E3 Dfi3 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Class 
 
PRACTICE, CrIV: 
 
 )N SCHOO 
 SCIENCE 
 
 , (LOND,), B.SC. (ECON., LOND.) 
 
 Sf-ciot ; Fol'ow of the R<al 
 
 PRICE 1/6 NET. 
 
STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 
 EDITED BY THE HON. W. PEMBER REEVES 
 
 DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS 
 
 No. 1& in the series of Monographs by 
 writers connected with the London School 
 of Economics and Political Science 
 
 PRACTICAL NOTES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 The Essentials of Self-Government 
 
 (ENGLAND AND WALES). 
 
 Svo. 4s. 6d. NET. 
 
 This is a critical introduction to the scientific study of the elec- 
 toral mechanism as the foundation of political power, whereas 
 the Lectures are devoted to the practical management of an 
 actual contest. 
 
 The volume in which these " essentials " are elaborated is well 
 deserving of the attention of all serious politicians, for it con- 
 tains a closer and more exact study of the detailed problems 
 relating to electoral law, customs, and machinery, together with 
 the psychology of elections, than has hitherto appeared. Though 
 Professor Lowell and Mr. Ostrogorski have opened up some of the 
 issues here discussed, the wider scope of their treatment has pre- 
 vented them from penetrating into the recesses of the electoral 
 machinery. As a study of the law, politics, customs, and psycho- 
 l9gy of electoral institutions the book deserves high commenda- 
 tion. Manchester Guardian. 
 
 A masterly treatise on every part of the existing electoral 
 system, descending to the minutest details, as to canvassing, 
 registration of voters, election expenses, treating, and even the 
 limits that should be placed to the exhibition of bills and posters 
 by the rival candidate during a contest. A book that should be 
 read by all interested in the abstract science of politics, and by 
 all who are brought into contact as political candidates or their 
 agents with the thorny mazes of the modern election laws. 
 Glasgow Herald. 
 
 Mr. Powell's thoughful treatise in political philosophy is 
 best described in his own words as a critical introduction to the 
 detailed study of the electoral mechanism as the foundation of 
 political power and a potent instrument of intellectual and social 
 evolution. . . . Full of useful suggestions for serious minds 
 inquiring how the machinery of self-government may be im- 
 proved. Scotsman. 
 
 This volume is at once a handbook of election law, a descrip- 
 tion of the current method of conducting elections, and a detailed 
 system of proposals for electoral reform. Theory, practice, and 
 ideals are all commingled, and a mass of facts collected and 
 skilfully arranged. It is a book that should be studied by all 
 before they begin to clamour for this or that change in procedure. 
 Daily News. 
 
 A mine of exact information on such questions as Registra- 
 tion, Distribution of Seats, Electioneering, Corrupt Practices, 
 Method of Voting, Proportional Representation, etc. Upon all 
 these points few electors, probably, have more than the vaguest 
 notions. The whole discussion is carried on in a reasonable and 
 impartial spirit. Aberdeen Free Press. 
 
 A remarkable survey, ranging from such small points as 
 the cost of election posters to such large ones as the distribution 
 of Parliamentary seats. The style throughout is clear and the 
 book is excellent as an attempt to bring accurate scientific 
 methods to bear upon political organisations. Morning Leader. 
 
 The work is a valuable contribution to political economy, and 
 the lights and shadows which the author throws on the present 
 state of our electoral machine will stimulate thought and sug- 
 gest further inquiry. Globe. 
 
 Ought to prove one of the most interesting books on English 
 government since Ostrogorski's monumental work. ... A 
 welcome contribution to the new literature on government. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 
 
 Mr. Powell has great experience as an election agent. Here 
 he gives us a book full of information which is likely to be of 
 value in an electoral contest, and is really full of interest. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 
 
 In many ways the most striking contribution to the question 
 of national political machinery since the publication of Mill's 
 " Representative Government." Labour Leader. 
 
 The book is a notable contribution to the subject, and forms 
 a useful and adequate text-book for the student of political 
 economics. Bristol Times and Mirror. 
 
 A judicial examination of our electoral institutions, by a 
 legal writer, who does not obtrude his own political views. 
 Sheffield Daily Telegraph. 
 
 A profound, illuminating, and eloquent study of the English 
 system of popular government. Reynolds' s Newspaper. 
 
 London: LONGMANS & CO. 
 
PRACTICAL NOTES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS 
 
 BEING 
 
 THEEE LECTURES ON PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION LAW 
 
 AND PRACTICE, GIVEN AT THE LONDON SCHOOL 
 
 OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 
 (UNIVERSITY OF LONDON) 
 
 V 
 
 BY 
 
 ELLIS T, POWELL,LLB, (Lorn), B.Sc. (EcoN. Lorn); 
 
 , Fellow of the Royal Historical Society ; Fellow of the Royal 
 Economic Society ; of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; 
 Author of the " Essentials of Self-Government " 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 P. S. KING & SON, 
 
 ORCHARD HOUSE, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 1910. 
 
PRACTICAL NOTES ON 
 THE MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 The modern statutes which are of special application to election 
 work in this country begin with the Parliamentary Election Act of 
 1853, which limits the time for proceeding to election in certain 
 constituencies. The statutes of first importance are, however, 17 
 and 18 Viet., c. 102, which consolidates and amends the law relating 
 to bribery, treating, and undue influence; the Representation of the 
 People Act, 1867 (which, incidentally, provides for the representa- 
 tion of the University of London) ; the Parliamentary Elections Act, 
 1868, which is the main authority for the law relating to election 
 petitions ; the supremely important Ballot Act (1872) ; and the 
 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, which is prac- 
 tically a codification of the law on the subject. This Act is an almost 
 contemporary enunciation of the legal principles applicable to elec- 
 tions. It is an Act with which every election agent and every active 
 and responsible political worker, whether official or unofficial, ought 
 to be thoroughly acquainted. The Registration Act and the Redis- 
 tribution Act, both of 1885, are concerned with elements of the 
 electoral mechanism which do not enter into the present survey. The 
 only two important additions to election legislation, since 1883, 
 are (a) the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1895, 
 which deals with false statements of fact with reference to the personal 
 conduct or character of a candidate ; and (b) the Public Meeting 
 Act, 1908. Both these Acts will be briefly considered in their place. 
 Beyond this legislation, however, we have to take into consideration 
 (a) the decisions of the election petition judges with regard to the 
 interpretation of these statutes ; (b) the decisions and interpretations 
 of the old Election Committees, who tried election petitions before 
 1868, when the House of Commons decided to delegate its functions 
 in these matters to one judge, and in 1879 to two judges, of the High 
 Court, and (c) certain election customs, now universally recognised as 
 reasonable and fair. Most of these are legal, but one or two are of 
 extremely doubtful legality, though, by a kind of tacit agreement 
 between parties, they are never challenged. Sueh, for instance, is 
 the employment of paid party agents, sent down from the central 
 offices of the party organisation, to assist in by-elections. These gentle- 
 men are remunerated from the central party funds, but the money 
 which they receive is not reckoned among the election expenses, 
 where, strictly speaking, it certainly ought to appear. 
 
 228015 
 
2 , \ : ; ^ ; : ^ I^CTxCAJu ^ NOTES ON THE 
 
 As the first essential of an election is the existence of at least a 
 couple of candidates, we shall fitly begin our investigation by asking 
 what a candidate is. The question is one of extreme importance, for, 
 broadly speaking, as soon as a political aspirant becomes a ' ' candi- 
 date " his election expenses, to which there is a statutory and 
 peremptory limit, begin to " run " that is to say, any money spent 
 after that date by his agents, in the furtherance of his candidature, 
 must be included in the return of election expenses. The Act of 
 Parliament (Sec. 63 of 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51) defines the expression 
 "candidate " as meaning, unless the context otherwise requires, any 
 person who is elected or nominated, or " declared by himself or by 
 others to be a candidate on or after the day of the issue of the writ 
 for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence 
 of which such writ has been issued." This is fairly vague, so that 
 we may profitably turn to a few judicial decisions on the subject. It 
 was unsuccessfully contended at Montgomery and Walsall that a 
 person could not become a candidate (at a general election, of course) 
 till the dissolution. In Stepney expenses incurred several weeks 
 before the dissolution (when the respondent was still the sitting 
 member in an existent Parliament) were held to be election expenses. 
 In Rochester the expenses of two conversaziones, which took" place 
 two months before the election, were held (assuming the functions to 
 be legitimate) to be election expenses. In Lichfield the principle that 
 the election campaign may really, for the purposes of a return of 
 expenses, extend back a considerable time before the election, was 
 applied to the expenses of a meeting held four months before the disso- 
 lution. In Cockermouth (1901) it was held that the candidature began 
 six months before the election, while in Haggerston the period was 
 extended to three years. In Monmouth (1901) we are told in the 
 last edition of Rogers that it was suggested by Kennedy, J., but not 
 decided, that after a candidate was selected there might be expenses 
 of candidature, apart from election expenses, which need not be 
 returned. Mr. Justice Darling held in Cockermouth (1901), where 
 the candidate had been selected on April 2 and the election took place 
 on October 14, that the expenses of a tea meeting on September 20 
 (but not given by the respondent) were incurred in respect of the 
 conduct and management of the election. These examples will show 
 what a wide difference of judicial opinion there is, even with regard 
 to the apparently simple preliminary question am I, or am I not, a 
 candidate? The difficulty is a very real one. As I put it in an 
 article in " The Times " on the eve of the general election of 1906, 
 the candidate " is warned that a given sum is all that he will be 
 allowed to spend on ' election expenses,' and that if he exceeds it his 
 election will be void. But he is not told when the ' election ' legally 
 begins, and he is left entirely to his own judgment in deciding when 
 it ends. An expense incurred three months before an election may 
 not be an election expense, whereas the judges may take the opposite 
 view of one incurred three years previously. The result of this state 
 of things is that a candidate or his election agent must construct his. 
 return of election expenses more or less at haphazard." 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 3 
 
 As no definite and decisive principle is deducible from the statutes 
 or from the decisions on the subject I will suggest to you three good 
 working rules in the matter : 
 
 (1) As a general practice, no expenditure which dates back further 
 than six months from the polling day need be included in the return 
 of expenses. 
 
 (2) But where money is spent with a direct view to the polling 
 booth, the six months' rule must be disregarded and the expense, 
 whenever incurred, should be included. Thus, registration expenses 
 are excluded (unless they go on in full activity, contemporaneously 
 with an election, which can only be the case if the election falls in the 
 period between July and October), as well as the expenses of bona fide 
 political associations supporting principles rather than a person. In 
 conformity with this rule, the expenses of a meeting seven months 
 before the election, at which a resolution of confidence in the party, 
 or in the Government, was carried, will not be an election expense; 
 nor will a resolution of confidence in the sitting member, unless the 
 election is within sight. But if there was a resolution pledging the 
 meeting to support Mr. Jones (whether he is a sitting member or only 
 candidate) at the forthcoming election, then you will be running a risk 
 if you do not put the expenses of the meeting in your return. At 
 the present moment (November, 1909) the prospect of an election in 
 January is so assured that no meeting now or recently addressed by 
 a person whose name ultimately appears on the ballot paper in 
 January can be safely disregarded as a factor in the return of election 
 expenses by that person's agent. 
 
 (3) In forming your final judgment, remember that it may have 
 to bear the scrutiny of an election court; and ask yourself whether 
 you can, if necessary in the witness-box, give reasons which will 
 commend your decision to the judicial mind in the cold, shrewd 
 atmosphere of that tribunal. 
 
 In some respects a sitting member has the advantage over his 
 prospective opponent in the matter of expenses. There is, I believe, 
 no ground for the suggestion that the sitting member must be con- I 
 sidered a candidate for the next election until he declares otherwise. 
 If that were so, the sitting member's election expenses for the next 
 election would begin to run at the close of the poll at which he was 
 originally elected, and in the case of a protracted Parliament his actual 
 fighting fund would be seriously depleted long before the actual 
 contest began. The fact is that the sitting member owes it as a duty 
 to his constituents to render them an account of his stewardship, and 
 to address them on political affairs from time to time. Resolutions of 
 confidence in him will not bring the expenses of such a meeting into 
 the return unless it take place when the election is actually in sight. 
 That is to say, a meeting held now, assuming that the election takes 
 place in January, would undoubtedly fall into the return of election 
 expenses. The expenses of the meeting are incurred with a direct 
 view to the ballot box and are also within the six months' limit. 
 Therefore they must go in. 
 
4 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 The Act provides (46 and 47 Vict.,c. 51, s. 28 (1)) that all expenses 
 incurred in the conduct and management of the election should be 
 paid through the election agent. But, as a matter of fact, the election 
 agent is frequently not appointed until the parties actually go down 
 into the arena for the contest. When, therefore, the agent investi- 
 gates the position of affairs with a view to his return of election 
 expenses, he will doubtless, for the reasons I have already given, find 
 certain expenses which must come into his official return, though 
 they were, in fact, paid before he was appointed. Thus, in an election 
 next January you may find a meeting held last September the cost 
 of which must, in your opinion, be regarded as an election expense. 
 The cost of the meeting may have been paid by the local association. 
 In that case it will be best for you to take over the expense, giving 
 the local association a cheque for the hire of the hall, printing, and 
 other legitimate expenses. You must be careful, however, that the 
 expenses include 110 illegal item. If the association paid for the 
 services of a band to enliven the proceedings you must specifically 
 exclude the band from your repayment. If money was laid out in 
 flags and banners you must specifically exclude them from your 
 repayment. The best course would be to write a letter with the 
 cheque by which you repay the money stating that you have struck 
 out such and such items and can make no payment in respect of them. 
 The presence of these illegal items is very regrettable, and I hope 
 none of you will have to deal with them. But, if you have, the course 
 which I recommend puts the real facts of the transaction on record, 
 and your care in the matter would impress very favourably an elec- 
 tion petition court. With the illegal items excluded, and the repay- 
 ment shown in your return, you will have complied up to the limit of 
 reasonable possibility with the requirement that all payments shall 
 be made through the election agent. 
 
 But who and what is this election agent ? His existence is a conse- 
 quence of the enactment by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preven- 
 tion Act, 1883 (s. 24 (1) ), that on or before the day of nomination a 
 person must be named by, or on beihalf of, each candidate as his elec- 
 tion agent. A candidate may, however, name himself as election 
 agent. The object of requiring an election agent, either identical 
 with, or distinct from, the candidate, is to have some person who can 
 (be looked to for an /explanation of official malpractices : who can, 
 if necessary, be sued, and who shall be endowed with sufficient 
 authority to enable him to act up to the measure of his responsibility. 
 pAs Mr. Justice Field said in the Barrow petition of 1886, " the election 
 iagent is the person who shall be effectively responsible for all the acts 
 done in procuring the election. . . . He is to hire everybody; no 
 man is to be paid money by anybody that does not pass through his 
 hands. . . . He is a known and responsible man who can be 
 dealt with afterwards and who can be looked to afterwards for an 
 explanation of his conduct in the management of the election. It is 
 not to be left, says the Legislature, to uncertain bodies of people, to 
 floating committees or bodies of that sort, or even to a series of 
 inferior people whom we know in the former days of elections were 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 5 
 
 called managers, and people of various descriptions and denomina- 
 tions, whose acts no one would be responsible for or know anything 
 about. The object of the Act was, as it seems to me . . . that 
 a respectable and responsible man . . . should be there to do all 
 that was necessary." 
 
 It is desirable that, as far as possible, the election agent should 
 play the part of a solicitor who is conducting a case that is on trial 
 before a civil court. He is to stand at the point of official contact 
 between the contending forces, and to be the medium of communica- 
 tion where arrangement or agreement are desirable in the interests of 
 order and discipline. His duties in this respect necessitate the main- 
 tenance of courteous relations with the agent, or agents, opposed to 
 him, so that there shall be frankness in communication and confidence 
 that understandings, when once arrived at, will be loyally observed. 
 It is, for instance, often agreed between election agents that they will 
 take no technical objection to each other's nomination papers. But 
 the maintenance of these courteous relations is inconsistent with 
 violent partisanship, and for that reason it is better that the election 
 agent should not appear on platforms as the public exponent and 
 advocate of his candidate's views ; and still more desirable is it that 
 he should abstain from constituting himself the personal, as distin- 
 guished from the official, mouthpiece of his candidate. Between him 
 and the candidate, however, there must be an absolute confidence, 
 unclouded by the lightest breath of suspicion. No agent can conduct 
 a campaign if some of the facts and incidents are concealed from him. 
 He is the one person who should know all that takes place " the 
 one," because there is no other who is entitled to the same fulness of 
 information. Even from the candidate himself the election agent 
 should conceal, if he can, the untoward incidents of the campaign, 
 the desertions, the revolts, the mutterings of " disgruntled " persons, 
 and the anonymous letters. These last of the hostile elements of a 
 campaign have very different effects on different temperaments, but, 
 on the whole, they are better intercepted. 
 
 There is practically no legal restriction upon a candidate in the ' 
 choice of an election agent. He may even appoint a person under 
 age if he chooses to do so, though it would be very inadvisable. But I 
 if he engage a person who within the previous seven years has been * 
 found guilty by a competent court of corrupt practices, his election ; 
 will be void. The penalty is the same if he 'personally engage such * 
 a person in any capacity connected with the management of the 
 election, even though he be not a paid agent. In the case of an 
 election agent who had within seven years been found guilty of 
 corrupt practices it would be impossible for the candidate to deny 
 that he had personally engaged him, since personal engagement is of 
 the very essence of the appointment. In the case of any other 
 person, it is a question of fact whether he was personally engaged by 
 the candidate or not. The qualifications which a candidate should 
 seek in his election agent are (a) an exact and exhaustive know- 
 ledge of election law and practice ; (b) some experience, the 
 larger the better, of dealing with men of all classes and of every 
 
6 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 variety of temper, together with the ability to recognise each variety 
 at sight; (c) courage, authority, and the power of rapid decision 
 under all circumstances, and in most cases without conference with, 
 or reliance upon, any judgment but his own ; (d) finally, a philosophic 
 imperturbability, which as an achievement in self-control yields prece- 
 dence only to the patience of Job, upon which (except, perhaps, in 
 the matter of the patriarch's habit of seeking relief for his feelings in 
 extended speech) it should be faithfully modelled. 
 
