Lords Sitting of 14 December 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

HIRE-PURCHASE TERMS
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will introduce legislation to fix the "down payment" and the length of time over which instalments may be paid in respect of all hire-purchase agreements.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the existing legislation, the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959, provides for the introduction of controls on hire-purchase transactions as part of the measures for restricting excessive credit. This legislation expires in 1964. Her Majesty's Government consider it adequate for the purpose for which it is intended and see no present reason for extending it for other purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord really think that such a vital matter, affecting the whole of the British commercial economy, should be subject to alteration and annulment by a Defence Regulation of 1939? Would he not agree with me that it would be far better that this vital matter should be controlled by an Act of Parliament, on a basis that is economic, after discussion by Parliament, and altered only by the will of Parliament? At the present time it can be altered by an order made one day and coming into force the next and subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I understand what the noble Lord has in mind. Permanent legislation to control hire-purchase agreements in the
464
sense apparently desired by the noble Lord would, of course, prevent in future the removal of hire-purchase restrictions as a means of stimulating the economy. It would be difficult to fix permanent percentages for deposit and permanent periods of repayment which would not either be so high as to impose an unnecessary burden upon consumers or be so low as to require augmentation in times of emergency. The former alternative would invite continuous evasion, which could be kept in check only at considerable expense, and the latter would upset forward planning.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord noticed the look of horror that went over my face when he said that this could be used to "stimulate the economy"—I think I heard him correctly. Is the noble Lord aware that the last time the Government tried to stimulate the economy by removing all hire-purchase restrictions, in October, 1958, it was a tragic thing for many trades and industries in this country? Does he appreciate—and I would ask him if he would put this point of view to his right honourable friend—that the Government are powerless to stimulate the economy by lowering hire-purchase terms or the initial deposit, unless they have the acquiescence and support of the hire purchase houses? The Government could remove all hire-purchase controls to-morrow, and the change would be ineffective if the Hire Purchase Association, the big operators in the hire-purchase field, refused to carry it out.
May I ask the noble Lord one last question? Does he think it feasible for the Government to pass any regulation or enactment that forces private enterprise to lose money? That is the only way they can stimulate the economy—by removing hire-purchase controls.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that it I were to attempt to answer all the questions contained in that supplementary, it would take more time than the House would willingly allow me. I will say this. The noble Lord referred to the pant that the big finance houses play in all this and, as I understood it, expressed some anxiety about what might take their place if they would not

465
"play". Quite clearly, the dislike of the established concern for the parvenue is understandable and understood, but we think that that does not mean that when credit is not excessive the newcomer should not be allowed to compete in his own way and on his own terms. Those who use his services will balance the advantages of dealing with a newcomer against what may be the higher costs of dealing with an old-established firm, just as there is enough room for either Harrod's or the barrow boy for those who want to buy apples. I will willingly take the noble Lord's point of view to my right honourable friend, who will, I am sure, treat it with the seriousness and consideration which one would expect.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord? As he quite rightly said, this is a most difficult question to be dealt with by question and answer across the Floor of the House. If he will convey to his right honourable friend what I have said, I am quite certain that he will give it his due consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of the first reply the noble Lord made, am I to understand that, when he referred in his last few words to planning, that was Government planning or planning in industry? If it is planning by Government, I think we on this side of the House should take note that the Government are changing their policy.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, although I am quite sure that the noble Lord, as usual, spoke with great clarity, I am not quite able to follow him in that question. It is general planning—economic and industrial planning.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will also take into consideration the sometimes serious social effects of hire-purchase arrangements?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, when he refers this matter to his right honourable friend, whether he would speak about what is really the crux of the matter; that is, that since December, 1952, in the motor industry there have been eight changes in hire-purchase deposits, and
466
in the furniture industry six changes, ranging from nothing to 50 per cent.? No one in those industries objects to hire-purchase deposits. What they do object to is these drastic changes, which are merely an outlet for the Government's policy which they have to bear. That is the importance of my noble friend's Question. Let us have a settled deposit.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I will certainly bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the Minister kindly ask his right honourable friend especially to have a consultation with the big banks who are now substantial shareholders in the hire-purchase finance firms? Perhaps they could give a real guidance as to the minimum deposit they require.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am quite certain my right honourable friend will call upon any advisers he feels necessary.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT OF ROAD CASUALTIES
