HC Deb 16 April 1926 vol 194 cc733-816

Order for Second Reading read.

Major KINDERSLEY

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill I rise with a certain amount of diffidence, and at the same time with a certain amount of assurance. I rise with a certain amount of diffidence because the Second Reading of this Bill ought really to be moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir Evelyn Cecil), with whose name the effort to promote this legislation has been so long honourably associated. The luck of the ballot has given the opportunity to me, but the House will have the benefit of my right hon. Friend's knowledge and experience when he seconds my Motion. I rise with a certain amount of assurance because the objects of this Bill, whatever may be the differences of opinion about the methods of attaining them, have the approval and the sympathy of all parties in the House. I feel that I am particularly fortunate in moving a private Member's Bill which is not a party Measure, but one seeking to remedy a national evil which is very widely recognised.

At this stage I want to crave the indulgence of the House on the ground that it is impossible to deal adequately with this Bill without referring to various reports, particularly the report of the Royal Commission on Divorce and the report of the Select Committee on this Bill. That will necessitate making certain quotations. I have kept the quotations as short as I can, but I crave the indulgence of the House, because I know that hon. Members do not like quotations. Apart from the support which the Bill has in this House, it has a great deal of support outside, and I think I may claim that it has the support of the more serious and thinking members of the community. It also has the support of many religious bodies. I will read the names of some of the bodies which have passed resolu- tions in favour of the Measure. They include the National Church Assembly, Wesleyan Methodist Conference, Church of England Men's Society, Mothers' Union, National Council of Free Churches, National Union of Teachers, and the National Council of Women. On 19th January of this year a meeting was held in the Central Hall, Westminster, and Mr. Peaker, who was President of the Institute of Journalists for three years, from 1923 to 1925, in speaking of these objectionable reports said: This kind of thing has to be stopped. I do not like legislation, but agreement being impossible, legislation has to be resorted to. Eighty per cent. of the newspaper owners are in favour of the suppression of unsavoury matter, but the others are not. We hear much about the liberty of the Press, but the only liberty that is in danger is the liberty to deal in filth. Nearly all journalists are in agreement with the Bill introduced by Sir Evelyn Cecil in 1923, and now entitled the Judcial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill, 1923. Its purport is to suppress the liberty or licence that is poisoning the next generation. Therefore, in asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am voicing a demand which is very widespread. With permission I propose first to deal with the history of the present endeavour. On 26th December, 1859, her late Majesty Queen Victoria wrote as follows to Lord Chancellor Campbell: The Queen wishes to ask the Lord Chancellor whether no steps can be taken to prevent the present publication of proceedings before the new Divorce Court. These cases, which must necessarily increase when the new law becomes more and more known, fill now almost daily a large portion of the newspapers, and are of so scandalous a character that it makes it almost impossible for a paper to be trusted in the hands of a young lady or boy. Seventy years have passed since those words were written, and I think we all realise how very true her late Majesty's words have proved. In 1859 the divorce laws had only just been passed and the number of newspapers was nothing like what it is to-day. Of course the facilities for divorce have been very much enlarged, and newspapers to-day are overwhelming both in number and in circulation. The latest statement puts the number of daily and weekly newspapers published in England and Wales at 2,169, and, as the House knows, many of these papers, especially some of the Sunday periodicals, have circulations running into millions. It is, perhaps, well that at this stage I should state that I and those who support this legislation realise fully that the bulk of newspaper owners and editors have a very deep sense of duty in this matter and exercise a proper discretion. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is not an attack upon the majority of newspapers or newspaper proprietors or newspaper interests. There are however, certain journals which it is needless to specify who deliberately exploit for gain, reports of judicial proceedings of an unsavoury character. It is a horrible traffic. One can scarcely imagine a more horrible traffic. In the words of the Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes— A mass of detail, more suggestive than actually indecent, is thus daily placed before the public notwithstanding the extreme propriety with which counsel, familiar with the work of the Court, conduct their cases. It may be at this point convenient for me to state what legislative steps have been taken or attempted in this matter. They are set out very fully in the Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, to which I have referred, and, with the permission of the House, I will go through them very shortly, because they throw a good deal of light upon the method proposed in this Bill. In the first place, when the Divorce Act of 1857 was before this House, there was an attempt to make a provision in it that these cases should be heard in camera. That was not carried. In 1859, when there was an amending Act, a similar attempt was made, and again the proposal was rejected. I particularly call the attention of the House to that point. This proposal for hearing in camera was proposed and rejected by this House, and I want to say, because of certain suggestions which have been made, that I am convinced that hearing in camera is contrary to the legal tradition of this country, and that the constitutional method of publicity is to hear in open court. In April, 1887, this point was raised in the House by Resolution by Mr. Samuel Smith, and in May, 1887, a Bill was introduced by Sir Robert Finlay, to amend the law as to reports of proceedings in courts of law. That really was an attempt to give a discretion to the Judges to forbid reports of any particular portions of judicial proceedings. In 1896 a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords with the same object, so that hon. Members will see that right along there has been before Parliament, either by way of legislation or by way of Resolution, proposals for dealing with this question. I wish the House to realise that those who ask for this legislation are not asking for any new thing, nor are they merely cranky people who have cropped up during the last few years. This brings us down to the Royal Commission on Divorce in 1912, and one may say that the present endeavour to abolish this evil is to be dated from that Commission. The Commission was asked, in the terms of reference, Should any, and, if any, what, provision be made for preventing or limiting the publication of reports of divorce and other matrimonial causes? Many Members of the House are familiar with Part XVII of the Commission's Report, which deals particularly with this subject, and the House will pardon me if I quote some passages from that Report. The evidence of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, was considered so important by the Royal Commission that they included in their Report certain questions put to him and his answers thereto. These I wish to read to the House in part, because of their bearing on this subject, and because they are the views of a man of high judicial position. In the course of his answer to Question No. 15,536 he said: Now I come to the evil of it. I have had for years brought to my attention the mischief done by the reports in certain low-class papers of the details of divorce cases. You cannot touch them for indecency in the ordinary sense of the word, or for obscenity. There may be gross cases in which you might be able to, but I am speaking of those which do as much evil, I mean the accounts which are put in headlines, the ladysmaid's evidence ' and the housemaid's evidence, which is followed up in these papers by a detailed account of question and answer; of the servant going to the room and saying what she sees, and incidents which the prurient mind fastens on, which could do infinite harm to young people. It has been said in evidence before this Commission that cases have been known where absolute evil has been done by these stories having been read by young people, and I cannot see the slightest ground for the publication.'' The Lord Chief Justice was asked, Your view is that the greater evil by far is the detailed accounts? and his answer was: Yes, I do not- agree about it being a deterrent to the person who has come to the Court as a guilty person. I want the House to notice that point.

