all the purposes of the Election Commissioners Act, 1852, the same effect, and may be dealt with in the same manner, as if it were a report of a committee of the House of Commons appointed to try an election petition (see the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 15). Election Commissioners may, therefore, be appointed upon an address of both Houses in consequence of the report of the election judges on the trial of an election petition. Election Commissioners were so appointed upon a joint address of the two Houses in 1906, as mentioned above, to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Worcester.

Election Commissioners may also be appointed by the Crown on an address of both Houses of Parliament in consequence of a petition to the House of Commons, signed by two or more electors, and presented within twenty-one days after the return of a member, or within fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament, alleging the prevalence of corrupt practices at the then last election for the borough or county (hil, s. 56).

Who may be.-The Election Commissioners, usually three in number, are the persons named in the address; such persons, where the inquiry to be made relates to a place in England or Ireland, must be barristersat-law of not less than seven years' standing, or, where the inquiry relates to a place in Scotland, advocates of not less than seven years* standing. They must not be members of Parliament, and must not hold any office or place of profit under the Crown other than that of a recorder of any city or borough (Election Commissioners Act, 1852, 8. 1). In the City of Worcester Parliamentary Election Commission, 1906, the three Commissioners appointed were E. Tindal Atkinson, Esq., K.C., Horace E. Avory, Esq., K.C., and C. W. Mathews, Esq., each of whom at the time of appointment held the office of a recorder.

Death, Resignation, etc.-In case any of the Commissioners appointed die, resign, or become incapable to act, the surviving or continuing Commissioners or Commissioner have power to act in the inquiry as if they or he had been solely appointed for the purposes of the inquiry (ibid.).

Oath, to be taken by.-Every Commissioner before beginning to act must take an oath that he will truly and faithfully execute the powers and trusts vested in him according to the best of his knowledge and judgment (for form of oath, see ibid. s. 2). Such oath is to be taken before a judge of the King's Bench Division, and in Scotland before a judge of the Court of Session (ibid.).

Appointment of Secretary, Clerks, etc.-The Commissioners have power to appoint and dismiss at pleasure a secretary, and so many clerks, messengers, and officers, as a Secretary of State may deem necessary for the purpose of conducting the inquiry, and to pay them such salaries as the Treasury deem reasonable (ibid. s. 3).

Notice of Appointment of Commissioners.-Notice is required to be given by the Commissioners of their appointment, and of the time and place of holding their first meeting. This is to be published in some newspaper in general circulation in the neighbourhood of the place for which the inquiry is to be held (ibid. s. 4).

The Inquiry. Upon their appointment, or within a reasonable time afterwards, the Commissioners must go to the county, division, city, borough, university, or place in respect of which the inquiry is instituted, and from time to time hold meetings for the purposes of the inquiry

at some convenient place within the same, or within ten miles thereof (ibid. s. 4). The meetings of the Commissioners may, however, with the consent and approbation of a Secretary of State, be held in London or Westminster (ibid. s. 5).

It is the duty of the Commissioners, by all such lawful means as to them appear best with a view to the discovery of the truth, to inquire into the manner in which the election has been conducted, and whether any corrupt practices have been committed at such election, and, if so, the nature of the corrupt practices (ibid. s. 6). Moreover, it being deemed expedient to extend such an inquiry to the case of illegal practices, it was enacted by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, s. 12, that when Election Commissioners have been appointed in pursuance of the Election Commissioners Act, 1852, and the enactments amending the same, they may make inquiries and act and report as if "corrupt practices" in such enactments included illegal practices. The Commissioners have therefore to inquire as to the existence of illegal practices as well as of corrupt practices. In case they find that corrupt or illegal practices have been committed at the election into which they are authorised to inquire, they are empowered to make the like inquiries concerning the latest previous election for the same place, and upon their finding corrupt or illegal practices to have been committed, they may make the like inquiries concerning the election immediately previous thereto for the same place, and so in like manner from election to election as far back as they may think fit (ibid. s. 6). But in no case may they make any inquiries concerning any election prior to the passing of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (see sec. 49 of that Act). And where upon inquiry concerning any election they do not find that corrupt or illegal practices have been committed, they are not to inquire concerning any previous election (Election Commissioners Act, 1852, s. 6).

