PENALTIES. in the House of Commons for the county or borough, and if he has been elected his election is to be void; and he is further subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said report he had been convicted of a corrupt practice; as to which, see ante, p. 32.

GENERAL TREATING.

The same section provides that if any corrupt practice other than treating or undue influence is committed by or with the knowledge and consent" of a candidate, the same incapacities are incurred. Relief may be given under section 22, ante, p. 232, to a candidate where treating has been committed by persons other than himself and his election agent.

As to the other penalties incurred by persons guilty of treating, see ante, p. 290.

Freedom of election is at common law essential to the validity of an election. If this freedom be by any means prevented generally, the election is void at common

law.

Therefore an election may be avoided by general treating although not brought home to the candidate or his agents: Bradford, 1 O'M, & H. 41; Drogheda, ibid. 258; St. Ives, 3 O'M. & H. 13. But an election will not be avoided upon this ground unless the treating is shown to have been so extensive that there could not have heen a free election: Ipswich, 4 O'M. & H. 70.

In Poitefract, Cave, J., said that the giving ten gallons of teer amongst 2,600 persons could not amount to general treating; Day's El. Cas. 129.

In Ipswich, supra, Denman, J., said it would be obviously unfair to avoid an election upon the ground of general treating if the treating had not been committed in favour of the candidate elected.

See also "General Bribery," ante, p. 293, and "General Intimidation," post, p. 325.

Corruptly influencing a voter, whether by the more direct and grosser form of treating (ante, p. 295), or the more indirect and subtler form of wagers (ante, p. 286), was always an offence as a species of bribery; but unduly influencing a voter was not, before the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, an offence in the strict sense of the word, although its prevalence is mentioned in many resolutions of the House of Commons, and many statutes have been passed to prohibit the evil in particular instances; and although a vote unduly influenced is void. at common law, and will be struck off on a scrutiny: Oldham, 1 O'M. & H. 161, 162.

The 3 Edw, 1, c. 5, which is declaratory of the common law, thus, in affirming the vital principle of freedom of election, said, "Because elections ought to be free, the King commandeth, under pain of great forfeiture, that no man by force of arms, nor by malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election."

In early times the quarters from which undue influence seems chiefly to have been feared were the aristocracy and those in the employment of the Crown.

PEERS.

PEERS.

On the 10th December, 1641, the House came to the following resolution :

"Whereas the House of Commons has received information that letters from peers are directed to boroughs that now are to make elections of members to serve in this Parliament; they conceive that all letters of that nature from any peers of this realm do necessarily tend to the violation of the privileges of Parliament, and the freedom of elections of the members that ought to serve in the House of Commons; and do declare that, notwithstanding such letters, all persons to whom elections of knights and burgesses do belong ought to proceed to their elections with that freedom which, by the laws of the realm, and of right, they ought to do; and do expect that if any such letters from any peers of the realm shall hereafter be sent unto them, that the parties receiving the same shall certify the contents thereof, or bring the letters themselves to the Speaker of the House of Commons": 2 Journ. 337: see also Resolution, 15th Feb., 1700, 13 Journ. 333.

Upon the Union with Ireland, the following resolution was adopted, 27th April, 1802, and has been adopted as a sessional resolution ever since:

"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any lord of Parliament, or other peer or prelate, not being a peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any peer of Ireland, at such elections in Great Britain respectively, where such peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself or any others be proposed to be elected, or for any lord-lieutenant or governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission to influence the election of any member to serve for the Commons in Parliament" 57 Journ. 34, 376.

For instances of interference by peers, see the cases of

the Bishop of Worcester, 14 Journ. 37; of the Bishop of Carlisle, 16 Journ. 548; of the Lord-Lieutenant of Southampton, 37 Journ. 507, 513, 538, 557; and of the Duke of Leeds, 68 Journ. 344, 586; see also the debate on the alleged interferences of the Earl of Rosebery in relation to the election for the Leith boroughs in 1893, 22 Hans., 4th series, 587.

In the Galway case, 2 O'M. & H. 54, it was proved that the Marquis of C. had said to a number of his tenants, "If you can vote for my friend Capt. T., I shall be delighted if you will do so. If you cannot vote for him, at all events stay at home and do not vote against him," or words to that effect. But the judge (Keogh, J.) refused to avoid the election, and said that the resolution had not the effect of a Statute, and was not intended to deprive any peer, who was also a landlord, of his legitimate influence.

:

The resolution was originally intended to prevent any interference by peers at elections, and, although it did not make law, was probably declaratory of the common law see Earl Beauchamp v. Madresfield, L. R., 8 C. P. 245. In recent times, it has frequently been stated in the House of Commons that the resolution is not intended to prevent a peer exercising legitimate influence: see 83 Hans., 3rd series, 1172, 1184; 22 Hans., 4th series, 587.

Undue influence, whether exercised by peers or others, is now forbidden by statute: see 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, s. 2, post, p. 524.

PEERS.

On the 10th December, 1779, the House of Commons MINISTERS. resolved, "That it is highly criminal in any minister or ministers, or other servants under the Crown of Great Britain, directly or indirectly, to use the powers of office in the election of representatives to serve in Parliament; and an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by this House, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independency, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject throughout the empire,

MINISTERS. and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy constitution": 37 Journ. 507. Such interference was the subject of inquiry in the Dover case, W. & Br. 132.

.

MILITARY. From the first establishment of a standing army, the jealousy of the House of Commons has been directed to prevent any military interference at elections. Thus on the 17th November, 1645, the House resolved, "That all elections of any knight, citizen, or burgess, to serve in Parliament, be made without interruption or molestation by any commander, governor, officer, or soldier, that hath not in the county, city, or borough respectively right of electing": 4 Journ. 346.

POLICE.

Again, on the 22nd December, 1741.-"That the presence of a regular body of armed soldiers at an election of members to serve in Parliament is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of the kingdom" (a): 24 Journ. 37. And see the provisions made by the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 21, for confining soldiers to barracks on the day of the election, ante, p. 54.

By 10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 18 (Metropolitan Police), no justice, receiver, or police constable appointed under that Act "shall by word, message, writing, or in any other manner, endeavour to persuade any elector to

(a) This resolution was passed in consequence of the proceedings at the Westminster election in 1741. The Westminster justices were ordered into custody and reprimanded by Speaker Onslow for unnecessarily calling in the military, the concluding part of whose address was as follows:-"What you have done is against one of the most essential parts of the law of this kingdom. Has any real necessity been shown for it? There might be fears: there might be some danger. But did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears and remove that danger? Did you make use of those powers the law has invested you with, as civil magistrates, for the preservation of the public peace? No! you deserted all that; and, wantonly, I hope, inadvertently, resorted to that force, the most unnatural of all others, in all respects, to that cause and business you were then attending, and for the freedom of which every Briton ought to be ready almost to suffer anything."