It seems to be considered by election committees, that statute 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, does not apply to treating. The word does not occur throughout the act: and the precise question having been raised in the Cambridge case, Barr. & Aust. 185 [A. D. 1842], it was decided, first, that the act cannot now be taken to apply to cases of treating, unless such treating can be shown to have influenced some particular vote ;—and secondly, that all other acts of treating must be proved to have been committed by those previously shown to have been the agents of the sitting member; except where the evidence, intended to prove the treating, cannot be separated from that intended to prove the agency." The next instance of the direct interposition of the legislature for the prevention of treating, was in the year 1842, by statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22: a clause which has a very important operation, and ought to be carefully considered by all engaged in the conduct of elections: for it is upon the footing of this twenty-second section that the law of treating now mainly depends. Mr. Rogers has correctly observed, that under this act, if a candidate KNOWS of any treating going forward, and pays any portion of the expense ;-or, though he did not know it at the time, yet contributes to the cost of it afterwards,whether that treating took place before, or at, or after the election, he will lose his seat for the place where the treating occurred, for the whole parliament. The substance of this section may be stated thus: If any member or candidat, directly or indirectly, by self, or by, or with, any other person,-or in any manner,gives or provides,-or knowingly allows to be given or provided,-wholly, or partly, at his expense;―or pays, wholly or in part, any expenses incurred for any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, to or for any person, at any time; Either BEFORE, DURING, or AFTER any such election ;-for THE PURPOSE of CORRUPTLY INFLUENCING such person, or any other person,-or for the purpose of CORRUPTLY REWARDING such or any other person,-for having given, or refrained from giving his vote, at any such election,-He will be incapable of being ELECTED or of SITTING in See Rogers' Law and Practice of Election Committees, pp. 209, 210, note (a). + Page 264. parliament for the place where such TREATING took place, DURING THE PARLIAMENT for which such election was holden. The essence of the offence thus defined in such exact and comprehensive terms, consists in the corrupt purpose: that of corruptly influencing, or rewarding. And it is necessary to observe further, that by making it an ingredient in the offence, that the prohibited treating shall be wholly or partly at the expense of the candidate,' all treating by relations, political friends, or clubs, is at once excluded.'* The treating, also, must be traced to the candidate or his agents: and several committees have insisted as proof that such treating was going forward, not merely with his knowledge but at his desire and charge. Corruption, and agency, being thus the essential ingredients of the offence, and of the proof,-it would seem, that a candidate cannot be committed by reasonable and innocent bonâ fide refreshments and entertainments provided for voters, by others than himself or his agents: he and they being disconnected with it, and in no way contributing towards payment for it. Were it, indeed, to be otherwise, no one would dare ever to become a candidate; for his return would be at any moment at the mercy of friendly indiscretion on the part of others, who were acting entirely independently of him, and of their own mere good will. The Wigan case, Barr. & Aust. 788, tried subsequently to the passing of both statutes 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, affords some idea of the disposition of election committees in reference to such matters. Without having any formal committee, the members of the political party which supported the candidate, met at their usual place of resort, a news-room, in an inn. It was there agreed that each ward should be canvassed by residents in it; and that breakfasts should be provided in each ward, for those who had promised, or for any likely to promise, their votes. Some of these breakfasts were ordered and paid for by such resident ward canvassers; others, by persons frequenting the news-room. steward and solicitor of the sitting member's father frequented the news-room during the canvass; often accompanied the sitting member on his canvassing; and respectively ordered and paid for * Rogers, 265. The + Newcastle-under-Lyne, Bar. & Aust. 445; Lyme Regis, Bar. & Aust. 529; Nottingham, Bar. & Arnold, 136; Cambridge, Bar. & Arnold, 185; Wigan, Bar. & Arnold, 788; cited in Rogers, 266. conveyances to bring voters to the poll. Many election expenses were charged by the landlord of the inn to the committee,' and persons frequenting the news-room. During the polling, refreshments were supplied from the inn, to voters; and about twenty dined there after the poll was closed. The expense of this was paid by the steward of the sitting member's father; who was also present at the drinking at other open houses' in the place. The sitting member himself was staying at his father's house, near Wigan, during the election; came to Wigan almost every day during the canvassing; and at the election addressed the people from the news-room in the inn. These facts were held not to invalidate the return of the sitting member, who was declared duly elected. Cases of this description, however, may be said to lie on the dividing line between legality and illegality, or so very near to it, as to occasion lively anxiety to candidates and their friends long after the election is over, and until the critical day for challenging it is passed. It will be well for them, however, before entering into the excitement and hubbub of the contest, to ascertain as clearly as possible the state of the law with regard to treating for it is possible that men of high honour, and who would scorn to resort to undue means to influence voters, may nevertheless, by one or two little acts of inadvertence, either by themselves or zealous but inexperienced friends, bring themselves unconsciously within the category of treating, and have afterwards the bitter mortification of being ousted from a well-won seat. Thus have we travelled through all the different stages of an election, and at length seen a candidate in the envied position of a member of the British House of Commons. His first duty there, may be to sit in judgment on the claim of some challenged brother member to retain his seat, as having been unduly returned: or he may find that brother member sitting as judge upon him and thus we are introduced to the final stage,—to the court of ultimate resort in such cases, a Committee of the House of Commons. This will form the subject of the remaining chapter. Almost all the election cases on the subject of treating, down to the year 1837, will be found collected and briefly epitomized in Mr. Chambers' Dictionary of Election Law, under the word Treating.' It is, however, important to bear in mind that all these occurred previously to the passing of statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 22 [10th August, 1842]. |