§ (1) Any person who, or the directors of any body or association corporate which, before or during any municipal election, shall, for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at such election, make or publish any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of such candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the provisions of the Municipal Elec- 723 tions (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, and shall be subject to all the penalties for and consequences of committing an illegal practice in the said Act mentioned, and the said Act shall be taken to be amended as if the illegal practice defined by this Act had been contained therein.
§ (2) No person shall be deemed to be guilty of such illegal practice if he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement made by him to be true.
§ (3) Any person who shall make or publish any false statement of fact as aforesaid may be restrained by interim or perpetual injunction by the High Court of Justice from any repetition of such false statement or any false statement of a similar character in relation to such candidate, and for the purpose of granting an interim injunction prima facie proof of the falsity of the statement shall be sufficient.
§ (4) A candidate shall not be liable nor shall be subject to any incapacity, nor shall his election be avoided, for any illegal practice under this Act committed by his agent, unless it can be shown that the candidate has authorised or consented to the committing of such illegal practice, or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice, or unless upon the hearing of an election petition the election court shall find and report that the election of such candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements.
§ Sir EDWARD CARLILEI beg to move to omit Sub-section (2).
The Sub-section seems to me to be open to all kinds of objections. A man has to show "reasonable grounds." What would appear perfectly reasonable to one man would be unreasonable to another. Then as to believing a statement to be true, there are persons, especially at election times, whose credulity is marvellously developed, and they will believe all sorts of things, particularly those that are to the detriment of their friends and neighbours. I do not want to oppose the Bill; I merely wish to know how the promoters expect this Sub-section to work satisfactorily. In any case, the deletion of this Sub-section would not interfere with the working of the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am not in any way against the Bill. On the contrary, on the whole it is a very good one, and it is only with a view to improving it that I rise to 724 second this Amendment. This is a Bill that passed through the House without discussion on Second Heading and was referred to a Standing Committee. These Standing Committees are often very sparsely attended, and Bills, especially of this sort, are hurried through without duo consideration. This particular Sub-section, if allowed to remain, would be very detrimental to the Bill and to the object it a promoters have at heart. That object, I presume, is to prevent false statements being made about candidates at municipal elections, just as they are not forbidden by law at Parliamentary elections. With that object everybody will agree; but why does my hon. and gallant Friend the promoter of the Bill injure the prospect of attaining that object by inserting this Sub-section?
One knows perfectly well that at an election some one comes to you and says: "I believe your opponent is a curious sort of person. I understand that he did such and such things on such and such an occasion." Supposing I am standing for a municipal election, and a friend in whom I have every confidence, having known him for a considerable time, comes to me and says: "I believe your opponent did a dishonourable act by doing so and so some years ago." I ask for proof. My friend replies that he has not got proof handy, and cannot get it for the moment, but ho adds: "I believe I am perfectly correct in saying that the thing took place." I repeat that statement on the public platform, and it turns out that my informant is incorrect; that the statement refers to some other person and not my opponent. Everyone here knows that such mistakes do arise, not infrequently, accidentally, and without any vicious purpose or intention. But my opponent has been damaged by the statement made on the platform, and, possibly by it he may have lost a certain number of votes. It is not very consoling to him when he looks at this Act—if it becomes an Act—to find if he brings an action against me that I can get out of it on the plea that I had reasonable ground for the belief that I made the statement believing it to be true. In the first place, I do no know how anybody can prove in a court of law what a man did or did not believe. It is absolutely impossible. I say I believe the statement I have made because my informant was a responsible person who was not in the habit of making off hand statements without having investigated them.
