HL Deb 24 April 1923 vol 53 cc847-66
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the undue publicity which has been given in certain sections of the Press to indecent details of certain recent cases in the Law Courts, and whether they will introduce legislation to deal with the matter. For a long time past the publication of disgusting details of divorce and other cases has been made a feature in a certain section of the Press. The majority of the newspapers of this country report these cases with decency and restraint. There is, however, a minority which offend not only against good taste but against public morals, and also against what is, I believe, the intention of the law.

The Royal Commission on Divorce, which reported in 1912, investigated all these questions very fully indeed, and their Report deals thoroughly with them. Lord Alverstone, the then Lord Chief Justice, giving evidence before the Commission, made the following remarks: The mischief done to the young is incalculable. particularly to boys and girls between the age of fourteen and eighteen. The Commission has had accounts, I believe true accounts, of the terrible extent to which immorality does exist between people of that age. It is largely promoted by this sort of publication. Ideas are put into their minds, and there is nothing to be gained by it. Later he said: It is not necessary in the administration of justice that it should he done. Another witness, Mr. Peacock, who was the Chief Constable of Manchester, and appeared as President of the Chief Constables' Association, went so far as to tell the Commissioners that as a result of his experience in coming into close contact with the evils, he was in favour of the total prohibition of all reports of divorce cases of any kind. In that view he was expressing the opinion, so he said, of ninety-seven out of ninety-eight Chief Constables. I do not mention that as being a view with which I agree. I do not think many people want to see these reports totally prohibited, but I do say that it is very strong evidence of the kind of harm which such reports must have done.

There were also before the Commisssion a number of witnesses connected with the Press. Every one of them agreed that the publication of minute details of such evidence was an evil. These Press witnesses also laid great stress on the fact that while the abuse was mainly confined to papers of a certain class, at the same time the competition of the less scrupulous newspapers compelled the better class ones to publish more than they otherwise would do. It is worth noting that twelve witnesses connected with the Press appeared before the Commission, and that they all agreed that this matter was an evil. No single witness appeared, whether connected with the Press or not, who expressed the contrary view, although, in the words of the Report, Section 492— Efforts were made to obtain the attendance of witnesses to whom questions might have been directed with regard to Sunday and other weekly publications, but we have not been able to secure their attendance. The Report of the Commission sums the matter up as follows:— We have been greatly impressed by the evidence which has been laid before us as to the corrupting and demoralising consequences which follow from an excess of publicity of this class of case. That is a quotation from the Majority Report, but it happens to be one of the matters on which the Majority and Minority Reports were in agreement. That was the state of affairs in 1912. There certainly has not been any improvement since.

There are only two reasons, so far as I know, which can be urged in favour of the continuance of the present state of affairs. One is that this publicity exercises a deterrent effect on the commission of acts of immorality. Secondly, there is the consideration that it is undesirable in the public interest to interfere with the freedom of the Press. With regard to this deterrent effect, I know no conclusive evidence one way or the other. The witnesses before the Divorce Commission were divided on the subject. It is really a matter of opinion. I think a good many of your Lordships will agree with my view, which is that such deterrent effect will act rather in the direction of making people more careful not to be found out rather than in the direction of preventing them from committing such acts.

But granting that a reasonable publicity does produce a salutary effect, I do not think that by any stretch of imagination that can be held to justify the orgy of posters and head-lines and the exploitation of indecent suggestion from which we very often suffer. If we could imagine that all the papers which offend in this manner could by some means or other have been simultaneously blotted out, say, by an air raid, or by a discriminating tidal wave, nevertheless I think it cannot be doubted there would remain plenty of publicity to exercise whatever de-torrent and salutary effect already is exercised. In any case, if this existing publicity of which I complain were lost by doing away with it, I am convinced that its absence would be more than compensated for by the advantages.