 But suppose the election agent makes an honest mistake as regards 
 the date of the commencement of candidature or in some other highly 
 technical detail of the arrangements 1 Well, he will have to seek 
 " relief." This expression " relief " will have to be used so 
 often that I had better explain it at once. Election law is so highly 
 technical, and its bristling technicalities are capable of such diverse 
 interpretation and application according to the temperamental bent 
 of the judicial mind, that in the absence of some mitigating expedient 
 there is scarcely one election in a hundred that would stand against 
 critical attack in an election petition court. The general election of 
 1906, for instance, provided us with a case where an important elec- 
 tion document had been accidentally issued without the name and 
 address of the printer and publisher, and with another case where a 
 sub-agent had paid for the hire of a conveyance to take voters to the 
 poll. In both these cases, but for the provision of "relief," the 
 respective candidates must have retired from the field as soon as the 
 error was discovered, or, if it had not been discovered till after the 
 election, they must have vacated the seat if it had been won. " Relief," 
 then, is a power conferred upon an election petition court (and upon 
 one of the judges where the matter arises by way of application, and 
 not upon petition) to excuse a candidate or other person liable from 
 the consequence of a technical breach of, or non-compliance with, the 
 myriad requirements and provisions of the Corrupt and Illegal Prac- 
 tices Prevention Acts, so far as they are concerned with " illegal " 
 practices. There is (with one slight exception for the benefit of a 
 candidate reported by an election court to be guilty, by his agents, 
 but not personally, of treating or undue influence) no relief for cor- 
 rupt practices. No relief will be granted for illegal practices unless the 
 court is satisfied that the error arose from accidental inadvertence or 
 accidental miscalculation, and that in other respects there has been 
 an honest and boim fide endeavour to comply with the law. For 
 example, a candidate who accidentally publishes a poster without the 
 name and address of the printer will be relieved; but -if he had done 
 it deliberately, as an election stratagem, and then, having been dis- 
 covered, sought relief from the consequences of his wrong-doing, he 
 would not get it. Relief, in plain English, means the judicial accept- 
 ance of an excuse for an honest mistake. 
 
 As soon as the election agent is appointed he should make the 
 fact known, and at the same time caution the public against election 
 busybodies, by a printed notice, exhibited at the committee rooms, in 
 this form: 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 7 
 
 COUNTY OF BLANKSHIRE. 
 
 ( Smith ville Division.) 
 GENERAL ELECTION 1910. 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 I, John Jones, having been appointed election agent by William Smith, tiia 
 Liberal candidate at the above election, hereby give notice that, on account of 
 the provisions of the Act 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, neither the said candidate nor 
 I, his agent, will be answerable or accountable for any payment for goods 
 supplied, services rendered, or expenses incurred by any person acting, or 
 claiming or pretending to act, on his behalf, unless such purchase, service, or 
 expense has been previously authorised in writing by me (or incurred by a duly 
 appointed sub-agent acting within the limits of his authority).* And I further 
 give notice that all claims, writs, summonses, and documents relating to the 
 election may be sent to me as under. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN JONES. 
 
 Offices : 14, High Street, Smithville. 
 
 Subject to any special directions which he may receive from his 
 candidate, the election agent will have the duty of selecting the 
 persons who are to be employed for payment during the campaign. 
 The candidate is permitted to employ (1) an election agent, (2) sub- 
 agents in a county division, (3) polling agents whom I prefer to call 
 by their older and more convenient name of personation agents, (4) 
 clerks, and (5) messengers. Whatever the size of the constituency 
 there will be only one election agent, but the number of other func- 
 tionaries who may be employed will vary : in the case of the sub-agents 
 according to the number of polling districts, and in the case of the 
 personation agents according to the number of electors on the register. 
 The number of clerks and messengers is prescribed by the Act 46 and 
 47 Viet., c. 51, s. 17 (and Part I. to Schedule I). In a borough you 
 may employ one clerk and one messenger for every 500 electors, or 
 fraction thereof. That is to say, if there are 1,700 electors, you may 
 employ three clerks and three messengers for the 1,500 electors (one 
 clerk and one messenger for each 500) and an additional clerk and 
 messenger for the odd 200 electors. In a county you may have at, 
 your central committee rooms one clerk and one messenger for every 
 5,000 electors or part thereof ; and in every polling district you may 
 have (in addition to your central committee room staff already men- 
 tioned) one clerk and one messenger for every 500 electors, or part . 
 thereof, in each district. If the county or borough is divided each 
 division is considered a separate constituency. These regulations, 
 however, are not an absolute restriction of the number of clerks and 
 messengers, but only of their number at any one time. The signi- 
 ficance of the statutory provisions was considerably widened by the 
 decision in the Walsall petition, where it was assumed without ques- 
 tion that for good reason one group of clerks might be substituted for 
 another during the course of the election, provided that on no one 
 day the maximum number of clerks was exceeded. Thus, if the 
 maximum be seven, then A, B, C, D, E, F, and G may be employed 
 on Monday, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J on Tuesday, C, D, E, F, G, 
 H, J, and K on Wednesday, and so on. Whether this principle 
 could be extended so far as to permit of a complete change of clerks 
 and messengers every day, so that A, B, C, D, E, F, and G should 
 
 * The reference to sub-agents will only appear if the election is for a county 
 or division of a county. 
 
8 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 be employed on Monday and J, K, L, M, N, O, and P on Tuesday, 
 with another similar alteration for Wednesday, is, perhaps, open to 
 doubt. At any rate, I strongly advise those of you who may be 
 election agents not to change the staff from day to day, but to take 
 your men on for the whole period of the election. In this way your 
 men get to know your modes of working, and you obtain an acquaint- 
 ance with their special capacities, so that you can get the best out 
 of them. Moreover, you narrow the area of danger from agency, to 
 which I shall allude in detail at a later stage. 
 
 As soon as it is known that an election is pending a candidate, as 
 well as his election agent and all those prominent supporters who are 
 supposed to have " influence " at headquarters, will be assailed with 
 requests for employment. If there is an election agent (as there 
 will be unless the candidate is his own election agent) the applicants 
 must be referred to him, and the election agent should make it per- 
 fectly clear that he will not tolerate interference with his responsibili- 
 ties by persons who will seek to force employes upon him. He will 
 take care to remind the applicants that if they are employed they 
 lose their vote, and if the employment of a voter (such as the chief 
 registration agent) is inevitable, he will expressly caution him, by the 
 service of a printed or written notice, that he must not vote. The 
 best way to do this is (1) to print on the form of appointment which 
 is given to the employe when he is engaged the words, " No elector 
 of this constituency who is paid by a candidate for his services may 
 vote at this election " ; and (2) to insert (just above the space for the 
 signature) in the receipt forms to be signed by the employes the 
 words, " I am aware that if I am a voter I may not vote at this 
 election/' You must bear in mind (1) that the paid worker himself, 
 if he is a voter and votes, is liable to punishment; (2) that the vote 
 will come off on a scrutiny; and (3) that unless you can satisfy an 
 election petition court that you did your duty in the matter of warn- 
 ing your workers that they must not vote, you may find yourself and 
 your candidate in peril of a charge of procuring prohibited persons 
 to vote, which is an illegal practice. In the Stepney case there was a 
 charge of this nature, and the judges found that the prohibited 
 persons did in fact vote, and that the election agent took no sufficient 
 trouble to prevent it. This they held to be neglect of duty, but they 
 did not go so far as to find him guilty of the actual offence of pro- 
 curing these persons to vote. 
 
 Paid canvassing is illegal. Section 17 of the Corrupt and Illegal 
 Practices Prevention Act provides that at an election no persons may be 
 employed save those enumerated in the First Schedule. Canvassers are 
 not included in the schedule. It will be necessary for you to take care, 
 therefore, that no paid agent who is employed by you in any election 
 work, such as that of a clerk or messenger, carries on systematic can- 
 vassing. I say " systematic " because Mr. Justice Bruce in discuss- 
 ing, at the Lichfield petition, certain canvassing by men employed 
 respectively as clerk and messenger, laid special stress upon its 
 systematic character. My late friend, Mr. H. C. Richards, K.C., 
 who was a specialist in election law, always took this view that it was 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 9 
 
 only systematic canvassing that was illegal in the case of a paid 
 worker. He had fortified himself with the opinion of the then 
 senior law officer of the Crown, who thought that a paid election clerk 
 or messenger might canvass in his spare time, but not as part and 
 parcel of his duties. In the presence of such authorities as these I 
 almost hesitate to express a personal opinion. Yet I will say this, 
 that, having regard to the danger of denning what is ' ' systematic ' ' 
 canvassing, and to the wide range of judicial opinion from which an 
 election court of two judges will be selected, I should myself never 
 allow a paid worker to canvass at all. He will use his personal 
 influence among his friends, of course. So much you need not 
 prevent, cannot prevent, and do not want to prevent But, as regards 
 canvassing, in any form, I should make it quite clear to every 
 worker, when he is engaged, that his abstinence from canvassing was 
 a condition of his continued tenure of office. 
 
 Among paid workers the election agent's right-hand man should be 
 the chief registration agent, unless he is himself the occupant of that 
 position. The chief registration agent knows the ropes in every part 
 of the constituency far better than anybody else. He will be person- 
 ally acquainted with a great number of the electors, so that he can tell 
 the election agent at once whether the acceptance of their proffered 
 assistance, for instance, is safe. He can tell, too, what kind of speaker 
 must be sent into this ward and into that ; what topics are dangerous ; 
 what persons and interests must be conciliated ; and he can materially 
 help in deciding whom it is safe to offend, when it is time to play a 
 strong card, and when it is desirable to temporise. The chief registra- 
 tion agent, as the election agent's principal assistant, will in these 
 multitudinous ways render indispensable aid. Technically he is but a 
 clerk, but actually he comes very near to being a deputy election 
 agent. The best plan is to have him as chief clerk at the central 
 committee rooms, of which he will take charge when the election agent 
 is away. 
 
 When the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883 
 was passed, the means of communication were by no means 
 so highly developed as now. The chief agent, for instance, 
 could hardly reach every point of the constituency by means of the 
 telephone, nor could he, as now, have his motor-car (or flying 
 machine) waiting outside the central committee room. Hence the 
 permissive provision in that Act for the appointment of a series of 
 sub-agents, one for each polling district. There can be no sub-agents 
 in boroughs. The sub-agent is in effect a local election agent, and is, 
 subject to the instructions of the chief agent, the official head of his 
 candidate's organisation in the district to which he is appointed. 
 By making a careful selection of the men for the sub-agencies, by 
 marking out a general programme for their activity, and by allotting 
 to each a specific sum (which must on no account be exceeded) from 
 the statutory aggregate of expenses, the election agent can relieve 
 himself of a vast amount of detail work. But he must bear in mind 
 that he cannot repudiate the actions of his sub-agent. If the sub- 
 agent commits an illegal act the candidate will have to pay the 
 
10 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 penalty, unless he can get relief. Section 25 (2) leaves no doubt on 
 this point by enacting that any act or default of the sub-agent which 
 would, if he were the election agent, be an illegal practice, or other 
 offence against the Act, is in fact to operate just as if he were the 
 election agent. Cases have come under my own notice where a sub- 
 agent has engaged a committee room in a public house, in ignorance 
 of the peremptory provision of Section 20 of the Corrupt and Illegal 
 Practices Act of 1883, which makes it an illegal hiring to have a 
 committee room in any building where refreshments are sold. In 
 the candidate or the election agent an illegal hiring is an illegal 
 practice, and therefore it is so in the sub-agent. There was another 
 case where a sub-agent, on the day of the poll, noticed that the 
 supply of conveyances had run short, and forthwith sent round to 
 the local jobmaster and hired a cab in which to take electors to the 
 poll. This man was perfectly honest in his ignorance. He entered 
 the cost of the car (with a note of the purpose for which it was hired) 
 in his election accounts, and thereby gave the chief election agent one 
 of the worst shocks he ever experienced. In this instance application 
 was made for relief, and, there being no opposition by the other side 
 (since the sub-agent's conduct was transparently honest), it was 
 granted as a matter of course. But had there been a petition this 
 affair would, of course, have formed the subject of a charge of paying 
 money for prohibited purposes, and the application for relief would 
 have raised a multitude of issues, some of which might have led to its 
 refusal, with fatal consequences to the candidate. For such reasons 
 as these my personal opinion is that it is better to work without 
 eub-agents. 
 
 In the various committee rooms where you would be entitled to 
 place a sub-agent you will do better to place either a clerk, or a local 
 volunteer who has the capacity and the time to keep things on the 
 move. Neither of these men has the plenary authority of the sub- 
 agent; in fact, he should have no authority to incur any but trifling 
 administrative expenses without the sanction of the chief election 
 agent, or to embark upon any policy which may commit the candidate 
 without the candidate's (or the election agent's) consent and approval. 
 This is especially the case in the matter of bills and leaflets, for 
 reasons which I shall at a later stage explain at length. In these 
 days of rapid transit the chief agent ought to have no difficulty in 
 making a personal visit to every important centre of activity at least 
 three times a week. In a borough fight he ought to do it at least 
 once a day. In many constituencies the train or tram facilities are 
 ample for the purpose. Where they are not, the energetic agent will 
 have his motor-car (or possibly his flying machine) always ready, and 
 with its aid he can do wonders in the way of vigilance, stimulus, and 
 control. An excess of the speed limit is not a corrupt or illega] 
 practice even in an election agent, but I strongly advise you as a 
 matter of election psychology against running risks in that direction. 
 If you run over Jones's dog or knock down Smith's wife it may cost 
 your candidate a hundred votes, quite apart from the damage and 
 injury which are the immediate results. 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 11 
 
 With regard to the committee rooms (which must be hired by 
 the election agent himself), all that I need do is to warn you of 
 the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act 46 and 47 Viet., 
 c. 51. These provide that in a borough you may have one com- 
 mittee room for each complete 500 electors or fraction thereof, and 
 that in a county you may have (1) a central committee room and 
 (2) one committee room in each polling district ; and if the number 
 of electors in the district exceeds 500, one extra committee room for 
 each complete 500. Section 7 (1) of the Act provides that the hiring 
 of committee rooms in excess of this number is an illegal practice. 
 But, of course, there is nothing to prevent you from using any 
 number of committee rooms, always provided that they are lent to 
 you for nothing, so that you only pay for the number which the 
 Act permits. Finally, there are four classes of premises which must 
 not be used as committee rooms : 
 
 (1) Any premises on which intoxicating liquor is sold, whether wholesale or 
 retail, or for consumption on or off the premises. 
 
 (2) Any premises where liquor is sold or supplied to members of a club or 
 association, other than a permanent political club. 
 
 (3) Any premises where refreshments of any kind are ordinarily sold for con- 
 sumption on the premises [e.g., the ordinary " roll and butter " shop.] 
 
 (4) The premises of any public elementary school in receipt of an annual 
 Parliamentary grant. 
 
 In spite of the exception under (2) with regard to a permanent 
 political club, I strongly advise you not to have a committee room 
 on such premises. It might very well open the door to charges of 
 treating, which would be very difficult to disprove. 
 
 This part of the subject reminds me that you may occasionally 
 find yourself unable to avoid holding a meeting in a room which 
 forms part of licensed premises, for the reason that no other accom- 
 modation is available. But there are two precautions it is essential 
 you should take : 
 
 (1) All means of access out of the room in which the meeting is 
 taking place into the part of the house where drink is supplied must 
 be stopped up during the meeting. No person should enter the 
 meeting through that part of the ihouse where drink is supplied; and 
 the precautions taken should be such that if ia man in the meeting 
 desires to obtain liquor, he must go right out of the meeting into the 
 open air and then re-enter the house at another door. Precautions 
 of this kind will prevent any suggestion that the persons convening 
 the meeting were parties to treating.. 
 
 (2) Notice should be served on the landlord by registered letter in 
 the form which I give below : 
 
 EUTLANDSHIRE ELECTION, 1910. 
 NOTICE TO LICENSE HOLDERS. 
 
 I, the undersigned, being the election agent for John Smith, a candidate at 
 the above election, hereby give you notice that the said candidate will not be 
 answerable or accountable for the cost of any meat, drink, entertainment, or 
 provision supplied by you to any person acting or claiming or pretending to act 
 on his behalf in connection with the said election, nor for any other expense other 
 than the sum of 1 agreed to be paid for hire of the room used by the said 
 candidate for the purpose of a meeting of electors at your house. 
 
 Dated January 19, 1910. (Signed) WILLIAM JONES. 
 
 To Mr. Charles Robinson, Red Lion Hotel, Mugby Junction. 
 
12 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 As regards the personation agents, these are only engaged for the 
 day of the poll, and you can often get sufficient volunteers to do the 
 work. The novelty of a day in the polling station, watching the actual 
 process of balloting, attracts good men to offer their services ; and 
 every guinea that you can save in this way can be profitably spent in 
 some other direction - 
 
 Apart from the election expenses, the election agent will require to 
 know something of the " personal expenses " of the candidate. These 
 are denned by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 
 1883 (Section 64) as including " the reasonable travelling expenses 
 and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere; for 
 the purposes of, and in relation to, the election." In practice, of 
 course, these expenses will include not only the strictly personal 
 expenses of the candidate, but also those which are necessitated by 
 his hospitality extended, within legitimate limits, to persons who come 
 down to help him as speakers or workers in the election. If the can- 
 didate is staying at a local (hotel he may entertain his auxiliaries 
 there and include the cost in his personal expenses. If he has his 
 own residence in the constituency, he may do the same, whether the 
 residence be temporary or permanent. This is social custom. But 
 the candidate may not pay his friends' fares, since that is not cus- 
 tomary among us. And this expenditure on entertainment must be 
 strictly bona fide. The circumstances must be such that the hospi- 
 tality is socially reasonable and is extended to persons who might 
 have been entertained in the same way even if no election had been 
 pending. If I am a candidate for a Birmingham constituency I may 
 entertain at a local hotel (or in my house at Birmingham if I have 
 one) any friends of similar social status who come from London or 
 Newcastle to speak at my meetings or assist at my propaganda. I 
 may even have champagne on the table at dinner, since it ma} 7 be 
 assumed that my friends are accustomed to that form of refreshment 
 and the cost may rank among my personal expenses. But if my 
 friends from Newcastle happen to be colliers and I entertain them 
 with champagne at dinner, the transaction will probably be scrutinised 
 much more closely, if it should come, as an item of my personal 
 expenses, under notice of the election judges, since it will, in 
 their eyes, begin to assume a peculiar and questionable aspect. 
 It is not that the law objects to a collier having champagne. It is 
 simply the judicial jealousy of anything that looks like an illicit 
 influence. Much more severe will be the scrutiny if the visitors are 
 local colliers, because then there will be a grave suspicion that th 
 expression " personal expenses " is being made to hide something 
 very like treating. Finally, if the colliers are voters in the consti- 
 tuency where I am standing, my so-called " personal expenses " will 
 be overhauled if the matter goes before an election petition court, and 
 I shall have but little chance of escaping the loss of the seat on a 
 charge of treating. 
 
