COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 August 1884 vol 292 cc370-7

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Prohibition of sending by post explosive, inflammable, or deleterious substances, or indecent prints, words, &c.)

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment in line 20 of this clause, Section (c.) The words, as they now stood, were these— Has on such packet, or on the cover thereof, any words, marks, or designs of an indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive character. He fully agreed with the propriety of not allowing documents to be sent through the Post that had anything indecent upon or about them; but he was afraid that the words "grossly offensive" might be taken to mean something very different to indecent or obscene. He knew it was a principle, in the construction of Acts of Parliament, very often to construe the latter part of a sentence with the words preceding; but he thought, in this case, when they knew what kind of construction might be placed upon the words, they should be omitted. They knew that many people—even many Members of that House—frequently sent letters through the Post with very amusing pieces of scurrility upon them. Sometimes there was a kind of feeling between the sender of the letter and the Postmaster, by which no objection was raised; but, under this clause, a very heavy liability might attach to it. He did not care what was written; but there were people who did object, and it might happen that one man would use words—for instance, he might write "swindler" or "liar" upon the outside of a letter—which were not really indecent or obscene, only what they would call vulgar, and see what a tremendous penalty the clause imposed for that—imprisonment for 12 months. That penalty would not be too much for anything approaching indecency or obscenity; but it was a great deal too much for what might be called coarse or vulgar abuse. When two men had a quarrel, if one wrote something that was scurrilous upon the back of a letter sent to the other, it would be very hard that they should give the one the power of turning the tables upon his opponent by enabling him to give his opponent 12 months' imprisonment. That might be done under this clause, even after there had been mutual abuse carried on between them by means of post cards through the Post. As he had said, he took no objection to the words "indecent" or "obscene;" but the words "grossly offensive" might be taken to mean something that was extremely offensive to the person who received it, although it did nothing more than lacerate the feelings of the person receiving it. As these words might boar that construction, he proposed to amend the clause by moving two Amendments, though they were practically one and the same Amendment. Whether it was one or two Amendments, the word "or" would require to be inserted after the word "indecent;" and he would, therefore, move, in line 20, to insert the word "or" after the word "indecent." He hoped the Amendment would be acceded to, because 12 months' imprisonment was too serious a penalty for this kind of offence.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after the word "indecent," insert the word "or"—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."

MR. COURTNEY

said, the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) was really to leave out the words "grossly offensive," and upon two grounds; in the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought they might be misinterpreted; and, in the next place, that the penalty was too great to be connected with words of a doubtful character. Well, his hon. and learned Friend had already referred to that well-known rule of construction which included the last words in connection with the former; and when they read "indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive," he thought there was no doubt that any tribunal would understand it was "grossly offensive" in the sense in which indecent or obscene were offensive, not offensive to a particular person, but offensive to public morality, to the gene- ral community, and as such the offence would be characterized and dealt with. The words "indecent" and "obscene" were very broad; but he could conceive outrages committed upon the outside of letters or post cards which might not be covered by those words, and would yet be so offensive to public morality and order that they ought not to be permitted. The second objection was as to the extent of the penalty. As the hon. and learned Gentleman would see, the penalty of 12 months was a maximum penalty. As there were offences of this kind which came forward now and then, deliberate offences, offences repeated again and again, it was necessary to have recourse to those rigorous punishments in order to put a stop to them. On these two grounds, he thought the hon. and learned Member would see that they ran no risk, and he could not discredit the Judges of the country so much as to suppose there would be a miscarriage of justice. He did not consider there was any danger, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this statement, and not to press his Amendment

MR. WARTON

said, he was unwilling to press the question too far; but with regard to the rule of interpretation, it might possibly be in the minds of hon. Members that the Lord Chief Justice of England had entirely changed the construction of the law of blasphemy; he had broadly laid it down that offences against Christianity were not offences against the feelings of the people. With regard to this clause, they had the words "indecent and obscene," and he should have thought either word would have clone. They did not know what construction might be placed upon the words "grossly offensive;" and when they found what was supposed to be a safeguard with respect to Christianity watered down to something else, it might also be that some attempt would be made to send a man to prison for 12 months, because he sent upon a letter some theological views that might be offensive to someone else. Though it was perfectly true this was the maximum penalty, the very fact of having it so high was to increase the average severity of the punishment. Twelve months' imprisonment was a very serious matter, and he must really press the Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would point out that the preceding section of the clause which had been passed imposed the same penalty for offences that might appear to be of a much less serious character.

MR. WARTON

said, he had even noticed that; but it did not touch the question of what was grossly offensive—it only touched indecent photographs, and all filthy articles that might be sent through the Post. What he was afraid of was this—that some day they would see an angry contest carried on between two men, that they would abuse one another, call one another scoundrel and liar, and that the main offender, by proceeding by indictment against the other, should have the one who had not offended so greatly as he had done himself imprisoned for 12 months under this clause, whereas he already had his remedy by the law of slander.

Question put, and negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to move the next Amendment?

MR. WARTON

No; the other was consequential upon the first.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Prohibition of fictitious stamps).

