* Several of the witnesses before the Committee of the House of
Commons in 1860, on the operation of the Corrupt Practices
Prevention Act, some of them of great practical experience in election
matters, were favourable (either absolutely or as a last resort) to
the principle of requiring a declaration from members of Parliament;
and were of opinion that, if supported by penalties, it would be, to a
great degree, effectual. (Evidence, pp. 46, 54-57, 67, 123, 198-202,
208.) The Chief Commissioner of the Wakefield Inquiry said (in
reference certainly to a different proposal), "If they see that the
Legislature is earnest upon the subject, the machinery will work....
I am quite sure that if some personal stigma were applied upon
conviction of bribery, it would change the current of public
opinion" (pp. 26 and 32). A distinguished member of the Committee (and
of the present Cabinet) seemed to think it very objectionable to
attach the penalties of perjury to a merely promissory as
distinguished from an assertory oath; but he was reminded, that the
oath taken by a witness in a court of justice is a promissory oath:
and the rejoinder (that the witness's promise relates to an act to
be done at once, while the member's would be a promise for all
future time) would only be to the purpose, if it could be supposed
that the swearer might forget the obligation he had entered into, or
could possibly violate it unawares: contingencies which, in a case
like the present, are out of the question.
Pages:
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248