 If the candidate is living at an hotel, then his hotel bill, plus an 
 allowance for travelling and incidentals, will form your total. If 
 he took a house within three months of the fight, it would be better 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 13 
 
 to include the whole of the expenses attaching to his tenancy. If it 
 were taken earlier, three months' expenditure need only be included. 
 If he is, and has been for a period long anterior to the election, a 
 bona fide resident of the constituency, so that his household ex- 
 penses would have been incurred whether there was a contest or not, 
 you might put in a month's ordinary household expenses, plus an 
 estimate of the additional amount sp>exit in entertaining friends and 
 helpers during the contest. The best way to proceed is to send a 
 formal letter to your candidate, immediately after the election, asking 
 him how much his personal expenses were, and reminding him that 
 if they exceeded 100 they must be paid through the election agent. 
 If they are under 100 you have no concern with the items. It will 
 be sufficient for you to put the candidate's reply, stating the amount, 
 among the vouchers which you file. I know of no case where the 
 personal expenses have been challenged. None the less, I recom- 
 mend you to comply strictly with the Act lest your own return should 
 yield the first decision on the subject. 
 
 Outside your paid staff there are two classes of workers upon whom 
 you will have to keep a close eye. These are (1) the more prominent 
 workers belonging to the local party organisation, generally called 
 the Blankshire Conservative and Unionist Association, or the Blank- 
 shire Liberal and Radical Federation, or some similar title, and (2) 
 the " Outside Organisations " that is to say, the various independent 
 bodies who come into the constituency to assist the one side and to 
 embarrass the other; somefim.es to embarrass both. As the whole 
 point of the discussion of your relationship to these people turns on 
 the question of agency, it will be desirable to consider what agency, 
 in the election sense of the word, actually is, and what are the dangers 
 arising from it. 
 
 Within the scope of his authority, which is conterminous with the 
 area and activity of the campaign itself, the election agent is the 
 plenipotentiary of the candidate. The repudiation of his agency, 
 therefore, in the event of his being guilty of corrupt or illegal prac- 
 tices, is quite out of the question. The repudiation would be almost 
 equally difficult in the case of one joint candidate by the other, or of 
 any of the paid election staff, as well as the prominent and responsible 
 leaders of the party organisation, although their services are quite 
 honorary. With regard to the other active combatants (and, of 
 course, to a slight extent in the case of those already mentioned) there 
 arise the most complex questions with reference to the candidates' 
 responsibility for their actions questions which, if determined 
 adversely to the candidate on the hearing of a petition, may cost him 
 a hard-won seat. There is a special doctrine of election agency 
 applicable to these cases, which differs very widely from the ordinary 
 legal doctrine of agency. The old election petition committees tried 
 to evolve a principle which should be elastic enough to reach instances 
 where a candidate sought to profit by the wrongdoing of others, while 
 strongly protesting that he was in no way responsible for, or capable of 
 controlling, their actions. The election doctrine of agency is the fruit 
 of their efforts. They knew that no man was likely deliberately and 
 
14 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 openly to authorise the commission of an aqt which would, if 
 brought home to himself, be fatal to his election. But if such acts 
 were, in fact, performed and if they benefited him, then the question 
 arose, not whether there was agency in the ordinary legal sense (since 
 the precautions of the parties would prevent the existence of any 
 evidence cogent enough to establish it), but whether the political 
 relations between the persons concerned were such, in length of period 
 and degree of intimacy, as to establish agency in the election sense of 
 the term. What that sense is we cannot define in precise terms. But 
 I think I can give you a good working knowledge of the ' ' drift ' ' of 
 the doctrine. 
 
 The ordinary legal agency may be created in four ways : (1) By 
 express contract, (2) by implication, (3) from necessity, and (4) by 
 ratification. Agency by express contract is the kind of agency which 
 exists in the case of the election agent and his staff where there is 
 an explicit and specific engagement. Agency by implication 
 is that which is created, for instance, when a coachman, who has the 
 care of his master's horses, is understood to possess authority to order 
 corn for them as his master's agent. Agency by necessity has no 
 application to election work, so that the special doctrine of agency, as 
 applied to elections, is a modification, by way of extension, of agency 
 by implication and agency by ratification. For instance, assuming for 
 the moment that an action (based upon the alleged existence of agency 
 in the ordinary sense) would lie for the recovery of money laid 
 out in bribery at the alleged request of defendant, a candidate, the 
 main question would be whether, in fact, the defendant had authorised 
 the laying out of the money. If it could be shown that the person 
 who had paid the bribes, though, in fact, he was an agent of the 
 defendant, had in this instance been expressly prohibited from laying 
 out money in that way (and especially if the persons who received it 
 were well aware of the prohibition), the action to recover it from the 
 candidate would fail. But as regards the agency in the election sense, 
 the question would be totally different. The proof of general agency 
 (i.e., of agency in the ordinary legal sense) would render abortive any 
 protection that was sought in the express prohibition of the corrupt 
 acts, however honest that prohibition might have been. The corrupt 
 acts of the agent, though forbidden by the candidate, would, if within 
 the very liberally defined scope of his authority, be fatal to his 
 candidature. 
 
 In the ordinary sense of the word, a man cannot easily make 
 another his agent without being aware of it and, in the great majority 
 of cases, without having his eyes fully open to what he is doing. 
 But he may create an agent in the election sense of the word without 
 being conscious of what is being done and, in fact, in such a manner 
 that when the person is ultimately decided to be his agent nobody is 
 more astonished than himself. The reason for this wide difference 
 between common law agency and agency in the election sense was 
 stated in the Gloucester petition (1873) to be that where any corrup- 
 tion is intended the candidate is most carefully kept in intentional 
 ignorance of it. In the Wigan case it was said that the position of the 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 15 
 
 candidate in the election sense was analogous to that of a man who 
 buys a yacht to race in his name and finds a captain and crew on 
 board. The fact that he consents to sail with them makes them his 
 agents for the purpose of sailing the race in accordance with the laws 
 of the course. The fact is that in the ordinary relations of life a man 
 has very large powers of control over his agents and knows, or can 
 with reasonable diligence discover, who they are. But in the conduct of 
 an election his political fate may be jeopardised by persons over whose 
 actions he has little or no control, like the tradesman who canvassed 
 a street with him and then proceeded to the nearest public-house and 
 called for " drinks round and the health of the candidate." Even if 
 they act in defiance of his orders, where he has power to give them, 
 or do the wrongful act maliciously, with the intention of injuring 
 him, or are totally unknown to him, yet still he may find that they 
 are held to be his agents. This question, whether A is or is not the 
 agent of B at a certain election is of no great moment while the con- 
 test proceeds. But when the contest is over and the electors have 
 delivered their verdict it may become of very great consequence 
 indeed. For then it becomes possible for an appeal to be made from 
 the electorate to an election petition court, whose judgment, possibly 
 setting aside that of the electorate, may be very largely based upon 
 the individual opinions of two judges with regard to the nebulous 
 doctrine of agency in the election sense. The result may be that the 
 candidate is exposed to the risk of the very severest penalties, not 
 because he himself has done anything wrong, but because, in the 
 opinion of the judges, some person over whom neither candidate nor 
 constituents had any control has been guilty of a breach of election 
 law. These considerations will, I think, make it clear how vast the 
 sweep of this election doctrine of agency is. I can hardly sum up 
 more vividly than in the quite recent language of Mr. Justice 
 Channell, in the Great Yarmouth case. The learned judge said that 
 the " substance of the principle of agency is that if a man is 
 employed at the election to get you votes, or if, without being 
 employed, he is authorised to get you votes, or if, although neither 
 employed nor authorised, he does to your knowledge get you votes, 
 and you acc,ept what he has done and adopt it, then he becomes a 
 person for whose acts you are responsible in the sense that, if Ms 1 
 acts have been of an illegal character, you cannot retain the benefit 
 which those illegal acts have helped to procure for you. . 
 That is, as I apprehend, clearly established law. It is hard upon 
 candidates in one sense, because it makes them responsible for acts 
 which are not only not in accordance with their wish, but which are 
 directly contrary to it." 
 
 With these considerations fresh in our minds we may go on to 
 consider the two classes of election workers whom I mentioned a few 
 minutes ago 
 
 (1) As regards the local political association. If there is such a 
 body (as there is almost certain to be) the election agent should 
 advise his candidate to procure its dissolution as soon as the candi- 
 dates come down into the arena. In that manner you get rid to a large 
 
16 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 extent of any risk as to its agency in the aggregate, and you weaken 
 any evidence of agency as regards the individual members. In that 
 way you narrow the area of the candidate's responsibility and may 
 save him from otherwise inevitable disaster. There is in these pre- 
 cautions nothing that is improper or illegitimate. The election 
 doctrine of agency, as I have shown you, is so unreasonably wide as 
 to lead to the infliction of serious hardship upon men whose only 
 fault is their eagerness to win a civic battle. That being the case, 
 you have the clearest right to prevent that doctrine from operating 
 to the detriment of the man whose interest it is your first duty, as 
 election agent, to safeguard. For that reason I recommend you to 
 create among the voluntary workers no formal bond whatever. Let 
 their only common characteristic be the support of the cause and the 
 candidate. 
 
 (2) The " Outside Organisations " form an element of a modern 
 election which does not seem to have entered into the contemplation 
 of those who framed the great Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preven- 
 tion Act of 1883. They had, in fact, no conception of the multitu- 
 dinous interests which take the field in a modern election I mean 
 the outside organisations. Very early in your election work you will 
 find a number of these irregular troops in the field opening their own 
 committee rooms, employing their own clerks, canvassers, and 
 speakers, and covering the local hoardings with vast displays of 
 colour and argument. Some of these people will be working for 
 causes which your candidate represents and others for causes to 
 which he is opposed. If your candidate is a Unionist he may have 
 a powerful Tariff Reform organisation working in his favour, whilst 
 a Free Trade campaign will be carried on for the benefit of his 
 opponent. But whatever and wherever these organisations may be, 
 you must, if you are election agent, leave them to their own devices, 
 and you must seriously warn all your paid staff and all the prominent 
 people who would be held to be agents of your candidate, as well as 
 the candidate himself, that they must practise the same aloofness. 
 Of course, I am not suggesting anything in the nature of hostility or 
 offeiisiveness. If it were desirable for you to define verbally your 
 attitude you might say, speaking, for instance, as the agent of a 
 Liberal candidate, to some Free Trade organisation who had come 
 down and was working, " My candidate is in full sympathy with your 
 aims and welcomes your assistance. But he cannot in any way 
 officially recognise you, or work in actual association with you, nor 
 can he allow such recognition or co-operation on the part of any of 
 the persons who might be held to be his agents." I have no doubt 
 that at a very early date the absolute legal irresponsibility of these 
 outside organisations will have to be abolished, and that their position 
 and powers will then be regulated and defined by statute. Until 
 that statute exists you must adopt the attitude which is suggested by 
 experience of the best interpretation of law as it stands, and make it 
 clear that in your official capacity you are as ignorant of their 
 existence as one newspaper is of the existence of any other. If you 
 take the other course, you will make these people your agents, and if 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 17 
 
 there is a petition against your candidate there will be a charge of 
 omitting their expenses from your return. If they are held to be 
 vour agents, that charge will be fatal ; and remember, evidence that 
 you frequented the inside of their committee room, or were seen, 
 for instance, directing the pictorial adornment of the outside of it, 
 will go a long way to enmesh you in this awful net of agency, and 
 so, perhaps, to imperil the results of a long and arduous contest. 
 
 We will now take the various classes of election offences in detail, 
 examining the existing legal provisions with regard to each. As you 
 know, there are two great classes of election offences "corrupt" 
 practices and " illegal " practices. Every corrupt practice is illegal, 
 but every illegal practice is not corrupt. The corrupt practices, in 
 the election sense, are bribery, treating, undue influence (i.e., intimi- 
 dation, threats, or menaces, for instance), personation, and the 
 making of a false declaration with regard to the return of election 
 expenses. This list is exhaustive. The illegal practices are the 
 minor offences, such, for instance, as providing bands and banners, 
 paying for the hire of conveyances to take voters to the poll, or 
 exceeding the statutory maximum of election expenses. Many 
 attempts have been made to define these two classes of offence so as 
 to bring the essential difference into logical prominence. For instance, 
 Mr. Justice Field said in the Barrow petition that " a corrupt practice 
 is a thing the mind goes with. An illegal practice is a thing the 
 Legislature is determined to prevent, whether it is done honestly or 
 dishonestly. Therefore the question here is not one of intention, but 
 whether in point of fact the Act has been contravened." Perhaps I 
 can make the distinction clearer by pointing out that a corrupt 
 practice is such that no man of ordinary intelligence could commit it 
 without being fully conscious that he was doing wrong. There can 
 be no corrupt practice without a corrupt intention. That which 
 lawyers call the mens rea the corrupt or vicious mind, consciously 
 bent upon the performance of an act known to be wicked must be 
 present and actively operative in the case of a man who bribes or 
 (generally speaking) treats or personates a voter. Intimida- 
 tion, again, is an act which must involve wilful wrongdoing. 
 But it is otherwise with an illegal practice. A man of the 
 highest character might hire a trap to take voters to the 
 poll without the slightest idea that he was committing an 
 offence against the law. Again, A. B. prepares, with his own hands, 
 a, placard containing certain statements which he is anxious to bring 
 to the notice of the electors on the day of the poll, and pays a voter 
 to display the placard on the wall of his house. There is nothing 
 ethically wrong here. But (unless the voter so paid carries on the 
 regular business of displaying advertisements for payment) an illegal 
 practice has been committed; and if A. B. is the election agent of 
 the candidate, " relief " will have to be obtained. 
 
 Beginning with the corrupt practices, therefore, we may say that 
 bribery is the deliberate purchase or sale of votes for money or money's 
 worth. Every person is guilty of bribery who directly or indirectly 
 gives, lends, procures, agrees to give, agrees to lend, agrees to procure, 
 
18 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 offers, promises, promises to procure, or promises to endeavour to 
 procure any money or valuable consideration or any office, place, or 
 employment to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of 
 any voter, or to or for any other person, to induce any voter to vote 
 or refrain from voting ; or to induce such voter to vote or refrain from 
 voting; or to induce such person to procure or endeavour to procure 
 the return of any person, or vote of any person. The offence is also 
 committed by the voter or other person who, either on his own account 
 or for another, receives, or agrees or contracts to receive the gifts, 
 loans, offers, promises, procurements, or agreements, either before, 
 during, or after an election; any person who provides money with 
 intent that it, or any part of it, shall be expended in bribery; and 
 any person who pays money in discharge or repayment of money 
 so expended. Acts of the same kind, where food, drink, or enter- 
 tainment is (or are) given will amount to treating. You will notice 
 that the definition of bribery penalises both briber and bribee for what 
 is a serious criminal offence, and therefore makes it impossible to 
 charge one without the other. At the root of all the many instances 
 enumerated there is the element of individual bargaining directed to 
 control an individual vote. This is the essential distinction between 
 bribery and treating. Bribery is performed in individual cases, 
 treating in the mass. Bribery is directed to incite or control the vote ; 
 treating, in the main, to confirm its existing tendency and to enthuse, 
 or at least to excite, the voter. Voters known to be favourable are 
 not bribed, for the act would be superfluous, but they are occasionally 
 treated. The giving of meat, drink, and entertainment to large 
 numbers of persons can be made to " square " with recognised social 
 conventions, so as to be explainable, if challenged, in that way. 
 This is not the case with money bribery, since it is not the custom to 
 distribute pecuniary gifts. There may, of course, be such a thing 
 as wholesale bribery on such a scale that the election could not pos- 
 sibly be regarded as the free expression of political opinion or allowed 
 to stand. This state of things is known as general bribery and voids 
 the election at common law, quite apart from statute. 
 
