§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, this Bill, which passed the other House and came to your Lordships' House, having for its object punishing the giving or accepting bribes for the purpose of influencing the action of members or officers of Public Bodies, was amended in your Lordships' House by applying the same penalties to the bribing, or receiving of bribes by, officers under the Crown. The two cases are strictly analagous, and it seemed open to some objection that such acts with regard to officers and members of Public Bodies should be punishable, while the same acts are not punishable as regards persons holding office under the Crown. However, in the other House of Parliament a different view was taken, and the Amendments were disagreed with, on the ground that the changes so introduced very largely extended the scope and operation of the Bill; and though they might properly, if approved by the House, on full consideration form the subject of future legislation, they could not now receive the discussion which their importance required. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to ask your Lordships to insist upon any of the Amendments, which have the object of extending the scope of this Bill to officers under the Crown, and to acts done in relation tot hem. But there were a number of Amendments made in the Bill with reference to its original scope and purpose, and which are, I think, improvements in it in regard to that scope and purpose, to which the same observation does not apply. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to insist upon those Amendments, upon the ground that the reason given by the other House does not appear to have relation to them.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord that it would not be 466 desirable to insist upon those parts of the Bill which extend it to all officers of the Crown. In fact, the Bill in itself is rather drastic, and will depend for its action upon the interpretation which may be given to the adverb "corruptly," which has not yet received a very large amount of judicial interpretation. I only rise for the purpose of saying that I hope one of the Amendments will be insisted upon, as the noble and learned Lord proposes, in the 7th clause, as it left this House—namely, that the consent of the Attorney General shall be necessary for the purpose of instituting prosecutions under this Act. I think that is a very necessary precaution, particularly in cases where injury might be done to people's characters, sufficient ground being shown for a prosecution.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI am quite prepared to accept that. Certainly I have no objection to it; but I may say that I have conferred with those who have had to deal with the Bill in the other House, and I understand that considerable objection was taken to that provision.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYI have had some communication with the Leader of the other House on the subject, and he offered no objection.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI do not doubt that if the Government support it in the other House the matter will go through if we insist upon it. I should not like the Bill to be endangered.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo. I understand that the Attorney General rather demurred originally to the insertion of that clause in the Bill without his having been consulted; but I do not think there is any objection on the ground of policy.
Commons reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments considered (according to order): Some of the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on; others insisted on; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.