PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 26 April 1904)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY)
My Lords, your Lordships have constantly discussed the question whether some legislation on this subject is not required, and by the consent of both sides of the House it has been agreed that some legislation is required. There is a great and advancing evil which it is necessary to meet, and it is urgent that steps should be taken to diminish what has been described as a canker which is eating away the commercial honesty of a great many classes in this country. Your Lordships are familiar with the provisions of this Bill. I have taken means to ascertain the reception which the Bill met with in the House of Commons, and I have accepted, with one exception, the Amendments which were made in Grand Committee. That, of course, ought to clear the way for the complete acceptance of the Bill. The exception is one which I shall insist upon as essential to any such Bill—it is the veto of the Attorney-General. I am unwilling to be a party to anything that will promote evils even worse than the corruption which the Bill is intended to put down. I do not think that any one who has not examined into the subject can appreciate the extent to which a Bill of this kind might be used for the purpose of blackmail unless this provision was inserted. It is the fear of being accused that the blackmailer avails himself of. One of the Amendments suggested as an alternative to the veto of the Attorney-General was that an indictment under this Bill should be part of the legislation in respect to what is called the vexatious indictment procedure. That 1169 is not a sufficient safeguard against blackmailing, because if the case we nt before a magistrate there would be publicity of the accusation, and it is publicity that the blackmailer makes the great instrument of oppression. If, however, the blackmailer has to obtain the permission of the Attorney-General, there will be no publicity if the law officer of the Crown decides that it is not a case in which a prosecution should be instituted. Moreover, a blackmailer is the last person in the world to pay a visit to the Attorney-General to ask for his permission to proceed with a prosecution. I hope your Lordships will read the Bill a second time.

§ * LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD
My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack knows the estimation in which I hold his opinion in matters of legislation and how strongly I am disposed to support this Bill. But I must say that I heard with great regret the statement which the noble and learned Lord has just made, because I fear that, if the provision to which he has referred is persisted in, the Bill is not likely to pass into law. I do not think my noble and learned friend can be aware how widespread is the view among commercial men and the legal profession against the safeguard which he thinks so necessary, and I am afraid he does not recognise what is the fact, that the House of Commons will decline to pass the Bill with this provision in it. I am informed that it is strongly felt that if this safeguard — this so-called safeguard—is inserted, the Bill will, for all ordinary purposes, become nugatory. I have no doubt that where there are important prosecutions to be supported, persons in a position to employ solicitors will be able to secure the Attorney-General's fiat; but the chief object of this Bill, so far as I have understood it from its inception, is to produce, if possible, a more honest method of dealing in every-day life. Even in domestic matters we know of great evils that spring from this system of secret commissions, and persons are daily defrauded by those in 1170 their households who really ought to be their guardians. If a man in the country wished to bring to light some such evil, the initial step under this Bill would not be to take proceedings at once and let the matter be determined then and there before a magistrate. No; he would have to employ a solicitor who in his turn would have to engage an agent in London, file affidavits, and marshal all the evidence to be adduced. This substantial expense would have to be incurred before the fiat of the Attorney-General could be obtained, and all this, perhaps, in order to bring to light an offence of a domestic character. Do your Lordships really think that any ordinary person will undertake to go through this process in order to institute a prosecution for an offence under the Bill. Why, I ask, is this exception made in this case? I cannot see how the possibilities of blackmail can be greater in these prosecutions than in others. Persons can be given in custody straight away for embezzlement and other serious offences, yet under this Bill it will be necessary, even in small matters of a domestic character, to adopt the cumbrous procedure set forth. The matter, of course, is in the hands of my noble and learned friend, but I fear that, with this provision in it, an obstacle is created to the passing of the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
All I can say is that experience shows that blackmailing is on the increase, and I will not be a party to any Bill which does not contain the safeguard that I have indicated. I may add that those who have preceded me in introducing measures of this character have come round to my view on this point, and your Lordships have twice passed a Prevention of Corruption Bill containing this provision, against which no new reason has been given.