§ 11.12 a.m.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
The object of the Amendment is quite clear, if hon. Members take the words in their context. This part of the Bill reads:
and shall be liable on conviction thereof to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years or to imprisonment,My aim is purely friendly. In these days, to lay down in a Statute that for an offence of this kind seven years is the maximum punishment—presumably the maximum—gives a pointer to the courts as to what the sentence should be. I do not think that this kind of offence is such that very heavy penalties should be inflicted upon those who happen to come within the Act. I believe that the word of the average Scotsman is absolutely above suspicion in every way.
§ Mr. McGOVERNI do not go as far as that.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIf the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) or the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) gave me their word on any matter, I would accept it almost in the same way as I would accept the word of anyone in this House. Some people take a very liberal opinion of what a pledge is, but in regard to the people of these Islands, and not less the people North of the Tweed, there is a very strong feeling that once one's word has been given it is as sacred a thing as one can possibly get. In these circumstances, is it necessary to lay down this very heavy penalty in an Act of Parliament? I have spoken to several people on this matter, and the best lawyer I have heard on the subject leads me to think that I am absolutely right. I hope the Amendment will be accepted. At the present time the whole tendency in making laws, although you need to make them penal where necessary, is not to be unduly harsh. I am 1170 not one who believes that you can do everything by soft-soap, yet in these modern times one does not want to extend penalties such as we see them in. other and older Acts, in which a seven-year penalty is prescribed.
Unless there is good reason for this proposal, the House will be well advised to take the view that five years is a sufficient penalty for this offence. If in any circumstances those who are prosecuting have reason to believe that a heavier penalty is necessary, they will in all probability be able to prosecute in some other way. I was a little horrified when saw this proposal, because I have always considered my hon. and gallant Friend a peculiarly kindly person, and I can only conclude that he has been got at to put in this heavy penalty by some iron-handed person like the Lord Advocate, who is a very hard man indeed, unlike the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Lord Advocate is one of those men who is really hard on occasions. At the same time we have the greatest respect for him. He comes here full and overflowing with good intentions, but he puts his foot down outside and says you must make the law hard and strong. The Bill on the whole is an excellent Measure, but if the promoters Is ill meet us on this point, it will gain the general concurrence of the House and, what is more important, the general concurrence of the public outside.
§ 11.18 a.m.
§ Mr. MAXTONI beg to second the Amendment.
This is a somewhat unexpected honour, because I thought there would have been a rush of English Members to support the plea which has been urged by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). My friends. and I argued on this line when the Bill was before the Scottish. Standing Committee, and we had more than one Division in an attempt to modify the penalties. The argument used in Committee to rebut our appeal for a modification of the penalties was that this was not new legislation, but merely codification of the law on the subject, putting it into more convenient form, and that as the penalty for perjury had been seven years therefore it must continue to be so for all time. I do not think that the 1171 hon. Member for Torquay was fair in his description of the Lord Advocate. His attitude on this Bill in Committee was of a very kindly nature, and this matter of the penalties was not dealt with by the Lord Advocate but by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who, I agree, on most matters is a, man of a kindly and generous disposition. But he has that perversity of mind in regard to judicial things which every lawyer, however decent he is at the start, acquires in the course of a life at the Bar, and particularly at the Scottish Bar. He resisted the proposal for more humane treatment; indeed, he waxed tremendously eloquent about a man who went into the witness box and swore away another man's life. He said that he deserved the heavy penalty.
Everyone knows that in actual practice that is not the kind of perjury which takes place in court. The man who goes into the witness box and commits perjury, in 999 cases out of a 1,000, does not do it to swear away a man's life or to take away his liberty, but in order to save a man's life, to get him out of the clutches of the law, which, in my view, is a much more worthy object. If a lie is excusable in any circumstances—and we all know that socially we have to excuse in ourselves and in others slight departures from strict accuracy in statement—I think it is excusable in the case of a man who, seeing a fellow man in difficulties, tries to aid him to escape. I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that you will get the truth in witness-bearing as a result of imposing heavy penalties on those who depart from the truth when under oath. I have not the same over-weening respect for judges and the courts as some hon. and learned Members in this House, but a judge who has sat on the Bench for a considerable time is usually capable of sifting the dishonest witness from the reliable witness, and I do not believe that in more than a small minority of cases is justice deflected from its ordinary course by a judge or jury being taken in by a dishonest witness. The penalty of seven years is altogether without reason as applied to this particular offence, and, indeed, I think that five years is more than is necessary to meet the point.
§ 11.24 a.m.
Lieut.-Colonel C. G MacANDREWI am somewhat disappointed at the criticisms which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has made in regard to those who are associated with the Scottish Bar. In regard to the Amendment, to reduce the penalty from seven years to five years is not a question of kindness. The charge can be dealt with under the Common Law and the maximum would not be imposed in every case. Therefore, I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI thank my hon. and gallant Friend for accepting the Amendment. If I said anything which has offended him I hope he will forgive me. It was quite unintentional.
§ Amendment agreed to.