HL Deb 19 May 1954 vol 187 cc737-67

2.45 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON rose to call attention to the incidence of homosexual crime in Britain at the present time; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I have two preliminary observations to make. The first is that I am authorised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say that he would have been present, and would, indeed, have taken some part in the debate, but for the fact that he was honoured by an invitation from the Lord Mayor to meet Her Majesty. My second observation is this. It is clear that it would be my duty to offer some reason and justification to your Lordships for bringing forward this nauseating subject, especially as the Government have announced the appointment of a Committee. I would say, in parenthesis, that the appointment of a Committee to deal with a public issue of moment does not preclude your Lordships' House, another place, the Press or anybody else, from discussing the matter that is to come before the Committee—indeed, it may be an aid to the Committee that it should be done. What it does is to make it difficult for a reply to be received from the Government, and my noble friend Lord Lloyd, who is, so to speak, competently under-studying the Lord Chancellor in this debate, will no doubt feel it difficult to say much on the subject.

My justification, in my opinion, is to be found from the following sequence of events. Though unnatural offences known to the police rose from 134 in 1938 to 670 in 1952; attempts to commit unnatural offences (including indecent assaults) rose from 822 to 3,087, and cases of gross indecency during the same period from 320 to 1,686, there was little public or Parliamentary interest in the subject until cases affecting prominent men occurred last year. The sequel was, to me, curious. There was considerable propaganda in both the editorial and correspondence columns of more than one newspaper, and similar advocacy by one well-known Member of another place over the radio, to change the law so as to legalise homosexualism between adults. In effect, this point of view is supported by a pamphlet issued by the Church of England Moral Welfare Council; and, though it would be out of order to refer here to a debate in another place, I think I can say, under the Rules of Order of your Lordships' House, that the purport of the debate in another place, so far as the only two private Members who took part in the debate were concerned, was to the same effect.

I do not question the sincerity of the advocates of this viewpoint; they may be right. It is for the Committee to adjudicate on it. But the effect of this propaganda may be to give the impression that the main issue is whether or not the law should be changed in favour of homosexuals—in other words, the issue may have got into a wrong perspective. The question of whether the law should be changed is obviously most important, but it is not more important than the investigation of the cause of this great rise in criminal vice and, above all, the moral issue of how a further rise can be prevented. Further, I would submit that the presentation of the case for a change of law displays lack of logic in some respects, unproved assertions in others, and, at least in the case of the Church of England Moral Welfare Council pamphlet, one most regrettable contention, which is contained in the following statement: There is ample evidence from the personal histories of those with whom we have been in touch that homosexualism is a problem and often a tragedy to those afflicted with it. As a social problem it is not, as a rule, so far-reaching and devastating in its third-party consequences as ordinary pre-marital or extramarital sexual relations. My comment is this. Fornication and adultery are evils; but I completely contest the view that they are more evil and more harmful to the individual and the community than the filthy, disgusting, unnatural vice of homosexuality. I think that the particular sentence which I have quoted is an astonishing doctrine to emanate from an organisation of the Church of England.

I should like to give the main reasons which have been put forward by this propaganda—because that is the word for it—outside the House for changing the law. I hope that I shall put them forward in a fair way; I shall have to put them in a somewhat tabloid form, so as not to detain your Lordships' House for more than the twenty minutes or so, which is usually considered a suitable time for anyone introducing a Motion. The first point is this. It is said that unnatural vice among women is not punished, and that it is therefore illogical and unfair to punish it among men. My comments are that two wrongs do not make a right. It seems to me to be carrying the principle of sex equality too far, and I would say, speaking from fifty years experience of public life, that it would be difficult for any Minister introducing a Bill, either here or in another place, to amend the law to gain support for this argument in favour of it.

The second point which is made is that the existing law is the "blackmailers' charter." I wonder whether this is really so. No doubt the Committee to be appointed will collect evidence on this point. Is a homosexual more liable to blackmail than men or women who break the law in certain other directions—for example, a street bookmaker or prostitute? Is he more likely to be blackmailed than a man in a responsible position who keeps a mistress surreptitiously? No doubt the Committee will consider this point very carefully. At least one member of Her Majesty's Government appears to agree with the view that the law relating to homosexualism is the blackmailers' charter, because the Minister of Works said in another place on April 29 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: Vol. 526 (No. 100), col. 1865): … if a man is a homosexual he is much more easily blackmailed, owing to the law being what it is at present, than almost anybody else. I say that it may be so, but it seems to me that the statement must be based upon surmise unless more evidence is forthcoming than has been hitherto.

Another point made by the advocates of change is that in many countries there is no law against homosexualism between adults. I would submit—and I think that several of your Lordships, on both sides of the House, will agree—that this argument is valid only if the absence of the law in countries with a moral outlook similar to ours has reduced the number of adult homosexual offences against juveniles. One of the contentions made in connection with this matter is that by permitting what I may call adult homosexualism, it reduces the danger of attacks upon children. No doubt the Committee will examine this aspect very closely. I discussed the matter with an eminent legal authority, who told me that there was no ground whatsoever for saying that it was true that adult homosexualists did not attack children. He told me that the number of offences against children committed by those who were known to be adult homosexualists (if I may coin the word) was quite as great as those who were not. Not long ago, in a certain village not far distant from where I live, I came across a distressing case of two men who were sent to prison for homosexuality between themselves and who also corrupted five or six boys in that particular village. I hope the Committee will examine this matter very carefully indeed. It is like a number of other assertions which have been made of which as yet there is no proof.

The supporters of the change of law, of course, admit that juveniles must be protected against homosexualism. The Church Council for Moral Welfare pamphlet suggests that the age of consent should be twenty-one, so as to exclude National Servicemen. I can only comment on that proposal that such a provision in a Bill before either House would present grave difficulties to the Minister explaining it to that House or on a public platform, because the opponents of any change would say it meant telling the male public that when they reach the age of discretion they may commit a filthy act without punishment. Incidentally, if I wanted to be cynical I would say that I know of no better method of putting off legislation than by appointing a Committee. It usually does not report for a year or so—sometimes two years, and not until the next Parliament. And whenever the Government in power are faced with anything which looks like political dynamite they appoint a Committee.

