possible that any one could seriously say that it was less corrupt to give a breakfast or a dinner to voters on the polling day than on any other day.

From the manner in which this section is drawn, not only a candidate, but also any other person, who gave a breakfast to his friends or labourers on these days, for this reason that they had voted, or were about to vote, would be liable to the penalty. This can hardly have been intended; heretofore only candidates have been prohibited from entertaining voters, as voters, at an election. The 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, spoke of "persons to be elected," which was held to include unsuccessful candidates. The act of 1842 spoke of "candidates or persons elected only." The fourth section of the new act, in defining treating, refers only to the acts of a candidate at an election (the word candidate including of course in all these cases those other persons who act on his behalf); but in this 23rd section the words are quite general, "the person so offending," that is, the person giving entertainment on the polling or nomination days to voters, is to forfeit 40s. The only way of construing this section consistently with the other sections and the general state of the law on this subject, would be by supposing that the Legislature was not referring to the acts of candidates at all, but was intending to prohibit every partizan at an election from entertaining his friends on account of their being about to support, or having supported the side with which he was connected. But it is not probable that such could have been the intention; 1st, because the section says in general terms in the preamble, that doubts had arisen whether "the giving of refreshment" to voters on these two

E

days was illegal or not, and no one but the candidate was ever before prohibited from entertaining voters; 2nd, because it would be unreasonable to forbid a landlord or a master unconnected with the candidate, to give entertainment to his tenants or servants, as the case might be, as a refreshment to them before or after polling; and, 3rd, because it is apparent, from what took place in Parliament, that it was not the intention of the Legislature to forbid others than candidates from entertaining voters. The whole history of the clause is rather curious.

On the 22nd of July it was proposed to insert the following clause in the bill:

"And whereas doubts have arisen as to whether the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to and from the poll, as also the giving of refreshment to voters on the day of nomination or day of polling, be or be not according to law, and it is expedient that such doubts should be removed, and that the law should be settled in these particulars; be it declared and enacted, that from and after the passing of this act, it shall be lawful for any candidate or other person, subject always to the provisions of this act as to the payment of election expenses to pay or cause to be paid the actual and reasonable expense of bringing any voters to the poll."

The words from poll to polling, those printed in italics, were then upon motion omitted from the clause, and the rest of the clause passed the House of Commons in this shape, but was rejected in the House of Lords, as has been stated before (a). Another clause

(a) Ante, p. 84.

was afterwards proposed on the same day, declaring "that the giving or causing to be given to any voter on the day of nomination or day of polling, on account of such voter having polled, or being about to poll, any meat, drink, or entertainment by way of refreshment, or any money or ticket to enable such voter to obtain refreshment, should be held and be taken to amount to bribery or treating as the case may be." This clause was at the time withdrawn. It will be seen that it is nearly similar to the 23rd section, except that it declared the acts to amount to treating or bribery, and in the 23rd section they are described simply as illegal acts. On the 24th July the following clause was proposed:

66 And whereas doubts have also arisen as to whether the giving of refreshment to voters on the day of nomination or day of polling be or be not according to law, and it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; be it declared and enacted, that the giving or causing to be given to any voter on the day of nomination or day of polling, on account of such voter having polled, or being about to poll, any meat, drink, or entertainment by way of refreshment, or any money or ticket to enable such voter to obtain refreshment, shall be held and be taken to amount to bribery or treating, as the case may be within the meaning of this act." A long discussion ensued upon this clause. read a second time, after a division of seventy-seven against thirty-five. It was then proposed to limit the operation of the clause, by inserting after the word refreshment," the words "not being refreshment reasonably incidental to the travelling expenses of

It was

such voter." This amendment was negatived by one hundred and thirteen to sixty-one; but before the clause was added to the bill it was unfortunately agreed to leave out the words "shall be held and be taken to amount to bribery or treating, as the case may be, within the meaning of this act," and to insert in lieu thereof, "shall be deemed an illegal act, and the person so offending shall forfeit the sum of 40s. for each offence to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit." In this form the clause was added to the bill (a).

Whether this clause was allowed to be so framed without due consideration of the effect it would have upon the law with regard to bribery and treating, or whether it was in the nature of a compromise, in order to put an end to discussion at that late period of the session, it is difficult to say. It must be remembered, however, that a great difference of opinion existed in the House upon this question of allowing moderate refreshments to voters at elections. On the 20th of July a clause was proposed to allow the election auditor, if all the candidates should consent thereto, to issue 2s. 6d. tickets to each voter on his having polled, which tickets were to be paid or discharged in money or refreshments by any person willing to take such tickets. After considerable discussion the House divided, and the clause was rejected by a small majority, the numbers being 142, and 126. Possibly the adoption of this clause would have proved less mischievous, and introduced less confusion into well established principles of law than the 23rd

(a) See 109 Journals, 428, 430, 435.

section as it stands at present. The allowance of 28. 6d. tickets to voters would have been at variance with the Herefordshire case, 1 Peck. 184; the Ilchester case, 1 Peck. 304; Middlesex, 2 Peck. 31; 2nd Cheltenham, 1848. There would, however, have been a well defined limit to the exceptional illegality sanctioned by the Legislature.

As the law stands, a candidate determined to set the law at defiance, and to whom two or three hundred 40s. penalties are a matter of little importance, might carefully abstain from expending anything until the arrival of the nomination day. On that day, and on the polling day, breakfasts and dinners would be freely provided for voters. Such conduct would be illegal; but the candidate would hope not to imperil his election, because the act says, that such things done on these two days on account of a voter having polled, or being about to poll, should amount only to an illegal act.

It is impossible but that election committees will feel considerable difficulty in construing the fourth and twenty-third sections of this new act, with reference to the question of when an election shall be avoided by reason of treating.

Unless the entertainment given by a candidate on the election days is to be deemed treating, he will not be thereby disqualified. Disqualification for Parliament, resulting from the commission of illegal acts, arises only from a candidate being declared guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence. Other illegal acts, though they may entail pecuniary penalties, will not render the candidate incapable to serve in Parliament (a).

(a) The difficulty arising from the non-repeal of the

H