725 Suppose that this sub-section is left out will the Bill, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, be injured? The Bill will be strengthened. If this sub-section is left out the Act will reach those rather hard cases where a Member without due care and investigation has made a statement concerning the honour or probity of his opponent. But that is exactly what the Bill is intended to do—to prevent all these statements made in the heat of an election without due care being taken. Everyone in this House has probably fought two or three elections. We know perfectly well that in the heat of an election—human nature being what it is—we are rather inclined to view with favour any statement brought before us that reflects upon our opponent. In ordinary times we should require very careful investigation before we accepted a statement as correct. At election times there is very little time to make inquiry—especially at municipal elections, which do not occupy so lengthened a period as Parliamentary elections. Without being particularly unscrupulous, a great number of people in the heat of an election will say concerning the statement of an occurrence: "I think that is very likely to have taken place, and I believe my information to be correct. I have very little time to verify it, and I shall not be injured by this Bill, because I can say that I had reasonable ground for believing what I repeated." Under these circumstances I really do hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will consent to the omission of this Sub-section, otherwise I think we shall have to divide the House upon it. It is really very important, for if the Sub-section is not left out it renders the Bill practically useless.
§ Captain JESSELOn behalf of the promoters of the Bill perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the action taken by my hon. and learned Friend behind me, and the hon. Baronet, is due to over kindness on our part, because the Bill as originally printed was simply legislation by reference. Our object was not to go into legal controversy about the merits of the original Act of Parliament that provides for such cases as these, but to adapt existing machinery to municipal elections. In 1895 Parliament passed an Act providing certain penalties for false statements of fact in regard to Parliamentary candidates. In the original Act that we put before the House we simply by one Clause made that 'Act applicable to municipal elections. 726 When we came before the Standing Committee upstairs an hon. Member opposite moved an Amendment asking the promoters to set forth in detail the whole of the Act which we wanted to put into force. That was a perfectly reasonable proposition. The original Act is not a very long one, and, on the advice of the Attorney-General, who was present, I suppose, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, we acceded to that view, and the whole of the Act of 1895 was printed. That was the only Amendment passed in Committee upstairs. Owing to our kindness, we have given the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Baronet, who is quite unaware of the Clauses in the original Act—
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not a member of the Committee, so I cannot say what took place there. If this Bill had not come down unaltered I should have read the whole of the 1884 Act.
§ Captain JESSELAt all events we made it easier for our opponents to criticise our measure. It is not for me to resent that in any way, for it is quite allowable, but I doubt very much whether so much attention would have been drawn to this particular Sub-section had it not been for the very reasonable attitude taken by us upstairs. For if there is anything more distressing than another it is for those unacquainted with legal subjects to have to wade through Acts of Parliament in legislation by reference. This Bill applies to those wishful for municipal honours— laymen for the most part, and who have not got money to pay vast fees to the legal profession—so that they may know exactly for what they are liable and what will happen to them. As regards the particular Sub-section to which objection has been taken, it seems to me that this Act, applying that applicable to candidates for Parliamentary honours to municipal candidates, conforms to the Act of 1884. If we leave out the Sub-section it will make the law too drastic; you condemn the man absolutely, and do not give him a fair trial at all. No doubt this matter was fully discussed in 1884. Personally I may have no objection to the omission of the Sub-section, but I think those responsible for the Bill and the legal advisers of the Government might justly be entitled to say, "We looked into this matter upstairs, and passed the Bill, and now the promoters are allowing this Sub-section to be omitted 727 simply to get their Bill through." I do not think that would be playing the game in any way. If Sub-section (2), which the Amendment proposes should be omitted, were annulled, it would make the Bill too drastic. After all, what is good enough for candidates for Parliament ought to be good enough for candidates at municipal elections. It seems to me to be too big a matter to upset the general law in a small Bill of this kind. We are all agreed upon the necessity of this Bill, and I think it would not be at all proper on behalf of the promoters if I consented to the deletion of this Sub-section.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELI strongly opposed this Bill when it came before the Standing Committee upstairs, at first on the ground that it was simply a Bill of legislation by reference, and on the ground that if it became an Act of Parliament a municipal candidate, to understand it would have to search through three Acts of Parliament, and it was upon my suggestion that the Sections of the 1895 Act were embodied in this Bill. It is in consequence of the fact that that Act is now embodied in this Bill that the hon. Baronet is able to call attention to this particular Clause. I appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press the matter to a Division for this reason. The Act of 1895 applies to candidates for Parliament.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Act of 1884.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELNo, no. The Act of 1884 is simply referred to as reference; it is the Act of 1895 which is embodied in this Bill and that was passed by the Conservative Government sixteen years ago; it has applied to Parliamentary candidates ever since, and everybody knows it is an excellent protection to Parliamentary candidates. What is the intention of the promoters of this Bill? It is simply to embody the whole of the Sections of the Act of 1895 and apply them to municipal elections so that false statements cannot be circulated about a candidate without his having the right to take an action at law to vindicate himself. I think that is a very proper protection for municipal candidates. The Bill is now a perfectly understandable one. The hon. Baronet was a Member of the House when the Act of 1895 was passed. So was I. And that Act has worked fairly as between all candidates at Parliamentary elections ever since. The Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government and the promoters of 728 the Bill, assented to the embodiment of these Sections in this Bill, after which it was passed with unanimous assent by the Committee.