2.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave 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 if they will abolish the obligation which rests on hospitals to collect an emergency treatment fee of 12s. 6d. in respect of persons who require treatment as the result of a road traffic accident.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, hospital authorities are entitled to these fees and they therefore have a duty to claim them. Any changes in the obligation imposed on vehicle users by the Road Traffic Act to pay these fees on a claim being made would require legislation, and this is a matter which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will bear in mind at the appropriate time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst I welcome the information that this matter is being borne in mind, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the cost to hospitals of collecting this fee

467
is very considerably more than 12s. 6d; that it involves a great deal of work for the police and that the motorist, who has to pay it, thinks it grossly unfair, because often he is not responsible for the accident. This imposition is unfair; it costs more than we receive, and it would be in the interests of the Treasury to abolish it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I should be summarising the views of the noble Lord if I were to say that he regards this fee as anomalous in a great many ways. If that is so it has been anomalous for a long time, because this provision for payment of a fee dates from 1934. There was an opportunity to abolish it, as the noble Lord would like, during the passage of the National Health Service Act in 1946, but it was not abolished; and in fact the provision was actually continued in the Tenth Schedule to that Act. I am not promising that, when the appropriate time comes, my right honourable friend will do what the noble Lord wants; on the other hand, I am not shutting the door on that.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us how long an anomaly has to endure before the time comes to remove it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that appears to be a point of very general application.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord have regard to the even more concrete point, that it often costs hospitals, in time, at least £5 or £10 to try to collect the 12s. 6d.; and very often they cannot recover it at all. It is a sheer waste of the nation's money.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think I can undertake that that is one of the points my right honourable friend will bear in mind at the right moment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave 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, in view of the great amount of work falling on hospital staffs from the present system of collecting from insurance companies treatment charges
468
in respect of persons injured in road accidents, they will negotiate an agreement with the companies whereby they pay to Her Majesty's Treasury a lump sum based on premium income, which would be the estimated equivalent of the present sums they pay for the treatment of injured persons in hospital.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as the Road Traffic Act, 1960, specifies who should make, and who should receive, these payments it would be necessary to amend the Act to make legal any other method of collection. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will bear in mind, at the appropriate time, the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. I hope that "the appropriate time" will be very soon. When it is being considered, will the noble Lord have regard to the fact that the average recovered in any one year from all these charges is about one-third of a million pounds—it was £350,000 last year—and that, in view of the great cost to hospitals, and the tremendous time it takes to agree these claims with the insurance companies, we should be making a great bargain if we got a quarter of £1 million from them?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend will bear that point in mind also.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, V. Esher. V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soul-bury, L. Birkett, L. Burden. L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain. with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Killearn, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Shepherd, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee was given power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(3) Windows of the House
The Sub-Committee on the Windows of the House was appointed as follows: D. Wellington (Chairman), M. Salisbury, E. Crawford, E. Munster, L. Burden, L. Kenilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower
The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: M. Salisbury (Chairman), E. Harrowby, E. Home, E. Lucan, E. Munster, L. Amulree, L. Rea, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(5) House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, E. Lucan, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman).
2.—TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF PEERS
The Committee considered the Report of the Sub-Committee's meeting on November 22, 1960, which was agreed to.
3.—READING CLERK AND CLERK OF THE JOURNALS
The Committee approved the salary payable to Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows, C.B.E., the Reading Clerk, on his appointment as Clerk of the Journals from April 1, 1960.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—
(a) No. 41/60 Pay of the Higher Civil Service,
(b) No. 22/60 Principals, Assistant Principals etc, Revised scales of pay,
(c) No. 17/60 Messenger, Paperkeeper etc. Revised scales of pay,
(d) No. 45/60 Pay of Women Cleaners,
to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
5.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee sanctioned revisions in the scales of salary of the Hansard Reporting Staff and the appointment of an additional Reporter with effect; from October 1, 1960.
The Committee also sanctioned the application to temporary Reporters of the revised attendance fee as set out in the Appendix to Establishments Circular No. 37/60 with effect from June 1, 1960.
6.—MEAL ALLOWANCE
The Committee approved an increase in the rate of meal allowance payable to certain officials working late in the evening after a normal day's duty.
7.—RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Herbert John Wootton, M.M., Principal Doorkeeper, with effect from December 9, 1960, after a short extension of service.
The Committee were informed of the re-employment of Mr. Wootton as an unestablished Doorkeeper.
8.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Cecil Keightley, who reached 65 years of age on October 14, 1960.
9.—RESIGNATION OF HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Miss Julie Fetter, who resigned on July 16, 1960.
