A hundred years ago
From the 'Spectator', 25 July I868—The two strongest amendments to the Bribery Bill were lost on Saturday. Sir E. Goldsmid proposed that when a victorious candidate was unseated for bribery, his non-bribing competitor, if supported by a third of the electorate, should have the seat. This pro- vision, which would have made bribery nearly impossible, was objected to, on the ground that the majority, though guiltless of bribe-taking, might be disfranchised for the sins of a few; to which Mr. Lowe made the powerful retort that they were disfranchised anyhow, for their choice was not only deprived of his seat, but disqualified for another contest. Many Liberals, however, shrank from the amendment, and it was lost by 78 to 49. Mr. Clay then proposed a declaration on honour to be made by the member, with a penalty of 500/. for lying, a proposal which would compel the briber to incure enormous social risk. It would be very difficult for a man convicted of lying when on honour to keep his place in society. It was held, however, that the bad would make the declaration, while the good would not, and the amendment was lost by 84 to 45.
Previous page