§ Dr. HILLIERI think there can be no doubt but that the omission of Sub-section (2) would have the effect of making this Bill a very much more drastic measure man at present. Members in all parts of the House will sympathise with the principle embodied in the Bill which is to make an illegal practice what undoubtedly is one of the most objectionable and offensive features of elections. We all know from experience how readily supporters of various candidates at elections allow themselves to indulge in personal attacks of all sorts and descriptions. I entirely agree with the principle here set forth, that this is just as offensive and objectionable, and should just as well become an illegal practice at municipal elections as in Parliamentary elections. It seems to me if we omit Sub-section (2) we shall be enacting a Bill which provides a more drastic remedy for this offence at municipal elections than exists at Parliamentary elections. It would be something achieved to make this defamation of character, even when it is done deliberately and with malice, an offence during a municipal election, but to go further, by the omission of this Clause, would, I think, be going too far. At the same time, I have this amount of sympathy with the Amendment, that I should not mind, personally, if the class of offence contemplated in Clause 2 should be made the subject of some special penalty. In view of the whole question, and in light of the views I have set forth, I think it is fair to come to the conclusion that it would be wiser to maintain this Clause than to delete it.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)I have a very poor opinion of this Bill because the House will see it recognises the right of a candidate at municipal elections to make reference to the personal character and conduct of his opponent, and only proposes to declare it to be an illegal practice if the statement is proved to be false and if the person making it cannot show he had a reasonable ground for believing it and did believe it. If this Bill said it was an illegal practice for any candidate to make any reference, true or false, to the personal character or conduct of his opponent, I would give the Bill my most enthusiastic support. That is no new expression of opinion of mine. I have never 729 in any election taken the smallest notice of my opponent; I have never made any reference even to his existence. The Bill is before us, and I understand that the House is inclined to pass it. I would, however, counsel the House if we are going to pass this measure to keep it exactly on the same lines as the Parliamentary Elections Bill. There will be no difficulty in establishing a defence under such a Section as this. Everything depends upon the strength of the "reasonable grounds" which the person brings forward for believing the statement made by him to be true. It is just possible that there may be reasonable grounds for believing a statement and yet it may be shown that the man did not believe it. It is important to keep in the words "and did believe," otherwise even though reasonable grounds were shown he would nevertheless be entitled to escape. Therefore I would strongly counsel the House if this Bill is going to be adopted to pass it exactly in the form we find it.