10.—RESIGNATION OF CUSTODIAN
The Committee authorised the payment of a transfer value under the Superannuation (Transfers between Civil Service and Local Government) Rules, to the London County Council in respect of the services of Mr. William Cooper as Custodian in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department.
11.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1961-62 were laid before the Committee and approved.
12.—NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1959
The Committee were informed of the application of the regulations enabling eligible members of the staff of The House of Lords to be contracted out of the State graduated pension scheme.
13.—LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee and agreed to.
14.—VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER
The Committee considered the question of the ventilation of the Chamber and approved arrangements for the installation of thermometers.
15.—FIRST AID
The Committee considered the existing arrangements for medical aid and agreed that a wheel-chair should be provided.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords. I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I do not think there are any matters to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships; but, needless

471
to say, if there are any questions which any noble Lord would like to put to me I will do my best to answer them, either now or at a later stage.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RELATIONSHIP WITH REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
2.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the present relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and to the desirability of closer economic and cultural associations between the two countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few months ago it occurred to my noble Leader and to others of us on these Benches that it was a very long time since any matters connected with the Republic of Ireland or with the relationship between this country and the Republic of Ireland had been either debated or even mentioned. My noble Leader therefore suggested that since I am, for the time being at any rate, resident in that country, perhaps I should be a suitable person to pat down a Motion on the subject. Those of you who have read the wording of the Motion carefully will see that it has been drawn in broad and general terms in the hope that it will be treated in the same way and that matters of controversy may perhaps be left out.
In my Motion I am urging the Government to think about improving relations in a field where, happily, they are already good. But nothing is so good that it cannot be better, and I hope—indeed, noble Lords on these Benches who have encouraged me in this Motion agree with me—that what I say to-day will perhaps start up certain thoughts which may be helpful in time. It is in no way our idea to put forward criticisms of Government policy at the moment, or to make any dramatic or far-reaching suggestions as to what they should do. We do not intend to do that. My speech will resemble, to some extent, those admirable periodic surveys of foreign affairs to which we always
472
look forward from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He speaks with enormous knowledge of the subject—much more than I have of this subject—and at the end of it all one has heard good speeches, and much good comes there-from. That is our object, and I hope that what I have to say will be treated in that light; also in the hope that the speakers—I am gratified to observe that in the list of speakers there are two former Cabinet Ministers—will confine themselves, so far as they can, to the terms of the Motion.
I have referred in my Motion to economic relations and cultural relations. I greatly hope, as we all do, that political aspects, which can get a "bad Press" and cause trouble, may be left out of this debate to-day. I feel that if economic and cultural ties are encouraged, political differences and the old antipathies will gradually die a natural and overdue death. It is not so long ago that the Oxford Union was addressed by the 'present Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Lemass. He was well received, and I think he found it enjoyable and instructive. Not so very long ago, such a debate would not have been possible. That it is possible now shows progress in the right direction. Then we have Embassies both here and in Dublin. There is the Irish Embassy in London, with a popular and able Ambassador. In Dublin we have Sir Ian MacLennan, a young and very capable man, extremely popular with the Irish, who does a good job of work there. I think that, in passing, I should also mention Mr. Boland, who was well known in London when he was Ambassador here, and who is now the Chairman of the United Nations in New York, where his personality has also made an immediate and satisfactory impact on the delegates.
To pass from the general to the particular, I have divided my remarks into two—economic relations first. I do not pose as an expert in any way, shape, or form. Admittedly, I am involved in industry in a small and rather modest way, but I do not look upon myself as an expert, and what I have to put forward to-day are points which I have tabulated and discussed with people both here and in Dublin. I hope that perhaps they may form the basis for a discussion

473
among your Lordships and that when the noble Duke comes to reply he may find that something I have said may be helpful in the future.
As many of your Lordships will appreciate, the Trade Agreement of 1938 between this country and the Republic of Ireland virtually gave duty-free entry into this country to all Irish manufactured goods. Of course, it was a two-way traffic. This Trade Agreement was confirmed in 1948 and again in the spring of this year, though on the latter occasion a review of certain items took place and a different rate of duty has in fact been agreed on certain items. I believe that the discussions which took place at the time were most amicable, and I think I am right in saying (though I should have checked this) that the noble Earl who until recently led us, was in the chair on that occasion. My Irish friends tell me that the negotiations were very friendly and, to a point, satisfactory. I know that as things stand at the moment, the terms of the Agreement, so far as industrial products are concerned, were acceptable and well received in Dublin—though a little less so where agriculture is concerned. As your Lordships appreciate, Ireland is primarily an agricultural country.