With regard to the freedom of the Press, that of course is a most admirable and necessary thing. It is essential that the rights of the Press should be safeguarded in every way. From that it follows that no extension of any return to a system of trials in camera could be tolerated, nor would it be possible to Contemplate the suppression of reports of such cases as are at present heard in open court. But the freedom of the Press, after all, is not a greater thing than the freedom of the individual, and the freedom of the individual is already pretty severely limited. There are some things which at present the Press, any more than any individual, may not do. No newspaper, in fact, dare or does publish at the present time everything that transpires in Court. Moreover, with regard to those two arguments—the deterrent effect of publicity and the freedom of the Press—does anybody suggest that these papers, particularly the Sunday papers, in publishing this class of literature are concerned to prevent the commission of acts of immorality by hypothetical people, or to defend the freedom of the Press, which nobody at the moment is dreaming of challenging?

The law on the subject, as I understand it, is perfectly simple. Section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act reads as follows: A fair and accurate report in any newspaper of proceedings publicly heard before any Court exercising judicial authority shall, if published contemporaneously with such proceedings, be privileged: Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the publication of any blasphemous or indecent matter. The fact is that these offending newspapers are laying themselves open to a prosecution all the time, but they have all gauged extremely accurately how far they can go without exposing themselves to a conviction.

The intention of the law is perfectly clear; the difficulty rests in the fact that the indecency does not lie so much in the actual words of the report as in the suggestiveness which is underneath. As I understand it the reporter of such dirty eases could be indicted, and there is no doubt that a Grand Jury would find a true bill, but the difficulty of the prosecution would be to establish the fact that the actual report was so filthy as to fall within the definition of "indecent" or "obscene." In one of the leading cases on this subject there is a definition of what is indecent and obscene. The Judge in that case said this: I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and to corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sift may fall. There could not be a better definition of the evil of which I am complaining. I want to make it clear that what I am suggesting is not further to limit the freedom of the Press but to render effective the limits which already by law exist.

The precise means of doing that is a matter of some difficulty. It may be possible to give Judges discretion to instruct that certain evidence shall not be published, and it may be possible to prohibit the publication of any report until the conclusion of the case. It may be possible to adopt both suggestions. It is not for me to say what is the best method, but I do maintain that it is a problem which has to be faced. The longer the present state of affairs lasts the worse it will get. There is a demand for this class of literature. I do not say that it exists more in one class of the community than in another, but it is a demand which is created by the supply, and the supply will go on increasing because the stress of competition will gradually force the better class of newspapers to abandon the reticence which, all to their credit, they maintain at present.

I am convinced that there is a strong public opinion in favour of strengthening the law, and I believe that the majority of newspapers themselves would welcome legislation. It is a curious thing that in this matter extremes meet. Newspapers whose politics are so far apart as the Morning Post and the Daily Herald are in agreement on this matter. Both these newspapers, and the majority, would welcome legislation. The need is not confined to divorce reports; all cases out of which capital can be made in a similar way should be made the subject of legislation. Difficult as the problem is, it is not beyond the power of the legal advisers of the Government, in collaboration with leading representatives of the Press, to frame a measure which would command general acceptance. I urge upon the Government that it is most important that they should bring forward such legislation at the earliest possible moment.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I am always unwilling to inflict my views upon you twice in one afternoon but unfortunately the Notice Paper to-day contains two Questions upon which I hold very strong views. I am sure that the whole of the House is grateful to the noble Lord for having brought forward this Question and would also like to congratulate him upon the manner in which he has expressed his views. I find myself unable to follow the lines of improvement he desires I do not think you can by Act of Parliament further limit and define the power the Press now possess to report these cases. If you are going to effect any remedy at all it must be something far more drastic than that, and it is my opinion, having thought the matter over very carefully indeed, that the right thing to do is to prohibit the publication of anything concerning divorce cases except the result.

