tated to serve on such election. There had been treating after the teste of the writ on his behalf, although not at his charge; 7 Wm. 3, c. 4.

It would appear, however, that this idea, that a candidate ought not to be disqualified by acts of treating committed at his election, unless he authorised them or paid the expenses thereof, has been recently accepted as a correct position in parliamentary law. The Dungarvan committee, 1854, probably influenced by this view, reported inter alia, "That, previous to and during the election of 1852, several tierces of porter were ordered and paid for by James Boland, and supplied for the use of the tenants and voters on different townlands, who were the friends and supporters of Mr. Maguire, and that the same James Boland was the person principally entrusted with the payment of the expenses of the election on behalf of Mr. Maguire; that the order, payment, and supply of this porter were without the knowledge of Mr. Maguire, and neither authorised, nor knowingly allowed by him." And they reported Mr. Maguire to be duly elected.

The porter in this case was consumed principally on the days of nomination and polling, in a house hired by Boland for the purposes of the election; and that he was an active agent appears not only from the circumstance reported by the committee, but from all the evidence in the case. It is difficult to reconcile the decision of this committee with legal principles. They seem to have held that, one of the principal agents of a candidate, the agent entrusted with the payment of the expenses of the election, might distribute porter at the committee rooms of the candidate, to any voters

G

who might come there, without thereby invalidating the election of his principal. And yet, as this was done on behalf of Mr. Maguire, and in order that he might be elected, it is submitted, with all respect for the committee who came to this resolution, that it was not according to law (a). This question of the parlia mentary responsibility of candidates, for the acts of their agents, will be considered in a subsequent section of this chapter, viz. " what acts will avoid an election."

It will be observed that the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22, speaks of the treating taking place "for the purpose of corruptly influencing and corruptly rewarding voters." The effect of these words is probably the same as of those in the statute of Wm. 3, "in order to be elected or for being elected." If entertainment is given to a voter by a candidate, in order that the candidate may be elected, it is given corruptly to influence the voter. If it be given by the candidate "for being elected," it is given for the purpose of "corruptly rewarding the voter." The treating was declared to be equally corrupt under this latter act, whether it was given to the voter himself, or to any other person in order to influence him.

(a) Dungarvan case, 1854, printed Minutes. This is not the only point in which this committee departed from the generally accepted rules of parliamentary law. The report above referred to related to an election in 1852, into which, it must be submitted, with all deference for the learned chairman of the committee, they had no jurisdiction to inquire. This will be discussed at length hereafter. Another decision of this committee was, that a supper to voters, given and paid for by the candidate, and at which he was present, did not incapacitate him, the supper having taken place on the evening of the polling day, post, p. 136.

Both of these enactments, viz. the 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, and the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22, are repealed by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and new provisions are substituted in their place.

Section 4 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102.

'Every candidate at an election, who shall corruptly by himself, or by or with any person, or by any other ways or 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 giving 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 being 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 refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting, at such election, shall be deemed guilty of the offence of treating, and shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, with full costs of suit; and every voter who shall corruptly accept or 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 none effect."

This section is a consolidation of the two repealed enactments. It extends the operation of the provisions of the 7 Wm. 3 to the larger periods included in the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22. A candidate who by himself, or by any person, or by any means on his behalf,

entertains electors before, at, or after an election, in order that such candidate may be elected will be incapacitated, whether he himself pays for the enter tainment or not. The clause is in the disjunctive. Every candidate who shall, by himself or others give, or shall be accessory to the giving, or shall pay any part of the expenses, will be guilty of treating.

The person who will incur the pecuniary penalty is the candidate, and the candidate only. Now for the first time treating is made an offence; not an indictable offence (a), but one punishable, by the forfeiture in a penal action, of the sum of 501. This section also introduces a new disqualification as affecting a voter who is treated. Every voter who shall corruptly take any meat, &c., shall be incapable of voting at such election, and his vote, if given, shall be utterly void and of none effect. It was at one time a question whether a voter who had been treated at an election could be struck off the poll; but the general opinion was, that, prior to this enactment, the acceptance of treating did not invalidate a vote, unless some corrupt negotiation with regard to the vote could also be established, which made it amount to an act of bribery. See Ipswich, F. & F. 280; Lyme Regis, B. & Aust. 529; Kinsale, 1818 (b). Hereafter, any voter who knowingly accepts from a candidate, or from any person whom he has reason to believe is acting as the agent of a candidate, any gift of meat or drink, before, during, or after the election, will be liable to be struck

(a) Where a statute making a new offence, only inflicts a forfeiture and specifies the remedy, an indictment will not lie. R. v. Wright, 1 Burr. 543; R. v. Douse, 1 Ray. 672; and 1 Russ. on Crimes, 50.

(b) Clerk on Elec. Com. 189, and 1 P. R. & D. 18.

off the poll in a case of scrutiny. Probably no voter would be so struck off, unless the treat or entertainment took place shortly before or shortly after the election (a). The 23rd section, which has introduced confusion into the whole law on this subject creates here a difficulty. If a voter accepts a five shilling dinner on the nomination day, or on the polling day, from a candidate, is he not treated? This section has created doubts upon this subject; and probably until this section is repealed committees will come to different conclusions, according to the views the majority in each may entertain, as to the mischief or comparative harmlessness of the distribution of meat and drink, &c. to voters at elections (b).

In other respects this new enactment introduces very little change into the former state of the law; but it leaves still to be determined by each committee the important question of what is treating.

Treating, what is it?] A great deal has been said of late years in both Houses of Parliament, and elsewhere, on the impossibility of defining treating. In

the

year 1848 it was stated in the House of Commons, in a discussion on the North Cheshire election, by a noble lord who has paid a great deal of attention to election law (c), that treating might exist without any intention of corruptly influencing voters; another honourable member (d) said it was quite impossible

(a) In the House of Commons, it was proposed to limit this disqualification of the voter, to cases where the treating had taken place within a period of six months either previous or subsequent to the election; but this proviso was rejected by 153 to 78. See 109 Journals, p. 448.

(b) Post, p. 139.

(c) Lord J. Russell, 100 Hans. 1154. (d) Mr. Henley, ib.