respondent H £5, I may say a farthing in point of lawif he agreed to give him anything, if only a peppercorn, for the purpose of purchasing any influence which the respondent H had with 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 necessarily 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 with 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 candidates 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 perfectly legal and constitutional.

towards ex

penses of candidates

legal.

Wagers may be bribes.

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 invalidates his vote and necessitates its being struck off on a scrutiny. It is difficult to understand these decisions on the facts as presented in the meagre reports 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 contrivance 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.)

SECTION II.-TREATING.

Treating is the second of those. corrupt acts which, if committed by a candidate or any one of his agents, will

of treating.

avoid the election. Various statutes from the 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 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 description. Those statutes were all repealed by the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854 (the 17 & 18 Vic.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 himself, or by or with any 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 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 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 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-effect."

election.

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 avoided the 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 affected), 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 treating in of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, persons other than can- Act of 1883.

No material alteration be

didates at parliamentary elections are not liable to any punishment for treating, and it is expedient to make such persons liable; be it, therefore, enacted: Any person who 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, entertainment 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.)

It is submitted that although the verbiage of section 1 of the tween old and Act of 1883 differs considerably from section 4 of the Act of

new defini

tion.

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 against. 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 treating to give. on account of such person or any other person having voted. The words in italics are new, and they somewhat enlarge the sweep and scope of the description of the offence. But subject to the minor variations we have men

.

Act of 1883.

tioned, the old definition of treating is preserved, and sub- Definition of stantially all that the legislature has done is to bring within treating in the penalties annexed, classes of persons who before escaped them.

the word

It will be noted that in the definition of treating contained in the Act of 1854 the word "corruptly" is introduced. "Every candidate who corruptly, &c. . . . is guilty of treating." This word is preserved in the definition given in the Act of 1883, "any person who corruptly," &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 effect "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 is now 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. Slade, 6 H.L. Cases, 747; 27 L.J., Q.B., 449; and the Bewdley Case, 1 O'M. & H., 19; 19 L.T., n.s., 676.) "In fact, giving meat or drink Remarks of is treating when the person who gives it has an intention of Lord Blacktreating-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 Bewdley Case, supra.)

burn.

The essence of the offence of treating is the intention with Esgence of which the meat or drink is given. If it is given with an

offence of treating.

intention.

intention to influence a vote, that is treating, and the effect upon the election is exactly the same as the effect of a bribe, subject to the possibility 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 Wallingford 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 the 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."

Distinction between bribery and treating.

There is one obvious distinction between bribery and treating in regard to the light in which evidence of the giving 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 given, you are not driven to either one or other of these alternatives, because it is common knowledge that good fellowship, and friendly relations, and the customs of the country lead to an interchange of treating between persons