Lords Sitting of 27 April 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LORD STRATHALMOND
  Sir William Fraser, Knight, C.B.E., having been created Baron Strathalmond, of Pumpherston in the County of Midlothian—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BAN ON HEROIN IMPORTS
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have imposed a ban on the import into the United Kingdom of heroin after the expiry of current licences; and, if so, (1) whether they will state their reasons for the ban; (2) whether, before imposing it, steps were taken to ascertain the views of the medical profession as a whole on the subject; (3) whether there has been any demand for such action on the part of the medical profession in the United Kingdom; and (4) what definite object is the ban intended to achieve.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, except for small quantities for purely scientific purposes Her Majesty's Government have decided not to permit the manufacture and export of heroin after December 31, 1955. As adequate supplies have hitherto been manufactured in this country imports of heroin have not been authorised for many years: it is intended to maintain the prohibition on importation. Her Majesty's Government have taken this decision in order to give effect to a resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations at its
596
Eighteenth Session urging all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, export and import of this drug except for scientific purposes. Before the decision was reached the advice of the appropriate statutory advisory bodies was taken.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his answer. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that Dr. Arthur Douthwaite, senior physician at Guy's Hospital, has stated in the British Medical Journal that the banning of this painkilling drug, heroin, is an astonishing move which will inflict much hardship upon a multitude of patients? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that one of the best-known physicians in Edinburgh, Dr. A. B. Flett, has written to me saying it is iniquitous that this most useful and often, in certain cases, really necessary drug should be banned?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the opinions with which the noble Viscount has just acquainted your Lordships. On the other hand, I understand that adequate supplies of a perfectly good substitute for this drug are now available. The purpose of the action which I have just described is, of course, to facilitate the world-wide banning of traffic in this extremely dangerous drug. Her Majesty's Government have, however, as I have informed your Lordships, taken the opinion of the statutory bodies which we are under obligation to consult, namely, the Central Health Services Council, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government can do more than follow the technical advice and guidance given by those bodies.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg to thank the noble Lord again. May I ask him whether he is aware that it appears from information that comes to me that there is no satisfactory substitute for heroin?
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the whole medical profession, so far at it is possible to ascertain, is behind this Order?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the information available to me is the same as that available to the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest—namely, that the vast weight of the evidence is in favour of this move.

KOREAN RECONSTRUCTION
2.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the amount of the contributions which each contributory nation has made to date to the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency; whether the contributions are in the form of grants; and on what basis the amounts of the contributions were calculated.]
THE MINISTER CF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as the Answer is rather long I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate a statement of contributions in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This statement gives the total contributions in dollars on February 28, 1955, the latest date for which complete figures are available. Since then Her Majesty's Government have made a final contribution of £535,715, bringing our total payment to £9,585,715, Contributions were in the form of grants, and represented the amounts which Governments felt able to give. I should like to take this opportunity to add that the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency has performed an invaluable task in relieving suffering in Korea, and has been of real assistance to the Korean economy.
Following is the Statement of Contributions referred to:

STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AS AT FEBRUARY 28, 1955

Members of the United Nations

Contributions (in U.S. Dollars)

Argentina

…

…

500,000

Australia

…

…

3,616,446

Belgium

…

…

400,000

Burma

…

…

49,934

Canada

…

…

6,904,762

Denmark

…

…

289,555

El Salvador

…

…

500

Ethiopia

…

…

40,000

France

…

…

142,857

Greece

…

…

12,063

Honduras

…

…

2,500

Indonesia

…

…

100,000

Israel

…

…

33,600

Lebanon

…

…

50,000

Liberia

…

…

15,000

Luxembourg

…

…

40,000

Netherlands

…

…

613,948

New Zealand

…

…

557,900

Norway

…

…

1,725,323

Paraguay

…

…

10,000

Saudi Arabia

…

…

20,000

Sweden

…

…

322,237

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

…

…

25,340,000

United States of America

…

…

84,302,615

Venezuela

…

…

100,000

TOTAL

$125,189,240

Non-Members of the United Nations

Austria

…

…

174,474

Italy

…

…

1,573,333

Monaco

…

…

572

Switzerland

…

…

255,814

Viet-Nam

…

…

10,000

TOTAL

$2,014,193

GRAND TOTAL

$127,203,433

VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his very satisfactory reply.