Captain CRAIGThe course which has been suggested by the Lord Advocate takes a very long time, and very often months elapse before the case comes to the Court, and this causes great inconvenience to both sides. The alteration proposed makes it exactly on the lines of Parliamentary elections, and for cases of that sort it is a speedier remedy. I do not see that the Lord Advocate is quite right in suggesting that the promoters and supporters of this Bill are giving any official sanction to do a thing which they think wrong. All it does is to alter the law with regard to the penalties attached to those who do the wrong thing. I should not support the Bill if I thought I was in the slightest degree doing anything in the direction of giving official sanction to do a wrong thing. I appeal to my two hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, because I think the Bill would work extremely harshly if Sub-section (2) was not allowed to remain, in order to amplify Subsection (1). Some of the penalties under the Act of 1884 are extremely heavy, and if these penalties are to be exacted surely common sense would suggest to my two hon. Friends that if it can be proved that a man has made a statement conscientiously believing it to be true then he ought not to be deemed to be guilty of an illegal practice.
The cause for which one is fighting is all that is necessary, but at the same time it sometimes does arise that one candidate 730 answers another. Something is said, and with all deference you may say your opponent has cast aspersions on one's honesty in favour of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, and then, perhaps, a cross-fire may ensue between the two parties which may lead to quotations from newspapers and pamphlets, which gets hotter until the words which may be complained of are uttered. On such occasions one has not got sufficient time or opportunity to verify all the statements made. It sometimes happens that a quotation from a speech made by a person in Scotland is copied into one of the London papers and re-copied into a paper in some other part of the country, and by this process of transferring and re-transferring the original words may appear quite differently to what the speaker originally said. In such circumstances a man might easily place a wrong interpretation on what was actually said, and it might be held to be an offence under this Bill. In that case one would hold that the man had reasonable grounds for believing the statement, and without Sub-section (2) there is no relief for the man, because he has committed the offence mentioned in Sub-section (1). I do not believe that there is any case on record of harshness having occurred in Parliamentary elections, and I do not see why my two hon. Friends anticipate that there will be any harshness with regard to municipal elections when the Bill becomes law.
I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should be full of thankfulness to the promoters of this Bill for the action they took in setting this Subsection out in full. Had this Section been simply legislation by reference the hon. Baronet would have been the first person to complain, and he would probably have said that in cases of this sort in order to simplify legislation it would have been quite easy to have copied the two Subsections which appear in the Act of 1895. I have turned the latter Act up, and I find that it is word for word the same as this proposal in the Municipal Elections Act. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Baronet ought to conspire with his hon. Friend to withdraw their opposition to this Sub-section.
§ Mr. BOOTHI will not follow the Lord Advocate in that portion of his speech which would have been in better order on the Third Reading. I will wait until the proper opportunity comes to deal with it. I was very keenly interested in his suggestion that because something was in. a previous Act of Parliament we should 731 repeat the same here. That is one of those high and dry Tory arguments which occasionally escape from the mouths of the occupants of the Front Bench. It does not seem to me to be in the slightest degree in its favour. It is most difficult to obtain a quorum in a Standing Committee, and they scamp through their work. Then, as the hon. Baronet said, the Bill comes here on a Friday afternoon, and no one pays any particular attention to it, and it creeps through. The Lord Advocate quotes a Bill which passes in that way as a precedent, but it is an appeal which will not find mush response in me. I have no confidence in the way the Grand Committee considered this Bill. I think it would have been much better if the Bill had been debated on the floor of this House. The Lord Advocate seems to think this particular Sub-section, to some extent, weakens the first Clause, and I gather the same view is held by hon. Members opposite. If he considers the Bill a bad Bill, I suppose he wants this Subsection to remain because it weakens it. I oppose it because it contains a phrase, "deemed to be guilty," which I will never pass without protest. We all know in that dreadful Copyright Bill, which is pursuing a second existence somewhere else, that phrase occurred. People are either proved guilty or they should be let off. We keep getting this phrase in Acts of Parliament about people being deemed to be guilty unless they do something or other, and because of that phrase alone I shall vote against the Sub-section, as I shall vote against any clause containing it.