Instead of airing my own views on the subject, which are of comparatively little value, perhaps I may quote a few lines from a speech made in the Dail by Mr. Lemass on April 26, 1960, on his return from London. He said:
"…the proposals which we made to the British involved action by us, in consideration of their accepting the principle of a general linking of farm produce prices and of concerted agricultural production and marketing policies, to secure for British exporters to the Irish market trade advantages of at least equal magnitude by alternative methods which we suggested."
In other words, Mr. Lemass tried to put up various proposals on the industrial side in order to obtain certain concessions on the agricultural side. However, he went on to say:
" It was stated then, clearly and definitely, the British Ministers present at the negotiations that no trade advantages that we could offer them of this character"—
that is to say, in the industrial field—
"could in their judgment overcome the practical difficulties involved for them in our proposals."
474
What those difficulties were are not stated, but no doubt there were cogent reasons.
A little later in his speech Mr. Lemass said:
"I have always tried to make it clear in the various discussions I have had with British Ministers that we would not seek, nor indeed would we wish to receive, any trade advantages from Britain which could possibly be regarded as being at the expense of Six County interests. Neither would we desire that measures taken to promote economic development in this part of Ireland"—
that is to say, the Republic of Ireland—
"should prove substantially detrimental to those interests. We must, however, be realistic and recognise that some adverse consequences may, while circumstances remain as at present, be unavoidable. Our wish would be to reduce the effect so far as practicable."
My Lords, I think one can say that that is a reasonable statement—in fact, I would say that it was an unexceptionable statement on the part of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and I hope that when the noble Duke comes to reply he will be able to tell us whether a little more can be done in that direction. I will revert to this; matter a little later in my speech.
Commonwealth preferential rates where duty is concerned are, of course, enjoyed by enterprises other than Irish enterprises —those situated in Ireland, of which there are quite a number—and one wonders whether perhaps in 1938, when the Trade Agreement was made, such a state of affairs was at that time visualised. Probably not. But, of course, this is no criticism. If foreign capital has started up various industries in Ireland and those people thereby gain the benefit of Commonwealth preferential rates, there is no reason why they should not do so. In arty case, it is two-way; one has only to look at the negotiations going on at Dagenham, with Fords. The Irish could equally say that industrial production from this country to Ireland gets preferential treatment, though in the case I mention, based on American capital. It is quite an interesting thought to consider whether, when the signatories drew up the Agreement in 1938. they had in mind the way in which this particular matter would develop; and that industries which were based on capital other than Irish would, in fact, profit.
Lately, Mr. Aiken, the Minister for External Affairs, was in Bonn, where he spent quite a long time and made a series of speeches in which he encouraged German industrialists to come to Ireland, and to invest capital and start up industries there. I understand that there were discussions of a most amicable nature. I am given to understand (and I shall refer to this at greater length later on) that at the moment surplus capital in West Germany for investment is so great that they are looking for outlets everywhere; and Ireland seems to be a suitable one. Perhaps this comes strangely from a country which finds difficulty in paying the Occupation costs of N.A.T.O. troops in her territory.
There are now operating in the Shannon "duty-free area" eight foreign firms, of which only two are British. In view of our geographical propinquity that seems to me a very small proportion. One of those firms is Japanese-owned and is making transistors. There are a Dutch firm and an American firm; but, as I have said, only two out of the eight are British enterprises. Considerable concessions are given in regard to income tax and corporation profits tax on exported goods—that is, goods manufactured in that duty-free area of Shannon—and there are also Government grants to these enterprises. I wonder whether British industrialists have not been a little slow to appreciate these rather obvious advantages. Perhaps I am accusing them of not noticing something which in fact they have noticed. But in view of what I have said about the geographical propinquity of the two countries the proportion—two out of eight—seems to me very small.
There are many other firms starting in the area. The Germans, needless to say, have not been slow in coming forward; and at Killarney, on the shores of that marvellous lake where the scenery is really fabulous (and, in passing, I would urge those who have not seen it to see it before they die, for it is certainly the finest I ever saw) there is a considerable German development, with shops, houses, hotels—an entire colony. I am reliably informed that that is a subsidiary of Krupps, of Essen.
