Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/474

446 446 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. It is a painful fact that, at the close of the nineteenth century, an English Parliament has found it necessary to pass a statute to pre- vent Englishmen making or publishing false statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of Parliamentary can- didates, without on reasonable grounds believing such statements to be true. By the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1^95 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 40), this offence is made an illegal practice within the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 51), and a person found guilty is, on summary con- viction, liable to a fine not exceeding ;^ioo, and for five years can neither be registered nor vote in the place where the offence is committed. Candidates found guilty on election petition are subject to further disqualifications. Injunctions may be granted. A candidate is not liable for statements unauthorized by himself or his election agent, unless his election was procured or materially assisted thereby. In the latter case, presumably, the candidate would merely lose his seat for that Parliament. It is to be hoped that this statute may soon become a dead letter for want of offenders, and that a future Parliament may feel themselves justified in repealing it. The Naturahzation Act, 1895 (5^ & 59 Vict. c. 43), adds cer- tain words to § 10, subs. 5, of the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14), which will now read as follows, the addi- tional words being printed in Italics : " Where the father, or the mother being a widow, has a certificate of naturalization in the United Kingdom, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident with such father or mother in any part of the United Kingdom, or with such father while in the service of the Crown out of the United Kingdom, shall be deemed to be a naturalized British subject." The statute is properly made retrospective in its operation. The alteration speaks for itself With this statute a somewhat lengthy, and perhaps unavoidably dry, paper must conclude. The compression of statutes is such a dangerous task, that it is rash to hope all inaccuracy has been avoided. It is rumored, however, that Harvard students are trained from the outset of their course to look with distrust on anything but the ipsissima verba of the actual statute. Mistakes may amuse, but cannot mislead, such true worshippers at the shrine of their goddess^ Law. G. Rowland Alston,