candidate at the Cambridge election ; and the question which came before the Lords for decision was whether a letter written to an outvoter requesting him to come to the borough and record his vote, and adding in a postscript " your railway expenses will be paid," was an act of bribery. The House of Lords, after consulting the judges, held that such a promise amounted to bribery. In the Coventry/ Case (1 O'M. & H., 109 ; 20 L.T., n.s., 405), Bub/in Case (1 O'M. & H., 273), and still more lately in the Horsham Case (3 O'M. & H., 54) this view of the law was acted upon ; and there can be no doubt that as the law now stands a promise to pay the hare travelling expenses of a voter if he 16 THE LA^Y RELATING TO But uncon- ditional pay- ment is not bribery. Now all payments for travelling ex- penses illegal. Payments for attending Eevision Court may not be bribery. will come and give his vote is an act of bribery. But vrhen a circular was sent to an outvoter asking: him to come over and record his vote and enclosing a railway pass, but annex- ing no condition to its use, it was held that this did not come within the doctrine of Cooper v. Slade, and though (as the law then stood with regard to borough elections) an illegal act, it was not bribery (the Bolton Case, 31 L.T., n.s., 194; 2 O'M. & H., 138.) In giving his decision the learned judge (Mr. Justice Mellor) carefully distinguished the case before him from Cooper v. Slade. In the latter he pointed out the travelling expenses were promised condi- tionally if the voter came and voted for Mr. Slade. In the case before him, the railway pass was sent and received by the voter without any condition. All control over the railway pass was gone after it left the office of the respondent's agent, and the voter if he liked could avail himself of the pass "without beingunder any compidsionto vote for the respondent. However, the Bolton Case has now ceased to be of much practical importance. No doubt the ruling of the learned judge in that case will still be accepted to the extent that send- ing a railway pass to a voter, or giving him his bare travel- ling expenses unconditionally, will be held to fall short of a corrupt practice ; but Section 7 of the Act of 1883 makes the payment of any money on account of the " conveyance of electors to or from the poll " an illegal practice, which if committed by a candidate or any one of his agents will avoid the election. But though paying a voter for his loss of time in attend- ing to vote is bribery, paying him for his loss of time attending at the Begistration Court to claim and support his vote is not necessarily bribery. It may or may not be bribery accoid- ing to the time when, the circumstances under which the money was paid, and the amount paid. The Taunton Case (1 O'M. & H., 353 ; 21 L.T., n.s., 169), where the present Lord Blackburn decided that payments in respect of loss of time at the Begistration Court did amount to bribery, and the Hastings Case (1 O'M. & H., 219; 21 L.T., n.s., 234), where the same learned judge held that such payments CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 17 ilid not establish bribery, may profitably be examined in tliis Whon pay- connection. In the Tainifoii Case it was proved that the ^tendinff Ke- Hegistration Court was held in September. The election vision Coui-t came off in November. The payments were not made till November and upon the eve of the election, and they were made without due precautions being taken that only persons who had really attended the Registration Court and earned the money got it. Under these circumstances, it was held that the money was not paid bond fide to recoup the persons for their loss of time at the registration, but to influence their votes at the election. " It may well be," said the learned judge, " that there The Taunton may be a payment for an attendance at the Barrister's Court, which should be bond fide for that purpose and no other, and which is not meant by the Act of Parliament. From the fact of paying a person money for attending to be The test is put upon the register, it is a matter of inference that doubt- ^ent ^irreaUv- less the persons who put the voter on the register expected made for loss him to vote for their party. No doubt that would be in Revision their minds at the time. Doubtless, if you were to pay a Court. man direct for being put upon the register, and to offer a reward for every person who would himself come and be registered by the Conservative Association or the Liberal Association, as the case might be, it would not be as a matter of law that that would be a bribe for a vote ; but it would be a matter of very strong observation, and there would be reasonable grounds for inferring that those who paid people belonging to any particular political party for coming and being put upon the register did expect, as part of what they were paying for, that they were to vote for that party when the election came. It would be a matter of fact, not of law, but the inference would be strong from it. When it is merely re-paying them what might be called money out of pocket, the loss of a day's work, the inference is by no means so strong. It might be so, or it might not be. In each case it would be a matter of inference looking at the facts, and a very important fact would be ^vhether or no an election was pending or close approaching. It would require 2 18 THE LAW RELATING TO Or was in- tended to influence vote at election. The Hastings Case, Paj'ing i-ates to put a per- son on the register. looking at that to see whether it was really or not paid to induce the votes, or whether it was really and bond fide a repayment for money out of pocket. I certainly think it would be a wise thing on the part of all people to avoid making such payments at any time, because, certainly it is always open to the observation and inference that it may be for the corrupt practice of inducing the vote, and may, there- fore, be considered bribery. In the present case, however, we have to go a great deal further than that. I think, where it was bond fide, it would not be a bribe; where it was intended to induce a vote, which would be a matter to be collected from the whole of the facts, it would be a bribe." On the other hand, in the Hadings Case (quoted supra), the payments were made at the time of the registration, they did not exceed tlie sums the voters were out of pocket, and some precautions were taken that only persons entitled got the money. The learned judge held that in this case the payments did not amount to bribes, pointing out that the important elements in determining whether the money was a payment for the vote were (1st), whether the payments were reallj'-and truly made contemporaneously with the registration; and ('2ndly), whether they were honestly intended to be merely a remuneration for what the man was out of pocket, so that he should not be a loser, or whether the intention was that he should make a profit. Although his lordship decided that the payments in that case fell short of bribes, yet, in concluding his judgment, he said that payments made for a registration, especially when the registration is coming so closely before an election, were suspicious things, and a very little additional evidence in such a case as that before him, would lead him to the conclusion that the intention of the payment was to influence the election. By the express words of the 30 & 31 Vic. c. 102, s. 49, corruptly paying any rate on behalf of a ratepayer for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, and for the purpose of influencing his vote at any future election, is bribery. The mere fact of paying the ratepayer's rates is not CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 19 enough to constitute the offence. It must be proved tliat it was done to influence his vote (the Cheltenham Case, I O'M. & H., 64), though, apart from, any evidence of a direct arrange- ment, the court will, when the surrounding circumstances point to it, infer the corrupt intention with which the thing was done. In the Oldham Cane (1 O'M. & H., 165), it was proved that an alleged agent paid a voter's rates in order that he should get him on to the register ; but it was also proved as a fact that there was no arrangement or understanding come to as to how he was to vote. The learned judge held that there was no corrupt payment of rates, and, therefore, no act of bribery. Payments made to a freeman, or on his behalf, to enable him to take up his freedom, and so be placed upon the register, do not come within the provisions of the 30 & 31 Yic. c, 102, s. 49 ; and, therefore, whether or no such payments amount to bribery will turn upon the question of the existence of any arrangement or understanding as to the vote. Although the bribe is given at a municipal election, yet, if Effect of it is intended or calculated to influence the parliamentary °^^ ^i J- •' municipal election, it is in law a bribe with reference to the latter as election. well as the former. In the Beverley Case (1 O'M. & H., 143 ; The Beverley 20 L.T., n.s., 792) there was little or no bribery suggested at ^^'''^' the parliamentary election, but the case for the petitioners was that a wholesale system of corruption prevailed at the municipal election, held a fortnight before the parliamentary election. It was proved that bribery at municipal elections in Beverley was so common and notorious that the price which votes brought upon such occasions was well known. The ordinary bribe was 5s. a vote, and the sum usually spent at a municipal election in corruption was £130. At the par- ticular election in question, however, it was shown (1) that sums three or four times in excess of the ordinary bribes were paid to each voter; (2) that about £800 was disbursed in this way ; (3) that nearly 1,000 persons were bribed ; and (4) that after the municipal elections were practically decided, the respondent's agents went on bribing as extensively as before. The learned judge held, that though these bribes 20 THE LAW RELATING TO Must be connection between municipal and parliamentary election. The South- amp ton Case, were nominally given with reference to the municipal election, they were really intended to influence the parliamentary election, which was known to be imminent, and indeed came ofi" in a fortnight, and he unseated the sitting members accordingly. In this case the facts were clear, and the whole proceeding most flagrant and gross. It is necessary, however, to connect the two elections — the municipal and parliamentary — together, and. show that though nominally they are two contests, in fact, they are regarded by the parties bribing as one. And in the liouthamjiton Case (1 O'M. & H., 2iiJ6), and the Hastings Case (1 O'M. &H., 217, 21 L.T.,n.s., 234),where the evidence failed on this point, bribery at a municipal election which preceded the parliamentary by a very short while, was held not to afifect the validity of the latter. " These elections," said Mr. Justice "VVilles in the former case, "' are prima facie dis- tinct ; there is no necessary connection between them, and it is not enough to show misconduct with reference to the municipal election without connecting that election in some way with the parliamentary election. There have been cases in which it was clear that the municipal and the par- liamentary election were part of one political contest, and that corrupt action at the municipal election either was in- tended expressly to operate upon parliamentarj'- elections, or that the necessary result of what was done at tlie municipal election was to affect the parliamentary election ; where, upon the principle being applied that persons must contem- plate the natural consequences of their acts, an intention to afi"ect the parliamentary election ought to be attributed both to people who were shown to have misconducted themselves with reference to the municipal election, and to agents of the members who have been guilty of corrupt practices in the course of the municipal election, but with a view to the effect of such practices upon the parliamentary election. In such cases the judges have held that the two elections were, under the circumstances, really parts of one and the same political contest, and that the members in the parliamentary contests were bound by the acts of their agents in the course of the municipal contest." CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 21 On the same principle, in the Bristol Case (2 O'M. & H., 27), Bribory at a reported as JBritt v. Robinson in the Common Pleas (L.R. 5, C.P., 503 ; 39 L.J., C.P., 265 ; 23 L.T., 188 ; 18 W.R., 866), where a test ballot was held amongst three Liberal candidates to determine which should be the candidate of the party, and an act of bribery was committed with a view of securing a vote at tho test ballot, it was held that inasmuch as the effect of the bribe would probably also be to secure the vote for the respondent (who, as the event of the test ballot, was accepted as the Liberal candidate and elected) at the real contest which was impending, the corrupt act had relation to it, and avoided the election. So the bribery need not have been committed with refe- Bribery com- rence to the particular parliamentary election the return at fol-mer elec- which is petitioned against. Suppose A is a candidate at an tion. election in January, and is unsuccessful at the poll, but succeeds in unseating his opponent on petition, and a new election is held in May, and A is a candidate again and polls a majority of votes. In the event of a petition against his return, he is liable to be unseated for any act of corruption committed either at the January election or the May election, for the second election, under these circumstances, is but a continuation of the first, the exigency of the writ not being satisfied until there is a good return. (See Stevens v. Tillett, L.H. 6, C.P., 147 ; 40 L.J., C.P., 58), as to the law on the subject, and the three Stroud Cases (2 O'M. & H., pp. 107, 179 and 181) as to its practical operation. Giving workmen a holiday on the polling day, and paying Giving a holi- them as if they had worked, may be an act of bribery. In tiibeiy. the Gravesend Case (3 O'M. & H., 84; 44 L.T., n.s., 64), it was held to amount to bribery. In the Stroud Case (2 O'M. & H., 181) it was held to fall short of it. In the first of these cases it was proved that on the day Iwfore the polling a communication was made to all the workmen in the respondent's employment that they would have a holiday on the next day, but that they would be paid as usual, and that Gravesend they must come the next morning and give in their time. It was proved that on the occasion of previous elections a holiday 22 THE LAW RELATING TO Giving a holi- day may be bribery. Stroud Case. Promising an advantage biibery, though no Condition annexed. Launcvston Case. had been given to the respondent's men, but no payment was made to them in respect of the day. In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Denman said : " It was contended that Weeks (the respondent's agent) made the above-mentioned commimica- tion to the men with the intention of influencing their votes. It was urged on the other side that it was a mere act of benev- olence or justice, and had no connection with the pending election. We cannot adopt this latter view. We think it beyond all question that Weeks had the election in view when he made his communication to the men on the night preceding the polling day, and intended it to influence the votes of all who might be doubtful." On the other hand, in the Stroud Case (quoted supra), it was also proved that the men at certain mills belonging; to the respondent's agents received a holiday on the polling day, and. were paid for that day ; but, unlike the Gravesend Case., there was no evidence \kidX previous to the polling day they were promised their wages. It was argued for the petitioners that there was an implied promise, inasmuch as at an election held three months before the men also had a holiday, and afterwards got their wages ; but Mr. Baron Bramwell held that a single instance of prior payment did not warrant the inference that payment would be made a second time, and he declined to hold that the act of paying the wages after the election, dis- connected from any promise made before, was bribery. The principle of the Gravesend Case seems to be that a promise of some advantage to an elector, made with the view of influencing his vote, is bribery, though it is not proved that any express condition is annexed to the fulfilment of the promise. A.nd in full accordance with this principle is the decision in the Laiinceston Case (2 O'M. & H., 129 ; 30 L.T.,. n.s., 823). There it was proved that the respondent was a large landowner in the borough. During the progress of the contest some clamour was raised with reference to his preservation of the rabbits on his estate. A night or two before the polling the respondent, addressing a public meeting, said : " I give authority for you, everyone of you, to kill every rabbit upon my estate ; kill them, ferret COKRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 23 them, shoot them, trap them, do whatever you like, send thera to market." At other meetings the respondent and his agents used similar language, and they took special measures to sscure the wide circulation of a local paper containing the public declaration of the respondent's views on this subject. Mr. Justice Mellor, who tried the case, decided that this was an offer of a " valuable consideration " within the statutes and that an act of bribery had been committed by the respondent peraonally. His lordship drew the distinction between the case where the motive for the act was the hondjide desire of a landlord to give his tenants a privilege, and where the object was to influence the election, as he believed was the object in the case befor^him. The statute makes it bribery to offer any office or offurofaa employment as an inducement to an elector to vote. In " ^^' the Waterford Case (2 O'M. & H., 25), it was held that an offer made by the agent of the respondent to vacate a seat in the town council in favour of a certain person if he would vote for the respondent was a bribe within the meaning of the Act. But to give a man bond fide employ- Giving JowcS ment unconnected with the election is not bribery, merely 'ment not " because the man happens to be a voter. " A man is not bribery. • bound to refuse to take into his service a man of his way of thinking if he is going to set up for the borough. He must not do that as a reward for the vote he hopes to obtain, and he must not make the vote a condition of employment; But the employment of persona to do work must go on in election times as well as in others ; the affairs of life cannot be brought to a standstill." {Per Willes, J., in the Pennjn Case, 1 O'M. & H., 128). Employment in connection with the election is a different thing, and, except to a very limited extent, it is iiow entirely prohibited by the Act of 1883. It remains that we should consider to what extent a candi- Profusion date may bring himself within the law against bribery by election. lavish expenditure in the constituency, by large subscrip- tions to institutions, and by profuse and wholesale charities. It may be presumed that the importance of this branch if the law is destined to increase. Profusion at an election 24 THE LAW RELATING TO is now under the ban of the legislature ; but there is no express enactment against profusion before an election, and it may be it will be found that the wealthy will seek to indemnify themselves for their enforced parsimony during the contest by increased generosity in the intervals between elections. There can be little question that a system of corruption as pernicious, and probably almost as efficacious, could grow up in this way as the profusion at an election which, under this new law, is apparently doomed. Lavish The only case in the books upon the subject of lavish expemiture. expenditure and its eifect upon an election is the Hastings Case (1 O'M. &H., 217; 21 L.T., n.s., 234). In giving judgment the present Lord Blackbuvn said : " It was shewn that Mr. and Mrs. Brassey had bills with the tradesmen and spent a very considerable sum of money in the town ; and it was said as part of the petitioner's case, that that expendi- ture had been increased, and was the more lavish, becau^-e the election was coming on ; in short, that there was a lavish household expenditure, with a view of influencing the elec- tion with the same intention and in the same way as would, if it had been an expenditure of meat and drink to influence the election, have come within the definition of treating. Not neces- \But there is no lair yet u-hich says that any lavish expenditure in Bd.ri y 1 ega . ^^ nei(jhl)OHrhood with a view of gaining influence in the neighliour- hood and infl.uencing an election, is illegal at all. ' In order to constitute any thing. that would be a corrupt practice in respect of expenditure of that sort, it must be made with a view of influencing a particular rote. If such an expenditure is made at a place with a tacit understanding of this kind, ' I will incur bills and spend my money with you if you will vote for me, that being not the side on which 3'ou intended to vote,' if it is intended to produce that effect upon the vote, it amounts to bribery. In the present case there is nothing to show that in either of the cases there was such an understanding or Such an arrangement made. Whether or not the expenditure was more lavish than it would otherwise have been is no matter for me to enquire into, because that would not affect the election if it was made out." CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 25 The law which his lordship laid down fourteen years ago Lord Black- is law still ; and there is no attempt in the Act of 1883 to alter it, for the design of the new law seems to be that those things which were bribery before shall be bribery still, but that the punishment of the oifence shall be greatly increased. The view of Lord Blackburn is this : There is no reason why a man who is a candidate in a constituency should not live and spend his money there. That is perfectly legal, but if he makes the spending of his money with any particular persons conditional on their voting for him he is guilty of bribery. Subscriptions in themselves are legal, and, thouoh Subscriptions. of course they may be given under such circumstances as to amount to bribery, it would probably require a strong case to satisfy the court of this. There are two reported cases where subscriptions were charged as corrupt acts. In the Westhuri/ Case (1 O'M. & H., 49) it was proved lh>it the petitioner (the recriminatory case was under investigation) had sent a cheque for £10 as a subscription to a dissenting chapel almost at the same time that he issued his address as a candidate. Mr, Justice Willes said : "I have myself often observed that people who mean Ito become candidates sub- scribe to things they would otherwise not have subscribed to ; but I think that is a step off corrupt practices ; it is charity stimulated by gratitude or hope of favours to come.*' So, in the Belfast Case (1 O'M. & H., 282; 21 L.T., n.s., 475) where it was proved that the respondent had subscribed to an Orange Lodge, although his principles were not identical with those of the lodge. Baron Fitzgerald declined to hold that this was an act of bribery. But there is much more danger attendant upon the distri- Charities, bution of charities, and though no person has yet been un- seated on account of subscriptions or a lavish expenditure, there are many cases of seats forfeited for acts which the sitting member called charitable acts, but the court held to be bribes under the cloak of charity. In the Windsor Case (1 O'M. & H., 2 ; 19 L.T., n.s., 613) 'J;i>f^ ^f'bnhor the respondent gave a pound to a voter who had previously 26 THE LAW RELATING TO promised him his vote, and who subsequently came to him in distress. Mr. Justice Willes held that upon all the facts this was not a bribe. This case must not be misunderstood. It does not settle that giving a pound to a voter who is in distressed circumstances is necessarily an innocent act. On the contrary, unexplained it raises a strong presumption of bribery against the person who gives the money. In the Wirukor Case \i must be assumed that the learned judge who saw and heard the parties was satisfied that the respondent acted from motives of pity merely. In this view the case is an autho- rity for saying that a single gift of money by a candidate during an election is not necessarily bribery. If, however, several benevolences of the same kind were established against the respondent, he would seem clearly to come within the Gravesend Case (44 L.T., n.s., 64 ; 3 O'M & H., 84), and the Lainiceston Case (2 O'M. & H., 129 ; 30 L.T., n.s., 823). Tamworth In the Tauiwortli Case (20 L.T., n.s., 181) it was ^*^* proved that the respondent, on the night of the nomination, visited one of the cottages on his property, in company with a person whose name was not known, for the purpose of can- vassing the tenant. He saw the tenant's wife, who com- plained that she was in pain and distress and about to be confined, and that the roof of the cottage was out of repair and it was raining in. At the respondent's request his com- panion gave her 5s. Mr. Justice Willes held that this was not a corrupt act, but charity, natural under the circum- stances. ToughaiCase. The Youglml Case (21 L.T., n.s., 307; 1 O'M. &. H., 294) is a somewhat singular case. It was proved that on and immediately before the polling day, large sums of money were distributed in shillings and half-crowns to poor people in the streets of the borough. As much as £160 was so given away by one person, £130 by another, and £50 by another. None of this money, however, was given to voters. The learned judge unseated the respondent on other grounds, but as to this part of the case, suggested that bribery was not made out. It is impossible to criticise a decision in COimUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 27 which everything turns upon the character of the evidence, of which the judge at the hearing is obviously the most com- petent judge ; but it is necessary to point out that such a proceeding as openly distributing money on the polling day Is distribu- .11 n , -1 i_ i. • tion of money among poor persons, though none oi them may be voters, is ^^ non-elec- sailmg perilously near a very grave violation of the law. We ^ors bribery ? do not think the fact that the m.oney is given to non- voters only is conclusive, because money given to persons not on the register, with the view of bringing their influence to bear on voters is, we submit, within, the words and mean- ing of the statute. The definition of bribery, given in the Act of 1854, runs : — " Every person who shall . . . give . . to any voter, or to any jx'rso)i, in order to induce any voter to vote," &c., &c. And in the Longford C((>ie, 2 O'M. & H., 15, which, though a case of treating and not of bribery, we think, stands upon the same principle, it was distinctly laid down, " the treating of non-electors may be illegal and corrupt just as much as the treating of voters." And see, also, the WalUugford Case (1 O'M. & H., 58) ; the Tarmcorth Case (1 O'M. & H., 86; 20 L.T., 181; and the Southampton Case (1 O'M. & H., 224). In the Stafford Case (1 O'M. & H., 230; 21 L.T., Stafford Cme. n.s., 210), it was proved that at the Christmas before the election the sitting member, through his agent, distributed £720 in charity. At the corresponding period of the year before — when the election was more distant — he only distri- buted £300 in this way. The election was avoided on other grounds, but in giving judgment the present Lord Blackburn said : ''I do not for a moment mean to say that there may not be many excellent charities distributed to these amounts and more by many people, but where I find that charities are distributed in a borough by those who are expecting to contest it as candidates, and distributed, without check, by the election agent of the borough, I am not charitable enough to draw any other conclusion than that they do it with the intention of giving the voters money in the hope and expectation that it will influence the future election. And there is the further very great danger attending 28 THE LAW RELATING TO Bribery cloaked aa charity. JFiitdsor Case. Remarks of Bramwell, B. it, that the knowledge that they may have heen doing it will cause men at the future elections to give their votes in the expectation and hope that they will hereafter receive pay- ment. When that is brought home to any one, I think it would undoubtedly mean corruption." In the second Windsor Case (2 O'M. & H., 89 ; 31 L.T., n.s., 133) some long time before the election, and upon the occasion of distress caused by a flood, the respondent gave away about £100 among his tenants^ some of whom were voters and some not, and who paid him altogether about £3,000 a year in rent. This money was spent in coals, beef, and tea, and the respondent, on being asked whether, when he made these gifts, he had in view the election for the borough hesitated to say that to a certain extent he had not. Mr. Baron Bramwell held that, under the circumstances, the gifts were not corrupt. He said : " It is certain that the coming election must have been present to the respondent's mind when he gave away these things. But there is no harm in it if a man has a legitimate motive for doing a thing, although in addition to that he has a motive which, if it stood alone, would be an illegitimate one. He is not to refrain from doing that which he might legitimately have done on account of the exis- tence of this motive, which by itself would have been an illegitimate one. If the respondent had not been an in- tending candidate for the borough, and yet had done as he has done in respect of these gifts, there would have been nothing illegal in what he did. and the fact that he did intend to represent Windsor, and thought good would be done to him, and that he would gain popularity by this, does not make that corrupt which otherwise would not be corrupt at all." These remarks of his lordship have given rise to a good deal of discussion, and while some judges have expressed their approval of them, others have thought they were too wide, and calculated to mislead candidates into acts which would be held corrupt. The decision itself is probably sound enough, for it is to be observed (1) That the money was given a long time before the election ; (2) upon a legitimate occasion ; CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 29 (3) that it was given merely to the respondent's tenants, from whom he received a large rental, and (4) the amount was not great. In the CarricJifcrgus Case (3 CM. & H., 90,) Baron Dowse Approved in read the passage from the judgment of T^ord Bramwell in q^^'J^^^ " the Windsor Case that we have given and said that he quite approved of it. The Boston Case (2 O'M. & H., 161) is a very important Boston Case. one in this connection. There it was proved that the respondent, who lived in the neighbourhood of Boston and had been in the habit of giving largely to the local charities through the medium of other persons, and of entrusting sums of money to the clergy to distribute among the poorer classes, in the December preceding the general election of 1880 directed his agent to distribute 150 tons T)istrihutioii of coal among the poor of Boston. Asa matter oT fact, this ^^ election. was within a few weeks of the dissolution of Parliament ; but the learned judge said he was of opinion that the respon- dent did not know that the election was imminent. The person to whom the lespondent entrusted the distribution of the coal had cards printed with these words on them, " Please deliver cwts. of coal to for Thomas Parry (the respondent), B. B. Dyer, (the agentj, and on the back of the cards the words " With Mr. Parry's compliments." The cards were distributed among the electors and non-electors of Boston, and the coals were ob- tained upon them. Mr. Justice Grrove held, that having regard to the circumstances under which the charity was conferred there was on the part of the respondent's agent an intention to influence the votes of the recipients. His lordship said, " It has been over and over again held that an unfair and -Tuil'r'^ient of improper donation with the ^^iow, motive, and intention of Grove, securing a vote is corrupt within the meaning of the Act of 1854. It might be a doubtful question (and it is one which was discussed in the Windsor Case) whether assuming two motives to exist, the one being pure and the cither with the intention to corrupt, you could exclude the corrupt intention and rely wholly upon the pure intention. I think that must 30 THE LAW RELATING TO be rather a question of degree. A man may wisli to be charitable in a neighbourhood, but at the same time he may have an eye to his own interests, and there must be in fact some limiting line, incapable of being defined in words, where the two things come to a nearly equal balance. We know, for instance, that persons looking forward to be can- didates for Parliament are generally pretty liberal to the charities in the district, and such liberality, so far as I am aware, has never been held to vitiate the election." His lordship then proceeded to say that if it had been known that Parliament would be dissolved upon the 26th of Charities January, and these gifts of coal had been made on the 14th of January with that knowledge, he would have had great difficulty in holding that the respondent was not personally guilty of bribery. He thought, however, that at the time he did not think the election was imminent, and though his agent had carried out the dispensing of the charity in a way which showed that he meant to influence votes and the seat must be forfeited, yet he would refrain from reporting the respondent as guilty of personal bribery. Tlymouth Cane. i^ the Plymouth Case (3 O'M. & H., 107) it was proved that the respondent ever since he was returned as member was in the habit of sending to the mayor and other persons in the borough sums of from £250 to £oOO to be distributed among the poor. These gifts were usually made on occasions like that of the marriage of one of his children, and they were made in other districts with which the respondent "vvas connected as well as Plymouth. One such distribution was made in 1874 and another in 1876. On the election being called in question, in 1880, it was argued that the gifts were merely colourable charity and were intended to influence votes. The court (the late Lord Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Manisty) refused to draw any such conclusion from the evidence. They said they were of opinion that the respondent was a man of large-hearted benevolence whose disposition was to share his large means among the poor and needy of the places with which he was connected, and that in making these gifts he acted from a laudable sense of duty. But at CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 31 the same time the learned judges stated distinctly that cha- ritable gifts may be nothing more than a specious and subtle form of bribery, a pretext adopted to veil the corrftpt purpose of gaining or securing the votes of the recipients, and '* if this is found to be the object of the donor it matters not under what pretext or in what form, to what persons, or through whose hands the gift may be bestowed^ or whether it has proved successful in gaining the desired object or not." The Wigaii Case (4 O'M. &%., 14) is one in which JFiffanCase. treating, rather than bribery, under the pretext of charity, was suggested ; but the following remarks made by the present Lord Justice Bowen are of general application — " Charity at Eemarks of election times ought to be kept by politicians in the back- ^o^en, L. J. ground. No doubt the distress was great in Wigan at the time, and there was, probably, many a tireless and breadless house throughout the town, but the persons who ought to have relieved the distress were not the politicians of Wigan ; they ought to have stood aloof, they had another duty to discharge on that day, and they could not properly discharge both duties on the same day. In truth, I think it will be generally found that the feeling which distributes relief to the poor at election times, though those who are the distri- butors may not be aware of it, is really not charity, but party feeling following in the steps of charity, wearing the dress of charity and mimicking her gait." The second Salisbury Case (4 O'M, & H. 21) is the last SaikhnryCase. authority on the subject. There it was proved, that very shortly after the election the respondent distributed £100 to be spent in coals and blankets among the poor ; but it was also proved, that after the election of 1880, when he was defeated, he gave a similar gift, and that it was a tradition in the borough for each of the members to give £100 a year for distribution among the poor. On these facts the court (Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Manisty) held that the fair inference to be drawn was, that the gift was not given with the intention of corrupting the minds of future voters, or as a reward for past voting, but that it was done honestly as a matter of charity, and with the view of keeping up that 32 THE LAW IJELATIXG TO Pollock, B., doubts dictum of Bramwell, B., in Wind- sor Case. Eesult of the authorities. The motive of the donor the test. sort of good feeling which it is desirable should exist between the rich and the poor, Mr. Baron Pollock referred to the dictum of ^Lord Bramwell in the Windsor Case already- quoted and remarked : " If it were necessary to coDsider this as a new matter, I am not quite sure that I should be pre- pared to go so far as Lord Bramwell went in that proposi- tion. I should prefer, myself, to say we must take the whole of the evidence into consideration, and consider whether the governing principle in the mind of the man who gave such gifts was, that he was doing something with a view \o corrupt the voters, or whether he was doing something which was a mere act of kindness and charity." We have set out the authorities on this subject at some length, but we think at no greater length than the difficulty and importance of the question discussed warrants. The conclusions to be deduced from the cases, it is submitted, are as follows : — 1. Bond fide charitable benefactions in a constituency which a person represents, or aspires to represent, do not constitute bribery. 2. But benefactions made under the colour and name of charity, with the view of influencing the votes of the recip- ients, or other persons through them, are bribes. 3. What was the motive of the donor in each case is a question of fact to be determined by the court from an examination of all the evidence. But, in determining such fact, attention must be paid to the time when with reference to the election the gifts were made, the habit and practice of the donor with regard to charities elsewhere and before he became a candidate, even to the traditions of the constituency and lo the amount of the gift. If the distribution of charity is made shortly before an election, a strong presumption of a corrupt motive arises (the Boston Case and the Stafford Case, quoted supra) ; if, on the other hand, it is made some time before, there is no such presumption (the Ph/niouth Case and the Windsor Case, quoted sapra). Section 2 of the 17 & 18 Vic. c. 102 (already quoted) makes it bribery for any person, directly or indirectly to CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 33 make any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agree- To pay for ment to or with any person in order to induce such person bribery. to procure or endeavour to procure the return of any person to Parliament or the vote of any voter at any election, " provided always that the aforesaid enactment shall not extend or be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any legal expenses bond fide incurred at or concerning any election." This provision, which is substantially a re-enactment of a statute of Greorge III., was probably primarily devised to strike against corrupt arrangements by which patrons of close boroughs sold their influence in them. But it would seem to have a larger scope than this, and to make it an act of bribery to pay or promise anything to any person (though a stranger to the borough) with a view of securing that person's assistance or influence in the election unless such payment was in the nature of " legal expenses bond fide incurred at or concerning the election." The only case in which this section has come before any of the judges was the Coventry Case (1 O'M. & H., 97; 20 L.T., n.s., 405). Coventry Case. In that case there were two respondents, and it was proved that there was an agreement between them by which one of them agreed, in the event of the other consenting to stand in conjunction with him, that he would pay all his expenses. The latter had previously contested the constituency and, it was said, was popular in it. It was suggested that this promise to pay his election expenses if he would stand in conjunction with the other was within the section. Mr. Justice Willes said that the question for him was, whether the one respondent intended by this promise to purchase the influence of the other in the constituency or was the promise merely made with the view of serving the party. His lordship came to the latter conclusion, and refused to J^^g™^^* of . Willes, J. avoid the election ; but his language was very precise as to the operation of the section in a case which really comes within it. " It would be bribery in the case of the person who gave, as well as in the case of the person who received the benefit, and if the respondent E agreed to give the 3 ' 34 THE LAW RELATING TO towards ex penses of candidates legal. respondent H £5, I may eay a farthing in point of law — if he agreed to give him anything, if only a peppercorn, for the purpose of purchasing any influence which the re- spondent n had Avith the electors of Coventry, and of advancing the respondent E's interest as a candidate at the election." This case is an authority that an agreement by one candidate to pay the expenses of another is not neces- sarily a bribe, but it may be one. The last sub-section of the 17 & 18 Vic. c. 102, s. 2, makes it bribery to advance or pay any money n-ith the intent that such money should be expended in bribery or to knowingly pay any money in repayment of any money, wholly or in part, expended in bribery at any election. Subscriptions This provision in no way strikes at subscriptions towards defraying the expense of any particular candidate or of can- didates belonging to a particular party. Such subscriptions are very common. They have never been called in question and in the Belfast Case (1 O'M. & H., 285 ; 21 L.T., 475) Baron Fitzgerald intimated an opinion that they were per- fectly legal and constitutional. There are cases in the reports of the proceedings before election committees where the latter have held that the fact of a bet made by a voter on the event of an election invali- dates his vote and necessitates its being struck off on a scrutiny. It is difiicult to understand these decisions on the facts as presented in the meagre rei)orts preserved. But, apart altogether from authority, it would seem on principle that if the court is satisfied that a bet or wager made by a candidate or any one of his agents is merely a corrupt con- trivance to influence a voter, and to induce the voter to cast his vote in one direction or another, or to abstain from voting, this would seem to be bribery which will defeat the election. (See " Cunningham on Elections," p. 152.) Wagers may be bribes. Section II. — Treating. Treating is the second of those corrupt acts which, if committed by a candidate or any one of his agents, will COREUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 35 avoid the election. Various statutes from the 7 & 8 "Wm. Til. e. 4, onwards have prohibited the giving of meat, drink and entertainment with the view of influencing votes, and there are innumerable cases where the seat has been forfeited for corruption of this desciiption. Those statutes were all repealed by the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854 (the 17 & 18 Vic. c. 102), which in its fourth section enacted as follows ; — "Every candidate at an election who shall corruptly by Old definition , . 1 p , .1 - , - •' of treating. himseli, or by or with an}' person, or by any other ways and means on his behalf, at any time, either before, during, or after any election, directly or indirectly give or provide, or cause to be given or provided, or shall be accessory to the givmg or providing, or shall pay, wholly or in part, any expenses incurred for any meat, drink, entertainment or provision, to or for any person, in order to be elected, or for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person, or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at such election, or on account of such person having voted or re- frained from voting at such election, shall be deemed guilty of the offence of treating, and shall forfeit the sum of £50 to any person who shall sue for the same, with full costs of suit ; and every voter who shall corruptly accept and take any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall be incapable of voting at such election, and his vote, if given, shall be utterly void and of non-eff'ect." And by the joint operation of the Act of 1854, section Treating 36, and the 46th section of the 31 & 32 Vic. c. 125, the ^^tl^^^ election of any person who was guilty by himself or his agent of treating was avoided. Section 23 of the Act of 1854 made it an illegal act, rendering the person guilty of it liable to a penalty of 40s. (though the seat was not afiected), to give any meat, drink, &c., to any voter on the nomination day or the polling day. Section 1 of the Act of 1883 repeals Section 4 of the Act of 1854, and by Section 66 of the same Act the 23rd Section is also repealed, and in lieu of the provisions of the old law the following section is substituted : " Whereas, under Section 4 Definition of of the Corrupt Practices Act, lvS54, persons other than can- Act of 1 883. 56 THE LAW RELATING TO didates at parliamentary elections are not liable to any puniabment for trea,ting, and it is expedient to make sucb persons liable ; be it, tberefore, enacted : Any person wbo corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly, gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, enter tainm-^nt or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person, or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at the election, or on account of such person, or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote, or refrain from voting at such election, shall be guilty of treating. " And every elector who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall also be guilty of treating." (Section 1.) No material It is submitted that although the verbiage of section 1 of the tween old and -^^^ ^^ 1883 differs considerably from section 4 of the Act of new defiiii- 1854 there is no material alteration in the definition of the offence of treating. The latter includes in its definition the causing to be given or provided meat, &c., but inasmuch the former forbids the giving or providing directly or indirectly of any meat, &c., and it is a principle of law that a man does that himself which he does through another it would seem that the words of section 1 are comprehensive enough to include every Act in this connection which the repealed section was directed again St. Again, section 4 of the old Act contained the words, " or shall be accessory to the giving or providing." Those words are omitted from section 1, but evidence that a candidate knew that meat, &c., was to be given and consented to the giving, which would constitute him an accessory, would also be evidence that he actually gave it within the meaning of section 1. Towards the end of the definition given in section 1 some words are added which are not in section 4. It is treat- ing to give ... on account of such person or any other ^Jerson having voted. The words in italics are new, and they some- what enlarge the sweep and scope of the description of the offence. But subject to the minor variations we have men- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 37 tioned, the old deftnition of treating is preserved, and sub- Definition of stantially all that the legislature has done is to bring within ^ct^offsss the penalties annexed, classes of persons who before escaped them. It will be noted that in the definition of treating contained in the Act of 1851- the word "corruptly" is introduced. "Every candidate who corrupth/, &c. ... is guilty of treat- ing." This word is preserved in the definition given in the Act of 1883j " any person who coi'rujHhj,'" &c., &c. No such qualifying word occurs in the definitions of bribery given in the Act of 1854 and incorporated into the new Act. There Meaning of has been a good deal of discussion as to the precise efiect "corruptly." which ought to be given to this word " corruptly," and the extent to which it distinguishes the liability of a candidate for the act of giving a glass of beer from his liability for the act of giving a shilling. However, it isnow well settled that the word " corruptly " in this connection does not mean wickedly, or immorally or dishonestly or anything of that sort, but with the object and intention of doing that which the legislature plainly means to forbid, (See judgment of Willes, J., in Cooper v. Blade, 6 H.L. Cases, 747 ; 27 L.J., Q.B., 449; and the Beivdlei/ Case, 1 O'M. & H., 19; 19 L.T., n.s., 676.) "In fact, giving meat or drink Eemiirks of is treating when the person who gives it has an intention of ^^^^ ^^ treating — not otherwise ; and in all cases where there is evidence to show that meat or drink has been given, it is a question of fact for the judge whether the intention is made out by the evidence, which in every individual case must stand upon its own grounds, and although each individual case may be a mere feather's weight by itself and so small that one would not act upon it, yet if there is a large number of such cases, a large number of slight cases will together make a strong one ; and consequently it must always be a ■very important inquiry what was the scale, the amount and the extent to which it was done." (Per the present Lord Blackburn in the Beicdley Case, supra.) The essence of the offence of treating is the intention with Essence of which the meat or drink is given. If it is given with an [^.g^ating! 