IN THE BRIBER.

Loans.

made "on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting" would be corrupt. Bramwell, B., however, suggests as an exception the case of a charitable gift to a voter: Stroud, supra. See further, as to the meaning of "corruptly," the cases upon Treating, cited in the next chapter.

To avoid an election on the ground of bribery by an agent after the election, the privity of the respondent must be shown, because agency prima facie terminates with the election: see post, p. 375.

In other respects the time when the act takes place is immaterial; an act will be as much within the statute, if committed two or three years before or after the election, as if committed on the day of the election: see the cases cited ante, p. 259.

There is no necessary connection between bribery at a municipal election and at a parliamentary one: Southampton, 1 O'M. & H. 226. But where they are part of one political contest, and the corruption at the municipal election is either intended to operate upon the parliamentary one, or that is the necessary result of what was done at the municipal election, the parliamentary election will be avoided for the corruption at the municipal election: Beverley, 1 O'M. & H. 150.

Upon the nature of the corrupt reward prohibited in these sub-sections, it may be remarked that the words 'money or other valuable consideration" mean money or other consideration estimable in money: see per Alderson, B., in Cooper v. Slade, 27 L. T. 139. Loans of money to a voter, or a person likely to influence him, are placed on the same footing, as regards the lender, as absolute gifts. They were omitted from previous statutes on bribery, and the attention of the Legislature seems to have been called to them by the cases of Lyme Regis, B. & Aust. 454, and Rye, 2 P. R. & D. 115.

In the former case the Committee reported "that a corrupt practice had for some years prevailed of lending money upon notes of hand, bills of sale, or other securities, and that a practice so insidiously corrupting and

demoralising deserved serious attention and inquiry on the part of the House." In the latter case the report stated, that one S. had exercised for many years great influence in the elections at R., by corruptly lending money for electioneering purposes, to the amount of 15,0007.; and that in many instances the voters were influenced; while those who had voted against S.'s party, or had forborne to vote, were pressed for repay

ment.

IN THE BRIBER.

ment at

election.

A common form of bribery was the employment of Employvoters for payment at an election, with the object of influencing their votes. No such case has been reported since the passing of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, which, by section 17, makes the employment of any persons, except as mentioned in the First Schedule, illegal. It may still be necessary to consider whether employment, which is illegal within that Act, amounts to bribery, because bribery avoids an election if committed by any agent, but illegal employment does not, unless committed by the election agent. So also where the employment is not an illegal employment within that Act, it would be bribery if given to influence votes. The question as to whether employment amounts to bribery is one of fact; in deciding such question, regard must be had to the nature of the employment, the number of persons employed, whether they are voters or not, and the amount of the payments.

Office or employment, whether temporary or permanent, if not given bonâ fide, is bribery: Nottingham, B. & Arn. 165; Kingston-upon-Hull, W. & Br. 87; Penryn, 1 O'M. & H. 129; and whether it be given to a voter or a third person will be immaterial, if it can be proved that the receiver influenced the voter, and that the giver meant him to do so. But the employment of persons, all of whom were supporters of the employer, and had promised him their votes long before the employment, was held not bribery: Londonderry, 1 O'M. & H. 277.

IN THE

BRIBER.

Where 300 persons of the lower class of voters were paid and employed ostensibly for registration purposes, and worked with canvassing books, the Court were of opinion that such employment was colourable, and would have held it to be bribery if it had been so charged in the petition: Rochester, Day's El. Cas. 102. Payment of large sums to agents was held not to be bribery: Youghal, 1 O'M. & H. 295, 296. The employment of persons to hold up their hands at the nomination was held to be bribery: Norwich, 2 O'M. & H. 42. But the employment of persons to keep order at the poll was held not to be bribery: Gloucester, 2 O'M. & H. 52.

In the Cambridge case, W. & D. 30, 74 messengers were employed on one side, and 32 on the other; there was conflicting evidence as to the necessity of employing so many as 74, but they were in fact employed. This was held not bribery: Huddersfield, W. & Br. 33; and Beverley, ibid. 82, acc. But, in the Oxford case, W. & D. 106, where 198 messengers were employed on one side, and 28 on the other, and 152 of the 198 were voters, and performed no adequate services or work, the election was avoided: see 1st Cheltenham, 1 P. R. & D. 189.