§ Sir EDWARD CARLILEThe speech of the Lord Advocate came very much as a surprise. First of all, he spoke in the strongest terms of reprobation of any one who would commit the action referred to in the Bill, and then he proposed the reinsertion of the Sub-section which I moved to delete. That seems to me a very curious and inconsistent attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to take up. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel) has made out a very good case for this Sub-section, and I feel grateful to him for the various explanations that have been made. I must say the speech of the Lord Advocate would very much make one disposed to persist in the Motion now before the House, but I think some ground has been made out for the retention of the Sub-section, and, under these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to omit Sub-section(4).
I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jonathan Samuel) and to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel) for having taken the excellent course of putting the whole of the 1895 Act into the Bill, and avoiding legislation by reference. I think it is an extremely good practice and I hope this will be a precedent and that in future, other hon. Members who have Bills will follow the same course. I always look up the old Acts, so that it does not make any difference to me, but other hon. Members do not take the trouble, and it makes the Bill very much clearer to the outside public and to people who are desirous of taking an Act of Parliament and finding out what it really does do, Sub-section (4) says:—
"(4) A candidate shall not be liable nor shall be subject to any incapacity, nor shall his election be avoided, for any illegal practice under this Act committed by his agent, unless it can be shown that the candidate has authorised or consented to the committing of such illegal practice, or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice, or unless upon the hearing of an election petition the election court shall find and report that the election of such candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements."
It is perfectly true Sub-section (4) appears in the Act of 1895. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that Act was passed in 1895 by a Conservative Government. It was passed on 6th July by a Radical Government. There was an election in July, 1895, and this Act was passed two or three days before the Dissolution, and when the Government, presided over by Lord Rosebery, was still in power. The hon. Member was, therefore, mistaken when he said it was an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government. It was passed in a hurry at a moment when a Dissolution was about to take place, and consequently it is quite possible it may require amendment. It is not really a proper line to take up to say that this Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament passed sixteen years ago, and it is impossible to amend it. In all probability, now the Act of 1895 is in working order certain Amendments ought to be made to make it compatible with the feeling of the times and to secure 733 the easy working of the Act. My hon. and gallant Friend apparently advances it as one of the reasons for not consenting to the former Amendment that the Bill had been considered in a Standing Committee, and it would be a slight on that Committee if he accepted any Amendment. I hope he is not going to advance that as an argument against this Amendment. He has misconceived the purpose of a Standing Committee. A Standing Committee is not like a Private Bill Committee, to which the House has delegated its functions and which hears evidence. A Standing Committee is merely a Committee of this House sitting upstairs for the purpose of expediting business, and it has never been held that this House may not, with perfect propriety, make Amendments in a Bill which has come down to it from a Standing Committee. It is no slight to a Standing Committee to make an Amendment to a Bill in the House. In fact, so many Standing Committees were appointed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that he actually gave power to a Member to speak as many times as he liked on the Report stage if he proposed an Amendment, because, he said, there were certain reasons for supposing that otherwise the Standing Committees would take power away from the House of Commons, and he did not wish to do that. Therefore he altered the old custom which used to prevail on the Report stage by allowing Members who proposed Amendments to make as many speeches as they liked on that stage. It seems to me that this is a very bad Clause, because there can be nothing easier for a man to circulate statements about an opponent which he knew to be false. He might determine to circulate the statements, but would say to himself: "I have looked at the Municipal Elections Act, and I find that I shall have to show under Sub-section (2) that I have reasonable ground for supposing and believing the statements to be correct. I am quite certain no lawyer would be able to convince an ordinary jury that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements were true. What am I to do? I will go to my agent and say to him: 'I have been told that certain rumours about my opponent have been circulated. Do not you circulate them. 'The agent would reply: 'Very well.' Then I would say: 'Now be very careful that you do not. I shall be very annoyed if you do.' Then I might wink, and if the agent were a sharp man he would say to himself: 'That is the way the 734 wind blows,' and he would promptly cause the rumours to be circulated. When they had been circulated and my opponent had lost his election he would bring a charge against me and my agent, and my prompt reply would be: 'I actually told my agent he was not to circulate these things.'" I say it is evident that this Clause is absolutely useless, and instead of assisting in the prevention of the circulation of false statements at municipal elections the result of it will be that it will aid an unscrupulous candidate, if he has an unscrupulous agent, to circulate false statements about his opponent.