412706 38 THE LAW RELATING TO intention. intention to influence a vote, that is treating, and the efleet upon the election is exactly the same as the effect of a bribe, subject to the j^ossibility of the Court granting relief under Section 22 of the Act of 1883, in the circumstances to be presently discussed. " Whenever a candidate," said the present Lord Blackburn, in the WaUinrjford Case (1 O'M. & H. 59), "is either by himself or by his agents in any way accessory to providing meat, drink, or entertainment for the purpose of being elected, with an intention to produce an effect upon the election, that amounts to corrupt treating. The test is tte Whenever, also, the intention is by such means to gain popularity, and thereby to affect the election ; or, if it be that persons are afraid that if they do not provide entertainment and drink to secure the strong interests of the publicans and of the persons who take drink whenever they can get it for nothing, they will become unpopular, and they therefore provide it to affect the election — when there is an intention in the mind either of the candidate or his agent to produce that effect, then I think that it is corrupt treating. But everything is involved in the question of intention, and it becomes important to see what is the amount of the treating. The statute does not say or mean that it shall depend upon the amount of the drink. The smallest quantity given with the intention will avoid the election. But, when we are considering, as a matter of fact, the evidence, to see whether a sign of that intention does exist, we must, as a matter of common sense, see on what scale and to what extent it is done." There is one obvious distinction between bribery and treating in regard to the light in which evidence of the givin-g of money and drink should respectively be viewed. As soon as it is proved that money was given, only one of two inferences is possible — it is either a case of charity or a bribe. But when it is proved that drink or meat has been f/iren, you are not driven to either one or other of these alternatives, because it is common knowledge that good fellowship, and friendly relatious, and the customs of the country lead to an interchange of treating between persons Distinction between bribery and treating. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 39 where both charity and bribery are out of the question. Therefore, it may be said that, as a rule, it requires stronger evidence of an intention to influence the vote in a case where the thing given is meat or drink, than where the thing given is money or some other valuable consideration. It will be observed that, in the statutory definitions of To offer treatinsr, it is not made an offence to offer, or jyromise, or ru/rce 'li'nk' ^^■> o' .1' J J. 7 jjy^ treating to give meat, etc. Still, it is right to remind the reader that to offer, promise, or agree to give any valuable consideration But may be is bribery (see Kiddermimter Case, 2 O'M, & H., 366) ; ^^ ^^^' therefore, it is doubtful whether the omission of these words from the statutory definition really adds anything to the protection of candidates. As in the case of bribery, so in that of treating, it is not Treating need necessary that the meat or drink should be given directly to the voter whose vote it is sought to influence. Drink given to women with the view of influencing their husbands, brothers and sweethearts, was, in the Tamicorfh Case (I O'M. & H., 80), held to be treating, and so in the Longford Case (2 O'M. & H., 15), the treating of non-electors was held to be within the statute ; and, in the WaJUngford Case already quoted, Lord Blackburn seemed to intimate that treating of all classes with a view to obtaining popularit}^, would avoid the election, though, as to the latter proposition, it must be stated that in a later case (the Louth Case, 3 O'M, & H. 161), Baron Dowse expressed a contrary view. It has been stated already that bribery at a municipal Treating at election may be construed to be bribery at a parliamentary "^""I^IIJ!^.^ election held shortly afterwards, and the same principle parliamen- exactly applies to the case of treating. See the Hastings ^^^ Case (1 O'M. & H. ; 21 L.T., n.s., 234), when, though, on the facts before him, Mr. Justice Blackburn did not think that the treating at the municipal election in any way influenced the parliamentary contest, yet he clearly inti- mated that if it had had such an effect the seat would have been forfeited. Equally, treating at a test ballot to deter- mine which of three candidates shall be accepted as the nominee of the party, is as fatal to the election as 40 THE LAW RELATING TO bribery on a sirtiilar occasion. (Bn'tt v. JRohimon, 5 L.H., G.P., 503; 39 L.J., O.P., 265 ; 23 L.T.,n.s., 188 ; 18W.R.,866.) Treats Again, just as payments made to persons in respect of ^treo'istmtkm ^^®^^ ^oss of time attending the Registration Court may be bribery, so treats of meat and drink to persons who attend the court to support their votes may be treating affecting the election " when its object is to procure popularity and votes at the Parliamentary election." (Per Blackburn in the Hastings Case, 21 L.T., n.s., 234.) On the other hand, if it is shown that the treating has reference merely to the proceedings in connection with the registration, it will not affect the election, as where a suppor is held to celebrate a triumph at the Revision Court, and the entertainment is paid for by the sitting member or his agent. This was held in the Corentrt/ Case (1 O'M. & H., 106) not to affect the election. In the course of the discussion of the law relating to bribery, it was pointed out that prior to the Act of 1883 the fact of employing and paying voters in connection with the election was not necessarily bribery. The question in every case was — Were the persons hond fide emploj^ed and paid a fair sum ? If they were it was not bribery, though if they voted their votes would come off on a scrutiny. On the other hand, if they were only colourably employed, and really paid in order to secure their votes, this was bribery which avoided the election. It was also pointed out that the importance of the distinction is a great deal diminished by the new Act, which makes it an illegal practice defeating the election for a candidate or his election agent to employ and pay any per- sons (over and above the limit allowed in the schedule) in connection with the election. Refreshmeiits There is authority for saying that a similar distinction pre- to voters. vailed with regard to refreshments given to voters who were employed in the promotion of the election, and it is submitted that the distinction still prevails. The distinction is this — Meat and drink given in moderation by a candidate to per- sons (whether paid or not) who were really engaged in the work of the election was not, and it is submitted is not, COratUPT PEACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 41 corrupt treatino:. On the other hand, meat and drink ffiven I^efreshments ^ 1 1 ■ ■ • • , n to voters. to persons who do no real service m connection with the election, though as a cloak and screen they may be called committeemen and canvassers, will be regarded as corrupt treating. The law on this point was clearly laid down by Baron Mariin in several cases in 1869, and his statement of it has never been judicially questioned. In the second Bnulford Case (19 L.T., n.s., 723; 1 O'M. & H., 35), it was proved that on the polling day refresh- ments were provided in the committee rooms for all the persons who were necessarily there for the purposes of the election. Those persons were voters, but inasmuch as they were all partizans honestly engaged in the work of the election, his lordship held that there was no treating to secure their votes. So in the Westminster Case (1 O'M. & H., 90; 20 L.T„ n.s., 236) the same learned judge held that providing refresh- ments on the polling day for persons bond fide en^agQ^i in the work of the election, was not corrupt treating. The present Lord Blackburn, in the WaUingfonl Case (1 O'M. & H., 58; 19 L.T., n.s., 7G6) apparently had the distinction present to his mind when without in any way impugning it, he said it would be very much better if candi- dates left their agents and those who were working gratuitously in their behalf to provide their own refreshments. And, indeed, it is obvious that a candidate who is consenting A dangerous to any supply of refreshments during the course of an election ^ ' ^ • is treading upon perilous ground, and unless the very greatest prudence is exercised he may be hopelessly committed by some one of the numerous subordinates whom he must employ in such a case. The grosser forms of treating are where public-houses are Opening opened, as it is called, and persons, whether voters or not, ^^ ^^' *^"'*^^- allowed to go in and out and drink or eat what they want with little limit imposed. This was what happened in the Youghal Case (21 L.T., n.s., 306 ; 1 O'M. & H., 291), where it was proved that crowds of electois and non- electors were gratuitously supplied with <]rink at the bar of the hotel 42 THE LAW RELATING TO Opening public-houses. Amount of drink, &o., given generally immaterial. Gi%dng drink, &c., to voters may not be treating. in which the respondent's committee met, whenever they asked for it. So in the first Bradford Case (19 L.T., n.s., 720; 1 O'M. & H., 33) Baron Martin held that it was proved that the respondent opened 115 public- houses in the borough, and in these houses all persons who came there and went through the farce of having their names put down as committeemen were supplied with drink. In the Be/cd/ci/ Case (1 O'M. & H., IG ; 19 L.T., n.s., 676) it was proved that a large number of public-houses — about 20 — were habitually open during the election, that whoever went in there, got drink as he wished, and that all the drink was ordered and controlled by a clerk of the respondent's agent. The judge was clearly of opinion that this treating invali- dated the election. There are many other cases where the seat has been forfeited where treaticg has been carried on on a similar scale. Indeed, where such general and widespread treating as this is established, the election is in deadly peril at common law apart altogether from proof that the corruption was the act of the respondent or his agent. It cannot be stated too precisel}' that when once the court is satisfied that meat or drink was given with the corrupt inten- tion of influencing a vote, the offence of treating is complete, utterly regardless of the amount of drink given. The authorities establishing this proposition are substantially consistent from the Westhuru Case in 19 L.T., n.s., 24, to the Wigan Case (4 O'M. & H., 13). This position is further fortified by section 22 of the Act of 1883, which contemplates that treat- ing may be of a trivial, unimportant, and unlimited character, and so far as the seat is concerned gives relief in such cases, only under stringent conditions. On the other hand, there are many cases in the books where it has been clearly proved that meat and drink has been given to voters by a candidate or his agent, and yet the election has been upheld. These cases all go on the prin- ciple, which is a perfectly sound one, that the giving of the meat and drink is not in itself corrupt treating; it is giving it with the intention of influencing the vote which makes the offence. In the cases we mention the court has con- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 43 sidered all tlie surrounding circumstances, and come to the conclvision, as a fact, tliat the candidate or his agent did not mean to affect the votes of the recipients of his or their hos- pitality. See the Louth Case (3 O'M. & H., 161), where all the cases on this point are carefully collated and dis- cussed by Baron Dowse. It is clear that treating before an election, with a view of icfluencing it, is as much an oifence as treating at the election. (The YoiigJial Cr/,sr, 21 L.T., n s., 317). Whether treating Treating after after an election will invalidate it depends upon whether or ^^^^ ^'^'"• no the treating was in pursuance of any arrangement, express or implied, made duiing the course of the election. The leading authority on this point is the Brecon Case (2 O'M. & Brecon Case. H., 43). Tliere it was proved that after the election an entertainment was given by the mother of the respondent, but with his knowledge and concurrence, to a large number of persons, among whom were many who had voted for the respondent at his election, and some who had voted against him. It was not, however, proved that this entertainment had been mentioned or even thought of until the election, was over, neither was it proved that any such entertainment had ever been given before, or that it was intended thereby to influence the voters at a future election. The learned judge (the late Lord Justice Lush) upheld the election. In giving- judgment, he said: "In whit then does corrupt Jurlgment of treating after the election consist ? It is easy enough to state what would be corrupt treating before the election. Indeed, the Act itself defines it, but what is that ingredient which must enter into the treating in order to make it cor- rupt with reference to an election which is over and past, and when it can no longer influence the voting, or have any efiect upon the election. I do not agree that' treating with a view to attach the voters to the candidate, and secure their firture support, is within this branch of the section. Treat- ing for such a purpose may peril the future election which it is designed to influence, but we are now dealing with a past election, and the treating charged is, therefore, a proceeding which reflects back and taints that by-gone election. Nor 44 THE LAW RELATING TO The test is, was there a promise ex- press or im- plied before. Toole Case. Implied promise of a treat. can it be merely giving an entertainment as an expression of gratitude, or by way of rewarding the voters. So to hold, would be to give no meaning to the word ' corruptly,' for the Act says that the offence shall consist, not in the giving meat, drink, &c., to a voter ' on account of his having voted,' but the doing so corruptly on account of his having voted. I am, therefore driven to the conclusion that the treating which the Act calls corrupt, as regards a by-gone election, must be connected with something which preceded the elec- tion, must be the complement of something done or existing before and calculated to influence the voter while the vote was in his power. An invitation given before to an enter- tainment to take place afterwards, or even a promise to in- vite, or a practice of giving entertainments after an election, which it maybe supposed the voters would calculate on, would, if followed up by the^ treating afterwards, give to it the character of corrupt treating." It will be seen that the learned judge intimated that a practice of giving entertainments after an election which the voters might be supposed to calculate upon, might be equi- valent to a promise made during an election, so as to make the subsequent treating corrupt. This very point arose in the Pooh Case (2 O'M, & H,, 123), and was decided by Mr. Justice Grove in accordance with Lord Justice Lush's opinion. There it was proved that after the election there was considerable treating of voters by the respondent's agents. No previous promise was suggested, but it was proved that after the last election, at which the respondent was also a candidate, a great deal of drink was given away by his agents, and the learned judge held that, having regard to what took place then, there was a tolerably clear understand- ing among the voters of Poole, that drink would be distributed as soon as the poll was over. His lordship fully adopted the doctrine of the Brecon Case, in cases where it was proved that the entertainment was given on a spontaneous re- joicing. It is thus reasonably clear that the hospitality of a member after an election ^ if entirely unconnected with any ex- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 45 press promise before or previous conduct from which a promise Hospitality. can be implied, will not amount to corrupt treating and avoid the election. Hospitality before an election, admits to some extent of difi'erent considerations. There is no law to prevent a man being hospitable in the place he aspires to represent; but if the court is satisfied that he dispenses his hospitality with a view of securing votes, he comes within the statute. It is entirely a question of intention ; and each case must stand upon its own bottom. In the Windsor Case (1 O'M. & H., 3 ; 19 L.T., n.s., 613) it was proved that the respondent was in the chair at a dinner of a non-political society — the Oddfellows — some two or three weeks before the election began. He standing ordered champagne to be served to all the persons present, *^^|j^^Uc d^inner. many of whom were voters, and he paid for it. The question was whether, under the circumstances, this was an act of corrupt treating. Mr. Justice Willes held it was not. He described it as a ''questionable" proceeding, and as being of an " objectionable " character, but acting upon a decision of an election committee, he, apparently with some reluctance, upheld the election. The election committees on this point drew a distinction which is not very intelligible. In the Pontefrad Case (W. & D., 71) the respondent stood a quantity of drinks at a dinner of the Oddfellows, and the committee held that this was not treating within the Act, as the society, at whose dinner he gave the treat, was not a political one. The ^lauhfone Case (W. & D., 104), on the other hand, is an authority that exactly similar treating, at the dinner of a political society, would be corrupt treating. "We confess we cannot understand the distinction. If anything, treating at the dinner of a non- political society is likely to be more pernicious, and have a greater effect upon the election. In the one case, the can- didate is treating partizans, whose votes in nine cases out of ten, are already secured. In the other case, he is treating persons, many of whom have no fixed views, and who are peculiarly open to influences of the kind. It must be care- fully noted with reference to the Windsor Case, that it is 4G THE LAW RELATING TO Amount of treating material where relief sought under Section 22 of Act of 1883. Election court has now power to support election where treating trivial. And when the other condi- tions of Sec- tion 22 of Act of 1883 are complied with. merely a decision upon the facts. It lays down no principle of law, and it is no authority for saying that a candidate can, with impunity, dispense gratuitous drink or meat on the eve of an election. It has been already stated, that the quantity of meat or drink given, where the corrupt intent is made out, is im- material, so far as the offence of treating is concerned ; but the quantity of the meat or drink given is most material in the connection we have now arrived at. Judges have again and again expressed their sense of the hardship of the law which compelled them to unseat a member who had done his best to conduct his election purely, but who had been com- mitted by some trifling act of bribery or treating done by an agent. Until the Act of 1883 they had no option in the matter. Now by the 22nd section of that Act, a certain limited power is given them in the class of cases which come within the section. It is desirable that we should set out the full text of the section before we offer any comments upon it. " When upon the trial of an election petition, respecting an election for a county or borough, the Election Court report that a candidate at such election has been guilty by his agents of the offence of treating, and undue influence and illegal practice, or of any such offences in reference to such election, and the Election Court further report that the candidate has proved to the Court : — " (a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was committed at such election by the candidate or his election agent, and that the offences named in the said report were committed contrary to the orders, and without the sanction or contrivance of such candi- date or his election agent ; and " (b.) That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such election ; and " (r.) That the offences mentioned in the said report were of a trivial, unimportant, and limited character ; and CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 47 " (d.) That in all other respects tlie election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of such candidate, and of his agents, then the election of such candidate shall not, by reason of the offences mentioned in such report, be void, nor shall the candidate be subject to any incapacity under this Act." A glance at this section is sufficient to show that the indulgence it permits is so hedged round with restrictions and limitations that it cannot have any general or wide appli- cation. It has no application to any act of hrihcr)jy or to any Section act of personation, though the bribe given be never so trifling tieatino- but in amount, and though there be every circumstance of not to bribery. extenuation in the case. But it does apply to treating, and this curious result may follow. To promise a glass of beer as an inducement for a vote is bribery. To actually give a glass of beer is ti'eating. If it is proved that an agent of a candidate (not being his election agent) //as given a glass of beer, and if the other conditions of Section 22 are satisfied, the Court cannot unseat the sitting member. But if it is proved that the agent merely promised a glass of beer, has the Court any power to relieve from this trifling act of bribery ? It is submitted it has not. Assuming, however, that the act or acts in respect of What the which the candidate wishes relief, under Section 22 is or are ^^st move to acts of treating merely, which is the only subject with which obtain relief. we are now concerned, the candidate is not entitled to such relief unless he proves (1st) that the said acts were not done hy himself ov his election agent', or (2nd), with his or the election agent's knowledge or consent, and (3) that he and his agent took all reasonable means to prevent the commis- sion of corrupt and illegal practices ; (4) that the acts in question were committed contrary to his orders and the orders of his election agent ; (5) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice, and (6) that the acts in question were of a trivial, unim- portant and limited character. 48 THE LAW EELATING TO Section III. — Undue Influence, Definition of undue influence. Antiquity of the law. The offence of undue influence is thus defined by Section 2 of the Act of 1883: " Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by him- self or by any other person on his behalf, make use of or threaten to make use of, any force, violence or restraint, or inflict, or threaten to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or who shall, by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of any elector, or shall thereby compel, induce or prevail upon any elector either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall be guilty of undue influence." The corresponding section under the old law was Section 5 of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1851, which was almost identical in terms, but the words " temporal and spiritual " are new, and the general words " in any other manner prac- tise intimidation " and " or otherwise interfere with " the free exercise of the franchise, are omitted. These modifica- tions do not appear to alter the law. This portion of the law is as old as Parliament itself. By 3 Edwd. I. c. 5: 'Because elections ought to be free, the king commandeth, under pain of great forfeiture, that no great man nor other hij force of arms nor hy malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election." A vote, to be a good vote, must be freely given, and the question whether a man gives a free vote is much the same as the question whether a man has made a free will {Winclsot\ lO'M. &H,6; 19 L.T., 43). " The proper definition of that undue influence" which was dealt with in 17 & 18 Yic. c. 102, s. 5, is using any violence or threatening any damage, or resorting to any CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 49 fraudulent conti'ivance to restrain the liberty of a voter so as either to compel or frighten him into voting or abstaining from voting otherwise than as he freely wills {Lichfield, 1 O'M. & H., 25; 20 L.T., 11). Yet the statute leaves Silontand entirely untouched influences which operate upon the mind leptimate •' _ _ ■■• _ J- _ lunuence. of a voter and coerce him in the exercise of his franchise without any ad being committed on the part of the person from whom the influence emanates. For example, a shopkeeper fears to incur the displeasure of profitable customers, a workman fears to incur the displeasure of his employer, a tenant fears to incur the displeasure of his landlord, and they will be influenced by these considerations although neither the landlord nor the employer nor the customer either intends or threatens, or does any act of injury what- ever in consequence of the exercise of the franchise (Down, 3 O'M. & H., 136). " The law cannot strike at the existence of influence. The law can no more take away from a man who has pro- perty, or who can give employment, the insensible but power- ' ful inflaence he has over those whom, if he has a heart, he can benefit by the proper use of his wealth, than the law can take away his honesty, his good feeling, or any other qualities which give a man influence with his fellows. It is the abuse of influence with which alone the law deals. Influence cannot be said to be abused because it exists and operates" (Per Willes, J., Lichfield, 1 O'M. & H.,22; 20 L.T.,11). Legitimate influence might be unduly used although no illegitimate injury were actually done or threatened in so many words, °' At Lichfield, a very influential person, who was a magistrate, a poor law guardian, a town councillor, and a trustee of several local charities, stationed himself in the yard in front of the polling place and there exhorted and persuaded poor voters coming to the poll, and ticked off" their names on the register. His servant, who was also there, on seeing an elector come up wearing adverse colours, cried " We will remember him another day." No other persons but special constables were allowed in the yard. The Court was of 4 50 THE LAW RELATING TO "Bottling' voters. Undue in- fluence by landlords. opinion that that exceeded the bounds of legitimate canvas- sing and reprehended it, but, with some doubt, declined to avoid the election {Lichfield, 3 O'M. & H., 136). The " undue influence " clause is to be read by the light thrown upon it by the " bribery " clause, and that which it would be bribery to promise the enjoyment of it is intimida- tion to threaten the deprivation of iWestbury, 1 O'M. & H., 52). The use of '' force, violence or restraint," or a threat to use it, to prevent the free exercise of the franchise, is rare. Either under the first, or under the concluding words of the section, would be included the practice of making voters drunk in order to prevent their voting, shutting them up, driving or sending them away from the polling place with a like object, or, as was done in some old cases, taking out voters to Norway under the pretence that they were being taken to the place of polling. Any such act done by any agent avoids the election {North No)foIk, 1 O'M. & H., 236 ; 21 L.T., 264). The case becomes more difficult when the act charged is the utterance of a threat to inflict some temporal or spiritual injury in order to influence the voter or because he has voted or refrained from voting, but an ambiguous act may generally be interpreted by surrounding circum- stances. The law does not strike at the legitimate influence of any person. Thus, where a nobleman said to a number of his tenants : " If you can vote for my friend. Captain T., I shall be delighted if you will do so. If you cannot vote for him, at all events stay at home and do not vote against him.'* Mr. Justice Keogh brushed aside a suggestion that any reso- lution of the House of Commons could make it illegal for a peer so to interfere in an election, or make law at all, and continued : " It would be a sorry day for this country (and for none more than for the tenant class themselves) if land- lords, noblemen or gentlemen, were entirely shut ofi'from the exercise of that legitimate influence which a landlord has a right to use " {Gahcmj, 2 O'M. & H., bb). It is to be noted CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. ol that in that case it was not suggested that the nobleman in question evicted or threatened to evict or injure any recal- citrant tenant. So where it merely appeared that all Mr. M.'s tenants who were in arrear with their rent had voted as he asked them to do, the seat was not affected. " The mere fact of a person having influence and intentionally retaining it is not alone evidence of unduly exercising tbat influence" (Wmdsor, 1 O'M. & H., 6; 19 L.T., 43). A case much nearer the line was the second Windsor Case (2 O'M. & H.j -^ threat 88 ; 31 L.T., 133). There it was proved that the respon- operative, dent had evicted a number of his tenants after the election of 1868 because they had voted against him, but it was not proved that this conduct did, as a fact, inflaence any elector at the election of 1871, which was the one in question. Nor, so far as can be gathered from the reports, does it seem tliat the respondent went to his tenants in 1874, saying, " I want you to promise me." Bramwell, B., declined to unseat the respondent, because it was not proved that the threat which was practically held out to the tenants in 1868 — that if they voted against their landlord in future they also would be evicted — was operative in 1874. Probably it would have been otherwise if in 1874 the respondent had canvased his tenants. That would have been equivalent to saymg, " I have come to ask for your vote and if you don't give it you had better remember ^hat happened in 1868." The learned judge marked his disapproval of the respondent's conduct by depriving him of the costs of the petition, but admitted that there was a legitimate mode of influence, and that a landlord Landlords having a choice between two tenants — one agreeing with him {^g^^tg^a ^ts. in politics and the other not — might properly select the person agreeing with him. The result seems to be that a landlord or his agent {North Norfolk,! O'M. & H., 237; 21 L.T., 264) may canvuss his tenants and exhaust every argument in order to persuade them to vote as he wishes, provided that he neither inflict nor threaten to inflict any injury upon any tenant who holds out. If the tenant became such on his promise to vote for his land- lord's party, it would be exceedingly dangerous for the land- 52 THE LAW RELATING TO Undue in- flnence by employers. Undue in- fluence by workmen. Withdrawal of custom. lord in canvassing him to remind him of his promise [Peters- field, 2 O'M. & H., 94). Undue influence by employers is often difficult to prove, when it takes the form of dismissal after the election, on account of the workmen having voted, as it may be suggested that the dismissal was for some other reason. At Westbunj (1 O'M. & H., 50) the employer told his workpeople, " No man shall remain in my employment who votes for L.," and afterwards dismissed some of his workpeople who voted for L., after promising not to vote at all. It was ingeniously but vainly suggested that they were dismissed because of their untruthfulness in voting after promising not to vote and not because of their political opinions. The wrongful dismissal by an employer of a single voter from his employ- ment shortly before an election, upon the ground of his political opinion, is evidence of intimidation {Blackburn 1 O'M. & H., 203; 20 L.T., 823). But where an emploj'^er has a mixed motive for dismissing his man, when he has a reason for getting rid of him apart from his politics, is the employer bound to abstain from discharging him merely because an election is at hand ? At Blackburn, siqora, Willes, J., thought not, but recommended employers so acting to preserve clear evidence of the non-political ground for dismissing the workman {North Norfolk, 1 O'M. & H., 241 ; 21 L.T., 264). When the majority of the work- people in certain mills, just before the election, drove out some of the minority who held unpopular opinions and pre- vented them from continuing their work, the masters looking on and not attempting to interfere, the election, agency being proved, was avoided {Blackburn, supra). The case of withdrawal of custom stands upon the same grojind. A man may deal with a tradesman because he is of the same political opinions, and not because he sells com- modities cheap or good. But to withdraw, or to threaten to withdraw, custom from a tradesman because of his voting or not voting is using undue influence {North Norfolk, 1 O'M. & H., 241; 21 L.T., 204; North Durham, 2 O'M. & H., 159 ; E. v. Barnwell, 5 W. B., 557). There intimidation. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 53 are some observations of the present Lord Blackburn made in the first case to the effect that the loss threatened or inflicted by the withdrawal of custom must be a substantial loss. '• It must be so serious that one could direct a jury in. a criminal court to find that a person was guilty of misde- meanour." The tendency of the law during the last 15 years has been, however, to increased stringency, and no one could be recommended to presume upon the chance of these dicta being adopted. In election matters the maxim de minium noil curat lex seldom applies. It has been held to be intimidation to threaten a dissenting minister to give up a pew in his chapel if he will not vote as his congregation or any one of the congregation desires him to do {Northallerton, 1 O'M. & H., 168; 21 L.T. 113). The limits of the exercise of spiritual influence by ecclesias- Spiritual tics and others have never been very exactly fixed, and while the subject was under debate in Parliament it seemed to be assumed that a great deal must be left to the common sense of the election court. But it is not too much to say that threats of spiritual harm uttered by an ecclesiastic will be viewed more seriously than when uttered by one layman to another. Yet even the clergy may exercise their legitimate influence. It is not unlawful for a body of clergymen to meet together to select a candidate {Longford, 2 O'M. & H., 14), nor for any clergyman to canvass for his favourite candidate. But he must not, either in dealing with mem- bers of his flock or with any elector, use the influence which his position confers upon him, in the words of Sir S. Romilly in Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Yes. 273, " with such an engine to work upon the passions, to excite superstitious fears or pious hopes, to inspire, as the object may be best promoted, despair or confidence, to alarm the conscience by the horrors of eternal misery, or support the drooping spirits by unfolding the prospect of eternal happiness, that good or evil, which is never to end." A priest may, said Fitzgerald, J., ^X Longford (2 O'M. (fe H., 16), " counsel, advise, recommend, entreat, and point out the true line of moral duty and explain why one candidate should be preferred to another." All that is 54 THE LAW RELATING TO merely advice and argument. But " he must not hold out hopen of reaiard here or hereafter, and he must not use threats of temporal injury, or of disadvantage, or of punishment hereafter. He must not, for instance, threaten to excommuni- cate, or to "withhold the sacraments, or to expose the party to any other religious disability, or denounce the voting for any particular candidate as a sin" — per Fitzgerald, J., supra. And Keogh, J., at Oalwai/ County (2 O'M. & H., 47), de- clared that if the meanest freeman who crawled about the town were shown to have been refused the rites of the church by an agent of the sitting member on account of his vote or the vote of any one of his family, the election would have been avoided instantly. These principles are not confined to Ireland. They are of general application. It cannot be doubted that if any clergyman or ecclesiastic, whether of the established church or of any dissenting community, were to threaten his flock generally or any elector with the refusal of any rite of the church or that his (the ecclesiastic's) influence would be exerted to prevent the election to any office in the church (as churchwarden, deacon or elder) of any person who should not vote in a particular way, or were, in sermons or other- wise, to speak of voting in a particular way as a sin, he would be guilty of using undue influence, and, if he were an agent of the candidate returned, the election would be avoided. Spiritual intimidation is an offence easily com- mitted, and as an election court in considering whether it has been committed looks at the surrounding circumstances, it will be much safer, in the conduct of an election, to abstain from using any church or chapel for the purpose of a place for political meetings or for any other purpose connected with an election, especially as any such ^jsractice might supply a link necessary to the chain of proof of agency. Attempts to " A mere attempt on the part of an agent to intimidate a voter, even though it were unsuccessful, would avoid an election" (Willes, J., at Northallerton, 1 O'M. & H.,.168 ; 21 L.T., 116). If an agent were to bring a mob into a town to terrify hostile electors, or were to exhort a mob intimidate. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 55 not to allow hostile voters to vote, the election would be avoided, although it may not be shown that the rioting or violence prevailed to such an extent as to prevent the election being entirely free. {Staleylmdge, 1 O'M. & H., 72 ; 20 L.T., 75; Stafford, I O'M. & H., 228 ; 21 L.T., 210; North Norfolk, 1 b'M. & H., 240 ; 21 L.T., 264.) But if there is no act done after a threat, but the case Hasty Avords. rests on a threat alone, although that makes no difference in law, the election court will require to be satisfied that the threatening words were serious and deliberate, intended to affect the vote, and not mei^ely a hasty expression by an angry man. {North Norfolk, 1 O'M. & H., 240 ; 21 L.T., 267, per Blackburn, J.) As to " fraudulent devices or contrivances used " to impede Fraudulent or prevent the free exercise of the franchise, it would seem '^^^^^^^• that these words would cover an agreement by A to pair ■with B, A intending all the while to vote, and voting accordingly. (See Northallerton, 1 O'M. & H., 169.) Possibly also an agreement by a paid agent, who cannot vote, to pair with an elector, who is ignorant of the former being a paid agent, would be within the section. And it would be a *' fraudulent device " to issue cards of instruction for voting, marked with a cross opposite one candidate's name, and stat- ing that any other mark would invalidate the vote, if the Court should think that the cards were intended to mislead ignorant voters, but not otherwise. {Gloiiceder, 2 O'M. & H., 60.) Whether it was "undue influence" for an agent to adver- tise that the ballot was a sham, and that he would be able to ascertain how each elector voted, and to distribute amonw the electors 10,000 copies of a newspaper containing an article taking tSe same view was a question on which Fitzgerald, B., and Barry, J., differed. {Down, 3 O'M. & H., 122.) As the voting of some electors would certainly be different accord- ing as the voting was to be secret or open, it is certainly not easy to understand on what grounds it can be said that such a contrivance does not " impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise." Then as such a statement is untrue and calculated to mislead ignorant voters, surely it is fraudulent ? 56 THE LAW RELATING TO Relief against consequences of undue in- fluence. Undue influence is one of the offences against which, on an election petition, relief may be granted by the Court, upon the conditions already stated in dealing with the subject of treating. (See the Act of 1883 sec. 22.) Personation defined. Section IV. — Personation and Abetting Personation. The offence of personation or of aiding, abetting, commit- ting, or procuring the commission of the offence of persona- tion is a corrupt practice and felony, and if committed by any candidate or agent of a candidate will avoid his election. (Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1883.) The offence is defined by the Ballot Act 1872, sec. 24: "A person shall for all purposes of the laws relating to Parliamen- tary and municipal elections, be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who at an election for a county or borough or at a municipal election, applies for a ballot paper in the name of some other person, whether that name be that of a person living or dead or of a fictitious person, or who having voted once at any such election applies at the same election for a ballot paper in his own name," It would seem that the offence is not committed if the person voting or attempting to vote, hond fide and upon reasonable grounds of belief, but erroneously, believes that he is the person entitled to vote; nor would it be committed if an agent, who instigated another to vote, in a similar way and on similar grounds, erroneously believed the person instigated to be entitled to vote. If an agent should instigate the commission of the offence it would seem that the election would also be bad at common law. {Coventry, 1 O'M. & H., 100; 20 L.T., 405.) If B, who is entitled to vote, chooses to be' called Z and so votes, that does not vitiate his vole. {Wills' s Case, 20 L.T.,310). Where there were two persons named R, one of whom was on the register and the other voted — it was held that this was an act of personation, and the vote was struck off. {Rothceirs Case, 20 L.T., 314; Clark's Case, 44 L.T., 290.) If they had both been on the register, although CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 67 in respect of the same premises, both might have voted. (20 L.T., 315.) The offence is complete upon the ((pplication for a ballot paper being made. Section V. — A False Declaration. Section 33 of the Act of 1883 requires the election agent of the candidate to transmit a true return of the election ex- penses to the returning officer within a time specified. This return must be accompanied by two declarations, one made ^ false by tlie candidate, and the other by the election agent, in the a corrupt forms set forth in the schedule, in effect stating that the practice. return is a true one, and that the sums mentioned in it are the only sums which have been paid in connection with the election. The nature of the return and declaration are fully discussed in Chapter YII. Sub-section 7 of the 33rd Sec- tion provides : " If any candidate or election agent hioivingly makes the declaration required by this section falsely, he shall be guilty of an offence, and on conviction thereof, on indictment, shall be liable to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury ; sucli offence hJuiU also be deemed to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of this Act." And being a corrupt practice it avoids the election. ■s THE LAW RELATING TO CHAPTER II. Such illegal practices four in number. Section 7 of Act of 1883. Sut-sectiou 3 proviso. ILLEGAL PRACTICES WHICH AVOID THE ELECTION IF COM- MITTED BY ANY AGENT. These are four in number. Three are contained in Section 7 of the Act of 1883, and one in Section 28 ; and by Section 11 of the Act of 1883, if the Election Court reports that can- didate at any election has been gnilty by his agents of any illegal practice " in reference to such election, that candidate shall not be capable of being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for the said county or borough during the Par- liament for which the election was held, and if he has been electedj his electior shall be void." Section 7 is as follows : — '' (1.) No payment, or contract for payment, shall for the purpose of promoting r procuring the election of a candi- date at any election be made, " {a.) On account of the conveyance of electors to or from tbe poll, whether for the hiring of horses or car- riages, or for railway fares, or otherwise ; or " (b.) To an elector on account of the use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of any address, bill, or notice ; or *' (c. ) On account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the first schedule to this Act. " (2.) Subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Act, if any payment or contract for payment is knowingly made in contravention of this sec- tion either before, during, or after an eleclion, the person making sucb payment or contract shall be guilty of an illegal practice, and any person receiving such payment, or being a party to any such contract, knowing the same to be in contravention of this Act, shall also be guilty of an illegal practice. " (3.) Provided that where it is the ordinary business of CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 59 an elector, as an advertising agent, to exhibit, for payment, bills and advertisements, a payment to or contract w^ith such elector, if made in the ordinary course of business, shall not be deemed to be an illegal practice within the meaning of this section." The first offence consists (whether to an elector or not) in Illegal to pay- actually paying, or contracting to pa}', any money on account an^ce^oTvoters of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, and it is to the poll, specifically stated that the offence is complete^ whether the payment or contract for payment relates to the hiring of horses or carriages, or for railway fares, or otherwise. This is a material change upon the old law. Prior to the new Act, in count y elections it was perfectl}' legal to convey elec- tors to or from the poll in hired carriages, or to bring them The old law c, T i. 1 c r xi- -1 on the subject. irom a distance by means or tree passes on the railway, or otherwise ; and in the case of horough elections, while the conveyance of voters to or from the poll in hired convey- ances was legal within the limits of the boroughs themselves (43 & 44 Yic. c. 18, s. 2), any payment on account of their conveyance outside the boroughs was illegal, though it did not avoid the election (the Bolton Case, 2 O'M. & H., 31; L.T., U.S., 191). Now, counties and boroughs are placed upon exactly the same footing, and not only is the conveyance of electors at the candidate's expense to or from the poll in hired convey- ances, or upon the railway, made illegal ; but when any agent of the candidate makes any payment, or contract for pay- ment, with a view to their conveyance, the election is avoided. So far as regards payments made for railway fares this is reasonably clear ; but with reference to the effect of entering into a contract to secure carriages and horses for the convey- ance of voters to the poll, the wording of a later section of the Act, raises a nice question. Section 14, sub-section 1, Contract with forbids any person to h4, lend, or employ for the conveyance menforcon- of Yoters to or from the poll, any carriajre, horse, or animal, ■^eyance of ^ *' ^ ' ' ' voters. which he Iceeps or uses for the purpose of letting out to hire, and the second sub-section goes on: " A person shall not /aVt", borrow, or use for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from 60 THE LAW RELATING TO The effect of a contract with livery stalDlemen for conveyance of voters. Sections 7 &14. Proviso to sub-section 14 engrafted on Section 7. the poll any carriage, horse, or other auimal which he knows the owner thereof is prohibited by this section to Ut, lend, or employ for that purpose, and if he does so, he shall be giiiltj of an illegal Jdrhig." An illegal hiring is treated in the Act as a less heinous offence than an illegal practice, and does not avoid the election, unless it is committed by the candi- date personally, or his election agent. Now, suppose a person who is held to be an agent of the candidate, though he is not the election agent, hires all the carriages and horses in the stables of a livery stableman, and uses them for the con- veyance of voters to or from the poll, is he only guilty of an illegal hiring ? If so, the election will stand. On the other hand, if he hires a single horse from a person who is not a livery stable keeper, he clearly comes within Section , sub-section 1, and, committing an illegal practice, the elec- tion is avoided. If this be so, the result is curious, for then, to make a contract with persons whose business it is to supply horses and carriages, and who can supply them wholesale, would not defeat the election, but to make a con- tract with other persons uvuld. It can hardly be supposed that the legislature meant this, but it is open to argument that it has enacted it. Section 7 contains a merely general prohibition against entering into contracts for the hire of conveyances, and annexes a heavy penalty to any breach of it. Section 14 specifically deals with the hiring of convey- ances from one class of persons, and prohibits this under a much lighter penalt5^ Unless the view is adopted, that the penalty under Section 14 is cumulative, and that, therefore, the persons mentioned in it are guilty both of an illegal prac- tice and an illegal hiring, the only other construction is that the latter section qualifies the former, and takes the persons specifically dealt with by it out of the general words of Sec- tion 7. However this may be, it should be noted in connec- tion with the prohibition contained in Section 7 against pay- ments and contracts for the conveyance of voters to the polls, that sub-section 8 of the 14th Section provides that "nothing in this Act shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or employed, or used by an elector, or CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 61 several electors, at their joint cost, for the purpose of being conveyed to or from the poll." The second offence consists in paying to any elector, or con- Illegal to pay tracting to pay to him, any sum on account of the use of any placarding. house, land, building or premises, for the exhibition of any placard, &c., or on account of the exhibition of any placard &c., with the proviso that if it is the ordinary business of an elector as an advertising agent, to exhibit placards, &c., any payment to him shall not be illegal. This section speaks for itself. It strikes at a form of corruption suggested in the Westminster Case (referred to at p. 14) where it was charged that the respondent sought to influence voters by paying them sums of money for the privilege of exhibiting his placards in their window or upon their shutters. That was held to be a corrupt practice only where the payment was made with the corrupt view of influencing the vote of the person who got the money ; but under this section it is an illegal practice to make these payments to any elector without reference to the motive which dictates the payment. It would seem, however, that it is legal to pay non-electors But not for the right of exhibiting placards, &c., unless it could be ^f'^^^n-^'^ ^^^^ clearly shown that by excessive payments to such persons it electors. was sought to influence the votes of electors connected with them. Then it would probably be bribery. The third offence consists in paying, or contracting to pay, Illegal to pay n ... . ■ i? J.1 1 n 1 • for committee lor any committee rooms m excess oi the number allowed in ^ooms in ex- the first schedule to the Act. The second part of the first cess of num- schedule prescribes the number of committee rooms which may legally be paid for in the cases respectively of borough and county elections. In a borough, at least one committee room is allowed. Legal number Trti 1 i-r\t\ ^ of committee If the number of electors exceed 500, then one extra com- rooms in mittee room for every complete 500, and if there is a number l^oiougns. of electors over and above any complete 500, then another committee room for such extra number. Thus where the number of electors is 1,501, it would seem four committee rooms would be allowed, and so on. In the case of counties, the following committee rooms are in counties. G'2 THE LAW KELATIXG TO Committee rooms in counties. What is a committee room. Only payment for committee rooms illegal. allowed: — (1.) One central committee room; (2.) One committee room for each polling district; (3.) 