Where 744 persons were employed as messengers, of whom about 600 were voters, and actually voted, the election was declared void: Oxford, 3 O'M. & H. 155. But where 214 persons were employed as clerks, messengers, bill-posters, and sandwich-men, of whom 78 were voters and actually voted, the election was upheld: Salisbury, 4 O'M. & H. 22.

In the Tamworth case, 1 O'M. & H. 78, 130 men were employed by an agent of one of the candidates "to keep the peace," but the Judge refused to avoid the election; so also where the employment of watchers was a reasonable precaution, and was bond fide: Youghal, 1 O'M. & H. 294. But in the Boston case, 3 O'M & H. 152, 153, the employment of voters as watchers was held to be bribery: see also Bewdley, 1 O'M. & H. 20 ;

Nottingham, 1 O'M. & H. 246; Longford, 2 O'M. & H. 12. The number of messengers, who may be legally employed for payment, is now regulated by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, and paid watchers cannot be employed at all, but illegal employment is not necessarily bribery.

IN THE

BRIBER.

for pre

Payment for previous bond fide employment, irrespec- Payment tive of the current election, has before the Act been vious bond held bribery under special circumstances: Cambridge, fide employment. B. & Arn. 169; Sligo, 2 P. R. & D. 258. The Committee in the former case reported that W. S. was bribed by the payment of a sum of money claimed by him as the balance of a bill incurred at a municipal election a year and a half before; payment of the amount having been refused until the poll was going on, and having then been made by a person not liable for the debt, and for the avowed purpose of inducing the elector to vote. This being in a scrutiny, the corruptor's conduct was not animadverted on. By the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, even where the payment in such a case is made after the election, it would be liable to be called in question. But in the Coventry case, I O'M. & H. 97, the payment by a candidate of expenses incurred, semble corruptly, at a previous election was held not to be bribery. But it was shown that at the time the payment was made he did not intend to stand again, and considered himself bound in honour to pay them.

Payments for admission of freemen, and of rates, for Payment of rates, the purpose of enabling a voter to be registered, have &c. always been regarded with suspicion: Worcester, C. & D. 173; and see remarks of Alderson, B., thereon, in Bayntun v. Cattle, 1 M. & R. 265: and of Lord Denman, in R. v. Bridgenorth, 10 A. & E. 66; 8 L. J., M. C. 86. The 49th section of the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, enacts that "Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any rate on behalf of any ratepayer, for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indi

BRIBER.

IN THE rectly, paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punishable accordingly." This section is adopted by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.

Payment

ling expenses.

But payment to enable a man to take up his freedom made a year before the election was held not to be bribery Beverley, 1 O'M. & H. 145. And in the Oldham case, ibid. 164, it was held that such payment, though made in order to enable the voter to be registered, and in expectation that the voter's vote would thereby be obtained for his own party, which was also the party of the payer, was not bribery, for it was not made to "influence" his vote, but only to enable him to vote. In other words, it was not made " corruptly": see Taunton, ibid. 183; Hastings, ibid. 219; Cheltenham, ibid. 63.

In the Wigan case, ibid. 190, it was suggested that to unseat a member for such a cause the ordinary common law rules as to agency should be applied, sed quære.

The better opinion seems to be that formerly payments for travelling expenses, unless colourable, when of course they would be bribery (g), were not illegal: see note to the Worcester case, K. & O. at p. 249. Such payments were forbidden by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, s. 1, and 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 36, (now repealed). But payments made in violation of either of these Acts, although illegal, did not per se amount to bribery: Huddersfield, W. & Br. 28; Carlisle, ibid. 92; Lichfield, 1 O'M. & H. 28; Coventry, ibid. 110. Such payments are now made illegal practices by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, s. 7: see post, p. 339. Although an election may be avoided by an illegal practice as well as by bribery, the question whether such payments amount to bribery is

(g) See Ipswich, 1 Lud. 21; Berwick, 1 Peck. 401; Oxford, P. & K. 60; 2nd Ipswich, B. & Aust. 609; Maldon, 2 P. R. & D. 148; Carlisle, 1 P. R. & D. 59; Lincoln, ibid. 79; Beverley, W. & Br. 188; Bremridge v. Campbell, 5 C. & P. 186; Ipswich, W. & D. 181.