Why is it suggested that the public have a right to know everything that takes place within the four walls of the Divorce Court? The noble Lord has suggested that it is necessary to create some kind of deterrent to prevent people going wrong, and also in order to secure the liberty of the Press. Liberty is always a word that makes a great appeal to me, but I have never forgotten the woman who said; "O Liberty ! how many crimes are committed in thy name !" And when I hear of the liberty of the Press being invoked as a reason why unpleasant matters should be disseminated broadcast throughout the country I find myself unable to respond. So also I do with regard to the suggestion that the fear of the shame of publication will deter people from going wrong. There is not a single man who has anything to do with the control of the morals of his fellow creatures who thinks that a man or woman would be deflected for an instant from the path of ill-doing by the remote possibility that at some future date some part of their misdeeds may be published in the newspaper. It always seems to me that people underestimate the strength of human passions.

But it is not merely that you are going to interfere with the wrong-doer. You are going to pillory the person who has not done wrong, and that, to my mind, is the great scandal connected with these reports. A woman who has done no wrong at all has to go to the Court to disclose in public matters as to which she would rather die of shame than mention them in public. She has to give her evidence before a Court that is crowded' with vulgar, idle sightseers, who have not gathered for the purpose of seeing justice administered—if they wanted to see justice administered they could go to the Admiralty Court—but who have gathered for the purpose of hearing of unclean matters from the lips of a woman. And to make a woman who is asking for rights which exist, and which the laws of this country still give her, go through that torture before she can obtain them is to do something which offends the most elementary principles of justice.

I would have far wider powers than exist at present to clear the Court and absolutely prohibit the publication of any of these eases. In whose interests are they published? If there is any matter which is a private and domestic concern it is a quarrel between a man and his wife, and the Divorce Court is merely there for the purpose of saying whether that quarrel is of such a character as entitles one of the parties to be free. What rights have the put lie there? What interests of the public are served by publishing the details? No theory was ever more abused than the theory that the liberty of the Press and justice require the opening of the doors of the Divorce Court to everybody who likes to enter and the publication by new spapers of everything that transpires therein. I am satisfied that there is only one effective way of dealing with this matter—a way that is fair to all newspapers and to which none can object. That is that the whole publication, with the exception of the result, should be stopped, and I have yet to learn what is the argument against that course.

With regard to the way in which the newspapers deal with these cases, I have not the same complaint as the noble Lord. If you permit them to deal with these cases, every single one of which depends upon an unclean incident, it is impossible to report it without referring to the uncleanness. You cannot avoid it, and if you are going to inform people of what is going on you have to put the balance of evidence on one side or the other, and to prove whether the wrong that is charged exists or not. As your Lordships all know, I look forward—and my expectations are not shared by all of your Lordships, though I believe by the majority—to a time when we stall greatly extend the powers that now exist to free people from the burden of a bond that has been disgraced and dishonoured, and when that time comes I hope that we shall also enable people to obtain the rights which the law gives them without the shame and humiliation that is imposed upon them to-day by the attendance of the public and by publication in the Press.

THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

My Lords, I shall interpose for only a very few minutes. This question raises one of the few matters upon which those who occupy this bench may fitly claim the attention of this House. I should like to associate myself at once with what Lord Buckmaster said in welcoming the speech of the noble Lord who put this Question. As one who had the honour of the acquaintance of his father it is a particular satisfaction to me to witness the noble Lord's appearance in this House in this connection.

I wonder how many of your Lordships connect this subject with the very grave social situation in which the country now stands. It is my lot to be Bishop of a district in the county of Durham, which is suffering beyond many other parts of the country from the great calamity of unemployment. We have many thousands of lads and young men unemployed month after month, some of them even for years together. Imagine the effect of the daily publication of the most degrading matter placed every morning in the hands of these idle thousands, and providing them with the text of the most degrading conversation, protracted for long periods of the day. As I go into my park at Auckland I constantly see hundreds of young miners, during the time of the depression, with these papers in their hands, reading them, talking about them, lowering themselves by matter which is put before them not by sonic private venture in obscenity, but with the prestige and authority of the institutions of this country. That seems to me a consideration which we ought to weigh most seriously when we consider the social effect of the present state of things.