'When the number of electors in any polling- district exceeds 500 one additional committee room for every complete 500 electors over and above the first 500. Thus if there is a county with polling districts A, B, C, and D, and in A there are 4iJ0 electors, in B 600, in C 1,000, and in D 1,060, the committee rooms which may be legally hired will be as follows: (1.) One central committee room; (2.) One com- mittee room in A ; (3.) One committee room in B, for though there are more than 500 electors there is not a second complete 500 ; (4.) Two committee rooms in C ; and (5.) Two committee rooms in D, It is important to have a clear view of the number of committee rooms which may be hired and paid for, because, under the section we are considering, any payment or contract for payment made in respect of any com- mittee room in excess of the number allowed is an illegal practice which will defeat the election if made by any agent. There is no definition in the Act of what constitutes a com- mittee room. Is a committee room a single room or a suite of rooms ? Is it an illegal practice for the election agent to have in addition to the room in which the general work of the election is conducted, another room contiguous in which he sits himself, and uses for necessary purposes of the elec- tion ? The only attempt at a definition of a committee room is a negative one in the general interpretation clause, " the ex- pression committee room shall not include any house or room occupied by a candidate at an election as a dwelling, by reason only of the candidate there transacting business with his agents in relation to such election ; nor shall any room or building be deemed to be a committee room for the pur- poses of this Act by reason only of the candidate, or any agent of the candidate, addressing therein electors, committee men, or others." What the Act strikes at is payment for additional committee rooms. There is apparently no objec- tion to a candidate using as many committee rooms as his friends are content to lend him, subject to a restriction on the premises employed as committee rooms to be presently nientioned. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 03 Section 28 creates another illegal practice, which, if com- illegal to pay mitted by any agent, will avoid the election. It declares ^^^f^^J'^,' that no payment and no advance or deposit shall be made, copt through whether by the candidate or any other person, before, during, ° or after an election, in respect of the expenses incurred on account of the election, except through the election agent, acting in person or by a sub-agent. There is a proviso to Proviso to this the effect that this section shall not apply to — (1) any pay- ments made by the returning officer ; or — (2), any sum disbursed by any person out of his own money for any small expenses legall// incurred by himself, if such sum is not I'ejmicl to him. The design of this section is to secure the payment of all election expenses through the medium of a responsible election agent,who is bound to make a return of every farthing. No other person is now allowed to make any payment on account of them. If such a person does disburse any small Small sums „ 1 1 , • •! ; T disbursed by sum m any way m promotion oi the election it must be person other taken to be a gift, and he cannot recover it again from the thaa electioa ^ ' _ , o , agent gifts. candidate. What is " a small expense " within the meaning of the proviso has yet to be decided. It will piobably receive a very strict construction, because the latter portion of Section 28 provides — " All money provided by any person other than the candidate for any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct and management of the election, whether as gift, loan, advance or deposit, shall be paid to the candidate or his election agent, and not otherwise." Unless, therefore, the permission given in the proviso is strictly limited, it will convert Section 28 into a dead letter. To what extent is it possible for a candidate to obtain The possi- relief against the consequences of an illegal practice com- ^ ''^ " ^^ "^ ' mitted by himself or an agent ? One penalty of an illegal practice is— and it is the only one with which we are now concerned — the loss of the seat. Can this be averted in any case ? It will be remembered that the qualified relief given under Section 22 of the Act of 1883 applies to illegal practices as well as to treating and undue influence, when they are committed by any person except the candidate 64 THE LAW RELATING TO Thepossi- personally or his election agent. Therefore, if anyone of the illegal practices mentioned in this chapter is committed Under Section by any of the candidate's agents (except his election agent), relief against the forfeiture of the seat may be given under Section 22. But the next section — viz., the 23rd — would seem to carry the 2Jossibih'fi/ of relief still further, and even to extend it tocases where the illegal practice has been committed by the candidate himself or /iis election agent. This section is in the following terms : — Under Section "Where, on application made, it is shown to the High Court or to an election court, by such evidence as seems to the court sufficient : " (a) That any act or omission of a candidate at any election, or of his election agent, or of any other agent or person, would, by reason of being a joff?/- ment, engagement, employment or contract in con- travention of this Act, or being the payment of a sum or the incurring of expense in excess of any maximum amount allowed hy this Act, or of otherwise being in Provisions of coiitrarention of any of the provisions of this Act be, hut for this section, an illegal practice, payment, employment, or hiring ; and " {b) That such act or omission arose from inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and in any case did not arise from any want of good faith ; and " (c) That such notice of the application has been given in the county or borough for which the election was held as to the Court seems fit : and under the circumstances it seems to the Court to be just that the candidate or such election or other agent or person, or any of them, should not be subject to any of the consequences under this Act of the said act or omission, the Court may make an order allowing such act or omission to be an exception from the provisions of this Act, which would otherwise make the same an illegal practice, payment, employment or hiring, and thereupon such candidate, agent, CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. (>■> or persou shall not be subject to any of the consequences under this Act of the said act or omission." When, in Chapter IV., we treat of illegal practices generally, the majority of the offences pointed at by the above section will appear ; but the words " contract in contravention of this Act " seem clearly to cover the three classes of acts mentioned in Section 7, and the general words of the section are sufficient to cover the oflPences struck at in Section 28. If this be so, the result is that Nq case of an there is no case of an Uhnal practice (as distino-uished from illegil prac- p ^ • 1 ) *"^® where a corrupt practice), where the unlawful act of a candidate's election neces- agent, whether the election agent or any other agent, neces- ^"'^^^y^^^^^*^^- sarily means the forfeiture of the seat. For an illegal practice committed by the election agent there is the possibility of relief under Section 23, if it is shown on application to the High Court or the Election Court that the act or omission arose from inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation, or from other reasonable cause of a like nature, and" not from any want of good faith." On the other hand, for an illegal practice committed by an agent (other than the election agent), there would seem to be the possibility of relief both under Section 22 and under Section 23. In the case of an application for relief made to the High Court under the latter section, the applicant is not, in so many words, required affirmatively to prove the facts which are con- ditions precedent to relief under the former section, but it is entirely in the discretion of the Court whether it makes an order under Section 23 or not, and it is probable that it would not do so unless the applicant satisfied it that — (c/), the Terms on offences committed were of " a trivial, unimportant, and ^mder Section limited character ; " ib), that the candidate and his election 22 will be . grantea. agent took all reasonable means for preventing the com- mission of corrupt and illegal practices ; and (c), that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of such candidate and of his agfents. 6G THE LAW RELATING TO CHAPTER III Candidate . always liable for act of his agent. Impossible to give precise definition of agent. Responsibility not limited to acts of elec- tion agent. THE CANDIDATE'S AGENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULES LAID DOWN IN CHAPTERS I. AND II. It has been the law from the earliest times that no matter how well a member may have conducted his election, no matter how clear his character from any imputation of corrupt practice, yet, if any agent of his has been guilty of a corrupt act, the election cannot be upheld. " The amount of the injury done by the agent is immaterial. If an agent bribes one voter with 2s. 6d., and the voter taking the 2s. 6d. with the purpose, expressed or implied, of voting accordingly, should break his promise and vote for the other side, still the election is void." (Per Willes, J., in the JBIackhi'hen there is no CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 71 express appointment, to determine •whether the wrongdoer did or did not stand in the relation of agent to the candidate in respect of the particular matter of the complaint. An agent is a person employed by another to act for him and on his behalf, either generally or in some particular transaction. The authority may be actual or it maij he implied from, cir- cumstances. It is not necessary, in order to prove agency, to show that the person was actually appointed by the candidate. If a person not appointed were to assume to act in any department of service as election agent, and the candidate accepted his services as such, he would thereby ratify the agency. So that a man may become the agent of another in Agent either either of two ways — by actual employment or by recognition nien"or°^" and acceptance. The next question is, if agent, what is he recognition, agent for ; what is he appointed to do, or what does he pro- fess to do ? If a person were appointed or accepted as agent for canvassing generally, and he were to bribe or treat any voter, the candidate would lose his seat. But if he were employed or accepted to canvass a particular class — as if a master were asked to canvass his workmen, and he went out of his way and bribed a person who was not his workman, the candidate would not be responsible, because this was not within the scope of his authority. And for the same reason, Candidate not if a person whom the candidate had not in any way ^^f^^^ ^^^ '^'^ts •^, , 01 iinautno- authorised to canvass at all for him were to take upon himself rised persons. to bribe a voter, the candidate would not be responsible for that wrongful act. No candidate could ever secure a seat if he were made answerable for the acts of unauthorised persons." '* No one," said the present Lord Blackburn, in the Beicdley Case (1 O'M. & 17 ; 19 L.T., n.s., 677) "tan lay down a precise rule as to what would constitute evidence of being an agent. Every instance in which it is shown that, either with the knowledge of the candidate himself, or to the knowledge of his agents, a person acts at all in furthering his election is evidence, tending to show that the person so acting was authorised to act as his agent. It is by no means Agent need essential that it should be shown that a person so eniployed. 72 THE LAW RELATING TO Agency a question of fact. •Mere fact of canvassing not enough. Mere fact of canvassing does not prove agency. in order to be an agent for that purpose, is paid in the slightest degree. And, I take it, that the question for the Court sitting to try the case comes ultimately to be^ whether upon the a(j(jrc(jatc of all these things taken together, of which each in itself is little, but is certainly some evidence, the person is shown to have been employed to such an extent as to make him an agent for whom the candidate would be responsible. I take it that in each case the judge must bring common sense to bear upon it, and satisfy himself whether it is sufficient or not." It will be observed that the question, wliether the alleged briber was the candidate's agent at the time of the offence, is treated by the learned judges entirely as a question of fact, to be determined by a reference to the circumstances of the cases before them. Such facts as proof that the alleged agent was canvassing in the candidate's interest, that he had a canvass book with him, that he spoke at the candidate's meetings, that he was seen in the candidate's company in the street, are evidence, but no more than evidence, that he had authority to canvass and bind the candidate. The mere fact that a person is actively working for the candidate does not necessarily make him an agent. " I can- not concur in the opinion that any supporter of a candidate who chooses to ask others for their votes and to make speeches in his favour can force himself upon the candidate as an agent, or that the candidate should be held responsible for the acts of one from whom he actually endeavours to disso- ciate himself." {Londonderry Case, l O'M. & H., 278; 21 L.T., U.S., 709. Btaleyhridge Case, 1 O'M. & H., 67 ; 20 L.T., U.S., 75.) The circumstance that a person canvassing on behalf of a candidate had a canvass book with him would not be sufficient to make him an agent. (The Bolton Case, 2 0'M.c§^H., 141 ; 31 L.T., n.s.,194j unless, of course, it could be proved he got it from an authorised agent of the candidate, which would be the strongest evidence of his appointment to canvass. Nor does the mere fact that a. person is one of a large committee whose names are published as the General CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 73 Comuiittee, but -which committee is purely ornamental and Nor mere fact has no part whatever assigned it in the conduct of tlie elec- ono of large tion, make him an agent. This was first decided by the late Coimmtlee. Baron Martin in the Went minster Case (1 O'M. & H., 89 ; 20 L.T., n.s., 238), when, at the same time, he took care to point out that if the Committee, to which the alleged agent belonged, had been more than a nominal one, had been in fact a committee within the ordinary meaning of the term to which some portion of the management of the election had been confided, the decision would have been the other way. In the Westbunj Case (20 L.T., n.s., 21), Willes, J., acted upon the Westminster Case, but he added " If I see a person's name on the committee from the beginning, if I find that he attended meetings of the committee, that he canvassed and his canvass was recognised so far as it went, I shall require considerable argument to convince me he is not an agent." (See also the Wiruhor Case, 2 O'M. & H., 89.) Again, the if/ re f/c^ of accompanying the candidate on his Norbareactof J. m • J. • -\ o 1 1 T accompanying' canvass is not sutncient evidence oi agency to make a candi- candidate. date liable for bribery committed by such person at another time. (See judgment Hawkins, J., in the_^y.s'^ Salisbiiri/ Case, 3 O'M. & H., 131 ; 44 L T., n.s., 193 ; also second Salisbur// Case, 4 O'M. & H., 21; Harwich Case, 3 O'M. &H., 69; 44 L.T., n.s., 189 ; S/irewsbar// Case, 2 O'M. & H., 36.) It must be observed, however, that the recognition of a person involved in inviting him to accompany the Candidate on his canvass is an important link in the chain of facts which go to make up agency, and combined with very little more would no doubt in most cases be held to establish it. It need hardly be said that any corrupt act done by a person accompanying a candidate and in //is presence is strong evidence against the candidate unless repudiated by him at the time. (Sec iSa/is- bury Case, supra; Beicdley Case, 1 O'M. & H., 17.) But while the law seems to be that if a person, no matter v "^* '^ f"™" ^ \ _ cient evidence how zealous a partizan he may be, is acting entirely of his of agency. own motion, the candidate is not bound by what he does, on the other hand, if he is found carrying on his opera^tions in concert with the candidate's organisation, or if the Court is 74 THE LAW RELATING TO Is mere non- inlerfcrmce sufficient ? Suggested law on this point. Cases wliere agency held to be iDroved. satisfied that the candiJate, or any one of his principal agents, has full knowledge of his efforts and approves and sanctions them — then he is an agent. In the second Taunton Case (2 O'M. & H., 74), Mr. Justice Grove intimated that mere non-inteyferenee by the candidate with persons who were to his knowledge actively exerting them- selves in his interest would not be enough to constitute agency. But this ruling must be considered with reference to the par- ticular facts before his lordship, because the decision of the present Lord Blackburn in the/r.sY Taunton Case (1 O'M. & H., 181 ; 21 L.T.. n.s., 169) shows that there are cases where mere non-interference with the notorious action of partizans will make the latter the candidate's agents. It is obvious that if a candidate, knowing that certain persons are actively working in his behalf, lies by, and accepting the full benefit of their services, does nothing to repudiate them, it will take a very slight additional circumstance to lead to the conclusion that he sanctioned their proceedings. Especially is this so where the persons who are so acting are proved to have been working in close concert v^ith him in political matters immediately prior to the election. It is suggested that an intelligible distinction which will reconcile the two Taunton cases (quoted supra) and make them accord with the Harwich Case (3 O'M. & H., 6, 69 ; 44 L.T., n.s., 189) is this : Where the alleged agents are found in intimate communication with the candi- date prior to the contest, and during the contest work in his interest openly, but apparently independently, they are 2yrima facie his agents unless he repudiates them ; but where no privity is established between the candidate and the alleged agents either before or during the election, the mere fact that he does not repudiate them taken hy itself will not make them his agents. In the Teu-heshury Case (3 O'M. & H., 99 ; 44 L.T., n.s., 192) the alleged agent was seen frequently in the candidate's committee-room, going out of it in the company of bodies of men who divided themselves and canvassed in different dis- tricts. He had a canvass book, and on one or two occasions (though not at the times when the corrupt acts were com- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 75 mittod) had canvassed in the candidate's company. It was held in these cii'cumstances that his agency was established. In the Hereford Case (1 O'M. & H., 195) it was proved Cases whore I 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 -1 11 ii agency held that the person who was charged with bribery had, at the to be proved. request of an agent, canvassed two voters, that on one occa- sion he canvassed in the respondent's company, and that after the election was over he received a letter of thanlsfor his exer- tions from the respondent. It was held that the agency was established. In the Stroud Case (3 O'M. & H., 11) the alleged agent was proved to have canvassed three times a week, though he did not have a regular canvass book, he was attending continu- ally at the committee- room, and was bringing up voters on the polling da}', and after the election he was employed in con- nection with the petition. It was proved that the resspondent's principal agent had told the alleged agent that he would not employ him in connection with the election, but inasmuch as the learned judge was satisfied on the facts that other agents of the respondent, working side by side with the principal agent, had countenanced and employed him, the decision was that he was an agent for whose acts the candidate was respon- sible. His lordship laid down the law of agency in the terms . in which it has generally been expressed. " It is clear that a person is not to be made an agent by his merely acting, that is not enough; he must act in promotion of the election, and he mUst have authority'', or there must be circumstances from which we can infer authority.'^ Here he held there were cir- cumstances. A person who is an agent may have implied authority to Agent may- appoint sub-agents necessary to carry out the work assigned aUnt. to him, and in that case the candidate is bound by the acts of those sab-agents, though he may never have seen them or had any communication with them. (The BewdJey Case, 1 O'M. &H., 17; 19 L.T , n.s., 677.) On this principle, when the wife of an agent bribed, it was held that inasmuch as an agent may use the instrumentality of another, the candidate was bound. (The Cashel Case, I O'M. & H., 288.) In the Westminster Case (1 O'M. & H., 89 ; L.T., n.s., 288) the son 76 THE LAW RELATING TO Liability of candidate for acts of politi- cal associa- tions. The Black- burn Case. Liable when he adopts committee of association as his election committee. of an agent bribed and it was held the candidate was not bound, These two cases have been quoted in at least one work of authority as sustaining the proposition that a candidate is bound by the act of his agent's wife, but not of his agent's son. It is submitted they give no support to such a distinc- tion. The wife as well as the son can only bind on the prin- ciple of delegated authority; and all that the two cases quoted above show is that on the facts the Court was satisfied that in one case authority had been conferred and in the other it had not. A very important question next arises, to what extent is a candidate liable for the acts of political and other associations in sympathy with his candidatui e, and exerting themselves to promote it. It need not be said that at the present time this is a subject of increasing interest ; and its practical importance warrants some examination of the authorities. When the can- didate adopts the committee of the association as his com- mittee, avails himself openly of its organization, and carries on the work of the election in concert with it, no question can arise. In such a case the authorised agents of the association are to the fullest extent his agents. This was what happened in {he Blackburn Case (20 L.T., n.s., 823 ; 1 0'.\I. & H., 198). There a month before the election a circular was issued by the Conservative Association, addressed to every millowner, manager and overlooker, calling upon them to- use personal efforts to secure the return of the respondents. This circular was afterwards adopted by the respondents, and the associa- tion which had issued it was accepted by them in place of a committee for the management of the election. Mr. Justice Willes held that the circular must be taken to be the act of the respondents just as much as if each of them had written a letter to the same purport to the persons mentioned in it. And as to its effect he said : " It appears to me that the effect of this circular was to make an agent of every person having authority, down to the last grade, that of overlookers over the bands, and to request, and therefore authorise each such to influence the hands who -were under him for the pur- pose of inducing them to. vote lor the candidates upon whose CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 77 belialf this document was issued ; and any overlooker, and consequently anybody in that or any higher grade, who bond fide took up the Tory side, and who acted upon this circular, and did canvass for the sitting members, became their agent, and his acts did bind them to the extent and under the cir- cumstances which I have already explained." In the great majority of cases, however, the operations of Liability of the association are carried on independently of the candi- candidate for ^ ^ •' political date's organization ; and then the material points to be con- associations. sidered in determining the question of agency would seem to be the previous relations of the candidate with the associa- tion, the source whence it derives its funds, and the extent or character of the connection between it and the candidate during the course of the contest. The Wcdmimtcr Case (1 O'M. & H., 89 ; 20 L. T., n.s., TTestminster 238) is a somewhat curious case, and, opposed as it seems to '^' be to the current of authority, it is respectfully doubted whether it is now law. There it was proved that the alleged agent was an official of an association which had actively exerted itself in the respondent's interest. The latter had been its president, and he and his partners supplied a very large portion of its funds. During the progress of the con- test the canvass books of the association [which had been supplied hi/ the ref^pondenfs election, agent) were compared with the canvass books kept at the respondent's committee-rooms, Submitted it and there was an interchange of information in relation to ^'^^°tl'^'^- the election between the two organizations. On these foots Baron Martin held that the officials of the association engaged in the election were not the respondent's agents. It is obvious that if this case were a governing authority on the subject there would be an open door to the most flagrant evasions of the law against corruption. In the Westhury Case (3 O'M. & H., 78) bribery was Westhury suggested on the part of the responsible agents of a political ^"^^' association in sympathy with the respondent, but inasmuch, though he was invited to stand by this association, no com- munication whatever was established between him and it during the election, it was held that its acts did not bind him. 78 THE LAW RELATING TO Wi(/an Case. In the Wi(j((n Case (1 O'M. & H., 188 ; 21 li. T., ii.s., 122) it was proved that nutne months before the election a sub- agent of a political association of which the respondent was a member, and to the funds of which he subscribed, was guilty of a corrupt act. It was held that there was no such privity between the respondent and the association as would avoid the election. Harxi-kh Case. The Hancich Case (3 O'jVI. & H., 69; 44 L.T., n.s., 189) is an instructive one. There it was proved that a poli- tical association (1) invited the respondent to contest the seat ; (2) its committee considered and revised his election address , (3) it met during the election from time to time at rooms for which the respondent paid ; and (4) several of its leading members attended him in his canvass. It was suggested that one of the latter had been guilty of bribery, and the question of the relation established between the respondent and the association became material. The Court held that the facts above stated afforded prima facie evidence of the agency of the association, but upon the respondent proving that at the outset of the contest he bond fide declared his determination to canvass the constituency personally without the aid of committees, and announced that determination, the ultimate decision was that the proof of agency failed. This case is an authority for the proposition that a candidate can protect himself against the misdeeds of persons whom the law would otherwise construe as his agents by taking the whole burden of the management of the election upon himself, and expressly forbidding all oiher persons to take any part in it upon his behalf. Turning to the cases where a candidate has been fixed with responsibility for the acts of a political association, the first case in order of time carries the liability a long way. In Taunun Case, the first Taunton Case {I O'M. & H., 181 ; 21 L.T., n.s., 169) it was proved that there had been formed in the borough a body called "The Conservative Association," for the purpose of conducting the registration in September, and the election in the following November ; that during the election people met at the rooms of the association, and that papers and cir- When candi- date takes conduct of election him- self, not bound. CUIiHUlT PRACTICES AT ELECTION'S. 79 culars were sent out from it ; that the association canvassed L"i\'|iity of cajiilidate tor actively and did all those things which would be commonly political asso- done bj^ a committee for promoting an election, and that '=''^*'i""''- they were done openly and over a considerable time ; that at the time of the registration the agents of the respondent were aware of the association and acted in concert with it, and that both the respondent and his agents knew that the association was actively canvassing in the re- spondent's behalf. The acts of bribery suggested were, that about the first week in November and on the eve of the election, the association gave 5s. a piece to a number of voters who attended the registration in September, as a day's pay for their loss of time in so doing, and that these "sums were practically paid to everyone who came forward and asked for them without precautions being taken that those who got the money had done anything to earn it. In these circum- stances the learned judge (the present Lord Blackburn) held, that the association was the agent of the respondent, and the latter was unseated accordingly. " When things," Taunton Case. said his lordship, " are thus openly done, which would not be done in the ordinary course of things, except with the cognizance of a candidate, iclto sanctioned them, the natural inference in the absence of proof to the contrary would be, that they were done by a person acting as agent for the candidate. The respondent and his agents might have shown that they had had no communication with that body, that they repudiated it, and if that repudiation was bond Me they Where bond Till M 1 n • m /'We repudia- would not have been responsible lor its acts. The respon- tion.candidate dent might have shown that a body, acting in such a way "'^'^ liable. as this body acted, was acting officiously for him, as I may call it, that it was not with his consent and against his will ; but the presumption does arise, I think, that it was done in his favour, done for him, unless there be something to show the contrary. I think, in this case, such a degree of benefit was derived from their assistance, that their assistance was so important to the candidate that it fairly establishes this, that if he took their assistance and did not hold them ofi", or repudiate them, he must abide the consequences and be 80 THE LAW RELATING! TO Effect. Wakefidd Case. responsible for their malpractice." Lord Blackburn must not be understood as laying down as a matter of law, that when an association is acting openly on behalf of a candidate he is necessarily liable, unless he publicly repudiates it. All he held was, that having regard to the facts of the case before him, and the very intimate connection which subsisted between the candidate and the association immediately prior to the election, that there was, in the absence of evidence of repudiation, in fact, a presumption that he sanctioned what was being done. So regarded, the decision is in full conformity with the more recent Hanvich Case already quoted. In the Walcpfelrl Case (2 O'M. & H., 102) the facts were, that the respondent was a vice-president of a political association, that he spoke at meetings of the association, that many of the members of the association were to his knowledge actively canvassing on his behalf, and that the committee- usmg rooms j.qq^s pf ^j^e association were placarded with his election 01 aKsociation. ■■■ bills, and used for the j^urjwse of promoting his election. Mr. Justice Grove held that these facts prima facie brought the case within the law of agency and were (in the absence, of course, of evidence of bond fide repudiation) sufficient to satisfy the Court that the respondent " had put himself, or allowed himself to be in the hands of certain persons, or had made common cause with them." In the Londonderry Case (21 L.T., n.s., 709) the alleged briber was a principal official of the Liberal Registration Association, It was proved that the respondent was the adopted candidate of the association, and had subscribed largely to its funds. The work of registration, with the re- spondent's approval, had been conducted by the association, and when the revision was completed, the funds and staff of the society, with Peacock (the alleged briber) as the principal of the staff were, with the respondent's assent, used for the purpose of promoting the election. The learned Judge held upon these facts, that the respondent was clearly liable for the acts of the association. Graresend In the Gravesend Case (44 L.T., n.s., 64), where it was Case. Londonderry Case. COIUJUPT PliACTICKS AT ELECTIONS. 81 proved tliat the respondent ffave a political association a sum Liability of , . . . i' hackney already been pointed out that Section 7, Sub-section 1, which makes it an illegal practice to make, or contract to make, any payment with or to any person on account of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, amply provides for the mis- chief sought to be restrained by this section, unless it be held that the effect of Section 14 (Sub-sections 1 and 2) is to take out of the operation of the former section the class of persons mentioned in the latter. It is diffi- cult to think this was intended. On tlie other hand, why were the words " let " or " hire " introduced into the section ? How^ever, this much is certain : It is, at least, an illegal hiring, and it may be an illegal practice for jobmasters and others who keep horses and carriages which they let out to hire to let any of them for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the poll, except under the cir- stances allowed in Sub-section 3. By the latter it is enacted : " Nothing in this Act shall prevent a carriage, horse or other Proviso as to animal being let to or hired, employed or used by an elector, ^ °°' or several electors at their joint cost, for the purpose of being conveyed to or from the poll." But for this proviso it would hardly have been safe for any jobmaster to have had a single cab on the stand on the polling day, and it would certainly have been an offence for an elector to go to the poll in a hansom at his own expense. The sub-section authorises the latter proceeding, but it is submitted that it will be an illegal act for a person who has hired a cab to pick up another elector on the way and give him a lift to the poll, unless the latter shares the cost of the cab. " Joint cost " is the expression " Joint cost." used in the Act. There is no definition of this term given, and it seems open to doubt whether if three electors drive up to the poll in a hackney cab the failure of any one of them 90 THE LAW K ELATING TO Illegal to lend a hackney carriage. As a rule candidate may use borrowed traps. Exception to that rule. Illegal to u^e a hackney carnage. to make up his quota of the fare, though he pay something, will render the whole three electors and the owner of the cab guilty of an illegal hiring, Probably if the Court was of opinion that there was a bona fide intention to share the cost, and each elector paid a substantial part of it, such a case would be held to be within the protection of the sub-section. On the other hand, if it were shown that a number of electors went together to the poll in a conveyance hired from a livery stableman, and that the fare was really paid by one or two of them, the others contributing a nominal sum, there can be little doubt that it would be held that such a case was not protected by Sub-section 3. Section 14 also prohibits the lending of any horse or car- riage which is kept for the purpose of being let out to hire. It must be observed that the general use of conveyances in connection with the bringing up of voters to the poll is not forbidden by the Act of 1883 ; it is the emploj'ment of hired conveyance which is struck at. As a rule, a candidate or his agent may accept the loan of horses and traps from any quarter where he can get them ; but this section introduces an exception to this rule. It expressly prohibits the persons mentioned in it from lending their horses and carriages. Livery stablemen are certainly within the scope of the section. No matter how keen and disinterested their partizan- ship may be, they are forbidden to lend the horses and car- riages used in the way of their business for the purpose of conveying voters to and from the poll. But the section is not limited to livery stablemen. The prohibition is against lending ''any carriage, horse or other animal which any person keeps or uses for the purpose of letting out for hire." "Whether these words would cover the case of a person who kept a horse or trap, which he generally used for his own purposes, but which he occasionally let out for hire, may well be doubted ; but it would certainly comprehend the case of a publican who, it may be, keeps a single horse and trap for the purpose of letting it out. The section not merely forbids the lending of a horse or carriage of the description mentioned, it also prohibits its um COKUUPT I'KACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 91 . or employment in the conveyance of voters to and from the poll. Illegal to use A horse or trap kept for the purpose of being let out for ean-iao-o iaTn hire must not, under any circumstances, he used on the polling election. day to bring up voters, unless in the cases excepted by the 3rd sub-section. Thus, a job master cannot himself, or by his servants, convey voters to the booths, nor can he give a friend or acquaintance a lift. Section 48, it should be men- tioned here, allows voters to be conveyed hi/ sea to and from the polling place at the candidate's expense under cer- tain circumstances. " Where the nature of a county is such that any electors residing therein are unable at an election for such county to reach their polling place without crossing the sea, or a branch or arm thereof, this Act shall not prevent the Legal to pay provision of means for conveying such electors hti sea to their . ^^^ ^^^' ^ J o ^ riage in somo polling place, and the amount of payment for such means of cases. conveyance may be in addition to the maximum amount of expenses allowed by the Act." The result is, that with regard to the conveyance of voters, it is still legal to carry them in borrowed carriages unless the carriages or horses em- ployed are usually let out for hire ; but it is in no case lawful to hire conveyance or any other means of carrying voters, except some means of sea carriage in the cases within Section 48. C. Section 15 provides that any person who corruptly in- Illegal to duces or procures anj^ other person to withdraw from being a duce'^a^candi- candidate at an election in consideration of any payment or ^^'^ *« retire, promise of payment shall be guilty of illegal payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of such inducement or procurement shall also be guilty of illegal payment. This clause speaks for itself, and there can be little difficulty in determining the cases that fall within it. An illegal payment, it need not be repeated, becomes an illegal practice when committed by a candidate or his election agent. D. By Section 16 all payments, or contracts for payments, Illegal to pay on account of bands of music, torches, flags, banners, cockades, i-^^i^Qng ^'^ ribbons, or other marks of distinction are forbidden, where they are made for the purpose of promoting the return of a candidate, and all persons concerned in making such pay- 92 THE LAW RELATING TO Illegal io pay agents in exce?s of the number allowed. Number of agents allowed. In counties. ments or in receiving them are declared guilty of an illegal payment. It iSp perhaps, somewhat difficult to say why pay- ments or contracts for payment on account of exhibiting pla- cards constitute an illegal practice, and the class of payments in the section under consideration are only illegal payments ; but it must be observed that the distinction is made. E. Section 17 declares that no person shall, for the pur- pose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election be engaged or employed for payment or promise of payment for any purpose or in any capacity whatever except as authorised by the schedule of the Act, and if any person is engaged before, during or after an election in con- travention of this section the person engaging or employing him shall be guilty of an illegal employment, and the person 80 engaged or employed shall also be guilty of illegal employ- ment, if he knew that he was engaged or employed contrary to law. It becomes, therefore, material to enquire what per- sons can be legally employed and 2)aid in connection with an election, and here care must be taken to distinguish the case of county from the case of borough constituencies. Schedule I. (Part 1) in the ease of counties allows : — One election agent. One sub-agent in each polling district ; One polling agent in each polling station. One clerk, and ) ^ ,i ,1 •,. i r. r lor the central committee-room when One messenger y the number of electors does not exceed 5,000, and where it does exceed 5,000, one additional clerk and messenger for each complete 5,000, and if there is a number of electors over and above any complete 5,000 or 5,000's, then another clerk and messenger may be employed for such number, although not amounting to a complete 5,000. In addition, One clerk, and 1 p , n- j-i-i. j i, V lor each pollmg district, and when one messenger J r & > the number of electors exceed 500 in any polling district one clerk and one messenger for every CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 9;} complete 500 or complete SCO's of electors, with this provision, that if there be a number over and above a complete 500, one clerk and one messenger shall be allowed for such number. Suppose a county constituency with 11,000 voters, and niListration. polling districts A, B, C, D and E, having respectively 2,000, 3,000, 300, 700, and 5,000 voters, and twelve polling stations. It is submitted the allowance of paid agents will be as follows : The election agent, five sub-agents, twelve polling agents, three clerks and three messengers for the central com- mittee-room ; four clerks and four messengers in polling district A ; six clerks and six messengers in B ; one clerk and one messenger in C ; two clerks and two messengers in D ; and ten clerks and ten messengers in E. It may be stated here that there is a proviso in the schedule that the number of clerks and messengers so allowed in any county, may be employed in any polling district where their services may be required. In the case of horonghs generally, the number of paid Numijcr of , m 1 • 1 • paid a"'ents agents allowed is less, viz. : — allowed. One election agent. _ _ In boroughs. One polling agent in each polling station. One clerk and one messenger for every complete 600 electors, and if there is a number over and above any complete 500, or complete 500's of electors an additional clerk and messenger may be employed. Although this is the general rule with regard to boroughs, the Act specially provides that certain boroughs, viz., East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much "Wenlock and Aylesbury, no doubt in consideration of the great area they cover, shall have allowed to them the provision of paid agents applicable to counties. An illegal employment, by Section 21, is made an illegal Logalto em- practice when committed by the candidate, or his election |g(,j.y agent. It must be noted that this section is merely directed against the employment of any paid agents in excess of the number allowed. The employment of volunteers is perfectly legal under the new law. 94 THE r.AW RELATING To Restrictions upon Com- mittee rooms. Not to bo held— (l)On licensed premises, (2) nor any premises where drink sold except political club, (3) Or -where refreshment sold, (4) Or school- room. F. Section 7, Sub-section 3, it has been already stated, makes it an illegal practice to pay for any committee-rooms in excess of the number allowed in the schedule. That section, however, did not place any restrictions upon com- mittee-rooms which are lent to the candidate. The section we now proceed to discuss, viz., Section 20, does, and it adds to the restrictions upon those hired, by forbidding certain premises being used as committee-rooms, without reference to the question of whether they are lent or hired. Section 20 prohibits the hire or u^e as a committee-room for the purposes of an election of (1) any premises on which the sale by wholesale or retail of any intoxicating liquor is authorised by license (whether the license be for consump- tion on or off the premises), or (2) any premises where any intoxicating liquor is sold, or is supplied to members of a club, society, or association other than a permanent political club, or (3) any premises whereon refreshment of any kind, whether food or drink, is ordinarily sold for consumption on the premises, or (4) the premises of any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant ; pro- vided that nothing in the section shall apply to any part of such premises which is ordinarily let for the purpose of chambers or offices, or the holding of public meetings, or of arbitrations, if such part has a separate entrance, and no direct communication with any part of the premises in which any intoxicating liquor or refreshment is sold or supplied as aforesaid. Any breach of this section, whether on the part of a person hiring or using any of the proliibited premises, or on the part of the person letting, is made an illegal hiring. The object of the greater part of the section is to discourage treating by diminishing the facilities for it. And no doubt those facilities are lessened in view of this rigorous prohibi- tion against having committee-rooms on licensed premises, or in clubs other than permanent political clubs, or in any place where refreshments are sold. All hotels, inns, grocers' licensed premises, temperance hotels, refreshment-rooms, eating-houses, coffee and cocoa taverns, social, literary, or professional clubs, will come within the prohibition of the CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 95 statute. The section contains an absolute prohibition against the use of any such places as committee-rooms, and the penalty when the candidate or his election agent is a party to the breach of the law, is the loss of the seat. Section II. — Illegal Practices which only avoid the SEAT WHEN COMMITTED BY THE CANDIDATE OR HIS ELECTION AGENT. A. By Section 8 of the Act of 1883, no sum shall be paid illegal to pay and no expense incurred by a candidal e at an election or his ^^'^^ ^°f ^" ^ •' excess oi election agent in respect of the conduct and management of maximum. the election in excess of the maximum amount specified in the schedule and applicable to the particular constituency, and if any candidate or his election agent, knowingly acts in contravention of this section he is guilty of an illegal prac- tice. It has been stated already, that one of the ways in which the Act strikes at corruption is by prohibiting profu- sion. This section and Section 13, given before, are auxiliary to this object, and they forbid all persons interested in the election to exceed the maximum sums allowed in the schedule. It will be observed, that by the express words of the section only the candidate or his election agent can be guilty of this particular illegal practice. B. The first sub-section of Section 9 makes it an illegal Illegalto practice for any person to himself vote or to induce or pro- prohilitkni cure any other person to vote at an election, knowing that against he or such person is prohibited from voting whether by this Act or any other Act. In view of this provision it becomes important to inquire what persons are prohibited from voting within the meaning of this section. And first as to persons prohibited by the Act itself. They are as follows : — (1.) " Every person who, in consequence of convicf/on or of Persons pro- the repori of any Election Court or Election Commissioners f^^^^^^, +• under the Act of 1883, or under the Corrupt Practices (Muni- l)y the Act of cipal Elections) Act, 1872, or under Part IV. of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or under any other Act for the time being in force relating to corrupt practices at 96 TFIE LAW RELATING TL> Section 37- Section 36. Paid agents forbidden to vote. Persons pro- hibited from voting by other Acts. any election for any public office, has become incapable of voting at any election, whether a Parliamentary election or an election to any public office, is now prohibited from voting at any such election " (Section 37). (2.) " Every person guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, or of illegal employment, payment or hiring at any election is prohibited from voting at such election" (Section 36). It will be observed that there is a materiil difference between the prohibitions enacted in Sections 36 and 37 In the case of a corrupt practice, &c., committed at a pending election, the elector committing it comes at 0)ice — as soon as he is guilty of the act and before he is convicted of it — under the pro- hibition against voting at such election ; but where the corrupt practice has been committed at some other election the prohibition does not come into operation until he has either been convicted of the offence or reported by an Election Court or Election Commissioner. (3.) The election agent, sub-agents, polling agents, clerks and messengers authorised by the 1st Schedule, tvherc they are paid, are forbidden to vote at the election (1st Schedule, Part I). Persons prohibited by other Acts of Parliament from voting include — (1.) Metropolitan policemen (the 10 Geo, 17., c. 44, s. 18.) (2.) Borough constables (19 & 20 Vic. c, 09, s. 9). (3.) County policemen (2 & 3 Vic. c. 93, s. 9), and see also last section. (4.) Any elector who, at or within six months before the election sliall have been retained, hii'ed, or employed for any of the purposes of the election for reward (30 & 31 Vic. c. 102, s. 11). (5.) Any convict, until his term of punishment has ex- pired, or he has obtained a free pardon (by the 33 & and 34 Vic, c. 23, s. 2 ; and also at common law). (6 ) Persons under the age of twenty-one years (7 & 8 Will. ,1V., c. 8). There may be other cases of statutory prohibition. The above is not given as a necessarily exhaustive list. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 97 There are two classes of persons who, perhaps, otight not to Who arc not vote, who apparently are not struck at by this section, viz., ^l^^^ votin"-. persons disqualified from voting by the common law of Par- liament, and persons whose names are on the register though their qualification has ceased. The former class include peers of England and of Scotland, peers of Ireland, when not members of the House of Commons {Lord Rendlonham v. Haicard, 43 L.J., C.P. 33 ; 9 C.P., 252), women, aliens, and probably some others ; the latter include paupers and persons who have ceased to reside within the proper distance. The register, it has been held, is conclusive as to the right of the persons last mentioned to vote, and if they do vote their names cannot be struck off on a scrutiny {Sfoice v. Jolliffe, L.R. 9, C.P. 734,43 L.J., C.P. 265, 30 L.T. 299, 22 W.R. 946) ; but if persons disqualified by the common law of Parliament vote, their votes do come off on a scrutiny {ibid). However, it is not an illegal practice for either of the above classes to vote, nor is it an ofience to induce them to do so. But if any one who is prohibited by statute votes, or induces anybody else who comes under a statutory pro- hibition, liuowing that such person falls ^vithin any of the above prohibitions, an illegal practice is committed. The knowledge referred to must be not a knowledge of the statute which creates the disability, because every person is supposed to know the law, but a knowledge of the facts in relation to the person's status or past conduct which bring him within the statute. When the illegal prac- tice mentioned in this section is committed by a candidate or his election agent, the election is avoided ; but when it is committed by any other person, though he may be an agent of the candidate to bind him by any corrupt act, the election is not defeated (Sub-section 2 of the 9th Section) . C. By the 2nd sub-section of the 9th Section it is enacted Publishing that any person who, before or during an election, knowingly ^^^^^^ ^^ ^i-^i^. publishes a false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate drawal of a at such election, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate, is guilty of an illegal practice, and if it is committed by the candidate or his 7 98 THE LAW RELATING TO lllegalto issue bill without printer's name Illegal to pay election bills except within specifiedtime. Illegal not to make return election agent, but not otherwise, the election is avoided. The essence of this offence is — {a), the publication of the false intelligence, knowing that it is false; and (Z>), publishing it with the object stated in the section — viz., to promote the return of another candidate. T>. "Every bill, placard, or poster having reference to an election shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof; and any person printing, publishing, or posting, or causing to be printed, published or posted, any such bill, placard, or poster, as aforesaid, which fails to bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher, shall, if he is the candidate or the election agent of the candidate, be guilty of an illegal practice" (Section 18). This section is directed against anonymous libels, but election agents will require to take great care that every bill and placard they issue in connection with the election, no matter how innocent and businesslike it may be, complies with the pro- visions of the law. E. By Section 29, Sub-section (2), it is made an illegal practice for an election agent to pay any claim against a candidate arising out of the election, which is barred by not being sent in within the time specified in the Act, and by Sub-section 4 the election agent is forbidden to pay any claim after the time specified by the Act, under the penalty of being guilty of an illegal practice. But for the pro- tection of an honest candidate. Sub-section 6 provides that where the Election Court reports that any payment made by an election agent in contravention of this section was made without the sanction or connivance of the candidate, the election shall not be void, and the candidate shall be subjected to no incapacity. The whole duties and functions of the election agent are treated of in Chapter YII., and it will be more convenient to leave until then the fuller discussion of the circumstances under which disobedience of Section 29 on the election agent's j^art will constitute an illegal practice. F. An election agent is required by the o3rd Section - OOHHUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. yu to make a return of the election expenses within a certain of expenses time, accompanied by the declaration given in the schedule, specified By Sub-section 6, failure to comply with any of the require- time. . ments of Section 33 is made an illegal practice ; on the other hand, by the following sub-section, knowingly to make a false return or a false declaration is a corrupt practice. It has already been explained, in treating, in Chapter II., of the illegal practices which avoid the election when com- mitted by any agent, that there is the possibility of relief against the consequences of such acts under Section 22 The possi- as well as Section 23 of the Act of 1883. In ^ ^ • regard to the illegal practices described in both sections of this chapter, Section 22 has no application ; but, in a proper case, the Court may grant relief under Section 23. Section 23. Candidates and election agents cannot, however, be too emphatically warned against any reckless expenditure or emploj^ment in reliance upon the chance of indulgence being extended to them under it, because, on its plain reading, it is only to apply where the slip has been the result oi' inadvertence or accidental miscalculation, and where the applicant has not been wanting in good faith. 100 THE LAW RELATING TO CHAP TEE V. The enact- ment on the subject. Personal em- ployment of a corrupt agent. Meaning of " i^ersonally" in Act. North Xorfolk Cane. THE EMPLOYMENT BY THE CANDIDATE PERSONALLY OF A CORRUPT AGENT. Section 44 of the 31 & 32 Vic, c. 125, provides : "If on the trial of any election petition under this Act any candi- date is proved to have pei'sonalh/ engaged at the election to which such petition relates, as a canvasser or agent for the management of the election, any person, knowing that suck person has, within seven years previous to such engagement, been found guilty of any corrupt practice by a competent legal tribunal, or been reported guilty of any corrupt prac- tice by a Committee of the House of Commons, or by the report of the judge upon an election under this Act, or by the report of Commissioners appointed in pursuance of the Act of the Session of the fifteenth and sixteenth years of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter 57, the election of such candidate shall be void." The employment of a person as agent who has within seven years of his employment been scheduled for any cor- rupt practice only avoids the election where the candidate, knowing that he is a scheduled person, employs him person- ally. That is what the section says ; but the authorities establish that the word " personally " is not to be taken in a too literal sense, and that a candidate's liability is not limited to the case where he actually appoints the agent by word of mouth or by direct writing to him. The North Norfolk Case (21 L.T., n.s., 265 ; 1 O'M. & H., 238) was the first case in which this section came under discussion. There a person who had been scheduled in connection with corrupt practices at Yarmouth was proved to have taken a prominent part in the election on behalf of the respondents. He acted as chairman of a district committee ; but the respondents denied that they knew he held this position, though it was admitted that one of them asked him to propose him on the CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 101 nomination, and he did so. The present Lord Blackburn held that the act of asking another to propose you at the election does not constitute an employment for the pur- pose of the management of the election, and that thouo:h an appointment as chairman of a district would be such an employment, there was no evidence that either of the re- spondents personally made it. His lordship, in the course juigmont ot of his judgment, laid down (1) that it was not neces- J;^^'^/^^''''^' sary that the appointment should be personal in the sense that the candidate must have an interview with the agent, it was sufficient if it wa,s proved that the appointment was made by another "with the know- ledge and consent of the condidute;" (2) that the agent need not be a jxiid agent ; (3) that he need not be an agent for the management of the whole election, it was enough if he was actually employed to manage a 2^o)iioii of it ; and (4) if it were proved that the candidate had reason to believe that a scheduled person would be appointed, and wilfully shut his eyes in order that he should know as little as possible, that would be equivalent to actual knowledge. In tbe Norwich Case (2 O'M. & H., 38) Mr. Justice Keating fully adopted the construction placed upon the statute in the North Norfolk Case. In this case it was proved that a person who had been scheduled for bribery five years before took a public and ostentatious part in forward- ing the respondent's candidature. The learned judge held that the circumstances in evidence were such that, but for the fact that the respondent was called and swore that he had no knowledge whatever of the efforts made by the alleged agent on his behalf, and that he never intended to recognise him as an agent, he would have held that the case was made out. In the second Galway Case (2 O'M. & H., 196) the facts Gaiway Case. were that two years before the election the Roman Catholic Bishop of Gralway was reported by an election court as guilty of a corrupt practice, viz., undue influence. It was proved that shortly before the election, the return at which was in question, the respondent called upon the bishop, who said that his hands were tied by the report of the election 102 THE LAW RELATING TO court, and that he would not have act or part in the election ; at the same time, he did not conceal his approval of the respondent's candidature. The clergy of the city, who lived in the same house with the bishop, and over whom it was admitted he had the fullest control, how- ever, met, and, adopting the respondent as their candidate, organised a canvass in his behalf. It was not proved that the canvassing was by the direct order of the bishop, but it was clear that he was aware of and fully approved it. There was evidence likewise that a letter, written by one of the clergy with the view of driving the petitioner out of the held, was revised and connected by the bisbop before it was issued. The learned judge (Mr. Justice Lawson), though he said he was satisfied that the bishop was at the bottom of the whole movement in favour of the respondent, and could have stopped the canvassing of the clergy at any moment, and though affairs were so arranged that the public were led to understand that the bishop approved of everything which was being done in the respondent's interest, did not think there had been such a personal engagement of the bishop as brought the case within the section. It will be noted that a person scheduled for corruption is only under disability for seven years. After the expiry of that time it is no offence for the candidate to employ him in connection with the management of the election. (See the first Gcihcay Case, 2 O'M. & H., 51.) CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. l(i:5 CHAPTER IV. GENERAL CORRUPTION. An election will be avoided by the existence of o-enoral •^"^^neml cor- , . . . T . -, ruptiou. bribery, general treating, or general mtnnidation, or undue influence, allhouoh there be no evidence whatever that the candidate returned, or any of his agents, is in any way responsible for any corrupt practice. An election must be free, and when it takes place amidst general corruption it ceases to be free, and is bad at common law, independent of any statute. " If there were general bribery, no matter from what General fund, or by what persons, and although the sitting member and his agents had nothing to do with it, it would defeat an election, on the ground that it was* not a proceeding pure and free, but that it was corrupted and vitiated by an influence which, coming from no matter what quarter, had defeated it, and shown it to be abortive." Per Willes, J. {Lichfield, 1 O'M. & H., 22 ; 20 L.T., 1 1) ; and at Bradford (1 O'M. & H., 30), Martin, B., said, " If it had been proved that there existed in this town generally bribery to a large extent, and that it came from unknown quarters, but that people were bribed generally and indiscriminately; or if it could be proved that there was treating in all directions on Qeneial purpose to influence voters — that houses icere throivn open treating-. xchere people could get drink ivithout puying for it; by the common law such election would be void." It is no answer that the general corruption took place some time before the election. {Sligo, I O'M. & H., 300). In order to avoid an election for general bribery, general treating, or general intimidation, it is not necessary to show that a majority of those who polled, or a majority of the constituency was so corrupted. It is enough to show an organised system of bribery, treating, or intimidation, "spreading over such an extent of ground, and per- 104 THE LAW RELATING TO meating througli the constituency to such an extent that freedom of election has ceased to exist in consequence." {Drogheda, 1 O'M. & H., 252; 21 L.T., 402.) General drunkenness at or about the time of the election is cogent evi- dence of general treating. {Tanitrorf//, 1 O'M. & H., 75 ; 20 L.T., 181. St. Ives, 3 O'M. & H., 13). In the Longford Case a considerable sum of money was spent in giving drink to non- voters, related to voters. In some cases the electors participated in these free drinks. As one witness, a publican, put it : " Anybody might have had the drink without distinction." The election was declared void (2 O'M, & H., 7). In the Drogheda Case (21 L.T. 403, 1 O'M. & H., 252), the same principle was enunciated by Keogh, J, '^ Take, then," he said, " the case of an organised system of treating. I am speaking now of cases in which nothing could be traced to the candidate or his agents. But suppose that at the head of every street, food and drink were provided in large quanti- ties, and places for eating and drinking opened, as to which it was known that every voter who wished to go thither, and seek for food or for drink, would receive it, provided he was on the side of a particular candidate, and that there was an organised system for the purpose of debauching the voters of a particular borough, though all the while not traceable to the member or his agents, so as to disqualify him at future elections, is it to be supposed for a moment that that organ- ised system would not defeat the election ? " Such a case could admit of no doubt, but we think that much less bribery or treating than the learned judge there described would be What is the equally fatal. The test must always be, has the corrupt prac- test. tice prevailed to such an extent as to affect the result of the election ? If it has, it is fatal. The observations of Willes J., in the Tamworth Case (I O'M. & H., 75 ; 20 L.T., 181), do not contravene this proportion. The learned judge did not deny that the same rule applies to general treating as to general bribery. He only insisted that the treating should be shown to be operating upon the minds of the electors at the time of the poll. See the Nonvich Case (19 L.T., G15, 1 O'M. & II., 8.) If that condition be complied with, it CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELFXTLUXS. 105 seems that lavish treating by publicans themselves, without any reason for expecting- payment, would be sufficient to avoid the election. {Poole, 31 L.T., 171., 2 O'M. & H., 123.) As to general intimidation, it may perhaps, in extreme cases, General be allowable to organize a band of stalwart persons to protect voters against the violence of strangers introduced by the other side ; but it must always be a dangerous thing to do {Longford, 2 O'M. & H., 7) ; such a course is always to be avoided. {Lwicricl; 21 L.T., 567 ; 1 O'M. & H., 260.) {Salisban/, 4 O'M. & H., 25; Sa/ford, 20 L.T., 120.) And it would be an answer to a petition that all the vio- lence and rioting was instigated by the petitioner or his agents, 'and that the result was not affected. But where not the unsuccessful candidate but an elector complains of general rioting, it is no answer to say that the defeated party were chieHy responsible for it. {Dudley, 2 O'M. & H., 115.) As to the amount of the violence and rioting, it is very ^,^^ "^^^p* "^^^ . , *' the poll. material to observe the state of the poll. If it is a close poll, less violence may justify an election court in avoiding the election than would be the case if it were quite clear that the rioting and violence had not affected the result, {North Durham, 2 O'M. & H., 152,31,L.T., 383.) If the rioting were local and partial, and the majority large, the election would not be set aside {ibid). " But where it is of such a general character that the result may have been affected, it is no part of the duty of a judge to enter into a kind of scrutiny to see whether possibly, or probably even, or as a matter of conclusion upon the evidence, if that intimidation had not existed, the result would have been different. What the judge has to do in that case is to say that the burden of proof is cast upon the constituency whose conduct is incrimi- nated, and unless it can be shown that th6 gross amount of intimidation cou/d not possibly hare affected the result of the election, it ought to be declared void." {Per Bramwell, B., at North Durham, ibid.) And it must be declared void if it is uncertain whether the result was affected [ibid.]. 106 THE LAW DELATING TO General In order to aflfect the election, the rioting must be serious. m imi d ion j^ inust be such as to deter ordinary men, of ordinary courage, from recording their votes. {Nottingltam, 1 O'M. & H., 245. Gahcaij, 2 O'M. & H., 196. SalfonJ, 1 O'M. &H., 133; 20 L T., 12 0). The general rioting and violence in the Drogheda case were too great to allow the case to be profitably discussed. The general intimidation there went far beyond that proved in the North Durham case, infra. But the former case esta- blishes the proposition that if voters are deterred from voting by a prevailing terror, but without undue influence being brought to bear upon them personally, the election will be declared void. It was said for the respondent in that case, that he went to voters who were opposed to him and offered to give them his escort to the poll, they being afraid to go, notwithstanding there were military and constabulary in the streets, but the Court considered that this was conclusive evidence out of the respondent's own mouth, that there was not freedom of election in the borough. CORliUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. !(•< CHAPTER VII. THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF THE ELECTION AGENT. Section I. — His Appoiktaient. The Act of 1883 creates a new officer, the election agent, The election agent. with difficult and important duties, upon the due fulfilment of whicJi the validity of the eleetioo lurgely depends. This officer bears no resemblance to any other agent known to the law, except the agent for election expenses, created by the statute 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29, s. 2, whose duties and many others he will have to discharge. He is not to be con- founded with the person who has hitherto borne the name of the election agent, meaning thereby the person to whose experience and intelligence the management and control of the election have hitherto been confided. In future, ^' the election agent,'' using the phrase in its statutory sense, may or may not be the person who plans and directs the operations of the campaign. As the election agent is to make all contracts relating to the election, and as the measure of the candidate's responsibility for his acts is greater than that for the acts of any other agent, it will be found safer, though perhaps inconvenient, to dissever these offices in future. A candidate will be at some dis- advantage who imposes upon his chief counsellor and manager the very anxious and difficult duties which the Act of 1883 thrusts upon " the election agent.'' If the offices should be dissevered, the person who manages the election for the candidate must do so gratuitously. He cannot be legally employed for payment. (Schedule I., Part I. and Section 17 ) . It is proper to add that '' the election agent" Shoidd be i . . . P ^ ^ 1 person of need not even be a solicitor, but, m view of the direct and businessi immediate responsibility of the candidate for his acts and J^^^^^^its aud ir . J _ con%'eis;int omissions, it can hardly be doubted that any candidate will with the law. do well to avail himself of the professional caution and legal 108 THE LAW RELATING TO training of a solicitor, if he can induce a solicitor to accept the office. If the candidate choose he may be his own election agent. In that event he will have only himself to blame for any slip on the part of the election agent. But, whether he choose to be his own election agent, or to appoint some other person, it is of urgent necessity that the election agent should be a person of business habits, and of experience in the conduct of elections, and inti- mately conversant with the provisions of the election law. The object of The object aimed at by the Legislature in requiring the the legislature appointment of an election agent, through whose hands all money shall pass, and by whose hands all accounts shall be paid, is the regulation and diminution of election expenses. The evil of excessive expenditure at elections has been struck at by many statutes, beginning with the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 4, which was directed against " the excessive and exorbitant ex- penses, contrary to the laws and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in Parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive to the constitution of Parliament." The statute, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, with the same view, provided for the aj)pointment of election auditors; but the fruit being no sweeter than the tree, these were found useless ; and the Act of 1883 would imply a similar condemnation upon the agents for election expenses who were called into existence by the Act 26 & 27 Yict. c. 29, and through whom all payments for election expenses, other than the candidate's personal expenses, were to be made, under pain of fine and imprisonment. When election The appointment of the election agent is regulated by a (VATit to t)G named. Section 24 of the Act of 1883. The section does not prescribe any particular form of appointment, which should, however be in writing ; but it provides that on or before the nomi- nation day the election agent shall be named by or on behalf of the candidate. As contracts relating to the election are to be made, and polling agents and clerks appointed by the election agent (Section 27), it is obviously CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. lU'J desirable that the election agent should be appointed and named as soon as the candidate takes the field. AVhat will happen if the candidate should not name himself or some other person as election agent on or before the nomination day is not very clear ; but any inquiry on the subject is idle, for so flagrant a violation of the Act of Parliament would involve the candidate in many difficulties «ind con- siderable danger, any payments made by him, except through an election agent, being illegal practices avoid- ing the election. If the candidate prefers to be his own election agent he must name himself as such, and thereupon he will be subject to the liabilities imposed by the Act on election agents, as well as to those imposed upon candidates. If a candidate be nominated in his absence, or without his consent, the election agent is to be named " on his behalf." One of the nominators or seconders had better name the election agent in such a case. In regard to naming the election agent, it is provided by Notice of his Section 24, Sub-section 3, of the Act of 1883, that on or before ^PPO"^tment. the day of nomination the name and address and the office of the election agent of each candidate shall be declared in writing by the candidate, or some other person on his behalf, to the returning officer, and the returning officer shall /ort/iwifh give public notice of the name and address of every election agent so declared. The " public notice " to be given by the returning officer is regulated by Section 62 of the Act of 1883, and the Ballot Act, 1872, Schedule I., Eule 46. He may give the notice " by advertisements, placards, handbills, or such other means as he thinks best calculated to afford information to the electors.'' A candidate can only appoint one person to be his election Changing the agent; but any appointment, whether of the candidate him- '°' seK or of any other person, can be revoked. If any appoint- ment is revoked, or the election agent die before, during, or after the election, the candidate must forthicith appoint a new election agent, and in /rn'ting declare his name and address and office to the returning officer, who will imme- IIU THE LAW RELATING TO Sub -agents in counties and certain ■boroug-hs. Risks of apijointing sub-agents. The candi- date's liability forsub-agent's acts. diately give public notice of the fact. (Sub-section 4 of Section 24.) In counties, but not in boroughs, except East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury (Schedule 1, Part 1), the election agent may, and apparently nobody else may, appoint a deputy or sub-agent to act within each pol^iug district. The number of these sub-agents is regulated by the first schedule of the Act of 1883. But the wisdom of appointing sub-agents at all seems extremely doubtful when Section 25, sub-section 2 of the Act of 1883 is read by the light of the fact that the candidate is responsible, and the return may be avoided for many acts done by the election agent which, if committed by any other agents, would not affect the seat. For the purpose of avoid- ing the seat every sub-agent, r^cif/;^^ in his own district, is placed in the position of the election agent. If a remote sub-agent should employ and pay an assistant in excess of the number allowed, or issue a bill without the printer's name appended, the candidate's seat might not be worth an hour's purchase. In such a case the better opinion would seem to be that the candidate could have no relief under Section 22 of the Act of 1883 ; but in some instances he might have relief under Section 23 of the Act. Section 25, Sub-section 2, enacts : " As regards matters ia a polling district, the election agent may act by the sub-agen t for that district, and anything done for the purposes of this Act by or to the sub-agent in his district shall be deemed to be done by or to the election agent, and any act or default of a sub-agent which, if he were the election agent, would be an illegal practice or other offence agaiust this Act, shall be an illegal practice and offence against this Act committed by the sub-agent, and the sub-agent shall be liable to punishment accordingly ; and the candidate shall suffer the like incapacity as if the said act or default had been the act or default of the election agent." If, notwithstanding these dangers, the candidate should direct the election agent to appoint sub-agents, and in counties it is not easy to do without them, he should satisfy himself of the caution and ability of the persons to be COUUUPT PRACTICES AT PXECTIONS. Ill appointe3, and their Iniowledge of the law, and the election agent mud at least two days before the polling declare in writing to the returning officer the name and address of each sub-agent and his office within his district, just as in the case of the election agent himself. The returning officer will then give public notice of the appointments in the usual way. It would seem from the language of Section 29, Sub- section 1, of the Act of 1S83, that the authority of the sub- Ecvocation of agent does not come to an end with the poll or with the appomtaient. return. This view is strengthened by Section 25, Sub- section 2, which places him in the position of the election agent, so far as the candidate's liability for his acts is con- cerned. But it would be prudent on the part of the election agent to revoke the appointment of the sub-agents as soon as the poll has closed. By Section 25, Sub-section 4, it is provided — " The appointment of a sub-agent shall not be vacated by the election agent who appointed him ceasing to be election agent, but may be revoked by the election agent for the time being of the candidate, and in the event of such revocation or of the death of a sub-agent another sub-agent may be appointed, and his name and address shall be forth- with declared in writing to the returning officer who shall forthwith give public notice of the same." Although there is no express provision on the point, it would be well to give the returning officer immediate notice in writing of the revocation. The election agent and sub-agents must have offices. By Offices of the Section 26, Sub-section 1, it is provided that an election fj^ntTud agent at an election for a county or borough shall have sub-agent. within the county or borough, or within any county of a city or town adjoining thereto, and a sub-agent shall have within his district, or within a county of a city or town adjoining thereto, an office or place to which all claims, notices, writs, summons, and documents, may be sent, and the address of such office shall be declared at the same time as the appointment of the said agent to the returning officer, and shall be stated in the public notice of the name of the asent. U-2 THE LAW RELATING TO Service of Service of any claim or document or notice by delivery at nonces. ^j^g office and addressed to the election agent or sub-agent, will be equivalent to personal service on the election agent or sub-agent, as the case may be, and if the agent should make himself personally liable to be sued by any person in respect of any matter connected with the election, then (Section 26) he may be sued in any court having jurisdiction in the county or borough in which the office is. Polling Every polling agent, clerk and messenger emploj^ed for andnies- payment on behalf of the candidate is to be appointed, and sengers to be every committee-room hired in his behalf is to be hired by election agent ^he election agent, acting by himself or his sub-agent. It would not be a corrupt practice, nor apparently would it necessarily be an illegal practice, for some other person to appoint a polling agent, clerk or messenger, or to hire a com- mittee-room, provided the statutory number was not exceeded ; but to pay the person appointed or the lessor of the committee-room, except through the election agent, would be an illegal practice. And no such contract could be enforced against the candidate. Persons asked to give credit and to be in connection with an election have public notice of the names pai y im. ^^ ^^ persons who can pledge the credit of the candidate, and they give credit to other persons at their peril. By Section 28, Sub-section 2, it is provided that a contract whereby any expenses are incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election shall not be enforceable against a candidate at such election, unless made by the candidate himself or by his election agent, either by himself or by his sub-agent ; provided that the inability under this section to enforce such contract against the candidates shall not relieve the candidate from the con- sequences of any corrupt or illegal practice having been com- mitted by his agent. The word agent in the last line means any agent, constructive or otherwise. COiniUPT PRACTICES AT EI.ECTloXS. 113 Section II. — The Nature and Amount of the Election Expenses The statute insists on all payments for election expenses All payments being made by or through the election agent. The candi- tho election date may himself pay his personal expenses up to £100, and agent, any person authorised in writing by the election agent may pay " any necessary expenses for stationery, postage, tele- grams and other petty expenses," but only to the amount named in the authority. Subject to these exceptions, neither Exceptions. the candidate nor any agent (except the election agent acting personally or through a sub-agent) may pay any election expenses, under pain of the consequences of an illegal practice, affecting the seat as well as the individual. Section 28 of the Act of 1883 provides : (1.) " Except as permitted by or in pursuance of this Act, no payment and no advance or deposit shall be made by a candidate at an election, or by any agent on behalf of the candidate, or by any other person at any time, whether before, during or after such election, in respect of any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, otherwise than by or through the election, agent of the can- didate, lohethev acting in person or bij a sub-agent ; and all money provided by any person other than the candidate for ]\Ioney'pro- any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the ^penses^^^ conduct or management of the election, whether as gift, loan, advance or deposit, shall be paid to the candidate or his election agent, and not otherwise : " Provided that this section shall not be deemed to apply to a tender of security to or any payment by the returning ofl&cer, or to any sum disbursed by any person out of his own money for any small expense legally incurred by himself, if such sum is not repaid to him. (2.) A person who makes any payment, advance or deposit in contravention of this section, or pays in contravention of this section any money so provided as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an illegal practice." The candidate and the election agent ought, at the begin- Candidate Q should esti- 114 THE LAW RELATING TO mate his election expenditure. What are election expenses. What need not be in- cluded in the estimate. (a) Costs of taking votes by siea. {/>) Eeturrdng officer's expenses. niug of the election to estimate their election expenditure, and regulate the expenditure by the estimate, otherwise there will be some danger of the maximum expenditure allowed by the Act of 1883 being exceeded. But it is not to be assumed that onl}^ such expenses as are incurred after the dissolution or after the creation of a vacancy in the repj-esenta- tion are election expenses within the meaning of the Act. The provisions of the Act limiting expenditure would be a nullity if contracts could be entered into and expenses incurred for the purpose of promoting the return of an intending candi- date before the dissolution or creation of a vacancy, and no account taken of them in the return of election expenses. There is a remarkable dearth of authority upon the section of the old Act, which provided for all election expenses being returned by an expense agent. There is, however, authority for saying that, in some circumstances, even registration expenses ought to be returned as election expenses, although ordinarily they need not be {Pcnryn, 1 O'M. & H., 127), and the language of the new Act does not point to their being included in the return of the election agent. But there is no doubt that the time at which an expense is incurred is a very material consideration in deciding whether it is an elec- tion expense. It is safe to say that any expense incurred after the dissolution or the creation of a vacancy for the pur- pose of promoting the return of a candidate or intending candidate, is, if it is defrayed by the candidate, or is one for which he or his election agent might be sued at law by the person to whom it is incurred, an election expense. In esti- mating the expenses of the election, no account need be taken of the personal expenses of the candidate, or of the charges of the returning officer, nor yet of the conveyance of voters by sea, where, under KSectiou 48, that is allowed. They have to be included in the returns made by the election agent, but they are not included in the maximum sums allowed by the Act (Schedule I., Part lY.). But it would be illegal to pay to the returning officer any larger sum than is allowed by the earlier statute (38 & 39 Vic. c. 84). The expression " personal expenses," as used with respect to the election expenses. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 115 expenditure of a candidate in relation to an election, includes ('") Personal (Section64of theActof 1883) his rm.so^^cf^/e travelling expenses, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or else- where for the purposes of and in relation to the election. We think that it would be also held to include the reamnahle travelling expenses of his family and servants, and the reason- able hotel expenses of his family and servants, and, perhaps, the reasonable hotel expenses of any guest invited by the candidate to stay with him during the whole or part of the election. The chief heads of expense to be taken account of are Heads of those indicated and limited by Schedule 1 to the Act, Parts I, .and II. They are ;- (1.) The remuneration of persons legally employed for payment : only one election agent may be employed, but in counties one sub-agent to act within each polling district, may be also employed. The number of clerks and messengers who may be em- ployed, has already been discussed (pp. 92 and 93). (2 ) The expenses of printing, the expenses of advertising, and the expenses of publishing, issuing, and dis- tributing addresses and notices. (3.) The expenses of stationery, messages, postage, and telegrams. (4.) The expenses of holding public meetings. (5.) In a borough the expenses of one committee-room., and if the number of electors in the borough exceeds 500, then of a number of committee-rooms not exceed ing the number of one committee-room for every complete 500 electors in the borough ; and if there is a number of electors over and above any complete 500 or complete 500's of electors, then of one committee-room for such number, although not amounting to a complete 500. (6.) In a county the expenses of a central committee-room and in addition of a number of committee-rooms, not exceeding in number one committee-room for 116 THE LAW RELATING TO Prohibited Ijayments. The maxi- mum expendi- ture. each polling district in the county, and where the number of electors in a polling district exceeds 500, one additional committee -room may be hired for every complete 500 electors in such polling district over and above the first 500. The number of committee-rooms allowed has already been discussed (pp. 61 and 62). It may be said here that in a borough an extra committee-room is allowed for any fraction of 500 electors, but in a county an extra committee-room is not allowed in any polling district for any fraction of 500 electors, but only for each complete number of 500 electors after the first 500. (7.) Miscellaneous expenses (not exceeding £200 in all), and not incurred in respect of anything prohibited by any Act of Parliament. For instance (Section 16), payments for bands, torches, flags, banners, cavalcades or ribbons are prohibited. Pay- ments for chairing the candidate, or for horses and carriages for conveying voters, or for railway or steamboat passes, or for a right to exhibit placards, made to an elector, except to an ordinary advertising agent, or to persons to hold up their hands for the candidate at the nomination, when the show of hands was held, have also been prohibited. The candidate and the election agent, in mapping out their expenditure, will do well to leave a margin for con- tingencies, otherwise they may find they have exceeded the maximum expenditure allowed by the Act and so come within the perils of Section 8 of the Act of 1883. The maximum expenditure allowed is stated in the first schedule, Part lY., to the Act of 1883. It is to be remem- bered that, in all cases, the candidate's personal expenses and the returning ofiicer's charges, and the costs of convey- ing voters by sea under Section 48 are payable in addition. The scale is regulated by the number of electors enumerated on the register, and no deductions are to be made for dead men, double entries, or the like CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 11' The words of the Act (Schedule I., Part TV.), limiting in boroughs. the maximum expenditure as to boroughs are these : — If the number of electors on the The maximum amount shall be — £350. £380, and an additional £30 for every complete 1,000 electors above 2,000. register — Does not exceed 2,000 Exceeds 2,000 . Provided that in Ireland, if the number of electors on the register — Does not exceed 500 . Exceeds 500, but does not exceed 1,000 . Exceeds 1,000, but does not exceed 1,500 . The maximum amount shall be- £200. £250. £275. The words of the same schedule in regard to the maximum expenditure in counties are these : — If the number of electors on the register — Does not exceed 2,000 Exceeds 2,000 The following candidate stands candidate : — Number of Electors Maximum Number of electors Maximum on the Register. amount allowed. ou the Register. amount allowed. 2,000 or under . £350 11,000 to 11,999 i ticliisive £650 2,001 to 2,999 inclusive £380 J 12,000 to 12,999 „ . £680 3,000 to 3,999 „ . £410 13,000 to 13,999 „ . £710 4,000 to 4,999 „ . £440 14,000 to 14,999 „ . £740 5,000 to 5,999 „ . £470 15,000 to 1 5,999 „ . £770 6,000 to 6,999 „ . £500 16,000 to 16,999 „ . £800 7,000 to 7,999 „ . £530 17,000 to 17,999 „ . £830 8,000 to 8,999 „ . £560 18,000 to 18,999 „ . £860 9,000 to 9,999 „ . £590 19,000 to 19,999 „ . £890 10,000 fo 10,999 ' ,. . £620 ' 20,000 to 20,999 „ . £920 In counties. The maximum amount shall be — £650 in England and Scotland and £500 in Ireland. £710 in England- and Scotland, and £540 in Ireland ; and an additional £60 in England and Scotland, and £40 in Ire- land, for every complete 1,000 electors above 2,000. is the scale in boroughs where the alone, and not jointly with another Scale in all English and Scotch boroughs and in Irish boroughs with over 1,500 electors. 118 THE LAW RELATING TO and so on, adding to £380 an additional £30 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000 enumerated on the register. This scale applies to all boroughs except to Irish boroughs having less than 1,500 electors, as already stated, and except the five boroughs, East Retford, Sboreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock and Aylesbury. The following is the scale in counties where the can- didate stands alone, and not jointly with another can- didate : — Scale in counties. Certain boroughs to he considered as counties. Number of electors on the Register. Maximum amount allowed in England and Scotland. Maximum amoant allowed in Ireland. 2,000 or under .... £650 £500 2,001 to 2,999 inclusive £710 £540 3,000 to 3,999 „ £770 £580 4,000 to 4,999 ■ „ £8.30 £620 5,000 to 5,999 £890 £660 6,000 to 6,999 £950 £700 7,000 to 7,999 £1,010 £740 8,000 to 8,999 £1,070 £780 9,000 to 9,999 £1,130 £820 10,000 to 10,999 £1,190 £860 11,000 to 11,999 £1,250 £900 12,000 to 12,999 £1,310 £940 13,000 to 13,999 £1,370 £980 14,000 to 14,999 £1,430 £1,020 15,000 to 15,999 £1,490 -£1,060 16,000 to 16,999 £1,550 £1,100 17,000 to 17,999 £1,610 £1,140 18,000 to 18,999 £1,670 £1,180 19,000 to 19,999 £1,730 £1,220 20,000 to 20,999 „ £1,790 £1,260 and so on, adding, in England or Scotland, to £710, an additional £60 for every 1,000 electors over 2,000, and adding, in Ireland, to £540, an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000. In regard to the scale of maximum expenditure, and to the number of agents and other persons who may be legally CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELI-XTIONS. 110 employed for payment, and to the number of committee-rooms which may be paid for, the boroughs of East lletford, Shoreham, . Cricklade, Much Wenlock and Aylesbury are to be considered as counties. (Schedule I. Part V., 1.) ' It will frequently happen that candidates will stand jointly. Fiuiher In that case (Schedule I., Part- V., 3) the maximum ex- expenditure penditure allowed to each is to be reduced, if there are two "icaso of joint candi- joint candidates, by one-fourth, and ii there are more than datiue. two joint candidates by one-third. Having regard to that enactment, it is important to notice what constitutes a joint candidature for this purpose. What is a joint candidature, so that one candidate shall be bound by the corrupt or illegal practices of the agents of another candidate is a very different inquir3^ But for the purpose of ascertaining whether the scale of What is a expenditure to be allowed to each candidate is to be reduced, jature. a case of joint candidature arises (Schedule I., Part V., 4), when an// one of the following events happen : — (a.) Two or more candidates appoint the same election agent. (h.) Two or more candidates by themselves or ani/ agent hire or u^e the same committee- room or rooms for the election. (c.) Two or more candidates by themselves or any agent employ or use the services of the same sub-agents clerks, messengers, or polling agents at the election. It would seem that for both candidates hij au>/ agent to use, e.g., one committee-room or one messenger in common, although in all other respects the rooms used and persons employed by each candidate were different and separate, would constitute a joint can- didature for the purposes of this section. {d.) Two or more candidates by themselves or am/ agent publish a joint address, or joint circuhir, or joint notice at the election. The severity of til is enactment is modified by a provision which however aflccts; (/<) and {<■) only. If the (ntiii'iovment 120 THE LAW RELATING TO Severance of a j oint candidature. Case of candi- dature partly joint and partly several. Evidence on application for relief. or use of the same committee-room, sub-agent, clerk, mes- senger, or polling agent is (I) accidental or casual, or (2) of a trivial and unimportant character, a case of joint candida- ture will not be thereby created. (Schedule I., Part Y., 4 — a.) Candidates may at any time cease to be joint candidates, in which case they had better give public notice of the fact. In the event of a candidate ceasing to be a joint candidate or becoming a joint candidate after having begun to conduct his election as a separate candidate, he will occupy an anomalous position in regard to the maximum amount of expenditure allowed to him. It would seem that his election expenditure is to be regulated as if he had been a joint candidate throughout the election. But he may get relief under the provisions of the Act of 1883 (Schedule I., Part Y,, 4 — c), forany excess of expenditure above the amount allowed to a joint candidate if his total expenses do not amount to what the Act would have allowed him as a separate candidate. That clause 4 (c) provides : " Where any excess of expenses above the maximum allowed for one of two or more joint candidates has arisen owing to his having ceased to be a joint candidate, or to his having become a joint candidate after having begun to conduct his election as a separate candidate , and such ceasing or beginning was in good faith and such excess is not more than under the circumstances is reasonablej and the total expenses of such candidate do not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a separate candidate, such excess shall be deemed to have arisen from a reasonable cause within the meaning of the enactments respecting the allowance by the High Court or election court of an excep- tion from the provisions of this Act which would otherwise make an act an illegal practice, and the candidate and his election agent may be relieved accordingly from the conse- quences of having incurred such excess of expenses." The candidate who applies for relief under this clause must therefore prove to the Court the following things : — (1.) That the excess of expenditure has arisen from the candidate having ceased to be a joint candidate nr CORKUrT PRACTICES AT ELECTIOXS. 121 from his becoming a joint candidate after ]iaving been a separate candidate, and (2.)" That he began or ceased to be a joint candidate in good faith and -without any intention to evade the provisions of the Act, and (3.) That his expenses do not exceed the maximum amount allowed to a separate candidate. If the application is made to the High Court, it must be by motion or by a judge's summons at chambers before a judge or judges on the rota for the trial of election petitions. Such previous notice of the application as the Court may direct must be given in the constituency. Under Section 28, requiring all moneys provided for the Suliscriptions election expenses to be paid to the election agent, it would ^.^^^l seem to be necessary that a fund raised by subscriptions to expenses, defray A's election expenses must be paid to A himself or to his election agent. The proviso in Section 28 only am.ounts to this, that if any Petty expen- person, not intending to corrupt an elector, disburses any partisans trifling sum for any small expense incurred h// /limself without iio* to ^-"e thinking of repayment, and without the fact of repayment, no harm is done. If B, a partisan of A's, hires and pays for a carriage to enable him to canvass for votes for A, that is unqjbjectionable. But still the amount disbursed must be small, otherwise the first sub-section of Section 28 would be nullified. By sub-section 2 of Section 28, contravention of the section by any agent, constructive or otherwise, would avoid the seat. Section III. — The Payment of Election Expenses. Subject to the trifling exceptions mentioned in Section 28, By the elec- it is the business of the election agent to make all payments. ^^"^ agent. He will do well to postpone the making of these payments, except in the rare cases in which credit is refused, until 14 days after tlie declaration of the result of the election, when he will know what are the total claims upon his candidate. 