rant for a new writ for such places, where notorious bribery has been committed. In some cases also bills have been brought in to disfranchise such places, which have already passed the house of commons, and are now pending in the house of lords; but the dissolution of parliament by the demise of the crown, will probably put an end to them for the present.* Against the elections for Inverkeithing, Chester, Worcester, Penryn, Barnstable, Camelford, and Grampound, similar petitions were presented. Several of them were declared void, and the members returned lost their seats, and were declared incapable of sitting again. The petition against the election for Chester came on before the Chester ca. committee on Saturday, 20th February 1819. Mr. Warren, counsel for petitioners, stated at length the charges contained in the petition, viz. bribery and treating, and the law relative thereto. Upon the different constructions of the 2d clause of the stat.

v. Crickett,

7 W. 3. c. 4. he cited Ribbands v. Crickett, in which Ribbands the court were of opinion, that the words, " at any 1Bos.& Pul. time hereafter," had nothing to do with the preceding Rep. 264. clause; that being confined only to treating after the teste of the writ, and before the close of the election. The court in their judgment held, that if there was any treating to persons having votes after the

In Hilary term, 1820, George Hoy, a voter at Grampound, was brought up to receive judgment, having been convicted of taking a bribe for his vote at the last election for that place; he pleaded his poverty, that he had a large family, and threw himself upon the mercy of the court, who (probably acting upon the principle that he who gives the bribe is the principal offender) sentenced him to three months imprisonment.

*On the meeting of parliament, after the adjournment 18th February 1820, Lord John Russell brought in a bill to suspend the issuing of new writs to Barnstaple, Penryn, Grampound, and Camelford, till the meeting of a new parliament after the dissolution. A bill to disfranchise Barnstaple, which had passed the commons last sessions, was (not thrown out, but) lost in the other house by a prorogation, and therefore that place was included in the present bill, which has already passed the commons, and has been read once in the house of lords, and if passed before the publication of this work, will be given in the Appendix; as to the other places, evidence of their corruption is before the house.

В в 3

Vid. ante, 234.

issuing of the writ, and before the close of the election, it was not necessary to couple the treating with proof that it was given for the purpose of obtaining votes. He stated with great minuteness the facts of the case he intended to prove, viz. that single and double tickets to the amount of many hundreds, were given to the voters, addressed to innkeepers, desiring them to furnish the bearers of each single ticket with ale and refreshment to the amount of 5s. 4 d.; that about 75 houses were open for that purpose; the tickets were signed by a Mr. Fletcher, a printer; that in the card room (which was a room at the hotel, where the sitting members after the poll of each day used to come, for the purpose of addressing the electors from the balcony window) there was a table laid with provisions upon it, at which the electors eat as they liked. The members did not dine there themselves, but one of them was very active in inviting the persons to sit down, and ordered the waiter to bring more wine, and whatever was wanted. That exorbitant sums were paid to a band, many of whom could not play at all; but they were electors. The election lasted nine days,* including Sunday, and the band were paid during that time £.1,600. The last head of complaint, was the application to persons for their votes, in consequence of obtaining their freedom without expence. The question of evidence necessary before the poll book could be delivered in, caused considerable delay, which has been stated in a former chapter. Witnesses were next called to prove the facts, as stated by the counsel in his opening, and others called on the opposite side, in contradiction to what had been proved by the petitioners witnesses; some gentlemen who had been with the candidates the whole time, contradicted the witnesses who spoke to the acts of bribery. Mr. Fletcher proved that the tickets and band were

In the defence it was proved that the band was employed before the election began, and whilst the canvassing was going forward, that they received no more than was usual, and that many of them had no votes,

paid for by a subscription collected by himself and others in the interest of the sitting members, but without their concurrence. The innkeeper proved that the candidates paid him only for their own expences, and what they had themselves ordered for a few friends they had occasionally with them, and that he had no further demand upon them. It was admitted by the counsel for the sitting members, that there was a table with some cold meat in the card room, but that the candidates were there only for a short time after the poll had closed each day, for the purpose of addressing the electors; that persons were appointed to prevent any others from following them into the room, except their immediate acquaintance and friends, and it was possible that now and then a freeman might make his way into this room, and partake of the fare which they found there, but that they trusted the committee would not on that account declare them guilty of treating.

