elections, is that arising from actual violence, and threats of violence to voters. It has been pointed out elsewhere (a) that committees have of late been very reluctant to avoid elections, where such malpractices have taken place, unless it could be proved that the result of the election was affected by them; but how is this to be proved? The difficulty of proving what might have happened, if something else had not taken place, has led to this, that in all modern cases, when violence has been complained of, the election has been sustained. Thus, in the Roxburgh case (b), where serious riots took place, and many voters were ill used on account of the way they had voted, and others were menaced, and thereupon refrained from voting, the committee upheld the election, although they reported to the House the existence of riotous and tumultuous proceedings at the election. In the Cork case (c), (1842) great violence was used towards the voters on one side at the election. A notion was made in the committee, that "The system of outrage and violence was of such a nature at the last election for the county of Cork, as to be calculated to strike terror into the minds of the electors of that county, and to destroy all freedom of election." This motion was negatived by four to three, and the sitting members were declared duly elected. In the case of the Cork City (1853) (d), the committee resolved, "That the evidence adduced before the committee shows that, during the last election for the county of (a) Rogers on Elections, 240; Clerk on Com. 87. (c) B. & Aust. 534. (d) Printed Minutes. the city of Cork, riotous and tumultuous proceedings took place in the said city, and that serious outrages and assaults were committed on the persons and pro perty of several electors and others :"-" that intimidation was exercised upon, and threats used towards several voters for the purpose of influencing their votes." The sitting members, however, were declared duly elected. See also Clare county (1853) (a). In addition to this more common description of violence to the persons and properties of voters, another kind of undue influence, of a very disgraceful character, has been extensively resorted to in Ireland. The Roman catholic priests in that country have been too much in the habit of acting as political partizans at elections, and have on many occasions inflamed the minds of the mob by appeals to their religious fanaticism, while at the same time they have deterred many of the more timid members of their congregations from voting according to their consciences, by threatening to withhold from them the benefit of absolution if they voted for Protestant candidates. In the Cork County case (1842) (b), the petition alleged, "That at various Roman Catholic places of worship, the most inflammatory addresses were delivered from the altar to voters of that persuasion, wherein the Protestant candidates and their partizans and supporters, were denounced as the enemies of religion, and Orangemen thirsting for the blood of their countrymen, that by these and similar means, a violent animosity was kindled amongst the lowest and least educated classes in the county against the Pro (a) Printed Minutes. (b) B. & Aust. 534. testant candidates." No evidence, it is true, was given in support of these allegations in the petition, but it is to be feared that they represent what has too often occurred of late years at Irish elections. In the Mayo case (1853) (a), it was proved that the Roman Catholic priests had taken a very active part in the election; that in fact the conduct of the election had been in great measure placed in their hands by the sitting members; that a most inflammatory placard had been placed upon the doors of the chapel of the Roman Catholic Archdeacon on a Sunday (b). The committee reported, "That it appears from evidence given before the committee, that there was great abuse of spiritual influence on the part of a great body of the Roman Catholic priesthood during the last election for the county of Mayo:" but they declared the sitting members to be duly elected. In this case it appeared, that about fourteen days before the election the two sitting members had signed the following paper. Castlebar, July 9, 1852. "The undersigned candidates for the represen"tation of this county, relying on the popular strength "and the popular will for success, and satisfied that "no other influence should be permitted to control "the event of the election, do mutually agree that a "committee shall be appointed by the Mayo Inde"pendent Club of this county, as at present consti (a) Printed Minutes. (b) One portion of this placard was as follows. "Catholies of Ireland! whoever votes for a supporter of Lord Derby's government, votes for the massacre of his countrymen, the violation of the House of God, and the pollution of the body and blood of his Redeemer!" Mins. p. 52. 66 66 "tuted; that this committee shall consist of Catholic "clergymen, and such other gentlemen belonging to "the popular party, as it may be judged fit to add "to their number. And the undersigned mutually "bind themselves to abide by the decision of that body, as to their joint or separate claims upon the representation of this county, and at any period of "the election to carry out the views of the committee, either by resignation or otherwise, as it may "believe to be for the interest of the popular cause. "That the day of nomination be appointed for the naming of this committee, at whatever hour may be "deemed most convenient. 66 The committee was never appointed; but it was proved that this "Independent Club" carried on the business of the election. Were a case similar to this of Mayo, to be now bought before a committee, they would be bound to avoid the election. In the Sligo case (1853) the election was avoided on account of bribery and treating; but the committee at the same time reported, "That the influence of the Roman Catholic priests was exercised in a manner inconsistent with their duty as ministers of religion, and destructive of freedom of choice on the part of the voters." Such are a few examples of the evils which the fifth section of the new act is intended to remedy. And it defines "Undue Influence" thus: "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 the infliction, by himself or by or through any other person, of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner practice intimidation 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, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, or shall thereby compel, induce, or prevail upon any voter, either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall be deemed to have committed the offence of undue influence, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment, and shall also be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit." The use of actual force towards electors was always indictable as an assault: but now the threat of violence of any kind towards a voter, in order to influence his vote is indictable and punishable in a penal action. In whatever manner the threatened injury is to reach the voter, the penalties will be incurred; and not only will the use or threats of personal violence be so punished, but also every threat of inflicting any kind of pecuniary loss, or any species of injury in order to influence the voter. The practice of carrying away voters either by open force, or by stratagem, will now be attended with serious consequences. The act for |