THREATENED RAILWAY STRIKE
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, at the end of Question Time in another place my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Insurance will be making a statement in answer to a Private Notice Question on the threatened railway strike. I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to repeat that statement at the appropriate time; and if your Lordships agree, I will interrupt Business accordingly.
CLYDE NAVIGATION (SUPER- ANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
GLASGOW CORPORATION (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Power of Trustees to lend for research purposes objects comprised in the natural history collections
1. The Trustees of the British Museum (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Trustees") shall, in their discretion, have power to lend for the purposes of research, whether within or outside the United Kingdom, any objects vested in them which are comprised in the collections of the Natural History Departments of the British Museum; and any objects lent under the power conferred by this section shall be lent on such terms as the Trustees think fit, and subject to such conditions as they may impose for the purpose of securing the safe custody and due return thereof:
Provided that, where an object comprised in the said collections has become vested in the Trustees by virtue of a gift or bequest, the power conferred by this section shall not be exercisable as respects that object in a manner inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after "Provided that," to insert:
"(a) the said power shall not extend to the lending of type specimens; and
(b)"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I make no apologies for bringing this matter to your Lordships' notice, as on the Second Reading of the Bill I said I would put down an Amendment. Though it is within a small compass, I think the point is an important one, involving the question of whether, in giving to the Museum complete power to loan their exhibits and specimens, the Bill goes too far. Your Lordships will be aware that Clause 1 confers upon the Trustees of the British Museum power to lend for research purposes objects comprised in the natural history collections of the Museum. The object of the Amendment is to cut down that power of lending in respect of type specimens. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, a type specimen is the specimen originally discovered and described by the scientist responsible for that piece of work, and your Lordships will appreciate that the type specimen, which is the very fountain of the work of research in its line, is of great importance. To allow these type specimens to be lent out from the British Museum is taking a substantial risk.
I think all scientists and all sensible people will be in agreement with the main object of this Bill, but in regard to type specimens there is a substantial divergence of opinion among experts. This divergence has been made clear by a leading scientist in the columns of the Manchester Guardian, a correspondence with which no doubt some of your Lordships are acquainted and to which the noble and learned Viscount referred on Second Reading. I understand that this divergence of opinion which exists among what I might call the independent scientists reflects a similar divergence of opinion which exists among the scientific

601
members of the staff of the British Museum. Therefore, as I say, I make no apology for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships by means of an Amendment to the Bill, because when experts are in disagreement on a matter on which I think any educated man can come to a reasonably good opinion, it is right and proper that Parliament should resolve the dispute between them; and I have put down this Amendment to enable your Lordships to do that.
Let me remind your Lordships of a similar dispute which gave rise to considerable discussion when the Bill to enable the National and Tate Galleries to lend their pictures came before your Lordships. While there was general sympathy with the main objects of that Bill, a number of the greatest experts in the land, including distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, felt that there was a certain danger in regard to certain types of pictures which were very old and liable to be damaged, and that it was not right to confer such an extreme power upon the Trustees of the Galleries. Your Lordships will remember that we had considerable discussion about that matter and eventually a certain compromise was reached. I suggest that here is a similar situation. We are all agreed that ordinary specimens and co-types, when there are co-types, can properly, reasonably and safely be lent out, but I suggest that there ought to be a ban on the lending out of type specimens.
I am informed that the collection of type specimens in the Natural History Department of the British Museum is perhaps the finest in the world and that the Natural History Department is the one place where experts can come from all over the world and be quite certain of finding the type which they wish to study and which is so important from the point of view of their being able to prosecute their researches in a satisfactory manner. Not only experts but also students come from all over the world to the British Museum. It would be unfortunate if this Bill were used in such a way that they might come here and find that the type specimens they had come to study had been sent away, and perhaps sent away for a substantial period of time.
Apart from this point, there is a decided risk that these important type specimens might be lost and never come
602
back to the Museum. Perhaps that is the most serious aspect of the matter. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out, they are often minute and fragile objects. They presumably would be sent overseas by registered packet, which would frequently travel by air mail, as these things do in the ordinary way. As your Lordships know only too well, from time to time planes and their contents are lost. No doubt one world say that the loss of life that occurs on those occasions is the more serious aspect, but clearly there is a danger here. Even if they are not sent by air but are sent by registered packet overland, I remember that in answer to a Question put to the Assistant Postmaster General in another place some weeks ago it was revealed, to my considerable astonishment, that no fewer than 10,000 registered letters and packets are lost every year. That shows that in the handling of these objects in this way there is considerable risk. I suggest that this is a risk which ought not to be taken in respect of the type specimen. It is, I imagine, legitimate to take that risk in respect of the ordinary specimens, or in respect of one of the co-types, but not in respect of the type specimen itself.
It is true that the noble and learned Viscount went some distance in his speech on Second Reading to meet this point when he promised that the Trustees would make regulations under which type specimens would only occasionally be lent out, and I and those for whom I speak are grateful for his promise in that regard. But I suggest that it is not altogether satisfactory to be content with promises of that kind. Time after time we are told in this House that if we pass a Bill obvious objections to it can be overcome by departmental action, and Ministers make promises—we have had to be content with that type of assurance on a number of occasions. However, I am sure that most of us feel that it is not really satisfactory. It was interesting that in the debate which we had last week on the "Horror Comics" Bill my noble and learned Leader dealt with that very point: that Parliament ought to legislate about these things, and it ought not to be left to the Attorney-General to exercise what my noble and learned Leader called a kind of dispensing power, which is really what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was suggesting we should be

