and too honestly administered, to allow them to escape detection. Every species of gift made without adequate consideration is a palpable bribe. The opening the houses of publicans, the giving custom to a tradesman, in order to influence their votes, the payment of pretended or colourable services, where none have been rendered, are all obvious modes of bribery. Also, whenever an exorbitant sum is paid for the doing something, for which a moderate remuneration might legally be given, no jury or committee would hesitate to declare the transaction to be corrupt. Loans of money, in order to influence votes, are as illegal as the gifts of money.

There are, however, one or two payments, the illegality of which has been much disputed. These may be considered as wagers on the result of an election, the payment of travelling expenses, and the payments to voters for loss of time. The difficulty can only arise when there is no obvious intention to influence the mind of the voter by the wager or such payment. It is clear that, whenever the wager is of such a nature as necessarily to produce an influence on the mind of the voter, the wager amounts to a bribe; so also if the payment for travelling expenses, or for loss. of time is exorbitant, there could be no hesitation in pronouncing it a colourable payment, and a bribe.

Wager on the result of the Election.] Such a wager would be illegal in one sense because it could not be enforced in a court of law (a); but it may well be

(a) Allen v. Hearne, 1 T. R. 56. As the general tendency of such wagers was contrary to public policy, the Court would not assist a plaintiff in enforcing his demand.

doubted whether, a judge would direct a jury to convict a man of a misdemeanor, because he made a bet with a voter on the result of the election, unless it appeared that the bet was made with a corrupt intention to influence the opinion of an undecided or hostile voter.

The question of the legality of such bets has arisen on many occasions before committees of the House of Commons, but only on cases of scrutiny, where the inquiry was, whether the voter making the bet thereby forfeited his vote. Some committees have inquired whether the circumstances were such as to have influenced the voter, others have refused to make any such inquiry, but have declared all such wagers to be bribes (a).

Travelling Expenses.] Whether the payment of the actual expenses of travelling incurred by a voter amounts to an act of bribery, has been for a long time questio vexata. So long ago as the year 1784, Lord Mahon brought a bill into Parliament to prevent bribery by paying electors for travelling expenses and loss of time. A clause was inserted in the bill as it passed through the House of Commons, allowing the payment for bona fide travelling expenses, provided the money was paid directly for the coach-hire, and not into the hands of the voter. This bill was strenuously opposed by Lord Mansfield in the House of Lords. He contended, that "the palliatives of the bill, by which it endeavoured to allow of satisfaction for real

(a) F. & F. 404; K. & O. 416, 191, 193, 194, 195; K. & O. 254. See also Rogers on Elections, 253; Clerk on Com. 104, and post.

expenses, were liable to great fraud and abuse, because men's employments were so various, that an hour might be more valuable to one man than whole days to another, which rendered the difficulty of settling such accounts insurmountable" (a). The bill was rejected. The arguments here used by Lord Mansfield apply to payments for loss of time, and not to travelling expenses; the bill proposed to disallow the former, and to legalise the latter.

In the year 1806, Mr. Tierney brought in a bill expressly to declare and enact such expenses to be illegal. The bill was printed in three different shapes, as amended upon recommittals, and was ultimately thrown out (6). In the Report of the Committee on Election Expenses, 1834, p. x., there occurs the following passage:-"Your committee, by the increase of polling places, have in view a reduction of the great expense hitherto, in many instances, incurred in conveying voters to the poll, which expense has at all times been of doubtful legality. Some committees of the House have sanctioned, while others have disapproved the practice; and every election committee has fixed their own limit to such expenses. Mr. Harrison has given an opinion to your committee, that since the passing of the Reform Act, any expense in conveying voters to the poll is illegal; at all events, your committee hope that, by the increase of booths recommended, the future charge for conveyance to the poll, by whomsoever borne, will be much reduced" (c).

(a) 1 Luders, 67, note to Ipswich case.

(b) See vols. 6 and 7 Parl. Debates; also note to Worcester case, K. & O. 250.

(c) K. & O. 249.

The opinion of Mr. Harrison here referred to, is given at length in a note to the Worcester case (a). It must be observed that, though the Reform Act diminished the necessity for such expenditure, it did not declare that to be illegal which had previously been generally considered legal, unless made a means of corruption.

Several cases (b) are to be found in the volumes of Election Reports, where payments for travelling expenses, coupled with payments for subsistence and loss of time, have been deemed illegal. These payments were almost always of an exorbitant character; it is believed that there is no case to be found where a committee has decided a payment made for bona fide travelling expenses to be bribery. In a recent case, (Southampton, 1853) (c), a committee decided that bona fide payments made to voters for travelling expenses and loss of time were not illegal. It was proved before this committee, that in the great majority of instances nothing but the bare travelling expenses had been paid to the voter, and that in no case had a larger sum been given than was necessary to cover the expenditure by the voter for his journey, loss of time, and subsistence.

A great deal of discussion took place in both Houses of Parliament during the session of 1854, upon the legality of the payment of travelling expenses. The "Corrupt Practices Prevention Act" passed the House of Commons with a clause declaring such payments to be legal; in the House of Lords it was proposed to

(a) K. & O. 249.

(b) Berwick, 1 Peck. 402; Durham, 2 Peck. 178; Oxford, P. & K. 60; and Ipswich, 1 Lud. 41.

(c) 2 P. R. & D. 52.

insert a clause pronouncing them illegal; this clause was withdrawn: the clause inserted in the House of Commons was then struck out, and the Act has passed, leaving the law in the same state as it was before.

This matter has, on two occasions, come under the consideration of learned judges sitting at nisi prius. In one case, Bayntun v. Cattle, 1 M. & Rob. 265, Alderson, B. told the jury, "If the voters had been paid their actual expenses, a difference of opinion has prevailed as to the legality of such payments; some committees have held them to be legal-others, and probably theirs is the more correct opinion, that they are not legal; for it is obvious that such expenses, if allowed, would lead to great abuses."

In the case then before the learned judge, there could be no doubt as to the exorbitant and illegal nature of the payments.

In the case of Bremridge v. Campbell, 5 C. & P. 186, Tindal, C. J. directed the jury thus: "It will be for you to say, as to the sums paid to the several voters, whether they were paid really and bona fide for travelling expenses, and travelling expenses only; or were paid to induce them to give their votes. The question is, whether any part was paid as a bonus over and above the actual expenses of the party. If the payments were made for travelling expenses only, it seems somewhat singular that all the voters should be paid alike. It seems that 67. was given to a man who lived only a few miles from B., who certainly in the first instance would not require travelling expenses at all. But it is said, that is no matter, because the other parties agreed, and there