He went on: It is not a deterrent. The mischief done to the young is incalculable, particularly to boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 18.'' There is another short passage in the Report which bears particularly on the matter under discussion. Paragraph 490 says: We have also had a number of witnesses representing the Press who agree with most other witnesses in thinking that the publication of minute details of these cases is an undoubted evil; and who have told us that while the abuse of publicity is mainly confined to papers of a certain class, yet that the better class of papers think themselves compelled by the competition of others less scrupulous to give more particulars than they otherwise would. It is admitted that many of the readers of newspapers complain of the publication of these reports. The Commission then express their hope— that the proprietors and conductors of newspapers will do their utmost of their own free will to check what they have acknowledged to be a serious evil. The witnesses who have appeared before us on behalf of the newspapers, have been unanimous in condemning the excess of This class of reporting and many a them have deplored the competition which, as they think, compels them to do more than they would desire to do, if they were free agents. We feel confident that the attention which has been drawn to this subject will strengthen the hands of those who desire to raise the standard in this matter and help them to exert their influence on the side of moderation. They went on to say: If it should be found that the provisions we have proposed have not the effect which we anticipate, it may be necessary for the Legislature to strengthen the law further in the direction of prohibiting reports which are deleterious to public morals. That was in 1912, and I think that most people must agree that the press, in spite of the attention called to the matter in that Report, have been what I may call singularly unsuccessful in making any efforts themselves to check this serious evil. At the same time, whenever any attempt at legislation has been made, such as the present attempt, a very great deal of criticism of any Measure proposed has always come from the press, and it seems to me that the time has now come for the Legislature to take up this matter and to strengthen the law as suggested by the Royal Commission on Divorce. In 1923 a Bill, entitled the Matrimonial Causes (Regulation of Reports) Bill, was introduced into this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham, and it was read a Second time and referred to a Select Committee of this House consisting of 11 Members. This Committee heard very many witnesses, witnesses representing the legal world, the religious world, what I may call general ordinary persons, the press, and educational authorities, and in July, 1923, it issued its Report, which is a document of the very utmost importance, and with which, no doubt, very many hon. Members of this House are familiar. The Committee was quite unanimous that some legislation of this kind was necessary, and it thought that my right hon. Friend's Bill was what you might call on the right lines, though is suggested certain Amendments, and the Title of the Bill was altered to its present Title. It reported as follows: If, as we do not doubt, it is often the cumulative effect of evidence and statements, any of which would net be liable under the present law as being obscene, which do the mischief, the obvious remedy is to limit the publication of evidence and statements. The pernicious transformation of sordid stories into epics for profit cannot really be restrained in any other way. The flaunting of immorality before renders of all ages and positions must be injurious to public morals, and making light of such conduct challenges the whole structure of family life on which society is founded. The Bill puts all newspapers on the same basis, and does not close the door to adequate information about proceedings in the Divorce Court. If it be maintained that limiting publication hampers the chance of justice, the whole matter becomes a question of balancing the advantage of unrestricted publication to secure justice as against the disadvantage of publication in lowering the-standard of national character. Your Committee think that if a choice has to be made, the high standard of national character must he chosen. In' 1925 this Bill was introduced in another place by Lord Darling, and I want the House to realise that, while it was amended in the other place in certain details, the Bill that is before the House to-day is the Bill that was passed in another place last year, and that it comes to us with the imprimatur, if I may say so, of the very highest judicial authorities, because it was supported by the Earl of Desart, an ex-Publice Prosecutor, the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Merrivale, who, as the House knows, is President of the Admiralty and Divorce Division, and the present Secretary of State for India, who, as the House also knows, is an ex-Lord Chancellor, and perhaps the House will allow me to quote the following passage from Lord Darling's speech: I appeal to your Lordships, seeing what is going on, is it not obvious that the public morals of the country are worse than they were? Who can doubt that the familiarising of all manner of persons with these disgusting cases is greatly to blame for the present deterioration of public morals? I should not have taken it (this Bill) up, but that after one or two notorious recent cases I was spoken to by representatives of foreign countries, resident and representing their countries here, as to the great evil which was done in England by the publication of details of those cases. I was told by them that such publications were impossible in their own particular countries; that the people of those countries formed their opinions of this country from those publications, and came to conclusions about us which those who spoke to me knew to be thoroughly unjustified. It is argued very often by those who oppose this Measure that the existing law as it stands is adequate to deal with this mischief, but Sir Archibald Bodkin, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, in his evidence before the Select Committee to which I have referred, considered that the existing law is inadequate to deal with reports which unnecessarily encourage familiarity with what ought to be avoided, and in consequence take away half the horror of it. It probably did more harm than good, he stated, to institute a prosecution and fail to obtain a verdict. This is very important, and I would ask the House to bear it in mind, because he went on to say that in that case the subject of the prosecution obtained the imprimatur of the jury, and rather than risk this mischief he refrained from instituting proceedings.

That is, in brief outline, the history of the present Measure, and I now come to the consideration of the Bill itself. I think the House will certainly agree with me that this Bill has one merit at least, and that is, its brevity. Clause 1, Subceedings, and this Clause really does little section (1, a), deals with all judicial pro- more than define somewhat more fully the existing common law with regard to the publication of obscene or indecent matter. The present law on this subject is partly contained in certain Statutes, and, of course, the common law is laid down in certain eases, the chief of which, I think, is a case known as "Regina v. Hicklin." No doubt the House, or some Members of it, will be familiar with it, because it was the prosecution of a publication known as "The Confessional Unmasked," and it took place in 1868. The learned Judge, who was Chief Justice Cockburn, stated—and these words really are the test which is applied to obscene matter now: I think that the test of obscenity is this—whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall. It is quite certain that this work would suggest to the minds of the young of either sex, or even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure or libidinous character. That is the kind of test which has to be applied in these eases, and the prosecutor who is relying on the common law, and the magistrate, have to put to themselves the question as to whether the particular matter complained of comes within the words of that judgment. The statutes which deal with this question include the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act, 1888, and the third Section, which is the most important one of that Act, is as follows: A fair and accurate report in any newspaper of proceedings publicly heard before any court exercising judicial authority shall, if published contemporaneously with such proceedings, be privileged. Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the publication of any blasphemous or indecent matter. There is also the Post Office Act, Section 63, the Indecent Publications Act, 1889, and the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, which is better known as Lord Campbell's Act.

Now, as to the method of procedure under the common law, at present, subject to certain exceptions in respect of newspapers, with which I will deal later, proceedings can be instituted by any person who thinks right to lay any information before a Justice and obtain a summons or warrant. The case is then investigated before the Magistrate, and if he thinks a prima facie case is shown by the evidence, he commits the defendant for trial at Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction, or to the Assizes, and then the trial proceeds in the ordinary way. Newspapers, however, are in a somewhat privileged position at present, because before any prosecution of a newspaper for publishing obscenity, there has to be application to a Judge of the High Court sitting in Chambers, for a summons calling upon the persons responsible, or believed to be responsible, for the publication, to show cause why the flat of the learned Judge should not be granted. Newspapers, therefore, under the existing law, are in a somewhat better position from the ordinary person who has published obscene matter, but not in a newspaper. It is no defence, however, that a newspaper report of judicial proceedings containing obscene matter is an accurate and a true report.

What I want to point out is, that while proceedings under the present Bill can be taken before a Court of summary jurisdiction, the defendants, whoever they may be, newspapers or anyone else, have the protection of Clause 1, Sub-section (3), which provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be commenced by any person without the sanction of the Attorney-General. Therefore, it will be seen, that while newspapers are on the same footing as other defendants, everybody is protected under this Clause, which prevents frivolous actions. I have read a good many comments on this Bill in the Press, but it is a very curious thing that this Clause, which is a most important Clause, and gives a great deal of protection, is hardly ever mentioned or, if it is mentioned, is only just referred to. I think it is hardly fair that this should receive little or no attention from those who are criticising this legislation.

The Bill, after defining what may not be published under any circumstances, goes on, in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, b) to deal specially with a certain class of judicial proceedings, that is to say, for a dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation, and limits in this class of case what particu- lars may be published, and those particulars are:

  1. (i)The names, addresses and description of the parties and witnesses;
  2. (ii)A concise statement of the grounds on which the proceedings are brought and resisted:
  3. (iii)Submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the Court thereon;
  4. (iv)The summing-up of the Judge and the finding of the Jury (if any) and the Judgment of the Court and observations made by the Judge in giving Judgment:
Provided that nothing in this part of this Sub-section shall be held to permit the publication of anything contrary to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Subsection. That is the first Sub-section, which deals with all judicial proceedings. The reason it is found necessary to deal specially with this class of proceedings will, I think, readily be understood by the House. In the words which I have already quoted from the Report of the Select Committee: It is often the cumulative effect of evidence and statements, any of which would not be liable under the present law, or under Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a), of the present Bill as being obscene, which do the mischief. The pernicious transformation of sordid stories into epics for profit cannot really be restrained in any other way. I am convinced that, while the publication of such details is not necessary for the proper administration of justice, it is quite certain that they do incalculable harm by their suggestiveness, by what I may call their low moral tendencies to every class of the population, and most particularly to the young. You cannot pick out any particular sentence and say, "This thing is obscene," or "This thing is indecent," under the existing common law. It is the total effect produced upon the mind that is the thing with which we are trying to deal, and which cannot be touched under the existing law.

I come to the question of publicity. The constitutional method, as I have said, of ensuring publicity in this country is by the public hearing in Court, and while, of course, it is quite impossible to restrain those who are determined to defile their minds unnecessarily with details of such cases by being present at the hearing, it is certainly not in the public interest that such details should be broadcasted throughout the land, and thrust upon the attention of persons who would otherwise neither desire to hear them nor have any interest in the proceedings. If publicity in the Press be essential to the administration of justice, the logical conclusion would be that every case ought to be published. Because what happens now? Only those cases are published which the Press thinks make good copy, because they are grossly indecent, or because of the supposed social standing of the parties. Why should those people get the great advantage which the Press offers of publicity, and only those people? The argument is perfectly absurd. It is worse than absurd—it is the grossest hypocrisy. If this desire for the proper administration of justice be really the motive of the Press in publishing these cases, then, under this Bill, they would have a better opportunity, because this Bill limits the details which they may publish, and, therefore, they will be able to give the advantage of publicity to a larger number of cases. I commend that view to those who argue in this way. Then I come to the penalties. Subsection (2) of Clause I deals with the penalties which can be imposed for the contravention of the provisions of the Bill. Sub-section (3), to which I have already alluded, provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Bill shall be commenced by any person without the sanction of the Attorney-General. This, as I have said before, will prevent frivolous charges being brought. Subsection (4) protects the legitimate publication, for official, legal or technical purposes of judicial reports, provided they are bona fide intended for circulation among Members of the legal or medical profession.