What I have said illustrates the fact that the change of law is not going to be as easy as supporters of the change suggest. I should like to make this further comment on the comparison with other countries—and I regard it as a serious one. Some countries regard homosexualism at all male ages as harmless. I would say—and here I think I shall have assent from everyone in this House, however much they disagree with some of the things I have said—that neither the moral climate nor the position which those countries occupy in the world is one that we want to emulate. This weakens the argument concerning the law in other countries. The main basis of contention in favour of the change of law is the following intertwined quadruple argument: that the present law is not a deterrent; that sending offenders to prison does not cure them and spreads homosexualism in prison, and that they cannot help what they do, though some are curable by psychiatric treatment. My first comment is that I consider that there is a hiatus in the argument. For if it is wrong, because it does more harm than good, to send men convicted of homosexualism with another adult to prison, then adults who corrupt juveniles should not be sent to prison either, for obviously the same argument would apply. But the advocates of the change vehemently assert that it is necessary to protect juveniles, and would therefore presumably retain prison sentences for those who corrupt youth.

Is it or is it not true that prison is no deterrent? Is it also true that homosexuals, being admittedly peculiar and in many cases vain creatures, glory in a prison sentence as a form of advertisement? I submit that both propositions are doubtful. I should like to put before your Lordships what I believe to be an historical fact. There was a considerable amount of homosexualism at Oxford University in the early 'nineties. It may be said that the fontes et origines mali were Oscar Wilde and his associates. As it happens, the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor and I, and one or two other Members of your Lordships' House, were at Oxford in the early 1900's. I think they will confirm that then, ten years after this horrible series of attacks had occurred at Oxford, this vice was never, to our knowledge, discussed or practised. In the Oxford of our day it was wholly taboo, and such undergraduates as had practised unpleasant sexual vices at their public school concealed and were heartily ashamed of the fact. What caused this change? In the opinion of some well calculated to judge, it was the conviction of, and sentence upon, Oscar Wilde. I admit that both were regarded at the time, and are still regarded to-day by some learned in the law, as having been harsh and unfair. To put it more accurately, the new law was regarded as harsh, and the sentence on Oscar Wilde as unfair. But it frightened Oscar Wilde's imitators and, I think, acted as a moral purge.

The matter goes further. An eminent man of the 'nineties told his son, who is himself a distinguished man, who told me, that prior to Oscar Wilde's case there was a number of undesirable "men about town," some belonging to well-known families, who made a practice of corrupting Guardsmen and other young men. They were a bane to commanding officers, employers and parents, but evidence was difficult to obtain. After the Oscar Wilde case, perhaps as a result of discreet police warnings, they fled the country for lands where homosexualism is regarded as an eccentricity and not a crime. Therefore it may well be said that the Oscar Wilde case was a moral purge, and it may be that certain recent cases will have the same effect. If this be so, the whispering campaign against the police, which is going on very strongly, and sometimes in circles which ought to know better, should cease. In any event, I believe it to be unjustified, and I stand here in your Lordships' House to say that the police have been fully justified in the action they have taken in all the recent cases.

The other point which is made is, I admit, a strong one: that the sending of homosexuals to ordinary prisons spreads homosexualism there. At first I did not think that that was the case, but after conversation with those well able to judge, who have the knowledge of administration, I think it is probably the case that it does. Surely, the obvious answer to that point—if it be agreed, as I hope it is, that it is necessary to send at any rate some homosexualists to prison, those who attack juveniles—is that in future there should be special prisons and special treatment for them.

I come lastly, because I want to detain your Lordships for only a few moments more, to what I suppose the advocates of change would regard as the strongest argument of all, what I would describe as the "irresistible urge" theory. Its supporters contend that, because of heredity, environment, physical condition or mental outlook, some men just cannot help being homosexual. The theory, though its supporters would deny it, is really based upon Freudian ideas. Those ideas have done some good but they have also done immense harm to the modern world. And I would add, with respect, that they are largely antagonistic to Christian doctrine. If homosexualism is a form of obsessive, uncontrollable mania, then presumably it is on a par with kleptomania. But no one has definitely suggested that every convicted kleptomaniac should be free from fine or prison sentence. Medical psychiatric treatment, it is true, is sometimes given them in lieu of imprisonment, but so it is to homosexuals. No one either has ever suggested that a married nymphomaniac who has an "irresistible urge" to go to bed with other men besides her husband should be absolved in the Divorce Court from the consequences of her adultery. Though it is somewhat outside the ambit of my Motion, I submit with deep respect to your Lordships, so many of whom have a much greater juridical knowledge than I have, that the "irresistible urge" argument is being carried to dangerous lengths by the advocates of penal reform generally. We are rapidly reaching the point when it is being contended that no criminal is really responsible for his acts because of an "irresistible urge," and that therefore prisons should be abolished.

Having thus tried fairly to put the arguments against the change of law, I should like to quote something from another point of view. It is too long to quote in detail, but the well-known London journalist, Mr. John Gordon, after decrying the campaign making it easier for homosexualism, said this: 'Poor pitiable fellows!', the cry goes up; 'it is cruel to punish them because nature made them different. Instead of the prison cell they should have the doctor's clinic. Instead of punishment, pampering.' If the law hampers their desires, then the law ought to be changed … so their advocates say. He says that those who talk in those ways forget that homosexualism is a wicked mischief, destructive not only of men but of nations. Those who are raising sentimental howls in its defence would do Britain a better service by lending their support to stamping it out. I agree, in principle, with that statement. I believe that the real remedy for the increase in this horrible vice is a greater awareness of its evil and a much greater condemnation by public opinion of those who are known to practise it.

I have many contemporaries in age in your Lordships' House and I think they will agree with me that, when we were young, this thing was never mentioned in decent mixed society. In male society, its votaries were contemptuously described by a good old English cognomen which I cannot use in your Lordships' House. To-day, at any rate, to my disgust, you hear young ladies, themselves of irreproachable morality, say, half pityingly, half facetiously, "Of course, he is a pansy': he cannot help it." Hostesses have been known to say: "If we ask Bill we must ask Joe. You see, he is peculiar and they are inseparable, like two lovers." All this to me seems to show a serious moral declension, as does this fact. Many of the great actors of the past, in the early days of this century, were friends of mine. I knew Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, Sir John Hare, Sir Cyril Maude and others. We were members of the same club. It is inconceivable that they would have been guilty of the disgusting offence of male importuning, or that the theatrical public in those days would have treated the offence with the leniency accorded to a well-known actor of the present day. In my opinion, there has been a moral declension.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Oh!