Before I leave that point—and I hope it may be of some interest to your Lordships, even though I am not urging Her
476
Majesty's Government to do anything, for it is plainly outside their power—I wonder if noble Lords have heard (doubtless some of them will have done) of a project to make a deep sea port in the Shannon Estuary, to take tankers of 100,000 tons or more into a "duty-free area" of about 20 miles square for transhipment, no duty being payable, on the same lines at that at Europort at the mouth of the Rhine. This project has not yet developed very far—perhaps it may never develop; but there again, the Sunday Times, in June, I believe, stated on their front page that Krupps, of Essen, had offered £22 million for the project. This was later denied by an official spokesman of the Irish Government, but it seems that the possibility of very great development with surplus capital from Western Germany is toward in that part of the world; and that may or may not be of some interest to your Lordships' House.
To turn to another aspect of the economic scene, lately it was suddenly announced that there would be an increase of 7½ per cent. in freight rates between the two countries. We were told of that increase in freight rates overnight. This increase, as your Lordships can imagine, was very ill-received by a number of industrialists who were working on a rather fine margin. At this point, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, speaking in Northern Ireland (though I did not hear him say it), was reported as saying, when tackled on the matter, that in any major concern freight rates were a minimal consideration. I thought that that was a most extraordinary remark. I can assure the noble Viscount that if he were in my business he would look on freight rates as very important indeed. I would ask the noble Duke whether he will take note of and consider the possibility of having an ad hoc committee of experts (not necessarily Government experts) who could perhaps sit and consider some of these 'points and report. I do not suggest a Standing Committee at present, for I do not think that is called for; but perhaps an ad hoc committee of experts, who could look at some of the points I am mentioning now, might in time find aspects on which they could oil the wheels here and there, and help things along a little. That is the first point I wish to raise.
Secondly, the air and sea communications between the two countries are poor,

477
especially at peak periods. Here we have a major problem. The number of Irish subjects now working in England is tremendous, and they all want to go home for Christmas, at August Bank holiday time and, many of them, at Whitsun also; and the means of communication just do not exist. One cannot extend shipping lines or airways: they do their best, and in fact they do a wonderful job; but the situation is chaotic—there are no other words for it. One wonders whether the British Transport Commission could not find some means of transferring shipping at peak periods for this traffic? Perhaps that is impossible, but if something could be done it would be helpful.
There are only two airports in Ireland, Shannon and Dublin, apart from Cork, which is building. The sea routes are Dublin-Liverpool, Dun Laoghaire Holyhead, Rosslare-Fishguard and Cork-Fishguard. There is one day every year when it is impossible to get in or out of Ireland; there is simply no means of doing so. That could be a serious state of affairs in the case of very serious illness or other emergency. That happens on Christmas Day, and for twenty-four hours one cannot get in or out by any means, other than chartering an aircraft. There again, perhaps the noble Duke, if he has nothing else to do one day, could have a word with the British Transport Commission or British European Airways to see if something could be done in that direction.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so good as to tell us his ideas on what might be done about passenger communications between Great Britain and the Irish Republic.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I rather thought I had done so. The British Transport Commission—British Railways—might be able at peak periods to divert a ship or two from some other line on which the load is not so heavy at Christmas time, for instance. That is my suggestion if it is practicable.
Finally, before I leave the first part of my speech concerning the economic side I should like to mention the question of bloodstock breeding, since it is, of course, a major industry where the Irish are concerned. It runs at a little
478
over £2 million per annum, from Ireland to England, and that is quite a lot of money. In fact, the breeding stock sent from Ireland to England is about four-fifths or five-sixths of the total bloodstock export from Ireland. I am told by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor (whom I tried to get into this debate; but unfortunately failed), since he breeds bloodstock in both countries, that he finds the existing arrangements are satisfactory.
While we are on the subject of that noble animal the horse, some of your Lordships will be pleased to have noted in the Press that control of the live horse-meat trade has been tightened up recently by the Irish Government, in consequence of protests about the inhumanity and brutality of shipping old horses abroad for slaughter. The Irish Government have subsidised a slaughter house not far from Dublin, and stringent regulations have been introduced to cover the export of horses for slaughter. In fact, no horse of over seven years of age may be exported for slaughter now, and there are other regulations into which it would take too long to go. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that, in consequence of the representations, the Irish Government took that action.