I ask myself what conceivable public advantage can accrue from the publication in full of the painful and humiliating trials which take place in the Divorce Courts, and—I agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh—not only in the Divorce Courts, because perhaps some of the most degrading matter which has been forced on the public in this way has been in connection with other trials which did not take place in the Divorce Courts. What conceivable advantage to the public can flow from these publications? I can imagine that the publication of trials might be regarded as one method of securing justice. I can imagine its being suggested that publicity would be a great influence in deterring people from the kind of offence in question. But we have witnessed the growth in our society of a new type of social offender, one who does not shrink from but exults in the humiliation of publicity, and it is this type perhaps which is responsible for the worst incidents which are reported in our Press.

We have a saying that "Familiarity breeds contempt." I would venture to paraphrase it in this connection by saying that the common discussion of very gross vice blinds men insensibly to its grossness and thereby facilitates its extension in the community. We are living at a time when the almost complete breakdown of domestic discipline has thrown quite special responsibility upon the community for the methods which it allows to be adopted for informing the public mind and shaping the public taste. Think of the conditions under which this disgusting information is daily poured out upon the community. We have now a vast reading public, we have instruments by which information is disseminated so rapidly and with such emphasis that its full meaning is very strongly impressed upon the mind.

I speak here in the name of every agency, without exception, that is at work amongst the people for the raising of their character and the cleansing of their lives. I believe that on this matter there is no division of opinion following any denominational or sectarian lines. All the Churches are at one on this point. All the social workers—I speak with conviction on the point—are at one. I believe that those of us whose business it is to live among the people and to concern ourselves with the influences which are brought to bear on their lives find that there is nothing which haunts us and depresses us so much at the present time as the rapid, the tragic decline of sexual morality amongst the people. Amongst the forces which are ministering to that decline I place very high in the list this daily communication of the degrading and depraving record which flows from the Courts. I hope that before this discussion ceases we shall hear from some of the eminent lawyers who adorn this House what is precisely the state of the law. I confess that I find it difficult to believe that it is really quite so helpless in this matter as we are sometimes led to suppose. But if it be the case that the law has at the present moment no means of restraining this evil, then it is high time that Parliament addressed itself to the matter.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, it is many years since I first thought upon these dreadful subjects, and I was able during the early years of my life, I hope, to do a little to counteract another phase of this impurity question through the passing of an Act relating to indecent advertisements. Since those days I have witnessed, as the right rev. Prelate has just told you, an increase of every sort of temptation to the young which did not exist formerly to induce them to fall into bad ways. In my young days there was family control amongst all classes. No young girl was permitted to read any of these horrible papers, even if they were published, and as a matter of fact, if I remember aright, these details were not published. I cannot remember The Times, for instance, or any respectable paper, publishing any of the details of what was then called "crim. con."

One reason, of course, is that in those days there were large numbers of the population who only read with the greatest difficulty, or not at all. Now, everybody can read, and young girls, as well as boys, are able to do whatever they like. They leave home when they like. They can earn their living, and the father and mother have no power over them whatever. The girls lead bachelor lives, you may say, with the result that they read everything that is read by the boy, and I have noticed, even amongst a much higher class of young women, nowadays, that they know everything, and they are not ashamed very often to talk in public upon these cases, and they enter into details which in my young days no young woman would ever have thought of doing. The result is that there is great licence which did not exist formerly.

It may seem impertinent for me to do as other noble Lords have done, and thank Lord Balfour of Burleigh for raising this Question, but I do wish to thank him, and having known his father I am delighted to learn that he is able to show that he can carry on the work which his father did for so many years. I listened with great attention to what he said, but I cannot really agree with him. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. I believe that if anything is done it must be done drastically. I cannot for the life of me see what good the publication of these horrible details does to the public in general, except the idea that if you did prevent their publication some harm would be done to the liberty of the subject. I do not believe for one moment that it would be, and therefore I hope that the noble and learned Lord, with all his great ability, will take this matter up and boldly face it. I for one in my humble way would be delighted to support any measure which he, or any other noble Lord, brought in to prevent in the future the publication in the newspapers of perfectly unnecessary details.

