LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Week " paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. TIIE SPECTATOR.] THE INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL
[To the Editor of TILE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The weighty opinion of so eminent a legal authority as Sir William Holdsworth, contained in your issue of last week, leaves little to be said about this Bill beyond some general considerations of its dangers in the hands of a reactionary government. It is necessary, however, to point out that while the Attorney-General has accused some of his critics of wilful misrepresentation, he himself has been guilty in the House of Commons of certain iris-statements of fact which are highly reprehensible in a Law Officer of the Crown.
Firstly, he stated in the House of Commons on the second reading that clause 1 was identical with the provisions of the Mutiny Act and with section 7 of the Army Act. This, however, is not true ; the substitution of the words " duty or allegiance " in the Disaffection Bill for the words " Duty and allegiance" of the Mutiny Act introduces a large number of new offences. Secondly, he has stated that clause 2 (1) of the Disaffection Bill follows section 2 (1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1911. Your readers will realize that the offence under the Disaffection Bill is the possession of a document whereas under the Official Secrets Act the offence consists not in the possession of a document, but either in retaining it unlawfully or communicating it to some unauthorized person. Thirdly, although clause 2 (2)—relating to " enact preparatory" —has been withdrawn in Committee, the Attorney-General did, in fact, mislead the public by stating repeatedly that this clause and section were identical with section 7 of the Official Secrets Act of 1920. The difference in the wording of the two, however, is very material and can hardly have escaped the notice of the Attorney-General and his advisors.
For some time after the introduction of the Bill the Attorney- General was at pains to deny that the quotation of words of the Bible to the armed forces would be an offence if this Bill becomes law. More recently, however, in the face of indisputable evidence, he has admitted in Committee that the quotation of certain passages from the New Testament to H.M. Forces, would render a person liable to conviction. In this connexion it will be recalled that during the Great War, Mr. J. M. Robertson, speaking in the House of Commons for the government of that day, explicitly stated that the quota- tion of certain passages from the Bible to the troops would be a military offence.
Although this Bill, if it became law, would be capable of the
most dangerous application to even the sincerest pacifist and progressive propaganda, its repressive scope will not be limited to the written and spoken word which may, in the opinion of possibly prejudiced magistrates or judges, tend to cause disaffection among the serving members of the Forces. It would certainly apply also in time of war or threatened war, to all who (like the Quakers) in however guarded and respons- ible a manner, say or write anything which may tend to hinder recruiting. In the event of war we may safely assume that Military Service Acts would be passed and the present Incite- ment to Disaffection Bill, if it were then an. act, would be used as the instrument to prosecute those sincere pacifist and anti-war workers who by the written- or spoken word said anything not merely to cause possible disaffection among the troops or to hinder recruiting, but also all those who said or wrote anything which might be directed to scientists, whose work wholly or in part was connected with the manufacture of the materials of chemical warfare. It is no exaggeration to say that the repressive scope of this Bill is practically unlimited.
As originally drafted clause 2 (1) of this Bill was a complete reversal of the established principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty. He would have had to prove that he had documents "with lawful excuse "—which, of course, would have been impossible in law. This clause, however, has been amended so that the onus is now placed on the prosecution to prove that the accused had such documents " with intent " to commit or to aid and abet an offence. It would be a mistake to suppose that this amendment gives any protection to pacifist workers. All pacifist literature might tend. to disaffect the troops, and the anti-war worker could not possibly prove that lie had no intention that such literature should effect its avowed object ; not could lie prove that no single copy of a pacifist pamphlet was intended to fall into the hands of a soldier or sailor. " Intention" must always be a matter of inference, and although lie might deny that he wished to cause disaffection among the troops, it would be easy for the prosecution to prove that such literature does in fact have this effect, and in law a man is held responsible for the natural consequences of his own act.
The Attorney-General has given numerous assurances in the House that the Government would not wish to use the powers with which they are arming themselves, but he must be well aware that in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament the actual words contained in that Act will determine its interpretation, and that the assurance of ministers given in the House are not admissible as evidence in its interpretation.
The Bill remains wholly objectionable even after its very considerable amendment in Committee, and if any of your readers would care to apply to me, I shall be pleased to send to them a copy of the correspondence which has passed between my Council and the Attorney-General. Our legal sub-committee have set out at length • a number of grave defects in the Amended Bill.—I am, Sir, &c.,
RONALD KIDD, Secretary.
The Council for Civil Liberties, 8 Dansey Place, W. 1.
Previous page
