on the other side, in order to counteract the influence already produced upon the voters; but a practice does not become legal or cease to be corrupt, because all the parties concur in setting the law at defiance; Herefordshire, 1 Peck. 184; Bremridge v. Campbell, 5 C. & P. 186.

In another recent case, Dungarvan, 1854, the committee reported, "That it was proved that a supper given after the election of 1852, on the evening of the day of polling, was ordered by the agents of Mr. M. previous to the polling, and afterwards paid for by him, and of which several of the persons who voted for Mr. M. partook"-" that it did not appear to the committee that this supper was given for the purpose of corruptly influencing or corruptly rewarding any voter or other person (a)." The statutes, which the committee were then interpreting, forbad the candidate to pay for any provisions given to voters before, during, or after an election. The time, therefore, at which the supper took place was immaterial. But was it given to influence their votes, or rather was it given corruptly to reward them and for being elected? With what other object could such a supper have been given? The occasion of it was the election, the recipients were the voters who had just supported Mr. M. It is impossible to give any direct proof of the corrupt intention in treating. It is not like the case of bribery at common law, where a contract or understanding takes place between the voter and the candidate, but it resembles rather that statutable

(a) Printed Minutes, post.

bribery already described (a) where the giving of rewards after an election is prohibited on account of its corrupt tendency. The corrupt intention exists in the disobeying the statute. If a candidate gives money to an elector after an election, because such elector has voted for him or refrained to vote for his opponent, he gives corruptly; so also if a candidate gives an entertainment to his supporters at an election after the election, because they are his supporters, the act itself of giving the entertainment is a corrupt act, and it is impossible that a corrupt act can be done without a corrupt intention. In neither of the cases here put, is it necessary to shew that there was any previous bargaining for the vote, or that it was made known to the voter, that money or entertainment would be given after the election. Whenever such is the case, the transaction amounts to one of bribery at common law, and falls within the second section of the new act (b).

The 7 Wm. 3, c. 4, prohibited a candidate from giving entertainment to any person having voice in the election; the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22, forbad the giving meat, &c., to any person for the purpose of influencing or rewarding such person, or any other person for his conduct with regard to his vote. Under this latter section the giving of entertainment to the family of an elector, or to a non-elector, as

(a) Ante, p. 91.

(b) Ante, p. 78. The distinction pointed out by Mr. Rogers in his work on Elections, p. 261, between bribery and treating, is not now an accurate one, because "Parliamentary bribery" does not necessarily assume the existence of a contract expressed or implied. Durham, B. & Arn. 201, Liverpool, 1853, ante, 87; and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 2.

a reward on account of the mode in which the elector had exercised his franchise, amounted to corrupt treating. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, uses the same language as the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22; and every candidate who shall give entertainment to any person, in order to influence or reward such person who receives the entertainment, or any other voter through him, will be guilty of corrupt treating.

The penalty now for the first time imposed upon treating is a pecuniary one only; a person found guilty of treating in a penal action, will forfeit the sum of fifty pounds besides costs of suit. The only person who can be so sued is the candidate who has given the entertainment; or been accessory to it, or sanctioned it by afterwards paying for it. Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur, et mandato æquiparatur. Unless the candidate has participated in the illegal transaction in one of the modes here described, he cannot forfeit the penalty: Whether he may not be unseated, or disqualified by the unlawful acts of others, is another question which will have to be considered hereafter.

The whole question of treating, would have been placed upon a very intelligible and satisfactory footing, if the legislation on this subject had stopped here. If the question had again been asked, what is treating? The answer would have been, "It is the giving of any entertainment to voters, or to others on their account, in order to influence, or to reward the voters in respect of their votes at the election."

If this be a correct definition of treating, the offence would be complete, at whatever period of the election the entertainment was given to the voters, and what

ever the amount of it might have been; and whenever such entertainment was given for no other reason than, that the persons who partook of it were electors, and that the time of giving it was election time, the intention to influence or reward would be incontrovertible; it would amount to presumptio juris et de jure.

A section, however, which was inserted into the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act," shortly before it left the House of Commons, has thrown the whole law on the subject into confusion. This section, which is so inconsistent with the rest of this statute, and with all recent legislation with regard to corrupt practices at elections, seems to have been the result of a compromise between the different parties advocating and opposing the bill towards the close of the session.

The section is the 23rd, and is as follows :

"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: 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 deemed an illegal act, and the person so offending shall forfeit the sum of forty shillings for each offence, to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit.” It is difficult to discover how the doubts mentioned in the preamble to this section could have arisen.

From the year 1696 down to the present time it has always been illegal for a candidate, on any day subsequent to the teste of the writ, to give any entertainment to voters on account of their having polled or being about to poll; and since the year 1842, the period during which treating became illegal, has been extended. Can it be seriously contended, that the giving entertainment to a voter a quarter of an hour before he goes to the poll is less corrupt, and less likely to influence his feelings towards the party treating him, than if such entertainment had been given ten days before? Such, however, seems to be the view taken by the Legislature when sanctioning the introduction of this clause into the act.

So long as this 23rd section continues to be law, the giving of entertainment or money to procure refreshment to voters on the days of nomination and polling, on account of their having voted or being about to vote, is to be deemed an illegal act, and something different from bribery or treating. The pecuniary penalty on so entertaining a voter on any day prior to the nomination day, or subsequent to the polling day, is fifty pounds, but on these two excepted days a penalty of forty shillings only is incurred. The penalty is for each offence, so that if many persons were so entertained the penalty might mount up to a much larger amount; but there can be no doubt that it was intended to look upon the giving of refreshment to voters on the nomination and polling days as a more venial offence than treating in general. If that be so, and if it is to continue the law of the land, there can be no doubt that the whole of the view taken of treating in these pages is altogether incorrect; for is it im