That concludes the first half of my remarks and the second half will be rather shorter. I wish very much that my noble friend Lord Esher were here to-day, because he has forgotten more about the cultural side than I shall ever know. But ill health unfortunately prevents his attendance, and I know that your Lordships will join with me in expressing sympathy for him in his present condition. Here, again, I do not profess to any special knowledge at all on any of these cultural matters and put them forward alter some research merely in the hope of doing a little good here and there.
First, in the world of literature your Lordships will be very glad and interested to hear that the Book of Kells, dating from the eighth century—a fabulous work, I would say, to those who have not seen it—is to be on view in Burlington House from mid-January, with other tart treasures, including the Lindisfarne Gospels which are even older and date from about 700 A.D. The proceeds are

479
going towards building a library at New Trinity College, Dublin. I hope that some of your Lordships will be able to go and see these two extraordinary works of art side by side; this is the first time, so far as I know, that it has been possible to see them like that. It is a gesture—my noble friend Lord Moyne may be involved—and I hope that your Lordships will be able to see them in this helpful and entirely worthwhile activity. I should like to mention the subject of Trinity College, about which more may be said later by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. There is an increase in British students there, of whom quite a number are coloured students from Jamaica and West Africa. One sees a great many there. In fact, they probably run the cricket side! I can assure your Lordships that in Ireland racial discrimination is, luckily, non-existent.
In the world of art there was, on the subject of the Lane pictures, a long and rather bitter controversy which was very unfortunate. One side stood rather on the letter of the law and the other, perhaps, on the spirit of the law. In any case, the difference has now been resolved; and here again Lord Moyne had quite a lot to do with it. As a result, it has been agreed that alternately for five-year periods for the next twenty years half these pictures will be shown in Dublin and half in London. In fact, the first half is ready to be shown in Dublin now and it includes some extremely valuable and important masterpieces, including a Renoir, Les Parapluies, valued at £200,000 currently, and a Manet, valued at a little less—I think £150,000. Here is a matter eventually settled, not without some acrimony. If anything I can say can make a matter of that sort settled more quickly and easily in future, it will be to the general good.
In the theatre, the days of Sean O'Casey, and Synge are perhaps over, and no one has come up to replace them in the Irish theatre. It seems a pity. We do not get quite the plays we used to like to see or should like to have. We are always pleased to see a première of a play by Mr. Noel Coward—no one enjoys it more than I do—but perhaps it is not quite the same thing, even though in the last play we had the enormous pleasure of hearing Dame Sybil Thorn
480
dike there. The Dublin Theatre Festival, which takes place every year, is not tremendously encouraged by the British theatre, and one would like to see a little more done in that way. The Italians and Germans both have opera seasons in Dublin; there have been Spanish dancing companies there quite often. Admittedly, the Royal Ballet came once, though rather a long time ago—three years ago. But if anything I say this afternoon reaches them, perhaps it will encourage them to come again.
In the world of the cinema, there is the Cork Film Festival which, I am told by those qualified to speak about these things, is a great success and ranks very well with the Festival at Venice. I can say no more about that than to give it a passing reference.
In the world of music, the Festival of Wexford, which has taken place over several years, is a most praiseworthy endeavour, in my view, in a small city. It goes on for a week and is very well worth while. The President is Sir Compton Mackenzie and one of the leading sponsors is a former Member of another place, Sir Alfred Beit. I hope that the Arts Councils of both countries and other interested bodies will co-operate in promoting cultural ties between the two countries. I know that the Arts Councils are permanently short of money. That is so in the case of the Irish Arts Council quite certainly, and the British Arts Council's annual grant, I am told, would build four miles of a motorway! I am all for motorways being built, my Lords, but I wonder whether we have it quite in proportion when a sum of money of that size only can be devoted to these much more far-reaching projects.
Finally, I revert to another form of culture—physical culture or, as it is more shortly called, sport. Here the situation is very much better. In the world of international Rugby, for instance, and soccer, international matches take place, are very well attended, are always popular and do a lot of good. The Marylebone Cricket Club come to Ireland alternate years, and Ireland plays the M.C.C. at Lord's. This year we had Sir Leonard Hutton playing in Dublin and he must have signed thousands of autographs. In fact, he hardly had time to do any batting because he was continually surrounded by a mob of small

481
boys taking his autograph. That is a very good thing, most popular; and that is the type of thing one wants to see. In the world of golf, the Canada Cup was played in Ireland this year for the first time, at Portmarnock's magnificent links. It attracted a daily crowd of 20,000 people; and I might remind those of your Lordships who are golfers (and I can see at least one or two) that three times in the last ten years the British Open Champion was that agreeable figure, Joe Carr of Dublin.