Such are the provisions of the Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading to-day. I believe that they contain nothing which is in any way in conflict with the legitimate freedom of the Press, the proper administration of justice, or the information which must he available to students and others of the legal and medical professions. This Bill is the result of very deep consideration, and it is supported by the highest legal opinion. If the House passes this Bill, the practice of this country in these matters will conform to that already existing in many other countries, as was pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce.

There is also the wider aspect of this matter to which I should like to call attention. The circulation of some of the most offending of our journals is not confined to this country, and there can be no doubt that foreign nations and our Eastern Empire and the Dominions derive from the altogether disproportionate space given to cases of this kind an entirely wrong impression of the social and domestic life of this country. This does infinite harm to our national prestige, and lowers us in the eyes of those to whom English domestic life and civilisation have in the past been an example and an inspiration. This House is occupied in the main—and rightly so—with legislation dealing with what I may call the improvement of the material conditions of the people of this country. I think that the raising of the moral tone of the nation rests largely with other institutions, religious, educational and social. But while the State can perhaps do little —and should do little—in a positive way, except as far as the improvement of material conditions can contribute, to raise the moral tone of the community, it can and should in this case, by the negative act of prohibition, do something to curb those who are ready to exploit for gain the weaknesses and passions of human nature.

But above all, it is for the sake of the-rising generation that I would plead that this Bill should be put on the Statute Book. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote some lines from a poet who is now rather out of date, the late Lord Tennyson. They are taken from "Locksley Hall—Sixty Years After"; Authors—essayist, atheist, novelist, realist, rhymster, play your part. Paint the mortal shame of nature with the living hues of Art. Rip your brothers' vices open, strip your own foul passions bare; Down with Reticence, down with Reverence—forward—naked—let them stare. Feed the budding rose of boyhood with the drainage of your sewer; Send the drain into the fountain, lest the stream should issue pure.…. Do your best to charm the worst, to lower the rising race of men: Have we risen from out the beast, them back into the beast again?

Sir EVELYN CECIL

I beg to Second the Motion.

This is the fourth year in which this Bill has been before the House, and I should like to express my warm appreciation of the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and of his action, after his luck in the ballot in bringing this question before the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought this important question once more before this House upon an occasion when it can be thoroughly discussed, and the House will be able to give a full and complete verdict upon it. I should like in that connection to express a tribute of hearty thanks to Lord Darling who was instrumental in pushing this Bill forward through all its stages in the House of Lords. At the outset, I should like further to express my unstinted admiration of the Press as a general and important national institution. I do not want anything that I may say to be misconstrued into my being supposed to think that the Press is not an exceedingly valuable adjunct to the Government of this country, and to the opinions which may be formed upon public questions.

I do feel that the nation has grounds to express its marked approval of the Press in general as an institution which has been carried on upon high traditions and which I trust has a long array of high traditions and sound management before it. During the last few years I have been at an advantage in regard to this particular matter because, if I may say so without presumption, I do not happen to be a member of the Government, and therefore I am a very poor target for the Press to shoot at. However that may be, I should like to reiterate what Lord Darling said in another place, and what my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading has said, that perhaps the first cause which made me bring this matter prominently before the public, as I have endeavoured to do, was the criticism of some eminent foreign diplomatists, when some of these cases were reported in the newspapers and were before the public, because they told me that such things would never be allowed in their country, and they asked whether it was really necessary to publish them here. At first I argued that I was disposed to think it was necessary both in the interests of justice and on the general grounds of the freedom of the Press. But the more I thought the matter over, the more I felt in doubt. The best remedy, of course, would not be legislation, but agreement by the Press amongst themselves. I tried in a humble way to attempt to bring that about in the earlier stages of this agitation, hut I was told in every quarter that that was quite impossible because there were rivalries and suspicions and indications that "our competitor over there will publish things we do not, and we cannot afford to lose the circulation and commercial profit which would be involved." The other obvious remedy was that the public should not support newspapers which published news of this kind, but, human nature being what it is, that is also a Utopian counsel.

Failing this some legislation becomes necessary, and if the Press cannot put their own house in order it becomes the duty of the legislature to do it for them. I am told that this object can he largely achieved by public opinion. I dare say that to some extent that is true, and if I can do anything to improve things by that means I will readily do it. But after all public opinion is largely created by the newspapers themselves, and if you are going to get a healthy and sound public opinion to carry through this improvement you will have to have all the newspapers on your side aiming at the highest possible standard, and all of them suppressing the filth of which we complain. I am perfectly aware that this Bill is not perfect, and I shall be very glad if it can be improved in Committee. I am no fanatic myself about it, and I probed for several other methods of procedure before this Bill was produced. I endeavoured to proceed upon the lines that discretion should be given to the Judges, and actually prepared a draft on those lines. But I found, after consultation with various Judges, that that would not be a practical course; that I should never get any further, and in the cod that draft was scrapped and the present draft substituted.

If there are difficulties about this Bill, I may still claim that even in suspense it has had some good effect. I have noted lately that the newspaper placards are not quite so prominent with objectionable features. I have also noticed greater circumspection in the newspapers so as not to transgress. Therefore, as I say, the Bill in suspense has had some appreciable effect. But if you argue that that is no ground for legislation then I am afraid that I cannot agree. I am afraid that we must legislate. The difficulties may be considerable, but that is no reason for objecting to all legislation or creating difficulties. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) has just mentioned the wide support that this Bill has received from various religious bodies, from various public bodies, and from eminent Law Lords in another place, all of which seems to me to provide a very powerful argument in favour of legislation. I would merely like to say that in addition to the bodies which he mentioned there is also the Council of the Law Society which is the head of the solicitors' profession. They have passed a resolution which they have forwarded to the Prime Minister expressing a desire that facilities should be given to this Bill. Dr. Scott Lidgett, who represents all the Free Churches in this matter, has personally asked me to do my utmost to press forward the Bill.

The charge against a section of the Press is that to a great extent by insidious suggestion they debase national morals, quite unnecessarily so far as the interests of justice are concerned, and tend to pervert the mind of the youth of the nation at a very impressionable age. There is a story of Lord Chancellor Westbury, when he was at the Bar as Mr. Bethell. On one occasion the Judge interrupted him and said, "Mr. Bethell, you have used that argument twice already." Mr. Bethell, with characteristic insolence, if I may say so, replied: "Yes, my Lord, but it is only by the continual dripping of water on the stone that any impression is created." That is precisely what is happening here. You have this constant dripping of objectionable matter scattered widespread all over the Kingdom. It is read by the youth of the nation with very unnecessary and objectionable results as was evident from some of the evidence given before the Select Committee, and nothing is done.

12 N.

You may say that it is puzzling to say what is indecent and what is not. That is one of the objections. It is difficult to define indecency, but it becomes more and more difficult when you read these reports. The other day, for my sins, I had to look again at the evidence, as published most fully in one of the newspapers, in the Russell case, and I consciously felt that as one went on one began to ask oneself, "What is really indecent?" Your mind gets blunted, your perspective gets warped, and you begin to wonder whether anything is really intensely indecent after you have read a number of columns of this objectionable matter. Therefore, I am quite prepared to admit the observation that has been made. I cannot easily point to any single sentence upon which the Public Prosecutor could put his finger and say, "This is indecency, and this is not." It is the cumulative effect of the whole which does so much harm.

My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill devoted his remarks to the history of the matter and to an explanation of the provisions of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir Ellis Hume-Williams), in moving the rejection of the Bill, I presume, means to challenge the whole principle of the Bill. In other words, I presume, he is going to say that he is against any legislation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), who is going to second the rejection, is, I suppose, also against all legislation. I will, therefore, deal mostly, this morning, with some of the objections which I imagine are taken to check or prevent legislation at all, or to pick holes in the present proposal. I have not heard quite lately so much about the freedom of the Press. That was a cry very much in vogue when the Bill was first introduced. The answer, of course, is, that the freedom of the Press is an excellent thing, but the licence of the Press is not. As the report of the Select Committee points out, there is legislation which restricts the sale of poison and which deals with sanitary nuisances, and I cannot understand why you cannot do the same in this department. What is this liberty? What is this free trade? It is free trade in scandal, and it is positively a perversion of the word "liberty" to use it in this connection. The kind of evidence which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw gave before the Select Committee was very valuable. The two chief lines on which he argued—he will correct me if I am wrong—were, in the first instance, that the Press was to be trusted, that it showed a wonderful discretion. I remember that in one of the papers which quoted him his portrait was published in appreciation.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS

I am afraid I did not see it.