 Given the legal proof of the act or acts alleged to constitute bribery, 
 the whole question resolves itself into one of motive. Was there a 
 corrupt intent? That question is most difficult to answer where the 
 alleged bribery consists of donations and subscriptions to charitable 
 and other quasi-public institutions and the judges have displayed a 
 marked reluctance to treat as corruption this ambiguous generosity on 
 the part of a candidate. Of course, if it began on a lavish scale on 
 the very eve of the election, there would be no doubt of its character. 
 In other cases, however, it takes the form of long-continued gifts to 
 various societies and organisations. Of isolated acts of alleged private 
 bribery we do not hear much nowadays. Of course, nothing is easier 
 than for a man to swear that the candidate gave him a sovereign, 
 accompanying the gift with a significant wink. If the alleged act 
 is corroborated by other evidence and if the Court believes that the 
 candidate might have been rash enough to commit bribery in the 
 presence of witnesses, he will probably have only his own oath 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 19 
 
 between himself and disaster. I remember a case where the voter 
 swore that the candidate gave him a sovereign, with a hint that it 
 was the purchase price of his vote. Cross-examined, the voter remem- 
 bered the occasion perfectly well. Asked what the weather was, he 
 replied that it was a bitterly cold day and the ground was covered 
 with snow. As the election had taken place in the height of the 
 summer, this answer was fatal to the charge. Or take another case. 
 On the evening before what was expected to be a very close poll the 
 adult daughter of one of the candidates (who was a prominent and 
 successful worker on his behalf and undoubtedly his agent) visited 
 a voter and presented him with a small sum of money (about 2s. 6d.) 
 and with the contents of a basket which held a jug of cream, a dozen 
 eggs, and a pound of fresh butter. The man was a widower, with 
 two or three young children. He was a semi-invalid, living in squalid 
 circumstances in a wretched by-street. His political views were 
 doubtful, if indeed they existed in definite shape at all. The facts 
 were not disputed, but the voter himself was not called. He feared 
 that his evidence must in any case antagonise some of his friends and 
 frankly stated that if he were compelled to enter the witness-box he 
 would say that he had forgotten all the circumstances. In support 
 of the contention that this was an act of bribery it was urged that the 
 lady had not been similarly kind to any other voter and that she had 
 never before, and never since, bestowed any benevolence on this man. 
 The reply was that the lady was actuated simply by natural womanly 
 kindness and sympathy. These, and not any idea of securing a vote 
 for her father, took her to the voter's home, with her basket of dairy 
 produce, on the night before the poll. There was some reason to 
 believe that the recipient of the gift did, in fact, vote for the lady's 
 father, but this was not certainly known. Was this bribery ? There 
 was only one person who could have given anything approaching a 
 positive answer and that was the lady herself. If (which was denied 
 by herself) she gave the bounty with the intent that it should influ- 
 ence the vote, she was guilty of bribery. If she acted in natural 
 womanly sympathy with human misery, she was not. Anyhow, the 
 court declined to listen to any suggestion of a corrupt motive. But 
 you must not therefore imagine that baskets of dairy produce may 
 be freely distributed by a candidate's daughter on the eve of the poll. 
 Five baskets might, and ten Baskets almost certainly would, assume a 
 sinister aspect when viewed with the jealous eyes of an election peti- 
 tion court. 
 
 If you should be confronted, as election agent, especially at this 
 time of the year (November), with any questions arising out of 
 gifts by your candidate, you may form a sounder judgment by ascer-j 
 taining what has been the custom of the candidate in years gone by.i 
 The candidate has his country house in a certain village in the con-; 
 stituency. Ever since he lived there, and for years before he was a 
 candidate, he has sent a Christmas present a turkey, a joint of beef, 
 or the like to all the poorer villagers. Is he to do it this year ? 
 Well, I should advise him not to do so, with an election pending in 
 January. But clearly his gifts would stand upon an altogether 
 
20 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 different footing from those of a man who, having just been adopted 
 as candidate in a constituency where he has had no local residence 
 or interests, sends out gifts at this coming Christmas and goes to the 
 poll in January. The principle is the same as that which we have 
 already formulated with regard to meetings. If the member has 
 always made a tour of his constituency in September and he did it 
 this year in accordance with annual custom, the expenses need not 
 worry you. If you can get them into the return by all means include 
 them. If you find you cannot, I think you need have no misgiving 
 about omitting them, on the ground that they were an annual custom 
 or expense, not incurred for the immediate purposes of the ballot box. 
 But it would be otherwise with the meetings held last September of a 
 candidate who was not the sitting member. They are clearly held 
 with a direct view to the ballot box. 
 
 If any cases of alleged treating come to your notice do not neglect 
 them. If they are on the other side, get a note of details and wit- 
 nesses, in case you want to present a petition. If they are on your 
 own side, find out the facts and deal with the affair in such a manner 
 as shall leave no doubt of your attitude. Towards the close of a hotly 
 contested election, some few years ago, a friend of mine, the election 
 agent for one of the candidates, received a letter in some such terms 
 as these : 
 
 Dear Sir, As you are no doubt aware, Mr. A B has been working for Mr. 
 Smith (the candidate) in my bar of an evening for a fortnight or so. Having 
 now supplied over 10 worth of drinks to his orders I should take it as a. favour if 
 you would send me something on account. This is between ourselves. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 My friend, in asking me how he had better deal with a matter of 
 this kind, said he supposed the best thing would be to ignore it. I 
 pointed out to him, however, that inasmuch as it was impossible to 
 tell where the affair would end, his attitude ought to be instantly put 
 upon record. A reply was therefore sent, by registered letter, 
 expressing the agent's astonishment that the publican should suppose 
 he could even countenance a flagrant breach of the law, much less 
 that he should actually pay money for its commission. The letter 
 also contained a reminder to the publican that the fact of his per- 
 mitting systematic treating in his bar, if it came to the knowledge 
 of the licensing authority, might not facilitate the renewal of his 
 license. That ended the matter. No further claim or suggestion was 
 ever made. But consider if there had been a petition, and if these 
 cases of treating had been brought in, how much stronger was the 
 position of the agent and of the candidate, with this letter on indis- 
 putable record, than it would have been if the episode had been 
 ignored, as though the agent were afraid to tackle it. 
 
 The question whether an employer might give his workmen a holi- 
 day on the day of the poll, without risking the suggestion that he was 
 thereby bribing them, and consequently, if he were an agent of the 
 candidate, imperilling the whole election, was for some time the subject 
 of considerable perplexity. The doubts are now set at rest by 48 and 
 49 Viet. c. 56, which legalises the giving of a holiday under these 
 circumstances, provided (1) it is given to all alike; (2) is not given 
 as an inducement to vote for any particular candidate ; and (3) is not 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 21 
 
 refused to any person in order to prevent him voting for a particular 
 candidate. 
 
 Before leaving this subject I want to say a word about the not 
 uncommon practice of providing what is called " refreshment for the 
 workers " 011 election day. The provision of meat and drink in this , 
 way is excessively dangerous, even if it is bona -fide intended only for 
 the convenience of the candidate's avowed and whole-hearted sup- 
 porters. They may introduce persons who are not whole-hearted 
 supporters, in order that the latter may share the bounteous provision 
 which has been made. In such circumstances the materials for a 
 good pi'hna facie case of treating are instantly created. Again, it 
 only needs proof that the meat and drink were provided as a reward 
 for services rendered to transform the whole transaction into a case 
 of illegal payment or of illegal employment. My advice is, provide 
 no refreshments in this way. I ought to add that a wager, if designed 
 to corrupt a voter, will vitiate the vote. Suppose the candidates to 
 be A and B. A voter, C, who is in necessitous circumstances, is a 
 supporter of A, and intends to vote for him. D, the secret agent of 
 B, bets C 100 to 1 that B will not be returned. C has now a large 
 interest in the return of B, for whom he ultimately votes, in the 
 desire to win the bet. Clearly this vote cannot stand. 
 
 Next to bribery and treating, among the corrupt practices, comes 
 undue influence. There are few men who possess no influence at all 
 among their fellow-creatures, and as long as they employ it properly 
 the Legislature neither does nor indeed can prevent its operation. 
 You may employ all your powers of persuasion upon a voter; you 
 may even appeal to religious sanctions in aid of your appeal. So far 
 you are on safe ground. But if, the voter being a man of only 
 moderate intellectual calibre, you go 011 to threaten him with 
 spiritual pains and penalties if he does not vote as you desire, and 
 still more so if you threaten to take away his employment, or subject 
 him to physical restraint or violence, you are guilty of undue 
 influence. The offence is defined for the first time in Section 5 of 17 
 and 18 Viet. c. 102, and this section, repealed and substantially 
 re-enacted by Section 2 of 46 and 47 Viet. c. 51, is now the statutory 
 authority on the subject. The section provides that " every person 
 who shall directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person 
 on his behalf, make use of or threaten to make use of any force, 
 violence, or restraint, or inflict or threaten to inflict by himself or by 
 any other person any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or 
 loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such 
 person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person 
 having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or who shall 
 by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impede 
 or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of any elector, or shall 
 thereby compel, induce, or prevail upon any elector either to 
 give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall be guilty 
 of undue influence." By Section 3 of the same Act undue influence 
 is made a corrupt practice, and so becomes capable (if committed 
 by a candidate or his agents) of avoiding an election, subject to 
 
22 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 precisely the same considerations with regard to motive as bribery and 
 treating. Tt is, however, a much more impalpable and insidious 
 influence than either of the other two of these triplets of corruption. 
 The use of brute force or violence is not a common form of undue 
 influence in our day. It is too easily susceptible of proof, and too 
 difficult of excuse or explanation, for it to be a safe weapon to use. 
 It is in its other forms that it is used nowadays, where it is used at 
 all, and, of course, there are cases where that which looks, at first 
 sight, like undue influence, may, upon closer scrutiny, be seen 
 to be perfectly innocent. As Mr. Justice Willes said in 
 Blackburn, " Where an employer has a mixed motive for 
 dismissing his man, where he has a reason for getting rid 
 of him apart from his politics, is the employer bound, in 
 point of law, to abstain from getting rid of him merely because of 
 the general election coming on ? Well, I think that in point of law, 
 as an abstract question, he is not bound to abstain. But I think any 
 sensible man or sound lawyer advising him would say, ' You may do 
 so; but take care how you do so, because, unless you prove clearly 
 that you have a good ground for discharging your servant apart from 
 the political one, it is inevitable that your discharge of him will be 
 imputed to your dislike, not of the man himself, but of his politics.' " 
 Occasionally this species of undue influence takes a curious form. 
 In Northallerton a person threatened to give up his pew in a Noncon- 
 formist chapel unless the minister voted in a certain way. This was 
 held to be intimidation. On the other hand, direct spiritual intimi- 
 dation, the actual threat of divine displeasure if the vote is cast in a 
 certain way, is extremely rare in England, simply because it would be 
 ineffective. I need not therefore trouble you with any discussion 
 of it. 
 
 The expression " fraudulent device or contrivance " in the section 
 will cover such expedients as abduction, by a trick, and for a time 
 only, whicjh is not an uncommon election device. The voter is got 
 out of the constituency on the day of the poll, and kept away till the 
 ballot-boxes close. Another of these obscure forms of undue influence 
 consisted in the attempt to mislead the voter, by means of some 
 fraudulent device or suggestion. For instance, the voter receives a 
 specimen poll card with the " X " marked opposite the name of a 
 certain candidate, and a printed intimation that unless he marks his 
 ballot-paper in that way his vote will be lost. What the voter fre- 
 quently understood (and what, it was alleged, he was intended to 
 understand) in these cases was that unless he placed his " X " oppo- 
 site the name of the candidate in whose interest the misleading 
 missive had been sent to him, his vote would be lost. Still another 
 and curious device, which is probably fraudulent within the meaning 
 of the section (see Northallerton, 1 O'M. and H., 169), is worked by 
 means of " pairing." A and B, voters on opposite sides, agree to 
 pair. B, in pursuance of a fraudulent intent, breaks his tacit pledge, 
 and votes, thereby destroying A's vote by a discreditable trick. 
 This, device, however, is now so rare as to be negligible as an elec- 
 toral influence. 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 23 
 
 The next of the corrupt practices is personation, a term which 
 explains itself. The legal definition is contained in 35 and 36 Viet., 
 c. 33, s. 24, which provides that a person shall be deemed guilty of 
 personation at an election who " applies for a ballot paper in the 
 name of some other person, whether that name be that of a person 
 living or dead or of a fictitious person, or who, having voted once 
 at any such election, applies at the same election for a ballot paper in 
 his own name." This double voting by the same man we may call 
 self -personation. For instance, let the voter reside in Mile End and 
 have a shop in Whitechapel. He will be on the register in both con- 
 stituencies; but as they are themselves only divisions of the old 
 borough of the Tower Hamlets, the voter would, if he voted on both 
 qualifications at a general election, have given two votes in what is, 
 in fact, only one constituency. Hence, as soon as he has voted on 
 one qualification, he is guilty of personation if he attempts to vote 
 on the other at the same election. 
 
 The established machinery for the prevention and detection of 
 personation consists of the professional vigilance of the returning 
 officer or the presiding officer and his assistants, supplemented by the 
 partisan activity of the personation agents. The returning officer, 
 as you know, is the responsible head of the whole official machinery 
 at an election. A presiding officer is the responsible head of a single 
 polling station only, and, of course, acts under the instructions of the 
 returning officer. The returning officer may himself, if he choose, 
 be the presiding officer at one of the stations. If the presiding officer 
 has doubts about the identity of an applicant for a ballot paper, he 
 must, if required to do so by one (or both) of the personation agents, 
 " put the question " that is to say, he administers an oath and then 
 asks, " Are you the same person whose name appears as Alfred 
 Brown on the register of voters now in force for the [constituency, 
 described with technical exactness] ? (6 and 7 Viet., c. 18, s. 81.) 
 The form of this question should be carefully noted. It is not an 
 inquiry whether the voter's name is Alfred Brown, but whether he is 
 the person represented on the register as Alfred Brown. Thus if the 
 person on the register appears by mistake as Charles Brown 
 it will be quite proper for Alfred Brown (who is really the elector 
 to whom the entry refers) to take the oath and proceed to 
 vote. If the question is not directed against the identity of 
 the voter, on the suggestion that he is personating some 
 other person, it may take the other form allowed by the same 
 section, and directed against self-personation: "Have you already 
 voted either here or elsewhere at this election for [the constituency, 
 described with technical exactness] ? " As this part of the electoral 
 machinery is extremely important, we will go into it with a little 
 more detail when we come to consider the act of voting. At this 
 point I need only remind you that there is no such thing as an 
 authorised personation, however honest and even praiseworthy the 
 motives of the personator may be. If A, an eager but infirm politi- 
 cian, anxious that his vote should not be lost, sends B to personate 
 him, with instructions how to mark the ballot paper, B may quite 
 
24 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 honestly perform his mission as between himself and A, but he will 
 none the less be guilty of the full offence. Personation, and the 
 aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring of personation are not 
 only corrupt practices, but felonies. In this case, however, as in that 
 of the other corrupt practices, the corrupt mind is essential to the 
 offence. A voter whose name is William Smith, but who appears on 
 the register as John Smith, may properly apply for a ballot paper 
 hi the name of John Smith, for he is the person signified by that 
 name on the register. But if the voter actually is John Smith, and 
 William Smith seek to obtain the ballot paper by giving the name 
 of John Smith, it will be very difficult to save him from a conviction 
 for personation. 
 
 The last of the corrupt practices is committed by a candidate or 
 election agent who knowingly makes a false declaration (before a 
 justice of the peace) verifying the accuracy and completeness of the 
 return of election expenses. This offence is wilful and corrupt 
 perjury and is (by Section 33 (7) of 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51) also 
 made a corrupt practice, so as to entail the disabilities for a corrupt 
 practice, which are not attached to the ordinary offence of perjury. 
 Mere failure to make the return (as distinguished from making it 
 falsely) is only an illegal practice. These provisions with reference 
 to falsity of the return are properly drastic, but no charge of wilful 
 falsity has ever arisen under them in connection with the return of 
 the expenses of a Parliamentary candidate. The charge of omitting 
 various items from the return, which almost always forms part of the 
 petitioner's case on an election petition, has to do with technical, not 
 corrupt, omissions. That is to say, it is concerned with expenses 
 which the election agent, in the bona fide exercise of his discretion, 
 did not consider to be election expenses in accordance with the prin- 
 ciples which we discussed when we were considering those questions. 
 
 In all these offences there is a " corrupt " element, and they are 
 all corrupt practices. There is, however, one case where a " corrupt " 
 element only creates an illegal practice. The payment, or promise of 
 payment, of money to induce or procure the withdrawal of any 
 person from being a candidate is, if done " corruptly," only an illegal 
 payment. I mention it here to make it clear that, in spite of the 
 use of the word " corruptly/' the offence is not a corrupt practice. 
 
 The corrupt practices (the existence of the corrupt element being 
 demonstrated) are all crimes. Personation is a felony, punishable 
 on indictment by imprisonment, with hard labour, for a term not 
 exceeding two years. The other corrupt practices are misdemeanours, 
 punishable on indicitment by imprisonment, with or without hard 
 labour, for a term not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding 
 200. A person may (provided he does not elect to be tried by a 
 jury) be found guilty of corrupt practices by an election court. In 
 that case the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment, with or 
 without hard labour, or a fine not exceeding 200. A witness on 
 the trial of an election petition is not permitted to refuse to answer 
 a question on the ground that the answer may criminate, or tend to 
 criminate, himself, or on the ground of privilege. But if he answers 
 truly he is entitled to a certificate of indemnity from the court, which 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 25 
 
 bars a prosecution in the event of his evidence having revealed, or 
 suggested, his guilt. In this way the facts are elicited, while the 
 witness is not (provided he answer truly) forced to criminate himself. 
 The Public Prosecutor is represented by counsel at the trial of every 
 election petition, in order that his attention may be called to any 
 offences which are disclosed in the course of the proceedings. 
 
 In addition to the penalties under the criminal law there are 
 grave disabilities. The report of an election court that a corrupt 
 practice (other than treating or undue influence) has been com- 
 mitted by, or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate, or 
 that treating or undue influence has been committed by such candi- 
 date, renders him incapable for ever of being elected for the county 
 or borough in respect of which the offence was committed, and if 
 he has been elected, his election is void. If the candidate is guilty 
 by his agents (and not personally) the incapacity lasts for seven years 
 from the date of the report of the election court to the Speaker, and 
 if the candidate has been elected his election is void. A person con- 
 victed on indictment of any corrupt practice is incapable, for seven 
 years from the date of the conviction, of being registered as an elector, 
 or of Doting at any election, or of holding any public or judicial office, 
 and if he holds it, it is ipso facto vacated. Treating at an earlier 
 election may imperil the validity of a later one. 
 
 I have already explained the distinction between corrupt and 
 illegal practices. The illegal practices owe their definition and pro- 
 hibition to the inquiries into the working of the electoral system 
 which took place after the general election of 1880. It became 
 evident at the time that, besides the old-fashioned election offences, 
 such as bribery, treating, and undue influence, there had sprung into 
 existence a new class, which found their origin and sustenance either 
 in excessive, but colourable, expenditure on objects which were prima 
 facie legal, or else in the lavish provision of the most mischievous 
 stimuli, such as bands of music, flags, banners, and cockades. As 
 recently as 1880 the election expenses of a distinguished modern 
 statesman, a member of Mr. Asquith's Government, included 967 
 for the conveyance of voters to the poll. Such expenditure has now 
 (as we shall see) been made an illegal practice. Strictly speaking, 
 those acts which are generally known as illegal practices fall into 
 two groups : (1) illegal practices, technically so described, and (2) 
 illegal payments, employment, and hiring, which are only illegal 
 practices if committed by the candidate, his election agent, or a sub- 
 agent. The two classes of offence will be clearly distinguished in the 
 course of our discussion. We will take the various offences in the 
 order of their importance. 
 