603
content with in this particular case. As I have said, this argument falls within a narrow compass, although the point is an important one. I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that there is a case for cutting down the power of lending conferred upon the British Museum by Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("that") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUR): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for the attention he has given to this matter, but I hope that when he has considered what I have to say he will not press the Amendment, because the effect of passing it would be to prevent the Trustees from making loans of type specimens in any circumstances whatever. I tried to put before your Lordships in the Second Reading debate the immense importance of this Bill to science in general and to international co-operation in science. I said that the Trustees of the British Museum, of whom I have the honour to be one, will regard this matter most scrupulously and will use this power in respect of type specimens only in the most unusual cases, which I mentioned. The noble Lord who has just spoken has put it as a constitutional point. With great respect to a lawyer of his distinction, I ask him to regard it in a different way. The Trustees of the British Museum are a body who have responsibilities, and they have carried out those responsibilities for 200 years. There is nothing unconstitutional in the fact that they should have a discretion, which they undertake to exercise with the most scrupulous care in cases where they think the interests of science are involved.
I should like to deal with one or two practical aspects of the matter, because I do not think the danger in loans is as great as the noble Lord makes out. It is certainly not as great in respect of some kinds of materials—it is not in the case of plants, for example. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the two great national herbaria, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and at Edinburgh, frequently lend type specimens, to their own advantage and to the advantage of botanical science. I would
604
ask your Lordships to take a rather wider view. The purpose of the Bill is to remove obstacles to the private use of the natural history collections of the British Museum. These obstacles were created by the rigidity—which was possibly unpremeditated—of certain expressions in the Act of 1753. Apart from difficulties of definition, which I will come to in a moment, the Amendment would introduce another rigid provision, which would hamper the Trustees in enabling the collections to be used to the fullest advantage in the future.
I am sure the noble Lord will acquit me of in any way trying to make debating or grammatical points on the Amendment: I simply want to show the difficulties which might be involved. The actual terms of the Amendment are open to the objection that they could not be precisely interpreted. Type specimens are of many different categories, of varying degrees of importance. A topotype, for instance, is merely a specimen of the same species collected from the same locality as the original type, and it may well be that great numbers of them could easily be obtained. The noble Lord has referred to the difference of opinion between notable scientists in regard to this matter. I respectfully say that that is an argument for giving a discretion to the Trustees—and I shall refer to the limits in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has expressed with great moderation and clarity the views that have been expressed in the Manchester Guardian by Dr. Marie Stopes, but, if I interpreted his speech correctly, I think he had in mind that those views are not shared by all scientists. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the letter on the opposite side, from Sir Guy Marshall, of the Royal Entomological Society, who is a former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, which was published in the Manchester Guardian on April 23, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, saw it.
I think it would create a difficulty if the Trustees could never approve a loan which a responsible scientist regarded as of overwhelming importance. I do not want the noble Lord or your Lordships to think that the Trustees are taking this matter in any other way than most seriously. I appreciate the dangers which might attend indiscriminate loans of type