Sir E. CECIL

The first argument was that you should trust the Press. The second argument was that it is a deterrent—that it is a question of the fear of publicity. As to trusting the Press, I have a good deal to say. I fully agree that, as I have already stated, the Press is, on the whole, carried on with great discretion, but I do not see why I should trust the Press any more than I should trust many others of my fellow creatures who are neither better nor worse. That seems to me to be a perfectly sound democratic principle. Indeed, when I look at what the Press has sometimes done, I feel that there is good reason why I should not always trust the Press. It is on record, in the Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce, that one paper —the Royal Commission asked for returns in this matter—that one Sunday newspaper, Which I need not name, published, in 1909, 238¼ columns on divorce, matrimonial cases, and the like. That seems to be a very large amount of space to devote to it, and the Commission commented upon it. It does not increase one's sense of trust in the Press.

As another reason, I noticed with much interest last year an advertisement of Lord Beaverbrook, who is much interested in Press matters, of a paper that he was bringing out, in which, in commending his paper to the public, he used this language: Readers want a higher view of humanity, religion and patriotism than is offered by these newspapers which spend six days of the week collecting the garbage of the Police Court and the Divorce Court, in order to publish it on the seventh. That way may lie, of course, a big circulation. The Royal Commission again gives an edifying instance which I should like to recall to the House. On the 4th August, 1906, Lord Gorell, who was then President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, directed that sketching in Court would no longer be permitted. On the 12th March, 1907, he intimated his strong opinion that illustrations taken either in or out of Court were undesirable. The Royal Commission went on to obser[...], that this was a satisfactory way of touching a delicate subject, and it finished—this was written in 1912—with these words: Since that time, we understand that the rule laid down has been generally observed by the Press, so that illustrations, even from sources obtainable outside the Court, have practically ceased, I wish we could say that in 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926. The value of that example, however, is that it shows that, oven if the Press on occasion has very properly and justly followed the expressed opinions and wishes of a Judge, you cannot be sure, without legislation, that that will continue over a series of years.

Once more, if I am to trust the Press, I should like to be confident that their opinions would always remain the same. There is an excellent North-country paper, of my own political way of thinking, so I shall not be accused of any bias, which welcomed the Bill in 1923, when it was first introduced. The paper used language of this character: The plea that publicity is a deterrent to vice will not bear a moment's examination. The innocent are pilloried equally with the guilty.… We should resist strenuously any Measure which really restricted the freedom of the Press,…but this Measure is not of that character; the only freedom which is removed is the freedom to do that which the geed sense of the whole community disapproves of… We welcome Sir Evelyn Cecil's Bill as a Measure for freeing the Press from an abuse which 99 out of 100 Pressmen dislike and resent, Those are excellent sentiments, but I was a good deal interested when, the following year, the same newspaper, in reference to practically the same Bill, used this language: The Bill—to sum up the case against it—is unnecessary because existing powers can be used to attain its object; it is unjust because it penalises the wrong persons for an offence which is both problematical and undefined; it is sociologically bad because it impasses ignorance upon the public and muzzles the Press in the performance of its rightful function. I am asked to trust the Press, and this is the language of the same paper in two consecutive years.

In giving one or two more instances, I shall look at the matter from a different angle. In the evidence before the Select Committee, we had a witness who represented the Newspaper Society, which is the society of provincial newspapers, and he stated in his evidence that he had been the editor of the "Surrey Cornet" for a large number of years. I turn to the last few questions that were put to him by the Chairman, beginning with Question No. 1078: (Q.) In reviewing this matter as a whole, do you agree that it is really a case of balancing the advantage of publication to secure justice as against the disadvantage of publication in lowering the standard of national character?—(A.) I think that very fully expresses the attitude of my mind. (Q.) If it was put to you whether in that event you would vote for character or justice, which would you do?—(A.) I would vote for still greater discretion. (Q.) That is not an answer to my question P—(A.) Well, Sir, I am a journalist. Does that make me trust the Press? The final question to the witness was:— (Q.) I must take that as your answer, suppose?—(A.) I have been asked some very difficult questions. Once again, if I may take the personal side of the question, the way in which the Press states the argument about trusting it has been, I have noticed, that a Bill of this kind undermines responsibility. Then, I think, we arc entitled to ask, what exactly does the Press consider to be its responsibility? I was sent the other day a review called "The Brother hood World," of January, 1926, in which there is an article by the present editor of the "Westminster Gazette in which he uses these words: My own view, as a responsible editor, is that a newspaper is entitled to reflect the age in which we live, with its lights and Shadows. It is quite likely, of course, that undesirable trains of thought and an unhealthy curiosity may be aroused among the young in this way. But does not that throw the onus on the parents and guardians of such young folk of keeping a stricter watch on their reading? My main point is that parents must not ask working journalists in take over the moral oversight of children, which belongs primarily to them, and in a secondary degree, though still a large and important degree, to teachers. I fundamentally disagree with that idea. If the newspaper is to pass all responsibility on parents and teachers to bring up the young, and to be indifferent whether what they publish according to the lights and shadows of nature is deleterious or not to youthful minds, all I can say is that it is a very gross misconception of their duties, and I for one would never systematically take in any paper edited on such lines.

Let me now deal with the evidence given before the Select Committee as to publicity being a deterrent. I have great doubt whether in this kind of matter the people who appear mostly before the public are greatly impressed by deterrents in all cases. In reading the Russell case the other day, I noticed that Mrs. Russell wrote to a lady friend a letter in which this sentence occurred. This was before the trial was coming on— My solicitors are priceless, and I long for the fray. Do think of the rows of co's "— that is co-respondents— lined up for the trial. Does that sound as if she was particularly deterred by the fear of publicity? I should say not. I daresay my hon. and learned Friend says, as I think he said in evidence, this is quite an abnormal ease, but I suspect there are many other cases of the same kind.

Sir E. HUME-W1LLIAMS

She was a foolish woman.

Sir E. CECIL

That may be, but I do not think she is quite a unique woman. If he wants evidence from a newspaper source—I have purposely avoided mentioning newspapers by name but in this case as it is a newspaper beyond the jurisdiction of the Kingdom, I think I may name it—sometime ago I was sent by a friend in Canada a copy of the "Vancouver Times," with a portrait of myself in it, because of the action I was taking in this matter. And what do hon. Members think was the legend under it— He would ruin publicity stunts for actresses. The "Vancouver Times," at any rate, does not think such publicity a deterrent. There is one argument in favour of the Bill which I ought to notice was brought forward in, evidence before the Select Committee by Sir John Mellor to the effect that publication of some of these cases occasionally is useful in as much as members of the public wrote to him asking him to intervene in a case where there had been a decree nisi. On examination further before the Committee, Sir John said that cases in which he intervened were a small fraction of the whole, and of course those in which he intervened in consequence of the public having written to him must have been smaller still, so that though that was an argument for publicity, I think it is entirely out-balanced by the number of other arguments against it.

There are several other points which are taken by the Press. The latest and most fashionable argument is that the Bill is unworkable, and it is said to be futile. I am told I am an idealist, and that I bring forward a hardy annual. When I am told the Bill is unworkable I rub my eyes with some astonishment, because the document that tells me it is unworkable is a document that was circulated to all Members of the House the other day emanating from the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, 6, Bouverie Street, E.C.4, and it states, as one of the objections to the Bill, that the system of truncated reporting would be unfair to the parties and witnesses and unworkable from a technical point of view, and, in their opinion, that there is no half-way house between ordinary reporting and trial in camera. I rub my eyes in astonishment, because I recollect that from the same office, signed by the same secretary, on 28th, Tune, 1923, the following letter was addressed to the Clerk to the Select Committee. I hope, in all fairness, that newspapers will not hesitate to publish this letter DEAR SIR, I brought your letter of the 22nd instant before the Council yesterday afternoon, when I was desired to say in reply that they think it impracticable to nominate a person to give evidence on behalf of the Association, but that they see no difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of the Bill as drawn. The Council can suggest no alternative method which would be an improvement on that proposed. I do not know why in the world this should be now sent round to Members of the House, in view of that previous letter.

Next let me deal with the Bill being futile. I am conscious of many gaps in it. I know it does not deal with all the objectionable matters, and Clause 1 does not deal with murders such as the Bywaters and Thompson case, or with the Mr. A. case, or the Dennistoun ease which was for breach of contract, and others, but I am naturally willing to accept Amendments if they can be devised to improve its machinery. One or two newspapers of importance lately have been urging the argument of "in camera," and might be willing to adopt the system of only publishing names and results on the French model. At any rate, they have expressed their willingness to accept some solution of that kind. I shall be glad to discuss either of these suggestions in Committee in a friendly way, the proposal of "in camera" and the French system. If they were brought forward by Amendment to the Bill from any quarter, I should be willing to consider them. It makes me reflect on the change from the situation three years ago. Truly, it is a case of Tempora mutantur, nos et mutantur in illis. If I had put forward these proposals at the beginning, I should have been howled at from all quarters as grossly infringing the freedom of the Press. I think there is much to be said for them now.