12-2 THE LAW RELATING TO Advertisinc for claims. When claims to be sent in. Account of candidate's personal expenses to be sent in. There is nothing in the Act to make it obligatory on the election agent to advertise for creditors to send in their claims. Creditors have public notice of the election agent's appoint- ment^ and they must be presumed to know the law, that their bills must be sent in to the election agent within 14 days next after the declaration of the result of the election. But it may sometimes be convenient to advertise for claims, and there is nothing in the Act to forbid an advertisement. Every claim against a candidate at an election, or his election agent (which in counties includes sub-agents acting in their own districts), in respect of any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, must be sent in to the election agent by a bill, stating the particulars of the claim, within fourteen days next after the day on which the candidates returned are declared elected (Sec. 29 of the Act of 1883). The time will run from the nomination day if there is no poll, and if there is a poll, from the day on which the returning officer declares the result of the poll. In the case of petitions against the return for corrupt practices, the time runs from the day on which the return comes to the hands of the clerk of the Crown so that he can act upon it, As the Act speaks of the claims being " sent in," and not of the time of their receipt, it would seem that if the returning officer declares the result on the ist of a month, the claims may be posted or Other- wise "sent " at any time, so that in the ordinary course of the post or other usual means of transmission adopted they will be delivered at the office of the election agent on or before the 15th of the mouth, i.e., within the fourteen days. It is to be remembered, that although a candidate is allowed (Sec. 31) himself to pay his personal expenses not exceeding £100 in connection with the election (which by Sec. 64 includes " the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in relation to such elec- tion "), yet the candidate must, within fourteen days after the returning officer has declared the result of the election, send to the election agent a written statement of the (imount of CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. l-'3 the personal expenses paid by him. Seemingly, the par- ticulars of the amount need not be stated. Any excess on account of personal expenses over £100 must be paid by the ^^^^^^^^^ election agent (Sec. 31), and any person authorised under ovcriioo Section 31, Sub-section 2, to make petty disbursements for {Sle^elSion^ stationery, postage, telegrams and other expenses, must agent, within the same time, send to the election agent a statement of the particulars of the payments made by him, and he must Particulars of also send in a receipted bill vouching the payment (Sub- ^ursements. sec. 3). The Act applies, so far as circumstances will admit, to the claims by the election agent for his remuneration and payment. He can hardly be bound to send his claim in to Eemuneration himself, but he would do well to give notice of his claim ^^.^^^^ ^°^ within the fourteen days next after the declaration of the result to his candidate. His claim must then be satisfied by the candidate within the next fourteen days (Sec. 32), other- wise it will become a '^ disputed claim," and be dealt with accordingly. Compare Section 29, Sub-sections 7 and 8 and Section 30. The returning officer must transmit to the election agent, Returning • 1 • 1 PI J. i? J I officer's withm twenty-one days alter the return, an account oi tlie charges. charges claimed by him. (Sec. 32, Sub.-sec. 2). The account need not be sent to the candidate or anybody else, Cf. the statute, 38 & 39 Vict., c. 84. As to the power of the returning officer to require security for the payment of his charges and the amount of the security which can be required, and the amount of the charges, see the statute 38 & 39 Yict, c. 84. If a claim be not " sent in " within the proper time, the I^ate claims creditor will be barred of all right of action against the candidate or the election agent. They are prohibited from paying any late claim, and if the election agent should pay any such claim he would be guilty of an illegal .practice. But certain relief against this somewhat severe [enactment may be obtained upon conditions, under Sub-sections 6 and of Section 29 of the Act of 1883, which will be dealt with presently. The election ae:ent havins' received the claims against his 124 THE LAW RELATING TO Examination and payment of claims. Time of payment. Eelief against payments out of time. candidate will examine them, and separate those which are in respect of contracts made or expenses incurred by the candidate or the election agent acting by himself or by a sub-agent. These, except in cases in which the candidate's liability is admitted, but the amount claimed is disputed, mud be paid within a second period of 14 days, i.e., within 28 days of the day on which the candidates returned were declared duly elected. To pay them afterwards would be an illegal practice. By Sub-section 4 of Section 29 of the Act of 1883, it is enacted : " All expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election, which are incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, shall be paid within the time limited by this Act and not otherwise ; and subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Act an election agent who makes a payment in contravention of this provision shall be guilty of an illegal practice." Probably it would be held that a payment was made in good time if .the money or cheque were posted or despatched to the creditor in such time that in the ordi- nary course of the post or other means of transmission it would be delivered at his address within the 28 days. It would not matter, we think, that the payment was by a crossed cheque, which could not be cleared until after the 28 days had expired. All claims sent in within the proper tiiae, . disputed by the election agent, or which the election agent refuses or fails to pay within the 28 days, because " disputed " claims within the Act, and are to be dealt with as such. Section 29, Sub-section 7. The election agent may, by inadvertence or otherwise, commit the illegal practice 6f paying a claim after the 28 days, or of paying a claim sent in after the 14 days. In that case, probably, he might be relieved under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1883. The candi- date may also be relieved. The .High Court, under the powers of Section 23, might excuse him from the conse- quences of the Act, and thereupon it might stay a petition CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 125 presented against his return, and based on the election agent's illegal practice in so paying, and (Sub-section 6) the judges at the trial of the petition may report, in a proper case, that the payment made by the election agent in contraven- tion of the section, was made without the sanction or conni- vance of the candidate. If they do so report, the election ■will not be void on account of that payment, nor will the candidate be subject to any incapacity, but he may have to .pay the costs of the petition. As to all disputed claims, the election agent should Action in dis- await the action of the persons making the disputed ^^ ^ ^ '^^^^' claims. If the claimant has made a slip by sending in his claim Order of too late, or sending it to the candidate personally, he should i^^e^ular apply to the High Court, by a master's summons served on claim, the candidate, for an order giving leave for the payment of the claim. The application should be supported by an affidavit of the facts. The claimant will then be in the same position as if he had sent in his claim to the proper person and within the proper time. As the claimant's slip occasions the application, it seems reasonable that he should pay the candidate's cost of appearing upon it. The candi- date or the election agent may himself make the application if he think fit to do so. When the order has been made, the sum specified in the order of leave may be paid either by the candidate or his election agent, and when paid in pursuance of the order of leave is to be deemed to have been paid within the time limited by the Act. Any claimant whose claim is disputed, or left unpaid, if Action for a he has duly sent in his claim, or obtained such an order of claim. leave, may, if he thinks fit, bring an action against the candi- date, or the election agent, if the latter has made himself personally liable (Section 29, Sub-section 8). If the candi- date is the defendant, the action may be brought in any court having jurisdiction, which will generally be the High Court or the County Court hold en in the district. If the election agent is the defendant, he may be sued in any court . having jurisdiction in the county or borough in which his 12(3 THE LAW RELATING TO appointed office is (Section 26, Sub-section 2), or in the High Court, "When the action is brought it will proceed like any other action. It will be no defence to it that if the candidate were to allow or pay the claim he would thereby exceed the maximum amount of expenditure allowed him by the Act of 1883 (Sec. 19), unless when the contract was made the plaintiff was aware that it contravened the Act. If, there- fore, a judgment or order goes against the defendant, order- ing him to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff, although any sum paid in pursuance of the judgment or order is to be deemed (Section 29, Sub-section 8) to be paid within the time limited by the Act of 1883 (28 days after the declara- tion of the return), and to be an exception from the pro- visions of the Act requiring all claims to be paid by the election agent, yet any excess thereby caused over the maximum expenditure allowed is nevertheless an illegal practice. If amount If in the action the plaintiff's right of action is not dis- may be^^"*^ puted, but only the amount of his claim, the question is to referred to be referred to taxation, unless the Court, on a master's sum- mons taken out by the plaintiff or on the plaintiff's motion, otherwise directs. Section 30 of the Act of 1883 directs : — '*If any action is brought in any competent court to recover a disputed claim against a candidate at an election, or his election agent, in respect of any expenses incurred on account or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, and the defendant admits his liability, but disputes the amount of the claim, the said amount shall, unless the Court, on the application of the plaintiff in the action, otherwise directs, be forthwith referred for taxation to the master, official referee, registrar or other proper officer of the court, and the amount found due on such taxation shall be the amount to be recovered in such action in respect of such claim." taxation. CORUUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 127 Section IV. — The Return and Declaration of Election Expenses. The duties of tlie election agent do not end with the exatni- The return of nation and payment of the claims sent in. Within seven ^''P^'^'''®^- days after the last daj allowed for payment of the claims — that is to say, within 35 days after the declaration of the result of the election — he must transmit to the returning officer a return of his candidate's election expenses. The return must contain (Section 33, Sub-section 1)— Contents of • ^ the return. ((?) A statement of all pajnnents made by the election agent, together with all the bills and receipts (which bills and receipts are included in the expression "return respecting election expenses"). {b) A statement of the amount of personal expenses, if any, paid by the candidate. ((?) A statement of the sums paid to the returning officer for his charges, or, if the amount is in dispute, of the sum claimed and the amount disputed. (f/) A statement of all other disputed claims of which the election agent is aware. {e) A statement of all the unpaid claims, if any, of which the election agent is aware, in respect of which application has been or is about to be made to the High Court. (/) A statement of all money, securities, and equivalent of money received by the election agent from the candidate or any other person for the purpose of expenses incurred or to be incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, with a statement • of the name of every person from whom the same may have been re- ceived. The words of the section'give only a faint idea of the par- Particulars ticularity and exactness required in the return. This will be ^^q^e^i- appreciated by a perusal of the form of return contained in 128 THE LAW RELATING TO Declaration verifj'ing return. Declaration by candidate. Where candi- date abroad. Return con- cernino- the Second Schedule to the Act, given in the Appendix. In each case the name and description of the person paid, and particulars of the goods, work, labour or services in respect of which he is paid, must be set out. At the same time, the election agent mmt send to the returning officer, accompanying the return, a declaration to be made by him before a justice of the peace, verifying the return. The declaration must be in the form set out in the second Schedule to the Act. But if the candidate has had no election agent, but has been his own election agent, the declaration provided in the schedule for an election agent is not to be used. But, instead of it, the candidate must make and transmit the declaration by the candidate respect- ing election expenses, as specified in the second Schedule to* the Act. (Section 32, Sub-section 3.) In any case, and whether tlie candidate has had an election agent or not, he must, at the time when the return of election expenses is transmitted to the returning officer, or tclthm seven days afterwards, transmit to the returning officer a declaration, made before a justice of the peace, respecting election expenses, and of general purity (Section 33, Sub-section 4). For the form, see Schedule II. in the Appendix. • It may happen that the candidate is out .of the United Kingdom when the election agent sends in his return and declaration. In such a case, the time for the candidate to make his declaration will be extended until the expiiy of 14 days after he returns to the United Kingdom, within which time it must be made. If the candidate were cruising in a yacht, and touched at a porfc in the United Kingdom, that would probably be held to be a " return " to the United Kingdom within the meaning of the section (Section 33, Sub-section 8). The candidate's absence confers no right on the election agent to delay the transmission of his return and declaration for an hour, and when the candidate on bis return has made the required' declaration, the latter must he forthivith transmitted to the returning officer. (Ibid.) By Section 33, Sub-section 9, it is provided that when after the date at which the return respecting election CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 129 , expenses is transmitted, leave is given by the nigh Court irregular for any claims to be sent in or paid (as to which, see Section ^ ^"^^ ^^^ ^, Sub-section 8) the candidate or his election agent shall within seven dai/s after the payment thereof, transmit to the returning officer, a return of the sums paid in pursuance of such leave, accompanied by a copy of the order of the court giving the leave, and in default, he shall be deemed to have failed to comply with the requirements of the section without authorised excuse, i.e., he will thereby become guilty of an illegal practice, avoiding the election. We think that if the returning officer has ceased to be such since the election, and before a return or declaration is sent in, the proper person to whom to send the return or declaration will be the late returning officer, and not his successor. The latter would seem to be a stranger to the election. The safest course would be to transmit the return and declaration to both, and if the late returning officer has died, then to transmit them to his successor. The penalties for any omission or failure to comply with Penalties. the requirements of the law regarding the making and transmission of a proper return and declarations are very severe. In the first place, the omission or failure is an illegal practice, which, on a petition, avoids the seat (or, if the candidate has been unsuccessful at the election, he incurs the ordinary penalties imposed for an illegal practice). In the second place, even though no petition be presented, if the return and declarations are not transmitted within the proper time, the candidate shall not (Section 33, Sub-section 5), after the expiration of that lime, sit or vote in the House of Commons for the constituency until (a) the returns and declaration have been transmitted, or (b) until the allowance by the court of an " authorised excuse " for the failure to transmit them. If the candidate do so sit or vote, he is to forfeit the sum of £100 for every day he so sits or votes, to any person who cares to sue for it. The action might be maintained by a common informer. {Bradlaugh v. Clarhe, 8 App. Cas., 354.) If the candidate or the election agent should Inowingl// Wilful false Q declaration. i;5() THE LAW RELATING TO Relief on innocent mistake. Or default sub-ao-ent. of make the declaration falsely, he would commit a corrupt prac- tice. (Section 33, Sub-section 7). For such an offence the candidate could have no relief under Section 23, or otherwise, because, for a corrupt practice, other than treating or undue influence, there can be no relief under any section. In addition, the persons, whether candidate or election agent, who actually made the false declarations would be liable, on conviction, to the punishment of wilful and corrupt perjury, which may be seven years^ 2)enal servitude. The Court has power to relieve a candidate or an election agent from the consequences of an innocent mistake, either when the returns and declarations have not been transmitted as required by the Act, or when, being transmitted, they contain some error or misstatement. (Section 34 cf the Act of 1883). The way to obtain the relief, in the Act called an " authorised excuse," and the conditions on which it is granted, are treated of hereafter under the title of " Procedure," Section I. The same section (34) indicates the course to be adopted when the candidate and election agent cannot make the requisite return and declarations, owing to the default of some sub-agent. (See als<" infra.) No sub-agent is required to send any return or declaration to the returning officer. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 131 CHAPTER VIII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. Section I. — On Applications for Relief. Many candidates will probably discover, durinpj or after Applications 1 ,. ■. 1 1 • 1 -n 1 totheCom-t the election, that more or less by inadvertence; illegal to relieve practices, payments, employments, or hirings, have been fS'^™^* done, made or entered into by themselves or their agents. As soon as the discovery is made, application should be made to the High Court (or, if the election court is sitting, to that court), under the proper section of the Act of 1883, to be relieved against the consequences and penalties incurred, as well in regard to the election as to the individuals. The procedure will usually be, until new rules of court have been made, to apply ex 13 arte at chambers for How made, directions as to the notice of the intended application to be given in the constituency. After these directions have been followed, the substantive application for relief will be made upon the appointed day by summons at chambers, or by motion in court, before a judge on the rota for the trial of elec- tion petitions, or in cases in which a master has jurisdiction before a master at chambers. (Section 56 of the Act of 1883). The application, if under Section 23, mu?t be supported by evidence tliat the act or omission in question arose from Upon what inadvertence, or froui accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and not from any want of good faith. (Section 23, Sub-section {J))). The provision in tlie section as to notice would seem to imply that, upon the application, any candidate or elector may be heard. Cer- tainly, if a petition has been presented or is threatened, it would seem highly convenient to adjourn the application Parties to Li generally, or to refer it to the election court, which will hear ^^eard. all tne witnesses. Any intending petitioner should oppose the application for relief. We think he is entitled to be heard before an order largely affecting his 7ights is made. 132 THE LAW RELATING TO Applications for default concerning the return of expenses and declarations. Applications should be made without delay. Notice of the application. Evidence in support. If the illegal practice, payment, employment, or hiring amount to bribery, no relief can be given to the candidate or other applicant. By Section 33, Sub-section 6, of the Act of 1883,if a candi- date, or his election agent, fails to comply with the requirements of Section 33, as to the making and transmitting of the return and declarations concerning the election expenses, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice, and the candidate's election will be avoided ; and if the return and declarations are not made and transmitted within the time provided by the statute, the candidate returned may not sit or vote in. the House until they have been transmitted. (Section 33, Sub-section 5). As soon as any such failure or delay is discovered, the candidate affected should apply to tbe High Court to be allowed an "authorised excuse" for the failure to transmit the return and declaration, or for any error or false state- ments. (Section 34 of the Act of 1883.) The order allowing an " authorised excuse " will prevent the omission or error be'ng an illegal practice, and save the election in that respect, and protect the candidate (whether returned or not) and his agent against penalties. An election court has jurisdiction to make the order ; but if a candidate applies to an election court for this relief, he will probably have to pay the costs of the petition in any event. On the other hand, by an immediate application to the High Court, he may stall off a petition ; at all events, he will take a powerful weapon out of the hand of any petitioner, and save a great deal in the costs of litigation. Such notice of the application must be given in the con- stituency as the court may prescribe, and the application must be supported before tiie court or a judge at chambers by evidence (1) that due notice has been given; (2) of the applicant's good faith ; and, if the applicant was a candidate, (3) that the failure to transmit the return and declarations, or any of them, or any error or false statement in them, has arisen by reason of his illness, or of the absence, death, illness, or misconduct of some agent or agent's clerks, or by reason of inadvertence, or of some reasonable cause of a like CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 133 nature— pendiji),and get it acknowlegedhyall the sureties. Within the 21 days (or 14 or 28 days, as the case may be) leave the original petition and a fair copy thereof , and the recognizance, and an affidavit hy each of the sureties that he ispossensed of property above what mil satisfy his debts of the clear value of the sum for which he is bound, at the office of the master (the elec- tion petition office in the Royal Courts of Jmtice), and take the receipt of himself or his clerk for the petition ; at the same time leave a notice in ivriting of the name and address {within three miles of the General Post Office) of the petitioner'' s agent. Note that if the last day for filing a petition (or anything else required to be filed in a given time) fall on a holiday, the petition must be put into the letter box at the master's office on that day (or earlier), and an affidavit, stating when it was so delivered, must be filed on the first day after the expiration of the holidays. (Rule 4, 1875.) The respondent does not enter an appearance, hut before service of a petition or at any time within a week after service, he or his agent must leave a similar notice in writing of the name and address of his town agent. The recognizance must be acknowledged before a judge at chambers or the master in town, or a justice of the peace in the country. A London magistrate in town will not do. {Shrewsbury, 19 L.T., 499.) Within fire days after pre>iridation of fJw petition, serve a copy. CORKUPT PRACTICES AT ELFXTIOXS. 139 of it pcrxoually on tJie respondent or on //hs to/rn ar/enf if he has appointed one. If serviee eannot he effected then within sueli fire da//s apply to the judge at chambers for an order for sub- stituted service. As to the necessary affida^'it, see General links {Parliament), 1875, r. 14. A notice of the nature of the 2)rop)Osed security is to he serred in- like inaniier. Immediately after service of the petition and notice of the nature of the security given, fie with the Master an affidavit of the time and manner thereof (Rule 2, 1S75). If the petition is what may be called demurrable, the re- Demurrable spondent should move the Court, or apply by -summons at ^^ ' ^°°' chambers, that it may be taken off the file or all proceedings under it stayed. Although the petition be against two or more respondents, Security for one surety for £1,000 will suffice {Hereford 49, L.J., 686). '='*'^'- Under no circumstances can security for more than £1,000 be required. {Pease v. Norwood, L.R., 4, C.P., 235, 38 L.J., C.P. 161., 19 L.J., 648 ; Thomas v. IVylie, 19 L.T., 498.) If tbe respondent has any objection to the recognisance, Objections to ... . . „ ,, 7 . . , . , , 7 ,. . , the recogniz- votice m tenting of the object ton, stating the grounds o/ it, ance. must icitJiin five days efter service of the petition he served on the petitioner'' s agent and left at the Master'' s office. At the same time, take out a Master'' s mmmons to declare the security insufficient , and supjiort the summons hy affidavits or uitnesses. Grive the petitioner's agent notice to produce the sureties for cross-examination. If the Masters decision is adverse, within fee days appeal to the Judge at chamhers hy summons, and suppo/-t the appeal in the same icay. An appeal will lie from the judge to the Court. [Eingston.upon-IIull, 19 L.T., 648., 38 L.J., C.P. 161.) If the security be declared insufficient, the order will If successful, declai'e the amount of the insufficiency. Within five days cou™tTobe° ,// om the date of the order, not including the day of the date, made. the petitioner'' s agent must pay that amount into the Bank of England, to the account of " The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, Security Fund:' The petition Avill then be at issue. 140 THE LAW RELATING TO Formal objections. Amendment ofthepetition. Withdrawal of petition. The Master will give all parties 15 clays' notice of trial. It is provided by General Rules (Parliament), 1868, r. 60, that no proceeding under the Act shall be defeated by any for- mal objection, but it would be very unwise for any party to rely upon this provision. However, where the petition complained of the conduct of the returning officer, but no notice of the petition was given to him, nor did the petitioner name any town agent at ail, the Court refused to strike the petition off the file. {Shreivshunj, 19 L.T., 499.) In the course of the proceedings new facts may come to the knowledge of the petitioner, making it desirable to amend the petition. The Court, or a judge at chambers, may allow the amendment, where it relates to a matter discovered upon the inspection of the ballot papers, or to a corrupt payment by the respondent or with his privity after his return. [Pick- ering V. Startiu, 28 L.T., 111.) But it seems that in other cases, except as provided by Section 40 of the Act of 1883, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow new charges to be made, for that would be in effect to allow a new petition to be presented after the expiration of the proj^er time. [Maude V. Lou-/e//, L.E. 9, C.P. 165, 43 L.J., C.P. 105, 30 L.T., 168 ; Clark V. Wallond, 52 L.J., 321, 31 W.R., 551.) It is compe- tent to the Court to amend an election petition at any time by striking out allegations therein where it is satisfied that no injurious result, or a beneficial one, will follow, but the Court will not amend by striking out, after the lapse of the time limited by the Act for presenting it, that part of the prayer which claims the seat for the petitioner and the allegations applying to a scrutiny which would be de- pendent thereon, for that would affect the rights of the constituency. [Aldridge v. Eurst, 1 C.P.D., 410, 45 L J., C.P. 431, 35 L.T., 156 ; 24 W.R., 708.) In any case in which it is sought to amend, the proce- dure is by motion before a judge on the rota, or by sum- mons before such a judge or a Master at Chambers, in either case with affidavits in support. If it should become desirable to withdraw the petition, the petitioner's agent must leave a signed notice of the ajyplica- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 141 Hon for leave to ivitJulmw at the Master's office, and serve a cop)/ upon the respondent and the returning officer. The notice must state the grounds of the application. How applica- (Genernl Rules (Parliament,) 1875, r. 45.) Not less than a ^^°^';,4u^b^ week after the notice has been left with the Master, the Court made. will hear the application. The application must be supported by the affidayits of all the parties to the petition, and all their solicitors, that the withdrawal has not been brought about by any corrupt bargain (Section 41 of the Act of 1883). The Court may dispense with any affidavit. As to what the affidavits must state, see Section 41 of Copy affi- the Act of 1883, Sub-sections 2 and 3. Copies of the Jjl^'^^'^Jh ^^ affidavits must be delivered to the Director of Public Director of Prosecutions a reasonable time before the application for prosecutions. leave to withdraw is heard, and he will be heard upon the application, and the Court may receive the evidence of anybody whose evidence the Director of Public Prosecu- tions may consider material (Sub-section 5). For the penalties for any corrupt bargain to withdraw Penalties for a petition, see Sub-section 4. In addition, if the withdrawal ^^7J!?^g for be the result of any arrangement prohibited by the Act, withdrawal, the Court may direct the £1,000 security given by the petitioner to remain as security for any costs that may be incurred by any substituted petitioner, and to the extent of the sum named in the security the original petitioner will be liable to pay the costs of the substituted petitioner (Parliameitary Elections Act, 1868, s. 35). The Court repoiis to the Speaker whether the withdrawal is the result of any improper arrangement (Sub-section 7 of Section 41 of the Act of 1883). On principle, although not expressly named, an agreement to withdraw one petition in consideration of another petition not being presented, would be an illegal agreement. It would seem that the new enactment as to the with- drawal of petitions does not apply to an Election Court. If such an application be made to an Election Court, it may either adjourn in order that the High Court may be moved under Section 41, or, finding no evidence 142 THE LAW RELATING TO Notice of application essential. Withdrawal at the trial. offered, declare the respondent duly elected. [North Bxrham, 3 O'M. & H. 2.) Where there are more petitioners than one, no application to withdraw a petition can be made except with the consent of all the petitioners (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, s. 35.) The notice of intention to apply for leave to withdraw" is of statutory obligation, and essential. Therefore, where at the trial the petitioner informed the Court that he intended to withdraw the petition, it was held there must be an adjournment of the trial in order that the statutor}'^ notice of withdrawal might be given, and other persons substituted for the petitioners if they so desired. (Hartlepool, 19 L.T., 821.) In the Brecon Case (2 O'M. & H., 33), where notice was given three days before the trial, the judge, when the case was called on and no evidence was offered in support of the petition, decided that the withdrawal must be in open Court, and lately, in the Gloucester Case (3 O'M. & H., 72), no adjournment was required, the petitioner simply saying that he offered no evidence. "There might possibly be cases in which a judge would not allow a petition to be withdrawn, and would, as far as he could, use his power to prevent it. He might, for instance, exercise the power which is given him of recommending the Court not to allow the deposit to be withdrawn without considerable explanation. The task, no doubt, would be an extremely difficult one, and the mode in which a judge is to compel parties to go on with a petition which they have determined to withdraw remains to be discovered." [Per Grove, J. at North Durham, 3 O'M. & H., 2, 3.) If the respondent cannot defend his return he should give notice that he docs not intend to oppose the petition, by leaving notice thereof in writing at the Master^s office six clear days before the day appointed for trial. The notice must be signed by the respondent, E,. ^2. The practice upon the withdrawal of a part of the petition {e.g., a claim to the seat) is similar to that upon the with- drawal of a whole petition. [Aldridge v. Hurst, L.R., 1 O.P. D. 410, 45 L J., C.P., 431, 35 L.T., 156, 24 W.E., 708.) COliRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 143 A copy of every order and particular miist be filed with the Master (Eule 1, 1875). If the petition raises a question of law, and the facts are Statinspondent. Tbe latter steps into tbe shoes of tbe former. {Ttpperarij, 2 O'M. & H., 34.) In order to support a suggestion tbat the verdict of tbe Result of constituency bas been changed by bribery, tbe petitioner's ^^^^^''^• election agent was called and asked what result was shown <% by the canvass books sent in to him by his sub-agents. Tbe question bas often been allowe I witbout objection, but in tbis case it was objected to, and the objection was sustained. The evidence would clearly have been hearsay. Tbe proper course was to call in the sub-agents to verify their canvass books and then to ask tbe chief agent, as an accountant, what tbe general result was. {King's Li/nn, 1 O'M. & H., 206.) In the Westminster Case (1 O'M. & II.,95 ; 20 L.T., 238), a ' canvasser was allowed to be asked how many promises he bad received, it being argued tbat his information on tbis point was, according to its character, likely or unlikely to discourage bribery by him. Tbe question, bow a witness voted, cannot be put, for it Secrecy of tends to violate the secrecy of the ballot. On the same ground *^® ^''^^ ^^^ a witness cannot be asked, even in cross-examination, to what party be belongs. But there is some authority for saying that he may be asked to what party be holds himself out as belonging. {North Durhcuny 3 O.M. & II,, 1 ; Ilaricich, 3 O'M. & H., 63.) Tbere has already been occasion to observe that the Act of Ads done at 1883 proclaims an amnesty for past offences, and that a witness elections. may not be asked as to any corrupt practices at an election 11 162 THE LAW RELATING TO before the passing of the Act. But evidence that the respon- dent had employed an agent convicted of bribery at a previous election would seem to be undoubtedly admissible still. Evidence that the respondent had employed persons whom on a previous petition he had charged with bribery is irrelevant. ( Taunton, 2 O'M. & H., 68.) Even under the old law the court was very reluctant to connect the pending inquiry with what occurred at a previous election, and especially so where the respondent was not a candidate at that election. ( Windsor, 1 O'M.&H., 95; 19 L.T., 615 ; Westminster, 20 L.T., 238.) Corruption at But where it is suggested that bribery was committed at a municipal municipal election in order to influence the voting at the GlCCtlOIl parliamentary, evidence of the bribery at the municipal election is of course admissible. [Beverlcij, 20 L.T., 792, Blackhurn, 20 L.T., 823 ; Hastings, 21 L.T., 234.) 0, It would seem that the proper court and time to try an objection to the status of the petitioner is not the election court, but the High Court, some convenient time before the day appointed for trial of the petition, but in the Youghal Case (21 L.T., 307), the election court admitted evidence to show that the petitioner had no status rather than imperil the legality and regularity of the trial by rejecting it. Evidence of In a case of intimidation the respondent himself gave imtmidaiion. evidence that on the polling day he went to voters who were opposed to him and ofi'ered to give them his escort to protect them to the poll, they being afraid to go, although there were military and constabulary in the streets. This evidence had the contrary effect to what was intended, for the court treated it as conclusive evidence out of the respondent's own mouth to prove that there was not freedom of election in the borough. {Drogheda, 21 L.T., 402.) The Stimp An unstamped document may be given in evidence upon an ^^^" election petition without paying the penalty. {Windsor, 1 O'M. & H., 6.) Production of Documents in the possession of the other side, and parti- cular notice to produce which has been given, may be called for, and when produced will generally be evidence. If not produced, secondary evidence of them may be given. {Brad- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 103 ford, 1 O'M. & H., 30.) AYheu the bank pass book of the respondent and that of his agent were called for it was held they must first be shown to be material to the issue. {Tani- u-ofth, 1 O'M. & H., 76) ; and when the respondent's can- vass book was called for, Willes, J.., said that any particular entry in it might be asked for. {JS'orthallerton, 1 O'M. & H., 167,) A candidate is not responsible for the acts of his election Agency agents (other than the election agent appointed under the ceases with Act of 1883} done after the polling. {North Norfolk, 1 O'M. ^ ""^^ ' & H.,243 ; 21 L.T , 264; SaJford, 1 O.M. &H., 133; 19 L.T., 120.) It would be otherwise if it were previously shown that the agent's act was done with the privity of the candidate. The relation of principal and agent, unless ex- pressly continued, ends with the election ; evidence of an act of bribery committed after the election may be ad- mitted, but only for the purpose of shedding light on what took place before the election, {^oidhampton, 1 O'M. & H., 222.) On the general principle that the agency is terminated Admissions by the election, the declarations and admissions made by an ^ "^^ ^g^nt. agent after the election are not admissible in evidence against the candidate. {Harivlch, 3 O'M. & H., 61 ; Cheltenham, 3 O'M. & H., 86.) In the Dover Ceise (L O'M. & H., 210), it was ruled that a witness might be asked what directions an agent gave him during the election, but not what state- ments the agent made. But query as to this. Evidence of aa intention by the respondent to pay bribes Evidence f after the hearing of the election petition is also inadmissible, intention to because in that case a fresh petiticn might be presented. ^ ^ " {Gahraij, 1 O'M. & H., 303; Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, Section 6.) By Parliamentary Elections Act, 1368, Section 32, it is enacted : " On the trial of an election petition under this Act, the judge may, by order under his hand, compel the attendance of any person as a witness v\ho appears to him to have been concerned in the election to which may be called the petition refers, and any person refusing to obey such ^^^' *^® Coiu-t. order, shall be guilty of contempt of court. The judge may 164 THE LAW RELATING TO examine any witness so compelled to attend, or any person in court, although such witness is not called and examined by any party to the petition. After the examination of a witness as aforesaid by a judge, such witness may be cross- examined by or on behalf of the petitioner and respondent, or either of them." Under this section witnesses were called by the Court in the Salishiin/ Case (3 O'M. & H., 134), but the prevailing opinion has been the duties of the judges are judicial and not inquisitorial. {Chester, 44 L.T., 287 ; ' Stroud, 2 O'M. & H., 107.) Now by the Act of 1883, Section 43, it is provided : " On every trial of an election petition. And by leave the Director of Public Prosecutions shall, by himself or by his Prosecutor^'^*^ assistant, or by such representative as hereinafter mentioned, attend at the trial, and it shall be the duty of such director to obey any directions given to him by the Election Court with respect to the summoning and examination of any wit- ness to give evidence on such trial, and with respect to the prosecution by him of offenders, and with respect to any per- son to whom notice is given to attend with a view to report him as guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice. It shall also be the duty of such director, without any direction from the Election Court, if it appears to him that any person is able to give material evidence as to the subject of the trial to cause such person to attend the trial, and with the leave of the Court to examine such person as a witness." As the Director of Public Prosecutions will have little knowledge of the constituency, will be regarded with disfavour by the class of persons who can give evidence of corrupt practices, and will not be allowed to see the inside of counsel's briefs, it may be doubted whether this section will be found to be very efficacious or far-reachiug in its operation. Section Y. — The Awarding and Taxation of Costs. Costs in the The costs of election proceedings are in the discretion of the discretion of Court, which will disallow any costs occasioned bv " vexatious tne Court. . "^ •' conduct, unfounded allegations, or unfounded objections," by CORRUPT TRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 1G5 eitlier party, and have regard to the " discouragement of any needless expense" by throwing the same on the author of it. Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, Section 41. The general rule is that the costs follow the event, but " the Usually event " may be distributive when the seat is claimed, l^l^ *^® Thus, where the petitioner succeeded in unseating the respon- dent and then withdrew his claim to the seat, he got no costs occasioned by the latter chum. Gravescnd, 44 L.T., 64, 3 O'M. & H., 81, and in the Petersfield Case, 2 O'M. & H., 94, where the charges of corrupt practices by agents failed, the petitioner had to pay the costs of those charges, irrespective of the result of the scrutiny. The petitioner, though successful, may be left to bear his Exceptions to own costs where (1) the petitioner is a man of straw, put ^^^ere ' up by others in order to avoid liability for costs [Poole, 2 petitioner O'M. &H:. 123; 31 L.T.. 171), but not where the petition '''^^^^'^'• is a hand fide petition by the petitionei', however poor he may be {Wigan, 4 O'M. & H., 1). (2) where the particulars were exceedingly voluminous, and made many charges which failed ( TTes^^^/ry 1 O'M. & H., 50; 20"l.T., 17; Noncich, 2 O'M. & H., 42). (3) where the petitioner has himself acted illegally or improperly. [Wallingford, 1 0'M.& H., 57 ; Longford, 2 O'M. & H., 7.)' Or a successful petitioner may be ordered to bear a part of the costs. At Beicdlei/, 44 L T., 283, 3 O'M. & H., 145, he was ordered to pay the costs of unfounded charges of treating. At Boston (2) 44 L.T., 2S9, 3 O'M. & H., 150, he was ordered to pay the costs of charges which he withdrew, and no costs were allowed on either side in respect of charges not pruven. At Gravescnd, 44 L.T., 64, 3 O'M. & H., 81, where the seat was claimed, and the election was avoided, and the claim to the seat abandoned, whereupon, by a mis- take, the recriminatory charges were proceeded with, no costs of the recriminatory charges, or of the scrutiny, or of charges not proven, were allowed on either side. A successful respondent has been deprived of his costs Where altogether, when there wns reasonable and probable cause gfipceeds." for presenting the petition. Westminster, 1 O'M. & IT., 89 ; 166 THE LAW RELATING TO "Where returning officer in fault. Agreement that no costs shall be asked for. Guilty-persons and con- stituencies may be ordered to pay costs. When corruption general. 20 L.T., 228. Coventry, 1 O'M. & H., 97 ; 20 L.T., 405, or when the respondent and his agents had committed illegal acts. Bolton, 2 O'M. & H., 138; 31 L.T., 194. Where the respondent failed to prove some of his counter- charges, but was successful on the whole, the petitioner was ordered to pay two-thirds of his costs. {Bencick, 44 L.T., 289 ; 3 O'M. & H. 178.) Where the petition is caused by the errors of the returning officer, he is not, in the absence of wilful misconduct, ordered to pay costs. {EacJcney, 2 O'M. & H., 77. Wigtotcn, 2 O'M. & H., 232. Woodward v. Sarsons, L.E., 10 C.P., 738; 44 L.T., C.P., 293 ; 32 L.T., 867. Mai/o, 2 O'M. & H., 192.) Where the conduct of the returning officer is unsuccessfully impeached, the losing party will generally be ordered to pay his costs. ( Worcester, 3 O'M. & H., 186.) Effect has been given to an agreement between the parties that, whatever the result, neither, shall ask for costs. Tlie old rules relating to the incidence of costs were found to bear hardly upon innocent candidates, and the legislature has int,roduced a new rule, which will, in many cases, go far to relieve innocent parties of the burden of costs, and impose that burden on persons on whom it should in justice be placed. By Section 44 of the Act of 1883, it is enacted :— " (1.) Where upon the trial of an election petition respect- ing an election for a county or borough, it appears to the Election Court that a corrupt practice has not been proved to have been committed in reference to such election, by or with the knowledge and consent of the respondent to the petition, and that such respondent took all reasonable means to prevent corrupt practices being committed on his behalf, the Court may make one or more orders with respect to the payment either of the whole or such part of the costs of the petition as the Couit may think right, as follows : — *' {a.) If it appears to the Court that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in reference to the said election, the Court may order the whole or part of the costs to be paid by the county or borough ; and CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. ir.7 " (b.) If it appears to the Court that any person or persons When indi- is, or are proved, whether by providing money, or J^^r^dy otherwise to have been extensively engaged in engaged in , ■, ^ corruption. corrupt practices, or to nave encouraged or pro- moted extensive corrupt practices in reference to such election, the Court may, after giving such person or persons an opportunity of being heard by counsel or solicitor, and examining, and cross- examining witnesses to show cause why the order should not be made, order the whole or part of the costs to be paid by that person or those persons, or any of them, and may ofder that if the costs can- not be recovered from one or more of such persons, they shall be paid by some other of such persons, or by either of the parties to the petition, and " (2.) "Where any person appears to the Court to have been In solitary guilty of the offence of a corrupt or illegal practice, corrupt or the Court may, after giving such person an oppor- ^^^j^^'f.i tuaity of making a statement to show why the order should not be made, order the whole or any part of the costs of, or incidental to any proceed- ing before the Court in relation to the said ofiFence, or to the said person, to be paid by the said person." The order lander this section may be made only by the By what judges who try the election petition, or by the High Court, °°^ ' if the matter comes before the High Court. — Section 64 of the Act of 1883. But there is no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 44 at all, unless two events, namely, that no corrupt practice, "by or with the knowledge of the re- WTienjuris- spondent," is proved, «;?(-/ that the respondent took all reason- <^ction arises. able means to prevent corrupt pi-actices. Apparently the jurisdiction would not be destroyed if the respondent had committed or encouraged illegal practices or illegal pay- ments or the like, although in that event the Court would have little disposition to relieve an imsuccessful respondent of the liability to pay costs. The jurisdiction conferred by the section is not large. If 168 THE LAW RELATING TO Inquu-ifS precedent to order. Expenses of ■witnesses. Enactments regarding the taxation of costs. corrupt practices extensively prevailerl, the Court may throw the costs of the petition on the constituency. Having regard to the language of Sub-section 3 of Section 44, pro- bably " co^ts of the petition " will be held to include the costs of both parties. If the author of extensive corruption can be ascertained, the Court may order him to pay the costs of the petition, but only after the propriety of making the order has been tried out with all the machinery of counsel, solicitors, examina- tion and cross-examinitiou. In fact, after the petition has been heard there may be another trial to decide whether a third party is to pay the whole or any part of the costs, and as the petitioner and respondent will be deeply interested in the result of this latter trial, they must remain and see it out. In fact, being interested parties, they ought to be heard in or on it. The last case is that in which it shall appear to the Court that some stranger to the petition has been guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, in which case he may be ordered to pay, not the costs of the petition, but only the costs of any pro- ceedings before the Court in relation to those offences, e.g., of his prosecution before the Court. Such a person cannot be heard by his counsel as of right, or examine or cross-examine witnesses with a view of preventing the making of the order. He is only entitled to make a statement. It is probable that in every case in which a respondent would have been ordered to pay the costs of a successful petition, he will still be ordered to do so in the event of a stranger to the petition ordered to pay them failing to comply with the order. As between a witness whose expenses were allowed by the judge and the party who subpoenaed him, the registrar, or if he is incapacitated, the judge of the Election Court will ascer- tain and certify the amount to be paid to the witness. Gren. Eules (Pari.), 1875, r. 5. The taxation of costs is regulated by section 41 of the Pari. Elections Act, 1868, and by Section 44 Sub-section 3 of the Act of 1883. The former section enacts, " That all CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. ICO costs, charges and expenses of and incidental to the pre:-en- tation of a petition under this Act and to the proceedings consequent thereon, with the exception of such costs, charges and expenses as are by this Act otherwise provided for, shall be defrayed by the jjarties to the petition in such manner and in such proportions as the Court or judge may determine, regard being had to the disallowance of any costs, charges, or expenses which may, in the opinion of the Court or judge, have been caused by vexatious conduct, unfounded allegations, or unfounded objections on the part either of the petitioner or the respondent, and regard being had to the discouragement of any needless expense by throwing the burden of defraying the same on the parties by whom it has been caused, whether such parties are or not on the whole successful. The costs may be taxed in the prescribed manner, but according to the same principles as costs between attorney and client are taxed in a suit in the High Court of Chancery, and such costs may be recovered in the same manner as the costs of an action at law or in such other manner as may be prescribed." By Section 44 Sub- section 3 of the Act of 1883 it is enacted : — " The rules and regulations of the Supreme Court of Judicature with respect to costs to be allowed in actions, causes and matters in the High Court shall in principle and so far as practicable apply to the costs of petitions and other proceedings under the Par- liamentary Elections Act, 1868, and under this Act, and the taxing officer shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses on a higher scale than would be allowed in any action, cause, or matter in the High Court on the higher scale as between solicitor and client." It would seem that Section 44, Sub-section 3, lias not Effect of the materially altered the principle on which the costs are to be taxed. " Charges and expenses " are still to be allowed, and the taxation is still to be as between solicitor and client. The only difference is that the costs are now expressly directed to be taxed on the higher scale, allowing, however, no more than would be allowed in an action of such importance, diffi- culty, and complexity as the petition. 