EARL WINTERTON

I do not know why the noble Earl says "Oh!" Does he wish to interrupt me? If so, I shall be very ready to give way to him.

I end on this note. I am convinced that the majority of British people agree with me that few things lower the prestige, weaken the moral fibre and injure the physique of a nation more than tolerated and widespread homosexualism. I hope and believe that we have not reached that point, and never shall. If we did, I would submit with respect—and here I think I should have the support of everyone in your Lordships' House—we should lose our influence for good in the world, and we should go the way of other countries in the past, who were once great but became decadent through corrosive and corrupting immorality. I beg to move for Papers.

3.7 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, this is an unpleasant subject. The noble Earl who has moved the Motion, was, of course, perfectly entitled to move it, notwithstanding the fact that a Committee is to be appointed. On the other hand, I think it is manifest that the fact that a Committee is to be appointed makes it necessary that we should be exceedingly careful in what we say. I merely want to indicate, briefly, some considerations which have come to my mind after rather long legal experience. It is twenty-five years ago that I became Attorney-General. I had had a large practice in the commercial court and knew little about crime and criminals. When I became Attorney-General, I became oppressed by the discovery that there was a much larger quantity of blackmail than I had ever realised. I have no figures—I do not suppose one can get figures in a case of this sort—but I can certainly charge my recollection to this extent. It is the fact—I do not know why it is the fact, but it is the fact—that at least 95 per cent. of the cases of blackmail which came to my knowledge arose out of homosexuality, either between adult males or between adult males and boys. Why one earth it should be—and the noble Earl asked the question—that it attracts so much more blackmail, or did in those days, than did other vices, I do not know; but that certainly was the fact, and I think we have to bear it in mind.

The next thing I would say is this. Never let us make the mistake of thinking that we should attempt to make the area covered by our criminal law coextensive with the area covered by the moral law. I know the noble Earl would agree with that. For instance, take the case of adultery, which I certainly think is a great evil in this country to-day. No one would suggest that we should once more make adultery a criminal offence. It is not that we desire to condone or support adultery or anything of that sort; it is just that we realise that the criminal law and the moral law are two wholly different concepts, and we must not confuse the one with the other.

I am going to be very brief on this matter. I sincerely hope that the Committee that is to be appointed will be a high-powered Committee, a Committee having among its members some who have had great experience, who will consider afresh whether or not it is desirable that homosexual acts committed in private between adult people should of should not continue to be within the purview of the criminal law. I express no opinion about it; I merely say that I think it is a matter which merits most careful inquiry. I hope the Committee will inform themselves about the law of other countries. I believe I am right in saying that under the Code Napoleon in France it is not an offence if carried through between adults in private. The question whether or not it should be is a matter which was canvassed in a recent pamphlet issued by some members of the Church of England, a pamphlet which I thought was good up to a point, though I considered that in comparing these sexual acts with the sin of scandal or the sin of crime, there was a complete illogicality and lack of proper thought.

But, having said that, I must say that I am entirely at one with the noble Earl who has moved this Motion, in regarding this as a most grave affair. No one can see the statistics which he quoted without realising what a grievous danger confronts this country. I have not a shadow of an idea what the explanation for it can be. It may be that the doctors will be able to assist the Committee. But this is a very grave matter. I agree further with the noble Earl that for some people to make light of it and simply to say, "Well, he is that way inclined; he likes doing it, so why should he not?" is a complete perversion of the doctrine of tolerance. Tolerance I believe to be one of the greatest virtues, but a tolerance which is prepared to take no notice of that which is essentially evil and wicked is not at all the sort of tolerance we want. Therefore I find myself completely at one with the noble Earl in realising how grave, how desperately serious, are these figures, and I congratulate the Government on having had the courage to appoint a Committee to deal with this unpleasant topic.

I hope the Committee will be quite undeterred by what people will say about them. Never mind about that. Let them, as I am sure they will, come to an honest conclusion as to what is the right thing to do. Never mind if they are held up to ridicule or contempt because they have made things easy for the homosexual, or anything of that sort; that does not matter. I hope, further, that the Committee will contain amongst its members someone who knows something about the treatment of criminals. I am inclined to think that here we might usefully look at what is being done in the Scandinavian countries, where this problem is by no means so prevalent as it is here. It may be possible, with regard not only to this crime but to other crimes, to institute a system whereby the person sentenced is allowed to go out in the daytime to earn his living in the normal way, and has to come back to his hall of detention during the night-time and for week-ends. I express no opinion; I do not know anything about that matter; but I do know that it is exercising some penologists as a possible solution.

The Committee which is to be appointed will I hope be a strong and powerful Committee, because, as the noble Earl has said, we are here face to face with a terrible evil and we have to try to find a solution which is not based on prejudice or on merely a dislike of what is a very evil thing. I do not accept for one moment the doctrine of the irresistible impulse. The psychologists have told me that they are quite unable at the present time to distinguish between an impulse which is irresistible and an impulse which has not been resisted. I hope we shall hear nothing more about this. I suppose it is a fact that these unhappy people have temptations of a nature or kind which do not attack the ordinary man. But the ordinary man has his temptations, too, and he has to learn to resist his temptations. So it seems to me that the people who are cursed in this way must also resist their temptation. That is the least we can expect of them. That, I think, is recognised in the pamphlet issued by the Church of England. That is really all I have to say on that point, except that I hope that this will be a searching inquiry.

