SIR JOHN HAY (for Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What protection the Government are prepared to afford to heads of families and the public against the "literature" on an indelicate subject which certain persons, members of a late deputation, threaten to force into their houses, which they say "it is their duty to sow broadcast," the subjects of which they declare "shall be discussed by women and children;" and, whether such persons can be prosecuted for such proceedings under the Act termed "Lord Campbell's Act?"
§ MR. BAINESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it will be possible, consistently with the freedom of the press and the rights 555 of the subject, to restrain the discussion of a Law of the land, a fundamental provision of which is condemned by the Report of a Royal Commission; whether it will be unlawful to publish in pamphlets, or otherwise, the Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission, which this House is itself in course of publishing in Parliamentary Papers; and, whether the most effectual method of preventing further violations of delicacy will not be to repeal or suspend the principal provision of the Contagious Diseases Acts?
MR. BRUCEI rather object, Sir, to be called upon to say what should be done under an exceptional state of things. The subject to which these Questions relate has to a certain extent been forced upon the attention of the country by the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission and of the evidence taken before it. If the comments on these documents are made in a fair spirit, it is impossible to suppose that any law exists to prevent their publication; but if, on the other hand, the subject is handled in a coarse and gross manner, it will be necessary for the Courts of Law to decide whether the offenders do not come under Lord Campbell's Act. Under such circumstances, the Government would be guided by the opinions of the Judges; but I do not think it right to anticipate unfairness in the discussion of the subject. During the course of last Session a large number of publications were forced upon individuals; but the justification then put forward was the alleged unwillingness of the newspapers to admit correspondence on this subject, especially communications which were opposed to the working of the Acts. I believe, however, that objection no longer exists, for I have seen discussions on this subject in journals of great respectability and large circulation, conducted in a spirit altogether unobjectionable. I trust that, for the future, this difficult and painful subject will be dealt with in such a spirit as not to be exposed to the objections which my hon. Friend has referred to. With respect to the latter part of his Question, I must state that this is really a matter for Parliament to decide, and that, in regard to it, other considerations than mere considerations of delicacy—namely, those connected with the principles of morality—ought to be kept in view.