HC Deb 09 November 1916 vol 87 cc466-7

This Act shall not apply where proceedings have been instituted before the passing of this Act.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. KING

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

This is a matter which was brought up in discussion when the Bill was in Committee, and I think it had very general support.

Mr. MOLTENO

I beg to second the Motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith)

The hon. Member has stated his recollection that when this matter was being considered on the Committee stage the Clause which he now moves had very considerable support. I do not know whether he was here or not, but my recollection is precisely in a contrary sense. It is that it was supported momentarily by the hon. Member who introduced it, but that he assented at once to the reasons which were stated against it, and the proposal was withdrawn. I cannot believe that if the hon. Member had been present when the Amendment was considered in Committee he would have thought it worth while to put it down at this stage of the Bill. The answer to it is a very short one. The hon. Member proposes in effect that the increased penalties under this Bill shall not apply where proceedings have been instituted before the passing of the Act; in other words, that if anyone has been guilty of the kind of corruption that is dealt with in this Bill he shall enjoy the advantage that if he is convicted after it becomes law he shall only be punished by the penalties which were possible under the old law. I am unable to see by what argument such mitigation can be recommended to the House. It can only be on the hypothesis that there is some kind of implied contract between the criminal and society that the penalties shall not be increased as against the criminal from the date at which the offence was committed. Either these penalties are proper penalties or they are excessive penalties. The opinion of the House, and I believe of the community generally, is that the penalties proposed to be substituted are proper and not excessive penalties, and if that is true there can be no conceivable reason why persons who commit this kind of offence should enjoy such an advantage.

Question put, and negatived.