§ Captain JESSELI think the hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension as to what I said when I defended the retention of Sub-section (2). I am not quite so ignorant of Parliamentary methods, nor have I been such a slight time a Member of the House of Commons as not to know that it is possible for the House itself to revise the proceedings of Standing Committees upstairs. We had on the Committee dealing with this Bill the help of the Attorney-General. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to-day. Still I am glad to see the Lord Advocate in his place. I say it would be better to leave the original Bill as it stands than to amend it in any shape or form, and I have, in support of that, an even greater authority in the legal hierarchy than the Attorney-General.
2.0 P.M.
This Bill came before the House of Lords for the Second Reading on 16th September, 1909, and this is how the present Lord Chancellor spoke about it. He said:—
My Lords I think this Bill is a most excellent proposal. The Corrupt Practices Act is confined to Parliamentary elections, and the purpose of it is to prevent cowardly and mean statements about the personal character of, or personally about, the candidate at any time during an election. Conduct of that kind is not common, I am glad to pay, in this country; but cases not infrequently occurred, and the worst of it was that these lies were circulated just before the poll and when there was no opportunity for contradiction. The Act was passed when I was a Member of the House of Commons, and there was a general feeling that mean conduct of that kind ought to be promptly stopped, and the Act was passed for that purpose, its effect has been admirable in connection with Parliamentary elections, and there seems no reason why it should not be extended to municipal elections.I submit, with all due deference to the legal knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London this opinion of the present Lord Chancellor, who, I believe, was Solicitor-General in 1895, and who twelve years afterwards, 735 when the question comes forward in the House of Lords, supports the Bill. I think we shall be acting under very good advice when we leave well alone and adapt the phraseology of this Bill relating to Parliamentary elections to municipal elections. The present Lord Chancellor (Lord Lore-burn) stated that the Corrupt Practices Act of 1895 worked well as regards this particular question, and, I take it, with regard to the Sub-section to which my hon. Friend has referred, that the reasons for its insertion were the same as those for the insertion of the other Sub-section. It was not desired to make the Bill too drastic. I should like to point out that the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act which was passed in 1895 was brought in to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883. It was not, therefore, an original Act: it was an amending Act. This Sub-section of which complaint is made is to be found in extenso in the Act of 1895. I submit that there must have been some good reason in 1895 for inserting that Sub-section after twelve years' experience of its working in the Act of 1883. Under these circumstances, with the blessing of so distinguished a legal authority as the present Lord Chancellor, and also in view of the fact that this Sub-section was only added after twelve years' experience of its working. I submit that the House will be serving? no useful purpose in now striking it out. I therefore hope the hon. Baronet will think fit under the circumstances, to withdraw his opposition to it.
