HC Deb 27 April 1967 vol 745 cc1918-45
Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 13, line 13, to leave out Clause 14.

This Clause has been written into the Bill in circumstances which are both remarkable and discreditable. It is alien to the whole tenor of the Bill because it has nothing to do with criminal justice, as proceedings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act are not criminal proceedings. The Bill is based on an assumption of defectiveness of trial by jury under existing conditions. The Clause in effect enlarges the right of trial by jury. The Bill is designed to make the way of transgressors in general more hard, and their conviction more certain. The Clause is designed to make the way of pornographers more easy, and their condemnation more difficult. The purpose of the Clause has nothing to do with justice, but, as I hope to show, is conceived out of pique, and among other purposes is an attempt to rescue the Attorney-General from the risk of again having to display his own ineptitude.

The insertion of this Clause is a hole and corner proceeding from beginning to end. It was never debated on the Second Reading of the Bill, for the very good reason that it was not in the Bill as presented to Parliament, and as passed on Second Reading. It is now in the Bill as a result of an Amendment passed in Committee on 21st March last, and tabled only shortly before the meeting of that Committee on that day. No doubt the whole operation was designed in this way to attract a minimum of attention to what was being done, and to give a minimum of opportunity for opposition to be organised to what the Home Secretary had conceived.

Although the Amendment discussed in Committee on 21st March was tabled only a day or two before that date, it was in fact conceived and resolved upon at a much earlier point in time. At my request I had an interview with the Leader of the House on 19th January last, more than two months before the consideration of the Clause in Committee. I went to see him because certain Members had tabled a Motion criticising my conduct in having initiated certain legal proceedings. I put to the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, and as defender of the rights of minorities in the House, my view that an opportunity should be furnished by the Government for the matter to be debated, and for me to answer the criticism which certain Members had made of me in their Motion. The Leader of the House was unwilling to provide me with any special facilities to answer these allegations, but in the course of conversation he told me that the Home Secretary was extremely angry with me for having initiated these proceedings, and that he had decided to alter the law to make such action impossible by private citizens in the future.

This was told to me more than two months before this Amendment came before the Committee on 21st March. It was, therefore, conceived a very long time in advance of being put down for consideration by the Committee which dealt with the Bill, but it was put down at the last moment for what I must describe quite bluntly as the quite discreditable reasons and considerations which underlay the whole procedure.

The House may well ask why these extraordinary proceedings were embarked on. The answer is because of legal proceedings which I initiated in the courts of this country, and I do not think that the Home Secretary will deny that that is the reason why this Clause now appears in the Bill. I do not want to address the House at undue length, and I am seeking to contract as much as I can what I have to say, but I must say a little about those legal proceedings, because they are the very foundations on which the raison d'être of this Clause depends.

I took legal proceedings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act in the case of what the Attorney-General described as an odious book entitled "Last Exit to Brooklyn". I was impelled to initiate legal proceedings only because the Director of Public Prosecutions had declined to do so, on advice given to him by the Attorney-General, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a number of extraordinary reasons to the House at the time for his unwillingness to take action in this matter. I do not want to go into these at length, but I want to refer to quite the most extraordinary of a number of extraordinary reasons which were given.

8.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General justified his failure to take proceedings because, he said, a leading medical authority had advised that only a small proportion of young people were likely to be depraved by reading the book. That must surely be one of the most cynical statements ever made in this House. How many young people need to be depraved by a book in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment before he will be stirred to take proceedings? Is it sufficient that 100 young people are likely to be depraved, or must there be 1,000, or 10,000? Is it sufficient that 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the young people of this country should be depraved by a particularly obscene book? To justify a failure to take legal proceedings by the argument that only a small proportion might be affected is wholly deplorable and unworthy of the Attorney-General.

I initiated legal proceedings in this matter. I will not stand in a white sheet in that regard. I was fully entitled to do so and I would submit that, where a member of the public believes that the law is being infringed, he has not only a right but a duty to set afoot the necessary legal proceedings. I was involved in a heavy expenditure of time and effort and money over these proceedings.

Although I secured my object, the magistrate was unable to award me costs, because the Section does not provide that a successful person proceeding under that Section should receive them. If the case had gone against me, however, I could have been required to pay heavy costs. Thus, the law under this Section is already heavily biased on the side and in the interests of the publisher.

Some play has been made with the fact that the defendants in the proceedings, because I proceeded under Section 3, were deprived of the right of trial by jury which they would have had if I had acted under Section 2. At no point was any request made to me or my legal advisers by the defendants that I should proceed under Section 2 instead of Section 3, although it was open to them to make that request.

Eight eminent witnesses were called by me during these proceedings and one, an eminent and experienced medical man, said: This is an extremely dangerous book. If books give the idea that perverted sexual practices are normal and desirable, adolescents may well decide to experiment. Drug addiction, in the latest view, is an infectious disease. Anyone reading this book might easily imitate it, and this is a serious risk, not only for the individual but for society. The magistrate held the book to be obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt and, in giving his verdict, he said: I must tell you that this book in its descriptions goes beyond any book of that kind that we have seen in this court. One passage I am thinking of is more likely to deprave and corrupt than any of those cyclostyled horrors. It is perhaps relevant to point out that this book has now also been prosecuted for obscenity in the courts of Canada. A lower court there found the book to be obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt and, on appeal, that decision was upheld unanimously by three judges in a higher court.