Witnesses, etc.-The Commissioners have full power, by summons under their hands and seals, to secure the attendance of all witnesses whose evidence may be material to the subject-matter of the inquiry, and to require the production of all such books and documents as may be necessary (ibid. s. 8). If any witness summoned by the Commissioners fails to appear, he will, upon being reported by them to any of the superior Courts, incur the same penalties as if he had failed to obey a writ of subpoena (ibid. s. 12). The Commissioners are empowered to administer an oath or affirmation to the witnesses who are examined before them (ibid. s. 11), and if any person, summoned to attend and having appeared, refuses to be sworn, or to give evidence, or to produce any papers, etc., which are in his possession or under his control, or, if any person is guilty of contempt of the Commissioners, they may exercise the same powers as any judge of the superior Courts (ibid. s. 12). Any witness giving false evidence before the Commissioners is liable to the penalties of perjury (ibid. s. 13).

The Commissioners have power to award to any witness summoned to appear before them a reasonable sum for his travelling expenses and for his maintenance according to a scale determined and approved by the Treasury (ibid. s. 14). The Commissioners are required to certify to the Treasury the names of the said witnesses, together with the sums allowed to each, and to pay to the said witnesses the said sums so allowed out of any money which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Commission (ibid.).

A witness before Election Commissioners will not be excused from answering any question relating to any offence at or connected with the election on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate himself, or on the ground of privilege, but if he answers truly all questions which he is required to answer he will be entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity (as to which, see the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 59; see also R. v. Hulme, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 377). It has been held that the decision of the Commissioners in refusing to grant a certificate of indemnity to a witness is final (R. v. Holl, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 575). At the City of Worcester Parliamentary Election Inquiry, 1906, the Commissioners refused to grant certificates of indemnity to thirty-one of the persons who were reported as guilty of corrupt or illegal practices.

Adjournment. The Commissioners have power to adjourn their meetings held for the purposes of the inquiry from time to time, and from any one place to any other place within the county, division, city, borough, university, or place, or within ten miles thereof, as to them may seem expedient. They may not, however, adjourn the inquiry for any period exceeding one week without the consent and approbation of one of the principal Secretaries of State (Election Commissioners Act, 1852, s. 4).

Report. The Commissioners are required from time to time to report to the Crown the evidence taken by them, and what they find concerning the premises, and especially they are to report with respect to each election the names of all persons whom they find to have been guilty of corrupt and illegal practices at such election (ibid. s. 6). Every such report is to be laid before Parliament within one month after it is made, or if Parliament be not then sitting then within one month after the then next meeting of Parliament (ibid. s. 7). When reporting that certain persons have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, the Commissioners must report whether those persons have or have not been furnished with certificates of indemnity, and such report, accompanied with the evidence on which it was based, is to be laid before the Attorney-General with a view to his instituting or directing a prosecution against such persons as have not received certificates of indemnity, if the evidence should, in his opinion, be sufficient to support a prosecution (Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 60). The Election Commissioners of 1906, as the result of their inquiry into the parliamentary election for the City of Worcester, reported ninety-six persons as guilty of corrupt practices, thirty-one of whom were refused certificates of indemnity, and two persons as guilty of an illegal practice. As to the report of corrupt practices by justices of the peace, barristers, solicitors, or other professional persons, and of persons holding licences, see ibid. s. 38 (6)-(9), see also CORRUPT PRACTICES.

Before any person is reported to have been guilty at an election of any corrupt or illegal practice, notice must be given to him, and if he appears in pursuance of the notice he is to have an opportunity of being heard by himself (see R. v. Mansel Jones, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 29), and of calling evidence in his defence to show why he should not be so reported (Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 38 (1)). As to service of such notice, ibid. s. 62 (2).

Appeal. An appeal lies against the report of Election Commissioners to the next Court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery in the county or place in which the corrupt or illegal practice is alleged to have been

committed (ibid. s. 38 (2)). Subject to rules of Court-and no rules have hitherto been made-such appeal may be brought, heard, and determined in like manner as if the Court were a Court of Quarter Sessions and the Commissioners were a Court of summary jurisdiction, and the person so reported had been convicted by a Court of summary jurisdiction for an offence under the Act (ibid.). Notice of every such appeal must be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions within three days after the appeal is brought (ibid.). Such an appeal was brought against the report of the Commissioners in the City of Worcester Election Commission, 1906, by a person reported for bribery, and was tried before Bigham, J., at the Worcester Assizes in March 1907. The learned judge differed from the finding of the Commissioners as to the appellant being guilty of corrupt practices of bribery, and as to these he reversed the report of the Commissioners. There being no rules of procedure under the Act, and no such appeal having been brought since the Act of 1883, Bigham, J., directed the clerk of assize to draw up an order to the effect that the report of the Commissioners, by which they reported the appellant for corrupt practices, be set aside, and that the report be sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons (see R. v. Caldicott, Times newspaper, March 13, 1907).