§ Mr. UREI beg to ask the House to retain Sub-section (4) on the same ground that I asked it to retain Sub-section (2) and that is that it is essential to the justice of this Bill. The House will observe that this is a purely personal matter. It is a personal charge made by a man who may not know that it is untrue or who may believe it to be true against another man in regard to personal character and conduct. The better the House realises that surely it must be. more plain that a man ought not to be held liable for a statement of that kind made by anybody except himself unless it can be shown that he authorised it to be made by someone else. It seems to me that the cases dealt with by this Clause are fit subjects for an action for slander, and a man ought not to be liable for the act of anybody else in that regard, because it is purely a personal offence that he is 736 charged with. Also I would observe that in the concluding part of the Sub-section, if the result of the election is affected, the provision is carefully safeguarded, and if it can be shown that this personal statement, although the candidate is not connected with it, did affect the election, then it is to be declared an illegal practice. That surely protects the rights of the electors, and is all we can do to prevent false statements influencing an election. I ask the House therefore to pass the Bill with this Sub-section.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy hon. Friend who spoke a short while ago said that the present Lord Chancellor approves of this Bill, but I do not think that the mere approval of the Lord Chancellor prevents us from forming or expressing an opinion which may not coincide with that of the Noble and learned Lord. The Lord Chancellor may have expressed approval of this Bill because, as he says, it extends to municipal elections the same legislation which was in 1895 extended to Parliamentary elections. I think we are all agreed upon that; but the question is whether when we are discussing that question we may not be able to improve upon the Act of 1895, and my own opinion is that by the deletion of this Clause we shall be improving upon that Act. The Lord Advocate says it would be rather hard to make a candidate responsible for the act of some other person. But may I point out to the Lord Advocate that I presume under the Act of 1884 the candidate is liable for the act of his agent. Only a few days ago a gentleman was unseated at North West Ham solely on the ground that he was liable for the act of his agent, and the judges I think actually said that it was clear that he knew nothing about the act of the agent, and had not authorised it. He was unseated all the same, and I do not see, therefore, why it should be said that a man is not to be responsible for the act of his agent. It seems to me that the proper course for us to have taken would have been to have omitted this particular Subsection, and also the other Sub-section, and then to have brought in a short amending Bill amending the Act of 1895, so as to apply it to municipal elections. However, that was not done, and as there are not many hon. Members in the House, and the House does not seem to take much interest in the question, I do not think I will go to a Division. I think, however, that the Bill requires amendment if it is to be really a satisfactory one. Of course, municipal 737 elections are not so important as Parliamentary elections, and possibly there may not be so many facilities and the desire to circulate false statements may not be so great at municipal as at Parliamentary elections. I am told that the candidates do not have agents, and that may make a difference. [Mr. BOOTH: "They do have agents."] I should have thought an agent was necessary, but however that may be, I think it would be wise to amend this Bill. I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether there have been many cases under the 1895 Act in Scotland, because I believe that there have of late years been in this country several cases about slanderous statements being made. As far as I recollect I do not remember many actions taken under the 1895 Act in Scotland.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am not sure that I know much about Scotland, but the very best thing in this country is not to say anything against your opponent. But be that as it may, it does not seem to me that the Act of 1895 was of very much use. I am, however, in favour of the Act as it is, though I should have liked to have made this Bill a better one; but, under the circumstances, I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division. Therefore I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Mr. BOOTHI wish, on the Third Reading of the Bill, to refer to the fact that it makes no clear distinction between attacks of a personal character and those of a political character. I should not care how severe the penalties were when a man was traducing private character, because that not merely has the effect that it may do harm in itself, but it brings pain and suffering into a man's home, and if he is of a sensitive nature he is debarred from giving an answer to it. In political matters, however, it is different, and, in fact, I think, provided it is done at the beginning of an election, any political slander or misrepresentation influences votes in favour of the victim. Therefore he does not need the aid of the law to protect him. I know some Members of this House who are old campaigners, and none of us would complain of any attack which was 738 made if we had ample notice of it, and if we had several days before the polling in which to answer it. I should only be too thankful myself if attacks upon me were confined to political attacks or even political misrepresentations. That is the fault I find with the Bill. It rather mixes up the two things and it treats a political slander very much as if it were a personal slander, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. I have a very strong objection to Bills being moved on a Friday by hon. Gentlemen who immediately run away to some close confine of this House, and I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Jessel) return to his place.
