should be cut up as equally as possible into streets or blocks. These should then be numbered consecutively, for the sake of convenient reference, and apportioned amongst the canvassers.

The same system, allowing for the difference of geographical circumstances, should be pursued in the case of county divisions; that is to say, each district ought to be divided into small areas, and these, after being numbered, allotted to the canvassers.

In giving to each his "beat," regard should be paid to the place of residence and convenience of the canvasser, as much more work may be accomplished in a given time if the voters whom he is appointed to look. after are to be found in his own immediate neighbourhood.

To these arrangements district and ward committees, if a canvass be decided upon, should give their earliest consideration. It is a great matter to be first in the field. In nearly all constituencies there are indifferent electors, whose votes are at the service of the candidate whose party first pays them the compliment of soliciting their support.

It may here be observed that if a candidate should desire or be persuaded to call personally upon the electors of a district or ward, with a view to obtain their support, he should never be allowed to go alone, but should invariably be accompanied by one or more members of the committee for the district or ward he visits, so that he may be properly introduced to the voters, and at the same time protected from trumped-up charges of corrup

tion.

In appointing canvassers the advice of district or ward committees may be usefully sought, but the actual appointment should be made by the election agent by himself, or by his sub-agents, where there are any, or by the candidate, and in no case left to the committees.

For particulars as to the duties of canvassers, the instructions that should be given to them, and the responsibility attaching to their office, vide infra, p. 159.

Committee of Investigation.

The sole purpose of this committee is to investigate the facts connected with any alleged case of corrupt or illegal practice occurring during the conduct of an election. The appointment of such a body can do no harm in any event; in some instances, on the other hand, it may be productive of much good. Wherever an apprehension is entertained that illegitimate influences may be resorted to, a committee of this kind should certainly be formed. If properly handled, it may prove a means of preventing doubtful practices, of checkmating an election petition, or of unseating an opposing candidate who has been guilty personally, or by his agents, of illegal acts.

A committee of investigation ought to be a very small body numerically, both on account of the delicacy of the subject-matter with which it may have to deal and of its roving character. A large membership would only impede its action and impair its usefulness. Three persons of sound judgment should suffice to constitute it, and of these three persons one, if possible, should be a lawyer, or should possess some knowledge of the law relating to election offences.

In reference to this point the following remarks by Blackburn, J., may be quoted:

"I cannot myself see how any large body could be legitimately or properly employed in a matter of that sort; I can understand that when you have reason to believe there are corrupt practices going on upon a particular side, that, in order to discover where they are going on, you may employ a single scout or spy to act as a detective to find it out; but the essence of his finding it out must be that he is to go quietly and without alarming them. I cannot imagine how you can legitimately employ a number of persons for any such purpose. It seems to me that the only thing you could expect if you sent a number of persons round would be that they would commit violence and intimidation (The Stafford Case, 21 L. T. 213).

NOTE.-In this case it was proposed to organize a vigi

lance committee of seven members, who were to go about accompanied by some thirty or forty non-electors and in some way or other discover corrupt practices on the other side. But, as might have been expected, the thing got out of hand, and violence resulted.

Immediately upon the report of an infringement of the law the committee should proceed to the scene of the alleged offence to investigate the facts. If upon diligent inquiry the members have reason to believe that the report is well founded, and that a good case can be made out against an opponent, they should make a careful note of all the circumstances, and of the names and addresses of the parties involved, as well as of any persons who may be able to give evidence on the matter in question.

If, on the other hand, the reported offence is alleged to have been committed by a partisan they may be able upon investigation to show the rumour to be groundless, and to give it a flat contradiction.

Should they be clearly convinced that an offence. capable of defeating the election has been committed by one of their own party, they should at once report the matter to the election agent, and steps should thereupon be immediately taken to disown the act and the person guilty of it, and, if need be, to place the matter before the proper authorities.

III.-CANVASSERS.

In employing canvassers these points should be borne in mind:

(1.) The employment of paid canvassers is now

illegal, and if resorted to by a candidate, his election agent, or sub-agents, it avoids the election.

NOTE.-While the employment of canvassers for payment

is illegal, there appears to be nothing to prevent the paid members of the election staff canvassing if their

duties enable them to do so, provided they be not paid to canvass. But this had better be avoided.

(2.) The personal engagement by a candidate of a canvasser whom he knows to have been found guilty, within seven years previous to such engagement, of any corrupt practice by any competent legal tribunal, or to have been reported guilty of any corrupt practice by a Committee of the House of Commons, or by the report of a judge upon an election petition, or by the report of commissioners appointed in pursuance of the Act, renders the election of the candidate void (31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 44).

NOTE. This enactment, although passed when paid canvassing was permissible, is not confined to paid agency (The North Norfolk Case, 1 O'M. & H. 239).

It is sufficient to bring a case within the words of the statute," personally engage," if the engagement be made with the knowledge and consent of the candidate (ib.; approved in The Norwich Case, 2 ib. 40).

(3.) A person authorized generally to canvass is an agent for whose acts a candidate is responsible. "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" (The Harwich Case, 3 O'M. & H. 70, per Lush, J.). "There may be cases in which canvassing would not necessarily involve agency, but general canvassing has always been held to be strong evidence of agency, and evidence which requires a very strong case to rebut it, if it can be rebutted" (The Wigan Case, 4 O'M. & H. 13, per Grove, J.).

NOTE. The authority need not be actual; it may be implied from circumstances-e.g., from recognition

or acceptance of services (The Westbury Case, 3 O'M. & H. 80; The Dungannon Case, ib. 102).

(4.) A person with a limited authority to canvass (authority to canvass a specified class of voters, or certain particularised individuals) is an agent for whose acts, within the scope of such limited authority, a candidate is responsible.

For example: If A. be authorized to canvass B., C., and D., and he bribe B., or C., or D., the candidate is responsible (The Harwich Case, 3 O'M. & H. 70; The Wigan Case, 4 ib. 12, 13; The Westbury Case, 3 ib. 80). (5.) A person with a limited authority to canvass is not an agent for whose acts, without the scope of such limited authority, a candidate is responsible. For example: If A. be authorized to canvass B., C., and D. only, and he canvass and bribe E., the candidate is not responsible (The Bodmin Case, 1 O'M. & H. 120; The Westbury Case, ib. 48; The North Norfolk Case, ib. 237).

(6.) A person who takes it upon himself to canvass without authority (i.e., a mere volunteer canvasser) is not an agent for whose acts a candidate, who has not ratified or adopted such acts with a knowledge at the time of their character, is responsible (The Harwich Case, 3 O'M. & H. 70). The important subsidiary question, as to what evidence will suffice to prove binding agency on the part of a canvasser cannot be determined here. It is a question in each case for the Court. The following notes, however, may, perhaps, help the election agent to a clearer understanding of the matter, and to a sharper perception of the danger run by employing canvassers.

First of all, canvassing is in itself strong evidence of agency, and very slight additional circumstances may suffice to bring responsibility home to the candidate.

The possession of a regular canvassing book is a step in the evidence that a person is an authorized agent (The Bolton Case, 2 O'M. & H. 140).