There are a few other activities—athletics, boxing, tennis and the rest. The A.A.A., the L.T.A., et cetera, can all help by sending teams, by encouraging people to go, and by not saying, "Go to Paris and Brussels but do not bother much about Dublin; there is nothing much there". There is, my Lords; and there is plenty of competition. I am very glad to say that not very long ago a charity in which I am interested, with a view to building a rehabilitation centre, organised an athletic meeting in Ireland, with people coming from all over Europe. It was going to attract a very big crowd for this excellent charity. At the last minute, the British team withdrew and was said not to be coming. That sort of thing creates a very bad impression, though we probably had good reason for it. I got on to the telephone to my old friend the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter (whom I should very much have liked to see here to-day, but who is not well at the moment), the Chairman of -the three A's, and I said, "You must do something". He said, "I will", and a team (admittedly a smaller team, but a team) was flown over and took part. I was very grateful to the noble Marquess for that, and I wish he were here to hear those few words.
My Lords, that is really all I have to say, and I am sorry to have kept you so long. It is nothing more, really, than a survey of points which occurred to me and which I thought your Lordships might like to think about, if no more. I have tried to draw attention to various matters which have not been mentioned here for years; and it seems a little odd. really, that that should be so, since the Republic of Ireland is our closest neighbour except for France. There is an old French saying—and there is no truer one
—which says, Se comprendre, c'est la paix: if you understand the other man's
482
point of view, the more you see of it and the more you understand the little difficulties that arise, the longer you will have peace and good relations, advantageous to everyone. But there is in this country at the moment an extraordinary ignorance about Irish affairs. It is not wilful, but it exists; and if anything I have been able to say to-day has helped to fill what is, in my view, a little vacuum, then it will have been worth while. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made; and I must express my own apologies that, if I intervene for a short time now, I shall not be able to stay long afterwards because I have an appointment that I cannot avoid. But everybody else whose name is on the list will take part in the debate and will, of course, express his own point of view.
I must say that I was rather disappointed by the noble Lord's speech, because what was lacking seemed to me to be any concrete conclusions as to what he wanted done. I do not think any of us can quarrel in principle with what the noble Lord has said as to the desirability of encouraging good economic and cultural relations between Great Britain and the Irish Republic, but there was in his speech a lack of definition as to what he wants done and as to whether Government economic aid to the Irish Republic is desired—in short, to bring the points to which he drew the attention of the House to positive, concrete conclusions that one could get hold of and examine, let us hope, upon their merits. I share with the noble Lord the pleasure that Mr. Boland has attained the high position of President of the United Nations Assembly. I know Mr. Boland and his wife very well. I have met them on social occasions, and they are very likeable people—and, II think, good friends of our country.
The noble Lord referred to tariffs, as to which there were discussions between the two countries and upon which there was, apparently, some conflict of interest between Irish agriculture and British agriculture. That is not surprising, because it is one of the difficulties which, unfortunately, exist about the Common

483
Market arrangements, with the principle of which I am in favour. But these are negotiations between one foreign country and another foreign country. One must not underestimate that factor in the situation. They are negotiations with a foreign country just as much as they would be if they were with a foreign country on the Continent of Europe or elsewhere. I do not know whether the noble Lord was seeking tariff concessions to Southern Ireland beyond what would be conceded to other foreign countries: it was not too clear from what he said. But I do mot think it follows that because Krupp's, which played a considerable part in preparing the Nazi war material before the last war, have been welcomed to Ireland and have opened up a place there, we have to do the same, although I am perfectly sure that many British firms will open up factories in Ireland, probably because of the tariffs which exist between the two countries and because it pays them to, particularly from the point of view of their export trade.
As to passenger communication, I do not think any of us objects to an improvement in that direction, especially at Christmas-time and in August, so long as it does not involve our subsidising that traffic between the two countries. If, as the noble Lord suggested, the shipping companies or air companies can, without economic detriment, divert some of their transportation to British-Irish communications, that is quite all right, and I fully sympathise with the desire of the many Irish citizens of our own country who, very naturally, want to get back to the Irish Republic to see their relations and friends at these times.
The Lane pictures have also been mentioned. I remember that complex, difficult argument which took place. and which involved the Government of which I was a member. It was exceedingly difficult to come to a clear-cut conclusion about it, but, in the end, a compromise was reached whereby the pictures are sometimes in Dublin and sometimes in England. Then, the Arts Council was mentioned, and I think that, here again, there is uncertainty as to whether it was desired that the Arts Council should make any grant towards the arts in the Irish Republic, which I think would be a little difficult to defend.