170 THE LAW RELATING TO Costs as between solicitor and client, What are ? Costs to be taxed liberally. When court will review taxation. What is included in the expression, " Costs as between solicitor and client ? " " Costs as between solicitor and client, payable by one party to another, will not include all costs to which the solicitor would be entitled as against his client. It is impossible to lay down with exactness any rule upon the subject, but generally it would seem that all such costs would be allowed as a solicitor would ordinarily incur in the conduct of his client's business, excluding those extraordinary costs which may have been occasioned, either by the default of the client, as by his incurring a contempt, or by his express instructions, as to employ an unusual number of counsel," Movgan and Davey on Costs, p. 4. Even as between party and party, a liberal scale of costs is to be allowed on taxation, when the action is one to which the higher scale is applicable, and, as between solicitor and client, there must be an extension of this allowance. This was the intention of the legislature. In a recent case the Court said — " It appears to us that the parties entitled to their costs under the orders were entitled to an indemnity for all costs that were reasonably incurred by them in the ordinary course of matters of this nature, but not to any extraordinary or unusual expenses incurred in consequence of over caution or over anxiety as to any particular case, or from considerations of any special importance arising from the rank, position, wealth, or character of either of the parties, or any special desire on his part to insure success. We think, also, that such extraordinary costs as an attorney would not be justified in incurring without distinct and special instructions from his client, ought not to be allowed, nor the costs of purely collateral proceedings upon which a party has failed, nor those which may have been occasioned by his default, negligence, or mistake." ITill v. Pee/, L.R., 5 C.P., 180 ; 39 L. J., C.P., 89 ; 22 L.T., 98. If the taxing master, in taxing, proceeds upon a wrong principle, the Court will review his decision, but if he has not erred in principle, and has exercised his discretion so that it is only as to the amount to be allowed, the Court is generally unwilling to interfere. Ibkl. 181. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 171 As to the number of counsel to be allowed. In coses of Numterof unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance, three counsel JJiy^^cd. may be allowed on taxation, Wenticorth v. Lloyd, L E,., 2 Eq. 607, Kirhrood v. Wvlmer, 9 Ch. Div. 239 ; 47 L.J., Ch. 880 ; 2G W.E., 812. But in petitions in which the evidence is not voluminous, and the trial is not likely to con- sume more than two or three days, it is usual to allow only two counsel. The costs of two counsel are always allowed. TiUett V. Stracey, L.R., 5 C.P. 185 ; 39 L. J., C.P. 93 ; 22 L.T., 101 : 18 W.R., 631. As to the amount of counsel's fees. In the Southampton Amount of Case(L.R., 5 C.P., 174 : 39 L.J., C.P. 89; 22 L.T., 98) ^^^^^^^'^ f^^^- the leading counsel received 200 guineas on his brief, and 50 guineas a day for refreshers, besides consultation fees. The junior received 150 guineas on his brief, and 30 guineas a day for refreshers, besides consultations. The master allowed just half of each of these fees, and disallowed the consulta- tions. Looking at the difficulty and length of the case, the Court directed the taxation to be reviewed. Fees for con- sultations from day to day are to be allowed, Tillett v. St race y, supra. In the Tamioorth Case (L.R., 5 C.P. 173 ; 39 L.J., C.P. 89 ; 22 L.T., 98) the leading counsel received 250 guineas with his brief, and 50 guineas a day for refreshers ; and the junior 100 guineas with his brief, and 25 guineas a day for refreshers. The master allowed 100 guineas and 25 guineas a day refresher, and 75 guineas and 15 guineas a day refresher respectively. The case being one of an ordi- nary description, the Court declined to send the taxation back to the master to be reconsidered. In the Penrhyn Case, re- ported with the Tanucorth Case, the master allowed each of the counsel 25 guineas extra on the brief, on account of the distance from town, and the Court declined to interfere. Cf. Tilh'ttv. Sfraccy, L.E,., 5 C.P. 185; 39 L.J., O.P., 93; 22 L.T., 101 ; 18 W.R, 631 ; Hargreaves v. Scott, 4 C.P.D. 21 ; 40 L.T., 35 ; 27 W.R., 323, a case of a municipal election. The taxing master, in exercising his discretion as to the Regard to bo number of counsel, the amount of their fees, the number of ohoumstances of each case. 172 THE LAW RELATING TO Instructions for brief and preliminary expenses. Master must examine the items. consultations, the amount of consultation fees and refreshers, and the expenses of subpcenas to witnesses, telegrams and messages, ought to have regard to the difficulty, magnitude and importance of the particular case. Trench v. Nolan (the Gahcay Case) 7 Ir.E., C.L., 445 ; 21 W.K, 640. In that case the Court held that the successful petitioner on taxation was entitled to— (1) The sums actually paid by him for copies of the shorthand writer's notes; (2) the expenses of witnesses bond fide summoned but not called (but compare TiUetty. StMcey, L.E,., 5 C.P. 185; 39 L.J., C.P. 93; 22 L.T., 101 ; 18 W.R., 6)1) ; (3) the cost of an illustrated map of the county ; (4) a retainer of 10 guineas paid to each of the two leading counsel ; (5) the fees paid to the junior counsel on the hearing of a case reserved, as well as the fees of the leading counsel; and (6) the cost of pro- ceedings to draw the fund deposited as security out of Court. As to instructions for brief and preliminary inquiries. In practice it will be found necessary, between the filing of the particulars and the delivery of the briefs, to make inquiries as to the evidence likely to be given, and generally to get up the case. In the Tamicorth Case, supra, £105 were claimed for "instructions for brief," and £90 for money paid to a solicitor to prosecute the preliminary inquiries. The master disallowed the £90, and, the items making up. the £90 not being before the Court, the Court refused to interfere. In the Penrhyn Case, supra, £105 were charged for " instruc- tions for brief/' and all the preliminary expenses in detail in addition. The master allowed £150 to include the pre- liminary expenses, and the Court would not interfere. In the Southampton Case £1,000 was charged for preliminary expenses, and the master allowed £105 ; but having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court thought £105 insuffic'eut, and sent it back to the master. The parties are entitled to have the master's judgment upon the particular items in the preliminary expenses, if they think fit, instead of their being included in the allow- ance of one sum in gross to cover the whole of what the Master may think right to be allowed {Hilly. Peel, L. E,., 5 ; CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 173 C. p., 183 ; 39 L.J., C.P„ 89 ; 22 L.T. 98). But the Master may allow a lump sum for instructions for brief, provided the items making up the lump sum have been brought before him, so as to enable him to judge whether it represents reasonable and proper charges (the BarnsUqjlc Case, 44 L..T., C.P., 200). If an excessive number of witnesses be subpa?naed, and the Numter of Master disallows "the costs of some of them, the Court will ^JJved!^ not interfere ( Tillett v. St race?/, supra) . The same course will be taken if the successful party have all his witnesses in attendance day by day, and not merely a sufficient number to occupy the Court for the day {M'Laren v. Eome, 7 Q.B. Div., 447; 50 L.J., 658). The certificate of the Registrar of the amount for witnesses is not conclusive of the amount as between petitioner and respondent. The Master must still tax the witnesses' costs {ibid.). On an application to revise the taxation, it is wise to have the briefs in court {Tillett v. Straci/, supra). As to the time at which costs should be incurred, the time appointed for the delivery of particulars is not analogous to notice of trial in an action. Before the par- ticulars are delivered the respon.dent may reasonably incur costs in preparing the defence {Hag/tes v. Meyrick, L.H. 5 C.P., 407 ; 39 L.J., C.P., 249). In that case the trial was appointed for April 1. On At what time costs to DG March 22 an order for particulars was obtained. On March incui-red. 23 and 27 briefs were delivered and witnesses subpoenaed ; on March 29 notice of withdrawal of the petition was given. The Master taxed the costs from £920 down to £fi3. He disallowed the subpoenas and fees to counsel, and substantially the costs of drawing and copying briefs and all the expenses of pre- liminary inquiries. The Court decided that he was wrong, and sent the case back to him. The costs were then re- taxed at £700, including £288 for instructions for brief, £85 for drawing and copying briefs, and 100 guineas and 75 guineas on the briefs. In point of fact, £210 and £105 were paid on the briefs. As to the scale of fees to be allowed for witnesses, see gcaio of fees Tarnlmll v. Janson, 3 C.P.D., 264 ; 47 L. J., C.P., 384 ; to witnesses. 26 W.R., 815 ; Maddey v. Chillingworth, 2 C.P.D., 273 ; 174 THE LAW RELATING TO Eecovery of costs. Payment of security fund out of court. 46 L.J., C.P., 484; 36 L.T., 514; 25 W.R., 650; and M'Laren v. Some, 7 Q.B.D., 477 ; 50 L.J., 658. In regard to the recovery of costs, it is provided by- Section 58 of the Act of 1883:— (t.) " Where any costs or other sums (not being costs of a prosecution on indictment) are, under an order of an Election Court, or otherwise under this Act, to be paid by a county or borough, the Commis- sioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall pay those costs or sums, and obtain repayment of the amount so paid in like manner as if such costs and sums were expenses of Election Commissioners paid by them, and the Election Commis- sioners Expenses Acts, 1869 and 1871, shall apply accord- ingly as if they were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applicable to the above-mentioned costs and sums. (2.) Where any costs or other sums are, under the order of an Election Court or otherwise under this Act, to be paid by any person, those costs shall be a simple contract debt due from such person to the person or persons to whom they are to be paid, and if payable to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, shall be a 'debt to Her Majesty, and in either case may be recovered accordingly." As regards the money (ii any) deposited by the petitioner in court, by way of security for costs and claims of witnesses, all claims to it will be adjudicated upon by the Court or a judge. The person claiming to be entitled to it should give notice to the other side that he is about to apply for payment out, and should so apply by judge's summons at Chambers. The application must be supported by affidavits, proving that due notice of intention to apply has been given, and that all proper claims upon the fund have been satisfied or provided for. The judge, by his order, may direct payment either to the party in whose name the money was deposited, or to any person entitled to receive it. When the order has been made, drawn up and signed, it should be taken to the Clerk of the Lord Chief Justice of England, who will endorse on the order a draft on the Bank of England for the payment , of the money. The bank will pay the amount on the presen- tation of the draft in the usual way. (Gren. Rules (Pari.), March, 1869.) CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 175 PART II. THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDEES. The Act of 1883, witli a view to the more effectual repres- sion of offences against the election laws, provides increased facilities for detecting offenders, a new machinery for their prosecution, and augmented penalties for their punishment. CHAPTER I. THEIR DETECTION AND PROSECUTION. Heretofore the most efficacious means of unearthing cor- ruption in a constituency has been found to be the appoint- ment of Election Commissioners, who visited the particular county or borough, and, armed with the largest powers, held an exhaustive inquiry on the spot. These commissioners Inquisitiorial were appointed by tbo Crown under the 15th & 16th Vict. Jo™^g°^ c. 57, and the 31st & 32nd Vict. c. 125, upon the joint sioners. address of both Houses of Parliament ; out there was this limitation upon their appointment, that they could only be appointed when an Election Court had reported that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in the constituency to which they were sent. Now, by Section 12 of the Act of 1883, Election Commis- sioners may be appointed when the report is that there is reason to believe thateither corriqjt j)'>'(K:ticcs or illegal practices Now much extensively prevailed at the election. And the Commis- ^'-'^'^^'"'^^*^"' sioners will then be bound to inquire into the prevalence of 176 THE LAW RELATING TO Witnesses may be com- pelled to criminate themselves. An amnesty for tlie past. illegal practices as well as corrupt practices, and report to the House accordingly. Having regard to the fact that the Act of 1883 creates some fifteen or sixteen new offences, which it calls illegal practices, it is obvious that there is here a considerable extension of the jurisdiction of the Com- missioners. The latter have the largest powers of examining witnesses on oath, compelling attendance and the production of books and documents ; and witnesses examined before them are not entitled to any common law right of refusing to answer questions which may tend to criminate them. They are bound to answer, though, if they answer truly, they become entitled to certificates of indemnity, which will protect them against any criminal prosecution (except for perjury), though they may still be scheduledby the Commissioners in their report as guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, as the case may be, and thereupon they come under the disabilities and incapacities to be presently men- tioned. It is the duty of Election Commissioners to report the names of all persons whom they are satisfied have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, and to state whether certificates of indemnity have been given to them. And by Section 60, the reports of all Election Courts and of Election Commissioners shall be laid before the Attorney- General, '•' with a view to his instituting and directing a prosecution against such persons as have not received certificates of in- demnity, if the evidence shall, in his opinion, be sufficient to support a prosecution." But while there i|. this great extension of the jurisdiction of Election Commissioners as to the clans of offences into which they may inquire, there is a remarkable limitation as to the ihne over which their inquiries may range. By the 15th & 16th Vict. c. 57, tlie Commissioners were directed, if they found corrupt practices at the last election, to inquire if there were any at the election before, and if they found there were, they were to investigate the election before that, and so on ; but now, by Section 49 of the Act of 1883, it is provided : " Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act 15th & 16th Vict. c. 57, or any amendment thereof in any case where after the CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 177 passing of tliis Act any Commissioners have been appointed on a joint address of both Houses of Parliament for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at any election, the said Commissioners shall not make inquiries concerning any election that shall have taken place prior to the passing of this Act, and no witness called before such CommissiDuers, or at any election petition after the passing of this Act, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any quesnon for ttie purpose of proving the com- mission of any corrupt practice at or in relation to any elec- tion prior to the passing of this Act, provided that nothing herein contained shall affect any proceedings that shall be pending at the time of such passing." The extended jurisdiction of Election Commissioners is one The Director fresh means of detecting offences. Another is the compul- prosecutions. sory attendance at the trial of every election petition of a representative of the 'Director of Public Prosecutions. He attends there with two-fold functions. The one is^ in proper His functions, cases, to prosecute offenders before the Election Court. The other is to protect the public interest and see that, as the result of an arrangement between the parties or otherwise, no evidence is suppressed or withheld which may cast further light upon the proceedings at the election under investiga- tion. But, first, it should be observed that an election petition withdrawal once presented cannot be withdrawn without the consent of ot petit Km.s the Court, nor until the Director of Public Prosecutions has been beard in opposition to its withdrawal. Very stringent conditions in regard to this matter are contained in Sec- tion 41. Section 43 defines the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions in aid of the detection of offences : '' On every trial of an election petition the Director of Public Prosecutions shall by himself or by his assistant, or by such representative as hereinafter mentioned, attend at the trial, AtteTidancc of and it shall be the duty of such director to obey any direc- [^llji'^of ^^Jery tions given to hirii by the Election Court with respect to the petition, summoning and examination of any witness to give evidence on such trial, and with respect to the prosecution by him of 22 178 THE LAW RELATING TO He has power t(. call witnesses. Private prosecutions still per- misaible. Prosecutions generally by . - in his defence Jbileclion Commi&sioners, provides — lieiore any person is before reported by Election Commissioners to have been guilty, at reported. an election, of any corrupt or illegal practice . . . the Commissioners . . . shall cause notice to be given to such person, and, if he appears in pursuance of the notice, shall give him an opportunity of being heard by himself, and of calling evidence in his defence to show why he should not be so reported." It is not said that the person charged may appear by his counsel or solicitor, nor is it stated that he may cross-examine the witnesses who implicate him ; but, when the nature of the penalties which he incurs if the report is adverse to him is considered, it is difficult to think that an accused person would be refused proper assistance, or the usual facilities for elucidating the truth. Cases are readily conceivable in which the per- son accused would be incapable of making a statement in self-defence in a crowded court. Without referring to the case of a dumb man, the accused may be a woman or an invalid. The decision of the Commissioners is not final, for by An appeal Sub-section 2 of Section 38, every person reported by Elec- S^"^^^- Hon Comtnissioners to have been guilty at an election of any corrupt or illegal practice, may appeal against such report to the next court of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, that is, to the next assizes, in and for the county or place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The section contemplates the framing of rules to regulate the procedure incident to such appeals, and no doubt a code of rules will be issued in due course. But subject to such rules the sec- tion proceeds : "■ Such appeal ^may be brought, heard, and determined in like manner as if the Court were a court of 184 THE LAW RELATING TO Quarter Sessions, and the said commissioners were a court of summary jurisdiction, and the person so reported had been convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction for an offence under this Act." Notice of the appeal, which must be in writing, is to be given to the Director of Public Prosecu- tions within a time to be directed by rules of court, and sub- ject to such rules then within three days after the appeal is brought. There is a provision that if the trial of appeals under Section 38 appears to the Lord Chancellor to be likely to interfere with the ordinary business of the assizes, he may direct that they shall be heard by the judges on the rota for the trial of election petitions, and one of such judges shall then proceed to the place in which the offences are alleged to have been committed, and hear and determine Appeal them. It is presumed that the appeals will be heard by a ao:Hinst report • i • i •>! j • ji j ^ ■• .i of Com- smgle judge without a jury, that counsel representmg the missioners. Director of Public Prosecutions will support the report, and that the appellant will appear in person, or by counsel. The appeal will be in the nature of a re-hearing, and the Court will decide whether the report of the Commissioners is to be affirmed, or varied, or disallowed. Section 2. — The Election Court. The Election Court consists of two judges of the Queen's Bench Division, selected from the rota of judges appointed every year to try election petitions. The primary object with which the Election Court sits, is to try a particular What the election petition ; but in addition to this duty, it is now ElectionCourt bom^^ to report to the Speaker (a) whether any corrupt must repoi't _ _ ^ _ ' *■ ^ •' •• to the practice or illegal practice has or has not been proved to have pea-ei. been Committed by or wit ti the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, and the nature of such cor- rupt or illegal practice ; (b) the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice ; and (c) whether corrupt or illegal practices have, or whether there is reason to believe, COKKUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 185 corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the electioa to which the petition relates (Section 11). That is one duty cast upon the Election Court, in addition to the trial of the petition. Another duty is, subject to the important limitation on this jurisdiction to be presently stated, summarilj to try all such persons as may be charged before it by the Director of Public Prosecutions with any corrupt or illegal practice committed at the election. The effect of the report of the Elecilon Court mxi&t be con- The effect of sidered, first, as it affects the candidate, and secondly, as it *^^ report. affects other persons. The incapacities imposed upon a can- didate by the report materially differ, according as he is de- clared to have committed a corrupt practice personally, or by his agent, or an illegal practice personally or by his agent. These must be carefully distinguished. (A.) If the Election Court report that any corrupt (a) When practice (other than treating or undue influence) has ^i^u^ityof^ been committed with reference to such election b// corrupt or uith the knoicledge and consext of any candidate at such election (whether the successful or the unsuc- cessful one), or that the offence of treating or undue in- fluence has been committed hy any candidate, then such can- didate, in addition to being unseated, is declared {(() incap- able of ever sitting in the House of Commons for the said county or borough ; (i'^) of sitting in the House of Commons for any constituency for the next seven years ; (c) of being- registered as an elector or voting at any election in the United Kingdom (whether a pailiamentary election or any election for any public office) during a period of seven years : [d) of holding any public or judicial ofiice for seven years ; and [e) if he happens to be a justice of the peace, or a licensed person, or belongs to any one of the professions mentioned in !Sec- tion 38, his misconduct has to be brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the cognizance of tlie Lord Chancellor, or the licensing justices, or any tribunal con- nected with his profession that takes notice of professional misconduct. (B.) On the other hand, the Election Court may (A) Wlien candidate Ay 18G THE LxVW RELATING TO his agent guilty of corrupt practice. {c) When candidate guilty of illegal practice. {(1) When candidate guilty by agent of illegal practice. Effect of report of Election Court upon other persons. Persons to be heard before reported. report that a candidate (whether the successful or unsuc- cessful one) has been guilty, by his agents, of any corrupt practice; then in addition to losing his seat, if he has been elected, he is incapable for the next seven years of sit- ting in the House of Commons for the county or borough in irhich the offence teas committed. (C.) The third possible report which the Election Court may make, is that some illegal practice has been committed hy or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate. In that case the candidate, in addition to losing his seat, if he has been elected, is {a) incapacitated from sitting in the House of Commons for the county or borough in which the offence was committed for the next seven years ; and (6) he is rendered incapable for the next five years of being registered as an elector, and voting at any election (whether a parliamentary election or an election to any public office) held for the county or borough in which the offence was committed. (D.) If, as the fourth alternative, the report is that the candidate by any agent has been guilty of an illegal practice, the seat is avoided if he fills it, and he is declared incapable of being elected for the same place during the Parliament for which the election teas held. The Election Court also reports the names of all other persons who have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices. The disabilities which such report imposes upon those persons are exactly the same as those imposed by the report of Election Commissioners, They have been set out m detail at page 181 and it is unnecessary to repeat them, here. Before an Election Court reports any person as being guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, it is bound by Section 38 to cause notice to be given to such person, and if he appears in pursuance of such notice, he shall have an oppor- tunity of being heard by himself, and of calling evidence in his defence to show why he should not be reported. We have already said, that although there is no express provi- sion that a person charged with a corrupt or illegal practice CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 187 may appear by his counsel, and exercise tlie right of cross- examining the witnesses who inculpate him, we think such assistance and facilities cannot be withheld from him. It is especially desirable that a person should have every aid he is anxious to supply himself with before the Election Court, as there is no appeal whatever from its decision. It would be a great hardship if a candidate could be subjected to so severe a penalty as exclusion for life from the repre- sentation of a particular constituency, and exclusion for seven years from the representation of ani/ constituency by a decision from which there is no appeal, without being allowed the same assistance in presenting his case, as would be accorded to him in the most trumpery civil dispute. Although the language of the 38th Section is defective on this point, we cannot but think that the rules of Court will rectify the omission The other jurisdiction which the Election Court has is in p^^p^, f fu tlie summary trial of any person charged with a corrupt or Election illegal practice. (Section 43 (4).) The Director of Public ofTenders. Prosecutions, or his representative, has apparently a discre- tion whether a person charged with corrupt or illegal practices shall be tried before the Election Court, or some other competent Court. He may, if the alleged offender is present, forthwith prosecute him before the Election Court, subject to this, that the latter cannot in most cases impose as heavy a sentence as it will be seen may be imposed on a trial upon indictment or information. If, however, the charge js preferred before the Election Court, by Section 55 "the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, apply to the prosecution of an offence summarily before an Election Court in like manner, as if it were an offence punishable only on summary convietiou, and accordingly the attendance of any person may be enforced, the case heard and determined, and any summary con- viction by such Court be carried into effect and enforced, and the costs thereof paid, and the record thereof dealt with under these Acts in like manner as if the court were a petty sessional court for the countj^ or place in 188 THE LAW DELATING TO When accused entitled to a jury. The sentence the Court may impose. The Election Court may commit for trial. which such conviction took place." The effect of this is that the procedure on the trial of an offence against the election law is assimilated to the procedure in petty sessions. The accused is present, and is entitled to call, examine, or cross-examine witnesses either by himself or his counsel or solicitor, and to address the Court by himself or by his counsel or solicitor. Where, however, the charge is that of a corrupt practice, by Section 43 (4), the Court, before proceeding to try summarily any person, shall give such person the option of being tried by a jury. It seems, therefore, that so far as charges of illegal practices or illegal hirings, employ- ments or payments are concerned, the Election Court has complete criminal jurisdiction, and the accused has no right of trial by a jury. This is the more important, as it is expressly provided by Section 55 that there shall be no appeal from any sentence passed by an Election Court. The Court has power to impose a sentence of fine or imprisonment upon any person convicted of a corrupt practice — the fine not to exceed £200, and the imprison- ment not to be for a longer terra than six months icith or without hard labour. There is no power to imprison for an illccjal practice, but a fine of £100 may be inflicted. In addition, the effect of the conviction is to impose upon the person convicted all those incapacities and disabilities which result from the report of Election Commissioners, and which have already been stated. The Election Court, as well as the High Coui-t, will have power under Section 34 (2) to impose a fine not exceeding £500 upon any election agent who makes default in complying with an order directing him to deliver a statement of the particulars required to be contained in the returns and declarations of election expenses, or otherwise to do his duty in regard to the return of expenses. But, though the Election Court has absolute jurisdiction to summarily try any person charged with an illegal practice and a qualified jurisdiction to try persons charged with corrupt practices, it is not bound to summarily determine COUUriT IMiACTICES AT KLKCTIUXS. IH'J any case brought before it. It may direct that the accused shall be prosecuted on indictment, or before a Court of summary jurisdiction, and it may commit him for trial. Accordingly (Section 43, Sub-section h), in such a case, the Court makes an order, naming the tribunal before which the accused is to be tried ; and steps must forthwith be taken to bring him before such tribunal. If the offence is an indictable one, and the accused is present before the Election Court, the latter may at once commit him into custody to await his trial, or hold him to bail. If it is only an offence punishable on summary conviction, the Court may hold him to bail, or order him to be taken before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which he is to be tried. On the other hand, if the accused is not present, the Election Court may issue a warrant for his apprehension, or a summons, in its discretion directing him to be taken, or to appear before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Section 3. — The Court of Summary Jukisdiction. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction within the meaning of the Act of 1883, is constituted of any two justices of the peace sitting in Petty Sessions, or in the Metropolitan district, or in districts to which stipendiary magistrates have been appointed, of any one such stipendiary magistrate. Its functions in regard to offences against the election faws are Powers of a twofold, viz., to commit accused persons to take their trial ^°"^'^ ^* , . . . . bummiry where the offence is an indictable one, or, when it is an offence Jmisdiction. punishable on summary conviction, to deal with it. With regard to indictable offences, where the Election Court has issued its warrant or summons directing the accused to be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction, the procee.lings before the latter are purely formal. " That court {i.e., Court of Summary Jurisdiction), if the offence is an indictable To commit ofi'ence, shall, on proof only of the summons or warrant and the identity of the accused, commit him to take his trial, or 190 THE LAW RELATING TO cause him to give bail to appear and take bis trial " (Section 43, Sub-section 6, c). In other cases, where an indictable offence is charged against any person, and he is brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in order that he may be committed for tibial, it is presumed that the procedure will be exactly the same as in the common case of a charge made of an indictable oflPence before justices in petty sessions, with a view to the commitment of the prisoner. A summons or warrant will be issued by the justices in the first instance, the depositions of witnesses will be taken and signed, the prisoner by himself, his counsel or solicitor, will have the usual facilities for cross-examining, calling evidence, and addressing the court, and if the justices are of opinion that there is a jjrimd facie case, they will commit him for trial, either remanding him in custody or admitting him to bail. The Act of 1883, however, contemplates that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction will itself deal with and finally dispose of a considerable number of the ofiences enacted under it. Before we mention the classes of offences which Time witbin this Court has jurisdiction over, it should be observed that all which pro- charges under any of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts ceedings ^ -^ .... must be taken, must be made within a certain limit of time. If that time is allowed to go by and no prosecution instituted, it is too late after that to prefer a charge ; and this rule applies as much to any proceeding on indictment as to a summary proceeding before the Election Court or Justices. The limitation of time is given in the 51st Section, which pro- vides that " A proceeding against a person in respect of the offence of a corrupt or illegal practice, or any other off'ence under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, or this Act t^hall be commenced within one year after the ofience was committed, or if it was committed in reference to an election with respect to which an inquiry is held by election com- missioners it shall be commenced within one year after the offence was committed, or uithin three months offer the report of such commissioners is made, whichever last happens, so that it shall be commenced icithin two years after the offence was committed.''^ The issue of a summons, warrant, writ, or CORRUPT PRACTrOES AT ELECTIONS. 191 other process, shall be deemed to be the commeacement of a proceeding within the meaning of the above section, where service or execution of the same on or against the alleged offender is prevented by his absconding or concealing him- self, or by any other act on his part, and in other cases the service of the writ, &c., is the commencement of the proceed- ings. The offences with which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction Offences with which Court may deal, are : — of Summary I. All llleqal practices, whether committed bv the candi- •Tunsdiction , " . niay deal. date, his election agent, or any other person. There is no (i.) illegal power of imprisonment upon conviction of any illegal practice, ^^^° ^^^^' but a fine not exceeding £100 can be imposed, and there results from the fact of conviction, or from the fact of being reported by an election court or election commissioners, an incapacity to be registered as an elector or voting for the next five years in the county or borough in which the offence was committed (Section 10). II. All illegal payments, hiriugs, and employments. (2) Illegal These offences, it has already been explained, became illegal practices when committed by the candidate or his election cigent, and they must be dealt with by the court accordingly ; but committed by other persons they are something less than illegal practices and subject those guilty of them to a somewhat less punishment. There is no power of imprison- ment ; but a fine of £100 may be imposed. No incapacity, however, results from conviction of an illegal payment, hiring, or employment. III. By Section 18, it is provided that every bill, placard, (3.) Publisli- or poster, issued in reference to the election shall bear .^vi'thout' ' upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer riij^^er's and publisher thereof. If a candidate, or his election agent, is guilty of a breach of this enactment he commits an illegal practice. Any other person infringing it is not guilty of an illegal practice, nor does the otfencewhich he commits receive any particular denomination, but he " shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100." In order to get rid as much as possible of technical name. 192 THE LAW RELATING TO Rules as to procedure. Appeal to Quarter bessious. objections to the form of the charge, and to the necessary evidence of the holding of the election at which the offence was committed, it is provided by Section 53 (3) that it shall be sufficient to allege that the person charged was guilty of an illegal practice, payment, em- ployment or hiring, as the case may be ; and the certifi- cate of the returning officer at an election that the election mentioned in the certificate was duly held, and that the person named in the certificate was a candidate at such election, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated. The accused, or the husband or wife of such person, may give evidence in the case (Section 53 (2) ). And there is a provision that if, upon hearing the evidence, the Court is satisfied that, though an illegal practice merely is charged, in fact a corrupt practice has been committed, the accused may still be convicted of the former ; and so where an illegal payment, hiring or employment is charged, and a corrupt or illegal practice is proved, there may still be a conviction for the former. The defendant has no right to a trial by jury, nor indeed does the Court of Summary Jurisdiction have any power to commit him for trial when an ofience punishable on sum- mary conviction is charged ; but if he is convicted, by the 2ad Sub-section of the 54th Section, a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions is given to him : " h person aggrieved by a conviction bv a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for an ofience under this Act may appeal to Quarter Sessions against such conviction." Where the summary conviction has been made in a city or borough which has an independent Quarter Sessions, the appeal will go there and be heard by the recorder; when it is made anysvhere else it will be to the Ciiunty Quarter Sessions. It is presumed that the procedure as to the time within which the appeal must be brought, and the notices to be given and so forth, will be the same as in the case of an ordinary appeal to sessions from a summary conviction. The appeal will be in the nature of a re-hearing, and the Quarter Sessions will have power to quash the conviction or affirm or CORRUPT PJ^ACTICES AT ELECTIOXS. 193 vary it. There is no appeal beyond the Quarter Sessions, but the latter has power, when any difficult question of law arises, to state a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Di%asion. Section 4. — The Court of Assize. All offences punishable by indictment will be tried at the Whoro next Assize for the county in which they were committed, o'^g^^Vgg tj.ie(i. unless the Election Court deals with them, or any of them, summarily, under the provisions of Section 42, or unless, in the case of misdemeanours, the Attorney -General files an information in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. The Quarter Sessions has no jurisdiction at all in regard to indictable offences. There is, however, the amplest power of changing the venue and removing the Venue may trial either to the Central Criminal Court, or, when a special ^® changed. jury is ordered, into the Queen's Bench Division. (Section 50.) No indictment, however, can be transferred from the Assizes without the order of the High Court, which, how- ever, may be issued when the Attorney-General, on the part of the Crown, suggests that it is expedient, for the purpose of justice, that the indictment should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, or where, owing to some special complication, either of law or fact, the Court is of opinion that a special jury should try the case. The limitation with regard to the time within which proceedings must be taken, the provisions as to the form of the charge, the proof of the holding of the election, and the right of a defendant or his wife or her husband to give evidence, apply to a trial on indictment or on information as much as to trial before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and it is also provided that if, on an indictnient for a corrupt practice, it is proved that an illegal practice only was com- mitted, the defendant shall be acquitted of the former, but may be convicted of the latter (Section 52). All corrupt practices within the meaning of the Act of All corrupt 1883, are indictable offences; but the punishments which fniuctable. 13 1!)4 THE LAW RELATING TO False declaration . Personation. Bribery, treating and undue influence. Corrupt wiUidrawal of petitions. the Court has power to inflict vary with the particular offence. I. Any candidate or his election agent who makes a false declaration as to the election expenses is by Section 33 de- clared guilty of a corrupt practice, and, upon indictment, is liable to the same penalty as if he were convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury. The maximum penalty for per- jury is seven years' penal serritude. Therefore, the Court has power to sentence a candidate or his election agent, who makes a false declaration, to such a term of penal servitude. II. " A person who commits the offence of personation or of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of that offence, shall be guilty of felony, and any person convicted thereof, on indictment, shall be punished by im- prisonment for a term not exceeding two years, together xvUh hard labour''^ (Section 6, Sub-section 2). The Court has no power to impose a fine for this offence. Upon con- viction the punishment is imprisonment, and such im- prisonment must be accompanied by hard labour. III. " A person who commits any corrupt practice other than personation, or aiding, abetting, counselling or pro- curing the commission of the offence of personation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction, on indict- ment, shall be liable to be imprisoned, icith or icithout hard labour, for a term not exceeding one year, or to be fined any sum not exceeding £200 " (Section 6, Sub-section 1). The corrupt practices which come under this sub section are bribery, treating and undue influence. It will be observed, that the penalty, which is severe enough, is ap- preciably less stringent than in the case of the other cor- rupt practices, viz., personation and a false declaration. There is a power to impose a fine instead of imprisonment, and where imprisonment is inflicted it is in the discretion of the Court to say whether it shall be with hard labour or not. lY. By Section 41 (4) of the Act of 1883, if any person makes any agreement or terms, or enters into any under- CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. 195 taking in relation to the withdrawal of an election petition, and such agreement, terras or undertaking is, or are, for the withdrawal of an election petition in consideration of any payment, or in consideration that the seat shall at any time be vacated, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other election petition, he sliall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprison- ment for a term not exceeding 12 months and to a fine not exceeding £200. It need hardly be added, that in addition to suffering a term of imprisonment or a fine, any person convicted of a corrupt practice at once comes under all the incapacities and disabilities, which at page 181 have been set out, and it may be repeated here, that though a person who has obtained a certificate of indemnity may not be proceeded against criminalh' in any court in respect of any corrupt or illegal practice, he is still liable to all the disabilities mentioned. There is no appeal against a conviction upon indictment. isTo appeal If the innocence of a person convicted should afterwards be 1^'°^ convic- i tion on. made manifest, the Crown may pardon the offence and indictment. remit any part of the punishment still to be endured, but the validity of the conviction cannot be impeached. With resp9ct, however, to the incapacities which are nominally no part of the punishment of the offence, but result from the fact of the conviction, in certain circumstances a person may apply to the High Court to have them removed. Section 46 of the Act of 1883 is as follows: — "Where a person Procedure for has either before or after the commencement of this Act incapacities. become subject to any incapacity under the Corrupt Prac- tices Prevention Acts or this Act, by reason of a conviction- or of a report of any election court or election commis- sioners, and any witness who gave evidence against such incapacitated person upon the proceeding tor such convic- tion or report is convicted of perjury in respect of that evi- dence, . the incapacitated person may apply to the High Court, and the Court, if satisfied that the conviction or report, so far as respects such person, was based upon per- jury, may order that such incapacity shall thenceforth 19G THE LAW RELATING TO Ex-officio information. cease umd the same shall cease accordingly." This section contemplates an independent application to the High Court by any person under incapacity who desires to be relieved from it. A condition precedent to such appli- cation is the conviction for perjury of the person who gave evidence against him in respect of the evidence he so gavcj and the Court, if satisfied that the conviction of the applicant or the report against him was based upon sucb perjured testimony, " may order that such incapacity shall thenceforth cease and the same shall cease accordingly." It has been mentioned that instead of a proceeding by indictment the Attorney-General may file an information against any person accused of an indictable misdemeanour against tlie election laws, and then the trial may be had either in London or the information may be sent down to the assizes for trial. In all material regards the proce- dure on the trial of an information is the same as on the trial of an indictment. (For the law and practice with re- ference to ex-officio informations see Archbohfs Criminal Evidence and Pleadings, 19th ed. p. 116.) Section 5, — Civil Suit for Penalties. Pecuniary penalties. 40s. for giving cockades. Under the old Acts directed against electoral corruption a common mode of punishing ofienders was by exposing them to actions for penalties at the instance of any person who chose to bring them. In practice it has been found that this was a weak deterrent, and in consequence, most of the enact- ments which gave suits for penalties have been repealed and more stringent punishments substituted. In a few cases, however, the liability to pecuniary penalties is still pre- served. 1. By the 7th Section of the Act of 1854 it is provided " No candidate before, during, or after any election shall in regard to svich election, by himself or his agent, directly or indirectly, give or provide to or for any person having a vote at sucb election, or to or for any inhabitant of the county, CORRUPT PHACTK.'ES AT ELECTIONS. 197 city, boroagli, or place for which such election is held, any cockade, ribbon, or other mark of distinction ; and every person so giving or providing shall for every such oifence forfeit the sum of two pounds to such person as shall sue for the same togdhcr ivith fall cosh of suit!' It will be remem- bered that by Section 16, Sub-section 1 of the Act of 1883, ixny payment ov contnid for pay)nent made on account of, among other things, " banners, cockades, ribbons or other marks of distinction," is declared an illegal payment, imperiling the seat when committed by a candidate or his election agent. Section 7 of the Act of 1854 strikes at the mere (jidiuj of cockades to voters or inhabitants of the constituency in ques- tion, and though the seat is not affected by any violation of this enactment, any candidate or agent of a candidate who gives a bit of ribbon or a cockade exposes himself to an action in the High Court to recover the penalty of two pounds given by the statute. 2. Another case in which a person may be sued for an £iOOaday infringing of the election laws is under Section 33, Sub- commons' section 5 of the Act of 1883, which provides that if the ^sfore . ^ expenses return and declaration of election expenses tor a county or returned. borough required by the Act are not transmitted within the time limited for that purpose, the candidate shall not sit or vote in the House of Commons as member for such county or borough " until either such return and declaration have been transmitted, or until the date of the allowance of such an authorised excuse for the failure to transmit the same, as in this Act mentioned, and if he sits or votes in contravention of this enactment /i^ schedule, and all other enactments inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed — Provided that this repeal shall not affect — (a.) Anything duly done or suffered under any enactment hereby repealed ; or (i.) Any right or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment hereby repealed ; or (c.) Any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment liereby repealed ; or ((Z.) Any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid ; and any such investigation, legal proceeding, and remedy may be carried on as if this Act had not passed. SCHEDULES. FIRST SCHEDULE. PAET I. Rules for Parliamentary Elections. Elections. 