I find it literally amazing that the Attorney-General failed to do his duty in this matter and to take legal proceedings and thereby compelled me to proceed in a matter in which it was his duty to act. I have considered all the possible reasons for the Attorney-General failing to move in this matter and I am forced to conclude that there are many reasons—reasons that sit beside and behind him in the form of members of his own party who do not want to see obscene books prosecuted and whom he did not wish to displease by initiating proceedings in this matter.

I cannot understand why the Home Secretary is, as the Leader of the House told me, very angry with me for having initiated these proceedings. The Home Office is surely concerned about things like sexual perversion, rape, violence and drug addiction. We have eminent medical opinion that this book is likely to encourage people in these practices and I should have thought that the Home Secretary would take the view that I was assisting him in what he should be trying to achieve by acting in respect of this book to get it withdrawn from public circulation.

As I understand his case, the Home Secretary has two main justifications. He said in Committee that the police can proceed even if Clause 14 is written into the law and that is quite clear. But of course the Home Secretary and all of us know that individual constables do not initiate proceedings of this kind on their own judgment and responsibility. We know that it would be the exception rather than the rule even for a chief constable to do so.

We know that it is usual for the police to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions in these cases and to act in accordance with his advice. Assuming that, if the Clause becomes law, the right of private individuals to initiate proceedings is taken away, virtually the Director, acting generally upon the Attorney General's advice, becomes sole censor of literature in this country.

The Home Secretary gave a second reason in Committee: I believe that the acceptance of this Clause would cure an anomaly without restricting in any significant sense the rights of private persons in regard to prosecution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st March, 1967, c. 1006.] But in advancing that argument, the right hon. Gentleman is less than frank. He must realise that the cost of initiating proceedings at the Old Bailey, for instance, is immensely high and that no private citizen would be likely to do so having regard to the costs.

But, of course, when, as we know, pornography is big business at present and the pornographers have great resources to fight cases, it is unthinkable that any private citizen should be expected to take upon himself the onus of a prosecution at the Old Bailey. So what the Home Secretary is doing is depriving the citizen of any right to set afoot proceedings against obscene publications.

I know why the Home Secretary is very angry with me. I know that my offence in his eyes is twofold. First, I have succeeded in proceedings against an obscene book—in his heart, he does not want such books proceeded against—and, second, I have exposed to public gaze the futility of the Attorney-General. These are the real reasons for the Clause.

My position in this matter is clear and plain. I am only too willing to leave these matters to the public authorities. I do not wish to be involved personally, but I make one stipulation—that the public authorities should take action when it ought to be taken. That is what they are failing to do.

I would give one further example of a most extraordinary failure to act by the Attorney-General. My leading counsel in the proceedings which I brought drew my attention to another book. I do not propose to mention its name. It was proceeded against in a magistrates' court in the North of England, where it was held that the book was obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt. The case was taken to appeal and came before a court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice himself. He dismissed the case and said in terms that there was most clear evidence on which the lower court had been entitled to come to its decision.

Notwithstanding the Lord Chief Justice's condemnation of the book, when I wrote to the Attorney-General pointing out that the book had now been reprinted in a cheap edition and was being offered for sale widely at a low price, the Attorney-General wrote back to say that he did not propose to institute proceedings. It is this failure to act by the authorities in proper cases which has forced private citizens who do not wish to do so to set in motion the wheels of the law. The Government are now fortifying the inaction of the Attorney-General by seeking to enforce inaction on members of the public.

8.15 p.m.

The Government may steamroller the Clause through by the use of the Whips—although some hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for it against their convictions—but they are doing something the effect of which is to gladden the hearts of the pornographers and to sadden the hearts of that large majority of the nation who still believe in decency.

I have heard many speeches made by the Home Secretary on the subject of obscene publications, both in the House and in Committee. I admire his great gifts in many respects, but it is not unfair to say that I cannot recall one instance when, inside or outside the House, he has raised his voice to condemn the evils of this flood of pornographic litera- ture which is so prevalent on the bookstalls today.

The right hon. Gentleman has done more than any other hon. or right hon. Member to bring comfort and encouragement to those who are engaged in these publications and he is seeking today to do something to open a little wider the floodgates of indecent literature. For this he will be judged and condemned by the nation. Even if the less respectable booksellers in Soho should erect a tawdry monument to him out of the gratitude of their hearts, the nation at large will look eagerly to the day, not far removed, when he has gone from the office which he at present occupies, to which he has added no lustre and which he will leave unwept and unsung.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for two reasons; first, because he has moved the Amendment and, secondly—and more important—because he instituted this action against "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

It was I who first brought the book—at that time I did not mention its name; today is the first time that I have mentioned its name in public—to the notice of Parliament and the Attorney-General. I should, perhaps, explain why I did that. The book was sent to me by people I had not met—by a very famous bookseller in Oxford called Blackwells. They sent me the book and said, in effect, "Do you not think that something should be done about it?" I confess that when I read it I was absolutely horrified at what it contained.

I questioned the Attorney-General about it, again without mentioning the book's name. I asked him whether he was prepared to take proceedings against it. I gave him a copy of the book so that he should see it for himself, but the answer I got was "No"—he was not prepared to recommend the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action.