Another objection is taken that any suppression might work injustice. Why are newspapers so partial in their justice? They are ready enough to publish at full length, let us say, the divorce concerns of the relations of a Duke, but I have never noticed that they have been equally ready to publish the divorce concerns of the relations of an editor of a paper. I do not know why they should not mete out justice in both cases. Surely, the concerns of the relations of an editor are as important from the point of view of the citizen as the concerns of the relations of a Duke.

Mr. NAYLOR

May I suggest that it is a question of public interest?

Sir E. CECIL

The public interest rests as much on the relations of one person as on the relations of another, particularly of an editor, who occupies so prominent a position.

Sir ROBERT LYNN

As an editor, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give one single case where an editor has acted in the way he suggests?

Sir E. CECIL

I have said that I do not wish to be personal.

Sir R. LYNN

You are making a charge against the profession.

Sir E. CECIL

I strongly repudiate that. I merely put a hypothetical case. I said that if they publish one as a matter of justice, they ought to publish the other. I have said that such cases might have occurred.

Sir R. LYNN

I do not know of them.

Sir E. CECIL

It is undesirable and unnecessary to quote them at this moment.

Sir R. LYNN

I am not aware of them.

Sir E. CECIL

Another objection taken is that it, is hard on the working journalist. I do not want to prevent the working journalist from making his livelihood, but I do not think it is essential that a livelihood should be made out of writing filth. If there is any real hardship on the working journalist, it is a Committee point which I should be glad to consider. The working journalist, even now, is working under the law of libel and under the common law of indecency, and this Bill is drawn on the same lines. Therefore, I do not, prima facie, see why it should be so much harder on him than it is already under the common law of indecency and the law of libel. I should be glad to consider any question of that sort.

It is argued that the question is one of supply and demand. It is not simply a question of what the public demands. The supply creates the demand. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has an Amendment down to the effect that the law is adequate now but that no serious attempt is made to enforce it. Virtually, his Amendment is an indictment of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In any case, that is rather a legal point. If the Director of Public Prosecutions does not feel equal to acting, it is because he is afraid of having a verdict against him, which might give the imprimatur of a jury to questionable phraseology. There are other arguments raised against the Bill. There is a general feeling that "our craft is in danger." Surely, that is a flimsy argument. It is also said that this is being made a new offence. I do not see anything wrong about that. You might as well object to a new tax being created. The argument that no new tax ought to be imposed must surely fall to the ground, however we may dislike a new tax. Equally I do not see that we can argue that no new offence should be created. It is said that this Bill will lead to conflicting decisions by different benches of magistrates. I have heard criticisms about different Judges giving different sentences for the same offence. It is further said that this Bill does not include novels and plays. I dare say not. It is desirable that action should' be taken, if need be, in regard to novels and plays, but there are other means of doing that. Newspapers have a wider set of readers than have novels or than plays have of spectators.

There seems to me to be a considerable number of arguments which are brought against this Bill which are not to the point. It does not seem to me to be a very dignified attitude to run from pillar to post getting fresh arguments as the years go by, merely to prevent anything being done. The large majority of electors of this country intend that something should be done, and I am sure that a large portion of the Press will help us to do something. If those who are going to take up a non possumus attitude think that that will commend itself to the electorate, I venture categorically to deny it. Parents, notably through the Mothers' Union and many other bodies, have shown their disgust at the present arrangement and their repudiation of the filthy headlines and illustrations which have to be hidden from their children, forsooth, at the breakfast table. They detest the idea that these pictures should be displayed as a real sample of the decadent life of England. These things go out broadcast to our Dominions and to India, where they do an infinity of harm as my correspondence has shown, to the Continent, the Eastern nations and elsewhere, as though they represented the normal life of this country. And all this is done in the name of justice!

I am sure that the House must believe that this Bill points in the right direction. If the majority of the House think so—I am asking for the general principle of the Bill on the Second Reading to be approved—I hope they will approve it by a large and convincing majority, so that the Government may be induced to take up the Bill and show their agreement with what was said the other day by Sir Robert Bruce, the President of the Institute of Journalists, that the moral sense of the overwhelming majority of the people is in favour of action of this kind.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

I am sure of one thing, and that is that the House will entirely sympathise with the objects of those who are promoting this Measure, and a should like, if it is not impertinent, to offer, particularly to the right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, my congratulations for the courage and persistency with which he has carried out his duty. He and those who think with him have one great advantage in bringing this Bill before the House. They bring it forward as being something which is a necessity for the better education and upbringing of the young, and that is a subject which must touch a sympathetic chord in every Member of the House. But at the same time it makes it all the more desirable that hon. Members should examine with a little care a Bill which on the face of it touches their sympathies perhaps more than their judgment. I am going to suggest to the House that this Bill ought to be rejected for three reasons. The first question is whether this legislation is needed at all; secondly, whether it will not do a great deal more harm than good; and thirdly, whether, if such a Bill is required, this particular Bill is workable even if subjected to any amount of amendment.

Let me tell the House what is the law at the present time. The avowed object of this Bill is to prevent the corruption of the young; the idea is that this matter which appears in the newspapers is largely read by the youths and maidens of the country, and that it has a corrupting influence. I think I shall be able to show that the law as it stands is not only sufficient to deal with an object of that kind, but is framed intentionally to protect the very people whom this Bill purports to defend. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading read one of the cases with which we are all familiar, but the existing law was very shortly stated by Sir Archibald Bodkin in his evidence before the Select Committee, when he quoted from the remarks of a learned Judge, to this effect: It very often happens that for the purposes of justice our ears may be shocked with extremely offensive and delicate evidence, but, though we are bound in a Court of Justice to hear, evil persons are not afterwards at liberty to circulate it at the risk of those effects which in the minds of the young and unwary such evidence may be calculated to produce. Another learned Judge says: The provision of a fair report of what occurs in a Court of Justice is like free discussion allowed for the sake of public benefit, but it is equally clear that the publication of what tends to corrupt public morals cannot be lawful. I think it is clear that the existing Law is strong enough as it stands to prohibit the main evil which this Bill starts out to stop. As the Director of Public Prosecutions said in his evidence, before he initiates any prosecution he has to consider whether the offending matter is obscene, indecent, and calculated to affect the morals of the country — and that is the object of this Bill. Will this Bill interfere with the administration of justice? That is, after all, the main question and the important question which this House must consider. The present President of the Divorce Court was called before the Select Committee, and I should like to call the attention of the House to the question which was put to him by the Chairman of the Select Committee. This is the question: So far as general considerations go would you support the broad view of English law that the administration of justice, generally speaking, should be carried on with absolute publicity? And this is the reply—and the House will observe that "absolute publicity" entails reports in the newspapers: To my mind that is a foundation element in our administration of justice. I do not know anything else in this country in the administration of public affairs which seems to me more vital to the well-being of a country such as ours than that justice should be publicly administered. I may add, that it is not only a principle of English law but it is a tradition in our law. This country resents anything in the nature of adjudication in private upon the affairs of the citizens. The next question was this: As at present advised would you support a proposal to prohibit the publication of anything concerning divorce cases except the result? And this was the answer: No, I should not by any means. I think that would be a dangerous proposal. I will tell you the kind of considerations that affect me arising not only from general observation upon these questions but from my own experience. That is a very important consideration. Is there really any particular demand for the class of prohibitive legislation which is proposed in this Bill. There has been a good deal said about the Russell case during the discussion. I remember when that case was being reported, talking to a friend of mine who was very loud in his praise of the "Morning Post." He said, "The Morning Post' has not published a word of this filth. I think it has behaved nobly in excluding reports altogether of this dirty, horrible case." I was a little doubtful as to whether he was quite accurate in his statement and I questioned it, and he said "No, they have not published a word. I ought to know because personally I have to read it in 'The Times ' every day." Honestly, if you come to think of it one's own common sense will tell one that the publicity of divorce cases must act as a deterrent. Just let the House think for one moment what happens. Publicity consists of the reading of passionate love letters in the cold atmosphere of the court. All the things that seem so beautiful when they were written or received are read out in open court and made the subject of laughter and jeers. There is the vulgarity of the whole thing, the details 'of it, all stripped of every atom of romance—why, it is the greatest deterrent to a certain class of people, to the rich and wealthy certainly, which you could possibly imagine. I am glad that I find support in that view from the present President of the Divorce Court. He said in his evidence before the Select Committee, on page 2: I was going to tell you of my own experience during the great pressure there was in the administration of divorce jurisdiction after the War. That pressure, as you know, has happily almost entirely disappeared because our people have not become demoralised as some people thought they had. During that time I came to the conclusion, by very close observation when I was sitting sometimes for weeks together in the exercise of the divorce jurisdiction, that there was throughout the mass of people who were brought into the jurisdiction a sense of shame and of repugnance at the public consequences of the conduct into which they had been betrayed which seemed to me. a most wholesome state of things. Now if you treat the administration of the divorce law as though it were a private affair between parties, the persons who will be relieved will be the people who seem to me to deserve public condemnation. I can well conceive that people who have been guilty of the grace offence of adultery, for example, would desire nothing better than that no publicity should be given to the matter. Speaking of the effect of publicity, I have observed, times out of mind, in the communications of parties in divorce which come to the Judge and are never read in Court, that the men who have gone wrong and the women who have gone wrong have had a very wholesome horror of the public opprobrium to which they had exposed themselves. Then my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Cecil) asks this question of his Lordship: So that you think publicity is a real deterrent? The answer is: I think so, and I think, too, it is very necessary in the administration of justice. Does the House think that in these days it is desirable to remove any deterrent from people going into the Divorce Court? The whole tendency, unluckily, of men and women is to go far too easily into the Divorce Court. In modern days there does not seem to be time for mutual consideration, for give and take, and for all that makes for happiness in the home, but people rush at once to the Divorce Court. If this deterrent is removed, it will make entrance into the Divorce Court easier still. I say without hesitation, and I say it because I believe it, that if this House passes this Bill they will earn the gratitude of every would-be adulterer in the country. That may sound a strong thing to say, but it is true. If the deterrent is removed, you are making it easier for people to go into the Divorce Court when it ought to be made harder. But there is a second point which goes to prove that the publicity of divorce cases ought to exist. Public opinion as a result of Divorce Court cases counts for a good deal. It is not right always that the details and facts of cases should be suppressed.