1. The returning officer shall, in the case of a county election, within two days after the day on which he receives the writ, and in the case of a borough election, on the day on which he receives the writ or the fol- lowing day, give public notice, between the hours of nine in the morn- ing and four in the afternoon, of the day on which and the place at which he will proceed to an election, and of the time appointed for the election, and of the day on which the poll will be takeii in case the election is contested, and of the time and place at which forms of nomination papers may be obtained, and in the case of a county election shall send one of such notices by post, under cover, to the postmaster of the principal post-office of each polling place in the county, endorsed with the words "Notice of election," and the same sliall be forwarded free of charge ; and the postmaster receiving the same shall forthwith publish the same in the manner in which post-office notices are usually published. 2. The day of election shall be fixed by the returning officer as fol- lows ; that is to say, in the case of an election for a county or a district 224 APPENDIX. borough not later than the nintli day after the day on which he receives the writ, with an interval of not less than tliree clear days between the day on which he gives the notice and the day of election ; and in the case of an election for any borough other than a district borough not later than the fourth day after the day on which he receives the writ, with an interval of not less than two clear days between the day on which he gives the notice and the day of election. 3. The place of election shall be a convenient room situate in the triwn in which such election would have been held if this Act had not passed, or where the election would not have been held in a town, then situate in such town in tlie county as the returning officer may from time to time determine as being in his opinion most convenient for the electors. 4. The time appointed for the election shall be such two hours between the hours of ten in the forenoon and three in the afternoon its may be appointed by the returning officer, and the returning officer shall attend during those two hours and for one hour after. 5. Each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper, but the same electors or any of them may subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more. 6. Each candidate shall be described in the nomination paper in such manner as in the opinion of the returning officer is calculated to suffi- ciently identify such candidate ; the description shall include his names, his abode, and liis rank, profession, or calling, and his surname shall come first in the list of his names. No objection to a nomination paper on the ground of the description of the candidate therein being insuffi- cient, or not being in compliance with this rule, shall be allowed or deemed valid, unless such objection is made by the returning officer, or b}- some other person, at or inmiediately after the time of the delivery of the nomination paper. 7. The returning officer shall supply a form of nomination paper to any registered elector requiring the same during such two hours as the returning officer may fix, between the hours of ten in the morning, and two in the afternoon on each day intervening between the day on which notice of the election was given and the day of election, and during the time appointed for the election ; but nothing in tliis Act shall render obligatory the use of a nomination paper supplied by- the returning officer, so, however, that the paper be in the form prescribed by this Act. 8. The nomination papers shall be delivered to the returning officer, at the place of election during the time appointed for the election ; and the candidate nominated by each nomination paper, and his proposer and seconder, and one other person selected by the candidate, and no person other than aforesaid, shall, except for the purpose of assisting the re- turning officer, be entitled to attend the proceedings during the time appointed for the election. 9. If the election is contested, the returning officer shall, as soon as practicable after adjourning the election, give public notice of the day on which the poll will be taken, and of the candidates described as in their respective nomination papers, and of the names of the persons who subscrilie the nomination paper of each candidate, and of the order in which the names of the candidates will be printed in the ballot paper, and, in the case of an election for a county, deliver to the postmaster of the principal post-office of the town in which is situate the place of election a paper, signed by himself, containing the names of the candi- dates nominated, and stating the day on which the poll is to be taken. APl'HXDIX. 225 and tlie postmaster sliall i'onvard tlic iiifoniuitlon contained in sncli paper by telegraph, free of cliarge, to the several postal telegiapli offices situate in the connty for which the election is to be held, and such in- formation shall l)e published fortlnv'^th at each such ollicc in the manner in which post-oltice notices are usually published. 10. If any candidate nominated during the time appointed for the election is withdrawn in pursuance of this Act, the returning officer shall give public notice of the name of such candidate, and the names of the persons w-ho suliscribed the nomination paper ofs uch candidate, as well as of the candidates who stood nominated or were elected. 1 1 . The returning officer sliall,.on the nomination paper being delivered to him, forthwith publish notice of the name of the person nominated as a candidate, and of the names of his proposer and seconder, by placarding or causing to be placarded the names of the candidate and his proposer and seconder in a conspicuous position outside the building in which the room is situate appointed for the election. 12. A person shall not be entitled to have his name inserted in any ballot paper as a candidate unless he has been nominated in manner provided by this Act, and every person whose nomination paper has been dehveredto the returning officer during the time appointed for the elec- tion shall be deemed to have been nominated in manner provided by this Act, unless objection be made to his nomination paper by the retmning officer or some other person before the expiration of the time appointed for the election or within one hour afterwards. 13. The returning officer shall decide on the validity of every objection made to a nomination paper, and his decision, if disallowing the objection, shall be final ; but if allowing the same, shall be subject to reversal on petition questioning the election or return. The Poll. 14. Tlie poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being in the case of an election for a county or a district borough less than two or more than six clear daj's, and not being in the case of an election for a borough other than a district borough more than three clear days after the day fixed for the election. 15. At every polling place the returning officer shall provide a sufficient number of polling stations for the accommodation of the electors entitled to vote at such polling place, and shall distribute the polling stations amongst those electors in such a manner as he thinks most convenient, provided that in a district borough there shall be at least one polling station at each contributory place of such borough. 16. Each polling station shall be furnished with such numi^er of com- partments, in which the voters can mark their votes screened from ob- servation, as the returning officer thinks necessary, so that at least one compartment be provided for every one hundroil antl fifty electors en- titled to vote at such polling station. ' 17. A separate room or separate booth may contain a separate polling station, or several polling stations may be constructed in the same room or booth. 18. No person shall be admitted to vote at any polling station e>cept the one allotted to him. 19. The returning officer shall give public notice of the situation of polling stations and the description of voters entitled to vote at each station, and of the mode in which electors are to vote. 15 226 APPENDIX. 20. The returning officer shall provide each polling station with materials for voters to mark the ballot papers, with instruments for stamping thereon the official mark, and with copies of the register of voters, or such part thereof as contains the names of the voters allotted to vote at such station. He shall keep the official mark secret, and an interval of not less than seven years shall intervene between the use of the same official mark at elections for the same county or borough. 21. The returning officer shall appoint a presiding officer to preside at each station, and the officer so appointed shall keep order at his station, shall regulate the number of electors to be admitted at a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the clerks, the agents of the candidates, and the constables on duty. 22. Every ballot paper shall contain a list of the candidates described as in their respective nomination papers, and arranged alphabetically in the order of their surnames, and (if there are two or more candidates with the same surname) of their other names : it shall be in the form set forth in the second schedule to this Act or as near thereto as circumstances admit, and shall be capable of being folded up. 23. Every ballot box shall be so constructed that the ballot papers can be introduced therein, but cannot be withdrawn therefrom, without the box being unlocked. The presiding officer at any polling station, just before the commencement of the poll, shall show the ballot box empty to such persons, if any, as may be present in such station, so that they may see that it is empty, and shall then lock it up, and place his seal upon it in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking such seal, and shall place it in his view for the receipt of ballot papers, and keep it so locked and sealed. 24. Immediately before a ballot paper is delivered to an elector, it shall be marked on both sides with the official mark, either stamped or perforated, and the number, name and description of the elector as stated in the copy of the register shall be called out, and the number .of such elector shall be marked on the counterfoil, and a mark shall be placed in the register against the number of the elector, to denote that he has re- ceived a ballot paper, but without showing the particular ballot paper which he has received. 25. The elector, on receiving the ballot paper, shall forthwith proceed into one of the compartments in the polling station, and there mark his paper, and fold it up so as to conceal his vote, and shall then put his ballot paper, so folded up, into the ballot box ; he shall vote without undue delay, and shall quit the polling station as soon as he has put his ballot paper into the ballot box. 26. The presiding officer, on the application of any voter who is in- capacitated by blindness or other physical cause from voting in manner prescribed by this Act, or (if the poll be taken on Saturday) of any voter who declares that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in the 'manner prescribed in this Act, or of any voter who makes such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read, shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates, cause the vote of such voter to be marked on a ballot paper in manner directed by such voter, and the ballot paper to be placed in the ballot box, and the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called " the list of votes marked by the presiding officer." The said declaration, in this Act referred to as " the declaration of APPENDIX. '221 inability to read," sliall be made l)y ttie voter at the time of polliiiiz', before tiie presiding officer, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee, stamp, or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration, and the said declaration shall be given to the presid- ing officer at the time of voting. 27. If a person, representing himself to be a particidar elector named on the register, applies for a ballot pajier after another person has voted as snch elector, the applicant shall, upon duly answering the questions and taking the oath permitted by law to be asked of and to be administered to voters at the time of polling, be entitled to mark a ballot paper in the same manner as any other voter, but the ballot paper (in this Act called a tendered ballot paper) shall be of a colour differing from the other ballot papers, and, instead of being put into the ballot box, shall be given to the presiding officer and endorsed by him with the name of the voter and his number in the register of voters, and set aside in a separate packet, and shall not be counted by the returning officer. And the name of the voter and his number on the register shall be entered on a list, in this Act called the tendered votes list. 28. A voter who has inadvertently dealt with his ballot paper in such manner that it cannot be conveniently used as a ballot paper, may, on delivering to the presiding officer the ballot paper so inadvertently dealt with, and proving the fact of the inadvertence to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, obtain another ballot paper in the place of the ballot paper so delivered up (in this Act called a spoilt ballot paper), and the spoilt ballot paper shall be immediately cancelled. 29. The presiding officer of each station, as soon as practicable after the close of the poll, shall, in the presence of the agents of the can- didates, make up into separate packets sealed with his own seal and the seals of such agents of the candidates as desired to affix their seals — 1. Each ballot box in use at his station, unopened but with the key attached ; and 2. The unused and spoilt ballot papers, placed together ; and 3. The tendered ballot papers ; and 4. The marked copies of the register of voters, and the counterfoils of the ballot papers ; and 5. The tendered votes list, and the list of votes marked by the pre- siding officer, and a statement of the number of the voters whose votes are so marked by the presiding officer under the heads " physical incapacit.y," " Jews'," and " unable to read," and the declarations of inability to read ; and shall deliver such packets to the returning officer. 30. The packets shall be accompanied by a statement made by such presiding officer, showing the mnnber of ballot papers entrusted to him, and accounting for them under the heads of ballot papers in the ballot box, unused, spoilt, and tendered ballot papers, which statement is iu this Act referred to as the ballot paper account. Counting Votes. 31. The candidates may respectively appoint agents to attend the counting of the votes. 32. The returning officer shall make arrangements for counting the votes in the presence of the agents of the candidates as soon as practic- able after the close of the poll, and shall give to the agents of the -2-lS APPENDIX. candidates appointed to attend at tlie counting of the votes ntitice in writing of the time and phice at which he will begin to count tlie same. 33. The returning officer, his assistants and clerks, and the agents of the candidates, and no other person, except with the sanction of the returning officer, may be present at the countine: of the votes. 34. Before the returning officer proceeds to count the votes, he shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates, open each ballot box, and, taking out the papers therein, shall count and record the numbers thereof, and then mix together the whole of the ballot papens contained in the ballot boxes. The returning officer, while counting and record- ing the number of ballot papers and counting the votes, shall keep the ballot papers with their faces upwards, and take all proper precautions for preventing any person from seeing the numbers printed on the backs of such papers. 35. The returning officer shall, so far as practicable, proceed continu- ously with counting the votes, allowing only time for refreshment, and excluding (except so far as he and the agents otherwise agree) the hours between seven o'clock at night and nine o'clock on the succeeding morning. During the excluded time the returning officer sliall place the ballot papers and other documents relating to the election under his own seal and the seals of such of the agents of the candidates as desire to affix their seals, and shall otherwise take proper precautions for the security of such piapers and documents. 36. The returning officer shall endorse "rejected " on any ballot paper which he may reject as invalid, and shall add to the endorsement "rejec- tion objected to," if an objection be in fact made by any agent 'to his decision. The returning officer shall report to the clerk of the crown in chancery the number of ballot papers rejected and not counted by him under the several heads of — 1. Want of official mark ; 2. Voting for more candidates than entitled to ; 3. Writing or mark by which voter could be identified ; 4. Unmarked, or void for uncertainty ; and shall on request allow any agent of the candidates, before such report is sent, to copy it. 37. Upon the completion of the counting, the returning officer shall seal up in separate packets the counted and rejected ballot papers. He shall not open the sealed packet of tendered ballot papers or marked copy of the register of voters and counterfoils, but shall proceed, in the presence of the agents of the candidates, to verify the ballot paper account given by each presiding officer by comparing it with the number of ballot papers recorded by him as aforesaid, and the unused and spoilt ballot papers in his possession, and the tendered votes list, and shall reseal each sealed packet after examination. The returning officer shall report to the clerk of the crown in chancery the result of such verification, and shall, on request, allow any agent of the candidates, before such report is f ent, to copy it. 38. Lastly, the returning officer shall forward to the clerk of the crown m chancery (in manner in which the poll books are by any existing enactment required to be forwarded to such clerk, or as near thereto as circumstances admit) all the packets of ballot papers in his possession, together with the said reports, the ballot paper accounts, tendered votes lists, lists of votes marked by the presiding officer, statements relating thereto, declarations of inability to read, and packets of counterfoils, and marked copies of registers, sent by each presiding officer, endorsing on each packet a description of its contents and the date of the election to APPENDIX. 229 which tliey relate, and the name of the county or borous-h for which such election was held ; and the term poll hook in any such enactments shall be construed to include any document forwarded in pursuance of this rule. 39. The clerk of the crown shall retain for a year all documents relating- to an election forwarded to him in pursuance of this Act by a returning officer, and then, unless otherwise directed by an order of the House of Commons, or of one of Her Majesty's superior courts, shall cause them to be destroyed. 40. No person shall lie allowed to inspect any rejected ballot pajjerg in the custody of the clerk of the ci'own in chancery, except under the order of the House of Commons or under the order of one of Her Majesty's superior courts, to be granted by such court on being satisfied by evidence on oath that the inspection or production of such ballot papers is required for the purpose of instituting or maintaining a prosecution for an offence in relation to ballot papers, or for the purpose of a petition questioning an election or return ; and any such order for the inspection or production of ballot impers may be made subject to such conditions as to persons, time, place, and mode of inspection or production as the House or Court making the same may think expedient, and shall be obeyed by the clerk of the crown in chancery. Any power given to a court by this rule may be exercised by any judge of such court at chambers. 41. No person shall, except by order of the House of Commons or any tribunal having cognizance of petitions complaining of undue returns or undue elections, open tlie sealed packet of counterfoUs after the same has been once sealed up, or be allowed to inspect any counted ballot papers in the custody of the clerk of the crown in chancery ; such order may be made subject to such conditions as to persons, time, place, and mode of opening or inspection as the house or tribunal making the order may think expedient ; provided that on making and carrying into effect any such order, care shall be taken tiiat the mode in which any par- ticular elector has voted shall not be discovered until he has been proved to have voted, and his vote has been declared by a competent court to be invalid. 42. All documents forwarded by a returning officer in pursuance of this Act to the clerk of the crown in chancery, other than ballot papers and counterfoils, shall be open to public inspection at such time and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the clerk (jf the ci'own in chancery, with the consent of the Speaker of the House of Conunons, and the clerk of the crown shall supply copies of or extracts from the said documents to any ])erson demanding the same on payment of such fees and subject to such regulations as may be sanctioned by the Treasury. 43. Where an order is made for the production by the clerk of the crown in chancery of any document in his possession relating to any specified election, the production by such clerk or his agent of the document ordered, in such nuxnner as may be directed by such order, or by a rule of court having power to make such order, shall be con- clusive evidence that such document relates to the specified election ; and any endorsement appearing on any packet of ballot papers produced by such clerk of the crown or his agent shall be evidences of such papers being what they are stated to be by the endorsement. The production from proper custody of a ballot paper purporting to have been used at any election, and of a counterfoil marked with the same printed mnnl)er and having a number marked thereon in writing, shall he prima facte evidence that the person who voted by such ballot paper Mas' the iierson who 230 APPENDIX. at the time of such election had affixed to his name in the register of voters at such election the same number as the number written on such counterfoil. General Provisions. 44. The return of a mcTnber or members elected to serve in Parliament for any county or borough shall be made by a certificate of the names of such member or members under the hand of the returning officer endorsed on the writ of election for such county or borough, and such certificate shall have effect and ' be dealt with in like manner as the return under the existing law, and the returning officer may, if he think fit, deliver the writ with such certificate endorsed to the postmaster of the principal post-office of the place of election, or his deputv, and in that case he shall take a receipt from the postmaster or his deputy for the same ; and such postmaster or his deputy, shall then forward the same by the first post, free of charge, under cover to the clerk of the crown, with the words "Election Writ and Return" endorsed thereon. 45. The returning officer shall, as soon as possible, give public notice of the names of the candidates elected, and, in case of a contested elec- tion, of the total number of votes given for each candidate, whether elected or not. 46. Where the returning officer is required or authorised by this Act to give any public notice, he shall carry such requirement into effect by advertisements, placards, handbills, or such other means as he thinks best calculated to afford information to the electors. 47. The retiu'ning officer may, if he think fit, preside at any polling station, and the provisions of this Act relating to a presiding officer shall apply to such returning officer with the necessary modifications as to things to be done by the returning officer to the presiding officer, or the presiding officer to the returning officer. 48. In the case of a contested election for any county or borough the returning officer may, in addition to any clerks, appoint competent persons to assist him in counting the votes. 49. No person sliall be appointed by a returning officer for the purposes of an election who has been employed by any other person in or about the election. 50. The presiding officer may do, by the clerks appointed to assist him, any act which he is required or authorised to do by this Act at a polling station, except ordering the arrest, exclusion, or ejection from the polling station of any person. 51. A candidate may himself undertake the duties which any agent of his if appointed might have undertaken, or may assist his agent in the performance of such duties, and may be present at any place at which his agent may, in pursuance of this Act, attend. 52. The name and address of every agent of a candidate appointed to attend the counting of the votes shall be transmitted to the return- ing officer one clear day at the least before the opening of the poll ; and the returning officer may refuse to admit to the place where the votes are counted any agent whose name and address has not been so transmitted, notwithstanding thit his appointment may be otherwise valid and any notice required to be given to an agent by the returning officer may be delivered at or sent by post to such address. 53. If any person appointed an agent by a candidate for the purposes of attending at the polling station or at the counting of the votes dies, or becomes incapable of acting during the time of the election, the APPENDIX. 231 candidate may appoint another agent in his phice, and shall forthwith give to the returning officer notice in writing of the name and address of the agent so appointed. 54. Every returning officer, and every officer, clerk or agent autho- rised to attend at the polling station or at the counting of the votes, shall, before the opening of the poll, make a statutory declaration of secrecy, in the presence, if he is the returning officer, of a justice of the peace, and if he is any other officer or an agent, of a justice of the peace or of the returning officer ; but no such returning officer, officer, clerk or agent as aforesaid shall, save as aforesaid, be required as such to make any declaration or take any oath on the occasion of any elec- tion. 55. Where in this Act any expressions are used requiring or autho- rising or inferring that any act or thing is to be done in the presence of the agents of the candidates, such expressions shall be deemed to refer to the presence of such agents of the candidates as may be authorised to attend, and as have in fact attended, at the time and place where such act or thing is being done, and the non-attendance of any agents or agent at such time and place shall not, if such act or thing be otherwise duly done, in anywise invalidate the act or thing done. 56. In reckoning time for the purposes of this Act, Sunday, Christ- mas Day, Good Friday, and any day set apart for a public fast or public thanksgiving, shall be excluded ; and where anything is required by this Act to be done on any day which falls on the above-mentioned days, such thing may be done on the next day, unless it is one of the days excluded as above-mentioned. 57. In this Act— The expression " district borough " means the borough of Monmouth and any of the boroughs specified in Schedule E. to the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter 45, intituled " An Act to Amend the Kepresentation of the People in England and Wales ; " and — The expression " polling place " means in the case of a borough, such borough or any part thereof in which a separate booth is re- quired or authorised by law to be required ; and The expression " agents of the candidates," used in relation to a polling station, means agents appointed in pursuance of Sec- tion 85 of the Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 18. 232 APPENDIX. "GENERAL RULES (PARLIAMENTARY) M.T., 1868." The presentation of an election petition shall be made by leaving it at the office of the master nominated by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and such master or his clerk shall (if required) give a receipt, which may be in the following form : — Received on the day of at the master's office a petition touching the election of A.B., a member for purporting to be signed by [insert the names of 2}etitioners]. CD., Master's Clerk. With the petition shall also be left a copy thereof for the master to send to the returning officer pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. II. An election petition shall contain the following statements :— 1. It shall state the right of the petitioner to petition within Section 5 of the Act. 2. It shall state the holding and result of the election, and shall briefly state the facts and grounds relied on to sustain the prayer. III. The petition shall be divided into paragraphs, each of which, as nearly as may be, shall be confined to a distinct portion of the subject, and every paragraph sliall be numbered consecutively, and no costs shall be allowed of drawing or copying any petition not substantially in com- pliance with this rule, unless otherwise ordered by the court or a judge. IV. The petition shall conclude with a prayer, as, for instance that some specified person should be declared duly returned or elected, or that the election should be declared void, or that a return may be enforced (as the case may be), and shall be signed by all the petitioners. The following form, or one to the like effect, shall be sufficient : — In the Common Pleas. " The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868." Election for \_state the place] holden on the day of a.d. The petition of A. of [or of A. of and B. of as the case may he] whose names are subscribed. L.Your petitioner A. is a person who voted [or had a right to vote as the case may be] at the above election [or claims to have had a right to be returned at the above election, or was a candidate at the above election] ; and your petitioner B. [here state in like manner the right of each petitioner.] APPENDIX. 233 2. And your petitioners slate that the election was holden on tlie day of A.n. when A.B., CD. and E.F. were candi- dates, and the returning oflticer has returned A.B. and CD. as being duly elected. 3. And your petitioners say that [here state the facta and grounds on which the petitioners rel/j..] Wherefore your petitioners pray that it may be detennined that the said A. B. was not duly elected or returney whom ruleti of court for procefhire anci piactice in the Supreme Court of Judicature can for the time being be made. 57. (1.) The Director of Pulilic Prosecutions, in performing any duty under this Act, shall act in accordance with the regulations under the'Prosecution of Ott'ences Act, 187'J, and subject thereto in accordance with the directions (if any) given to him by the Attornev-tTeneral ; and any assistant or representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in performing any duty under this Act, shall act in accordance with the said regulations and directions, if any, and with the cUrections given to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2.) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the costs of any prose- cution on indictment for an offence punishable under this Act, whether by the Director of Public Prosecutions or his representative, or by any other person, shall, so far as they are not paid by the defendant, be paid in like manner as costs in the case of a prosecution for felony are paid. Director of public prosecu- tions and ex- penses of prose- cutions, 42 & 43 Vict. c. 22, c. 21. 34. & 35 Vict. C. 61. 58. (1.) Where any costs or other sums (not being costs of a Recovery of prosecution on indictment) are, under an order of an election court, or ^^^^ payable otherwise under this Act, to. be paid by a county or borough, the borough 'or by Commissioners of Her ^Majesty's Treasury shall pay those costs or sums, person, and obtain repayment of tlie amount so paid, in like manner as if such gg & 33 vict. costs and sums were expenses of Election Commissioners paid by them, and the Election Commissioners' Expenses Acts, 1869 and 1871, shall apply accordingly as if they w"ere herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the above-mentioned costs and sums. (2.) Where any costs or other sums are, under the order of an election court or otherwise under this Act, to be paid by any person, those costs shall be a simple contract debt due from such person to the person or per- sons to whom they are to be paid, and if payable to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall be a debt to Her Majesty, and in either case may be recovered accordingly. Supplemental Provisions, Definitions, Savings, and Repeals. 59. (1.) A person who is called as. a witness respecting an election Oblis'ation of before any election court shall not be excused from answering any ques- ^g^''// ^^(j tion relating to any oifence at or connected with such election, on the certificate of ground that the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate him- indemnity, self or on the ground of privilege ; Provided that — (a.) a witness who answers truly all questions which he is required by the election court to answer shall be entitled to receive a certifi- cate of indemnity under the hand of a member of the court stating that such witness has so answered : and (6.) an answer by a person to a question put by or before any election court shall not, except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury in receipt of such evidence, be in any proceeding, civil or criminal, admissible in evidence against him : (2.) Where a person has received such a certificate of indemnity in relation to an election, and any legal proceeding is at anv time instituted . 18 274 APPENDIX. against him fur any offence under tlie CtJiTupt Practices Prevention Acts or this Act committed by him previously to the date of the certificate at or in relation to the said election, the court having cognisance of the case shall on proof of the certificate stay the proceeding, and may in their discretion award to the said person such costs as he may have been put to in the proceeding. (3.) Nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve a person re- ceiving a certificate of indemnity from any incapacity under this Act or from any proceeding to enforce such incapacity (other than a criminal prosecution). (4.) This section shall apply in the case of a witness before any elec- tion commissioners, in like manner as if the expression " election court " in this section included election commissioners. (5.) Where a solicitor or person lawfully acting as agent for any party to an election petition respecting any election for a county or borough has not taken any part or been concerned in such election, the election commissioners inquiring into such election shall not be entitled to examine such solicitor or agent respecting matters which came to his knowledge by reason only of his being concerned as solicitor or agent for a party to such petition. Submission of vcport of elec- tion court or conimis sioner s to Attorney- General. 60. An election court or election commissioners, when reporting that certain persons have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, shall report whether those persons have or not been furnished with certificates of indemnity ; and such report shall belaid before the Attorney-General (accompanied in the case of the commissioners with the evidence on which such report is based), with a view to his instituting or directing a prosecution against such persons as have not received certificates of indemnity, if the evidence should, in his opinion, be sufficient to support a prosecution. Brf ach of dvxty bv officer. 35 .I- 3B Vict, c. 33. 6 Vict. c. 18. 61. (1.) Section 11 of the Ballot Act, 1872, shall apply to a returning officer or presiding officer or clerk who is guilty of any wilful misfeasance or wilful act or omission in contravention of this Act in like manner as if the same were in contravention of the Ballot Act, 1872. (2.) Section 97 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall apply to every registration officer who is guilty of any wilful mis- feasance or wilful act of commission or omission contrary to this Act in like manner as if the same were contrary to the Parliamentary Registra- tion Act, 1843. Public tion service of notices. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33. 62. (1.) Any public notice required to be given by the returning officer under this Act shall be given in the manner in which he is directed by the Ballot Act, 1872, to give a public notice. (2.) Where any summons, notice, or document is required to be served on any person with reference to any proceeding respecting an election for a county or borough, whether for the purpose of causing him to appear before the High Court or any election court, or election commis- sioners, or otherwise, or for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of making a statement, or showing cause, or being heard by himself, before any court or commissioners, for any purpose of this Act, such summons, notice, or document may be served either by delivering the same to such person, or by leaving the same at, or sending the same by post by a registered letter to, his last known place of abode in the said APPENDIX. ^l-t county or borough, or if the proceeding is before any court or cdnunis- sioners, in such other manner as the court or couiniissioners may direct, and in proving such service by post it shall be suflicient to prove that the letter was prepaid, properly addressed, and registered with the post- office. (3.) In the form of notice of a Parliamentary election set forth in the second schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, the words " or any illegal practice," shall be inserted after the Avords "or other coiTU[)t prac- tices," and the words the " Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883," shall be inserted after the words " Corrupt Practices Pre- I'ention Act, 1854." 63. (1.) In the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, as amended by Definition of this Act, the expression " candidate at an election," and the expression savin' £ me"] J 28(3 APPENDIX. Received of J.K. .......£ \_Here set out the name and description of every person^ club, society, or association, whether the can- didate or not, from ii-hom any money, securities, or equivalent of money icas received in respect of expenses incurred on account of or in connexion vnth or incidental to the above election, and the amount received f-om each person, club, society, or association separately.] Expenditure. Paid to E.F., the returning officer for tlie said "j county [or Isorough], for his charges at the said >£ election . . . . . . . . . j Personal expenses of tlie said CD., paid by himself \ ' [or if the candidate is his ovm election agent, >£ " Paid by me as candidate "] j Do. do. paid by me \or S if the candidate is his own election agent, add > £ " acting as election agent "] J Received by me for my services as election agent at S the said election [or if the candidate is his own eke- I £ Hon agent, leave out this item] ] Paid to G.H. as sub-agent of the polling district of . £ [The name and description of each sub-agent and the sum piaid to him must be set out separately. ~\ Paid to as polling agent . . . S> Paid to as clerk for days services . £ Paid to as messenger for days services £ [The names and descriptions of every polling agent, clerk, and messenger, and the sum paid to each, must be set out separately either in the account or in a separate list annexed to and referred to in the account, thus, " Paid to polling agent {or as the case may be) as per annexed list £ ."] Paid to the following persons in respect of goods supplied or work and labour done : To P.Q. (printing) £ To M.N. (advertising) £ To R.S. (stationery) £ [The ncune and description of each person, and the nature of the goods supplied, or the work and labour done by each, must be set out separately either in the account or in a separate list annexed to and referred to in the account.] Paid for postage £ Paid for telegrams .......£ Paid for the hire of rooms as follows : — For holding public meetings .... £ For committee-rooms £ [A room hired for a public meeting or for a committee- room must be named or described so as to identify it ; and the name and description of every person to whom APPENDIX. 287 any payment was made for eac/i stirh room, together vith the amount paid, must be set out se2)arately either in the account or in a separate list annexed to and referred to in the accountl\ Paid for miscellaneous matters, namely — . [The name and description of each person to vjhom, any sum is paid, and the reason for which it teas paid to him, must he set out separately either in the account or in a separate list annexed to a>id referred to in the accoimt.l In addition to the above, I am aware, as election agent for CD., [or if the candidate is his ov:n election agent, leai'e out " as election agent for CD."] of the following disputed and unpaid claims ; namely — Disputed claims. By T.U. for [Here set out the name and description of each person v:hose claim is disputed, the amount of the claim, and the goods, work, or other matter on the ground of which the claim is based.] Unpaid claims allowed by the High Court to be paid after the proper time or in respect of which application has been or is about to be made to the High Court. By M.O. for [Here state the name and description of each person to whom any such claim is due, and the amount of the claim, and the goods, work, and labour or other ^natter on account of which the claim is due.] (Signed) A.B. Part II. Form of Declaration as to Expenses. Form for candidate where declared a candidate or nominated in his absence and taking no part in the election. I, , having been nominated [or having been declared by others] in my absence [to be] a candidate at the election for the county or borough of held on the day of , do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I have taken no part whatever in the said election. And I further solemnly and sincerely declare that [or with the exception of ] I have not, and no person, club, society, or association af my expense has, made any payment or given, pro- mised, or offered, any reward, office, employment, or valuable considera- tion, or incurred any liability on account of or in respect of the conduct or managenient of the said election. 288 APPENDIX. And I further solemnly and sincerely declare tlitit [or with the exception of ] I have not paid any money or given any security or equivalent for money to the person acting as my election agent at the said election, or "to any other person, club, society, or association on account of or in respect of the conduct or manage- ment of the said election, and that [or with the exception of ] I am entirely ignorant of any money security or equivalent for money having been paid, advanced, given, or deposited by any one for the purpose of defraying any expenses in- curred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election. And I further solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not, except so far as I may be permitted by law, at any future time make or be party to the making or giving of any payment, reward, office, employ- ment, or valuable consideration for the purpose of defraying any such expenses as last mentioned, or provide or be party to the providing of any money, security, or equivalent of money for the purpose of defray- ing any such expenses. Signature of declarant CD. Signed and declared by the above-named declarant on the day of. , before me, (Signed) E.F. Justice of the Peace for THIRD SCHEDULE. Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts. Session and Chapter. Title of Act. Enactments referred to as being the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. Part I. Tetnjjorari/. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 . The Corrupt Practices Pre- vention Act, 1854. The whole Act so as unrepealed. far 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29 . An Act to amend and con- tinue the law relating to corrupt practices at elec- tions of Members of Par- liament. The whole Act so as unrepealed. far 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125. The' Parliamentary Elec- tions Act, 1868. The whole Act so as unrepealed. far 35 & 36 Vict. c 33 . The Ballot Act, 1872. Part III. so far unrepealed. as 42 & 43 Vict. c. 75 . The Parliamentary Elec- tions and Corrupt Prac- tices Act, 1879. The whole Act so as uurepealed. far APPENDIX. 280 Session and Chapter. Title of Act. Enactments referred to as beins the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 31 & 32 Vict. 0. 49 44 & 45 Vict. c. 40 PART TWO. Permanent. The Representation of the People Act, 1S67. The Represeatation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868. The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868. The Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881. Sections eleven, forty- nine, and fifty. Sections eight and forty-nine. Sestions eight and thirteen. Suh-section seventc n of section two. PART THREE. Enactments defining the offences of Bribery and Personation. [The full text of all tliese enactments is given in the body of the work. See pp. 3, 4, 5]. FOURTH SCHEDULES. Short Titles. Session and Chapter. Long Title. Short Title. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57 . An Act to provide for more • Election Commis- effectual inquiry into the sioners Act, 1852. existence of corrupt prac- tices at the election of Members to serve in Par-' liameut. 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29 . An Act to amend and con- The Corrupt Practices tinue the law relating to Prevention Act, corrupt practices at elec- 1863. tions of Members of Par- liament. 19 290 APPENDIX. FIFTH SCHEDULE. Enactments Repealed. Note. — Portions of Acts which have ah*eady been specifically repealed are in some instances inchided in the repeal in this Schedule in order to preclude henceforth the necessity of looking back to previous Acts. A description or citation of a portion of an Act is inclusive of the words, section, or other part first or last mentioned, or otherwise referred to as forming the beginning or as forming the end of the portion com- prised in the description or citation. Session and Chapter. Title or Short Title. Extent of Repeal. 60 Geo. 3. & 1 Geo. 4 c. 11. An Act for the better regula- tion of polls, and for making fvu'ther provision touching the election of IMembers to serve in Par- liament for Ireiand. Section thirty-six. 1 & 2 Geo. 4. c. 58. . An Act to regulate the ex- penses of election of Mem- bers to serve in Parliament for Ireland. The whole A ct except section three. 4 Geo. 4. c. 55. An Act to consolidate and amend the several Acts now in force so far as the same relate to the election and return of Members to serve in Par- liament for the counties of cities and counties of towns in Ireland. Section eighty-two. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 . The Corrupt Practices Pre- vention Act, 1854. Section one. Section two, from " and any person so offending " to " with full costs of suit." Section three, from ' ' and any person so " offending" to the end of the section. Section four. Section five. Section six. APPENDIX. 291 Session and Chapter. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87.. 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. Title or Short Title. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 48 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125 The Corrupt Practices Pre- vention Act, 1854. An Act to continue and amend the Corrupt Prac- tices Prevention Act, 1854. An Act to amend and 'con- tinue the law relating to corrupt practices at elections of Members of Parliament. The Representation of the People Act, 1867, The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1S68. The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868. The Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1868. The Parliamentary Elec- tions Act, 1868. Extent of Repeal. Section seven, from " and all pay- ments" to the end of the section. Section nine, section fourteen, section twenty-three, sec- tion thii'ty-six, sec- tion thirty -eight, from " and the words personal ex- penses ' ' to the end of the section, and section thirty-nine and Schedule A. The whole Act. The whole Act, ex- cept section six. Section thirty-four, from ' ' and in other boroughs the jus- tices " to " greater part thereof is situate " and sec- tion thirty -six. Section twenty -five. Section twelve. Section eighteen, from " the power of dividing their county " to the end of the section. - So much of section three as relates to the definitions of "candidate." Section sixteen. 292 APPENDIX. Session and Chapter. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125 36 & 36 Vict. c. 33. 42 & 43 Vict. c. 75. 43 Vict. c. 18. Title or Short Title. Tlie Parliamentary Elec- tions Act, 1868. The Ballot Act, 1872. The Parliamentary Elec- tions and Corrupt Prac- tices Act, 1879. The Parliamentary Elec- tions and Corrupt Prac- tices Act, 1880. Extent of Repeal. Section thirty-three. Section thirtj^-six. Section forty-one, from "hut accord- ing to the same principles " to " the High Court of Chancery." Section forty-three. Section forty -five. Section forty-six. Section forty-seven. Section fifty-eight, from " The prin- ciples" down to "in the court of session," being sub- section sixteen. Section five, from the beginning down to " one hundred re- gistered electors." Section twenty-four, from ' ' The oflence of personation, or of aiding," to " hard -labour," and from " The oflence of personation shall be deemed to be" to the end of the section. Section three and schedule. The whole Act, ex- cept sections one and three. INDEX. Address, contracts for exhibition of, when illegal practice, 58. Ad^t:btising Agent, may be paid for bill posting, &c., 58. Agreement by one candidate to pay expenses of another, not generally bribery, 33. Agency, A question of fact, 72. In case oi joint candidature, 83. Agents, Of candidate, 66 et seq. * Candidate liable for acts of, 66, 68. Sub-agents, extent of their authority, 67. Number of unpaid, not limited, 68. Authority to canvass, effect of, 68. Limitations of their authority, 69, 70. Disobedient, candidate liable for, 69. Implied, how constituted, 71. Need not be paid, 71. Canvassingdoesnotconstitute agency, 7'2. Nor being on a large committee, 72, 73. Suificient evidence of being, what is, 73. May act by sub-agents, 75. Members of political associations, how far, 76, 82. Effect of repudiation by candidate, 79. Candidate using political association, makes its officers, 80. Responsibility of candidates for, when treacherous, 84. When their agency begins, 85. And ends, 85. Excessive number of paid, 92.