§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)appealed to the House to pass the Third Reading of the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool had brought the Bill to this stage, and it was supported by three leaders of Parties in this House. When it had reached the Committee stage the Government intervened and adopted the Bill, because they thought that a serious injustice wm entailed upon composers as the law now stood. It had been said that they had intervened because of the action taken by large; firms. All he could say was that that was not so in his case. For some two years he had felt that grave hardship had been imposed, not upon large and influential firms who were well able to take care of themselves, but upon the composers of songs, especially composers of the best songs, who had been very unfairly dealt with. He might be carried away because of some interest on his part in the musical profession and in the art of music. He must confers that in regard to the Members who offered opposition to this Bill he had not observed that any of them were connected with the musical profession, or, gifted as they were in other respects, endowed with musical talents. It seemed to him that, as he was to some extent associated with the musical profession for many years, he had a particular interest in this question. As the Government had only intervened in support of the Bill at a late stage it was obvious that they were not responsible for the original drafting of the measure. As a matter of fact, they did not intervene until the session was drawing to a close and until the Bill had reached the Committee stage. The Government had considered the matter and were prepared to meet the objections of some of his hon. friends below the Gangway who said that the Bill would have a very drastic effect if it was passed in its present form. He thought his hon. friend in charge of the Bill would not only admit that his Amendments were satisfactory to those hon. Gentlemen, but also recognise their perfect sincerity of purpose in object- 858 ing to certain portions of the Bill, and in pointing out certain dangers which might attend the passing of some of its provisions. The Government were prepared to meet the desires and wishes of hon. Members who had put forward reasonable objections to the Bill. They had therefore drawn up Amendments which they had submitted to hon. Gentlemen who had taken a leading part in criticising the Bill. He understood that all the hon. Members were favourably disposed towards those Amendments. They had amended the Bill so that there should be no imprisonment for a first offence. They had also provided that the printer, as well as the hawker, should be liable, and they had limited the power of arrest without warrant. The proposals which they should bring forward in another place were first of all that no proceedings were to be taken in respect of any offence committed before the music was registered at Stationers' Hall, whether the music was published in England or abroad. In the second place, they would propose that no arrest was to be made without the authority of the owner of the copyright, who should give the titles of the copyright works in regard to which infringement was complained of, the particulars being addressed to the chief police inspector of the district. Then to meet the point that a hawker might innocently purchase pirated copyrighted music he proposed another Amendment. The Bill provided that the hawker should prove his innocence, and if he did so he should escape any penalty, and the point of their third proposal was that if no conclusive proof could be adduced either way, and that might happen occasionally or even frequently, the hawker, if it was his first offence, would not be liable to any penalty. The effect of the Amendment would be where there was the printer's and publisher's name upon the music to throw the onus of proof upon the prosecutor. The fourth Amendment was that there should be an appeal to Quarter Sessions. He hoped these Amendments would satisfy hon. Members who opposed the Bill, and that they would now allow it to go through.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
859§ *MR. J. D. WHITE (Dumbartonshire)said his opposition to this Bill as it stood was based not on a knowledge of music but on a desire to safeguard the liberties of innocent people. He was opposed to musical piracy as much as anyone, but he held that such new and drastic provisions should be qualified by proper safeguards. He considered that no proceedings should be taken unless the piece of music upon which the prosecution was founded had been registered before the commission of the alleged offence. In the case of music which had first been printed abroad in a country not within the international conventions no copyright could be subsequently obtained here, and yet he had boon informed that in some such cases there had been what was really a bogus claim to copyright. His principal objections to the measure as it stood had been substantially met by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and he would only suggest that proper facilities should be given to the public to consult the list of prohibited music. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would not move the Motion standing in his name, but at the same time he expressed no opinion as to how these Amendments would read when put into the Bill, and reserved the right of subsequent criticism.
§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)said he had no objection to the Bill itself as a whole. He only opposed the one portion which said that a man must be considered guilty unless he could prove his innocence. That clause ought to be taken out altogether. No Government ought to put into a British Act of Parliament such a clause as that. He expressed the hope that in another place they would take a more enlightened view and delete the clause. If the Government once adopted this retrograde and un-British legislation, and put objectionable clauses of this character into Acts of Parliament, they were bound to come to grief.
§ *MR. BYLES (Salford)said that when the Bill first came before the House it was said that there was no objection to it, that in fact everybody was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman deserved no credit for the Amendments he 860 had moved, and he (Mr. Byles) was willing to let the Bill go through as it was being satisfied that these Amendments had been put in. Those who opposed the Bill, however, were entitled to the credit, and they had been subjected to a good deal of obloquy in the matter. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had several times said, in trying to get it through, that the Bill was agreed to on all sides. After the critics of the measure had exposed the weakness and mischief that lurked in it men began to read the Bill, and the divisions disclosed the fact that many eminent laywers and old and respected Members of the House were of their way of thinking. He considered that that result and the Amendments made by the Government were a complete justification for their opposition. He was glad to think that the Bill would become law in a condition far less objectionable than when first introduced, though it was not satisfactory even now. He only hoped the Government would take care to induce the Upper House to insert the promised Amendments.
§ MR. LUPTONthanked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for having granted some of the Amendments asked for. He desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to the list that the publisher had to send to the police stating the music which was not to be sold by "pirates." He believed it was under-stood that a copy of that list was to be supplied to any member of the public who applied for it.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he should not like to give a definite opinion on the point. He confessed he saw at present no objection to what the hon. Gentleman said, but he would give further consideration to the matter.