Let me give two examples that I have met in my own personal experience, concerning two men, both of them doctors. They are both men to whom public opinion means their bread and cheese. In the first case the man was being divorced by his wife under circumstances which deserve pubic execration. He had brought his mistresses into his home and he had led for many years a life which should hold him up to public reprobation and in justice should affect his future life. The other man is also a. doctor. He married an excellent woman 20 years ago. There were temperamental differences between them, but there were no marital offences on either side, and they agreed to part. The doctor has always allowed her a reasonable share of his earnings, he has behaved as a father should to his child, there is no item in the relationship between himself and his wife which could be pointed to as improper. At the end of 20 years he felt the want of someone to carry on his home and he is anxious to contract a proper union. The wife is anxious to divorce him so that he may find happiness in his old age. He required to carry on his practice as a doctor and he could not face the ruin which an unexplained notice of his divorce, not setting forth all its circumstances, might bring upon him. I give these instances to show that publication of the details of divorce cases is very often perfectly just and the public should have an opportunity of judging. If this Act passes, all that is going to happen is that you publish the names and address's of the parties and the names and addresses of the witnesses. No doubt the newspaper will have a right to insert the judgment, but that in nine cases out of 10 consists of only some two or three words, such as, "decree granted."

Very often the publication of such cases does a great deal of good. There was a case of a young actress not very long ago who met with an unfortunate death under circumstances which, when investigated, showed that there was a practice of holding dope parties where cocaine and various other dopes were freely taken. The report of this case nut the police on the alert, which nothing else would have done but the fact that public attention was called to it, and the result is that the practice has been largely brought to an end solely through the observation drawn to it by the publication of that case. Take another example. Incest cases contain, as you may well imagine, details the publication of which would come well within the prohibition of this Bill. His Majesty's Judges have recently requested the publication of incest cases for this reason, that among some of the uneducated people in the North there is ignorance of the fact that incest is forbidden by the law, and the practice was becoming so prevalent that the only cure was publicity, and as a consequence you will now see the reports of such cases which are tried at Assize by the Judges. Then there is the case of the King's Proctor. He depends almost entirely for his information upon the publicity given to divorce cases. He may not be a very popular official, but he is a person who is still acting as an official, and it is as well that he should have an opportunity of doing his work. He was called before the Committee to give evidence, and he was asked whether he thought that it would affect his work, and he replied, "Yes." He said in terms that the Bill, if passed, would add to the difficulties that he experienced in tracing collusive divorce cases, which it was his object to stop.

1.0 P.M

Finally, can it be suggested that to read a report of a divorce case would do harm to the young in the sense that it would cause any kind of sexual emotion? Can it do such harm to read a case where adultery, stripped of every atom of romance, stands out as what it is, an offence against Cod and man, where the all too common incidents are shown up of the betrayal of a friend, the abuse of hospitality, the breaking of a. plighted word, where the offender is exposed in consequence, to public contempt, public contempt from which this Bill will largely shield him, and to the result, the decree which should follow the case? Is it not foolish to try the dangerous experiment which is included in this Bill? Why do you leave in circulation books dealing with sex problems, described with anatomical accuracy in glowing language, salacious plays in which the timely curtain falls only just soon, enough to hide the obvious dénouement illustrations in the papers of veiled nudity, which are intended to, excite, and which do excite the feelings, the ideas and the imaginations of the young? If we are to leave all these out, how can we cleanse the Augean stable of public moralty? Had we not better begin with the serious things instead of the small? I want in the few moments still at my disposal to deal with the Bill itself and suggest that it is wholly unworkable. Let us follow it for a moment: I shall not be lawful to print, circulate or publish "— I suppose the result of that would be that every wretched creature who sells papers at the corner of the street would be circulating, and would come under the prohibition of this Bill— in relation to any judicial proceedings any indecent matter or medical, surgical or physiological details. These are not to be published if they are calculated to injure public morals or otherwise be to the public mischief. My hon Friend found some difficulty, and I do not wonder at it in giving a qualification of the word "indecent." Opinions differ. There are those who may think the "Song of Songs" in the Bible or the Book of Job full of expressions that may be indecent; there are others that may think indecency lies, not in the language used, but in the suggestions contained. There are differences of opinion. You may think one thing; I may think another. Yes, but if the reporter under this Bill does not come to the right conclusion be goes to prison for three months and may be fined £500. It may be stopped too if it is to the public mischief. Let the House pause and consider what a dangerous phrase that is. Can we not well imagine a bench of magistrates sitting in the country and having some prominent citizen, some wealthy and well-known gentleman brought before them? What is to prevent the chairman saying just one word to the Press, "I think publication of this case would tend to the public mischief." It is all wrong. There ought not to be any such power. It may not be utilised, but no such power ought to be in the hands of anybody. Every action in every Court of Law ought to be open to the whole world. It ought to be the same for the rich and poor, distinguished and unknown.

Then we come to a phrase about which I think the promoters of the Bill must have been a little humourous when they inserted it. It is to be an offence unless you make a concise statement of the grounds on which the proceedings are brought and resisted. I wonder what differences of opinion there are on the question of what is a concise statement. I wonder how many times lion. Members have come to you, Mr. Speaker, and assured you that they are going to make a concise statement and then you have called upon them as a result? I should like sometimes, if I had been able to penetrate into your mind to have found out what you thought afterwards as to whether the statement was concise or not.

Mr. SPEAKER

I have a great many thoughts on that question.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS

still more would I have liked to have asked the opinion of the other Members in the House, who were all waiting to make their speech, as to whether the speaker you. had called on was concise or not. Perhaps the principle is an excellent one and should be extended to speeches in this House. The first result would be that all Ministers and ex-Ministers would be undergoing various terms of imprisonment. It might be a good thing or not, but it would have one obvious advantage that it would give to the back benchers what they are always craving for—opportunity. It would have its advantages until the back benches themselves would of necessity go to join their leaders in captivity. I do not think the phrase is any better because it was put in in the House of Lords. Can the House imagine anything more ludicrous than such a suggestion?

