IN THE BRIBER. Payment on account Loans. stance, there had been a proties mayful promise conditional on the veter voting, or if there had been a previous understanding to that effect, or a ropt bargain for the future, we think the case would have been within the statute. But we are clearly of opinion, that merly paying the travelling expenses honestly, with no previous engagement, is not prohibited. It was not within the former statute; Hvatiagoren v. Gardiner, 2 B. & C. 297; and to hold that it is within the present is to give no meaning to the word 'corrupt, which appears so emphatically used in relation to the subsequat lling of an act, and emitted as to the precious promise to do it-a construction, which, if ecrrect, would make a person giving money or procuring an employment within the second branch of the second section at any distance of time after the election—the receiver and giver being then equally unconnected with the same constituency or any other-liable to the several penal consequences we have before referred to. We think this cannot be, &c." In the Carlisle case. W. and Br. 95. it appeared that, on an application made by a voter for his travelling expenses, which came to 28, or 3s., after he had voted, the agent for the sitting member gave the man 1. mere, as he said, cat of charity than anything else, the voter having stated that he was a struggling man. After the election, a doubt being raised whether payments for such expenses were legal, the money was got back from the voter by the agent. The Committee held that the payment was not corrupt. Windsor, 1 O'M. & H. 2, ac:. Upon the nature of the corrupt reward prohibited in these clauses, it may be remarked that they include several methods of corruption not hitherto notice. Loans of money to a voter, or a person likely to influence him, are now for the first time placed on the same footing, as regards the lender, as absolute gifts. They were omitted from previous statutes, and the attention of the Legislature seems to have been called to them by the following cases. Lyme Regis, B. & Aust. 454.-The Committee reported "that a corrupt practice had for some years prevailed of lending money upon notes of hand and other securities, and that a practice so insidious and demoralizing deserved serious attention and inquiry on the part of the House." In the Rye case, 2 P. R. & D. 115, the report stated, that one S. had exercised for many years great influence in the elections at R., and that, in order to maintain such influence, he had corruptly lent money for electioneering purposes, to the amount at one time of 15,000.; that a number of voters having thus been accommodated with money, or kept in debt by demands for interest by S., had voted for S.'s party; (a) Acc. Durham, B. & Arn. 201. and in many instances it had been proved that their votes were influenced; while, on the other hand, those who had voted against S.'s party, or had forborne to vote, were pressed for repay. ment. And see Herefordshire, 1 Peck. 186; 2nd Montgomery, P. & K. 462. IN THE BRIBER. Loans. ment at Office or employment, whether temporary at the election or Employpermanent, if not bonâ fide given, or a condition made, is bribery; election (b). see Nottingham, B. & Arn. 165; Derby, 2 P. R. & D. 106; 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, is not bribery. Londonderry, 1 O'M. & H. 277. In the Cashel case, ibid, 289, the agent of the petitioners sent retainers of five guineas each to two of the respondent's supporters, which were returned, and this was held not to be bribery on the ground that the idea of bribery could not have been present to the voter's mind. But see ante, pp. 356-7. Payments of large sums to agents, i.e., larger than is usual, is not, it seems, bribery. Youghal, ibid. 295, 296. Nor the payment to voters, who owned carriages, for conveying other voters to the poll. i.e., in the absence of any evidence whatever that such payment was intended to influence their votes. Longford 2, ibid, 14. The employment of persons to hold up their hands at the nomination, or now that public nominations are abolished, to perform any similar act, would be bribery. Norwich, 2 O'M. & H. 42. But the employment of men to keep order at the poll, under an agreement with the opposite party, is not bribery, though more men were appointed by one party than the agreement sanctioned, there being no concealment about it. Gloucester, 2 O'M. & H. 62. In the Westminster case, 1 O'M. & H. 89, the candidate employed one E. who had been previously reported guilty of bribery on a large scale, and the expenditure was proved to have been enormous, and no vouchers were produced for some of the items returned. But the Judge refused to avoid the election. In the North Norfolk case, ibid. 236, the employment of a corrupt agent was also proved, but it was proved that it was not done with the knowledge or consent of the sitting member who retained his seat; see ante, p. 241. In the Cambridge case, W. & D. 30, 74 messengers were employed on one side and 33 on the other: there was conflicting evidence as to the necessity of employing so many as 74, but they () As to the employment of voters to accompany canvassers, query See Durham, 2 O'M. & H. 137. 