There is one other matter with which I should like to deal. I do not know whether it is true that there are masses of male prostitutes upon the streets. I am bound to say that I have never been accosted by a male person in my life. I do not walk about the streets of London very much now, and when I hear about these vast hordes of male prostitutes I wonder whether it is true. But I have sometimes thought that it would be very desirable to clear those people off the streets. Here, however, there is another factor to be borne in mind. Consider what a frightful risk may be run by the ordinary citizen who is going about his way if by any chance a mistake occurs and he is accused of that sort of thing. Whatever happens, even though the magistrates dismiss the charge, some people will always say, "Well, there's no smoke without fire. It is true he got off, but there must have been something behind it." For goodness sake, let us not forget that risk in considering what we are going to do. My Lords, that is all I have to say. I have really said nothing except to try to suggest that the field before this Committee is open to them; that they should investigate it with the utmost thoroughness and with the utmost skill; and that they should not be in the least frightened of coming to whatever conclusion they are led by their good sense and by the evidence adduced before them.

3.18 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winterton said that he did not expect that he would hear very much from the Government this afternoon, and I can tell him straight away that he will not be disappointed. The noble Earl started his speech by drawing your Lordships' attention to the serious increase in homosexual offences which has taken place since pre-war days; and whatever views anybody may hold about the cause of the present state of affairs, or about the correct method of dealing with it, there can, I think, be no doubt whatever that this increase has taken place and that it is indeed a most serious matter. I do not propose to weary your Lordships this afternoon with a whole string of detailed statistics, because they are probably well known to your Lordships and in any case are readily accessible. Suffice it to say that the number of indictable homosexual offences known to the police to-day is between, four and five times as great as it was before the war. That is a most serious state of affairs.

Admittedly, this increase may not correspond exactly to the actual increase in the prevalence of such offences. The interpretation of criminal statistics is always an uncertain matter. To take one obvious point, this is a type of case in which one person is often charged with a large number of offences, so that any increase in the number of offenders is likely to be reflected in a much greater increase in the total number of offences. On the other hand, to set against that there are no doubt many offences of this kind which never come to the knowledge of the police at all. I do not think we can escape the conclusion that an increase of this order in the number of offences known to the police must reflect a very considerable increase in the number of offences actually committed.

So far we are dealing with facts which cannot reasonably be disputed by anybody, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is not until we come to deal with such matters as the cause of this situation, the suitability or otherwise of the present criminal law to deal with such offences, and the treatment of homosexual offenders by the courts and in prison, that the full gravity of the problem presents itself. There are still many factors not fully known. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, and I agree, that it would be difficult for anybody to account with certainty for the steady increase in this type of offence. Furthermore, the very fact that the problem is not a simple or straightforward one makes inevitable the existence of that wide diversity of opinion on the whole subject which undoubtedly exists. In the circumstances, as the House is aware, the Government have felt that the proper course for them was to set up a Committee to make a full and detailed examination not only of matters which have been raised by the noble Earl this afternoon but, at the same time, of the parallel problem of the law relating to prostitution and solicitation generally. The noble Lord, Earl Winterton, suggested that Committees were really always a face-saving device by any Government and that this was the case in this particular matter.

EARL WINTERTON

I did not mean to say anything wounding, but it is a fact that Governments always do appoint a Committee.

LORD LLOYD

I am entirely unwounded, and wish merely to make the point that where there are so many factors—and in his very wise speech the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, raised a number of points of great interest which are worthy of investigation—I do not believe that there is any other course to take except to set up a Committee to go thoroughly into the whole matter and to try to get as much information for all of us as possible. Therefore my right honourable friend, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, is at the present time engaged in setting up this Committee, and as soon as he has constituted it he hopes to be able to make a statement giving full information about the composition of the Committee and its terms of reference. I cannot tell your Lordships at the present time how soon it may be possible to make such a statement. The noble and learned Earl stressed, and I entirely agree with him, that we want a really strong Committee, and he will know as well as anybody that if we are to get a strong Committee and to secure the services of able men and women to serve on it some little time will be necessary. In my opinion it is well worth taking time and trouble in order to get the best Committee possible.

It is the Government's view that a thorough investigation by a well-qualified body will throw useful light on the scope and nature of these difficult and controversial matters and may make a valuable contribution to the problem of how the criminal law should deal with them. In these circumstances I do not think that either my noble friend or indeed any of your Lordships would feel that it was proper or appropriate on the part of Her Majesty's Government that I should express any opinion to-day on the views that have been stated in this House. All I can say is that everything that has been said and is going to be said by your Lordships will be studied most carefully by the Government and, I am certain, by the Committee. I hope, therefore, that this debate may serve a useful purpose in expressing the various points of view that exist and in bringing them to the notice of the Committee when it is constituted.

3.26 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL

My Lords, there can hardly be any subject about which a man would more readily be excused from speaking at all, and I hope I need say only little and detain your Lordships for only a very few moments. But it might seem like evasion of responsibility if nothing at all was said from this Bench about this extremely distasteful and horrible subject, on which Christian thought must be profoundly exercised and about which, and inevitably, the clergy have some first-hand pastoral knowledge. Public opinion at the present time is deeply stirred about the whole matter, and well it may be, because the increase in unnatural offences is an ominous warning of something going radically wrong in the moral foundations of the social order. And historically, as the noble Earl pointed out in his opening speech, this always seems to be a sign of a demoralised or decadent culture. Where people cease to believe effectively in what has hitherto been the communal religion, and when there is scepticism and cynicism about the meaning and value of life itself, people get driven back upon themselves, and introversion very easily brings perversion with it. It is a warning which cannot be ignored, and it is one more bit of evidence to show that once a people lets its ultimate convictions go, then there can be no stopping halfway and the whole moral bottom is in danger of falling out of a society. As St. Paul said about this very point a long time ago, once the creature is confused with the Creator, once people cease to believe in God and, therefore, in ultimate moral obligations, everything begins to go bad on us, and natural instincts and affections become unnatural and perverted.

Therefore what I venture to say, first of all, is that fundamentally, behind all these legal and social implications of the problem, it is a moral and religious problem, and the long-term solution can be sought only in those terms. I wholly share the views which have already been expressed deploring the levity with which this and similar forms of sexual irregularity are at the present moment condoned and almost taken for granted. It is time that some strong stand was taken against it. The whole subject is intensely repugnant, and raises intense moral indignation in many minds, and perhaps some kind of primitive subconscious racial horror. Society—our society, at any rate—reacts very violently against it, because it feels, and rightly feels, that such practices are injecting poison into the bloodstream. But, all the same, we must not allow our judgment to be clouded by passion on this subject. Heaven forbid that I should in any way seem to minimise the gravity of the problem before us! But further medical and psychological knowledge may lead us to a more enlightened or, at any rate, to a different approach to the whole question, and to yield to a clamour for vindictive action or for even harsher punitive measures may easily defeat our ends.