Not satisfied with that, I wanted to explain to the House what the book contained and to refer to some of the dreadful passages in it. In an effort c, make that explanation—and because I did not want to advertise the publication—I asked for strangers to withdraw so that I could explain it to the House in private. I wanted to show that I was not an old fuddy-duddy and that I was not worried about anything but what was contained in this filthy book. The Government resisted my plea that the House should hear what I had to say in private. I wanted strangers to withdraw so that people should not know the name of the book and should not hear some of the disgusting passages in it.

Then my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon came to see me about it and offered to take proceedings against the book personally. As we know, he did, and the matter came up in the magistrates' court, where the magistrate found it guilty of obscenity. I should have thought that the Attorney-General would, at that stage, have said, "I was wrong about this. I shall immediately institute proceedings against the book through the Director of Public Prosecutions". But he did not do that. It was only after a very long time that he was nudged—perhaps pushed by public opinion and by the decision of the magistrates' court—into taking proceedings against the book, and we know that proceedings are shortly to be taken against it at the Old Bailey.

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for taking these proceedings and for showing up the wrong decision of the Attorney-General—and, perhaps, of his legal advisers—in respect of this book. However, Clause 14 will put an end to private proceedings of this type being taken in future. It is wrong that the Government, in order, as it were, to do some face-saving for the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, should get the approval of Parliament to stop these private prosecutions from being brought in future. It is, therefore, indeed wrong that the Clause should have been slipped into the Bill.

Whatever the Home Secretary may say, the Clause was slipped in at the last moment. It was slipped in by the Home Secretary in Committee. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is liberal minded about books and plays and their publication. But the country is getting sick of these pornographic books and plays. Many people, like me, enjoy a slightly risque story or joke, as long as it is funny. This book, however, was not funny. It was perfectly disgusting from beginning to end. I do not believe in general censorship, but there are times when publications go too far. It is when they do that that somebody must protect teenagers as well as older people from the disgusting things that may come into print.

I must be frank and tell the Attorney-General that in this case he shirked his responsibilities. He was forced into taking proceedings eventually, but originally he shirked his responsibilities. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for, at his own expense, saying, "If the Attorney-General does not act, I will. I will see that action is taken." He was successful.

It was a rotten trick to push in Clause 14 just before the Committee stage. It was a face-saving trick to get the backing of Parliament to stop what I believe was not only a necessary but, I am glad to say, successful prosecution against "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

Mr. Edward Lyons

I have listened to the recent contributions to this debate with some surprise and I have heard criticisms of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which are completely out of place. In determining, in the first place, not to institute legal proceedings, my right hon. and learned Friend acted solely on the advice available to him. It would have been entirety wrong for him to have ignored the vast weight of advice proffered to him. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] I will come to the reasons shortly.

I urge the House to consider what certain newspapers said about the book. The Attorney-General knew that they had said it. The Scotsman referred to the book as … one of the most meaningful landmarks in the literature of its generation. The Listener—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked for it and they are going to get it—referred to the publication in these terms: No book could well be less obscene. The Irish Times summarised it favourably. The Director of Public Prosecutions engaged a leading literary expert from a university, who told him that the method of exposure seemed to him to be "sternly moral and honest". A psychiatrist was consulted and, as a result of considering these various opinions—

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order. I am beginning to feel a little uneasy about all this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard that there may be proceedings pending about a book which was first mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). Now the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) is reading a great number of encomiums on the book by various literary authorities. I have not read the book and would not say anything about it if I had.

We are discussing an Amendment relating to the general law of obscene publications and I am wondering whether, if proceedings are pending—and I gather from the Home Secretary that they are—it is in order to discuss matters which may be sub judice but which should be strictly relevant to the subject of a general alteration of the law as proposed in Clause 14. In other words, should we be discussing the merits or otherwise of a book which, for all I know, may be as pure as the driven snow or as obscene as "Petronius?" If we are going to be told what the Irish Times says about certain books or what the Scotsman thinks about books which are to be prosecuted, I suggest that the hon. Member for Bradford, East should be careful about whether or not he is prejudicing sub judice proceedings—and I should have thought that it would be doubtful whether we would get on very well with the Clause.

Mr. Hooson

Further to that point of order. It would seem that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has raised his point of order rather late, because he listened with equanimity to the attacks made on the book before making it. I have not read the book and I express no opinions about it. If there is a pending prosecution, it would seem to be equally fair to have had the views, which no doubt have great literary merit, of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who indeed expressed their views forcefully, and the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), and I see no reason why he should not quote other views about the book.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has raised a point of order on two grounds: first, on the ground of relevancy, and, secondly, on the ground of sub judice. On the ground of relevancy, I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said, and I was rather concerned about it. It made some very serious allegations against both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. I thought that it was right to allow the hon. Member to proceed because, as I understand, the Clause we are now considering was not in the Bill when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. Therefore, I allowed a rather wider debate than I think would have been permitted on Report if the Clause had been in the Bill in its original form.

On the question of sub judice, the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) is, as I understand him, about to make observations about another book—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then about the same book. If he makes observations about the same book, I think that it is perfectly in order for him, in speaking to the debate, to make comments of the same kind that have already been made in the speeches of the hon. Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).