VISCOUNT FINLAY

My Lords, I am sure that the general feeling in the House is one of gratitude to Lord Balfour of Burleigh for having brought to the attention of the House this matter, which is really of very great urgency. I do not think that the evil is confined entirely to reports of proceedings in the Divorce Court, although, from the nature of the business there transacted, the reports of cases there have attracted very naturally a deplorable amount of attention. I remember that in the days when I had occasion almost every day to be at the Law Courts I was struck, day after day, with what always appeared to me to be the most deplorable sight in London—namely, the crowd of people waiting at o the door of the Divorce Court, in order that they might revel in the details of the cases which it was the duty of the Court to investigate. It is, however, not only in that Court that cases are heard which are much better unreported, or at all events if reported only reported in the barest outline, with a statement of the result. Many other cases are open to the same objection, and because flufficient, reasons may exist for admitting the public to hear such cases in Court, there is to my mind no reason whatever why oar houses should be flooded with detailed reports of such cases. It is a most unfortunate thing that it is nowadays impossible to leave newspapers about where there are any young people in the house.

The matter is not one to which my attention had not already been drawn. A very long time ago, in the 'eighties, in conjunction with my dear friend Sir Frank Lockwood, I considered what could be done in this matter, and we made an attempt which unfortunately came to nothing. The difficulty of passing legislation on this subject can only be appreciated by those who have had some practical acquaintance with it. In these circumstances I think it is desirable to call attention to what are the existing powers of the law, and to consider whether, with a suitable choice of cases, something might not be done with the machinery that we already have. It is well settled law—I am quoting from a case of authority—that the privilege given by the law to the reports of judicial proceedings does not extend to reports which contain matters of an obscene and demoralising character, and in the course of the judgments given in that case, it was pointed out by one of the Judges that the matter was well dealt with in a well known work on the Law of Libel, where it was said that where you have had proceedings for the purpose of punishing demoralising literature of that kind, would it not be not merely impolitic but absolutely absurd to allow the same matter to be sent broadcast over the country, in the guise of a report of proceedings intended to prevent the diffusion of such matters?

That being so, is it not worth while considering whether, with a suitable selection of cases, a great deal might be done to strengthen the hands of those concerned in the management of the Press itself, in resisting any tendency to publish reports of this kind? It is, of course, necessary for any reform of this kind to be carried out that we should have the co-operation of the Press, and there is certainly a very large section of those concerned in the management of the Press who would welcome that which would tend to strengthen their hands in dealing with such a great and growing evil. In these circumstances is it not worth the consideration of the authorities concerned with such matters in order to see whether a selection could not be made of some case, which would demonstrate to all England that the law is not so impotent in this matter as is sometimes supposed?

One or two cases in which the law, as described in the passages to which I have called attention, was enforced would have a very great effect in deterring those who might be disposed to offend, and in strengthening those among the Press who are disposed to put themselves at the head of any movement in the direction of excluding from the houses of the people of this country literature of so demoralising a kind. I really cannot conceive what reason there is for our having our houses flooded with details of cases of that kind, and I hope that, whether by a more stringent exercise of the powers that already exist or, if it be possible, by an alteration of the law, something may be done which will tend to prevent the demoralisation which, we have been told, results from the present state of things.

THE EARL OF DESABT

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this matter to-night, but I have been greatly struck by the practical unanimity of nearly all who have spoken on two things—first, that the evil is a very real and a very great one, and, secondly, that somehow or other those in authority ought to endeavour to devise a means of getting rid of the evil, or, at any rate, of minimising it. I would adopt almost every word that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said, and I believe that you will never get any remedy except by definite and distinct legislation.

