HC Deb 05 May 1881 vol 260 cc1826-7
MR. O'DONNELL

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the conviction of the accused in the case of Bradlaugh and another, charged with the publication of an obscene work, was not set aside on appeal, in February, 1878, on the ground of a technical error in the indictment; whether Lord Justice Brett on that occasion did not state that, if the defendants again committed the offence of publishing such a work, another prose- cution would doubtless be instituted, when, if the indictment were not again defective, they would receive even severer punishment than that to which they had been already sentenced; whether it is not the fact that the objectionable publication was subsequently continued by said defendants; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute proceedings in conformity with the opinion of Lord Justice Brett, having care to avoid any technical defect in the indictment calculated to prevent the just enforcement of the existing Laws against obscene publications in this country?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Sir, it is quite correct that the conviction referred to in the Question was, in February, 1878, set aside on a technical ground, which was that the alleged libel, for which the defendants were indicted, was not sot out literally in the indictment. It is not correct, as stated in the Question, that Lord Justice Brett on that occasion stated that if the defendants again committed the offence another prosecution would be instituted, when they would receive a severe punishment. So far as I can tell by referring to the judgment of Lord Justice Brett, it is not correct to say that the Lord Justice said that another prosecution would be instituted; but what he did say was that, although on the point of law the judgment must be reversed, yet, if the book complained of was again published and the plaintiffs in error were convicted upon a properly worded indictment, the reiteration of the offence must be met with a greater punishment. I cannot say whether or not the publication has been continued, neither can I give the hon. Member any information whatever upon the point as to whether it is the intention of the Government to institute further proceedings. Having regard to the fact that the prosecution was not instituted by the late Government, but that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who was then Solicitor General, was prosecuting, and that the proceedings were taken in February, 1878, I should think that the late Government came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to take any further steps in the matter, and I should think that anyone who now calls attention to the work would not be doing any great benefit to public morals.