Mr. Lyons

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

To conclude this part of my remarks, it was as a result of considering all these matters that the Attorney-General felt that he could not institute proceedings in relation to a book that he himself described as odious, and, on that advice no one could conceivably blame him—

Mr. Buck

The hon. Member refers to advice, and in explaining what the advice was he has referred to a series of quotations from different parts of the Press. What is the advice which he alleges the Attorney-General received, and about which the hon. Gentleman apparently knows so intimately?

Mr. Lyons

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have already said that the Attorney-General consulted one of our leading literary experts—and said so in this Chamber some months ago—and also asked the advice of a psychiatrist about the effect of the book on persons reading it. I do not know what sort of advice the hon. Gentleman thinks the Attorney-General should have taken, but all my right hon. and learned Friend did was to consult available authorities. He did not get information and advice which led him to believe that a prosecution would probably result in a conviction.

We must appreciate that if we prosecute a book of this kind, which has been described as difficult to read, and so give it a lot of publicity, then if the prosecution fails we get a massive sale of the book, make a fortune for the author and thereby do precisely the opposite of what we intended. It is, therefore, important that in deciding to prosecute we should have considerable hopes of obtaining a conviction. It was because of these matters that the Attorney-General did not feel—

Mr. Carlisle

The latter part of the hon. Member's argument falls, in my opinion, because the Attorney-General is now to prosecute. On the first part, with respect, what he is saying justifies the argument that the private individual should still be free to take proceedings if he disagrees with the advice of a Government Department. It is not a question of the Attorney-General's sincerity, but of the fact that the private individual should be entitled to take action if he disagrees with the advice of a Government Department.

Mr. Lyons

That is rather a different point. At the time when the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute, he acted on advice and was behaving perfectly properly. Subsequently, a private prosecution was instituted, and what has been revealed by that prosecution is a body of opinion which takes a contrary view and, furthermore, the existence of a magistrate—and this is really all that it has proved so far—who feels that the case is proved. In the light of that further evidence, and taking that into account, the Attorney-General has instituted proceedings, so he has at all times behaved perfectly properly.

The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) says that this particular incident justifies keeping the power of the private citizen to take proceedings. I submit that it does not. First, one does not yet know the outcome of the proceedings being instituted by the Attorney-General and, in any event, there are other considerations. I can conceive of a dishonest publisher who wanted to publicise a book that was on the borderline of obscenity, seeing to it that proceedings were instituted under the present law merely to get the big publicity that the book would not otherwise get, and thereby ensure it a tremendous sale.

Mr. Clegg

Does the hon. Member recollect that the name of this book was given in a Motion published on the Order Paper by several hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lyons

That is beside the point. The attempt to prosecute or pillory the book, particularly if the prosecution does not succeed, will give the book a massive circulation; and all of us must be sorry about that. The Government have been criticised in relation to the way in which—

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove)

rose—

Mr. Lyons

I have given way a great deal and there are still many Amendments to be dealt with.

It has been suggested that the Government does not deal strongly or energetically with obscene publications, but what are the figures? In 1965, there were 49 prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act and there were 50 in 1964. In both those years the figures were higher than in previous years and in 1964 401,000 books and 579,000 magazines were seized as obscene by the Customs and the police. When criticising, hon. Members should remember that the Government are active in this field, but they do not want to enable publicity to be given to all kinds of obscene publication by the actions of private citizens who may not have the best motives, or whose motives while good may be misguided.

Mr. Dance

Surely the hon. Member must agree that the publicity which was given to this book was given by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)? When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) raised the matter, he tried to get it debated in private. It was entirely due to the intervention of the hon. Member for Barking, supported by the Government, that the debate was not in private. That is why great publicity was given to the book.

Mr. Lyons

It surprises me that anyone should seriously believe that we could have a debate about this book, not name it on the Floor of the House and—

Mr. Hogg

There must he some end to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating an Amendment to omit Clause 14 from a Bill which is a serious Bill about the administration of criminal justice. It seems to be degenerating into an argument about a book which I do not know whether the Home Secretary has read, but which I have certainly not read. This is obscuring the whole purpose of the debate. I realise that for the reasons you have given discussion of some aspects of the matter must be germane to this subject, but has not the point been reached when you might require the House to return to the subject of debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Obviously, there are some limits bey[...] which this debate must not go and I think that those limits are being very nearly reached. On the other hand, the Clause raises the whole question whether private individuals should or should not be allowed to prosecute in the case of obscene publications. So long as reference is made to this particular book, advocating on one side or the other the desirability of such prosecutions, I think that it is in order.

Mr. Lyons

I have not read this book, but it does not seem necessary to read the book in order to consider the principle involved. The effect of the Clause, I hope, will be to enable juries—we have heard much about juries today—ordinary men and women, to consider the decencies or otherwise of books. It seems to me that they are much better equipped than the ordinary magistrate to do so.

Mr. Buck

As I understand it, the Clause does not have the effect which has just been indicated by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons). Perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. It has the effect that proceedings can still be taken in a magistrates' court. I see the Home Secre- tary confirming that that is so. So the hon. Gentleman's last point falls, as I hope to demonstrate that all his other points fall.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Perhaps I should explain what my nod meant. Whether or not the rest of my hon. Friend's argument falls, what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) says about my hon. Friend's last point is right.