I listened, as I naturally should, with the greatest attention to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay, but I do not take so sanguine a view as he does that any process of adaptation of the existing law would meet this evil. If you are to depend on the criminal law as to prosecution for obscene or indecent publications I think you will find very few cases indeed in the reports of Divorce Court proceedings in which you would have the smallest chance of success. They are not indecent in that sense. The people who report the cases know their business much too well. The reports are suggestive, they are objectionable in the highest degree, but I do not believe you would have a chance of succeeding on an indictment or before a magistrate in one case out of a hundred; in fact, if you endeavoured to administer the law in that way you would never have a second chance, because they would know perfectly well how to avoid it. I know the difficulties, and I would urge that the Government should consider whether it is possible to get rid altogether of this evil in a manner which, universally applied to all newspapers, would cause a grievance to none of them.

Lord Buckmaster suggested that nothing should be published but results. That which I would suggest is practically the same: that there should be published the names of the parties, the charges made, the result, and the report of any discussion on a point of law which arose in the course of the proceedings. I cannot see that the interests of public justice could possibly require any more than that, if it required so much, and I think it would ensure that anything that ought to be published would be published. There ought to be that amount of public record, but I would take it no further. That, however, requires substantive legislation, and there may be great difficulties of policy. But if you consider the various kinds of newspapers, the audiences they address, and the views of some of those who direct them, I do not think that you would ever get any common action from the Press as a whole; it must come from above and from outside. That I believe to be really the only remedy. A remedy, and a practical remedy, is wanted, for I believe that the evil is very great from the Point of view which the right rev. Prelate urged in his very forcible speech.

But, apart from that, I think this publication is cruel to the last degree, not only to the innocent people, but to everybody. After all, these divorce cases are really tragedies. They mean the breaking up of homes. Why, at a time when, except perhaps in some cases, the utmost suffering is being endured, both by the guilty and the innocent parties, is every detail to be dragged before the public? Moreover—though I admit that this is a minor point, and I only bring it in because I occupied the position of King's Proctor for fourteen years—it is to some extent a hindrance to justice. I have known many cases where important witnesses, or persons believed to be important witnesses, have been asked to make statements, and they have asked: "Will my name appear in the paper?" They at once refused—very naturally; I do not blame them in the least.

In view of the extraordinary unanimity of opinion on the broad question, expressed from every part of this House this evening, I think the Government should earnestly consider whether, by affirmative legislation on some such lines as I have suggested, they could not get rid of an evil which, I am sure, is felt to be an evil by nearly everybody, even by the people who read these things. The owners of newspapers sometimes say:" Oh, we have got to serve our public; we give them what they want." But newspapers can create a demand as well as supply it, and I question whether, if the alteration which we desire was made, you would hear that there was any grievance. I hardly think people would have the face to say: "This is a monstrous outrage on justice." I believe that if you made this change it would be accepted as a proper and admirable thing to be done, and I am afraid that there is no hope of success in any other direction.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should like first to endorse the view which has already been expressed by several of your Lordships that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in bringing forward this Question, has rendered a public service. I believe it is true—and the debate to-day shows it—that what he has said about these publications represents the view of the enormous majority of our fellow countrymen. Lawyers, unfortunately, are obliged sometimes to listen to unsavoury details, because civil rights and sometimes criminal liabilities depend upon their being investigated, and proved or disproved. But there is, I believe, no good reason why details of that character should be broadcasted throughout the country, and published in the great majority of our newspapers.

It is said that some people like to read them, but it is not on behalf of people of that kind that the complaint is made. The effect of printing them indiscriminately is to bring these disgusting matters before the eyes; of people who read their newspapers for quite other purposes, and who abhor this kind of thing, and, worst of all, to bring them before the eyes of young children of both sexes, who are not armed against matters of that kind, and to whom real harm is done. I think, therefore, that all of us are of one mind as to the evil. But I should like to add that, much to their honour, some of our newspapers refuse to publish material of this kind, while others think it proper to insist upon their rights.

