What consequences, such gifts of money on the nomination and polling days, would have on the validity of the election will be considered hereafter.

It is only where the money is given as dinner money, or refreshment money, that the doubt can arise; the simple gift of money, be it 10s. or 5s., as in the Liverpool case, 1853 (a), as "day's pay," or as head money, or a bare gift, would amount to bribery, and would avoid the election. It might be difficult to point out the distinction between 58. given for a day's pay and 58. given for a day's dinner.

Does this prohibition to give reward to a voter, continue for months and years after the election? Were a candidate to make a present of money to a voter two years after an election, would this be bribery? Would it avoid his election, supposing the sessional order to be continued, allowing a petition to be presented within a certain time after the payment? Would the obtaining an appointment for a political supporter in a borough, two or three years after an election, be an act of bribery?

These are extreme cases, but if the view here taken of these enactments be the correct one, there can be no doubt that these questions ought to be answered in the affirmative.

Assuming the decision in the Durham case, B. & Arn. 201, to have been a correct one, and it is believed that the propriety of that decision has never been questioned, it seems impossible to draw any line as to the period of time after an election, at which such rewards would cease to be illegal.

(a) Ante, p. 87.

In the second place, is the giving of money to a voter two or three years after an election, on account of the conduct of that voter at the election, bribery? This might be met by another question; Why have you given that man money, has he earned it? If the answer were: No, but he voted for me, or did not vote against me, the act says that such conduct is corrupt, and amounts to bribery. If the voter has fairly earned the money there can be no bribery; and no tribunal would say that a man was forbidden to give employment to a competent person, a supporter of his party, in preference to an opponent. In answer to the next question, it follows, that if such gifts amount to bribery, a sitting member making or authorising them, would be liable to forfeit his seat, if the House continues to allow petitions to be presented within a limited time after the making of such payments (a). The responsibility of the sitting member under such circumstances would, no doubt, be restricted to his own acts, or those expressly sanctioned by him. That peculiar kind of responsibility on the part of a candidate, for the acts done by his agents without his knowledge or authority, could not fairly be held to extend beyond the election.

As to whether the obtaining a place or office for a voter, two or three years after an election, on account of his conduct at such election, would be an act of bribery, is a point of some nicety. It is, however, still but a question of fact. If there were no other reason for putting the voter into the place or office

(a) Ante, p 92, as to form of this se sional order.

but the one fact of his having voted or refrained from voting, the transaction would be a corrupt one. The questions that would probably be left by a judge, for the decision of a jury under such circumstances would be these. Was the man a fit, or an unfit man for the situation? Were more fitting persons, better recommended than this man passed over? Can you see any other reasons besides this man's conduct at the election which led to this place being obtained for him?

If the voter was fit to hold the situation, and as competent as others, no jury probably would find the person obtaining the situation for him guilty of corrupt conduct. It is submitted that such are also the issues which on a similar question a select committee would have to determine.

The view taken of these enactments may be considered by some persons harsh, and impracticable. Public patronage has been too long regarded by many as the fitting reward for political support at elections. Persons the least fitted for important situations have been thrust into them to the exclusion of better men, and to the detriment of the public service. There are not many persons who at the present day would stand up and openly defend such conduct. It is corrupt, and the Legislature has here declared it to be so, and has provided sufficient punishment. Now that all parties in the Legislature have professed their desire to put an end to corruption at elections, it only remains for those committees, to whom are entrusted the duties of deciding on alleged misconduct, honestly and consistently to carry out these enactments.

The second section describes also certain other proceedings which fall within the definition of bribery.

3. "Every person who shall directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement as aforesaid, to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure, or endeavour to procure the return of any person to serve in Parliament or the vote of any voter at any election :"

4. "Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, 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: are to be deemed guilty of bribery."

These two divisions of the section are more particularly pointed at the prevention of that mischief, which used to be known as purchasing a borough; and are intended as a substitute for the enactments in 49 Geo. 3, c. 118. It does not often happen at the present time, that any one person, or any two or three persons, have sufficient influence in a borough, as to be able to sell the seat or return. Such was a common practice before the Reform Act put an end to many small boroughs. An instance of something similar was exposed in the session of 1853 in the Harwich election. The committee reported "that G. W. P., Esq., was not duly elected. That the said G. W. P. entered into an engagement with J. A., Esq., through his solicitor, in accordance with the terms of which engagement the said G. W. P. was on his part to pay certain sums of money on the event of his return,

and the said J. A. was to endeavour to procure the return of the said G. W. P. for the said borough" (a).

The present enactment is intended to meet a corrupt transaction of this kind. The report of the committee in the Lyme Regis case, 1848, 1 P. R. & D. 39, points out a mischievous influence obtained in a borough by the lending money to voters, on the condition that such voters should on any future occasion vote for the person lending the money, or for any one whom he might appoint to be a candidate for the representation.

There is one more class of persons who are to be deemed guilty of bribery within the second section.

5. Every person who shall advance or pay, or cause to be paid, any money to or for 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 expended in bribery at any election.

This last division of the section applies to the pay

(a) An amendment to this resolution was proposed in committee. "That though it was proved to the committee that a corrupt understanding existed between Mr. P. and the accredited law agent of Mr. A. for the purpose of procuring the return of Mr. P., that such understanding is not within the scope of the 49 Geo. 3, c. 118." This amendment was negatived on a division by three to two. An objection was taken to entertaining the question at all on account of the defective allegations in the petition, but the committee decided that the case should go on. See Printed Minutes and Report of Proceedings.