* Number allowed, if paid, in counties, 92. Number allowed, if paid, in boroughs, 93. Agents convicted of coiTuption, emploj'ment of, avoids election, 100. Aliens, if they should vote, 97. Amendment of petition, 140. Appointment of election agent, 107 et seq. Associations, Political, 76, 82. Political, repudiation of, 79, 80. Political, when candidate responsible for, 81. Ballot, Test, bribery at, 21. Advertising, to be a sham, 55. Bands and banners, payments for, illegal 91. Barrister's court money, payment of, when bribery, 16. Barristers, special punishment of, 181. Bets on election, 34. Bill Posting, contracts for, when illegal practice, 58 et seq. Boroughs, close, sale of, 33. " Bottling " voters, 50. Bribery, By agent, avoids election, 2. Statutory definition of, 2, 3, 4. Need not be dkect, 7. Time when done, how far material, 8, 9. Effect of, when done after election, 9. Amount given in, immaterial, 10. Form of, immaterial, 10. Committed, although vote not affected, 10. By colourable payments, 12-19. At municipal election may avoid parlia- mentary election, 19,20. At test ballot, 21. At former election, 21. By proper household expenditure, 23. By charitable gifts, 25-32. By purchasing influence, 32, 33. By wages, 34. No relief from consequences of, 46, 47. Cabs, excessive luring of, when bribery, 14. Candidate's Expenses, agreement by auothev candidate to pay, 33, 34. Candidate, Bribery by, 2 et seq. Illegal practices by, 87 et seq. Illegal payments by, 87^. Personal expenses of, 114,122. Election expenses of, 113 et seq. Subscriptions to pay expenses of, 121. To make declaration of purity, 128. Declai-ation by, when abroad, 128. False declaration by, 129. Canvassers, colourable payments to, bribery, 11. Canva'ssing, illegitimate, 49. Charities, subscriptions to, 2.'i. 294 INDEX. Charitable Gifts, 25-32. Children, payments to, may be bribery, 7. Clerical Organisation, wben candidate re- sponsible for, 82. Clergymen, intimidation by, 53, 54. Special pimisbment of , 181. Clerks, to be appointed by election agent, 112. Colourable ^jayments to, bribery, 11. Close Boroughs, sale of, 33. Clubs, wben use of, as committee-rooms, prohibited, 91. Coals, gifts of, to eleetoi's, 29. Cockades, payments for, illegal, 91. Colourable Payments, bribery, 11. Committee, election, agency of, 76. Committee Room, what is, 62. Committee Rooms, Employment of, when bribeiy, 14. Excessive number of, contracts for, 58. Number allowed, 61, 62, 94. Commons, House of, resolution by, not law, 50. Conveyance of Voters, Contracts for payment for, an illegal practice, 58. By sea, 91. To poll, when bribery, 15, 16. To poll; old law as to, 59. Corruptly," meaning of, 37. Corrupt Practices, Defined, 2. How punished, 175 et seq. Costs, On election petitions, 16.4 et seq. Usually follow the event, 165. Exceptions to the rule where petition succeeds, 165, 166. Exceptions to the rule where petition fails, 165, 166. When returning officer in fault, 166. Agreement not to ask for, 166. Where constituency may be ordered to pay, 160. Where persons (not parties to petition) ordered to pay, 167, 168. Expenses of witnesses, 168. Taxation of, 168 et seq. To be taxed on a Uberal scale, 170, Counsel's fees, 171, 172. Instructions for hiring, 172. Number of witnesses allowed, 173. When to be incmTed, 173. How recovered, 174. Payment out of security fund, 174. Counties, conveyance of voters bv sea, wlien legal, 91. " Court, Attendance of director of public prose- cutions at election court, 177, 179. By what courts oiienders tried and punished, 180 et seq. Election commissioners and their powers, 181. Effect of then- report, 181, 182. Appeal from election commissioner, to which, 183. Report of election court, 184. Effect of report of election court, 185, 187. Power of election, to try offenders, 187. Sentences by election, 188. Trial by court of summary jurisdiction, 189, 193. Time for prosecuting before any, 190. Appeal from summary jurisdiction, 192. Prosecutions before assize, 193, et seq. Venue may be changed, 193. Actions in civil, for penalties, 196. Criminal Law, offences against. See Punish- ments. Declaration of Election, Expenses by election agent, 128. By candidate, 128. Dentists, special punishment of, 181. Discovery, 143. Disputed Claim, Action for, 125. May be taxed, 126. Dissenters, intimidation by, 53. Dissenting Ministers, Intimidation by, 54. Intimidation of, 53. Doctors, special punishment of, 181. Documents, produc'ion of, 162. Drunkenness, general, evidence of general treating, 104. Ecclesiastics, Limits of then- influence, 53. Undue influence by, 54. May select candidate, 53. j^ And canvass for him, 53. Election Committee, agency of, 76. Election Expenses, payment of, except through election agent, an illegal practice, 63, 113. Election Agent, Illegal practices by, avoiding election, 87. His appointment and duties, 107 et seq. Who should be appointed, 108. Should be a sohcitor, 107. When to be appointed, 108. When to be named, 108. INDEX. 29i Election Agent, And to whom to be named, 109. Notice of appointment of, 109. May be changed, 109. Offices of, 111. Service of documents on, 112. Eemimeration of, 123. To pay election expenses, 121. To make return of election expenses, ^ 127. To make declaration, 128. Election Expenses, ' Should be estimated in advance, 114. What need not be estimated or returned, 114. What kinds are allowable, 115. Maximum amount allowed, 116. Scale of, in boroughs and counties, 117, 118. Certiiin boroughs considered as counties, 118, 119. In case of joint candidature restricted, 119. Relief in case of limit being exceeded, 120. To be paid by election agent, 121. Claims for, to be sent to election agent, 122. When to be sent in, 122. Late claims foi-, barred, 123. 'N^Ticn to be paid, 124. Leave to j)ay out of time, how obtained, 124 et seq. Return of, 127. Declaration verifying return of, 128. Election Petition. See Petition. Election Auditors, 108. Election, avoided at common law, when, 103. Employees, intimidation by, 52. Employment of Voters, When bribing, 11-14. Of corrupt agent, avoids election, 100. When " personal," 100, 101. Estimate of Election Expenses, 114. Evidence, Cogent, of mere offer required, 7, Of agency, what is sufficient, 73-83. Expenditure, Lavish household, not necessarily bri- bery, 24. Expenses, Election, through whom to be paid, 63. As to petty expenses, 68. Of election, see Election Expenses. Expense Agent, 108. Evidence on Election Petitions, Rules of eopimon law generally apply, 157. Exceptions, 157, 158. Witnesses ordered out of court, 158. Improper i-ejection or admission of, 158. Discrediting witness, 159. Cross-examining hostile witness, 159. Evidence on Election Petitions, Use of witness's previous statements, 156, 160. Admissions by witness, 160. Court may require proof of agency first, 161. Political opinions of witness, 161. Of acts done at previous elections,'161. Of acts done at municipal elections, 162. Admissions by agent after poU, 163. Production of documents, 162. False Declaration, Avoids election, 57. A corrupt practice, 57. Flys, Payments for, illegal, 91. Forfeiture of the Seat, How caused, 1. Fraudulent devices to impede voting, 55. Freemen's Admission Fees, Payment of, when bribery, 21. General, Corruption, 103. Bribery, 103. Treating, 104. Intimidation, 105. Intimidation, effect of on poll, 105. Gifts, To non-electors, may be bribery, 6, 7. To children, may be bribery, 7. To women, may be bribery, 8. Hackney Carriages, when illegal to hire, 89. Hasty Words, not undue influence, 55. Hieing, illegal, what is, 59, 60. Hiring, illegal, by candidate or bis election agent, 88. House of Commons, tresolution of, not law, 50. Household Expenditure, lavish, not neces- sarily bribery, 24. Illegal Practices, Avoiding the seat if done by any agent, 58 et seq. Avoiding the seat if done by election agent, 87. Avoiding the seat if done by any agent, 95. Illegitimate Canvassing, 49, 50. Implied Promise to Treat, 44. Inferior Agents, &c., to be paid by election agent. Influence, Purchase of, may be bribery, 32, 33. Undue. See Undue Influence, 48 et seq. 206 INDEX. Inspection of Ballot Papers, &c., 143, 151. Interrogatories, not allowed, 143. Intimidation. See Undue Influence, AS et seq. Joint Candidature, Agency in case of, 83. Expenses restricted in case of, 119. What is, 119. Severance of, 120. Relief against excessive expenditure in, 120. Joint Cost, conveyance to the poll at, 89. Justice of Peace, special punishment of, 181. Landlords, Undue influence by, 50. May select their tenants, 51. Legitimate Influence, 49. Lending Carriages, for conveyance of voters, when illegal, 59, 90. Liability Of candidate for agents, 66 et seq. Of candidate for political associations, 76-82. Licensed Premises may not he used as com- mittee rooms, 94 Livery Stable Keeper, payments to for carriages, &c., 59, 60. Master, what jurisdiction vested in, 134. Messengers, Colourable payments to, bribery, 11, 12. To be appointed by election agent, 112. Money Provided foe Election, to be paid to election agent, 113. Motive op Donor, test of bribery, 6, 32. Municipal Elections, Effect of bribery at, 19, 20. Effect of treating at, 89. Non-Electors, Gifts to, may be bribery, 6, 7, 27. Treating, may be corrupt treating, 27, 39. Non-Residents, may vote, when, 97. Objections to Return, particulars of, 145. Offences. See Punishments. Offenders, Their detection and punishment, 175, et seq. By what courts punished, 180 et seq. Offer, Corrupt, may be bribery, 6, 7. Corrupt, cogent evidence of, required, 7. Office, offer of an, bribery, 23. Operative, threats, to avoid an election, must be, 51. Orange Lodge, subscriptions to, 25. Paid Agents, excessive number of, 92. Pairing, 55. Particulars, delivery of, 143 et seq. Payments, what, illegal practices, 58 et seq. Payments, illegal, 95 et seq. Paupers, may vote, when, 97. Peers may not vote, 97. Penalties, suits for, 196 et seq. Personation, Defined, 56. Innocent, 56. Offence of, when complete, 57. Personal Expenses of Candidate, What are, 115. To be returned, 122. Petition, Who may petition, 134 et seq. When to be presented, 135, 136. How abated, 135 Practice on filing, 138. Service of, 138, Security for costs of, 139. Objections to the security, 139. Payment into court, how made, on, 139. Amendment of, 140. Formal objections to, 140. Withdrawal of, 140-142. Corrupt bargain to withdraw, 141 . Practice on withdrawal of, 141. Withdrawing, opposition to, 142. Discovery and interrogatories in aid of, 143. Inspection of ballot papers, 143, 150. Particulars, delivery of, 143-146. Objections, particulars of, 145. Production of telegraiiiS, 145. Commission to examine witness on, 145. Witnesses on, 145-147. Offering rewards for evidence, 146. Trial of, 146, 147. Relief on hearing of, 148. Taxation of witnesses' expenses, 149. Petty expenses by volunteers, 121. Placards, Excessive payments for, when bribery, 14. Contracts for, when illegal practice, 58. Political Clubs, premises of, may be used as committee-rooms, 94. Political Societies, treating, 45. Polling agents, to be appointed by election agent, 112. Posters, issued without printer's name, 98. IXDKX 297 Popularity, treating to ottiiin, ett'ect of, 39. Payments, illegal, 87. Practices, illegal, by canilidate or election agent, 87. PRoFnsioN before elections, 23, 24. Prohibited Payments, 116. Promise to treat, given before election, 44. Public-houses, Opening, 41, 42. Opening, ettect of, on elections, 103. Public Meetings, expenses of, 115. Practice. See Election Petition, Beliefs Scrutiny and Criminal Law. Procedure. See Election Petition, Scrutimj, Relief and Criminal Law. Prosecutions, Director of public, his func- tions, 177 et seq. Private, 178. Punishments, By what courts awarded, 180 et seq. Effect of report of commissioners. 180, 182. Of barristers reported, 181. Of solicitors reported, 181. Of doctors, dentists and clergymen re- ported, 182. Before report, party to be heard, 183. Appeal upon report, 183, 184. By election court, 184, 187. Of candidate guilty of corrupt practice, 185. Of candidate guilty by his agent, 186. Effect of report of election court upon other persons, 187. Committal for trial by election court, 188. By a court of summary jurisdiction, 189. By the court of assize, 193. Rabbits, leave to take, when bribery, 22. Railway Fare, payment of, when bribery, 15. Rates, corrupt payment of, bribery, 5, 18. Refreshments to paid agents, 40, 41. Register, how far conclusive of right to vote, 97. Registration Court, payments for attend- ing, when briber}', 17 . Relief, Against consequences of treating or un- due influence, 46, 47, 56. None after bribery, 47. Against consequences of illegal practices, 63, 64, 98, 99. Relief by the Court, Against effect of excessive expenditure, 121. Procedure to obtain, 131 etseq. Applications for, 131. Relief by the Court, Parties to be heai-d on, 131. On default concerning return of election expenses, 132. On default concerning de 'hiration, 132. Should be sought without delay, 132. How obtained when sub-agent in default, 133. In case of excessive expenditure, 134. On hearmg of petition, 148. Repudiation of Agents, 74, 78. Resolution of House of Commons, not law, 50. Retirement of Casdid.ate, when illegal practices, 91. Returning Officer's Charges, 114, 123, 127. Revising Barrister's Court, Payment for attendance at, 16 Treating for attendance at, 40. Rewards foe Evidence, 146. Ribbons, payment for, 91. Rioting, general, effect of, 105,106. Rooms. See Committee Booms, 58. Scale of Expenditure on election allowed, 116, 118. Schoolroom, when use of, as committeo rooms, allowed, 94. Scrutiny, where votes come off on a, 97. Solicitors, special punishment of, 181. Seat, the, how forfeited, 1. Security for costs of petition, 139 et seq. Service of Notices and documents, 112. Service of Petition, 138. Sea, conveyance of voters by, when legal, 91. Special Case, 143. Sub-agents, How and when appointed, 110. Revocation of theu- appointment, 111. Candidate's Liability for, 110. Offices of. 111. Service of notices on. 112. Relief for default on, 133. Subscriptions, To charities, 25. Towards candidate's expenses, legal, 34. Towards candidate's election expenses, 121. Scrutiny of Votes, When made, 150. Rdcrimmatory case upon, 150. Practice where claimed, 150 et seq. Delivery of scrutiny lists, 151. And list of objections, 151. Inspection of ballot papers, 150. Order of proceeding at trial, 152. 20 298 INDEX. Scrutiny of Votes, Elector has no locus standi, 153. Register, how far conclusive on, 154. Ballot papers, ill marked, 155. Votes struck ofl", 155. When ballot papers examined, 156. Practice as to tendered votes, 157. Telegkams, production of, 145. Tenants, intimidation of, 50. Test-ballot, Bribery at, 21. Treating at, 39, 40. Threats, when undue influence, 50, 52. Torches, payments for, illegal, 91. Travelling expenses, Payment of, when bribery, 15. 16. Payment of, now always illegal, 16. Teeacheey, by agent, 84. Treating by agent, avoids election, 34. Treating, 34, 47, On the nomination or polling day, 35. Statutory definitions of, 35, 36. Must be done corruptly, 37. -Must be done to influence the vote, 38. Offer to treat is not, 39. But may be bribery, 39. Non-electors, may avoid election, 39, At municipal elections, 39. To obtain popularity, effect of, 39. At revision courts, 40. By refreshments to paid agents, 40. By opening public houses, 41. Amount of, immaterial, 42. Belief where, trivial, 42. Conditions on which relief granted, \&, 47. Time of, very material, 43, 45. Trial of Petition, 146 et seq. Undue Influence, Defined, 48. Antiquity of law against, 48. Meaning of, 49. By illegitimate canvassing, 49, 50. Compared with bribery, 50. By bottling voters, 50. By landlords, 51. By employers, 52, Undue Influence, By workpeople, 52. Withdrawal of custom, 52. Spiritual intimidation, 53. Attempts to use, avoid election, 54. Hasty words not, 55. Relief against consequences of, 56. Universities, corrupt payment of members' fees, bribery, 5. Value of Bribe, immaterial, 10. Voluntary Agents, number of, unlimited, 68, 71, 93. Candidate liable for, 68. Repudiation of, 76, 78. Vote, if not free, is bad, 48. Voters, " bottling," 50. Voting, when illegal, 95. who are prohibited from, 96. Voting cards, when a fraudulent device, 55. Wagers on result of election, 34. Wages, day's, payment of, when bribery, 15, 21. Watchers, colourable payments to, bribery, 11. Withdrawal of candidate (false statement of) , 97. Withdrawal Of custom, undue influence by, 52. Should be substantial, 53. Withdrawal of petition, liOet seq. Witness, Commission to examine, 145. Attendance of, 145, 146. Witnesses May be called by the court, 163. May be called by the, public prosecutor, 146 et seq. Words, hasty, not undue influence, 55. Workpeople, Holiday to, may be bribery, 21, 22. Intimidation of, 52. Intimidation by, 52. Women, Gifts to, may amount to bribery, 8. Treating, may amount to bi'ibery, 39. May not vote, 97. WATEKLOW AND SONS LIMITED, PRINTEBS, LONDON WALL, LONDON. WATEBLOW & SONS LTMITED, Law, Parliamentary and General Stationers. WRITING AND ENGROSSING. Wateelo'^' & Sons Limiter have a liirgo and cumpetcnt stsifF of Clerks constantly engaged at their City and West End Establishments, and are enabled to undertake that Deeds or other documents, of wliatever length, shall bo carefully and correctly engrossed or copied, and returned if required, by Return 3Iail, or within a fe\y hours after tho receipt of tho di-afts. LAW LITHOGRAPHY. The staff retained by Waterlow & Soxs Limited in this department is capable of completing in a few hours an amount of Avork which would formerly have required as many days. Briefs, Abstracts, Minutes of Evidence, Keports, and Legal Documents, Builders' Quantities, Specifications, &c., lithographed with tho greatest accuracy, in good plain roimd hand. A Brief of 100 sheets can be lithographed in three or four hours. ILLUMINATED ADDRESSES, VOTES OF THANKS, &c. AVaterlow & Soxs Limited have attained a high degree of perfection in this department. Numerous works of great artistic beauty have been executed by them for presentation to Her Majesty, the Prince aiid Princess of Waks, and other important personages. LETTER-PRESS PRINTING For Chancery Bills and Answers, Pleadings and Proceedings under tho Judicature Act, Memoranda and Articles of Association, Particulars of Sale, Circulars, Notices, Special Forms, &c., &c. The Company offer the advantages of an extensive and varied assort- ment of Type and tho aid of Machinery of the most approved construction. 100 Copies of an ordinary Tarticnlars of Sale and Flan can he cxvcuted in one day, if required. PARCHMENT. An extensive stock of the best Parchment, plain or ruled and red lined, for Indentures, Followers and Bookway Skins, or with black lines for Probates of Wills. LAW FORMS. Writs, Notices, &c., under the Judicature "Acts, Probate Forms, Drafts and Precedents, Bills of Sale, &c., Bankruj^tcy Forms, Joint-Stock Companies' Forms, &c., &c. COPYING PRESSES, Letter Copying Books, and all matex-ials. FIREPROOF S A F E S, of the best quality. DEED BOXES, CASH BOXES, CASES FOR FORMS, &c. WRITING INKS, Black, Red and Blue, COPYING I N K, &c. ENGRAVING AND COPPER PLATE PRINTING For Cards, Cheques, Eecoipts, Bonds, Certificates, tSrc. GENERAL STATIONERY Of every description, including Quill and Steel Pens and' Pen-holders, Drawing Pencils, Inkstands, Despatch Boxes, Writing Cases, Brief Bags, Stationcrj'- Cabinets, Sealing Wax and Wafers, Tapes and Ferret, Cutlery, String and Twine, Postage Balances and Scales, Date Cases and Indicators, Wicker Office Baskets, Elastic I3ands, &c., &c. %\\ lUttstraftb: Cufabgiie foill be sent J^ree bg ^usi 0w nipplitation. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, axd FINSBURY FACTORIES. 1 WATERLOW 4- SONS immn, LAW PUBLISHERS. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS. THE BANKERS' MAGAZINE.— Journal of the Money Market and Commercial Digest. A First Class Monthly Financial Publication, and the recognised organ of communi- cation for the Banking interest. Is. 6d. per number, or 21s. per annum, including two double numbers. THE BANKING ALMANAC, DIRECTORY, AND DIARY.— Published annually in November, Cloth lettered, 7s. ('nl. THE COUNTY COMPANION. DIARY, STATISTICAL CHRONICLE, AND MAGISTERIAL AND OFFICIAL DIRECTORY.— Published annually in December. Prices— 5s., 7b. 6d. and 12s.. according to diary space and bindin^c. THE SOLICITORS' DIARY, ALMANAC, AND DIRECTORY.— Published annually in October. Prices — 3s. tid.. 5s., 6s., and 8s. 6d., according to diarv space. The POCKET EDITION, in lenther tuck. ''s. 6d. ; Roan Wallet, -Is. 6d. : and IJussia Wallet. 7s. «5d. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS COMPANION. DIARY, DIRECTORY. AND YEAR-BOOK OF STATISTICS.— Published annually in December. Prices— 5s., 7s. 6d., 12s., according to diarv space and l)indin'4. ENGLISH MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS: THEIR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT STATIS- TICALLY ILLUSTRATED.— "A most useful and valuable work."— F(VZ^^ Public Press. By J. \\. SoMERS Vine. F.S.S. Koval 8vo, cloth, bevelled boards. IDs. Gd. THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CODE," or the MUNICIPAL COaPORATIONS (Consoli- dation) ACT, 1883, with Notes, Comments, References, Statistical Appendix, and Voluminous Index, by J. W. Hume Williams. Barrister-at-Law, of the Middle Temple, and .1. R. SOMERS ViSE, F.S.H. Roval 8vo, stiff covers. 5s. : cloth lettered, 7s. 6d. THE NEW PRACTICE AND PLEADING UNDER THE JUDICATURE ACTS.— With Notes anrl References, Rules of Court. Forms of Proceedings, and Pleadings, and a Copious Index. Bv Sir W. T. Charley, Q.C. Third Edition. Price 7s. 6d., cloth lettered. THE NEW PRACTICE CASES.— Containing important decisions upon the Judicature Acts. By Sir W. T, Charley, Q.C. Nos. 1 to 12 are now ready, Is. each number. The first two vols, (fournumbers in each) bound in cloth, 5s. Cd.each. (Publishedat intervals.) CHAMBER CASES.— Com]irising all the Cases reported at Judges' Chambers and in the New Practice. With Notes and Comments. By Sir W. T. CHARLEY, Q.C. 3s. 6d., cloth. THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY COURT ORDERS AND RULES. 1875, WITH FORMS AND SCALES OF COSTS AND FEES.— (Reprinted. 1880.) Cloth back, 3s. The same, together with Scott's Index, Queen's Printers' Copy of the Act, and the additional Rules of 1870, 1S80 and 1883. Cloth back, 7s. Gd. AN INDEX TO THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY COURT ORDERS. RULES, AND FORMS. 1875.— By H. Alan Scott, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 2s. A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE TIMES FIXED UNDER THE COUNTY COURT ACT, showing the Periods within or after which anj' proceeding may be talcen. Price Is. A TABLE (SECOND EDITION) showing the various steps (down to the Hearing) of all ordinary Actions commenced in the country, for the use of Country Solicitors. The Table is published on an ojien sheet, 20 inches by 15 inches, showing at a glance the desired information. Price Is. : or mounted on cardboard, varnished, 2s. Gd. A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE TIMES FIXED BY THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS, settled down to and including the Rules of December, 187G, showing the periods within or after which the different proceedings in an action should be taken. Price Is. GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF BILLS OF COSTS, with Precedents in all the Divisions, Schedule of Fees, Allowances to Witnesses, &c. By T. "W. PeidmoBE, Esq. Sixth Edition, greatly enlarged. Cloth boards, lettered, 10s. Gd. THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1879, with Notes, Rules, Index, &c. By H, JIaetin Geeen, Clerk to Justices. Price, in cloth, os. Gd. THE LiiW OF MERCHANT SHIPPING AND FREIGHT, with Tables of Cases, Forms, and Complete Index. (Royal 8vo. 700 pages.) By J. T. FOAED, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Price, in half-calf. One Guinea. PP.INCIPLES AND PRECEDENTS OF MODERN CONVEYANCING, 1882.— A Concise Exposition of the Draftsman's Art, with a Series of Forms framed in accordance with recent Legislation. By C. Cavanagh, B.A., LL.B. (Lond.), of the Middle Temple and Northern Circuit, Barrister-at-Law; Author of "The Law of Money Securities." Cloth, 15s. MANUAL OF HYDROLOGY. By N. Beaedmore, C.B. In cloth, 24s. INDIAN EXCHANGE TABLES. Bv J. I. Beeey. In cloth, 21s., or with Supplement, 25s. SUPPLEMENT TO DITTO, separ.ately, 5s. THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, with Notes. By C. T. Part, Barrister-at-Law, Is. 95 & 96, LONDON 'WALL; 25, 20 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. WATEELOW (j- SONS limited, LAW PVBLTSHEBS. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS-CONTINUED. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883, with Introduction and Index. By M. D, Chalmers, M.A., P>an-istei'-at-La\v, and E. HouGH. of tlie Board of Trade. Uemy 8vo., 2.s. 6d. THE AGRICULTUEAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT, 1883, witli Notes and Forms, and a Summary of the Procedure. By J. \V. Jeud\vixe, of Lincoln'.s-Inn, Barrister-at-La,w. Demy Svo. In boards, 2s. (id., or in clotli, ;>«. (Id. THE LAW RELATING TO CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS, AND THE PRACTICE ON ELECTION PETITIONS, with an Apiiendix of Statutes. lUdes and Forms. By Miles Walker ]\Iattinsox and Stuaet (_!unninqham Macaskie, of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. ; in elotli, 7s. 6d. THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882.— An Act to Codify the Law relating to Bills of Exchange, Clietiues. and Promissory Notes. With Comments and Explanatory Notes. By M. i). Chalmers, Es(i.. M.A., Barrister-at-Law (Draughtsman of the Bill). In stiff hoards. 2s. 6d. : in cloth, 8s. (U\. THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (45 & 46 Vic, c. 75). A concise Treatise showing the effect of this Act upon the existing Law. By Thomas Bakrett- Lexxard, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-a.t-Law. In stiff boards. Is. Gd. THE BILLS OF SALE ACTS, 1878 & 1882, with Copious Notes, Index, and Precedents, showing the Alteration in the Law under the New Act. By MICHAEL G. GuiRY, LL.B., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. In cloth, .5s. THE POSITION IN LAW OF WOMEN.— Showing how it differs from that of Men, and the effect of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. By THOMAS Barrett- Lexx'^ard. of the Middle Temple. Barrister-at-Law. In cloth, 6s. THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT, with Hints to Local Authorities. Explanatory Notes, and Amended Rules of the Board of Trade, &c. By Arthur P. Foley. B.A.. of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, and Prank Dethridge, Es(i. In boards, 2s. HANDBOOK ON STAMP DUTIES (FIFTH EDITION), revised and corrected by H. S. Bond, Esq., of the Solicitors' Department, Inland Revenue, Somerset House. Stiffened covers. Is. ; cloth, 2s. BALLOT ACT, 1872.— Parliamentary and Mimicipal Elections Act, 1872, 35 and .S6 Vic, cap. 33. Svo. paper cover, 6d. BALLOT ACT, 1872, — Abstract of the principal provisions of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, 35 and 36 Vic, cap. 33. Prepared for the informa- tion of Returning Officers at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections in England and Wales. Svo, sewed. 3d. LAWS ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES, CHEQUES, &c., of England Germany. France, Italy, and Spain, By H. D. .Jexcken, Barrister-at-Law. Price os. THE PRACTICE AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS OF INVESTIGATION INTO SHIPPING CASUALTIES AND COURTS OF SURVEY.— With Index and References. By C. .J. Peile. Es(i., Barrister-at-Law, of the Inner Temple. Cloth lettered, 2s. 6d. The woi'k is dedicated, by ]>ermissioii. to the Wreck Commissioner. A DIGEST OF THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870, with Orders of ihe, Privy Council. A Concise Guide to Members of School Boards, and Instructions to Returning Officers and Town Clerks for conducting Elections, with Forms, by H. MONCKTON, Solicitor. Post Svo, cloth lettered, 2s. 6d. GENERAL RAILWAY ACTS, 1830— 1874.— A Collection of the General Railway Acts for the Regulation of Railways in England and Ireland, including the Companies, Lands, and Railways Clauses Consolidation Acts. Thirteenth Edition, with the Amending Enactments complete to the close of 1874. 12mo, cloth, 18s. CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACTS, 1845—1877. Cloth. 16s. STANDING ORDERS.— The Standing Orders of the Lords and Commons relative lo Private Bills, with Appendix. Published at the close of each Session. Cloth. 5s. PRACTICAL HINTS ON THE REGISTRATION OF FORMS AND RETURNS REQUIRED TO BE FILED under the "Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1862 and 1867," and " The Railway Companies Security Act, 1866." Svo, limp cloth, Is. 6d. WATERLOW'S SCRIBBLING DIARY. Foolscap folio, 6 days on a page, interleaved strong paper cover. Is. ; ditto 3 days. Is. 6d. ; ditto 2 days, \ bound cloth, 3s. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 3 WATEBLOW ^- .S'OtV.S iimitsu, LAW PUBLISHERS. PRINCIPLES AND PRECEDENTS OF MODERN CONVEYANCING, A Concise Exposition of tiie Drau^fitsman's Art, witli a Series of Forms framed in accordance witii tfie New Legislation. THE VOLUME IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS : I. — Preliminary Dissertation. II. — Practical Conveyancing Acts, including the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881. with Notes. III. — Precedents. The object of the present work is to supply a Handbook which shall at once explain the leading features of the system of Conveyancing inaugurated by the above stat\ite and the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, and at the same time furnish such a selection of Precedents as will meet the ordinary needs of a Solicitor's office. To render the book more complete, suggestions and directions are given, by the aid of which the forms in existing treatises may be adapted to the New Law. BY C. CAVANAGH, B.A,, LL.B. (LOKD.), OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE AND NORTHERN CIRCUIT, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. Author of " The Law of Money Securities.''^ PRICE 15s. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GEEAT WINCHESTER STREET; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 4 WATERLOW (J- SONS limited, LAW PUBLISHERS. SECOIsriD EIDITIOliT. THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (45 k 4G Vict., c. 75.) A CONCISE TEEATISE, SHOAVING THE EFFECT OF THIS ACT UPON THE EXISTING LAW, UY THOMAS BAKEETT-LENNAED, Esq., or THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, liAKRISTER-AT-LAM'. IN STIFF BOARDS, Is. 6d. THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CODE oil THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (Consolidation) ACT, 1882, WITH NOTES, COMMEXTS, BEFEREKCES, STATISTICAL AFEENBIX, AND VOLUMINOUS INDEX, J. W. HUME AVILLIAMS, EAlUllSTEll-AT-LAW, OF THE M,IDDLE TEMPLE, AND J. E. SOMEES VINE, F.S.S., AUTHOR OE "ENGLISH MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS — THEIH GLOWTH AND DEVELOPMENT." Royal Svo., stiff covers, 5s. ; cloth lettered, 7s. 6d. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49i PARLIAMENT STREET, and EINSBURY FACTORlEfr'. 5 WATEntOW 4- SONS limited, LAW PUBLISHERS. THE BANKING ALMANAC YEAR-BOOK OF STATISTICS, AND DIRECTOEY. Edited by R H. INGLIS PALGRAYE, Esq., F.S.S. this work, which has long been PATRONISED BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND, The Private and Jo'int-Stoch Banlx. the Priratc and Pal)l\c Discount Estahli.sliments,the Credit and Finance Companies:, and tlwprine'ipal Financial and Mercantile Est a hi isli ments, Contains mucli valuable Statistical Information from Official Documents. The DIARY is piiuted on Supertine Paper, 8vo, and Subscribers wishing to have Diaries with one page for each day, can obtain the same on application, at a slight increase of charge. The ALMANAC— CALENDAR and USUAL TABLES— is full and complete. The YEAR-BOOK embraces a variety of useful Statistics, and includes — I. Banliing Retrospect. VI. Useful Information for Bank Managers II. Statistics of the Bank of England, giving a .ind Cashiers. Tables of the value of complete analysis of the progress of its the Coins in use in the vai-ious States of business from 1845, with the principal the World (including the nomuial and details of importance. metallic values) — Explanations of the III. Bills brought forward in Parliament con- Terms generally employed in Foreign cerning Banking in Great Britain and Bills, Usance, Days of Grace, &c., &c, Ireland. YII. Stamp Duties. IV. Returns of Bank Notes of the Bank of \ VIII. Notices of Books referrmg to Banking, England held by the Public and in ' published during the year. Reserve by the Bank, Bullion, Bills ; IX. Abbott's Analysis of Joint-Stock Banks. Discounted, London Bankers' Balances, X. Parliamentary Directory. &c. XL Insurance Directory, with Comparative V. Information associated with Suspended Table of the Rates charged for Life Banks, Finance and Discount Com- ; Insurance by the Principal Offices in panics. ' Great Britain. Table of Public General Acts of Past Session. Important Parliamentary Papers on Banking and Commerce. THE BANKING DIRECTORY. This portion of the Avork is made as complete and accurate as possible. It is carefully revised, and contains — 1. Pan If, of Enr/land. — List of all the Officers of the several Departments. 2. London Pankcrs — Names, Residences and Occupations, as given in the Official Returns. 8. A List of all the Private Banhs, with the Names and Addresses of each of the Pai-tners, carefully corrected from their own returns. Statement of Branches, and the Names of the Agents, d. .1 Ljist of all the Joint-Stock Banhs in the United Kingdom, with the Dates of their Establishment ; Number of Partners ; Paid-up Capital ; Guarantee Fund ; Fixed Issues ; and List of Branches and Sub-Branches, with the Names of the Managers at each. Ti. A List of Forrif/n and Britisit Colonial Joint-Stock Banks having Offices in London. 6. Tlie Partiruhirs if the Finance and Credit Companies, Capital, Reserve Fund, and the Prmcipal Officers. 7. An Alphabetical List of Colonial and Foreign Banhs and Bankers, gve&tiy extended and improved. S. A List (f Colonial and Foreign Banks and Bankers. 9. An Alphabetical lAst of all the Ton-ns in Creat Britain where Banks are established, with the Title of the Bank, Name of its Manaf/cr. and London Agent. 10. An Alphahctical List of all the Bankers in the United Kingdom. 11. An Alphabetical List of the Directors of the lyrincipal London Joint-Stock Batiks Discount Companies and. Finance and Credit Companies. Published in November. Price Seven Shillings and Sixpence. 85 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 46. PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. G WATERLOW <5- SONS LiuiTEB, LAW PUBLISHERS. THE COUNTY COMPANION, DIAEY, STATISTICAL CHEONICLE, AX]) Ula^btcrhil ant) ©ffxtial givcctorir, PUBLISHED ANNUALLY IN DECEMBER; AXD THE Municipal Coeporations Companion, BIAKY, DIRECTORY, YEAR BOOK OF STATISTICS. PUBLISHED ANNUALLY IN DECEMBER. Edited by J. E. SOilERS VINE, F.S.S. (Author of " English Miimci2)alities ; their Growth and JDcvcloinnenty ) WATERLOW & SONS LIMITED Have macli pleasure in stating that these Works have been unanimously declared to he INDISPENSABLE TO EVERY MAGISTRATE AND ClOUNTY OFFICIAL IN ENGLAND AND^ WALES, AND TO ALL WHO HOLD OFFICE IN OR UNDER ANY MUNICIPALITY, And unequallecl Woi-ks of Reference for the general Puljlic. PRICE OF EITHER OF THE WORKS ; in Strong Cloth iJinding, Lettered, with a Diary Space of one-third of a page to each day, FIVE SHILLINGS. In Strong Cloth Boards, Gilt, with a Diary Space of one page for each day, SEVEN SHILLINGS AND SIXPENCE. In Elegant Morocco or Russia Binding, with Subscriber's Name lettered on Cover, TWELVE SHILLINGS. UPRISE BY I'OST, 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 7. WATERLOW cj' SONS limited, LAW PUBLISHERS FORTIETH YEAR OF PUBLICATION. THE SOLICITOES' DIAEY, LEGAL DIGEST AND DIEECTOEY, IPOS- 1884. An excelient Diary, tcith Legal Notes for each day in the year — The Stamp Act, with Amendments to the 2)resent time — Succession and Legacy Duties — List of Banks, etc. — County Courts, etc. — Municijxd Boroughs, Recorders, Toivn Clerks — Clerics of the Peace — Undersheriffs — Queeris Counsel and Serjeants-at-Law — Oaths in Supretne Court — Jurats, etc. — Suggestions Oii Registering Deeds and Papers at Public Offices — Insurance Directory — Tahle of Protective StatiUes — Index to Public General Acts — Scales of Commission in Conveyancing Jjusiness — Time Tables and Tables of Costs tinder Judicature Acts — Parliamentary Directory — District Registries, etc. % bvigcst of tljc '^xMu 6.em:iitl %d^ d i\n ]pHst S^ssmir, WITH ALPHABETICAL INDEX, ETC. ; TOGETHER WITH NAMES AND ADDEESSES OF BAEEISTEES IN PEACTICE; ALSO LISTS OF LONDON A.ND COUNTEY SOLICITOES, -\VITH APPOINTMENTS HELD BY THEM. [Revised icith the Official Loll, lij permission .of the Council of the Incorporated law Society, and corrected hy direct correspondence.) No. 1. With One page for each day, Half-bound Law Calf— Price Cs. No. 2. Ditto, ditto, with Money columns. No. 3. Interleaved, giving two pages to each day, ditto ,, 8s. 6d. No. 4. With Tko days on each page, ditto ditto ,, 5s. No. 5. Ditto, ditto with Money Columns. No. 6. With Three days on each page, bound in Embossed Cloth, price 3s. 6d. The DIAKY is printed on Superfine Patter, and can be obtained ruled, and with cas7t columns for receipts and payments if desired, or otherwise, as specially ordered. The POCKET EDITION of the " Solicitoes' Diabt" contains in a very small space the leading features of the large edition. Price, in leather tuck, 2s. 6d. ; Rotiu Wallet, 4s. 6d. ; and Russia Wallet, 7s. Od. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GEEAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBUEY FACTORIES. WATERLOW (5- SONS limited, LAW PUBLtSHERS. THIRD EDITION. THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882. AX ACT TO CODIFY TEE LAW RELATING TO BILLS OF EXCHANGE, CHEQUES, AND FROMISSORY NOTES. SESttlj CPxpIanatonj i^otcs nn)j Entrei, M. 1). CHALMERS, Esq., M.A., ]iARE,ISTER-AT-LAAV (dKAFTSMAX OP THE HILl). "Lawyers will find it a most convenient and portable edition of a most important Statute." — Law Journal. In Stiff Boards, 2b. Cd. In Cloth, 3.s. 6d. "To say that Mr. Chalmer.3 i.s the draftsman of the Act is almost to guarantee that his notes explaining tlie seetions or the reasons for their becoming law are absolutely correct. The index is satisfactory, so far as we have tested it. "We may add that the book is beautifully printed." — Law Times. SECOND EDITION. THE NEW BILLS OF SALE ACT. THE BILLS OF 8ALE ACTS, 1878 and 1882, WITH COPIOUS NOTES, INDEX AND PRECEDENTS, SHOWING THE ALTERATION IN THE LAW UNDER THE NEW ACT, BY MICHAEL G. GUIEY, Esq., LL.B. (of the middle temple, BABE.ISTER-AT-LA"\V.) " There is one feature for which the author deserves to be rewarded with the proceeds of a large sale of his book — the references are given to all the reports. We can recommend the volume as a most useful one to take into court or chambers : and in County Courts, where libraries are rather scarce, the book will be of the greatest value." — Law Times. EXTRACT FROM INTRODUCTION^ "An attempt is made in the following pages to furnish the lecral profession with a useful hand-book in ottices and courts where a law library is not at hand. The writer has found in practice that although quotations from text-books may be faithful reiiresentations of the expressions of leai'ned judges, yet, since the ijm^sima verba of the judgments are not given, courts refuse to act upon the a.uthority of such rpiotatioas. As far as possible, therefore, the facts of cases are here given, together with such portions of .iudgmouts as are relevant ; and it is there'iy lioijed that the book may be more useful to practitioners than if it contained, in a sentence, the result of each case." IN CLOTH, 5s. ; or for Cash witli Order, 4s. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, akd FINSBURY FACTORIES. 9 WATERLOW ^ SONS limited, LAW PUBLISHERS. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883, WITH INTRODUCTION AND INDEX, JiV M. D. CHALMERS, M.A., Barrister-at-Law, & E.HOUGH, of the Board of Trade, 130 pages, Deijiy 8vo., 2s. 6d. THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT, 1883, AVITH NOTES hm FOEMS, AND A SUMMARY OF THE PEOCEDURE, I'.Y J. W. JEUDWINE, OF Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-laav. 120 pages, Demy 8vo, In Boards, 2s. 6d,, or in Clotli, 3s. 6d, THE LAW RELATING TO CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS, AND THE PRACTICE ON ELECTION PETITIONS, AVITH AX APPENDIX OF STATUTES, RULES AND FORMS, I'.Y MILES WALKER MATTINSON & STUART CUNNINGHAM MACASKIE OF gray's inn, barristers-at-laay. i 300 pages, Demy 8vo. ; in Clotli, 7s. 6d- A Complete List of our Publications sent free on application. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 10. WATERLOW cj- SONS limited, PARCHMENT DEALERS. ^ricc %m\ Df ^iircbment, PLAIN. Per doz. eptb . Width. Each. Best nicked. Pcrdoz. Best picked 10 X 15 .. -/5 . -/6 . 4/- . ■ 5/- 12 X 16 .. -/9 . . -/lO . 8/- . • 9/- 13 X 17 -/lO . 1/- . 9/6 • 11/- 15 X 20 1/- . . 1/2 . 11/6 12/6 16 X 21 .. 1/2 . 1/4 13/- . 14/6 17 X 22 .. 1/4 . . 1/6 . 15/- . 16/6 18 X 24 ". '. 1/6 1/8 17/6 . 19/- 19 X 25 1/10 2/- 20/- 22'- 22 X 27 .. 2/- . . 2/3 . 22/- ; 25/- 23 X 28 2/3 2/6 25/- . 28/- 26 X 29 2/6 2/9 28/0 . 31/- 26 27 X X 31) 30/ •• 2/9 3/- 31/6 . 34/- 28 X 32 3/3 3/0 35/- . 37/- Larger sizes can be sujjplied. RED-LINED AND RULED. Each. Best picked. Indentures Texted 15 X 20 . 1/6 . . 1/9 . . 26 X 29 . 3/- . 3/6 27 X 30 3/6 . 4/- . . Followers . . . . 23 X 28 2/6 . 3/- . . 25 X 30 . 3/- . 3/6 Bookways Texted /IOtVX 17 • 1/- • . 1/2 . . 13 X 17 1/3 . 1/6 .. These are the sizes of 16 X 21 • 2/- . 2/3 Skins before foldmg. ' 18 X 24 2/3 2/6 19 X 25 2/6 2/9 22 X 27 . 2/9 . 3/- Per doz. 15/- 30/- 32/- 26/- 30/- 10/6 14/- 21/- 22/- 26/- 28/- Best picked. Per doz. 18/- 36/- 38/- 30/- 36/- 12/- 16/- 23/- 25/- 28/- 30;'- 10 X 15 13 X 17 15 X 20 IS X 24 23 X 28 IIULED oil rL.\ix. These can be had iv ith or Each. Per doz -/6 ■ 5/- -/lO 9/6 1/- 11/6 1/6 . . 17/6 2/3 . 25/- citlioiU 2j6 stamp impressed. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 11 WATERLOWc^' SONS limits PARCHMENT DEALERS WITH Oil AVITHOUT HEADING, BLACK LINED AND KULED. Each. Best picked. Per doz. Best pick 12 X IG .. 1/- . . 1/2 . 10/6 . 12/- 15 X 20 1/6 1/9 . 15/- . . 18/- 18 X 24 .. 2/- . 2/3 . 22/- . . 25/- 22 X 27 2/3 2/6 26/- 28/- 26 X 29 2/- . 3/G 30/- 36/- 28 X 32 . .. 3/9 . . 4/- . . 40/- . . 45/- rRINTED, HULED, ANB BED-LINED. PER QUIKE. Large ^, Post ifo. ^ ''"^• 1 Demy. ' \ This Indenture Memorandum op Agreement An Agreement " This is the Last Will," &c. (')wt rcdllncdj Followers for same s. d. s. d. 2 6 3 6 2 6 3 6 2 6:36 2 6 3 6 2 6 ! ^ 6 s. d. 4 6 4 6 ' 4 6 4 6 4 6 1 Fer Quire, This Indenture, on Blue Wove Copy, half sheets, ruled ... 1 6 This Indenture, on Water-lined Brief 2 This is the Last Will, &c., on Lined Brief ... ... 2 6 SPECIMENS OF ANY OF THE ABOVE SENT ON APPLICATION. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 2o, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET : 49, PARLIAMENT STt?EET, and TINSBURY FACTORIES. 12 WATERLOW (?• SON^ Lntnm, LAW STATIONERS. "ZEPHYR" COPYING PAPER TAKES 8 COPIES, IS CBEAP AND EFFECT IV K Ix introducing this Paper to the Public, Waterloo & Sons Limited feel sure it will meet with genei'cal approval, owing to its remarkable thinness and toughness. EIGHT COPIES can be easil}' taken, and, with a little extra care, as many as TEN COPIES. It will, therefore, be found invaluable to Bankers, Solicitors, and others having extensive correspondence. Quarto — per Kcam, 960 Sheets . . Foolscap ,, ,, Or in Hooks, Half Calf, Indexed, Faged, a, Quarto — 500 Leaves „ 1,000 „ Foolscap— 500 Leaves .. 1,000 , d Lettered. 6/- 8/- 6/- 10/- . 14/- "STOUT BUFF" COPYING PAPER (AS USED IN THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES), AN EXCELLENT SUBSTITUTE FOR WKITTEN DUPLICATES, Saving manual labour. Quarto — per Ream, 480 Sheets . . Foolscap ,, „ Books, Half Basil, Quarto, 500 pages 750 „ ,, „ Foolscap, 500 ,, „ in Half Calf, Quarto, 600 „ ,, ,, Foolscap GOO ,, This Paper will Copy Documents long after writing, and with almost any Ink if sufficiently damped — even Correspondence Received, which has been pre\aously copied. . . 6/6 . . 7/6 .. 10/6 .. 10/6 .. 10/6 .. 13/6 INSTRUCTIONS. For Copying Ink recently written, thoroughly remove all superfluous moisture ; when more than one copy is required, take them separately, making each succeeding one a little damper and pressing longer. In this manner from four to six copies may be taken. For Copying Ink which has been some days written, or copied before, or for Non- copying Ink, damp ivell on both sides and jjress Jor a few mimitcs. One and sometimes two copies can be taken in this way. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL, 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 13 WATEBLOW ^ SONS umitep, LAW STATIONERS FORM OASES, DROP DOORS, COVERED GREEX CLOTH. s. d. 19 each 28 „ 21 „ 30 „ 12 Divisions Judicature Size. . 20 „ „ „ 12 ,, Bankruptcy Size 20 „ „ OAK OR MAHOGANY, AVITH TWO I'OLDINO DOORS. S. d. 12 Divisions, JuuicATUEE Size. . 33 each. 20 „ „ „ .. 48 ,, 12 ,, Bankruptcy ,, ..42 ,, 20 ,, .. ,, .. 50 „ JAPANNED IRON. 12 Divisions, Judicature Size. . 28 6 Ctach, 20 „ ,, „ .. 42 „ 20 ,, Bankruptcy,, ..55 ,, Hand Endorsement Stamps for Commissioners for Oatlis,. in Malio^any Box, witii lnl< Pad complete, 10s. 6d. JUDICATURE PAPER. REQUISITE UNDER THE ACT. Price per Ream, Ruled with proper Margins 22s. 6d. ,, „ Printed Headings for Special Forms ... 30s. Od. ,, Plain 18s. 6d. FEINTING OF FLEADINGS, &c. By Order XIX., Rule 5, of the first Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1875, amended by Rule oa of the Rules of the Supreme Court, June 1876, all proceedings of more than 10 folios in length, must be printed. Waterloav & Sons Limited have therefore made arrangements to undertake the printing of the- Pleadings, Affidavits, Depositions, Special Cases, Petitions of Right, &c., in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, and, when required, to furnish Proofs or Printed Copies by return of Post. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL ; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET ; 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 14 WATEBLOW ^, SONS limited, LAW STATIONERS- LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY STATIONERY AND PRINTING, Forms under the Judicature Acts, 1873 & 1875 — Conveyancing Forms and Engrosgments — Auction, Shipping, Commercial and Miscellaneous Forms — Bankruptcj- und Liquidation — Trade Mark, Naturalization, and Companies' Forms. A Gatologuc of Legal an'l General Forms sent on application. INLAND EEVENUE STAMPING. WATERLOW & SONS LIMITED devote special attention to this department, and are in daily attendance at the Stamp Office, Somerset House. They are thus enabled to ensure the Stamping of Bankers' Cheques, Drafts, Bills of Exchange, dc, with the utmost possible despatch. Deeds and all executed instruments stamped and forwarded by return of Post, a small charge being made for attendance and postage. The greatest care is exercised in the assessment of Stamp Duty payable on any document entrusted to the Company for stamp - ing, but they incur no responsibility in the event of an improper assessment being made. As the amount of Stamp Duty must be paid to the Stamp Office before any document can be stamped, it is particularly requested that a remittance accompany the instructions for stamping. Cheques and Post Office Orders to be made payable to the Company, and to be crossed " Union Bank of London. — Not Negotiable." Spoiled Staiaps accompaaied with the requisite Affidavits, or Allowance Tickets for Spoiled Stamps, are credited in full where the amount is taken out in Printing o; Stationery, but a small amount for commission is deducted when exchanged for Cash. LAW AGENCY. RESIDUARY AND SUCCESSION ACCOUNTS PASSED LEGACY AND SUCCESSION OR OTHER DUTIES PAID. All payments in respect of these duties have now to be made at the Office at Somerset House instead of at the Local Offices as formerlj'. BILLS OF SALE STAMPED AND FILED. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REGISTERED. ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED IN THE "LONDON GAZETTE." ANNUAL SUMMARIES, SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS, dc, FILED SEARCHES MADE AT ANY OF THE PUBLIC OFFICES WITH THE GREATEST CARE AND EXPEDITION. TRADE MARKS REGISTERED Designs furnished and Blocks cut for same. 95 & 96, LONDON WALL; 25, 26 & 27, GREAT WINCHESTER STREET : 49, PARLIAMENT STREET, and FINSBURY FACTORIES. 15 WATERLOW (Sf SONS limited, LAW STATIONERS LAW WRITING AND ENGROSSING. Wateklow & Sons Limited desire to call the attention of Solicitors and Professional Gentlemen to the facilities which they are enabled to offer for the execution of all classes of Le»al Work. A competent staff of law writers and clerks are constantly engaged at Great Winchester Street, London Wall, and W. & S. are therefore enabled to execute any work entrusted to them with the utmost care and despatch. Deeds, &c., carefully and correctly engrossed. Stamp Duties assessed and paid. Charges for copying, at per folio of 12 words : — s, d. Engrossments in Hound-hand . . . . . . . . ..02 Attested Copies and Fair Copies of eveiy description .. . . 1| Wills, Abstracts, Parliamentary Briefs and Minutes of Evidence 2 Abstracting Titles and Fair Copy . , . . . . , . . . G Drafts, &c., rec^eived from the countiy can be engrossed or copied and sent by return post when required. A large stock of Stamped Parchment and Paper of every description being kept ready for immediate use, any order can be executed without the slightest delay. LAW LITHOGRAPHY. The facilities afforded by Waterlow & Sons Limited in this department having led to so great an increase of their business, . they are now enabled to retain a staff of hands capable of completing, in a few hours, an amount of work which would formerly have required as many days to accomplish. Briefs, Abstracts, Minutes of Evidence, Reports, and Legal Documents, Builders' Quantities, Contracts, Specifications, &c., lithographed in good plain round-hand, with the greatest accuracy. A Brief of 100 sheets can, if necessary, be lithographed in three or four hours. The evidence taken daily on Private Bills or Arbitration Cases may be neatly and correctly lithographed or printed during the night, and delivered to Counsel before 9 o'clock the following morning. The following prices are intended as a guide to the charges for the ordinary description of Law Lithography ; where a greater number of cojjies of any Document are required, special estimates will be given. Abstracts coi)ied Briefwise, 5 to S folios 1 Drafts, 4 to 5 folios per page, on Super- per sheet, on Superfine Paper : — ' fine Laid Copy ; — 6f/. per sheet. lOCoiiies .. .. 4^^. per page. 20 „ .. .. 2irf. „ •'"'0 , U^. „ 100 Copies .. ..7*. ^d. Per 100, after the first 100, 5s. 9 . . Zd. 50 . . 2d. 100 ') .. Ihl. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 3 RECD Form L9 — 15m-10,'48 (B1039)444 JN Mattinson - 1083 The law relat- practices at ertectioTis.^ hf e 4 1956(; JN 1083 M43 1 JN1083 .M431 y L 009 563 720 3 ucsouTHFR'-jRrniriMAL ii[!H„irv(Af:i AA 001 352 891