Mr. Edward Lyons

It is true that prosecutions without a jury can continue with the leave of the Attorney-General. Private individuals who wish to take action will, in future, have to take action by bringing a prosecution before a jury.

Mr. Buck

Now the hon. Gentleman is going back somewhat on what he said. However, without going into that further, I want to make two very short points. First, I must express my extreme surprise that we should be discussing the book, "Last Exit to Brooklyn" tonight. I doubt whether we are in order. This matter is sub judice and I am, therefore, surprised that we are discussing it.

Mr. Deputeaker

Perhaps the Home Secreta[...] help the Chair. Am I right in thinking that there are any actual proceedings pending?

Mr. Hogg

Yes; of course there are.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a little late for us to consider that point, but there are proceedings pending.

Mr. Buck

I gathered that that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was complaining about. However, now that we have gone right over the edge, I can only say this. The hon. Member for Bradford, East thought, it seemed, that in the interval between the Attorney-General first deciding not to prosecute and then to prosecute, the book must have been rewritten. The first time, according to the hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General was right not to prosecute. A little later the Attorney-General was right to prosecute. The book remained the same.

The action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has brought about a good result, in that action was taken in respect of the book. It is preposterous for the hon. Gentleman to indulge in these intellectual gymnastics in order to try to defend the Attorney-General. It is surprising that the Attorney-General has not decided to be present to indulge in his intellectual gymnastics in his own defence.

That is all that I want to say about the case of, "Last Exit to Brooklyn", a book which I have not read, but which, I gather, is on the premises, because we have—so I am told—an obscene publications locker in the Library where books of this character are to be found cheek by jowl with Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Evidence. This is a situation similar to the fact that "bastards" and "barristers" are to be found in the same volume of Halsbury's Laws of England. The book is here, and perhaps in future any hon. Member who desires to can read it. I gather that it is not a very good book.

Secondly, I regard it as a bad thing to infringe the right of the ordinary individual to bring an action about a matter of this character. It is quite wrong that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutors should be the arbiters in this matter. Whatever happens when the case is filially determined, what has recently happened about the book has illustrated the point and proved it beyond a peradventure. If we get an Attorney-General or a Director of Public Presecutions who is particularly liberal in his approach to these matters, the place could be flooded with obscenity, because he would not allow prosecutions to take place in an easy and convenient way.

It is in a situation such as that the citizen should have the right to step in. It is in that situation that in the past the citizen has had the right and has exercised it. It is right that this right should continue. There can be no real reason for infringing this right by the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Perhaps I may begin with two disclaimers. First, like most hon. Members who have addressed the House, I have not read "Last Exit to Brooklyn", but, unlike them, I do not propose, not having read it, to discuss it. Second, I disclaim any feeling of anger towards the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Several times he said that he believed that I was angry with him—

Sir C. Black

I was told so by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Jenkins

I must not say that the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he is told by the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]—but I give him that assurance. It appeared to me, from his closing remarks, that he was a good deal more angry with me than I am with him. My feelings towards the hon. Gentleman are not anger but are rather like those of the man who was asked what he felt towards the Austro-Hungarian Empire—if the hon. Gentleman did not exist, we would have to invent him.

I am, therefore, in no way influenced by feelings of anger, and neither am I influenced in bringing forward this Clause by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did or did not decide at different stages, although I think that what he did was perfectly proper and there is a good defence of his action on both occasions, in relation to "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

I have long believed, and have long put forward the view, that it is desirable, where the defence of literary merit is to be tested before a court, that that is eminently an issue which should be tested before a jury and not before a single magistrate. I advocated that view strongly in a private capacity as a Member of the House in 1964, when the Obscene Publications Act of that date was before the House. I took that view long before the question of "Last Exit to Brooklyn" came up. When the Bill was before us in 1964, there was a very narrow division of opinion in the Standing Committee, and the Government of the day carried the Committee by only nine votes to eight against such a provision being brought in, that is, against the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions being necessary.

What we were told then by the Government of the day—I can now see force in the argument, perhaps, a little more than I then did—is that it is necessary to retain the magistrates' court procedure to deal with bulk hard-core pornography, and that, if anyone being dealt with by such procedure were to have the right automatically to opt for trial by jury, the procedure might be clogged up. But a concession was given in the form of a statement by the then Solicitor-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), saying that—I have it here and, perhaps, I should quote it directly— Where inquiries are being made about an article which the prosecuting authorities consider to be prima facie obscene, and the publisher indicates his determination to publish or to continue to publish, in circumstances which would constitute a criminal offence, then, in the absence of any special circumstances, and satisfactory evidence of an offence by him being available, it would ordinarily be the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against that publisher by way of prosecution. The significance of "by way of prosecution" is that the publisher if he has faith in the work he is publishing, has the advantage of trial by jury but also suffers the disadvantage that, should he go down and should his faith prove ill-founded, he is open to much greater penalties than if he takes the easy procedure in the magistrates' court.