12 THE KRIKER, were, in fact, employed. This was held not bribery. Huddersfield W. & Br. 33, and Beverley, ibid. 82, ace. But, in the Orford case, M*******. W. & D. 106, where 152 messengers were employed on one side, and 28 on the other, and some of the 152 performed no adequate services or work, the election was avoided. 1st Cheltenham, 1 P. R. & D. 189, acc. A contrary decision, however, was made in the North Leicestershire case; W. & Br. 48, and see Durham, 2 O'M. & H. 185. See ante, p. 187. Payment for previous bond file employ ment. Payment of rates, &c. 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, though the employment was colourable, on the ground that the intention of the agent was not to bribe, but to obtain popularity for himself by giving such employment (d). And see Nottingham, ibid. 246. But it seems that the bona fide employment of watchers, to protect voters from violence or intimidation is not bribery, if their employment is necessary and not colourable, Youghal, ibid. 294, Longford, 2, ibid. 12. Payment for previous bonâ fide employment, irrespective of the current election, has been held bribery under special circumstances. Cambridge, B. & Arn. 160; 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 present statute, even were the payment in such a case made after the election, it would be liable to be called in question. See Galway, W. & D. 142. But in the Coventry case, 1 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 the purpose of enabling a voter to be registered, have 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 by Lord Denman, in R. v. Bridgenorth, 10 A. & E. 66). 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 (d) But Bewdley, 1 O'M. & H. 20, is a decision to the contrary. IN THE BRIBER. as a voter, thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing Payment of him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punishable accordingly." See Cheltenham, 1 O'M. & H. 63. But payment to enable a man to take up his freedom made a year before the election is not 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. And in the Wigan case, ibid. 190, it was intimated that to such cases the usual doctrine of Parliamentary agency did not apply, but that to unseat a member for such a cause the ordinary common law rules as so agency should be applied. rates, &c. bribe. Even if the voter be in fact disqualified, the offer of a bribe to Offer of him will unseat the candidate. It is sufficient if the voter be primâ facie entitled. Guildford, 1 O'M. & H. 14. to third persons. The statute says "to or for any person on behalf of any voter," Payment or, “to or for any person to induce any voter." Accordingly, it was held that evidence of payment of money to non-voters was inadmissible, unless it was proved that voters were influenced thereby; Clare, W. & Br. 139. So, in the Ashburton case, W. & Br. 1, it was held that money paid to enable a man to vote only was not bribery. In that case T., the agent for the petitioner, had issued a writ of ca. sa. against the voter, and had given instructions to the sheriff's officer to arrest the voter before he polled, as the best means of getting the money. The sheriff's officer accordingly placed his men round the poll-booth in such a manner that the voter could not pass in without being arrested. Under these circumstances, a solicitor in Ashburton, with the consent of the agent of the sitting member, after in vain attempt. ing to persuade the sheriff's officer to wait till the voter had polled, and offering to give his guarantee that the voter should then yield himself into custody, paid the money, taking the voter's bond and note of hand for the amount. The voter stated that he always intended to vote for the sitting member if he could get to the poll. The committee refused to avoid the election. A few instances of bribery in various forms, some of which were Other instances, decided under the repealed statutes, are here subjoined :-By promise of employment or situations, Plymouth, 2 P. R. & D. 238 ; R Travelling . 7. THE ZUTEN. I lose m√3r. The history of travelling expenses is somewhat curious. (c) If the refreshment be countermanded, payment of the expenses for making preparations for it, is not bribery. Salford, 1 OM. & H. 141. (f) See the cases of 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. 77; Beverley, W. & Br. 188. In Bremridge v. Campbell, 5 C. & P. 186; |