605
material, but occasions do arise when it is highly important in the interests of science that such specimens should be allowed to go out of the Museum. It is only then that the Trustees will use their powers, and they will not resort to indiscriminate loans. I hope that the House will give the Trustees a little latitude. I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with my fellow Trustees, and with some of those who are much better in formed than we are. I repeat what I said—that the Trustees may be relied upon to make such regulations as will ensure the proper control of loans of Museum material in general and type specimens in particular. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to consider that one of the grounds which has always justified the leaving of a matter to the discretion and regulation of a responsible body is flexibility and the obviation of rigidity which might have a harmful scientific consequence. While I fully appreciate his point—and I assure the noble Lord that all my co-Trustees appreciate it, too—I hope he will allow us to have this latitude in the interests of science, and that he will not press his Amendment to-day.
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: My Lords, I strongly support my noble and learned friend who has just spoken. I regard this as a very important point, and I feel that too much rigidity would be very serious. I am sorry that I was not able to be with your Lordships last week, but I was attending a meeting in the country which concerned both sea fishing and oil in the sea, both of which subjects have been before your Lordships recently, so I know that your Lordships will pardon my absence. I am afraid that I must oppose the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who has produced this short Amendment. It is not that I disagree with him entirely—in fact, think our difference of opinion is probably a matter of 2 per cent,; but that 2 per cent. is extremely important. We must have some flexibility in this case and the Trustees, of whom I am one, feel strongly on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, seemed to suggest that these type specimens will be allowed to go out on many occasions. I wonder whether they will ever go out. I am glad it has been suggested that, if this Bin passes, a new regulation should be made for the Natural
606
History Museum, and I think we can perfectly well prevent any of the happenings of which the noble Lord is afraid or seems to be afraid.
I am now going to say something with which your Lordships may not agree at all. I shall certainly be on that subcommittee, and I may be in the chair—though perhaps your Lordships will not feel that that will help the matter. But the point is that every care will be taken to ensure that no specimen that should not go out is allowed to go. I should like to give your Lordships a slight simile, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has referred to measures relating to art galleries and their contents, which were discussed in your Lordships' House recently. I have the honour to be Chairman of the National Portrait Gallery. There we have a self-denying regulation by which, since we look upon the Gallery as a reference library, we do not allow pictures to go away from it if we can avoid it. However, we have the right to let them go out if necessary, and in the fifteen years that I have been Chairman I have always done my best to impress upon my colleagues that this is all-important. Therefore, I think your Lordships will realise how strongly I am opposed to allowing these type specimens to leave the Museum, especially abroad. But there are occasions when it is absolutely necessary, possibly for only a few hours, to allow those things to go out of the Museum; and to tie our hands completely would be a retrograde step.
There is another point which has not been mentioned. If, as I hope will not happen, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, carried his Amendment, we should lose our Bill, because I am given to understand that there would be no chance of the Amendment's being considered by another place. That raises a most serious point. We have for some years been trying to get a Bill of this nature, because we feel it advisable that we should have such a measure on the Statute Book. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not risk throwing this Bill out. We have thrown away all the top hamper which we had so as to get it through, and to lose the Bill at this stage would be lamentable, especially, as I feel that the noble Lord's fears are quite unnecessary and that everything will be perfectly all right.
3.19 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it would be possible to consider an Amendment at the Report stage to limit the time for which a specimen may be lent? My noble friend Lord Methuen and I proposed an Amendment rather on those lines to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill. It was not acceptable to your Lordships, but it was eventually accepted in another place and was incorporated in the Bill. It did solve this problem of ensuring that a unique picture—which is comparable to a type specimen—would come back. This is the third Bill since I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House to give the trustees of our national collections the right to lend them. I think that this Amendment raises an important question of policy, because we are tending to get away from the attitude adopted by our forbears in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when these museums were first set up: that the national collections should be treated as being in the nature of libraries and kept intact for the use of students, whether they be of pictures or, as in this case, of specimens of natural history. It is for that reason that, if the noble and learned Viscount cannot see his way to introduce some further Amendment to limit the period of time, I shall feel bound to support most warmly the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Committee will allow me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I will look into his point with pleasure: it is too technical a subject, over too large a field, for me to give an answer straight away. I should like to consult the staff of the museum upon it; but I hope that that will not prevent my noble friend Lord Chorley from withdrawing his Amendment to-day.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I cannot say that I am altogether convinced by the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount, but there is obviously not the amount of support for the Amendment for which I had hoped. I should like to make two points in reply to the noble and learned Viscount. The first is that he says the Amendment would establish rigidity. But, of course, this is only a very small aspect
608
of the matter: the Bill itself gives full powers to lend in respect of the wide range of ordinary specimens which make up the great bulk of the collections. What I am trying to do is to put a slight amount of stiffening into a Bill which, as it stands, in my submission, is too fluid; I am not seeking to make it rigid at all. I am entirely in agreement with the main object of this Bill. Secondly, I was making what the noble and learned Viscount called the constitutional point only by way of analogy: I was not suggesting that this is in any way a constitutional Statute. I was just indicating that this was the sort of argument with which we were frequently fobbed off in respect of other Bills; and here we have it again.
We know the eminence of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, however; it may be that he will be chairman of the particular sub-committee who will handle this particular matter. So long as these points are within the vivid recollection of the Trustees, I am sure they will see to it that they are properly attended to. This Bill will lay down the law for a long period of time ahead. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi for what he said. I think it might help if, in some way or other, we could limit the duration of the time over which these loans are made. If the period was quite short, the argument that visiting scientists would not find in our museums what they had every reason to expect would, to some extent at any rate, be met. On the basis that the noble and learned Viscount will look into the matter and will try to deal with it in one way or another, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that the last thing in the world I want to do is to mislead in any way any noble Lord? I referred to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I was hoping, because this is a very much delayed matter, that we should take all the stages of the Bill to-day. So what I hoped to do was to deal with the matter by regulation and to communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, as to the way in which I deal with it. I hope that he will be satisfied with that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and I look forward to hearing from

609
him. In view of what he says, I shall not press the matter at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of April 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (TRAVEL CONCESSIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Works to which this Act applies
1. This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or out the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—

(a) the commission of crimes; or

(b) acts of violence of cruelly; or

(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;

in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit "or other like work." The noble and learned Earl said: I do not intend to press this Amendment. I say at once that it is really put down to find out—I will not
610
say "what the words mean," because, after all, whatever the Lord Chancellor and I may say in this Assembly, what the words mean will be finally decided by some judge or magistrate, who will very likely say that we were both completely wrong. I ask, what do the Government intend these words, "or other like work," to mean? I am moving this Amendment to leave them out so that I may ascertain the intention of the Government with regard to their scope. Whenever this word "other" appears in law, at once the mystery which lawyers call the eiusdem generis rule arises. If there are two words and then the word "other," it is obvious that the word "other" is meant to cover things which are in the genus embraced by the first two words. There is, for instance, the classical example of
"…shoes—and ships—and sealing wax."
Suppose you stop there and say "and other like things," you have to find a genus. The only genus you could there find would be things made, I suppose, by the hand of man—"shoes and ships and sealing wax." But if you go on with the rhyme and add:
"… cabbages—and kings,"
I defy anybody to find any genus at all: "and other like things" would be very difficult to limit in any way whatever.
Here we have got the words:
"This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work …"
I am tempted to ask a few questions. First of all, let us try to get the genus. What have a book or a magazine in common? They are generally bound—I do not know whether that is an essential part of it. They are generally printed. But of course one can have a book in manuscript, so that does not seem to be the test. I do not know exactly where a book differs from a magazine, although we all know what in common parlance we call a magazine and what we call a book. But would a newspaper be included in "or other like work," always assuming that the newspaper has satisfied the other conditions of the clause? I have never seen a newspaper, nor do I suppose there has ever been one, which consists wholly of mainly of "horror comics"—that is to say, wholly or mainly of stories told by pictures of an undesirable character. But if such a newspaper were to come into existence, would it come within the