Therefore, it is a procedure which someone would undergo only if he wished the article which he was publishing to be tested because he had faith in it. It is not likely that the hard-core pornographer would wish to undergo it. I agree that hard-core pornography is a problem—it is not, perhaps, the most serious of all the social evils with which we are confronted in this country, but it is none the less a problem—and the hard-core pornographer would be most unlikely to wish to put himself in that position.

It did not occur to most people that that undertaking, apart from the slightly cautious nature of its words, did not cover the position of private prosecutions. The picture painted by some hon. Gentlemen earlier in the debate rather suggested that the right to take a private prosecution against an obscene book was most cherished and frequently used by small people throughout the country. In fact, it has not been used since the defence of literary merit came into operation by anyone other than the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

I make no complaint against him for doing so under the law as it stands. But the previous Government took the view that it was right to give an undertaking of that sort, and there is a little more to it than trial by jury. That is important: but there is also trial in the High Court, with the opportunity of continuous deployment of evidence, as opposed to trial in a magistrates' court, with adjournment from one half day to another, involving extreme difficulties about the deployment of a coherent case. It does not seem sensible to impose such a limitation on the prosecuting authorities of the Government and allow the complete loophole to private citizens to be able to prosecute. We are not removing that right. They can do so, but only if they give an opportunity to those whom they are prosecuting to incur the risk of greater penalties and also the opportunity to deploy their defence in more suitable circumstances and before a jury.

I do not think it unreasonable that private citizens should be in the same position as the Government in that respect. The main argument I have heard is the financial argument. Clearly if this were a right which was constantly exercised by small people, one might have to have some regard to it. But the hon. Gentleman is the only person who has exercised the right for a great number of years and I cannot believe that he, with his burning zeal on this issue and supported as he might be by several other hon. Members, would not be able to raise the costs of dealing with this matter in a higher court if it were necessary for him so to do.

I think that this is a perfectly reasonable provision. It leaves the private citizen free to prosecute if he so wishes, but also creates a position in which the defendant has the opportunity to defend his work, if he has faith in it, in a higher court and before a jury.

Mr. Hogg

This is an important debate, although it has taken place at a slightly unfortunate hour. Although I happen to think that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved very badly about this, I do not think that it is an easy matter and I do not want anything that I say to indicate that I think that it is.

I must, however, say at once that the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman manages to deploy plausible arguments which are paradoxical to the verge of absurdity never ceases to amaze me. The Clause is put in—one would think if one had read it, which few of us apparently have done in the course of the debate—to stop what, for one reason or another, the right hon. Gentleman thinks of as an abuse. He was very polite to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but in the end he clearly showed that he thought that what he was seeking to prevent was an abuse, and his great defence of having introduced the Clause is that the "abuse" scarcely ever happens, that it has happened only once, that the only "abuser" is my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

The right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, if it had been done every day he would have had to take account of that and yield to popular pressure. If this is to be the brave front which the right hon. Gentleman presents to abuse, I can only say that I do not think he will remain Home Secretary very long. His business is to stop frequent, not occasional, abuses. It becomes an absolutely extraordinary argument for him to say that the provision which he found it necessary to introduce at a very peculiar stage of the Bill is concerned with something which scarcely ever happens, has happened only once, when it was done by a most respected Member of the House of whom the right hon. Gentleman said that, if he had not already existed, he, the right hon. Gentleman, would have had to invent him.

If one considers the Clause one sees who it is that the right hon. Gentleman prefers to my hon. Friend whom he would have had to invent. We all know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a great benefactor of the Bar, so we shall not say anything against him, but a constable can do this. A constable in an obscure village in Wimbledon, a remote country parish, can bring this prosecution. He can put this book, whatever it is called, into the dock, but that cannot be done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, not by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor); they are proscribed.

Only a constable and, apparently, the book reviewer of the Dublin Times—are good enough to judge whether this book should stand its trial before a Metropolitan magistrate. This is the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman inserted clandestinely into the Bill halfway through the Committee stage. I must say that I find his conduct extremely surprising, not to say subject to criticism.

We all know—it would be naive to pretend that we do not—why the right hon. Gentleman has done this. It may be that, as usual, the Leader of the House was inaccurate when he described the right hon. Gentleman as being filled with anger towards my hon. Friend. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about that. He is far too genial to be filled with anger. He did it because my hon. Friend had won his case. If my hon. Friend had lost his case, the right hon. Gentleman would not have bothered, but my hon. Friend won his case and won it to such purpose that he persuaded not only the magistrate, but also the right hon. and learned and absent Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General, of course, received the extraordinary help, rather like a sort of Hannibal's elephants, of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), who sprang to the defence of the Attorney-General. But I must say that the hon. Gentleman must have frightened the Attorney-General, or will frighten him if the Attorney-General ever ventures to read HANSARD, by the extraordinary arguments which he put. The Attorney-General has undoubtedly been very wet about this. I cannot imagine why the Attorney-General has not attended our debate. It would have been a great illumination to hear the explanation of this legal luminary of his extraordinary tergiversation over this business.

9.0 p.m.

I will not discuss the merits of the occasion when he said in the House that he did not think that he could get a conviction—it depends on whom he briefs to prosecute, I suppose. Apparently, this book was so glorious as to impress the reviewer of the Dublin Times, and that frightened him off. The advisers of the Attorney-General are the Listener and the Dublin Times, whose reviewers have had the advice of a psychiatrist. Apparently, not only are we to have trial by jury with a decision by majority, but a filtering by the psychiatrist, and a sort of grand jury composed of the reviewers of the Dublin Times.

