holders or inhabitants to obtain their suffrages, or procure one to be elected." (a) From these words, “it were well if it extended to drink and entertainments," it has been contended that a man could not have been bribed by drink at common law. Probably what was meant was this, that the mere distribution of drink at an election to electors and others was not a common law offence, unless it could be shown that it was given away upon a contract or understanding that the parties receiving it were to give their votes in consequence, in which case it would amount to bribery.

In the year 1669 a debate took place "touching the making void of all future elections, which shall appear to be procured by money, or by entertainments of meat and drink." It was in the year 1677 that the first step was taken to stop the growing evil of giving away drink and other entertainments at elections. Resolved, "That if any person, hereafter to be elected into a place for to sit and serve in the House of Commons, for any county, town, port, or borough, after the teste or the issuing out of the writ or writs of election, upon the calling or summoning of any Parliament hereafter, or after any such place becomes vacant hereafter in the time of Parliament, shall by himself, or by any other in his behalf, or at his charge, at any time before the day of his election, give any person or persons, having vote in any such election,

(a) Vol. 1, p. 387. In the 2nd Southwark case, Cliff. 154, and in the Herefordshire case, 1 Peck. 191, the whole history of the law as to treating is minutely traced. The same subject is also treated at length in the able work of Mr. Warren on Elect. Com. p. 503.

any meat or drink, exceeding in the true value ten pounds in the whole, in any place or places but in his own dwelling-house or habitation, being the usual place of his abode for six months last past; or shall before such election be made and declared, make any other present, gift, or reward, or promise, obligation, or engagement to do the same, either to any such person or persons in particular, or to any such county, city, town, port, or borough in general; or to or for the use or benefit of them, or any of them; every such entertainment, present, gift, reward, promise, obligation, or engagement is by this House declared to be bribery; and such entertainment, present, gift, reward, promise, obligation, or engagement being duly proved, is and shall be sufficient ground, cause, and matter to make every such election void, as to the person so offending, and to render the person so elected incapable to sit in Parliament by such election; and hereof the committee of elections and privileges is appointed to take especial notice and care, and to act and determine matters coming before them accordingly." It will be seen that there is no allusion in this resolution to any corrupt bargain or understanding. As this resolution was the declaration of the House of Commons alone, and not the act of the Legislature, it would be important to ascertain whether any elections were ever avoided by force of it. Between the years 1677 and 1696, when the 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, was passed, a great number of elections were avoided on petition. In the great majority of cases this happened by reason of the misconduct of the returning officers. There are a few cases where elections were questioned on the ground of bribery and corruption, and were on that account

avoided. In 1679 a petition was presented from Leicester, complaining of bribery and other undue practices, but nothing appears to have been done upon it. In 1689 the Stockbridge and Mitchell elections were avoided for bribery. In 1690, Wootton Bassett, the House inquired into the alleged bribery, and ordered an agent of the candidate to be taken into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, for having distributed bribes to the electors. In 1691 two elections at Chippenham were avoided for bribery. In 1693 the Stockbridge election was declared void for bribery. In several other cases, which are to be found in vols. 9, 10, and 11 of the Journals of the House of Commons, inquiry was made by the House into alleged acts of bribery. It is remarkable, however, that in no case was an election questioned on account of treating, or as it was then more frequently called, debauchery at elections. There is evidence in several of the cases above cited, and in others (a), that drinking at the expense of candidates was taking place at these elections; it does not appear, however, to have been in any case brought forward as a serious charge. The existence of such practices is, moreover, proved by the introduction into the House of Commons, in the year 1680, of a "Bill to prevent the offences of bribery and debauchery at the election of members to serve in Parliament." The bill was read twice, and was then dropped. Again, in the year 1689, another bill to prevent abuses in excessive expenses in election of members reached a second reading. These attempts to legislate on this matter seem to prove, not only the

(a) 10 Journ. 522, 638, 644.

existence of the evil, but also that there was not at the time any remedy sufficient to meet it.

Immediately after the passing of the 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, an election was questioned on the ground of treating. 11 Journals, 599, Aldborough; a petition was presented, complaining that Henry Fairfax had, in contempt of the act of last session of Parliament, publicly spent money in treating the electors for their votes, and it was afterwards resolved, nemine contradicente, that Henry Fairfax, having, contrary to the late act of Parliament, expended money, in order to his election to serve in this present Parliament, is disabled and incapacitated upon such election, 11 Journals, 632. And again, in 1700, an election for St. Albans was questioned on the ground that the majority had been obtained by bribes and treats.

The circumstance that no elections were questioned on the ground of treating before the passing of this statute, but that it was put into operation immediately on its passing, seems to establish what is here contended for, viz., that the giving of meat and drink to electors at an election was not an offence at common law, except when it was done upon a contract or understanding that the voter should be influenced by it, and that such is the view taken by that able judge (Lord Lyndhurst) in the case of Hughes v. Marshall, has been before pointed out.

Treating by Statute.] It is as a statutable offence that treating will now be considered. The first act on this subject was the 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, “An Act for preventing charge and expense in elections of members to serve in Parliament." Though that act is repealed by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, it

will be useful to consider what it was that was prohibited by that statute. "No person hereafter to be elected, after the teste of the writ, or vacancy in the place, shall by himself, or by any other ways or means on his behalf, or at his charge, directly or indirectly give, present, or allow to any elector, any money, meat, drink, entertainment or provision, or make any present, gift, reward or entertainment, or shall at any time hereafter make any promise, &c., to give or allow any money, meat, &c. to any such persons in particular, or to any place in general, in order to be elected, or for being elected." In the case of Ribbans v. Crickett, 1 B. & P. 264, it was argued that the words “in order to be elected" applied only to the latter part of this clause, and not to the first part, and it is said that the court agreed in this view of the statute. These words, elected," are

"in order to be elected, or for being

used in the new enactment, and it will be important to consider their meaning hereafter.

It will be seen that the only persons forbidden by this act to treat electors are "the persons to be elected," which words comprehended not only the persons actually elected, but also those who unsuccessfully attempted to be elected. In the case of Ward v. Nanney, 3 C. & P. 399, it was argued that the statute did not apply to an unsuccessful candidate, but Park, J., who tried the case, said that he was decidedly of opinion that was not so. Of course, all those persons who are the agents of the person forbidden to do these unlawful acts are equally prohibited, and the statutable consequences of their acts fall upon the candidate who sanctioned them. The time at which the giving of the meat, &c. was illegal, was after the issuing of the writ