THE YARMOUTH PETITION.
[To Tan EDITOR Or THE " STRCTATOR.1
SIR,—The dismissal of the Yarmouth petition is the severest blow that has been directed for many years against purity of
election. It is to be hoped that it may open the eyes of the public to the mockery which our Judges have made of the Corrupt Practices Act.
I am not acquainted with Mr. Martin White, the petitioner, but it is easy to conjecture the difficulties against which he has had to contend in his endeavour, not to claim the seat, but to bring notorious corruption to light. First of all there must have been the knowledge of the intense popular hatred which the bringing of a petition would involve ; then the dissuasion of prominent supporters, who think it " unpleasant " not to let sleeping dogs lie ; then the difficulty of proving acts the very essence of which is that they are underhand; then the difficulty, when evidence had been secured, of finding witnesses bold enough to come forward and give it in Court; and finally, the certainty of very great expense, even in the event of success.
These things are enough of themselves, in most cases, to prevent a petition from being brought, even if the law has been flagrantly violated. It is not often that a candidate proves, as Mr. Martin White has proved, hardy enough to surmount them. He deserves the thanks of all good citizens when he does. But when to these difficulties is added such a decision as that of Mr. Justice Grantham at Yarmouth, it is hard to see how any candidate can dare in future to put the law in motion.
What has been decided ? Not that a landlord may bring pressure to bear on his tenants, or an employer on his servants ; not that tradesmen may be subjected to an organised boycott for their political opinions ; not that canvassing and grocery-dis- tributing may be legitimately combined,—all this we are familiar with already. All these matters will have to form the subject of careful inquiry in the future. But what we did not know, and what we now do know, is that a wealthy man may hold a long series of meetings in support of his candidature, mostly, if not all, in public-houses, with "a certain amount of drinking," "not always at the expense of the person who drinks" ; that he can hold an "at home" at which "about three hundred drinks" are given away ; that there can be " a considerable amount of bribery of a systematic character " (thirteen cases were proved at Yarmouth) ; that the briber can drive to the poll, during the greater part of the day, the voters whom he has bribed, in one of the carriages lent for the election, under the direct authority of the chairman of the candidate's Vehicles Committee ; that the briber, who is known to have no money of his own, can "keep something dark" in giving his evidence ; and that, after all, the Member can not only keep his seat, but be described from the Bench as having just cause to complain of the charge of corruption being made against him. The essential facts here mentioned, and in several cases the words used, are drawn from the judgment of the dissenting Judge, Mr. Justice Channell, by common consent one of the soundest lawyers on the Bench, and assuredly no partisan.
What effect the decision is likely to have on the future enforce- ment of the law may be left to the imagination of your readers.
7 Kennington Terrace, S.E.
Previous page