Perhaps that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did. At any rate, he funked losing his case. No sooner had my hon. Friend won his case than the Attorney-General changed his mind. The right hon. and learned and absent Gentleman, whom we would dearly like to see on the Government Front Bench at the moment, having funked bringing a prosecution and a prosecution of a different kind having been brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, who, whatever their limitations as legal advisers, are at least up to the psychiatrist of the reviewer of the Dublin Times, and my hon. Friends having won the case, then the Attorney-General brings up horse, foot and artillery; The Director of Public Prosecutions is lumbered into operation. Proceedings are pending.

They cannot be right both times. Talk about unanimity! The Attorney-General is not unanimous with himself. Still less is he unanimous with the right hon. Gentleman, because no sooner has the Attorney-General manœuvred the Director of Public Prosecutions, and brought into operation the creaking machinery of the criminal law—and no doubt prosecution will ultimately be made at the Old Bailey, if a court can be found vacant, what with all the criminals that the right hon. Gentleman is quite rightly seeking to apprehend at the Old Bailey—no sooner does the right hon. and learned and absent Gentleman the Attorney-Gentleman decide to change his mind and to prosecute, than the right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, proceeds to insert clandestinely this Clause, to stop anyone every doing a thing which my hon. Friend has successfully done.

Talk about unanimity! The Government are starting in different directions and will never meet so long as this world continues. The Gilbertian situation which the right hon. Gentleman has brought about is not designed to bring the criminal law into greater repute or to increase the right hon. Gentleman's reputation for wisdom, great though it may be, let alone maintain it at an adequate level.

This Bill is about criminal justice. It is designed to modernise our machinery of criminal law. It is to Amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, including the law relating to evidence, and to the qualification of jurors, in such proceedings and to appeals in criminal cases; to reform existing methods and pro- vide new methods of dealing with offenders; to make further provision for the treatment of offenders and the management of prisons and other institutions".

Mr. Weitzman

This is all great fun, but are we not discussing Clause 14? What has this got to do with it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is replying to observations made in the debate.

Mr. Hogg

I think that it will gradually begin to dawn upon the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The real point about this is that this is a serious and important Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before the country in order to defeat crime. He has rightly sought the support of the whole House for the provisions of the Bill. If there had been some abuse to be remedied he would have introduced into this Bill, as one of its principal provisions, the prevention of abuses by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and it would have been given a Second reading.

We would have debated it, but alas, no. Only when my hon. Friend won his case did the Home Secretary introduce into a Bill which was really designed for quite a different purpose a Clause which has, as its principal purpose, the object of giving effect to one of the right hon. Gentleman's venial little quirks—his desire to liberalise the law on obscenity.

I am not saying that this is an easy matter. I do not want to pretend that I think it to be so. It fell to my lot in another place to lead the House when a noble Friend of mine attacked "Lady Chatterley" after the verdict. I had a very difficult speech to make from the Government Bench. The last thing which I wish to do is to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for having taken a view about a difficult matter. But I am bound to say, having thought about this subject for many years, that I do not think that I can take the entirely facile view which the right hon. Gentleman seems to take about the production of obscene literature, whether it be what he calls the hard core of obscene pornography—I do not know what "the hard core of obscene pornography" means when translated into legal language—or whether it be books masquerading as literature but selling as pornography. I do not take the view that these books do no harm. I have yet to hear the Home Secretary express such a view. I think that he is afraid that his literary friends would think less of him if he said boldly what I believe he is beginning to think after having been Home Secretary for some time.

Humanity, over many centuries, has come to believe that good books at least do good and provide inspiration. It would be a paradox if books which were intended to deprave and corrupt did not deprave and corrupt. There have been many disturbing events during the last five years, since we passed the Act, largely at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman. There was the Moors case. And what may have corrupted in the Moors case was no mean literary product; it was the works of de Sade himself. I have known cases where murder may have been committed as a result of someone having read obscene literature.

There is an unmistakeable connection between most of the books which have come into prominent dispute in recent years and violence and brutality allied with sex; because pornography is not merely the titillation of the sexual instinct. One will find in almost every case that the descriptions are allied with cruelty. I have not read the book in question and I make no comment about it. But I believe that crimes of violence are inspired by obscene literature.

I am much more disturbed about the repeated reports, the deep reports, in the Press, based on accurate and specific investigation, that London and some other of our cities, but London in particular, are becoming the harbours and exploiting grounds of commercial pornography masquerading as decent literature—the little back rooms in the shops, the pretence at respectability on the outside. It is very remarkable that the Labour Party, which is usually so hard on private enterprise when it sells detergents or something utterly harmless openly, and as a result of advertisement, should be so zealous in protecting people who, for profit and for nothing else, seek to demoralise the human community. I should have thought that our greatest support would come from the party opposite. I can only say that I am disappointed to find that that is not so.

The Home Secretary has inserted a prohibition in his Bill to give effect to one of his private and not universally accepted quirks about public policy. He is not to allow a free vote on this, I suppose, any more than he allowed a free vote on majority verdicts. We shall allow a free vote. I know which way I shall vote. I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I hope that as many of my hon. Friends as agree with me will do the same.