611
description "or other like work"? For my part, I should say that it would. I should have thought it was covered by the mischief mentioned in the clause. But the Attorney General in another place expressed the confident view that it could not come in. I humbly say that I was not satisfied by his argument at all. I am quite satisfied that there never has been such a newspaper—at least, I have never seen such a newspaper. But if one assumes that a newspaper did consist wholly or mainly of these stories and that the stories were of an undesirable nature, then I should have thought it would come within those words, and I should have thought it only right that it should do so.
The next question is in regard to films. Recently in a newspaper I saw that a resolution had been passed against the showing of what are usually called "trailers"—that is, the short films which are shown in front of the main films—which are said to be blood-curdling and unpleasant. Would those films come within the description "or other like work"? After all, a book or a magazine or any printed matter—a newspaper, if that comes in—has this tendency, I suppose: that it appeals to the mind through the eye, because you read it, and not through the ear, as ordinary broadcasting does. Of course, a film appeals to the eye and, if it is a talking film, to the ear as well. I do not know, but would that come within the mischief? I am not making the smallest complaint if it does; it may well do. Nowadays I am afraid I do not see many "trailers," but if "trailers" have the evil effect that was suggested in the papers yesterday I should not at all mind their coming within the words of this clause.
I move this Amendment not in any hostile sense; I move it merely as a matter of form, in order that the Lord Chancellor may state the belief of the Government as to what these words contain. I couple it with these two questions: would it include a newspaper if the newspaper met the other requirements which come later; and, would it include a film? What are the "other like works" which the Government have in mind in inserting these words? I do not complain at all of the insertion of the words, because they are often inserted to
612
make it impossible to raise some wholly technical and unworthy point. But what have the Government in mind in inserting those words? To enable the Lord Chancellor to make his statement on that point, and for no other reason, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("or other like work").—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL WINTERTON: I should like to put a question to the Lord Chancellor before he replies. If I may say so, this is a most extraordinary Bill; its wording is of an astonishing kind. How can you have an "other like work" to a book or magazine? A book and a magazine are two entirely different things. How can you compare something to two unlikes? What exactly is the meaning of these words. Surely a book and a magazine are two completely different things. In regard to the point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, about films (and here I must disclose an interest in the film industry), I was rather sorry that he should have taken the newspaper report in regard to "trailers" as being accurate. As he is no doubt aware, the film industry in this country subjects itself, quite rightly, to a voluntary censorship—by a body called the British Board of Film Censors. They would be the people to deal with that matter. I do not think it comes into the Bill at all. However, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will answer the point as to how one can compare two unlikes in the way this Bill does.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for putting down this Amendment, and to my noble friend Lord Winterton for adding to the powerful cross-examination to which I have been subjected, in anticipation. As the noble and learned Earl was speaking, my mind worked retroactively to the lines before those which he quoted—namely,
"The time has come, the Walrus said
To talk of many things:"
Certainly, the noble and learned Earl, if he will allow me to put it in that way, enumerated them all. As I think will be clear to your Lordships, the words were included in the Bill to ensure that there could be no possibility of evasion by a technical argument that a particular work was neither a book nor a magazine. I

613
have tried to get, in as short a form as would not weary your Lordships, the essentials of the definition of "book" in the large Oxford dictionary, and I think it can be put in this way:
"A publication consisting of numerous sheets fastened together at one edge called the back, the whole thing protected by binding of some kind."
I think this will help my noble friend Lord Winterton: "book" has the connotation of some permanence in its format or "get-up"; and it will be noted, the Oxford dictionary attaches importance to the binding and the back. In contradistinction to that, a magazine has a more ephemeral framework, as anyone who travels late in the day in railway carriages will have observed for himself. Therefore, in replying to the noble and learned Earl's question as regards the genus into which both words fall, I suggest that the answer is a
"publication, whether permanent or ephemeral, which conveys its contents to the eye of the beholder by printed representation."
I think that that definition covers the noble and learned Earl's point. I think it is a genus which would at any rate form a reasonable basis for the eiusdem generis rule. The answer to my noble friend Lord Winterton is that the eiusdem generis rule ought not to be applied, and Bills ought not to be drafted, unless there is a reasonable similarity which enables one to get a genus which is not so wide as that connoted by the lines of poetry quoted by the noble and learned Earl.
To come to the other point upon which he asked questions, in my view the words do not extend the scope of the Bill to such things as an album of snapshots or loose photographs, or to a film—those are some of the things which are troubling the noble and learned Earl—because they would not, on any reconstruction of the genus, come within the eiusdem generis rule. With regard to the question of newspapers, the words are designed to catch what one might call the pamphlet, a few pages put together. The words would not permit anyone to escape by saying, "I have only eight or sixteen pages, and that cannot be called a magazine." I should think, also, that the broadsheet would similarly be caught.
On the difficulty which the noble Earl raised regarding newspapers, in the
614
ordinary way, with that optimism which carries humanity along its weary course, we all believe that newspapers should convey news and comments on the events of the day. Ordinarily, we are not disappointed; but the difficulty on which the noble and learned Earl has put his finger is, for example, a children's newspaper. He and I are both familiar with that from the grandpaternal standpoint. The children's newspaper (of which there are many admirable examples) contains a great many pictures and some simple stories. This type of newspaper has, I believe, already become a separate genus; but if someone were malicious enough to purport to publish a children's newspaper, as we understand the term, and, in fact, to put in it objectionable matter of this kind, there is no doubt that he would be caught.
From that point of view, this is merely a matter of words, of what we understand by the term "newspaper." But I do not want to give comfort to anyone who may think he can get round the Bill by producing a disguised children's newspaper of a sinister type. The noble and learned Earl put to me the words used by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in another place. The point my right honourable friend was seeking to make was that the Bill applied only to those works in which pictures tell the story: it does not apply to stories told in words, with lavish illustrations. I think that is cleat from the drafting of the Bill and I hope that his words, with that limitation, will commend themselves to the noble and learned Earl. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships, but I have tried to deal with all the cross-examination that was put to me and I hope I have so satisfied the noble and learned Earl that he will not press his Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has stood up very well to his cross-examination and leaves the court without a stain on his character. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

