The Attorney-General has made his anti-Bribery Bill much more bearable,
but it is still on one point open to objection. We cordially approve the clauses reducing the limit of allowable expenditure to £350 for every 2,000 voters in boroughs, and to £500 in counties, experience showing that expense is no guarantee for the candidate's respectability. Nor have we any criticism to offer on the penalties for bribery and corruption, whether inflicted on the candidate or on his agents, if proved to be guilty. But we cannot see the justice of punish- ing the candidate because his agents are corrupt. True, under the new Bill he is not liable penally, but he is liable to be declared incompetent to sit for that borough, and a treacherous agent, who has been bribed by the other side, may still practically disfranchise a Member who has earnestly sought to prevent corruption. Suppose the Women's Rights people pay an agent of Sir Henry James to treat electors, and that he therefore loses his right to contest Taunton. It is most important to put down bribery, and, in a less degree, treating ; but suppose we could put it down by disfranchising the Mayor, whenever it occurred in his borough, would Sir Henry vote for that Let every man answer for his own offences, not those of agents who may be acting in the teeth of instructions.
Previous page
