In these two cases it was shown that the bishop and PROOF OF. priests practically carried the elections for the respondents, who availed themselves of their assistance.

didature.

Where two candidates stand in the same interest, the Joint canfact that they were jointly represented at the revision is not sufficient to render one the agent for the other: Tamworth, 1 O'M. & H. 82. But if they stand and canvass jointly, having joint bills and payments, the agents of the one would thereby become the agents of the other: Bridgwater, ibid. 113; Stafford, ibid. 232; North Norfolk, ibid. 240; unless the agent at the time of the illegal act distinctly states that he does it on behalf of A., and not on behalf of B., thereby terminating, pro tanto, the joint agency: Norwich, 2 ibid. 39.

However, a candidate is not liable for the corrupt acts of his co-candidate, previous to the coalition, of which acts he is ignorant; nor for the previous corrupt acts of an agent whom he adopts: Tamworth, 1 O'M. & H. 81; Stafford, ibid. 233.

A definition of joint candidates for the purposes of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, is given by Schedule I., Part V. (4), of that Act, which would seem to confine it to questions arising with regard to their expenses. It is useful, however, as showing what the Legislature considers to be evidence of joint candidature.

Where a gentleman having canvassed a borough Previous resigned his pretensions to his brother, who used the candidate. same colours, employed the same persons, and frequented the same houses, the letters of the one who had resigned were not allowed to be read in evidence against the other who had been elected, it being conceived that sufficient proof of agency had not been given : East Retford, 1 Peck. 479; Ipswich, W. & D. 178, acc.

The Norwich Committee, P. & K. 565, decided that Partner, son, and the employment of one attorney as general agent is not wife of proof of the agency of his partner.

Nor is the son of an agent necessarily one, though he may have been active in the election: Westminster, 1 O'M. & H. 96.

agent.

PROOF OF.

Declaration of agent.

Agent at former election.

rebutted.

In Cashel, 1 O'M. & H. 288, the respondent was held liable for the act of the wife of an agent.

It has been contended in some cases that it is competent to prove the fact of agency by the declarations of the agent. Mr. Justice Buller, however, in his charge to the jury in the Cricklade cases (Petrie's), p. 152, said that the defendant's bribery, by means of an agent, must depend upon his own acts; for one man cannot be charged with the offence of another because that other has chosen to call himself an agent: acc. Dunfermline, 1 Peck. 16; Aylesbury, W. & Br. 12.

of

Agency at a former election has been held not to be evidence of agency at a subsequent one: Ashburton, W. & Br. 3; Penryn, K. & O. 443. But for the purpose of proving agency counsel have been allowed to go into transactions at a previous election to show that a constant correspondence was kept up for the purpose operating on the borough from the preceding election to the one in question: Sligo (1853), Print. Min. And from the Waterford case, 2 O'M. & H. 2, it would seem that agency at a previous election may be some evidence of agency at a subsequent one; in this case, however, an organized system of bribery had existed at the former election.

Agency It must be borne in mind, that, however strong a prima facie case of agency is made out, it is of course liable to be rebutted by evidence.

COMMENCE

MENT OF

In Montgomery, 4 O'M. & H. 168, and Walsall, ibid. AGENCY. 125; Day's El. Cas. 111, it was unsuccessfully contended that having regard to the definition of candidate given in section 63 of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, ante, p. 157, the respondent did not become a candidate until the dissolution, and therefore could not be responsible for the acts of others committed before the dissolution, unless subsequently ratified by him.

It must be taken as now settled that agency may commence before the dissolution, or vacancy, or issue of the writ, so as to make a respondent liable for the

MENT OF

acts of others on his behalf: see ante, p. 158. In the COMMENCElast-mentioned case, Hawkins, J., said, that the period AGENCY. of this liability must be confined within reasonable limits, and, in his opinion, commenced at the time when it was first known that the respondent announced his intention of presenting himself for election. In considering whether agency was established, the learned judge reviewed the facts, commencing many months before the dissolution; and in Hexham, 4 O'M. & H. 143; Day's El. Cas. 94, the respondent was held responsible for acts committed by his agent more than eight months before the election. In the former case an illegal practice, and in the latter a corrupt practice, had been proved. As regards corrupt practices, which whenever committed may avoid an election, agency, it is submitted, may exist at any length of time before an election; but as regards illegal practices, not until a person comes before a constituency with the object of being elected.

Prima facie, agency terminates with the election: Aylesbury, W. & Br. 12; Salford, 1 O'M. & H. 136; King's Lynn, ibid. 208; Waterford, 2 ibid. 3; Taunton, 2 ibid. 67, 68; East Clare, Day's El. Cas. 167. And any act done subsequently to the election must be shown to have been done with the privity, express or implied, of the person whose seat it is sought to avoid: Salford, supra, unless it is connected with and throws light upon something which preceded the election: Southampton, 1 ibid. 223, or immediately follows the election, and so raises that presumption: Longford, 2 ibid. 11; and it must be borne in mind that the election is not over till the declaration of the poll is made: Galway, 2 O'M. & H. 49.

The consequences of corrupt or illegal practices by an agent are treated of in their proper places; but it may be well to remind the reader that the candidate is absolutely at the mercy of his agent, and may be unseated by acts done against his express directions.

TERMINA

TION OF

AGENCY.

TERMINA

TION OF AGENCY.

Traitorous agent.

Drunken agent.

General

A candidate is not responsible for the acts of an agent who does a corrupt act with a view to betray him. It is otherwise if he is tricked by the opposite party into committing a corrupt act, he himself honestly still continuing to act as an agent: Stafford, 1 O'M. & H. 230.

As to a candidate's responsibility for the acts of a drunken agent, see ante, p. 279.

It is to be observed that, in cases of general corrupcorruption. tion, or general intimidation, it is not necessary to implicate the respondent or his agents with the proceedings, in order to avoid the election: see ante, pp. 293, 308, 325, 335.

APPENDIX I.

Leominster. (MS.)-14th February, 1827.

DOUBLE RETURN OF MR. BISH AND MR. STEPHENSON.

THE candidates at the election were Lord Hotham, Leominster Case. Mr. Bish, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Cuthbert. Lord H. 1827. had 556 votes; Mr. B. 445; Mr. S. 253; and Mr. C. 57. An objection being made that Mr. B. was a contractor, the assessor to the returning officer refused to return him singly, but made a double return of him and Mr. S.

It was admitted before the Committee, that notice of Mr. B.'s disqualification was generally given at the time of election; on the other side it was admitted that there was a counter-statement circulated, containing the opinions of two gentlemen of the bar, that Mr. B. was not disqualified.

It was proved, also, that Mr. W., who was elected in 1807 for Wootton Bassett, and who sat till 1812, had been a lottery contractor during the time that he sat in the House.

By the Act by which contractors are disqualified (22 Geo. 3, c. 45) it is enacted, by s. 10, that in every contract coming within the meaning of the Act there should be inserted an express condition, that no member of Parliament shall be admitted to any share or benefit from the same; and attaching a penalty of £500.

It further appeared in evidence that there was such a clause in the contracts for the ordnance and victualling offices, but not in Mr. B.'s contracts for the lottery.

By the agreement entered into by Mr. B. and others with the Lords of the Treasury, the final day of drawing