THREATENED RAIL STRIKE
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, with your permission, I should like to read a statement which my right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour and National Service, is making at this moment in another place. He says:
"As the House knows, on the 16th April the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the union which represents the bulk of the footplate men employed on the railways, announced their intention of calling their members out on strike as from the 1st May, in protest against the award of the Railway Staff National Tribunal which was announced the previous day. This award has the effect of confirming an agreement providing for general increases in rates, including increases for all footplate grades, which had been reached between the British Transport Commission and the National Union of Railwaymen, to apply from 10th January. It resulted, however, in a narrowing of the differentials for all footplate men arising from last November's award of the Tribunal. The sums involved are comparatively small (ranging from 1s. 6d. to 5s. 6d.), and the Society's case, as their representatives have made plain to me, is based not on any claim of hardship, but on their concern to prevent any shrinkage in existing differentials enjoyed by the footplate grades.
"The decision to strike involves throwing overboard the award of the industry's own Tribunal confirming an agreement to which the other union involved, namely the National Union of Railwaymen, is a party. That union has men in every grade concerned.
"In these circumstances I did not feel able to intervene. As the issue had already been before the industry's own Tribunal, I could not set up an independent body, such as a Court of Inquiry, to look into it. Nor could I invite the British Transport Commission to reconsider the footplate men's
616
rates, as this would involve jettisoning an agreement which the Commission had concluded with the National Union of Railwaymen and which had been confirmed by the Tribunal. I have seen the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, who takes the view that the agreement and award should stand.
"The Trades Union Congress, with which I have kept in close touch throughout, has been giving much consideration to the dispute. Their appropriate Committee has been in touch with the Society. I have this morning received a notification from the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, of a resolution in the following terms:
"'That the General Council'—
of the T.U.C.—
"'ask the Minister of Labour to arrange a meeting of representatives of the British Transport Commission and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, with the object of discussing the possibility of ending the present deadlock.'
"In response to this request, and in view of the widespread unemployment and dislocation of our national economy which would result from a railway stoppage, I have thought it right to invite the Commission and the Society to take part in discussions at my Ministry during this afternoon. These discussions, of which I am quite unable to predict the outcome, are about to take place. I am sure that in these circumstances the House would not wish me to add to my statement at this stage."
I thought it would be convenient to your Lordships to hear that statement now.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we are all much obliged to the noble Viscount for this statement. I would only say this: that ultimately this dispute must be settled as a result of discussions. How much better if it should be settled by discussions before a strike, rather than after a strike! I am sure we shall all join in wishing good luck to all sides concerned in the settlement of this problem as soon as possible.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
House again in Committee.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after "which" to insert:
"is of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and."
The noble and learned Earl said: Though this is a manuscript Amendment, it is very much like the first Amendment which is in my name on the Order Paper but which I did not move. I am not going to repeat at any length arguments which I used before about this matter, except to make it plain that whereas in all quarters of the House we are at one with the Government in wanting to make it impossible for publications of this sort to go on, we are also in all quarters of the House anxious to see that we do not draft our Bill in such wide terms that it may have consequences which none of us desire. It is for that object only that I move this Amendment.
The Lord Chancellor may say that he thinks the purport of this Amendment is already implicit in the Bill. I confess that I have doubts whether that is so. In order that I may put your Lordships in touch with the matter, may I briefly describe what the law is in the somewhat analogous matter of indecent publications, bearing in mind that this is a Common Law offence and that the Statute generally comes in merely in aid of the Common Law, to give, for instance, powers of search and that sort of thing. The Common Law doctrine is stated in this way:
"Anyone is guilty of a common law misdemeanour who publishes any indecent matter tending to the destruction of the morals of society and to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences."
That is a citation from Halsbury's Laws of England. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree that that is accurate. Halsbury goes on to say:
"But in many cases it is material to consider to whom and under what circumstances the publication is made. Some matters may be properly published: e.g., to practitioners or students of medicine or surgery, the publication of which to boys or girls, or even to the public indiscriminately, would necessarily tend to the corruption of morals and therefore be illegal."
In the celebrated leading case on the matter—Regina v. Hicklin, decided in 1868— the circumstances were these.
618
Hicklin was an advanced and extreme Protestant who thought that the Roman Catholic practice of the Confessional was a Very undesirable practice which led to immoral consequences. He therefore, in good faith and in the desire to destroy the doctrine of the Confessional, published matter which the courts held to be obscene matter, and the question arose whether he was saved from the consequences of his act by the fact that his motive was a legitimate motive. The courts held that he was not. Chief Justice Cockburn laid down the test of what was obscenity in these words, which are very often quoted:
"…the test of obscenity is this: whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."
We have advanced a great deal in many ways since 1868, but it is interesting to see the arguments used in the Hicklin case. One of the outstanding examples of pictorial indecency was said to be the picture of Venus in the Dulwich Gallery. I hope to goodness that no one would regard that as a standard or test of indency at the present time. The great merit of our Common Law is that it has in it sufficient flexibility to enable it to, I will not say move with the times, but mark the trend of opinion of decent people at various stages and ages. Recently a distinguished judge in the Central Criminal Court, presiding in a case such as this, having read the remarks of Chief Justice Cockburn referred to the words "corrupt" and "deprave" and asked:
"Well, corrupt and deprave whom?"
He went on to ask if it was to be assumed that the standard was that of something suitable for an immature schoolboy; or were we to go even further back than that and to be reduced to the sort of books that one read as a child in the nursery; or were we to have regard to the average man or woman, and particularly the average man or woman likely to read that sort of publication. That judgment, I venture to think, does correctly state the law, and I hope that will prevail. So that is the law with regard to Common Law misdemeanour—and, as I say, Common Law is always more flexible than Statute Law.
Would that apply here? I am not sure. I do not take it upon myself to assert

