| |
| | Erskine May, Chapter VI, pp. 431-48 |
 | | It was not in nomination boroughs, or in boroughs sold in gross, that bribery had flourished; but it had been the vice of places where a small [432] body of electors,—exercising the same privilege as proprietors,—sold the seats which, by their individual votes, they had the power of conferring. |
 | | To obviate this cause of failure, the act of 1841,—inverting the order of proceeding,—required committees to receive evidence generally upon the charges of bribery, without prior investigation of agency; and thus proofs or implications of agency were elicited from the general evidence. |
 | | But under the act which authorised these inquiries, voters giving evidence were entitled to claim an indemnity; and it was now successfully contended that they were protected from disfranchisement, as one of the penalties of their offence. |
| home.freeuk.net /don-aitken/emay431.html (3555 words) |
|