The real question is: How can an improvement be brought about without improperly trenching upon what, is called the liberty of the Press? As to the present law, I need add but little to what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay. Of course, it is true that the privilege of the Press does not extend to the publication of indecent and obscene matter. That is laid down not only in the judgments of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Chief Justice Bovill, to which my noble and learned friend referred, but by the Statute which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That, of course, is true; but it is also true, as the noble Earl, Lord Desart, has said, that it is very difficult to obtain a conviction in these cases. I know, for of course I have enquired into it, that the Department of Public Prosecutions is always ready to hear and investigate complaints of indecent or obscene publications and to take action where a case can be made. But, as the noble Earl has said, the evil is sometimes not in the publication of something grossly and openly obscene, but of suggestive and improper details, and it is not easy in cases of this kind to procure juries to convict.

I need hardly add that to prosecute without obtaining a conviction does, or may do, a very great deal of harm because it involves the re-publication in paper after paper of the offensive matter. Therefore, unless a conviction ensues, much more harm than good is done. That really is the answer which I have to make to my noble and learned friend when he suggests picking out some cases for prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions is always willing to deal with any possible case. I am sure that he exercises his power with a view, if possible, of putting an end to this evil; but I am afraid the effect of what has been said, and truly said, to-day, is that the law as it stands is really not strong enough to deal with the whole of the evil. I do not mean to say that you could enlarge the definition of obscenity or of indecency so as to make that criminal which is not criminal to-day; but I believe that the criminal proceedings which are open to us have proved by experience not to be sufficient to deal with the whole of the evil which exists.

My noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, made a suggestion for dealing with the matter—namely, that all publication of divorce cases (I think he confined his suggestion to those cases) should be forbidden except, of course, as to the names of the parties and the result of the case. I want to point out to your Lordships' House that there are difficulties about that. To begin with, the evil is not confined to matrimonial causes. These details are found in other cases, some of them civil but most of them criminal. If you are going really to deal with the matter you must prohibit publication of the facts of those cases, too. Then this serious question arises, that in all of these cases, or in many of them, the character of individuals is involved. When the case is successful or a conviction ensues, the injured party has an interest in having a sufficient publication of the details to show that he or she is free from blame. That is still more the case when an action fails or a person is acquitted of an alleged crime. That person has some right that the public by whom the charge has probably been discussed should know that the acquittal is complete and that he or she is found free from any blame. I think you have to consider those points very carefully before you wholly forbid the publication of any details in cases of that kind.

Certain other proposals were made by the Royal Commission over which the late Lord Gorell presided. One of them was that divorce cases might be heard in camera; that is, with closed doors. Another was that the Judge hearing such cases, and I suppose other cases too, should be at liberty to prohibit the publication of that which he thought might be injurious to the public morals. The Commission also made other suggestions which appear to me to be of less value. Those were important suggestions backed by high authority, and in the Bill which my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster introduced a few years ago he incorporated some or all of the suggestions of the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will remember what happened. Objection was at once taken by some members of your Lordships' House, especially those who were connected with the Press. A debate ensued, and all of those provisions were either struck out or so much truncated that what remained was of little use. The same thing hap- pened in the following year when Lord Gorell introduced a Bill which contained a clause dealing with this question. The clause was objected to and again struck out. So it is plain that the solution of the problem by legislation is not an easy one.

The other day a deputation of Members of the other House came to see me to discuss the matter, and they were good enough to lay before me some of the considerations which have been urged today. After talking the matter over with them, I thought it right to make two suggestions. One was that they should endeavour to get the Press to come into line in this matter; that they should interview those members of the Press who were desirous of helping and try to get some kind of compact among the respectable Press which would have the effect of purifying the columns of our newspapers from matter of this kind. I believe that attempts have been made in that direction but hitherto without result. The other proposal that I made was that legislation should be introduced in another place by those gentlemen who were Members of that House. I believe that effect will be given to that proposal and that my right hon. friend Sir Evelyn Cecil intends in a short time to introduce in another place a Bill for dealing with this matter.