619
positively that it would or would not. I think there is a reasonable doubt. If a Statute is being considered, a judge's function is to take the words in the Statute, give them fair meaning and interpret what they say. Here is a very definite and clearly defined Statute—this is, I think, a very well drafted Bill—which sets out that this Act will apply to:
"any book, magazine or other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures…"—
portraying matters in certain categories
"in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall."
Suppose some medical work fell into the hands of a child—it is unlikely that it would do so, but it might. If one were to propound as a test of whether that was obscene or not the effect it might have on the child into whose hands it falls, it would, looking at it from that point of view, plainly be indecent. If, on the other hand, one took into consideration whether it was at all likely to fall into the hands of a child—obviously it is not intended for a child; it is a medical work intended to be handled by doctors or students, and it would only be by a coincidence or a piece of carelessness that it fell into the hands of a child or young person—from that point of view, it would not be indecent. So it is vital, I think, from that point of view, to get the words plain.
I hope and believe that, without in any way cutting down the beneficial effect of this measure, which I do not want to do, we shall here make it plain beyond argument, so that the two schools of thought can have no further controversy about it, that the test is to be the one I have indicated in this draft Amendment: Is the sort of work you are dealing with a work likely to fall into the hands of children and young persons? Of course, these "horror comics" are likely to do so. Why they are called "comics" I cannot think. I see nothing at all comic in them. It is obvious that they are intended for people of very limited intelligence, who cannot read very well and who would like this sort of thing—in so far as anyone likes them. Therefore, works of that kind come within the category of works likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons. Equally, the works of the other kinds which I had in mind—medical
620
works, a statement of the course of a particularly loathsome disease, which I referred to on the last occasion—obviously would not be works likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons. Equally, an artistic work, such as that to which I referred, would not be likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons. If they wanted to do so they could go into a museum and see that sort of thing—but they never do.
If we get into the Bill the words which I now propose, it seems to me that the mischief which I fear, will be avoided. It may be that the intention is there all the time. I can well believe that, because obviously it is desirable that it should be there; but it is important to make it clear beyond peradventure. For that reason I move this Amendment, which I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will see his way to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after "which" insert "is of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and".—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to tell your Lordships that I am prepared to accept this Amendment. The noble and learned Earl has given the reasons for it most clearly. I think he would be the first to desire that I should say a word in defence of the draftsmen, for whose work I take the fullest responsibility. As I indicated in reply on Second Reading, we thought that the Amendment was not strictly necessary because of the reasoning of various of Her Majesty's judges in recent cases on obscene publications and the use of the words "into whose hands it may fall," which, as the noble and learned Earl informed your Lordships, are the very words of the Hicklin case. We thought that the question of whether or not publications were likely to fall into the hands of a particular class of persons was a relevant consideration covered by the Bill. The noble and learned Earl has told your Lordships that he has doubts on that matter. I could not agree more strongly that legislation going out from your Lordships' House should be free from these doubts. I think the noble and learned Earl's Amendment helps to make the Bill free from doubts, and therefore I accept the Amendment with pleasure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.3 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out "wholly or mainly" and insert "largely." The noble and learned Earl said: I move this Amendment to guard against the possibility that a newspaper might start publication in this country and carry cartoons on the last page, like the New York Herald-Tribune does. May I say at once that all the cartoons in that paper are perfectly proper, as one would expect from a paper of that high standard and quality. But suppose that we had a very different type of paper, with a page of cartoons of an undesirable nature. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor considers this Bill wide enough to deal with that mischief.
If there were such a publication, children would turn to the last page, not bothering about the other part, which probably they would not be able to read, and see the stories and pictures on the last page, which might have evil effects. I do not suppose that such a thing is likely to happen—perhaps that is why the words "wholly and mainly" are in the Bill. I will not press this Amendment if the noble and learned Viscount feels that he has the right words. I merely ask him whether he will consider the possibility I have mentioned, and whether he would not rather have a word like "largely" or "substantially," or some other word to that effect; because, if I am right in my understanding of this Bill, if the major part of the paper or magazine does not consist of these cartoons, then it is not hit by this Bill at all. It is an essential condition under the Bill that the book, magazine or newspaper must consist "wholly or mainly" of these stories in pictures. It is to elucidate that point that I move this Amendment, and I have no intention of asking your Lordships to divide on it if the noble and learned Viscount is content with the words already in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("wholly or mainly") and insert ("largely").— (Earl Jowitt.)
LORD TEVIOT: With great respect, I should like to take right out the words "wholly or mainly" and even "largely." No doubt I am very stupid about this, but I should like the words to be simply "which consists of stories told…" leaving out all qualifications. Surely the Bill would then cover the whole ground. I
622
may be wrong from a legal point of view, but it seems to me that if we put in no qualification, we cover everything.
EARL JOWITT: May I put to the noble Lord the simple example of bread and milk, which does not consist wholly of bread or wholly of milk, but is a pernicious mixture all the same. If we leave out the words "wholly or mainly," we would do exactly the opposite of what he wants.
LORD TEVIOT: But if we do not have milk or bread, then we have nothing, and that is what I want here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always grateful for any suggestion, but my view is that if we adopted the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Teviot it would be exactly the same as leaving out "or mainly" and having "wholly" there alone; and that would mean that the whole publication would have to consist of matter which came within the prohibition of the Bill. Therefore, although I see the attraction of shortening the measure, I do not think it would meet the point which has been raised. The difficulty facing me here is that to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl would enlarge the scope of the Bill, irrespective of the point, against which he warned us, of rushing matters because of political circumstances, although enlarging the scope of the Bill would cause disturbance among Members of another place, which is a matter that we have to take into account.
I should like to reassure the noble and learned Earl, so far as I can. The Bill deals with the evil of "horror comics" of the type which your Lordships have seen. As a matter of mechanics, they are produced largely by way of matrices corning from the United States, either in metal form or in the form of microfilms. The metal form is rather larger than the Box in front of me and from this sixteen pictures are printed and two of these matrices are put together to produce the "horror comic" magazine or booklet. I do not dispute that it would be mechanically possible to put in some pages of printed reading matter with these, but it would appreciably reduce the ease with which these horrors (I agree with the noble and learned Earl that we can omit the word "comics," for any materiality it has) are produced. Apart from that, I think it would have a serious