Let Members put themselves for a moment in the position of the unfortunate reporter, taking down these cases for publication. All the time the sword of Damocles is hanging over his head and he must say to himself, "It must be concise or I go to prison. If it is too long, a column instead of a half column, it may mean three months or a fine of £500." Does the House really imagine that he can carry on under conditions of that kind? There is also a danger arising from the fact that reporters have to learn their business like every other trade. The class of reporter who is sent to attend the trials may be, and very often is, a beginner and lacking the experience that is needed to translate the speeches that we make, into proper English. It would indeed be fatal if reports of such things as public trials were not worthy of the attention of the leaders of the profession. We have all suffered, I suppose. from the young reporter. I remember that at the time when the National Health Insurance Bill was being discussed in this House I went into the country to address a diocesan conference. I spoke of the in- justice of the proposed flat rate, as a result of which the agriculturists and the artisan were called upon to pay the same contribution. I confess that I was a little startled When, on reading the report of my speech, I found it dealt with in this way: The hon. Member concluded an interesting address by pointing out the injustice to the agriculturist who would have to pay for his flat a rate which included insurance. The report was duly circulated among the clergy of the diocese, and I am given to believe that the strongest language which the vocabulary contains was used in condemnation of the folly of sending a London lawyer to address an audience of agriculturists. What I am afraid of is that if this Bill is passed, even now at the Second reading, it will inevitably tend to this—it will not be worth any newspaper's while to send a reporter to trials. You may think it is well to suppress reports altogether. If you think so, say so, and let us have a Bill to suppress all reports of trials; let its go straight to the French system, under which no names at all appear in divorce cases and no publicity is given. Let us draft a Bill which will make divorce purely an agreeable domestic incident, a sort of happy interruption in the home life, bringing change into the love and affection of the family. Let us have divorce made still easier than it is now. Speaking as one with some experience in the matter, I beg the House not to make divorce easier. It has become to a great extent a public scandal. People seem to be losing their self-control; they seem to be losing all desire to preserve the sanctity of married life, and in the feverish age in which we live they rush pell-mell into the divorce court. If you remove what in many cases is practically the only terror. namely, the public contempt, opprobrium and ridicule to which parties are subject, you will he taking a terrible step towards making divorce easier and more common.

This Bill runs counter to the whole tendency of modern justice, which is to make all our Courts open, justice being administered in the light of day. There used to be trials in camera. Judges have set their faces against them. There used to be cases in which, for many reasons, the Courts were closed. They have practically ceased to exist. Now the law is that the Courts have to be open to everybody, reporters and public, except in cases where the actual administration of justice would be harmed, because the witnesses would not be able to give evidence freely, or in certain cases affecting, say, the future of a child. The great case which settled this matter was the well-known case of Scott v. Scott in 1913. The whole tendency of modern adminitration is to court publicity. There have been opinions expressed by the learned Law Lords on this subject. Lord Halsbury said: I am of opinion that every Court of Justice is open to every subject of the King Mr. Evelyn in 1730 said: In other countries the Courts of Justice are held in secret; with us, publicly and in open view "— The applicant must satisfy the Court that by nothing short of the exclusion of the public can justice be done. The mere consideration that the evidence is of an unsavoury character is not enough, and, still less, that the parties agree in being reluctant to have their case tried with open doors. There will be no necessity for parties to "agree" if this Bill be passed; this House will do it for them. This Bill will shut the doors of the Courts to—

Major KINDERSLEY

On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing the closing of the Courts. There is nothing in this Bill about the closing of the Courts.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

That is a point of argument, not a point of Order.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS

The hon. and gallant Gentleman does me scant justice. I never suggested that the Courts should be closed. What he is suggesting in the Bill is that they shall be closed to the reporters, at any rate in part. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but what I state is true. If this Bill is passed, all that the reporters will be entitled to do will be to report the names of the parties and a few immaterial details. For ordinary purposes the Bill would close the Courts to the reporters, who are the eyes and ears of the country.

Major KINDERSLEY

It is the second time that the hon. and learned Gentleman has left out the summing up of the Judge.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS

The hon. and gallant Member does not realise that in nine cases out of 10 particularly in the Divorce Court, there is no jury to which to sum up. What happens is, that the Judge listens to the evidence, and, having a great deal of work to do, in nine cases out of 10 he merely says, "Decree nisi, with costs." If that is called having the Courts open, I disagree. I have ventured to take up the time of the House because I think that the issue involved in this Bill is a much more serious one than the Mover and Seconder appear to have thought. The issue is something higher than the suppression of vulgar and unwholesome matter in a few of the less important journals. The Bill threatens the hard-won right—it is a hard-won right which had to be fought for—of every British citizen to a trial in any and every Court in this country in the light of day, which all can attend, which all can read, and, if necessary, which all can criticise. That the proceedings in the Courts of Law should be known to all is the very essence of justice in a free and democratic country. It is because I think that this Bill seriously threatens that, because I think that the existing law, if it requires strengthening, can be strengthened in a much better and simpler way than by practically closing part of our Courts, that I look upon this as a dangerous and retrograde Bill, a step backward instead of a step forward. I think it is fraught with danger to what is the most important thing in the history of our country, a pure, open and free administration of justice. For these reasons I offer the Bill my strenuous opposition, and I beg the House to reject the Motion for Second Reading.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to preface my remarks by expressing my deep sympathy with the object of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill and to assure him that anything I may say is not inspired, in any way, by a desire on my part, or on the part of any news paper proprietor in this country, to encourage the publication of details which are calculated to injure public morals. The Seconder of the Motion said that 80 per cent. of the newspapers of this country did not publish these details. I would say to him that 95 per cent. of them do not publish such details. I have been running a provincial newspaper for many years, and details of this kind have never appeared in my newspaper nor in any newspaper in my district, so far as I am aware. We are not out, in publishing these reports, to interfere with public morals, but we take the view which has been so ably expressed by the hon. and learned Mover of the Amendment, that to suppress reports which are going to convict people of indecent conduct in private life, would be detrimental to the best interests of the country. The Seconder of the Motion said that the newspaper people had changed their minds and had taken different views on this matter from time to time. I am sure he will not make that. charge against me. When a Bill of this kind was introduced three or four years ago I put down on the next day an Amendment for its rejection. I did so, not because it was an interference with the liberty of the Press, but because it was an interference with the liberty of the subject.

I have strong reasons for taking that view. Fifty years ago, my father, my brother and I, were indicted on a criminal' information for an alleged libel printed in our paper, at a time when we were all absent from the town where the paper is published. The case was heard in the Queen's Bench and a rule nisi was granted. We sought shelter under an Act. which had been passed by Lord Campbell. in 1837, which provided that in a criminal prosecution for libel it should be competent for a newspaper proprietor to prove that the publication was made without his knowledge, authority or consent. It is a singular thing that for 40 years that law had stood on the Statute Book and no newspaper proprietor had sought its protection prior to that case We tried to get the point raised in the arguments in the Queen's Bench on the issue of making the rule absolute. We failed, the rule was made absolute, and we were all three sent for trial to the Winchester Assizes. We were all three convicted in respect of a matter with which we had nothing whatever to do. We appealed, the convictions were: quashed, and we were ordered to be tried a second time. I was in a very delicate position at the time. Very shortly before the case came on. in October, 1876, I had become engaged to be married and I did not want my future wife to be in the position of marrying a criminal, so I had to keep on postponing my wedding while this wretched case proceeded, as it did for nearly two and half years before we could get it settled.

We were tried a second time, but I made up my mind that, whatever the result of the second trial, I should get married. We were convicted a second time, and again we appealed against the decision, and while I was a convicted criminal, awaiting the sentence which the Court was to impose, I was married and went on the Continent. I had scarcely arrived there before I got a cable to come hack at once as I had to surrender to the tipstaff of the Court on the following morning at nine o'clock. I travelled all night and arrived home in the morning. This was in May, 1878, and the case lasted for a considerable period while the Judges took time to consider their decision, which was not given until the following December—again in our favour. We established this time. as a matter of law, that a newspaper proprietor should not go to prison for something which appeared in his paper without his knowledge, authority or consent.

What. is the effect of this Bill? If it is passed. it will widen the field of criminal responsibility and not only bring in the proprietor, but the reporter who takes the note, the editor who passes the report., the printer, the publisher, the newsagent and the boy who sells the paper on the street. If some local gentleman who has some fad decides that a publication in the paper is prejudicial to public morals, he. can go to a Court of summary jurisdiction and as a result of his efforts, any one of these individuals can be sent. to prison for three months, though they probably know nothing about what has appeared in the paper. That is an extension of criminal responsibility to which this House ought never to agree. The question of the publication of detailed reports is a matter which is a little outside my scope but the criminal responsibility would remain. I might be sitting in this House; one of my sub-editors might put an article into my newspaper in Portsmouth and I might find myself summoned on the following day by some local man to go down and answer in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for something in that article which was alleged to be prejudicial to public morals. I should not know anything myself about the publication but this Bill would make me responsible for it. I say that does not show a true appreciation of English justice and the House of Commons ought not to give a Second Reading to a Bill of that kind.

Reference has been made to the harm which is done to young people by the publication of certain details. I quite agree. I have always realised my responsibility in that respect, and I am not alone. Newspapers proprietors generally realise their responsibility not only to suppress reports of cases which are calculated to injure the morals of young people, but they also exclude those filthy advertisements which are inserted in some papers and lose a large revenue because they will now allow their papers to contain anything which cannot be distributed in the family circle. That is the principle which I have followed throughout my career of 50 years. Every newspaper man already has his responsibilities and his terrors. He never knows when some slip may be made in his columns, and he may be served with a writ for damages. This Bill proposes to add to his responsibilities and terrors. It is suggested that we might publish a concise statement. Originally the word used was "pleadings." I pointed out on a previous occasion that if the pleadings in the Court were published they might contain some reflection upon an individual which would not afterwards be proved by sworn evidence, and a man whose character was thus impugned would have a civil action against the newspaper proprietor which might possibly ruin the newspaper proprietor.

