to unseat the member, to hoodwink the Judges as to the extent of the corruption, and to prevent their reporting in such terms as will necessitate a Royal Commission, which may be followed by suspension of writ or disfranchisement."[1]
The would-be petitioner will not petition unless he thinks he may obtain the seat or force another election, and if he feels pretty certain that he, and his friends, while exposing the adversary, will ultimately be hoist with his own petard, he will probably decline to incur the certain expense, trouble, and odium of a petition. Moreover, the fear of disfranchisement removed, petitions would be more likely to be successful, for evidence which is now often kept back could then be produced without risk of consequences; while witnesses would have less reason or inclination to conceal the truth, if it were certain that disfranchisement would in no case follow on their revelations. Thus we see that the two causes which prevent petitions—the fear of proving too little, and being unsuccessful; and the fear of proving too much, and damning the borough,—are made more real and are accentuated by the presence of the fear of disfranchisement. During the actual election the fear of disfranchisement in no way deters the bribers from acting, and in fact often incites them to renewed activity in order so far to damage the character of the borough that no one will dare to petition.
If disfranchisement were abolished, and if it were enacted that a successful petition or inquiry should be always followed by the appointment of a Royal Commission; resulting in the scheduling (i.e., the striking off from the register) of all those found to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices,[2] and the prosecution of the guilty who have not received certificates of indemnity; to be subsequently, in every case, followed within a short period by the issue of a new writ; petitions would be encouraged, and the purged constituency would have a fair chance of conducting its elections with purity.
- ↑ For instance, the House last year actually divided over the Question of whether or no a Royal Commission should be appointed in the case of Gloucester, the Judges having reported only one or two cases of bribery. A Commission was appointed, with the result that 2,000 persons were scheduled for bribery.
- ↑ Those scheduled must of course be prohibited from taking any part in the subsequent election—their doing so in any capacity must invalidate the election of their friend. Moreover, the unseated member (if not scheduled) must also be prohibited from assisting in the subsequent election.