Where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that such appeals are likely to interfere with the ordinary business of any Courts of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, he may direct such appeals, or any of them, to be heard by the judges for the time being on the rota for election petitions, in which case one of such judges is to proceed to the county or place where the offences are alleged to have been committed, and there hear and determine the appeal as if such judge were a Court of oyer and terminer (ibid. s. 38 (3)).

Consequences of Report.-Every person who is reported by Election Commissioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice at an election, whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity or not, is subject to the same incapacity as if he had at the date of such election been convicted of the offence of which he is reported guilty. The report will not, however, avoid the election of any candidate who has been declared by an Election Court on the trial of a petition to have been duly elected at such election, nor will it render him incapable of sitting in the House of Commons during the Parliament for which he was elected (ibid. s. 38 (5)). As to the incapacities resulting from convietion for corrupt or illegal practices, see CORRUPT PRACTICES; ILLEGAL PRACTICES. Such incapacities will only attach to any person where the report expressly finds that he has been guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice; it is not enough that facts are stated in the report from which such offences might be inferred (see Grant v. Overseers of Pagham, 1877, 3 C. P. D. 80).

Moreover, in consequence of the reports of Election Commissioners as to the extensive prevalence of corrupt practices in certain boroughs, such constituencies have in some cases been expressly disfranchised by statute, and the voters reported guilty of corrupt practices have been disfranchised or subjected to incapacities in respect of voting. Thus the boroughs of Lancaster, Great Yarmouth, Reigate, and Totnes were disfranchised in 1867; Bridgewater, Beverley, Sligo, and Cashel in 1870; Norwich in 1876; Boston, Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, Macclesfield, Oxford, and Sandwich in 1880 (see Representation of the People Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, ss. 12-16; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 21; 33 & 34

Vict. c. 25; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 38; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 54; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 72; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 42; 45 & 46 Vict. c. 68; Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, 48 & 49 Vict. c. 23, ss. 3 and 28; see also May, Parliamentary Practice, 11th ed., 1906, pp. 661, 662).

The report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the parliamentary election for the City of Worcester in 1906, which was made on November 22, 1906, stated (inter alia), as a result of the inquiry, that the Commissioners had arrived at conclusions that the constituency as a whole was not corrupt; that there existed in Worcester a class of voters numbering approximately 500, and consisting mainly of the needy and loafing class, but including a considerable number of working men in regular employment who were prepared to sell their votes for drink or money; that this state of things had existed since the date of the limit of their inquiry, viz., 1883; that at the parliamentary election of January 1906 corrupt practices on an organised system had extensively prevailed among the class above mentioned. In consequence of the member for the City of Worcester having been unseated on petition, a motion was made in the House of Commons on February 14, 1907, for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member to serve in Parliament for the borough of Worcester. After some debate, in which the report of the Commissioners was referred to, the House divided, and the motion was lost by a majority of two (see Times, February 15, 1907), the result being the temporary disfranchisement of the City of Worcester.

Expenses of Election Commissioners.-As to expenses of Election Commissioners, see the Election Commissioners Expenses Acts, 1869 and 1871, 32 & 33 Vict. c. 21, and 34 & 35 Vict. c. 61; see also Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 58.

HISTORY.-The incurring of excessive expenses in connection with parliamentary elections has always been deemed contrary to law, as violating the fundamental principle of the freedom of elections and consequently subversive of the constitution of Parliament (see the preamble of the Treating Act, 1696, 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 4).

The reduction, regulation, and control of expenditure by candidates. at elections has long engaged the attention of the legislature, and to this end various legislative efforts have been directed. Thus in 1854 an Election Auditor, to be appointed by the candidate, was intrusted with the auditing and publication of accounts of payments made in respect of the election (see Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102). This proving to be an ineffectual means of control, in 1863 the appointment of an Expenses Agent, through whom all payments in respect of election expenses were to be made, was provided for by the Corrupt Practices Act, 1863, 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29. Finally, in 1883, this

VOL. V.

7