A man may say that and yet wholly dissociate himself from any suggestion of wishing to condone or take for granted this grievous social wrong. We have to disinfect our minds of the idea that the state of being a homosexual or an invert is necessarily, in itself, something morally reprehensible. It is something which happens to a man, like colour-blindness or paralysis, or anything else. It is probably due to wrong-doing on the part of other people, though I think it exists in some cases just because some people are born that way. It is a state in which some people are, through no fault of their own, and there is nothing reprehensible in being in that condition. Rather does it make a demand from us for sympathy and understanding; and society, through all its agencies, ought to be co-operative in trying to help people so frustrated and so conditioned, whether men or women—and, oddly enough, nothing has been said yet about the female side of this great problem—to live happy and socially useful lives—as a very great number of them do.

Some, however, fail, and therefore try to find fulfilment and some outlet from their frustrated condition by practices of unnatural sexual intercourse in an unclean and conspiratorial atmosphere. It is there that moral condemnation is passed, and it is only at that point, clearly, that any question of criminal procedure can possibly arise. Certainly the Church, like nearly everyone else, would vehemently repudiate what I might call the "behaviourist" plea—the suggestion that a man in this condition is not a free and responsible moral agent, so that he simply says, "I am made that way; it is not my fault; I cannot help it." And here the specifically religious contribution, surely, is the reminder that, by the Grace of God, a man can triumph over his disabilities and turn even the most crippling limitations into achievement. These forms of unnatural association are, of course, morally evil and sinful in the highest degree, because they are a violation of natural law or, as the Christian would say, of the purpose of the Creator who when He made man in His own image created them male and female.

English law, as it stands at present, regards these offences with quite exceptional severity, and what I had meant to say on this particular point has already been said far more ably by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I am sure that it is a highly debatable question how far sins are to be treated as crimes. There are many sins of which, clearly, the law cannot possibly take cognisance: it is impossible to send a man to prison for unclean thoughts, for envy, hatred, malice or uncharitableness. On the other hand, there may be things for which a man may be sent to prison which are not in any real sense sins at all. I venture to think, without any suggestion of condoning these offences, that we have to ask ourselves seriously whether making this particular kind of moral wrong-doing a crime may not be only aggravating the total problem. I admit that in the present state of public opinion we are on very dangerous ground there, because one of the results of the immense volume of social legislation in recent years is that the popular mind tends to equate right and wrong with legal and illegal. People tend to say: "The law does not forbid it, so it is all right." It would be most disastrous if it could ever be said: "You see, after all, there never was any harm in it, for the Government have now said that it is not illegal any longer and even the Church seems to think it is all right."

On the other hand, I think it is a very big question whether the moral welfare of society is rightly served by making this particular kind of sexual offence a matter of criminal procedure and I welcome an objective inquiry into the whole matter. If the law is going to take cognisance of these offences among consenting adults, what is the ground for differentiation between male and female perverts? There may be some satisfactory reason which noble Lords learned in the law will be able to state. If there is, I think we ought to know about it. Society, and especially a Christian society, must be alert to protect the young person from assault and corruption. Again there is a strange anomaly: if the law protects a boy from assault by a man, why does it do nothing to protect a girl from assault by a woman? These are singularly unpleasant questions, but once these matters are raised at all they have to come out. Obviously, in all these cases the offender must be restrained and punished, and, if possible, reformed. Almost nowhere, I think, in the whole field, is the relation between retribution and rehabilitation so difficult and so delicate as at this point. From such knowledge as I have of actual cases, I should say that there is little to suggest that a prison sentence succeeds in reforming an offender.

For these and many other reasons there are very strong grounds for an objective inquiry, and the Church welcomes that inquiry—in fact, it was the Church that took some initiative in asking for it. I hope the inquiry will be conducted by the ablest people possible, and without fear or favour, whatever its final conclusions may be. But, after all, even the most perfected legal system will be dealing only with the breakdowns and the failures; the long-term solution will be found only in that moral and spiritual re-education which is the most urgent need—and, among thinking people, the consciously felt need—of our time, and in the rebuilding of family life. Behind an immense number of these cases of homosexuality there still lie unsatisfactory or broken homes. Here, as always, the most potent form of exorcism of evil will be found to be positive and creative.

3.40 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, like the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I welcome the appointment of this Committee and quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can say nothing further to-day. But, with the noble Earl who moved this Motion, I have an uneasy feeling that the increase in this vice during the past half century will not be checked without some balanced revival of the reprobation with which it was once regarded. I think that a backward glance can lead to no other conclusion. The noble Earl referred to the cause célèbre of the 'nineties. It was considered shocking, but exceptional, and he is right in saying that it was not thought good form to talk too much about it. Indeed, women were not supposed to talk about it at all. In France, where I spent many of my earlier years, addicts were rare. When known, they were shunned, and when detected, they were pilloried. In Germany, it is to be admitted, the vice was more prevalent.

Then there came the war and a general lapse of morals. Under the guise of tolerance, laxity flourished to quite a considerable extent. The prevalent slogan was "Anything goes"—we know it all the better now in its successor, "I couldn't care less." It became the fashion, as Edgar Wallace put it, to wisecrack the decencies out of existence. So we came perceptibly nearer to Wilde's own lesson, that the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. After the second war all standards declined perceptibly farther, and at present show no sign of checking themselves, for a host of reasons. It may partly be ascribed to a decline of faith or lack of family discipline. If another Lecky were to arrive and write a second History of European Morals, I think he would have rather a grubby and dispiriting task. From condoning a vice, we slipped into treating it lightly, particularly in men of talent. It might be interesting to compare the fate of men like André Gide with that of Wilde himself. Our generation decreed that infinite allowance must be made for artistic temperament, which is often no more than insufferable affectation. I dare say some of us may have noticed that it is not very prevalent on the way up.