 (1) False Statements (Illegal Practice). 
 
 The most important of the illegal practices is the offence which 
 was first created by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 
 of 1895, prohibiting the making or publishing of a false statement 
 with reference to the personal character or conduct of a candidate 
 for the purpose of affecting his return. The offence is not committed 
 
26 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 if the person charged can show that he had reasonable grounds 
 for believing and did believe that the statement was true. The 
 candidate is not liable, and the election cannot be avoided, unless 
 the false statement was made by the candidate himself or by the 
 election agent, or unless the candidate or the election agent 
 authorised, or consented to, or paid for, the circulation of the false 
 statement, or unless an election court reports that the election of the 
 candidate was in fact procured, or materially assisted, by the false 
 statement. The Act of 1895 was passed in consequence of the out- 
 rageous growth of the practice of slanderous personal attack, as dis- 
 tinguished from political criticism, at elections. The only remedy 
 for these attacks, prior to the passage of the Act, was an action at 
 law, which would not have been heard till long after the successful 
 dissemination of the libel had, perhaps, cost the victim his seat. 
 The cases decided under this Act up to the present time are not 
 numerous. A false statement that a candidate was guilty of lying, 
 cowardice, and bribery was held within the Act. So also was a 
 statement that there was a " dark passage " in the life of the candi- 
 date, the reference being to a family tragedy for which the candidate 
 was not in the slightest degree responsible. The Court of Appeal 
 took the same view of a false statement that a candidate had locked 
 out his pitmen for six weeks till stocks were cleared out and coal 
 reached fabulous prices. After that it was alleged that the candidate 
 found ' ' that his ' conscience ' would not allow him to starve the 
 poor miner any longer." But where the gravamen of the charge 
 was that the candidate's private conduct, as an employer of labour, 
 was inconsistent with his public professions as a politician, Baron 
 Pollock held that these were not statements of fact with regard to 
 the " personal character and conduct " in the sense contemplated by 
 the Act. Similarly Lord Justice (then Mr. Justice) Buckley declined 
 to regard as within the Act a statement that the candidate was a 
 " Radical traitor, always found on the side of Britain's enemies," 
 and one of a band of persons who " were, during the summer of 
 1899, in correspondence with the Boers." Finally, the Court of 
 Appeal declined to consider as within the Act the statement that a 
 candidate had obtained the support of a prominent politician by 
 " false pretences," or the suggestion that, as the Lord Chancellor 
 put it, he ''feigned political opinions in order to obtain support." 
 The act charged upon the candidate in the alleged false statement 
 need not be necessarily an unlawful one. Baron Pollock pointed out 
 that such a charge as that of shooting foxes, brought against a candi- 
 date in a hunting constituency, or of drinking a glass of sherry, made 
 with reference to a temperance advocate who is a candidate, are calcu- 
 lated to bring these persons into social odium, and are within the 
 Act. But this dictum is limited by the local character of the social 
 odium in the case of the candidate who is said to have shot foxes. 
 That allegation would not be within the Act if made against the can- 
 didate for Whitechapel, where the shooting of a fox excites no 
 indignation. 
 
 A point which has so far been almost entirely overlooked is the 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 27 
 
 fact that under this Act a false statement of fact made by the 
 candidate himself with regard to his own personal character or conduct 
 is an illegal practice. For example, A, a candidate, makes a certain 
 statement about the personal conduct of B, his opponent. B replies 
 that it is false, though in fact it is quite true. Here are two offences 
 against the Act. B has made a false statement about himself by deny- 
 ing what he knows to be true : and he has also made a false state- 
 ment about A by calling him in effect a liar. But all this applies 
 only to false statements as to the personal character and conduct of a 
 candidate. No false statement with regard to his political conduct, 
 or -with regard to political affairs generally, is illegal in the present 
 state of the law, -unless, of course, it is of such a character as to be 
 within reach of an action for libel or slander. 
 
 Having regard to the drastic character of the Act relating to false 
 statements, I should very strongly urge you not to allow a single 
 bill or leaflet to go out till you have personally passed it. There 
 are, in fact, three urgent reasons for this 'extreme caution. The first 
 is the tactical consideration. It is essential to eliminate anything 
 in which zeal or unwisdom may have exposed your candidate to a 
 possible loss of support, either by giving offence to his own people 
 or by laying him open to a deadly retort from the other side. A 
 leaflet 'which will strengthen you in one constituency might work 
 your ruin in another. In the second place, the imprint, which is 
 an absolutely essential compliance with rbhe Act of 1883, has a knack 
 of being overlooked. Here is an attractive card, issued by the late 
 Sir F. Dixon-Hartland in Uxbridge at the last election, without any 
 imprint. The omission necessitated an appeal to the courts for relief 
 and might have been a serious matter in the event of an election 
 petition. In the third place, you have to bear in mind the provi- 
 sions of this " False Statements Act," to wit, the Corrupt and Illegal 
 Practices Prevention Act of 1895, which we have just been consider- 
 ing. A distinguished member of the Bar, destined for high office in 
 a future Government, told me that he regarded a possible breach of 
 that Act as so easy and yet so perilous, that he never allowed a single 
 item of printed matter to be struck off till he personally (and not 
 only his agent) had critically scanned every line. 
 
 (2) Improper Payment of Election Expenses (Illegal Practice). 
 
 The question of election expenses has already been discussed, and 
 it would be superfluous to retr averse the ground. All that I need do 
 is to remind you that the Acts prohibit (1) any incurring of expense 
 or any payment in excess of the statutory maximum of election 
 expenses ; (2) any payment otherwise than by or through the election 
 agent (other than the small payments which are excepted, like the 
 " half a crown's worth of cartoons ") ; (3) any payment of accounts 
 sent in after the expiration of the statutory period for their receipt 
 (fourteen days after the declaration of the election) ; (4) any payment 
 whatsoever (unless it be made by leave of the court) after twenty- 
 eight days from the declaration of the election; and (5) any pay- 
 ment which is otherwise legal, if, being over forty shillings, it is not 
 vouched for by a bill stating the particulars and by the receipt. 
 
28 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 (3) Payments for Conveyances (Illegal Practice). 
 
 Section 7 (a) of 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, enacts that no payment shall, 
 for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate 
 at any election, be made on account of the conveyance of electors to or 
 from the poll. The prohibition includes payments for the hiring of horses 
 or carriages, as well as for the stabling and baiting of horses gratui- 
 tously sent from a distance for the purpose of conveying electors to 
 the poll, or for railway fares, or otherwise. In the case of the person 
 making or receiving the payment (whether candidate, election agent, 
 or any other person) it is an illegal practice. T!he lending of any 
 public, stage, or hackney carriage for the conveyance of electors to 
 the poll is prohibited. In the lender a breach of this section is an 
 illegal hiring. The offence subjects the offender to penalties (a fine 
 not exceeding 100). If you write to ask for the loan of carriages, put 
 in your letter some such w*ords as these : " I ought, perhaps, to add 
 that the candidate is forbidden by law to make any payment for the 
 use of carriages which may be lent to him, or to their drivers, or to 
 pay for food for their horses ; and he may not use, even gratuitously, a 
 carriage which is ordinarily let out for hire." The fact is, that the 
 wide scope of the Act makes it impossible not only for the candidate 
 to pay for the Conveyance of voters to the poll but also for him to 
 accept, or for jobmasters to give, the gratuitous use of vehicles which 
 are on otber occasions let out for hire. An enthusiastic jobmaster, 
 who closes his yard to business on the day of the poll, and bona fide 
 gives the use of all the vehicles for the purpose of bringing voters 
 to the poll, would, therefore, commit a grave breach of the law. I 
 have met with one or two cases where railway companies have offered 
 to run special trains for outvoters if the candidate or candidates 
 would guarantee a certain number of passengers. T'o do so would be 
 a breach of the Act and you must beware of it. 
 
 The prohibition of payments for the conveyance of voters to the 
 poll is subject to two exceptions : (1) A voter may pay for such a 
 vehicle to carry him to or from the poll. If, however, on his way 
 thither be gives a "lift" to a fellow-elector, he -has been guilty of 
 a technical breach of the law, unless his companion share the expense, 
 as well as the luxury, of the ride. (2) The other exception is a special 
 statutory provision that is to say, payment is permissible (46 and 47 
 Viet., c. 51, s. 48) for the conveyance of voters across "the sea or a 
 branch or arm thereof" (if they cannot reach the poll otherwise), and 
 such payment forms no part of the statutory maximum. Few, if 
 any, of you are likely to act in a constituency where this permission 
 will become operative. 
 
 (4K Payments for Exhibiting Bills (Illegal Practice). 
 
 Section 7 of 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, makes it an illegal practice 
 to pay, or contract to pay, money to any elector on account of the 
 use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of 
 addresses, bills, or notices. The person who pays and the person 
 who receives are alike guilty. But payment may be made to, and 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 29 
 
 received by, an elector whose regular business it is to exhibit bills 
 for payment. Such, of course, is the familiar bill-poster. 
 
 (5). Committee Rooms in Excess (Illegal Practice). 
 
 A payment or contract for payment for committee rooms in excess 
 of the number allowed in the First Schedule of the Act (46 and 47 
 Viet., c. 51) is made an illegal practice by Sec. 7 (1) (c). 
 
 (6). Voting by Prohibited Persona (Illegal Practice). 
 
 Voting by any person who knows that he is prohibited by statute 
 from voting, or knowingly inducing such person to vote, are offences 
 which, by Section 9 of the Act, 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, are made 
 illegal practices. This provision, the breach of which is in some 
 cases a misdemeanour, must not be confused with the prohibitions 
 directed against personation, which is a felony. Section 9 is intended 
 to meet such cases as that of the voter who, being 1 employed (or 
 having been employed, see 30 and 31 Viet., c. 102) for pay- 
 ment at the election, nevertheless votes thereat. The enactment also 
 reaches the election agent or other person who, knowing of their in- 
 capacity, procures these persons to vote. I memtioned the Stepney 
 case to you at an early stage of our discussion. 
 
 (7). False Statement of Withdrawal (Illegal Practice). 
 
 Publishing a false statement of the withdrawal of any candidate 
 for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another 
 candidate is an illegal practice (46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, s. 9 (2) ). There 
 was an alleged instance of this as recently as the Bermondsey election 
 
 (8). Disturbing a Public Meeting (Illegal Practice). 
 
 The Public Meeting Act, passed in the closing days of the session 
 of 1908, creates a new illegal practice. The operative clause runs as 
 follows : 
 
 " Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly 
 manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which 
 the meeting was called together shall be guilty of an offence, and if the offence 
 is committed at a meeting during the progress of and in connection with a 
 Parliamentary election, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the 
 meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices (Prevention) Act, 1883, and in 
 any other case shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not ezceeding 5, 
 or to imprisonment not exceeding one month." 
 
 The whole of these provisions turn upon the exact meaning which 
 will be attached to the word " disorderly/' Doubtless there will soon 
 be decisions to guide the inquirer. So far very little use has been 
 made of this Act. 
 
 The offences so far denned and discussed exhaust the list of acts 
 which are illegal practices in any person, whether candidate or elec- 
 tion agent or not. The remaining offences are illegal practices only 
 if committed by the candidate or the election agent. The difference 
 is important. An illegal practice, committed by or with the know- 
 ledge and consent of any candidate, renders him incapable (unless he 
 obtain " relief ") for seven years of being elected to, or of sitting in, 
 
30 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 the House of Commons for the particular county or borough in respect 
 of which the offence was committed. If elected, his election is void. 
 In other persons the offences which we are now about to examine 
 only amount to illegal payment, employment, or hiring, as the case 
 may be. The punishment is a fine not exceeding 100, and a five 
 years' incapacity for voting, or being registered as an elector. Only 
 two of these offences will require any lengthened consideration. 
 
 (9). Banners, Music, Marks of Distinction (Illegal Payments). 
 
 Section 13 of 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, enacts that a person who 
 knowingly provides money for purposes contrary to the Act shall be 
 guilty of an illegal payment. Section 16 goes on to provide that no 
 payment or contract for payment shall be made, for the purpose of 
 promoting or procuring the election of any candidate, on account of 
 bands of music, torches, flags, banners, cockades, ribbons, or other 
 marks of distinction. But what is a banner? In an 1895 election 
 there were large bills (about 30 by 20) with the portrait of the can- 
 didate. These were exhibited in the windows and on the walls of the 
 houses of his supporters, but as the wind and rain proved destructive 
 some of them were mounted on canvas, with a lath at top and bottom r 
 and in that form were hung, or nailed, in various positions. 
 On a petition these were held to be banners. So highly technical is 
 the law that although the candidate was not charged, in the petition, 
 wifh providing banners, but only with providing the laths at top 
 and bottom, the charge was fatal. There was a suggestion that the 
 bills, weighted with the laths, had been carried in processions or slung 
 on lines across the streets, to the knowledge of the candidate, and 
 possibly this influenced the decision. " If," said Baron Pollock, 
 " these linen portraits were given out in large quantities to enthu- 
 siastic supporters . . . any reasonable person would know that 
 some of them would almost certainly be used as banners." You 
 noticie, therefore, that even if you do not intend the articles to be 
 used in an illegal manner, still, if they are reasonably capable of 
 being so used, and you supply them, you may be within the Act. 
 
 I should strongly advise you against the use of the picture postcard 
 or any of approximately similar size, with a portrait of the candi- 
 date. You may not intend it as a mark of distinction, but if it is chal- 
 lenged and the Court holds it to be one, you may provide a second 
 edition of the Walsall judgment. In that case a small card, with a 
 portrait of the candidate and the words, "Play up, Swifts" was 
 employed as a hat card and was held to be a mark of distinction. Relief 
 was refused and the seat was lost. It is perhaps a question whether 
 portraits of candidates with the exhortation to " Vote for - ," and 
 provided with a string for hanging them up, which are scattered 
 abroad at every election are not " marks of distinction/' though 
 many millions of such cards have been printed, distributed, and 
 displayed during the last two or three general elections, and at in- 
 numerable by-elections, so far without legal challenge. 
 
 No similar difficulties of interpretation arise in regard to the bands 
 of music, torches, cockades, or ribbons. These are commonly 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 31 
 
 employed at elections, and as their provision is in itself no offence, it is 
 in election practice only necessary to take care that neither the candi- 
 date nor his election agent makes any payment, or any contract for 
 payment, in respect of their supply. These prohibitions will only 
 cause you trouble where you have provided some part of the election 
 equipment in such a way as to be naturally capable of employment 
 in defiance of these sections. The hat cards which brought disaster 
 at Wal&all were " naturally capable of abuse," and avoided the elec- 
 tion. But the cutting of the candidate's name and portrait from the 
 front page of the election address, where it is quite properly dis- 
 played, ought not to penalise him, unless he personally suggested 
 nd approved it. The distinction here suggested was that actually 
 drawn by the late Mr. Justice Hawkins in Pontefract. The learned 
 judge took the view that the mere use of a card as a " mark of dis- 
 tinction ' ' did not necessarily make the provision of a card an 
 infringement of the Act, unless, as at Walsall, the cards were ordered, 
 used, and paid for with the full knowledge of the electorally improper 
 purpose for which they were designed, or for which, at least, they 
 might be employed. Incidentally, let me caution you not to accept 
 the offers of large firms to supply "rosettes" 'by the thousand at a 
 cheap rate. These " rosettes " are undoubtedly a " mark of distinc- 
 tion." 
 
 (10) Bills Without Printer's Name (Illegal Practice). 
 
 The printing, publishing, or posting of any bill having reference 
 to the election, without the name and address of the printer and 
 publisher on the face thereof, is an illegal practice in candidate or 
 agent (46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, s. 18). No election has ever been 
 avoided for non-compliance with these provisions. Doubtless a case 
 of deliberate omission of the printer's and publisher's nam>es from a 
 virulent leaflet issued by a candidate or his election agent will have 
 serious consequences for the offenders when it occurs ; but so far all 
 the cases under the Act have had their origin in bona fide inadver- 
 tence. Relief, under those circumstances, is granted as a matter 
 of course. A prudent election agent, who is aware that the expres- 
 sion " bill " in the Act is very wide and vague, will have the name 
 of the printer and publisher even on his noteheads. I have shown 
 you a pretty card issued at the last election in technical breach of 
 this section. Relief was applied for and obtained. 
 
 (11) Procuring Withdrawal of Candidate (Illegal Payment). 
 
 The payment, or promise of payment, of money to induce or pro- 
 cure the withdrawal of any person from being a candidate is, if done 
 "corruptly," an illegal payment (46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, s. 15). No 
 case under these provisions has ever arisen, so that it is impossible to 
 say with any authoritative precision what meaning attaches to the 
 word " corruptly." 
 
 (12) Employment in Excess of Permitted Number (Illegal 
 Employment), 
 
 The question of paid employment at elections has already engaged 
 
32 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 our attention and need not be further discussed. The same remark 
 applies to the two following offences : Lending or Employing Car- 
 riages or Horses (Illegal Hiring) ; Committee Rooms on Licensed 
 Premises (Illegal Hiring). 
 
