The Press. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1906. SECRET COMMISSIONS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12682, 21 December 1906, Page 6

The Press. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1906. SECRET COMMISSIONS.

On tlie flmi of January there oomee into force in the United Kingdom an Act wbioh hae been described ac almost revolutionary* in character, innemuoh m it creates an entirely new criminal offenoe. Thie is the Prevention of Corruption Act, a measure designed to check the wideepread custom of giving and receiving, or even of offering, secret oommkeione, whioh th« Act defines ac " corrupt gifts,", offered or given with tin view of causing any "agent" to •how favour or disfavour, "or to do or "refrain from doing any act in relation "to hie principal's affairs." The nted of some euch legislation hae been recognised for a long time, for the practice of "secret commissions'* as a mean* of securing business has in many directions become firmly established in British trade. Ite effect in England is practically tho , earno ac in Victoria, -where the Secret Commissions Act of last year in to bo rigorously enforced. Doctors are said to get secret commieeions from cheiniets, solicitors from trustee? and liquidators, architects from contractors and merchants, etc. "In each caee the amount of tho secret "commiiviion must come out of the "pockcte of tho principal"—otherwise the customer, the common public. Though existent in Melbourne, this system hoe not jet become rife there, and the sam« may bo eaid of New Zealand, whore, though secret commissions ere by no menne unknown, tho practice does not yet porvedo the community. But «t Home it w rampant. And yet there are many who shut their eyes to its evils. Veer after year such men as tho late Lord RuMell of Killowen, Lord Ifalfibury, and Lord Alveretone introduced into tlio House of Lords meeeuree intended to crueh tho pnao-

tice, and on several ocoastom the Bilk parsed the Upper House and were sent to the House of Commons. There, howover. they met with, if not a hostile, at all events a cool reception, and year after year they were withdrawn or dropped. It was not indeed until well on into thp present year that the Act which comes into force on New Year's Day, having again been approved by the Lords, had a successful, though not unopposed, passage through the Lower House. Tlio measure is a drastic one. The maximum penalty is two years' hard labour and a fine of £300, summary conviction before a magistrate rendering tho offender liable to four months' hard labour and a fine of £50. It covers all sorts of transaction*, from tipping a railway guard to let a second-class passenger travel first class to the gift* which commercial travellers sometimes offer buyers, and including the commissions which housekeepers and butlers are reported to receive from tradesmen as the price of their employers' patronage. Whether the Act will have at first the full effect that is hoped from it is by eoino considered doubtful. It has the approval of the business community and employers generally, but however much employers may suspect that they are being made tho victims of bribery in the form of commissions to their agents, it is often difficult for them to secure proof. The secrecy of the transactions ia to a great degree a protection to tho offenders, though, as one writer points out, tho fact that conviction may now entail fine and imprisonment, instead of merely dismissal, places every offender in the power of the other parties to the act. Apart from this, restraint upon the practice is undoubtedly imposed by the mere existence of tho new law, which should stimulate tbe national conscience to repudiate practices that have been too long prevalent.