623
effect upon the profits which the people who are promoting these horrors make out of them. The profits are not made like those of some other forms of undesirable literature; they are not made by sales of one rare book, or whatever it may be, to a particular person. They are made by large sales at a low price. And the profit is dependent on that.
On the actual practical problem, I think there is no need to fear—and I have made as complete inquiries as I can—that they will use that form of camouflage of the real intent. I go so far as to say this, and one cannot go further, as the noble and learned Earl indicated: that if the printed matter were entirely bogus, space-filling stuff, then I think the definition might well catch them. But it would be if the printed matter were genuine and an approximation to the same standard of taste, though perhaps of a slightly different form, that difficulty would arise. My first answer is that, having examined it carefully, I do not think that is a very practical difficulty. I agree that it leaves the possibility posed by the noble and learned Earl of, say, the newspaper that might add a "horror comic" strip; but taking into account the general run of newspapers, I do not think that is likely, and we can take the risk of dealing with that when the occasion arises.
On the other aspect of the matter, which I mentioned at the outset of my speech, namely, that this would enlarge the scope of the Bill, I have mentioned the practical difficulty in the form of the words I gave. I would also put this point
624
to the noble and learned Earl—and I think it is important, in view of what he said to us on the Second Reading: it would have the tendency, which he thought was undesirable, of leaving more in the hands of the Attorney-General. As he was good enough to mention, both he and I have been Attorney-General, and neither of us wants to see the holder of that office put into the position of a censor of morals. There are certain well-defined fields where he can act, and we do not want his duties, his responsibilities and difficulties extended. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will accept my assurance that, having looked at this matter as carefully as I can, and having had the best advice open to me on the practical problem, I think the Bill as it stands will meet the matter; and I know that he will take the other aspect of it into account.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the full answer he has given me, and I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
House adjourned at quarter past four o'clock.