§ 7. Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether any books or other publications have, been seized and confiscated by the officers of his Department during the months of January or February, 1929, and will he give particulars; and is he considering, together with his legal advisers, any further action?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe officers of my Department have no power to seize and confiscate books or other publications. During the period from the 1st January, 1929, to 26th February, 1929, the Postmaster-General, acting in pursuance of warrants issued by me, has intercepted copies of six books and of 10 other publications of an indecent nature. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. DAYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before these books are seized, his officials have any expert literary advice as to their nature?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, Sir. I think the hon. Member will see that I have seized not merely books but photographs and all kinds of matter of a very unpleasant character which are forbidden to come through the post, as I shall show in an answer to another question which I have before me to-day. I would ask the hon. Member to leave his supplementary questions over until I have answered that question.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESAre we to infer from the answer that it is possible for the Postmaster-General to open postal communications on the chance that they are undesirable?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am dealing with that fully in reply to another question, and I do not think that it is right to take up the time of the House at this stage.
§ Mr. DAYShall we now have the answer to the question, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, as the hon. Member on this side who has put it down is not at present in the House?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSSomeone will ask it.
§ 10. Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Home Secretary whether he gave instruc- 2159 tions to the police for the seizure of copies of the novel, "The Sleeveless Errand"; and on what ground such action was taken?
§ The following question also stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON:
§ 11. To ask the Home Secretary whether he gave instructions for a manuscript of poems sent by Mr. D. H. Lawrence to his literary agent to be seized before any question of publication arose; if he will give the names and official positions of the persons on whose advice he causes books and manuscripts to be seized and banned; what are the qualifications of such persons for literary censorship; and whether, to assist authors and publishers, he will state what are the rules and regulations the contravention of which causes a book to be seized and banned by his Department?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCECan the right hon. Gentleman answer at the same time Question No. 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), who is prevented from being present by a family bereavement?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. That would be creating a very bad precedent. If an hon. Member is not present, the question cannot be asked, except when time permits, and questions are gone over for the second time.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will explain the position fully to the House in order that they may understand that I do not in any sense exercise a literary censorship. The Obscene Publications Act makes it lawful for any Metropolitan Police Magistrate, or for any two Justices of the Peace, on sworn information, to issue a search warrant to search for and, seize any indecent or obscene book, picture, writing or article, and there is a Common Law duty upon the police to secure the prevention of crimes of this or of any other character. Accordingly when information was conveyed to me that the book referred to in the question was about to be published, I handed the matter over to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act he applied for and ob- 2160 tained a search warrant at Bow Street, in the execution of which a large number of copies were seized and are now in the possession of the police, by virtue of the Magistrate's directions.
The procedure directed under the Act referred to is being followed with a view to obtaining from the Magistrate an Order of Destruction and a Summons to the publisher is now pending at Bow Street. In view of this circumstance it would be impossible for me to make any observation on the character of the book in question. The question whether it comes within the Statute is a matter for the Magistrate's decision.
§ Sir F. MEYERHas the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the present position of the law in this matter is the best way of dealing with clearly obscene publications, without imposing upon the police and magistrates a duty which they should not have—a literary censorship or a moral censorship?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI hope that the hon. Member does net want to impose that duty upon myself. At present, I have the magistrates to fall back upon, as it were, in a very difficult duty. While there are Acts of Parliament passed by this House, my only duty is to see, as far as I can, that they are carried out.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his action, in the first instance, is taken as if it were a censorship? If we are to have a censorship, would it not be very much better that the whole matter should be discussed in this House, and a censorship formally appointed, than, in effect, bring about a censorship by this indirect means?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWhen my Estimates are put down, I should be only too glad if my hon. Friend wishes, to raise a Debate on the whole question. At present, there is no censorship. It is not until a book or any other obscene document is brought to my notice that I exercise my position. A censorship would imply that every book should be read by the body of censors, which would be an impossible position.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDWill the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear whose responsibility it is to put the law into operation?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSUndoubtedly, the police, but I do not want to shed any of my own responsibility for my own action. In this particular case, the book was sent direct to me by a friend. I thought that it was a proper case to send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which I did. There my responsibility ceases.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman see that, when he sets the law in motion, he is, in fact, exercising a censorship, whether he calls it by that name or not?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSReally, the hon. Member must see that my action or the action of the police in dealing—I am asuming for the moment that it is indecent—with an indecent publication, is exactly the same as dealing with an indecent act which may be committed to the detriment of the public weal. The law has decided that these indecent publications should not be permitted, and I have to carry out the law.