I feel sure that the introduction of such a measure will lead to the serious consideration of this question, and it may be that the feeling in another place will be so strong that the measure will receive sanction there and will come up to your Lordships for consideration. In any ease, it is a good thing to introduce proposals in another place and to ascertain what is the strength of feeling there on the matter. Your Lordships will understand that with the heavy programme which faces His Majesty's Government this Session it will be very difficult for them to introduce legislation on this matter upon which opinion has not yet crystallised; I mean, as to which people are not agreed upon the remedy which ought to be applied. But I believe that the same end will be forwarded by the proposal about to be made to Parliament. The Government will watch what is said and done, and if they see any opportunity of usefully intervening they will not fail to do so.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, there are amongst your Lordships some who remember what a great influence was exercised for so many years in this House by the father of the noble Lord who introduced this Question, and who will welcome most gladly the noble Lord's intervention and his initiation of the subject this afternoon. I am sure your Lordships will all hope that he will continue to take part in the discussions of this House and exercise eventually, perhaps, as leading a position as did his father.

I rise because I am partly responsible for having introduced into your Lordships' House a good many years ago a Bill that became an Act of Parliament which did try in some measure to deal with the difficulties of the publication of indecent matter. In the year 1908 the Incest Act was introduced by His Majesty's Government, and in that Act there is a section which ordains that all proceedings under that Act shall be held in camera. That is going very much further than was suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, with regard to dealing with indecent cases that are now heard in the Courts. But I am bound to point out to your Lordships that that Act was considered unsatisfactory, and that now the provision has been repealed. I think it was repealed in the course of last year. It was thought undesirable that these matters should be heard in camera because people did not realise the gravity of the offence. Therefore the law has now been altered. It is obvious that it would be impossible for us to enact that these cases should be heard in camera, and that there is a very great deal more to be said for the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend that the result only should be made public.

I join with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his tribute to the newspapers which abstain from adding to their circulation by printing matter of this kind. Papers like the Daily Herald and the Morning Post deserve, I think, the greatest credit for their action in this matter. It would, however, be foolish if we were to blind ourselves to the fact that there are some papers which go out of their way in order to publish as much as they possibly can of cases of this kind, and who probably—we must regretfully own it—add to their circulation because they publish these things. I am afraid there is a very large section of the public which welcomes the publication of these details in their newspapers. At the same time it is evident from what has been said this afternoon that anything which is done in this direction will be warmly welcomed by a very large section of the public.

I would venture, therefore, to urge upon His Majesty's Government that they should take a stronger attitude with regard to this matter. I realise what the noble and learned Viscount has said in regard to their programme for the present Session, but I would ask whether it would not be possible for them to introduce in this House in the next Session a Bill dealing with this matter. It is not unusual during the first few weeks of a Session that this House should have comparatively little to do, and I do not know that we could occupy our time more usefully than in considering a Bill of this kind. If we found, as I am sure we should find, that in this House it met with a considerable measure of approval, then I think we might expect that it would pass in another place without any very great expenditure of the time of His Majesty's Government.

And if that is done I would ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to consider also whether there are not other matters—not only reports of cases, but indecent advertisements and a number of other things of the same type— which might well be dealt with at the same time. I remember sitting upon a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament a good many years ago, and being much struck with the difficulty that there is in dealing with this subject. I am sure that the difficulty does not lie with the reporting of cases only. Therefore, if this matter is dealt with, as I hope it may be, in your Lordships' House in another Session, I hope that these other matters will not be lost sight of, but that advertisements also may be included, and that His Majesty's Government may find a way of dealing with them at the same time.