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment to this clause, in page 4, line 3, to omit the words "or of any foreign country." This was one of those things he pointed out last night; it was one of the additional clauses in the Bill which showed how Post Office protection had grown. He was not, however, going to make any very serious objection to the clause, which was to prevent any commission of what he would have thought was a legal crime—that of using a used stamp. However, as it was for the object of protecting the Post Office, he did not see the use of the words "or of any foreign country." He did not see why they should protect the stamps of foreign countries. Many people amused themselves by collecting postage stamps, and almost every kind of innocent forgery was practised upon people who were fools enough to go to shops where they thought they could get rare postage stamps. It was a piece of trans- parent tomfoolery, which illustrated the old line— It is greater pleasure to be cheated than to cheat. It really did not interfere with the Post Office in any way, as these stamps could not be used in this country; and he should, therefore, move to omit the words "or of any foreign country."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, to omit the words "or of any foreign country."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. FAWCETT

said, this clause had been carefully considered by the Inland Revenue, and he was sorry his hon. and learned Friend objected to these particular words. If he had had longer Notice upon the point, he would have consulted with the authorities of the Inland Revenue, and have pointed out these words. All he could say was that they were, in some cases, interested in the amount of postage which foreign countries received on letters sent to this country; and, therefore, they were interested in the same protection being given to foreign stamps as they were in protection being given to their own stamps, and that he believed was the reason why the Inland Revenue wished to have this clause, which was carefully considered by the authorities of the Inland Revenue. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Motion.

MR. WARTON

said, by this course of proceeding, the Post Office made their conduct a perfect farce. He did not care twopence for all the clerks; Bills were very badly drawn; and it was their business to consider them with their own common sense. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell him of a single case where anyone had suffered from the use of a fictitious foreign stamp, he would withdraw his Amendment at once; but, in his opinion, it was an utterly impracticable and absurd rule.

MR. FAWCETT

said, the difficulty he was in was this. This Bill, or a similar Bill, had been before the House the whole Session, and he had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to state to him his particular objections; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, he would have carefully considered them; but he had never been able to ascertain what his particular objections were; therefore he could not, upon the spot, answer the particular question which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put to him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him Notice yesterday, he would have made inquiry at the Post Office; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done so, he thought he was more responsible in the matter than he (Mr. Fawcett) was.

MR. WARTON

said, with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he wished—["No, no!"]—yes, he must; the Postmaster General had attacked him in the most friendly way, and he must make a few observations. He thought the scope of the Bill was a monstrosity, and there must be some notion of the sanctity of the Post Office Department. His objection was to the whole Bill; but he wished only to refer to one or two points that struck his mind; and as the Postmaster General could not tell them a single instance that showed any necessity for the provision he must press the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Commission of offences in post office, and obstruction of post office).

MR. WARTON

said, on this clause he proposed to omit all the lines beginning with and including "uses" in line 29, down to and including "office" in line 32, in order to substitute other words. Of all the monstrous provisions this was the most monstrous, for it embraced an immense number of wholly unnecessary matters provided for by the law already. It appeared to be the very quintessence of absurdity. Why it should be so wrong to use these words inside a Post Office he could not see. He quite agreed that people should not be allowed to obstruct an officer of the Post Office, and that there should be a summary conviction; but why should committing a nuisance be worse in a Post Office than anywhere else? By this clause the humblest letter sorter or smallest telegraph boy was invested with special sanctity just as much as the highest officials. That seemed to him most absurd; and he hoped the Postmaster General would alter the clause in the manner he had suggested.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he was most anxious to meet the hon. and learned Member as far as possible; but this Bill was not intended to give the Post Office extra power, but simply to provide certain necessary protection both to the Post Office and to the public. If the business of the Post Office was obstructed and important letters were delayed, the inconvenience was not to the Post Office, but to those who were expecting the letters. Therefore, this was solely in the interest of the public; but he thought he might partially amend the clause as the hon. Member suggested.

MR. COURTNEY

observed, that the work of the Post Office might be obstructed merely by improper conduct, without there being an absolute obstruction of a particular officer. If it would satisfy the hon. and learned Member, he thought the clause might be amended so as to provide that "any person who obstructs an officer of the Post Office while in the execution of his duty," or "who while in the Post Office obstructs," &c, should be liable to penalties.

MR. WARTON

said, that would be quite enough to meet his object.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 30, to omit all the words from the word "uses" down to "obstruct," inclusive, in line 32, in order to insert the words, "obstructs an officer of the Post Office while in the execution of his duty.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Question put, and negatived.

Words omitted accordingly.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Forgery, delay, and improper disclosure of telegrams).

MR. FAWCETT

, in proposing an Amendment, to omit all the words after the word "section" in page 5, line 39, down to "telegraph" in line 43, explained that the Amendment was the result of an arrangement with the Telegraph Companies. The object of the clause was to give security against news sent by foreign telegrams being improperly interfered with, or being stolen. The Telegraph Companies had objected to the proposed control by the Post Office over their telegrams, as at first provided in the clause; and as he had no desire to exercise any unreasonable control over the Companies he had agreed to accept this Amendment, and an amicable arrangement had been come to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 39, omit all the words after "section" in line 39, down to and including "or" in line 43.—(Mr. Fawcett.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARTON

said, he thought it was well that these words should be omitted, for the real spirit of the Bill was a domineering and dictatorial interference with private Companies when there was no right to interfere.

MR. FAWCETT

demurred to the remark of the hon. and learned Member, for the Post Office had no desire to interfere with the Telegraph Companies. The clause had been introduced at the request of several hon. Members, after a recent trial in which it was found that the public had not proper security in regard to news sent from abroad. Therefore, the clause was not introduced through a desire on the part of the Post Office to interfere with the Telegraph Companies.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought this illustrated the dangers of legislation. A trial took place, and then some hon. Members who did not understand the law rushed off to the Postmaster General and induced him to bring in a Bill; and then, when people who knew what they were about, raised objection to the Bill, Amendments were made, and clauses struck out.

Question put, and negatived.

Words omitted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.