§ Mr. SPEAKERFurther discussion must be deferred until the Home Office Vote.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE(for Miss WILKINSON) asked the home Secretary whether he gave instructions for a manuscript of poems sent by Mr. D. H. Lawrence to his literary agent to be seized before any question of publication arose; if he will give the names and official positions of the persons on whose advice he causes books and manuscripts to be seized and banned; what are the qualifications of such persons for literary censorship; and whether, to assist authors and publishers, he will state what are the rules and regulations the contravention of which causes a book to be seized and banned by his Department?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I will explain to the House exactly what has happened. Under the Post Office Act of 1908 the duty is laid upon the Postmaster-General to refuse to take part in the conveyance of any indecent matter, and the Postal Union Convention of Stockholm, 1924, also prohibits the transmission through the post 2162 of indecent matter. In this case the typescripts were sent through the open book post from abroad and were detected in the course of the examination to which a proportion of such packets are subjected for the purpose of detecting whether letters or other matter not conveyed at that rate are contained in the packet. The typescripts were sent to the Home Office and by my directions were then forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am advised that there is no possible doubt whatever that these contain indecent matter and, as such, are liable to seizure. I have, however, given instructions that they shall be detained for two months to enable the author to establish the contrary if he desires to do so.
As regards the remaining parts of the question, I have explained in reply to the question by my hon. Friend and Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) that there is nothing which can properly be described as a literary censorship in this country. It is a misdemeanour to publish any indecent or obscene book, and the Obscene Publications Act provides machinery by which the publication of an indecent or obscene book may be prevented or stopped if a competent Court so decides. I have no authority to discriminate between offences of this character and offences against any other part of the criminal law, and it is my normal practice, when information reaches me with respect to the publication or intended publication of an alleged indecent or obscene book, to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who takes action in the ordinary course of his duty where the facts seem to warrant it. The publication of a book cannot in any circumstances be prevented except by decision of the Courts.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIs it not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that some person or persons came to a preliminary decision that this book is of an indecent character? The question which my hon. Friend wishes to put is: Who are these persons who are entitled to give this provisional opinion, and what qualifications have they to make a literary discrimination of this kind?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIn the first place, in this ease the Postmaster- 2163 General makes the first determination that this is primá facie a case of indecency. He then sends it to me, and, if I agree, I send it on to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not a question of literary merit at all, and, if the hon. Member has any doubt, I will show him this book in question. It contains grossly indecent matter.
§ Mr. AMMONIs it to be understood by the House that in endeavouring to discover these publications the Postmaster-General does not violate any sealed packet or anything sent by the letter post?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think it would be better to put a question to the Postmaster-General on that point, but it is clear that the Act of Parliament and the International Convention both direct the Postmaster-General not knowingly to carry indecent matter of any kind. That applies to other things besides letters, and, if he finds indecent matter in the post, it is his duty, by law and by International Convention, not to deliver it.
§ Mr. AMMONIs it not understood that under the Berne International Convention sealed letters cannot be opened unless by direct order by a Secretary of State? I am trying to elucidate that this sort of thing is not arrived at by a violation of that order, but simply by examination of open packets, which are always liable to inspection. I understand from the Postmaster-General that that is so.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is quite clear that nobody, no official of the State, can open a sealed packet without the direct warrant of the Secretary of State.