The situation as I see it is this. The law of obscenity has many pitfalls for the enforcing authorities. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, East developed one of them. It may fail. If it fails, it advertises the book. It if fails and advertises the book, the very thing one sought to suppress gets an enormous sale and make enormous profits.

I do not envy the enforcing authorities in their judgment in this matter, but they have been unforgiveably lax in recent years. I believe that they lost their nerve over "Lady Chatterley", and that it was well becoming of my hon. Friend to put a little backbone into the authorities by showing that, where they were afraid, there were citizens who were prepared to exercise their rights and succeed. Indeed, it had the effect of causing the Attorney-General to go into reverse and prosecute the very same book where, previously, he had refused.

It is said that where there is a defence of literary merit, in all cases there should be trial by jury—or not in all cases, not where the Director of Public Prosecutions brings the summary proceedings, not where the village constable brings them, but only when my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon tries to bring summary proceedings. I wonder why. What is there in the village constable which give him the right to pontificate about the literary merit of a book so as to make it legitimate for him to bring proceedings when hon. Members of this House may not?

What is there about a Metropolitan magistrate which makes him supremely incapable of deciding what is meritorious? What is there about 12 people who, for all their virtues, have been chosen with a pin and will soon be chosen off the voters' list? Why are they so superior to the man appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that only they can do so without the intermediary of the village constable?

That is the Clause which we are now asked to accept. The only reason is that the right hon. Gentleman has a history in this matter. He is trying to live up to his reputation and aspiration. His aspiration was to be a great, liberal Home Secretary, and there are worse things to be. However, what the country needs at the moment is a Home Secretary who will re-establish respect for law, morality and order. What is more, after a little experience of office, the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn that,

too. Nothing was more striking in his speech than his admission that he was beginning to be converted to the Act of 1964, which he criticised so bitterly when it went through the House. What has converted him is the experience of responsibility. It is the experience of what is going on, the experience of the facts of life which he is learning for the first time. I only wish that he had learned them in time to stop this wretched little Clause going into an otherwise admirable Bill.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 89.

Division No. 325.] AYES [9.14 p.m.
Allen, Scholefield Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Moyle, Roland
Archer, Peter Hamling, William Murray, Albert
Ashley, Jack Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Norwood, Christopher
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Haseldine, Norman Ogden, Eric
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Hattersley, Roy O'Malley, Brian
Barnett, Joel Hazell, Bert Orbach, Maurice
Beaney, Alan Henig, Stanley Orme, Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hilton, W. S. Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Hooley, Frank Pardoe, John
Bidwell, Sydney Hooson, Emlyn Park, Trevor
Binns, John Horner, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pavitt, Laurence
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brooks, Edwin Howie, W. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Roy (Newport) Rees, Merlyn
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hynd, John Reynolds, G. W.
Coleman, Donald Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Concannon, J. D. Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Janner, Sir Barnett Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dalyell, Tam Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Kenyon, Clifford Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Harold (Leek) Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dell, Edmund Lawson, George Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dewar, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Slater, Joseph
Dickens, James Lee, John (Reading) Small, William
Dobson, Ray Lestor, Miss Joan Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Driberg, Tom Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Swingler, Stephen
Dunnett, Jack Loughlin, Charles Taverne, Dick
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Luard, Evan Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Eadie, Alex Lubbock, Eric Urwin, T. W.
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Ellis, John Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
English, Michael McBride, Nell Wallace, George
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) MacDermot, Niall Watkins, David (Consett)
Faulds, Andrew Macdonald, A. H. Weitzman, David
Fernyhough, E. McKay, Mrs. Margaret Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mackie, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin Whitlock, William
Foley, Maurice MacPherson, Malcolm Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Foster, Sir John Mallalleu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Marquand, David Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gourlay, Harry Maxwell, Robert Yates, Victor
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mikardo, Ian
Gregory, Arnold Millan, Bruce TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grey, Charles (Durham) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Harper and Mr. Armstrong.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Molloy, William
NOES
Awdry, Daniel Glover, Sir Douglas Onslow, Cranley
Balniel, Lord Glyn, Sir Richard Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Grant, Anthony Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm) Grieve, Percy Page, Graham (Crosby)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gurden, Harold Percival, Ian
Biffen, John Harris, Reader (Heston) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biggs-Davison, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pym, Francis
Blaker, Peter Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Quennell, Miss J. M.
Body, Richard Heseltine, Michael Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Bossom, Sir Clive Hiley, Joseph Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Braine, Bernard Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Robson Brown, Sir William
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Holland, Philip Russell, Sir Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Iremonger, T. L. Scott, Nicholas
Bullus, Sir Eric Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Sharpies, Richard
Carlisle, Mark King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Tapsell, Peter
Clegg, Walter Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Loveys, W. H. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Crowder, F. P. Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Cunningham, Sir Knox McMaster, Stanley Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dalkeith, Earl of Maddan, Martin Ward, Dame Irene
Dance, James Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Webster, David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Athford) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L, C, Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Doughty, Charles Miscampbell, Norman Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Drayson, G. B. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Monro, Hector Wylie, N. R.
Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) More, Jasper
Errington, Sir Eric Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Neave, Airey Sir C Black and Sir C. Taylor.
Forteecue, Tim Nott, John