 In closing our consideration of the corrupt and illegal practices, 
 lot me give you two final Jrints. In the first place, let me say that 
 it is quite useless for us to shut our eyes to the fact that efforts 
 are constantly made to entrap the candidate or election agent into> 
 the commission of some illegal act. An agent once showed me 
 about fifty or sixty letters which had reached his candidate from 
 various parts of. the constituency about ten days before the election., 
 all of them telling a piteous tale of distress in. some form or other, 
 and begging for a few shillings by way of assistance. Inquiry 
 showed these letters to form, in the aggregate, what is called a 
 "put-up job," destined to support a charge of bribery. In another 
 case there came a letter from a voter who had left the constituency 
 and now lived at a considerable distance, expressing his enthusiasm 
 for the candidate whose agent had, received the letter, and stating 
 that only the lack of the fare would prevent his coming to vote. If 
 a 10s. postal order were slipped into an envelope and posted to him 
 nobody but himself would know about it, and his vote would be 
 secured. Inquiry showed that arrangements had been made for a 
 couple of witnesses to be present when the expected reply with the 
 10s. arrived, so that there should be a clear case against the agent 
 for paying for tlie conveyance of an elector to* the poll. In. a third 
 case, after the lapse of the fourteen days after the declaration of 
 the poll, during which all claims must be sent to the election agent, 
 there came a letter from the secretary of a local institution asking for 
 3s. 6d. This money was undoubtedly due as payment for a slight 
 use wihich ihad been, made of a room at the institution during the 
 contest, and the money would have been paid if the application had 
 been made within the statutory interval. As it was not, the agent 
 (had overlooked it. 'But the applicant, in asking for it, added that 
 he knew the application was out of date, though, as the institution 
 was a needy One, he hoped the money might be sent to him privately, 
 and its source would not be disclosed. In that case also it was a 
 plot to entrap ^the election agent into a technical offence which, if 
 committed, migiht have been fatal to- his candidate. 
 
 My other hint is this : When you are confronted with some un- 
 expected election problem, the first thing is to look up your law in 
 Rogers or Ward orFraser. If you can find a specific provision, or a 
 parallel case, you (have the means of a prompt and accurate judg- 
 ment^ always bearing in mind that the judicial discretion, where it;, 
 is called into play, will not always be employed in the same way, 
 even under circumstances which appear to be prima facie identical. 
 The court will grant or refuse relief largely in accordance with the 
 spirit in which the work has been done. There is a singularly 
 happy and lucid passage in the judgment of Mr Justice Grove* 
 (Boston,, 1874, 2 O'M. and H., 164-165), where he says: " It is as 
 
MANAGEMENT OP ELECTIONS. 33 
 
 well that the public should know that when a judge pronounces an 
 opinion upon a certain state of facts he takes into consideration the 
 existing state of knowledge, and the existing circumstances; but' 
 when upon a second occasion persons seek to avail themselves of 
 that ruling, and think they can do a wrong act, simply trying to 
 keep within the particular facts which upon the former occasion 
 were held not to be corrupt, they frequently do acts which must be 
 held to be corrupt. It may be that, upon precisely the same apparent 
 state of facts, an act which is not held corrupt at one time may be 
 held corrupt at another time : because knowledge goes on, and if 
 the second act is a mode of effecting a corrupt purpose, merely 
 getting out of a judicial decision upon tihe previous state of circum- 
 stances, then that which in the first instance is not corrupt would 
 in the second instance become corrupt. It is well that persons 
 should know that these matters must depend upon the circum- 
 stances, and that people cannot successfully evade the law by simply, 
 as they think, getting ou/t of the terms which the judges use in their 
 explanation of the law." Let me give you an instance : A and Z, 
 rival election agents, have bothr slightly exceeded their maximum. 
 A has made all his payments by cheque, and produces his pass-book, 
 cheque-book, and the used cheques. He will almost certainly get 
 relief. Z had, no election bank account and kept no cash book, but only 
 rough memoranda, which he says he has destroyed. On several occa- 
 sions during the election he drew large sums in gold from has private 
 account. He will probably be refused relief, because of his apparent 
 lack of straightforwardness and candour. He may have been quite 
 honest. He may be only an unmethodical man. But appearances 
 are against him, and the judges will certainly be influenced against 
 him by his carelessness. If, on the other hand, you cannot find the 
 specific point in a statute or a decision, or in the opinions of one of 
 the learned editors of your book, the best tKing is to act in the 
 manner which, in your judgment, would best command itself to the 
 approval of an election court. Whai the court wants is honesty, 
 straightforwardness, a compliance with the spirit of the Acts, and 
 an absence of endeavour to deceive or to mislead so as to obtain 
 an improper advantage. If your work exhibits those characteristics, 
 you will go before an election court with the maximum of advan- 
 tage; and, on the other hand, your opponents, in scrutinising your 
 work for the purpbse of discovering a foundation for charges against 
 you, will have the minimum of opportunity for successful formula- 
 tion. 
 
 The function which we call the " nomination " is technically the 
 election. It is, however, only completed, as the election, when there 
 are no more candidates than vacancies. This is rare in our stren- 
 uous political life, so that in the majority of cases the election has 
 to be adjourned in order that a poll may be taken ; and it is this 
 poll which we generally call the election. > The returning officer 
 must give public notice of the day of the "nomination." He must 
 fix two hours 'between ten and three during which he will attend 
 to receive nominations, and his attendance must continue for one 
 
34 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 liour after the end of the original two hours. He must, during the 
 few days intervening between notice of the nomination and the actual 
 nomination itself, supply any registered elector with a form of nomi- 
 nation paper. The form provides for the nomination by two regis- 
 tered electors and for the signatures of eight others, who must 
 assent to the nomination. These signatures must be checked with 
 the most scrupulous care, so as to ascertain that the names are 
 those of registered electors and that the signatures correspond in 
 every respect with the names as they appear in the register. For 
 instance, if one of your signatures is that of John Brown and he 
 appears on the register a,s William Brown your paper will probably 
 be declared invalid. Even after the most exhaustive checking it is 
 desirable not to rely on one paper but to have others in reserve. 
 The returning officer himself will check the nomination paper, which, 
 he proposes to accept, and it is the usual thing for the agents to 
 agree that, as far as they are concerned, they will take no technical 
 objections to each other's papers. The best plan is for the papers to 
 be handed in by the candidate or agent, who should attend early in 
 CP-.&6 of some unforeseen complication. As soon as the returning 
 officer has accepted a nomination he placards the particulars of it 
 outside the building where the nomination takes place, and the 
 process is then complete; but the candidate or agent will be well 
 advised to wait until the expiration of the three hours, or to be within 
 instant call, in case of an attempt to raise a technical objection. 
 Where objections are raised the returning officer's decision is final 
 if he disallows them. If he allows them an appeal lies on petition. 
 If after the lapse of one hour from the close of the two hours 
 appointed for the nomination there are no more nominations than 
 vacancies, the persons nominated are declared elected. This is an 
 unopposed return, which, judging from current appearances, is likely 
 to be a rather rare phenomenon at the pending election. 
 
 The returning officer will give the election agent notice of the 
 amount which he requires to be paid as security for his charges at 
 the nomination. This amount (which is fixed within a certain very 
 handsoniie maximum 'by the Parliamentary Elections (Returning 
 Officers) Act of 1875) forms 110 part of the statutory amount of 
 election expenses. If you propose to pay it in bank notes you need 
 do no more than have them with you and put them down with 
 the nomination paper which you present. But if you desire to pay 
 by cheque or to give security, it will be desirable to ascertain that 
 the returning officer .agrees to your proposal, since, unless the money 
 is found or security given within the three hours, your candidate 
 will be deemed to have withdrawn. 
 
 The date of the poll falls within certain statutory limits, depen- 
 dent upon the time of the issue of the writ. Within those % limits 
 it is the custom for the returning officer to fix the date after confer- 
 ence with the election agents, who generally meet him for that p<ur- 
 pose. You will be guided in your own opinion by the views of your 
 candidate and his supporters. Personally, I have a rooted objec- 
 tion to a Monday poll, because it almost necessarily involves the 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 35 
 
 working of the staff on Sunday. In country constituencies a Satur- 
 day poll is open to the objection that the votes cannot be counted 
 till Monday. If there should happen to be no election agents' con- 
 ference with the returning officer on this subject, you are perfectly 
 justified in writing to him on the subject and urging your own views, 
 with due respect to his position. 
 
 There are a few administrative provisions with regard to the poll- 
 ing mechanism with which I need not deal in detail. These relate 
 to the provision of the polling stations themselves and to the public 
 notice of their position and the description of the voters who are 
 allocated to them ; the provision of secret compartments in the sta- 
 tions, as well as of ballot papers and ballot boxes, the appointment 
 of the polling station staffs, and the maintenance of order in the 
 polling station. The polling stations should open and close with 
 absolute punctuality. At the close there will probably be some per- 
 sons inside the polling station who have not actually recorded their 
 votes when the clock strikes. The practice is for these persons to * 
 be permitted to vote, but, of course, to prevent any others from 
 entering the station after eight p.m. In Worcester, 1880, it was held 
 that the door of the polling station might be closed 'before the time if 
 there were sufficient voters within the station to occupy the presiding 
 officer till closing time. With all respect, I doubt very much if that 
 is now good law and I should certainly not advise any presiding 
 officer to act upon it. 
 
 The various presiding officers, who are in supreme control (subject 
 to the general authority of the returning officer), must act with abso- 
 lute impartiality. When we come to consider the counting of the 
 votes, I will give you a rather striking instance of the infringement 
 of this rule by a presiding officer. At the opening of the poll the 
 presiding officer is required to show the ballot box quit empty to 
 the persons (i.e., his own staff and the personation agents who are 
 then in the polling station), and then to lock and seal it and to 
 place it in a position where it can be under his continuous observa- 
 tion. As long as polling proceeds slowly, or at polling stations to 
 which only a small numiber of voters are allocated, the presiding 
 officer may well give out the ballot papers himself; but, in a busy 
 station and during the " rushes " which take place in the dinner hour 
 and from six to eight in the evening, it is better that he depute the 
 actual giving out of ballot papers to his clerks and content himself 
 with supervision, and particularly with the close observation of the 
 ballot box and of the official mark on each paper before it is placed 
 in the box. 
 
 This " official mark " is a matter of great importance. Let me 
 explain what it is. Clearly, an expert printer, by polling early and 
 making a mental note of the type in which the ballot papers were 
 printed, would be in a position to run off a number of forgeries 
 which might be introduced into the ballot boxes by other voters 
 later in the day. It is to prevent the introduction of forged ballot 
 papers that the official mark is put upon each paper at the time 
 of issue to the voter. The mark is now generally produced by 
 
36 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 perforation so as to appear on the front and back of the paper, though 
 its absence from the front will not invalidate the paper. Its precise 
 nature is the returning officer's secret. Sometimes it is a purely 
 arbitrary design, and sometimes a combination of letters " J. W. C.' y 
 and "A. R. X.," for instance, are official marks that occur to me. 
 When a given official mark has been used in a constituency the same 
 mark may not again be used for seven years. There are now per- 
 forating machines which admit of being changed so as to produce a* 
 multiplicity of designs in order to meet the necessities of this pro- 
 vision. 
 
 I think we are now in a position to pass in critical survey the whole 
 of the official personalities and the mechanism which they manage. 
 First of all, there is the returning officer, who is the person in 
 supreme control of the proceedings. He appoints deputies, who must 
 be of full age and who are-, under himself, in supreme control at the 
 polling stations. They are called presiding officers. The returning 
 officer himself may, if he thinks proper, be the presiding officer at 
 one of the polling stations. To assist the presiding officer, there 
 will be a certain number of clerks at each station. Next, there will be 
 the polling agents, better known as personation agents, appointed by 
 each candidate, to attend the poll for the purpose of detecting attempts 
 at personation. Finally, there are the voters themselves who 
 come in to vote. With the single exception of one class of persons, every 
 voter must vote at the polling station to which he is allotted and 
 at no other. The excepted class is the police. A constable who is 
 a voter may, perhaps, be employed on the election day at such a 
 distance from his own polling station that it would be impossible for 
 him to vote there. Under the Police Disabilities Removal Act, 
 1887, any constable who is likely in that way to be incapacitated from 
 voting is entitled, within the seven days previous to the poll, to- 
 receive a certificate from the chief constable, the production of which 
 to the presiding officer will entitle him to vote at any polling station 
 in the constituency. It is desirable that the election agent, if he 
 expects his candidate to receive the police vote, should courteously 
 call the attention of the chief constable to these provisions and ask 
 that they may foe brought to the notice of the local police force in 
 order that no votes may be lost. A chief constable will always do 
 this. 
 
 Perhaps the best way of making clear the duties of these various 
 elements of the polling station staff will be to suppose the entrance of 
 r. few applicants for ballot papers and to note the procedure in the 
 case of each. This mode of observation will also enable us to get 
 a clear idea of the nature of personation, which I promised to 
 discuss in some detail. The first instance is the normal case. A 
 voter enters and applies for a ballot paper. The returning officer 
 inquires name and address. "Richard Roe, 115, High Street." 
 The presiding officer turns to his register, finds Richard Roe at that 
 address, his registered number being 5816. He notes that there is 
 no objection to the voter on the part of the personation agents. He- 
 then tears a ballot paper from his book, marking on the counterfoil 
 
MANAGEMENT OP ELECTIONS. 37 
 
 the number 5816, so that in case of a scrutiny it can be discovered 
 what ballot paper was issued to Richard Roe. The voter retires to a 
 compartment, marks his paper, folds it, shows it, with the official 
 mark, but not the "X," visible, to the presiding officer, puts it in the 
 box, and leaves the station. The next applicant for the ballot paper 
 gives the name of William John Roberts, of 20, North Street. Refer- 
 ence to the register by the presiding officer shows that the registered 
 voter is William James Roberts. " That's a mistake," says the appli- 
 cant. "I am the only Roberts at that address." It may be that the 
 mistake will already have been noted by the registration agents and 
 that the personation agents have a note of it in their marked registers, 
 or it may be that Roberts is a well-known, local man, so that the 
 presiding officer sees at once that there is merely a mistake in the 
 name, and, consequently, issues the ballot paper. But if Roberts 
 is not well known, one of the personation agents may request the 
 presiding officer to put the question, which he must then do. In 
 the present case, if it is a borough election, the question (which 
 must be put in the very words of the statute, 6 and 7 Viet., c. 18., s. 
 81 (a), and in no other words) will be: " Are you the same person 
 whose name appears as William James Roberts on the register of 
 voters now in force for the borough of Shrewsbury 1 " The voter 
 says he is. If the personation agent still remains unsatisfied he may 
 request the presiding officer to administer the oath. In that case the 
 words will be these : 
 
 "You do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you are the 
 same person whose name appears as William James Roberts on the 
 register of voters for the borough of Shrewsbury?" 
 
 You will note the form of the question arid the oath. The voter 
 is not asked if he is William James Roberts. He is asked if he is the 
 same person whose name appears as " William James Roberts," so that 
 if he unquestionably is the Roberts whom the register intends to 
 designate he can safely give the affirmative reply or take the oath. 
 If not, he will be guilty at least of a misdemeanour and, probably, of 
 the full offence of personation, which is a felony. Let us take two 
 or three other imaginary cases in further illustration of the law and 
 practice as to personation. The first is that of an applicant who 
 gives the name of Philip Robinson and his address. A ballot paper 
 is about to be issued when one of the personation agents asks that 
 the oath be administered. His marked register shows that Philip 
 Robinson is dead and he knows that the registration agent would not 
 have so marked it if there were the slightest doubt about the fact. 
 The so-called Philip Robinson declines to take the oath and makes 
 for the door. But the personation agent informs the returning 
 officer that he verily believes and undertakes to prove that the person 
 who has attempted to vote is not the person whose name appears in 
 the register. On that information the presiding officer must give 
 the alleged offender into custody. His verbal orders to a constable 
 are sufficient warrant for the constable's action. 
 
 In this connection I need hardly impress upon those of you who 
 will be responsible for the preparation of the personation agent's 
 
^O PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 registers, or who will act as personation agents, the absolute necessity 
 of being quite certain about the facts before you take any steps 
 which may end in an arrest for personation. The news of an unjus- 
 tifiable arrest would do irretrievable injury to the side in whose 
 interest it was effected unless, indeed, it took place so late in the 
 day that it could not become generally known before the poll closed. 
 Moreo'ver, damages (not less than 5 nor more than 10) may have 
 to be paid to a person so charged with personation without reasonable 
 and probable cause. These damages may be assessed (within the 
 statutory limits) by the justices before whom the case comes, and the 
 consent of the injured party to accept the money operates as a bar 
 to all further proceedings. 
 
 I want you to notice particularly that in the instance we have just 
 discussed the person attempting to vote is alleged not to be the real 
 voter. He has, therefore no valid claim to receive a ballot paper, 
 and his offence is complete at the moment when he has applied, in 
 spite of the fact that his attempt was at once detected. In the next 
 case we will discuss a personation where there is a valid claim to a 
 ballot paper. Charles Dickens applies for a ballot paper. ' You 
 have already voted," says the presiding officer. Mr. Dickens insists 
 that he has not voted. He has travelled some distance, and has only 
 just arrived. He could not possibly have voted, he says. The pre- 
 siding officer's marked register, however, is decisive on the point that 
 a ballot paper has been applied for in the name of Charles Dickens 
 and given out. What has happened then becomes clear. Somebody 
 was aware that Mr. Dickens lived at a distance and was not well 
 known in the constituency. Therefore this ingenious partisan decided 
 to personate him. As Mr. Dickens 's identity is established he has a 
 clear claim to receive a ballot paper. His position differs from that 
 which we have just considered, because he is the person whom he 
 claims to be, while the other man was not; and yet, if the presiding 
 officer issues a ballot paper to him, we shall have two ballot papers 
 issued to one name on the register, which is out of the question. 
 Under these circumstances the presiding officer will have recourse to 
 a small stock of pink ballot papers, from which he will take a paper 
 for Mr. Dickens, making a note of the facts of the case. This paper, 
 however, Mr. Dickens will not put in the ballot box, but will return 
 to the presiding officer. It will not be included in the counted votes, 
 but if there is a scrutiny the earlier personated vote will be cancelled 
 and the genuine vote on the pink paper will be admitted. Such a 
 vote is called a " tendered vote." It may happen, of course, that 
 the personated vote will be found to have been recorded for the same 
 candidate as its genuine counterpart, in which case the process of 
 adjustment will make no difference to the aggregate. I remember 
 some extraordinary instances of this kind of accidental personation, 
 and your own experience will, in course of time, supply you with 
 many curious cases. 
 