Mr. Harrison, in his address for the sitting members, adverted to the case of Ribbands v. Crickett, and cited the cases of Smith v. Rose, which was tried in 1777, and Ridler v. Moore and Francis, tried 1797, and reported by Mr. Clifford. The committee continued hearing the case till Friday, 5th March, when they declared the sitting members duly elected.

With respect to the charge of paying for the admission of a freeman, the committee came to no express decision; the evidence given was by the voter himself, who swore, that previous to giving his vote, he was canvassed by one of the sitting members, and had promised him his vote, provided he would give him his freedom; that he was by him directed to go to an attorney to make out his petition, which he did, and obtained his freedom without paying any thing for it. The attorney was not called, nor any direct evidence given who did pay for the admission. At the election he was

В в 4

Smith ▼.

Rose, Rid

ler v. Moore

Cliff. p.371.

Ante, p. 352.

put in a tally to vote for both of the sitting members, and had received a ticket for a dinner afterwards, which was taken from him, because he had voted for one of the petitioners, and only one of the sitting members. It appeared on cross-examination, that he had acted as minister to a society of methodists, and had been for some time suspended (as he said)" through a scandal, of what was more than actually the truth," but refused to say how much was actually the truth. Witnesses who who were present with the sitting member at the time the conversation took place at the canvass, contradicted the voter.

In the Worcester case, 1819, the point which was chiefly relied upon, after bribery and treating, was that of paying for the admissions of freemen who were admitted after the election began; the admission of freemen during the poll was not complained of; but it was proved, that the admissions were regularly paid for by an agent of the sitting member; the committee, however, (as in the Bristol case referred to by Mr. Simeon,) declared the sitting member duly elected. Upon what particular grounds they decided is not known; they gave no reasons for their general decision.

In the Ipswich case, above alluded to, there were various acts of bribery, many of which, separately, were enough to have avoided the election; in some of which the candidate himself was concerned. And it is necessary to prove this; for though there be clearly a distribution of money, and evidence sufficient to show the election influenced thereby, yet it must be done by the candidate himself, or some one on his part, i. e. employed by him, to avoid the election; for otherwise any officious Lud. 463. or ill-designing stranger might defeat it. Therefore, in the Ilchester case, though there were considerable sums distributed, by a person who was afterwards employed as agent by the sitting member, amongst the voters, at a

time when parliament was expected to be dissolved, [353] which, it appeared in evidence, influenced the next elec- 3 Lud. 110. tion; yet, as it was not proved to have been done by, or by the order of, the sitting member, it was held not to prejudice the election. So where a benefaction was given to the voters of the town, on behalf of the person then representing it in parliament, at a time when the dissolution was expected, in February, 1784, it was insisted this must be supposed to have influenced the ensuing election, though it did not happen until two years after, and to fall within the imputation of bribery, alledged in avoidance of the election, but the election was held good. It is possible that the committee might not believe the witnesses, or might think it not brought home to the principal, or, which is more likely from the argument, that it did not amount to bribery. There is scarcely 3 Lud. 162. any question, indeed, of so nice a nature, which occurs in election causes, as that of agency to such an extent as to affect the principal for acts of bribery.

Honiton.

263.

An agent, in the most simple sense of the word, is one Agent, who acts for another, by his express or implied authority. Vid.3Doug. He may be an agent either for the general purposes of the election, or for special purposes only. It is impossible to lay down a rule, by which such a question may be tried. It depends upon a variety of circumstances combined together, from whence the committee, as jurors, form their belief.

In the Mitchell case, H. stood on Lord F's interest; C. who was Lord F's steward, canvassed with H. and asked votes for him privately; and C. and H. dwelt in the same house together within the borough. This was held insufficient proof of agency to criminate H. for acts of bribery by C. One of the counsel for the petitioner in that case, in the course of his argument, stated the following determination as having been ruled in the