That is what we have to face. If there is to be any suppression at all, suppress the whole case. As. far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for about 95 per cent. of newspaper proprietors—we are quite willing to accept the decision of the Judges that cases are not to be reported at all. But there is enormous danger in that. In France they do not publish these reports, and last year there were 50,000 divorce cases in France against 3,000 in this country. That is the danger to which you may lay the country open if you pass a Bill of this kind. The hon. and learned Mover of the Amendment has already called attention to that danger. There is an instance of what the danger would be. The extension of facilities for divorce is a most dangerous step to take, and this House ought to be careful not to give any encouragement to it. Reference has been made to the difficulty of defining what is indecent. Does not that at once show the main objection to this Bill? You can imagine the position in which a man would be if there was some sort of difficulty, and he could not decide whether a thing was or was not decent. A man might be convicted, but the case might lead to all sorts of litigation afterwards, and other Judges might say it was not indecent and that it was merely a question of publishing the facts. We want to protect young people, but can we not do so better by turning our attention to some of the books which are placed on the market to-day? There are two books which I have seen lately. They were sent to me by a Member of this House to read, and they were published by a lady called Marie Stopes, who claims to be a doctor. She is not a doctor of medicine, but a doctor of philosophy, and I have read those two books—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I cannot help thinking that this is a little beyond the scope of this Bill.

Sir A. HOLBROOK

If those books are allowed to be published, I say that the law is not being put into proper operation. The law is strong enough to-day to deal with cases of that sort, and I, as a Magistrate, would not hesitate, if a man were brought before me for selling one of those books, to convict him of selling an indecent publication, and I should be justified in doing it. To start with the newspapers which are carrying out a public duty is not a fair way of dealing with this desire to suppress unwholesome publications. In Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a) of the Bill it says: in relation to any judicial proceedings any indecent matter or medical, surgical or physiological details. I say that that is a dangerous thing, and if that is going to be carried out the word "indecent" ought to be put before the word "medical" as well, otherwise there may be some medical fact brought out which would not be at all indecent, but the publication of it would make the newspaper proprietor liable, under this Bill, for three months' imprisonment. I acknowledge the protection we have, by the case being submitted first to the Attorney-General, against what I would call petty prosecutions, but I contend that the newspaper proprietors should not be subjected to this great difficulty in carrying out their duties. We are of opinion that this Bill, if placed on the Statute Book, would be injurious to the public. Charges are often not substantiated, and it would be unjust if in publishing "pleadings" some reference might appear prejudicial to the character of a man which was not afterwards proved in sworn evidence. If we had to give only small details, we should always be in danger. If you cannot give the whole case, you are always in some difficulty as to whether a jury might not decide that you published something prejudicial to an individual and omitted something in his favour. If hon. Members have ever been to a Court and heard any of these cases, which, as a newspaper man, it has been my misfortune to have to do on many occasions, they would be amazed to find the discretion which is exercised to-day by newspaper reporters in omitting details not fit for the public to read, and it is only fair that those reporters should have some sort of protection. I yield to no Member of this House in my desire to establish a clean Press, but, while that is so, we must not be carried away by sentiment and establish a Press which is not protecting the interests of the general public. I second the Amendment, and T hope the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. CLYNES

This, of course, is not a, party question, and the names on the back of this Bill indicate that all parts of the House are associated with its purpose. I am able to offer, on behalf of those with whom I act on this side of the House, a general support to this Bill, though I have no doubt that individual Members of the Labour party will freely express their views during the remaining stages of this Debate. There is no doubt that very many of my hon. Friends are still enjoying the repose which their continuous labours of the last two nights have earned for them, but, even in their absence, I can speak generally in their name, and I would congratulate the right hon. Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir E. Cecil) upon the success of his continued efforts and upon the stage which the objects of this Bill have now reached. His success has been due to a growing disgust among the newspaper readers of this country and the public generally at what undoubtedly is a deplorable development of the more evil sides of the journalism of the day, and there is now an almost unanimous opinion and desire that some action should be taken to cope with what is an admitted evil. Public opinion, so far as I can measure it, is unanimously on the side of this Bill, which is supported by innumerable organisations of all characters, and not merely by religious bodies. It has the support of the Council of the Institute of Journalists, that Council having expressed its strong disapproval of the more detestable features of the sort of journalism to which I have referred.

The Bill is not the handiwork of cranks and busybodies. It is not the product of a few shocked sentimentalists who want to interfere with individual freedom. All law is, in some form or degree, an interference with individual liberty. Committees and other bodies that have investigated the subject before us have, with emphasis and with unanimity, suggested that some step should be taken through the medium of the law to deal with this evil. No one wants to interfere with individual freedom; we want to suppress what is really an abuse of freedom. We have seen that abuse carried to the length of certain newspapers paying very big prices to buy sensational material from some of the worst offenders, who have not only passed through the Courts, but spent their time in gaol. It may be that they are only, after all, a small section, but the general standard of journalism as a whole is lowered by this abuse on the part of that small section, and that is why all the more reputable journals, whether daily or weekly, are on the side of the objects of this Measure. It has been argued that the Bill is imperfectly drawn, and that there are defects in it. Which Bill is not? In Committee, the details to which the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for rejection have referred can be made as perfect as it is possible to make them.

It is no objection against this Bill that it does not deal with everything. Of course, it does not deal with books, or plays, or pictures. It has a definite object in relation to the Press, and there is nothing to prevent hon. Members of this House taking up the wider labours to which they have referred.

If this Bill is given a Second Reading, as I hope and believe it will be, by an overwhelming majority, I join with the right hon. Member for the Aston Division in. suggesting that the Government's responsibility should then intervene, and that the Bill should be taken over as a Measure desired by the country generally, and by the vast majority of Members of all parties in this House. It is a matter of such public importance as to warrant the intervention of the Government in the event of the House giving a verdict in its favour. We on this side of the House naturally, and, I think, properly, desire to have the fullest protection guaranteed to the working journalist, and to those who labour in connection with newspaper production, and I am glad to have heard what has been said under that head as to the willingness of those actively behind this Bill to see that those who must earn their living in carrying out the orders or instructions of their employers, are not made personally to suffer through the discharge of their duties.

I listened, as everyone listened, to the case made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill. I set aside, as one incompetent to deal with it, the purely legal side of the case which he submitted, and I turn to that part of his speech in which he dealt with the value of publicity as a deterrent upon the wrongdoer. He also argued that there had been a most lamentable increase in the number of divorce cases in this country lately. Indeed, twice in his speech he made an appeal to the conscience of the community to go slowly in the matter of divorce. It appears, then, that the greater the publicity, the greater the number of divorces. Those are the mutually destructive arguments to which I listened in the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are asked, "What is indecent?" Why cannot we answer, "What is libel?" and "What is sedition?" In short, in matters of this kind, what is anything? These matters have to be determined by judgment, by the proper authorities on the facts of the case. We do not hesitate to incorporate the word "sedition" or the word "libel" in an Act of Parliament because of some difficulty in minute and perfect definition in regard to it. We leave these matters for the ultimate decision of those who are properly charged to deal with them. I think there is to be found in this Bill the widest safeguard against any frivolous proceedings or undue interference with journalists or newspaper liberty in this country. The Bill says that No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be commenced by any person without the sanction of the Attorney-General. It is unlikely, therefore, that any risk will be run by individuals who desire to conduct their business properly, within the general terms of this Bill.

Finally, I do not share the view that this Bill, either solely or mainly, is designed to protect the young. That is one of its objects, but surely people of all ages are entitled to be spared the flood of disgusting matter which is to be found in certain of our newspapers on certain occasions. It is for the protection of all, no matter what age or what sex. Both Mover and Seconder of the rejection declared that they are in favour of the objects of this Bill. The objects of this Bill can be attained only by passing it; they cannot be attained by leaving matters as they are. Recognising what I conceive to he the growing public desire for definite action on this matter, I trust, as I have said, there will be an overwhelming majority in favour of the Second Beading of this Bill, and that that majority will convince the Government it is their duty to respond to the appeal, and give the Bill facilities.

Mr. WITHERS

I rise with very great hesitation to address the House. I hoped it would be some considerable time before I was stirred to take this audacious course, but, having had a certain amount of experience in litigation in the Courts of England, and also to a certain extent of newspaper reports of the same, I feel I am bound to place my humble views at the disposal of this House. I hope very much the Members of the House will par-