 One other class of personation requires some brief consideration. 
 As the law stands at present a voter may possess qualifications in 
 many different constituencies. Thus he may have county votes in 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 39 
 
 Northumberland and Cheshire, and borough votes for King's Lynn 
 and Wolverhampton. All these he* may exercise if he choose. But 
 if he has votes in more than one division in the county of Cheshire 
 or of the borough of Wolverhampton, he may only exercise one such 
 vote at one election. Thus a voter who is on the register for 
 Stepney (which is a division of the old borough of the Tower Ham- 
 lets) may vote there at the General Election if ihe choose : but may 
 not also vote, at the same election, in St. George's and Mile End, 
 even if he be on the register for qualifications in those divisions. If 
 he does (he is guilty of personation ias soon as he applies for the 
 second ballot paper. As a rule the voter is called upon to decide 
 for which qualification he will vote, and the other or others are 
 " starred," to indicate thiat the voter may not vote on those quali- 
 fications. But cases of duplex and triplex qualifications constantly 
 elude observation till they are discovered in the course of prepara- 
 tion for the poll, so that it becomes necessary to provide against the 
 record of second and third votes by putting the question to the 
 voter. Thus, Peter Robinson is found to be on the register both 
 for the Harrow and the iEmfield divisions of Middlesex. The! 
 Enfield election takes place first, and you are agent in the Harrow 
 division. You will instruct your personation agent, if Peter Robin- 
 son presents (himself to vote, to ask the presiding officer to* put the 
 question, " Have you already voted at this election for any other 
 division of the county of Middlesex ? " If Robinson admits that he 
 has, he will be refused a ballot paper. If he declares that he has 
 not, he must have a paper; but if his declaration be false, he is 
 guilty of personation. Strictly speaking, an election agent and his 
 personation agents are supposed to search, for personators without 
 regard to partisan considerations. But in practice it is the custom 
 to divide the duties, so that each agent devotes himself to the ex- 
 posure of personations which, would be disadvantageous to his own 
 candidate. 
 
 At the close of the poll the personation agent should bring his 
 marked register away 'v^ith taim. It is necessary that the election 
 agent have it, in case it should be desirable to make immediate 
 inquiry into any cases of personation. Instances occur where the 
 presiding officer attempts to take possession of these registers, and 
 to prevent the personation agents from conveying them to the elec- 
 tion agents. The personation agent should be instructed to firmly 
 but courteously inform the presiding officer, under these circum- 
 stances, that he declines to give up the marked register to anybody 
 but the election agent. In case of threatened trouble, the returning 
 officer may always be relied upon to restrain the undue zeal of the 
 presiding officer in this matter. 
 
 'Before the day of the poll it will be necessary for you to decide 
 upon your list of scrutineers to attend the counting of the votes. 
 The returning officer will give notice to the election agent of the 
 time and place where he intends to< count the votes. At the same 
 time he will tell you how many scrutineers he proposes to admit 
 on behalf of each candidate, and he will probably remind you that 
 
40 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 each of these scrutineers, before the can be admitted to the counting 
 room, must have made a declaration of secrecy before a justice of the 
 peace. The candidate and the election agent are entitled to be pre- 
 sent as a matter of right; the rest by favour of the returning officer. 
 As a rule, you will select a few of the most active and influential 
 supporters of your candidate to attend him at the final scene. The 
 chairman of the former association (dissolved on the eve of the con- 
 test) will doubtless be one, the chief registration agent another. 
 They ought to be wide-awake people, for the result, in a close fight, 
 may conceivably depend upon their seeing that all doubtful ballots 
 are weeded o>ut. They should be people with isteady heads, who will 
 not allow their feelings, whether of gratification or dissatisfaction, to 
 disturb the orderly procedure of the counting room, where the return- 
 ing officer is absolute master of the situation. It is better to keep 
 your candidate's wife out of this function unless you are absolutely 
 certain of her steady nerve and power of self-control. 
 
 Taken altogether, in fact, this function is the. most trying of all, 
 unless it is the delivery of judgment on an election petition. The 
 procedure has local variations, but in the main it always takes this 
 form. The sealed ballot boxes stand in full view on a table. Around 
 that table are other tables, forming an enclosed space. Inside this 
 are the returning officer and the official counters, who actually handle 
 and count the ballot papers. Outside it, on the other side of the 
 tables, are the candidates, their agents, and their scrutineers, who 
 simply observe and supervise the counting but do not touch the 
 ballot papers. When all is ready for the count to begin, the seals of 
 some boxes are cut and the papers tumbled out on the tables, the 
 boxes being exhibited empty to the scrutineers. It is usual at this 
 stage to check the papers by simply counting their number so as to 
 .ascertain that all the issued papers are there. Thus, if the returning 
 officer reports that he issued 390 papers, there should be 390 in the 
 box. If there are one or two less, the fact is probably a result of 
 the action of that class of voter who takes his ballot paper away as 
 a souvenir of the proceedings and yet remains under the impression 
 that he voted. If there are more papers in the box than the presid- 
 ing officer issued, there may be (as, in fact, there were at a fairly 
 recent election) forged (ballot papers. But that is not a very likely 
 contingency and we need not pause to consider it. 
 
 Several boxes will no doubt be in process of checking at the same 
 time. As soon as the checking is complete, the papers will be mixed 
 in accordance with the statute and the actual sorting will then be 
 commenced. While the checking is going on, however, the election 
 agent and his scrutineers will have an 'opportunity of forming a 
 general opinion whether the voting at the various stations, as shown 
 by the ballot papers, tallies with their ideas of the party strength or 
 weakness in the respective districts. You have here an infallible 
 test, infinitely superior to the most careful and elaborate canvass in 
 the world. The truth comes out at last, sometimes as a rather unwel- 
 come revelation that what yo<u imagined to be one of your ^strong- 
 holds is really dead against you. Sometimes the revelation is quite 
 the other way. At a certain polling station I was once told by a 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 41 
 
 locally eminent authority that there would not be twenty voters for 
 a certain candidate. In the result there were at least 200. You 
 have a perfect right to obtain this information as to the political 
 colouring of the various wards or districts. If the opportunity comes 
 do not neglect to take it. 
 
 The exact process adopted in the count will depend upon the 
 conditions of the contest. If there are only two candidates for a 
 single seat, the counting is simply a sorting of the respective votes 
 into separate heaps. If you have five candidates for two seats there 
 will be many varieties of cross voting, and in such instances there 
 is sometimes no attempt to sort the ballots, but the votes are credited 
 on counting sheets. Whatever the process, it is the business of your 
 scrutineers to watch it closely, so that there is no miscredit or mis- 
 .sorting and so that doubtful votes are put aside for adjudication by 
 the returning officer. In a very close fight the result may depend 
 upon this vigilance, and if you subsequently have reason to believe 
 that the declared figures were wrong you can only have a recount by 
 lodging a petition and depositing 1,000. As the sorting proceeds, it 
 is usual for the respective papers to be counted in bundles of fifty or 
 a hundred. These bundles are in turn arranged in separate piles. 
 It is very desirable that the election agents should personally 
 check the bundles. There have been cases where, by in- 
 advertence (and rarely, perhaps, (by design) three or four votes for 
 Smith have been at the top of the bundle while all the rest of its 
 contents were ballots for Jones. To guard against that eventuality, 
 an election agent should request permission for himself and the other 
 agents to go inside the ring and personally check the bundles. 
 
 Before the result is declared the returning officer will adjudicate 
 upon the disputed ballot papers. This adjudication, again, may 
 affect the result, and hence the election agents should watch it closely 
 and if necessary make notes of cases where they are dissatisfied with 
 the returning officer's decisions. Precisely similar defects on ballots 
 for opposing candidates can generally be settled by pairing. 
 
 In other cases it is necessary to possess some knowledge of the 
 facts and principles upon which the validity of ballot papers depends. 
 I will state the principles, and I will then show you a number of 
 reproductions of disputed ballot papers, to which those principles 
 have been applied either by the judges on election petitions, or by 
 the election petitions officer, or by returning officers. These prin- 
 ciples are : 
 
 (1) The paper must bear the official mark, at least on the back. 
 
 (2) The intention of the voter must be clearly indicated. If it 
 is doubtful (or not indicated at all) the ballot paper is void. 
 
 (3) Any writing by which the voter can be identified will invali- 
 date the vote, though that is not the case if the writing is only of 
 such a character that he might be identified. Thus the voter writes 
 " Philip Roberts " on his ballot paper and there is a Philip Roberts 
 on the roll of voters. The vote is void. But if Smith be a candi- 
 date, and the voter makes his X and under it writes the word Smith 
 
42 
 
 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 that vote is good. The voter might be identified by his writing, 
 but you cannot put it higher and say positively that he can be. 
 
 (4) Voting for more candidates than the voter is entitled to do 
 is generally cited as a source of invalidity. It is, however, only a 
 special case of uncertainty. 
 
 I have (here a number of enlarged reproductions of disputed ballot 
 papers, some taken from the leading legal text books on Election 
 Law, ,a,nd some collected from my own experience. All of them 
 have been adjudicated upon either by the judges, or by the return- 
 ing officer, or by the " prescribed officer " who presides with a recount 
 taken in pursuance of the prayer of an election petition. 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 
 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 D 
 
 2 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 
 F 
 
 
 Manchester, 
 
 
 
 Draper. 
 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 
 One 
 
 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 
 Too 
 
 
 Manchester, 
 
 
 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 The above are two " freak " ballot papers, both of them obviously 
 invalid. " S D F," I suppose, stands for Social Democratic 
 Federation. These two curiosities both of them actual cases from 
 London ballot boxes may remind you that even in these days of high 
 political intelligence the voter does extraordinary and apparently 
 quite futile things. 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 O 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 
 JONES. 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer, 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 * 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 43 
 
 These last two (page 42) are papers which represent the activity of 
 the voter who will not put his " X," but prefers to put something else. 
 The paper with the " Q " was rejected by the judges as invalid. The 
 other, with the star, was admitted, the mark being, so to speak, only 
 an embroidered edition of the statutory "X." In contrast to this 
 rejected ballot with the " O," however, take this valid paper, which 
 has only a single stroke : 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 / 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 We may now take a few illustrative cases of ballots which bear 
 written characters in addition to, or in place of, the " X." Here are 
 two instances: 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 
 
 of 21, High Street, 
 
 
 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 
 LW. 
 
 
 Draper. 
 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 XR 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 These papers give good instances of the rule that the vote is bad if 
 the voter can be identified, but not if he might be. The full initials, 
 L.W. (and much more, of course, the full signature, which is some- 
 times written), afford a means by which the voter can, with a fair 
 amount of certainty, be discovered. But the simple " R " may be the 
 initial of the Christian name or the surname, and identification would 
 be an absolute impossibility. There is, however, one apparent 
 
44 
 
 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 exception, even to this rule, which, perhaps, we can best illustrate by 
 another group of ballot papers : 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 Smith 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 Jones 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 Jones 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 The rejections here are based (a) upon the absence of the " X," 
 which the Second Schedule of the Ballot Act directs shall be used in the 
 marking of the paper, and (b) upon the writing, as affording a means 
 of the identification of the voter. But you will notice that in the third 
 case, where there is a very complete compliance with the Act as regards 
 the " X," the other objection is not fatal. There was, however, a hint 
 in the Wigtown case that the use of a peculiar ink, or pencil of unusual 
 colour, to mark the paper, might void the vote, if the voter were well 
 known as a user of that kind of ink or pencil. But merely accidental 
 marks on the ballot paper will not invalidate it. 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 
 
 of 21, High Street, 
 
 
 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 2 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 
 X 
 
 
 Manchester, 
 
 
 
 Draper. 
 
 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 In this case the round smudge mark was apparently made with 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 45 
 
 the thumb. Even where the " X " was opposite one candidate's name 
 and the smudge opposite the name of the other, the vote was held good. 
 The same principle applies where the superfluous marks are even 
 more definite, provided they do not amount to a distinct attempt to 
 vote for more candidates than a voter is entitled to do. Thus : 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WII.UAM JOKES, 
 of 21. High Street. 
 Liverpool. Grocer. 
 
 X 
 
 jf 
 
 2 
 
 SMTTH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22. Lord Street, 
 Manchester. 
 Draper 
 
 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 
 
 of 21. High Street, 
 
 
 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 **s~ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 2 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22. Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 
 . 
 
 X 
 
 
 Draper 
 
 
 (VALID FOR JONES.) 
 
 (VALID FOR SMITH.) 
 
 In the left-hand specimen there is a distinct " X " for Jones, and 
 the various marks in Smith's space, whatever else they may be, are 
 not " X." So, again, in the right-hand specimen, there is a distinct 
 " X " for Smith, and the other mark, though it looks like " X," is not 
 in the proper place. If it had been, the vote would probably have 
 been rejected. This last instance is taken from the Cirencester 
 scrutiny and has been judicially decided ; but I confess that in a 
 similar case, with only a ballot paper like this between my candidate 
 and disaster, I should feel the reverse of comfortable. I shall show 
 you an even more delicate instance at a later stage. On the other 
 hand, the mere misplacing of a single " X ;; will not invalidate the 
 vote. Thus : 
 
 X 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 1 
 
 X JONES X 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 
 
 SMITH 
 
 
 2 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
46 
 
 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21, High Street, 
 Liverpool, Geocer. 
 
 
 X 
 2 
 X 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of 
 22, Lord Street, 
 Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 X 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
 Here you have the " X " (or two or even three of them) unmis- 
 takably allotted to the candidate who is the voter's choice, so that 
 these cases present no difficulty. But if the vote, though near the 
 space belonging to a given candidate, is not within it, the vote is bad. 
 Thus: 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 of 21, High Street, Liverpool, 
 
 Grocer. 
 
 JOHN SMITH, 
 
 of 22, Lord Street, Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 (REJECTED.) 
 
 But if there is a " X " in the proper place, the mere fact that there 
 is another " X " outside the space will not cause the rejection of 
 the vote : 
 
 2 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 of 21, High Street, Liverpool, 
 
 Grocer. 
 
 JOHN SMITH, 
 
 of 22, Lord Street, Manchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 X 
 
 (VALID.) 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 47 
 
 The most crucial of these questions arises when the " X " extends 
 from the space allotted to one candidate into that allotted to the 
 other. Thus : 
 
 
 JONES 
 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 of 21. High Street, 
 Liverpool, Grocer. 
 
 ... 
 
 2 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JOHN SMITH, of ! 
 22. Lord Street, 
 Manchester. 
 Draper. 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 JONES 
 
 WILLIAW JONES, 
 of 2l.HtfhStreet, 
 Liverpool, tiroc^v. 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 SMITH 
 
 JoiftM SMITH, of 
 22. Lord Street, 
 Manchester. 
 Diaper. 
 
 
 (VALID FOR SMITH.) 
 
 (VALID FOR JONES.) 
 
 The rule is that the vote is good for that candidate in whose space 
 the intersection of the two lines of the " X " occurs. In the left- 
 hand paper above the intersection is in Smith's space, so that the vote 
 is added to his total. The right-hand instance represents the judicial 
 decision in the Cirencester scrutiny. It certainly seems to me, how- 
 ever, with great respect, that this is a case where the vote might well 
 have been held void for uncertainty, on the ground that the voter 
 seemed to have desired to vote for both candidates. The single " X " 
 opposite Jones's name, if it stood alone, would undoubtedly be a good 
 vote for him. The single " X " opposite Smith's name would also be 
 quite good if it stood alone, for the intersection on two lines of the 
 " X " is in his space. You will find that the learned editor of Rogers 
 has his doubts about this paper, too. 
 
 Last of all, I will show you a couple of ballots of quite abnormal 
 type. The first displays a case where the voter not only exhibits in 
 the proper way his preference for Jones, but also evinces his dislike 
 for Smith : 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 of 21, High Street, Liverpool, 
 
 Grocer. 
 
 X 
 
 ITH, 
 
 of 22, Lord Street^fcfenchester, 
 Draper. 
 
 (VALID FOR JONES.) 
 
48 
 
 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 This paper might well be said to show a double indication of a 
 single and very definite intention. But what shall we say of this? 
 
 1 
 
 WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 of 21, High Street, Liverpool, 
 
 Grocer. 
 
 X 
 
 (VALID FOB SMITH.) 
 
 This paper was judicially held a good vote for Smith, on the ground 
 that there was a distinct " X " marked opposite Smith's name. But 
 it is, of course, arguable that what the voter wished to do was to 
 obliterate Smith's name from the ballot paper and to leave Jones in 
 clear possession of the field. 
 
 I mentioned a case of " tinkering " with the official mark. In 
 that case the presiding officer at a station for 400 voters was a 
 strong opponent of candidate A. A very close fight was expected. 
 About 330 electors voted, of whom twelve were found to have wasted 
 their time owing to the absence of the official mark from the ballot- 
 paper. Such a percentage of spoilt papers was itself a proof of the 
 grossest negligence by the presiding officer; but when it appeared 
 that the whole of the twelve papers were in favour of candidate A, 
 it became evident that not negligence, but another influence alto- 
 gether, ihad been at work. What had happened was that the pre- 
 siding officer, employing his local knowledge of the persons who 
 were likely to vote for candidate A, hjad invalidated their votes (and 
 attempted to influence the result of the election) by deliberately 
 omitting the official mark from their ballot papers. On a very close 
 poll his device would have changed the political complexion of the 
 constituency and would naturally and inevitably have led to his 
 own prosecution. 
 
 If the votes of two candidates are equial (I believe the quality of 
 three candidates has never yet occurred in our election experience) 
 the returning officer may give a casting vote if he is a registered 
 elector of the constituency. Otherwise a returning officer may not 
 vote. If he declines to give a casting vote, or has not one to give, 
 he must return the names of both candidates by endorsing the double 
 return on the writ. It is then for the candidates to claim the seat 
 by petition that is to say, by means of a scrutiny. It seems that 
 in the meanwhile both members may claim to be sworn and to take 
 their seats, but neither can vote. 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 49 
 
 When the final result has been arrived at it will be declared in 
 the usual way, and you will proceed to wind up the whole affair, so 
 far as your candidate is concerned, by making up your return of 
 election expenses. All persons who have any claims upon you as 
 an election agent must send them in within fourteen days of the 
 day on which the declaration of the poll is made, which may be 
 the day of the poll itself, or the day after, or even a Monday after 
 a Saturday election. Any which do not reach you within that time 
 are statute barred, and cannot bo .admitted without leave of the 
 court. Within a further week that is to say, within twenty-one 
 days of the declaration all admitted claims must be paid. Any 
 not paid within that time must appear in your return as " unpaid " 
 or " disputed " claims, and can only be settled by leave of the court. 
 Within a further fourteen days (that is to say, within thirty-five 
 days of the declaration of the poll) the return of election expenses 
 must be sworn by you and the candidate, and transmitted to the 
 returning officer preferably by registered post or registered parcel, 
 since that furnishes you with independent evidence of the fact of 
 transmission. Only the transmission need take place within the 
 thirty-five days. It is not necessary for the return to actually reach 
 the returning officer within that period. 
 