§ Captain JESSELI hope the hon. Member will not be offensive. I meant no disrespect to him.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am only saying that frequently an hon. Member has moved a Bill on a Friday and immediately vanished. I am complimenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having come back. I am expressing my appreciation of his kindness. This is not a Bill which is very kind, it is a Bill to deal with severe things; there is nothing mealymouthed about the Bill, and it is not to deal with mealy-mouthed people. There never was a more disgraceful municipal election in the country than that in which our walls were disfigured by placards about wastrels. I have no doubt that by now the Moderate Party are ashamed of their name, and call themselves Municipal Reformers, and are also ashamed of that episode in their career. If there was a justification wanted for this Bill, it was furnished by their conduct on this occasion. I was a passive spectator but I was disgusted to see these Tammany methods introduced into this country and I am delighted beyond measure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stands here in the white sheet of repentance and makes such conduct impossible for the future. Therefore on that account I rejoice to see him in his place. Why was it that the word "wastrel" became so prominent, because it has not hitherto been used in a political sense? It was because it had a tinge of a personal attack and because many people in the back streets of this country interpreted the word to mean that some Progressive leaders were lining their pockets. I do not think that was the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he knows very well that that was the effect of his placards. This was a slang word, they seized it 739 from the filth of the gutter, they gave it prominence in the great London Press, and upon all the walls; and I am not at all surprised that now, after they have had two Sessions of power—one of real power and one of temporary accidental power—they want to rehabilitate themselves before the House and the country. I welcome their endeavour to whitewash their career, but I hope it will be a warning to all politicians in any contested election to keep to the regular phrases of our good old English language. I consider that the introduction of words which have an. offensive personal meaning, as well as a possible political application, are to be deprecated. I take this as a public sign, and I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with me, and is now making public his intention that such a proceeding will be impossible on behalf of his own party in any future election in London. Solely from that standpoint, because the Moderates of London at that election brought disgrace upon the Metropolis and made a Bill like this absolutely indispensable, I will vote for the Bill.
§ Captain JESSELI do not think I have a reputation for running away either in this House or anywhere else, but the hon. Gentleman may acquit me of any discourtesy towards him when I tell him I went out for a moment to consult with one of the promoters of the Bill who sits on his side of the House, and is a colleague of my own (Mr. Dickinson), who is perhaps just as prominent in London municipal politics as some of those whom the hon. Member denounces on the Municipal Reform side.
§ Captain JESSELThat is the reason I went for a moment, not to spare myself hearing the hon. Member's remarks, but for the purpose of consultation. The hon. Member says I have brought in this Bill because I had some cause for repentance for our attitude in two municipal elections. I suppose it is a good thing that different motives move different persons. I had not the slightest intention of standing in the white sheet of penitence when I took charge of the Bill. I am not at all repentant for what has happened in the last six years in London. I rejoice at the result.
§ Captain JESSELThey would have been a great deal more if the hon. Member's party had been in power. I do not wish to indulge the House in a question of municipal politics in London because this applies to the whole country, but the reason why my friends on this side of the House were asked to take an interest in the matter was because we had frequent appeals from candidates who wanted to stand for municipal elections, and who were deterred from standing because they feared attacks, which they could not easily repel, upon their personal character. Grocers came forward and said they were accused, and it did them harm, of sanding sugar and putting dust into tea. A milkman said on various occasions he was accused of making his milk a little blue, and a butcher who might be standing said reports might be put about that meat labelled "best English beef" really came from abroad. It was to meet cases of this kind that we brought forward this Bill, so as to enable the best possible candidates to stand on either side without being openly charged in this way. As regards the interpretation which my hon. Friend put upon the word "wastrel," it is absolutely new to me. It only shows how different things seem different to other friends of mine. This Bill is supported by the hon. Member (Mr. Dickinson) and by another prominent Member of the House and of the London County Council (Mr. Arthur Allen), the hon. Member (Mr. Harris), and, last but not least, the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson). When so many different shades of opinion are represented on the back of the Bill, people who are well acquainted with municipal politics, I think there must be some justification for it. In 1907 this Bill was introduced by Mr. Cleland, who is no longer a Member of the House, and again in 1908, and it passed the House of Lords on several occasions. It would be ill-advised on our part to attempt to alter the existing Parliamentary law, though that might be improved upon, while we wish to get that same protection in municipal matters. For these reasons I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.