In consequence, as the noble Earl has said, this vice infiltrated, for example, our theatre, in a degree which was undreamed of in my youth. The noble Earl said that not one of the great actor-managers in pre-war days would have indulged in it themselves. I knew a good many of them; indeed, I had dealings with some of them, and I would go farther than that: they would not wittingly have kept "one of those" in their companies. The noble Earl referred also to the case of a man, risen to honour, who was subsequently arrested and who, having thereafter to make a public appearance, received an ovation. Whatever else is right or wrong about all these things, that must be wrong—dead wrong. It shows that something is radically wrong with public opinion.

I would add a word about any suggestion of legalising homosexuality provided it did not corrupt the young. That seems to me to approach the civic courage of Dogberry—"If he will not stop, let him go on!" I should like to point out that there is one serious objection to this which anyone acquainted with the ways of the world must surely know. The customers of lust, if I may put it that way, are always searching for younger material and paying for it. If we smooth the path of the adult evil-doer, we automatically increase the prospect of the perversion of the young.

Finally, I would venture to give your Lordships one illustration which has remained in my mind, an illustration of the course of this disastrous century. In the case of a fairly recent public scandal, on the day when the news broke, I met a man—healthy-minded, all fresh air and exercise, and happily married—who said to me that by an extraordinary coincidence he happened to know all about one of those involved, and he poured out a horrified tale. When he had finished, I said, "But did you also suspect that there was any question of disloyalty?" And this was his answer, which I think it would pay us all to ponder. He was immediately smitten with the prevalent modern fear of going too far and said, "Oh, no, no, no! I did not suspect anything of that kind. None of us did. We knew about the drink. We thought there was something else. But otherwise he seemed a decent enough fellow." I think the "otherwise" contains a termendous lot of history. "Otherwise this" and "otherwise that"—half of it comes from the fear of seeming intolerant, which may in the end prove our undoing. For, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has already suggested, tolerance is a fine thing when it is meted out to rival honesties and contending decencies, but it may become what Henley, in hospital, said in a notable phrase about life itself, "a blunder and a shame," if it is stretched to cover dirt and decadence. If we look over our shoulders to the downward slope of the twentieth century—and what we are discussing to-day is only one aspect of it—I think we shall be able to measure the inevitable descent of the second half unless we pull up.

3.49 p.m.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I feel that perhaps I ought to apologise for speaking in this debate this afternoon, because I think it is clear that the view of your Lordships is that it is not desirable that we should have a detailed debate on this subject to-day. I am one of a number of noble Lords who regard it as rather remarkable that, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have announced their decision to set up a Committee, this debate should have taken place at the present time at all. Having said that, I must admit that I suppose it is odd I should be addressing your Lordships now. I have but one object in doing so and I shall not take up more than five minutes of your Lordships' time. Before I come to that, however, I must say one thing, namely, that I cannot but regard it as extremely remarkable that two noble Lords should have seen fit to refer so strongly to a recent case that has been before the court.

One finds it a little difficult to escape the impression that basically the view of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, is that this is a simple matter, merely a question of crime and of its suppression by punishment. I think it would be most unfortunate if that were to go out as the considered opinion of your Lordships' House. We have already heard that a number of your Lordships have had the opportunity of reading the pamphlet issued by the Church of England Moral Welfare Society. Those of your Lordships who have read that pamphlet will probably have realised, as I did—it may be for the first time—that this is a problem to which there is no short answer and no easy solution. It so happens that my work takes me into a number of rather varied walks of life, and I should like to say a word or two upon the subject of public opinion. In doing so, I want to make it clear that I am referring only to the situation with regard to the private actions of adult people. I believe that the public generally would be glad to see an end of prosecutions of this sort; and I feel that there is reason to believe that this view may be shared by quite a number of the Members of your Lordships' House.

EARL WINTERTON

As the noble Lord has referred to me and criticised my speech, would he be so kind as to tell your Lordships, when he says that prosecutions should end, if he means for adult homosexualism or for all homosexualism?

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I tried to make it clear that I was referring to adults in private. Apart altogether from what I think is a clearly indicated and fairly general sense of uneasiness at some of these prosecutions. I should like to give one instance of what I should call an overriding reason why an end to them would, I believe, be welcomed. There can be no question amongst any of us that the protection of youth is the overwhelming objective. The conclusion, however, is unavoidable that the publicity which these proceedings cause may do far more harm to young people than any good that can come from the proceedings themselves. We have for some seventy years been trying to administer a law which came into force as the result of what is generally admitted to have been a mischance—the circumstances are no doubt well know to most of your Lordships. It now seems clear that considerable sections of Church opinion favour some reexamination of the law; I am assured that many members of the Judicature are of like opinion; and I believe that the majority of the general public and, if the noble Earl will forgive me, especially of the youger generation, will welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to set up a Committee of Inquiry. For reasons which have already been indicated, I would make no attempt to answer in detail anything which the noble Earl has said, and I am sure that at a more appropriate time there will be many noble Lords, far more able than I am, who will do so. In the meantime, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon the decision they have reached.

House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

3.55 p.m.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Earl who introduced this Motion on the manner in which he dealt with a subject which can be, and is, extremely unpleasant. I disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken; I feel it is appropriate that this question should be discussed before the Committee enter upon their inquiry, so that it can be seen in all its aspects. There is one point which I think has been rather overlooked, and that is that the great increase in this beastly crime has occurred in post-war years, following a time when there was a great emotional stir-up and a disregard of the moral and legal law, coupled with the mixing of numbers of our own people with others to whom this is not an offence. Nothing, I believe, shows more the moral decline that has occurred than the particular case to which reference has been made and about which I entirely disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. The way that case has been accepted, as it were, by the public is one of the most serious things that we have to face at the present time.

The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in a memorable speech a short time ago in which he mentioned this matter, referred to the possible dangers of a revival of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, which have been the disaster of other nations. In the course of that speech the noble Viscount made reference to a certain school of so-called scientists whose dangerous doctrine has done more, and does more, harm to the youth of the country and many others than anything else; that is to say, the doctrine that we are not ourselves responsible and that, to a certain extent, these things are irresistible. In my youth they used to call things of this sort sin; now they call them complexes. A humorous illustration of that was given on the public platform a short time ago. A retired schoolmaster had found it necessary to take disciplinary action towards a lad who was perpetually late. The boy brought his mother up the next day to say that he had a complex against getting up early, and therefore ought not to be held responsible for it. That is very much the sort of excuse that has been brought forward to-day for many of the sins committed and for much of the wrong-doing that goes on. I do not think it can all be met by legislation. I believe that, to a large extent, it is due to the great decline in moral and spiritual beliefs and practices. Only a revival of those, so far as I can see, is likely to bring about an effective and lasting reform.

There are one or two matters impinging on this subject of which notice should be taken. In this morning's newspapers there is a report of a horrible case at Newcastle-on-Tyne, where a large number of youths were soliciting at the railway station. Certain action has been taken by the judge in publishing the names and addresses of those concerned, and that may have some beneficial effect. There was also a case in south-east London a few weeks ago of a girl being taken by a number of youths and each of them in turn outraging her. Legislation will not affect that. It seems that these people must undergo some form of treatment, and that it must be fairly lengthy. It is no good mixing them up for a week or so with all sorts of people; they must be under special care and direction. I believe something like this trouble is being met with in Scandinavia and in Switzerland, and something is being done on those lines.

So far as the rest is concerned, mere punishment will not provide a solution. I believe it can be provided only by a rise in the spiritual and moral nature of the people as a whole, and we can bring about such a rise only by showing our abhorrence and detestation of these filthy habits. To acclaim anybody who has been found guilty of that sort of thing in our courts is something that should give us all serious cause for reflection. Because of that, I, for one, thank the noble Earl for having raised this question. I have seen a good deal of this trouble in some of the welfare work I have done in some parts of London. On the other hand, it is probably not quite so widespread as some of us feel. As I said, a good deal of it is the aftermath of the war. Gradually, perhaps, as we settle down and get back to better ways of thought and conduct, so we shall be able to grapple with it better. But it is good that this question should be raised in this House, where we can deal with it impartially and dispassionately and, at the same time, give a lead to the moral uplift of the nation itself.

4.2 p.m.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA

My Lords, some criticism has been raised against my noble friend Lord Winterton that he should have raised this question, in view of the fact that a Committee is to be set up to investigate the whole subject. I do not take that view at all. I think it is a very good thing that we should have discussions on these questions, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, that there is no better place for such a discussion than your Lordships' House. Here we are perfectly free to say exactly what we like; and there is no idea of constituents chasing us afterwards for what we have said, and all that sort of thing.

There are only two points that I wish to raise. One is the regrettable recent case, which had curious repercussions, when the police questioned one of two guilty men for more than ten hours in order to get one of them to turn Queen's evidence, and promising him immunity in order to convict the other. That may be all right in foreign countries, but it was much against the public approval in this country. That case had the most extraordinary repercussions, which I hope your Lordships will note. Instead of public condemnation going, as it should have gone, against the condemned, it went against the police for their methods. That was a shocking and a terrible thing—first of all, that the guilty should be almost condoned and, secondly, that the police should be looked upon as a guilty party. If the law is such as to encourage over-zealous police departments to indulge in manoeuvres of that sort, then it is time that the law was changed.

I know perfectly well, of course, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate, that nature is very unkind in many ways. Not all people are produced perfectly. There are the hunchback, the blind and the dumb; but of all the dreadful abnormalities surely abnormal sexual instincts must be one of the worst. It must colour the whole of a man's life, and it is a subject more for our pity than for our rage. This extreme penal legislation can go too far, and it becomes sometimes quite illogical—you might as well condemn an hermaphrodite to penal servitude for life. My noble friend below me spoke about yielding to temptation. Surely, to the normal man there cannot be any yielding to temptation, because there is no temptation. The trouble with the whole of this subject is that there is abnormality; consequently, it is more a clinical question than one for legislation. We shall not change people's habits by threatening them with penalities. What we must do, if we are to diminish the increase in homosexuality, is to look into the far more complicated question of breeding, environment, education and that sort of thing.

The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the Church of England Moral Welfare Council's Interim Report. My noble friend Lord Winterton criticised that Report. It has dealt with a difficult subject, and I think it redounds to the credit of our Church. I am indeed proud to belong to such a body as will grasp this difficult nettle as it has done and issue such a remarkable document—remarkable for its understanding, for its charity, for its endeavours to protect the young, and for all the difficult problems that arise which it faces so completely. I am grateful, and I am proud of it; and I hope that, when the investigation is being made by the Committee which is to be set up, laws will be pasted along the lines recommended by the Council.

4.7 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, when I came into the House this afternoon I had no intention of taking part in this debate, especially in view of the fact that I shall be addressing your Lordships later on a different and, from many points of view, less difficult topic than the one which is now before us. One of the main reasons why I did not feel that I should speak is that I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee—that it seems rather inappropriate that we should hold this discussion when Her Majesty's Government have made it known that they propose to appoint a Committee to investigate this subject.

This subject is one which has never really been properly investigated by a thoroughly able scientific Committee, and it is one which, I suggest, is of a sort that can be profitably discussed only on the basis of a really searching investigation of a thoroughly scientific character. I rather deplore a good deal of the discussion which has taken place this afternoon, because it seems to me that it has taken place on an emotional rather than on a scientific level; that attempts have been made by one or two of your Lordships to bring a sort of heat into the discussion. That is most unfortunate, because this very difficult problem needs to be tackled in the light of cool, clear scientific knowledge and discussed on the basis of facts which have been ascertained. We have had very little of that knowledge.

The noble Earl who introduced the Motion made all sorts of statements about how this crime was practically unknown when he was a young man. In fact, it is quite obvious that that was not so at all: it has always been fairly prevalent. It is probably more prevalent now than it was then, but we really do not know; we have not the material on which to form a view about it. In some of its aspects it is one of those subjects which are rather typical of the criminal law of this country in which we are at the parting of the ways; and I hope that the Committee, when they come to deal with the matter, will look at it as much, or more, from the point of view of treatment as from any other point of view. There are so many aspects of criminal law, in this country and other countries, in which we are making very little progress, from the point of view of reforming and dealing with the criminals, simply because we have no adequate method of handling them after they have been found guilty in our courts of law.

At a recent quarter sessions in my own county, we had a case of a wretched man of about sixty, a perfectly respectable tradesman with an admirable record, who had been interfering with small girls. There was nothing we could do with him, as the law stands at present, except send him to prison. That is so with many of these cases where homosexual acts are concerned. It is really much more a medical question than a criminal question, and the courts which have to handle the cases have no satisfactory methods of dealing with men of this kind—I am talking now about the really inverted people, not the perverted people. The distinction between these two types—which is, I should have thought, common form, and, so far as I know, quite accepted by every psychiatrist in the country and by everybody who really has given any thought to the matter—was never alluded to by the noble Earl who opened this discussion. Yet surely there is all the difference in the world between the two types.

The inverted type must be dealt with—it is fair and just that he should be dealt with—as a psychological case and not as an ordinary criminal. It is because the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, seemed to be quite incapable of understanding this aspect of the matter that I felt his speech was so deplorable. It is not a question of tolerance of things that are evil; it is a question of trying to understand what is going on. Until one can really understand it, how can one effectively deal with it? I felt that the Church's pamphlet, which I was glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, supported, seemed to me to evince a true attempt to approach this problem on real Christian lines. There are many points in it with which I do not agree, but it contains all the real human sympathy which is essential if we are to tackle this terribly difficult problem with any hope at all of success.

To take another illustration of the sort of emotional utterance which fell from the noble Earl, he said that the idea that this was a sort of crime in which blackmail played an important part was, in his view, quite unsupported by any evidence.

EARL WINTERTON

I never said anything of the sort. It is quite obvious that the noble Lord did not listen to my speech. The point which I made was a wholly different one. I said it had still to be proved that blackmail was more prevalent in these cases than in other cases. I never said what the noble Lord attributed to me as saying—that blackmail played no part. Clearly, the noble Lord never listened to my speech.

LORD CHORLEY

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I agree that his point was that blackmail played no more part in these cases than in other sorts of crime.

EARL WINTERTON

I said that it was not proved.

LORD CHORLEY

That seems to me to indicate a sort of absence of factual background which was characteristic, if I may say so, of the noble Earl's whole speech. I was glad that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who as Attorney-General saw so much of this, was able to contradict him and contradict him most effectively, with his very wide knowledge. Surely, anybody who has had any experience of the criminal courts, whether as a practising lawyer or as a judge at assizes, must know perfectly well that, of the cases of blackmail which come into the courts, a large proportion are based on this sort of trouble. To come and ask your Lordships to believe that that is not so seems to me to show that the noble Earl has not the knowledge that is necessary if we are to handle this problem effectively.

I do not wish to pursue this matter into detail, but I should like to refer to one final point. The noble Earl suggested that, if we were to bring our laws more into accord with the laws of almost every other civilised country in the world, we should lose our influence for good in the world. That seems to me a most exaggerated statement.

EARL WINTERTON

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I never said anything of the sort.

LORD CHORLEY

I am quoting words which I took down from the noble Earl's speech.

EARL WINTERTON

The noble Lord has a somewhat indifferent memory.

LORD CHORLEY

I took the words down as the noble Earl uttered them—"lose our influence for good in the world." If the noble Earl likes to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT later, he will find those words in his speech.

EARL WINTERTON

The noble Lord has the words completely out of context. I said that if we followed the example of some countries who tolerated homosexualism, we should lose our position in the world. If the noble Lord wants to know to which countries I am referring, I am referring to certain countries in the South.

LORD CHORLEY

If the noble Earl will study the laws of the Scandinavian countries and Northern European countries, to which apparently he was not referring, he will find that their laws are different from our laws. To suggest that if we brought our laws into conformity with the laws of those civilised countries we should lose our influence for good in the world is quite absurd. In fact, in this particular branch of our criminal law we have a reputation for being completely hypocritical. Our position and influence in the world would improve if we were to deal with this matter in a more civilised and sympathetic manner.

4.17 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers, I should like to say that, with the exception of two speeches, to which I propose to make a brief reference, I am extremely grateful, as a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House, for the manner in which the tentative views which I have put forward were received. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and also the noble Lord, Lord Ammon. I think the debate has achieved the object I had in mind, which was to try to bring the matter into better perspective. In regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, I am not in the least prepared to apologise for having referred to Sir John Gielgud. If a man is convicted of a disgusting crime and shows no public repentance for it, the public in this House or out of it are entitled to refer to his action. I think my noble friend and I were fully justified in making the reference which we did in support of the argument that there is greater tolerance for this form of vice to-day than there was, say, thirty years ago.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

The noble Earl is perfectly entitled to his view.

EARL WINTERTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I knew that, with the generosity which he always displays, he would accept that I was as sincere in putting that forward as he was in controverting it. I regret that he suggested to the police that they should refrain from further prosecutions. One unwritten rule of this House, which we usually have regard to, is that neither we nor Her Majesty's Government, give directions to the police on the carrying out of the law.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

The noble Earl has entirely misunderstood what I meant to say. I meant to convey that the public would be glad to see an end of these prosecutions by means of having the law altered. I was not suggesting other than that the police should administer the existing law.

EARL, WINTERTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord. He has now made it clear. He is entitled to put that view. I thought he was referring to the existing law.

In conclusion, I say this with regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I am afraid I do not accept him as a great criminologist. He spoke to me rather as if I were a wholly ignorant person, sitting at his feet and listening to a lecture. Incidentally, he misinterpreted almost every single part of my speech from which he quoted. The real answer to the noble Lord came from the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who sat on the Bench below him. Lord Ammon had anticipated almost everything that the noble Lord who sat behind him said. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, agreed with me that this is a matter that does need ventilating and one in which there has been too much tolerance. The noble Lord above him differs from that. He said that there should not be a debate on the subject, and then proceeded in the most didactic manner to attack the views held by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, and myself. My Lords, I think we have had a very useful debate, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.