 The best way to go to work in the compilation and completion of 
 the return is to print a number of (handbills containing a notice of 
 the provisions of the Act with regard to the presentation of claims 
 within fourteen days, and to post them immediately upon the 
 declaration of the poll to all persons whom you know to have claims 
 upon you. If any known claims have not come in within, say, ten 
 days, you will save yourself much trouble by writing and asking for 
 them, pointing out that if you do not get them they cannot be paid. 
 When you have done so much, you have done all that can be 
 expected. If any claimants do, in fact, omit to send in their claims 
 after these reminders, you can only explain that the claim is now 
 statute barred, but that if they like to sue you in the County Court 
 you will appear and state the facts, and admit the debt if it be 
 genuine. If judgment is given for the claimant, that operates as 
 leave to pay. Meanwhile the claim will have to go in your return 
 of election expenses as an ^unpaid claim." 
 
 The returning officer will send you an account of his own charges, 
 together with a cheque for the balance (if any) which remains out 
 of the amount you originally paid to him as security for his expenses. 
 This account you must file with the return of your own election 
 expenses, though, of course (as I have already told you), it forms 
 no part of the statutory maximum within which you are restrained. 
 A candidate or election agent may tax the returning officer's charges 
 that is, he may object to them before the Mayor's Court in the 
 City of London, and before the County Court elsewhere in England. 
 It is quite possible that he may obtain reductions, though they are 
 hardly likely to be worth the trouble involved in getting them. 
 
 When the votes have been counted, then, and the return duly 
 made, there still remains one power, and only one, which, can review 
 
50 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE 
 
 the result, and if necessary set the election aside. That power is 
 possessed by Parliament itself. But we have done away with the 
 ancient system under which Parliament actually sat in judgment on 
 the delicate questions of law and fact that arise on an election peti- 
 tion. The trial of election petitions at the bar of the House soon 
 led to the establishment of what was practically a rule, that the 
 decision should be in favour of the voters who had returned the 
 Ministerial candidate. The Act 10 Geo. III., c. 16, therefore, trans- 
 ferred the trial to the hands of committees, chosen under that 
 statute. This mode of trial, again, was ultimately found unsatis- 
 factory. Since 1868 the duty of trying election petitions has 
 devolved upon one, and since 1879 upon two, judges, chosen from a 
 rota selected annually by the other judges. The judges report their 
 findings to the House of Commons, which in that way preserves and 
 makes manifest its own jurisdiction in the matter of its own member- 
 ship. As, however, the reports of the judges are never challenged 
 (the nearest approach to a challenge was the brief debate on one of 
 tihe 1906 petitions), their determinations are, in effect, as final and 
 as authoritative as if they were rendered in pursuance of their own 
 proper and ordinary judicial functions. The fiact that the judges 
 sit -as delegates of the House of Commons furnishes the reason why 
 legal etiquette does not permit a member of the Bar who is also a 
 member of the House to .appear as an advocate on the trial of an 
 election petition. 
 
 Petitions fall into four well-defined classes (petitions, recriminatory 
 petitions, recounts, and scrutinies), and you will save yourself from a 
 great deal of intellectual mistiness if you endeavour to comprehend 
 quite clearly what they are : (1) There is the ordinary petition brought 
 by A alleging that B's election was void Obecause of certain offences 
 which he is alleged to have committed, either personally or by his 
 agents. (2) But A, if he was a candidate at the disputed election, may go 
 further. He may say not only that B was not elected, but that, if the 
 facts are examined, it will be found that he himself (A) was really 
 elected. That is to say, he claims the seat. In that case B may 
 reply by saying, "Even if I was not duly elected, you were not, for 
 you had also committed offences against the election law." That is 
 to say, B retaliates with a "cross-petition," or, as it is technically 
 termed, a recriminatory petition, which will be tried after the original 
 petition is disposed of. (3) A may desire only a recount of the votes. 
 He may be dissatisfied with the decision of the returning officer with 
 regard to some of the disputed ballot papers, or he may have reason 
 to believe that a bundle of fifty votes was misplaced at the last 
 moment. The recount will probably take place at the Election Peti- 
 tions Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, and only the prima facie 
 aspect of the papers will be taken into account. That is to say, the 
 aspect of the papers as they stand is conclusive at a recount. Even if 
 you could identify the paper which was marked by a man whom 
 yooi now know to be an unnaturalised alien, you cannot object to it 
 on that ground. If it is plainly and properly marked it will be 
 counted. (4) But by embarking upon the fourth class of petition (the 
 
MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 51 
 
 scrutiny) you can, so to speak, get behind the ballot papers and 
 scrutinise the qualification of the voters who marked them. In that 
 case you will be ordered to furnish your opponent with particulars 
 of the votes to which you intend to object, and the grounds of your 
 objection. You will object to the vote of Johann Niersteiner on the 
 ground that he is an alien; to that of Benjamin Jones on the ground 
 that he was employed for payment at the election ; to the vote 
 recorded in the name of Daniel Mason on the ground that Mason 
 was in the hospital on the day of the poll and must, therefore, have 
 been personated. And in this last case you may go to a good deal of 
 trouble to prove that Mason, who is a political opponent, was per- 
 sonated, and you may satisfy the judges that he was. But when the 
 ballot paper is turned up it may be found that Mason was personated 
 in the interest of your own candidate, so that you have struck a vote 
 off your own poll. That risk is one of the terrors of a scrutiny. 
 
 If a candidate, or his supporters or advisers, should think that 
 there is a case for a petition of a^iy kind, they will, as far as possible, 
 sift and consider the evidence upon which they propose to rely. If 
 they are satisfied of its soundness they will have a petition presented. 
 This is done by lodging the petition at the Election Petitions Office 
 at the High Court of Justice. With it, or within three days of its 
 presentation, a sum of 1,000 must be lodged or security given to 
 that extent. The petitioner or petitioners must be a person or 
 persons who voted or had a right to vote at the disputed election, or 
 else some person who alleges that he was a candidate thereat. 
 Generally speaking, a petition must be presented within twenty-one 
 days of the receipt, by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, of the 
 return to the writ on the strength of which the disputed election 
 was held. But when the petition alleges a specific payment corruptly 
 made, by the member, or on his account, or with his privity, since 
 the date of the return, then the petition may be presented within 
 twenty-eiglit days of such payment. And if the election is challenged 
 on the ground of an illegal practice revealed by the return of the 
 expenses (e.g., the omission of items which ought to be there) the 
 petition must be presented within fourteen days after the receipt 
 of the return of expenses by the returning officer. Finally, if the 
 petition alleges a payment made by the member or his agent in pur- 
 suance of an illegal practice, then it miay be presented within twenty- 
 eight days of the payment or other act upon which it relies. It is 
 usual, however, to present the petition within the twenty-one days 
 which I first mentioned ; and as the case will then be only in a very 
 undeveloped stage, the petitioner will probably allege every election 
 offence known to the law bribery, treating, undue influence, per- 
 sonation, illegal practices, false statements, illegal payments, and 
 illegal hiring. When the return of election expenses is filed (fourteen 
 days after the twenty-one days within which the petition must be 
 lodged), the petitioner may possibly apply for leave to amend his 
 petition by charging expenses omitted from the return, false declara- 
 tion as to election expenses, and so forth. But before the case comes 
 to trial he will be ordered by the court to furnish to the respondent 
 
52 PRACTICAL NOTES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 what are called " particulars " of all these charges and to do it in a 
 certain form that is to say, he will have to give names and addresses, 
 dates, and definite statements. For instance, as regards bribery, he 
 will have to transform 'his vague general allegation in the petition 
 into separate specific instances and to furnish, in each case, the name 
 and address of the person bribed, the name and address of the person 
 who bribed him, the amount or nature of the bribe, and the date of 
 its paymient. Failure to furnish all the ordered particulars, or to 
 furnish them in the precise manner specified by the court, will lead 
 to the charges all being struck out at the trial. I have seen a long 
 array of charges vanish at one swoop because they were not in the 
 form ordered by the court. From this point onwards the conduct of 
 the petition ceases to be a matter of election law pure and simple, and 
 becomes rather one of the collection of evidence. At this point, there- 
 fore, I bring my necessarily brief survey to a close. 
 
THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL 
 SCIENCE is one of the Colleges of the University of London. 
 
 The object of the School is to provide for all classes and de- 
 nominations, without any distinction whatsoever, opportunities and 
 encouragement for pursuing a regular and liberal course of education 
 of the highest grade and quality in the various branches of knowledge 
 dealt with by the Institution, and especially those prescribed or 
 required by the University of London from time to time. With this 
 end in view it supplies liberal courses of education specially adapted 
 to the needs of persona who are, or who intend to be, engaged in any 
 kind of administration, including the service of any government or 
 local authority, railways and shipping, banking and currency, inter- 
 national trade, and any of the higher branches of Commerce and 
 Industry, and also the profession of teaching any such subjects. 
 
 The lectures and classes of the School are arranged so that 
 students can pursue a full University course, extending over not 
 less than three years, and including the subjects required for the 
 B.Sc. and D.Sc. Degrees in the Faculty of Economics and Political 
 Science (including Commerce and Industry). All courses for a first 
 degree in this Faculty are so arranged that students, who can attend 
 in the evening only, can meet the full requirements of the University. 
 In co-operation with University and King's Colleges, the School 
 offers also a complete course of study in the Faculty of Laws. Many 
 of the courses have also been recognised by the Senate of the Univer- 
 sity in the Faculty of Arts, those for instance in Geography, History, 
 Economics and Sociology. 
 
 The lectures and classes of the School are also open to those who 
 are not "Internal Students," and cannot, for various reasons, pursue 
 a full University course. Scientific training is provided for (i) different 
 branches of public administration, central and local, (ii) trade and 
 commerce, (iii) accounting, (iv) railways, (v) library administration. 
 Many of the courses are useful to candidates for the Civil Service, 
 especially the Consular Service, and for such examinations as those of 
 the Institute of Bankers, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and 
 the Society of Accountants. For fuller information regarding the 
 work of the School intending Students are referred to The Calendar, 
 which may be had on application, price Is., by post Is. 4d., payable 
 in advance. 
 
STUDIES IN 
 ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with 
 the London School of Economics and Political Science. 
 
 1. The History ol Local Rates in England. The substance] of 
 
 five lectures given at the School in November and December, 1896. 
 By EDWIN CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; 140 pp., Crown 8vo, 
 cloth. 2s. 6d. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade 
 Unionism. I. THE TALORING TRADE. By F. W. (TALTON. With 
 a Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1896 ; 242 pp., Crown 8vo r 
 cloth. 5s. P. 8. King & Son. 
 
 3. German Social Democracy. Six lectures delivered at the 
 School in February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, 
 B.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix 
 on Social Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By 
 ALYS RUSSELL, B.A. 1896; 204 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. 
 
 P. S. King & Son. 
 
 4. The Referendum in Switzerland. By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, 
 
 University of Louvain. With a letter on the Referendum in Belgium 
 by M. J. VAN DEN HEUVEL, Professor of International Law in the 
 University of Louvain. Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., 
 Trinity College, Cambridge, and edited with Notes, Introduction, 
 Bibliography, and Appendices, by LILIAN TOMN (Dr. Knowles), of 
 Grirton College, Cambridge, Research Student of the London School of 
 Economics and Political Science. 1898 ; x. and 334 pp., Crown 8vo, 
 cloth. 7s. 6d. P. 8. King & Son. 
 
 5. The Economic Policy of Colbert. By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., 
 
 Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford ; and Whately 
 Prizeman, 1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii. and 138pp., 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 6. Local Variations in Wages. (The Adam Smith Prize, 
 Cambridge University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow 
 of Trinity College, Cambridge. 1899 ; viii. and 90 pp., with Index 
 and 18 Maps and Diagrams. Quarto, 11 in. by 8J in., cloth. 8s. 6d. 
 
 Longmans, Green & Co. 
 
 7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term 
 of the Thirty-first year of Henry II. (1185). A unique fragment 
 
 transcribed and edited by the Class in Palaeography and Diplomatic, 
 under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. 
 Public Record Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype, 
 and Parellel readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii. 
 and 37 pp. ; Folio, 15| in. by 11 J in., in green cloth ; 2 Copies left. 
 Apply to the Director of the London School of Economics. 
 
8. Elements of Statistics. By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A. 
 F.S.S., Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver 
 Medallist of the Royal Statistical Society; Newinarch Lecturer, 1897- 
 98. 500 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 40 Diagrams. 1901 ; Third edition, 
 1907; viii. and 336 pp. 10s. 6d. net. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform. 
 
 By C. P. SANGER, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; 
 Barrister-at-Law. 1901 ; viii. and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 
 2s. 6d. net. P. 8. King & Son. 
 
 10. A History of Factory Legislation 1802-1901, By B. L. 
 
 HUTCHINS and A. HARRISON (Mrs. SPENCER), B.A., D.Sc., London. 
 With a Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903 ; xviii. and 372 pp., 
 Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 11. The Pipe Role of the Exchequer of the See of 
 Winchester for the Fourth year of the Episcopate of Peter 
 
 DCS Roches (1207). Transcribed and edited from the original Koll 
 in the possession of the ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in 
 Palaeography and Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, 
 HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Eecord Office. With a 
 Frontispiece giving a Facimile of the Roll. 1903 ; xlviii. and 100pp., 
 Folio, 13| in. by 8| in. green cloth. 15s. net. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved ; 
 The Story of Lord Durham's Report. By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., 
 
 Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903 ; 
 414 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 P. S. King & Son. 
 
 13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations 
 Between England and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration. 
 
 By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY (Mrs. Kadice), D.Sc., former Student at 
 Girton College, Cambridge ; Eesearch Student of the London School 
 of Economics and Political Science. 1903 ; 486 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 
 3s. 6d. net P. S. King & Son. 
 
 14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common 
 
 Fields. By GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge ; 
 D.Sc., London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8 vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 A. Constable & Co. 
 
 15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer. 
 
 By Dr. W. HASBACH, Professor of Economics in the University of 
 Kiel. Translated from the Second Edition (1908), by Kuth Kenyon 
 (1908). Cloth, 7s. 6d. net. P. 8. King & Son. 
 
 16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales Under 
 Governor Macquarie, 1810-21. By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., 
 
 D.Sc. (Econ.). 1909 ; xxiii. and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 
 10s. 6d. net. P. S. King & Son. 
 
 Bibliographies by Students connected with the London School of Economics and 
 
 Political Science. 
 
 1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed. 
 
 By F. ISOBEL TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.). 1909; 86 pp., Demy 8vo, 
 paper, Is. 6d. net. ; cloth, 2s. net. P. tf. King & Son. 
 
?S E S^ B DB K ? P. S. KING & SON, 
 
 Orchard House, Westminster. 
 THE KING'S REVENUE, 
 
 An Account of the Revenue and Taxes raised in the United Kingdom, with a short 
 History of each Tax and Branch of the Revenue. By W. M. J. Williams, 
 Author of " Local Taxation," &e. Demy 8vo, cloth, 6s- net. 
 
 Financial News. " Mr. Williams gives us the history and origin of each impost, the rate 
 at which it is now imposed, and some statistics of its yield. This is a treatment of the 
 subject which at oiice enables the reader to obtain pi-ecisely the information that he 
 needs, though, up to now, there has been no attempt to supply it in exactly the same 
 convenient way as that in which Mr. Williams has arranged it." 
 
 ENGLISH AGRICULTURAL LABOURER. 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH AGRICULTURAL LABOURER. By Dr. W. Hasbach 
 Professor of Political Science in the University of Kiel, with a Preface by 
 SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.. Demy 8ro, cloth, 7a. 6d- net. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF THE FISCAL PROBLEM. 
 
 By L. G. Chiozza Money, M.P., Author of " Riches and Poverty," &c. Demy 
 8vo, cloth, 3s, 6d. net. 
 
 Westminster Gazette. "It is impossible for anyone who reads this book to complain 
 that the Free Trade Doctrine is abstract, antiquated or visionary. Never was a case 
 presented in a more modern, concrete, or practical form." 
 
 PROTECTION IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES: 
 
 A series of handy volumes, under the editorship of Mr* William Harbutt 
 Dawson, dealing with the practical operation of Protection in some of the 
 leading Industrial Countries and the British Colonies. Each Monograph, 
 besides giving a sufficient history of Fiscal Policy in the country concerned, 
 endeavours to estimafe the effects of Protection upon Commerce, Industry, and 
 Labour, and also deals with the subject from the political and financial stand- 
 points. The volumes are written by experts, and it is believed that they forma 
 valuable and welcome contribution to the literature on the fiscal controversy. 
 
 CANADA AND AUSTRALIA. 
 
 By C. H. Chomley, B. A. LL.D., Member of the Council of the Australian 
 Free Trade Association, Editor of Lord Farrer's "Free Trade versus Fair 
 Trade " (1904). Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 FRANCE^ 
 
 By H- O. Meredith, M.A., of the University of Cambridge. Crown 8vo, 
 cloth, 3s- 6d. net. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 
 A History of German Fiscal Policy during the Nineteenth Century. By William 
 Harbutt Dawson, Author of " The German Workman," " Prince Bismarck 
 and State Socialism," "Germany and the Germans," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 
 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 A Study of the Origin and Growth of the American Tariff System, and its Social 
 and Economic Influences. By A. Maurice Low, Member of the American 
 Social Science Association, Author of "The Conspiracy and Protection of 
 Property Act," "The British Workmen's Compensation Act," "Labour Unions 
 and British Industries," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. net. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 THE ARGUS PRINTING CO., LTD. 
 
 10, TEMPLE AVENUE, AND TUDOR STBEET 
 
 LONDON, B.C. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 bJan''53SS|| 
 
 170ct'55EP 
 
 1955 
 25MAR'59DF 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'52(A2528sl6)476 
 
a* 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY