§ MR. BRODIETo ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the number of alleged cases of dismissal of employees, and of the withdrawal of custom from tradesmen on political grounds, which occurred during, and subsequent to, the recent General Election, and which, if proved, would constitute offences under the Corrupt Practices Acts, he can see his way to instruct the Public Prosecutor to institute an informal inquiry where desired by individual Members of Parliament, with a view to prosecution in those cases which appear to justify such a course.
(Answered by Sir John Walton.) It is my duty as Attorney-General to give such directions as occasion may require to the Public Prosecutor with reference to the discharge of his duties. Shortly after the General Election he brought the subject under my notice, and I directed that he should entertain and thoroughly investigate all complaints of the character referred to, with a view to vindicating the law in all cases in which it had been sought to influence votes by threatened withdrawal of custom or employment, or where such withdrawal had followed upon votes given during the election. To my knowledge searching 393 investigation was made in several cases by the Public Prosecutor, who is quite ready to continue to investigate all complaints of the kind brought before him. While there is little doubt that intimidation has been used and resentment shown in a number of instances, it is, unfortunately, also true that legal evidence, adequate to carry conviction of the offence under the statute, is but rarely obtainable. I am most anxious that a provision of the law essential to the freedom of election should be enforced, and will take care that whenever a prima facie case can be established a prosecution shall be instituted At present there are two prosecutions under Section 2 of The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, awaiting trial.