484
My Lords, I personally am in favour of the principle of good economic and cultural relations between our country and the Irish Republic; but, although I do not wish to introduce needless controversy, I am bound to mention one or two points that may be controversial. I should not like those improvements in economic and cultural relations to be in any way to the detriment of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is another matter. It is part of the United Kingdom. It is very loyal to the United Kingdom. I once said that it was aggressively loyal to the United Kingdom. When the ports of Southern Ireland were denied to our use after we had handed them back (no doubt because the Government of that day were under the impression that it would clear up all the trouble between us and Ireland), it meant that many British sailors and merchant seamen lost their lives who otherwise would not have lost them. We would not quarrel with the Irish about it, because they had their rights and they exercised them; but if we had not had Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish ports and the Northern Irish air bases, no doubt we should have lost many more lives in the Battle of the Atlantic and might, indeed, have lost the Battle of the Atlantic altogether.
If it had been the general wish of the Irish people as a whole that there should be unity in their country, and if that country had remained part of the United Kingdom and part of the British Commonwealth, sharing with us defence, so that we took care of the whole of Ireland, then history might have been different. And I admit that history has a lot to do with this awkward problem. British actions in Ireland years and years ago were bad. I think British policy in Ireland as regards Home Rule proved that it was a great pity that Mr. Gladstone did not have his way. It would have made a great deal of difference to subsequent history. I think the Conservatives and Unionists of that time have been proved to be wrong—and those in this House took an active part in the matter —in their resistance to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule proposals. In the result, the time came when Southern Ireland did not get Home Rule in the Gladstonian sense but got independence, or virtual independence, in the Free State, although they were still to be part of the British

485
Commonwealth; and there were the Black and Tans, and other incidents, which preceded that.
But, my Lords, it must be remembered that the violence and murders were not all on the one side. I remember standing on the roof of Cork Town Hall and being advised and informed by the Lord Mayor's charming private secretary. She pointed out places where she said the brutal British had shot down the Irish, set fire to their houses, and so on. I expressed my deep regret, of course, that this should have been so. But she went on in a pretty aggressive, aggrieved manner, which I understood. Then I said: "I would venture to remind you that there were some British policemen, or policemen employed by the British Government, who were shot in the back as well, and they had a lot of troubles." Well, she did not have any room for that kind of consideration; and that is the spirit which existed, understandably but regrettably, of a willingness to see one's own country's point of view but not the other's.
I can understand the views of the people in the present Irish Republic. In the Free State the tie with the Commonwealth remained. It is true that it was reduced merely to the point that His Majesty signed the credentials of ambassadors. That is the only tie which remained under Mr. de Valera, but he did leave it. He did want some connection. Then there came into power a more moderate—on the face of it—Southern Irish Government, and this more moderate Government removed that link—a most curious thing—until Southern Ireland became an absolutely and completely foreign country. It is curious, nevertheless, that the Irish Republic still remains within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Relations Office. That is a peculiar thing. One would have thought that it would come under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office, who are experienced in the handling of foreign countries and have all the diplomatic expertise, but it is still within the Commonwealth Relations Office. It may be that there is a psychological factor in the minds of the Government and the Commonwealth Relations Office that somehow persuades them that the Irish Republic is still within the Commonwealth.
486
The only point I am worried about is whether there is any motive behind this Motion—I am not asserting that there is—whereby our economic and cultural ties should remain strong with the Irish Republic, and be improved (with which principle I do not disagree), but that that might be at the expense of the relationship which exists between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. If there were a desire to weaken that relationship, I should not be in favour of it. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and I think there are a good many Nationalists in Northern lreland who, under the counter, so to speak, still favour that association, because it undoubtedly brings great benefits economically to the people of Northern Ireland and to their social services. If Southern -Ireland had remained within the United Kingdom, it is possible that some arrangements of that kind might also have been made with the Government of the Irish Republic; but that was not to be.
I have dealt with Northern Ireland, and it is one of the reasons why I am speaking. When I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, that was one of the areas which came within the purview of Home Office influence, and I had a lot to do with its Ministers. I found them very co-operative with our Government, and I had occasion to visit Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the only thing I should like them to do, if they would do it, is to include three Labour Members among the twelve Northern Ireland Members in the other House. I say that not merely for partisan, political reasons—of which I know even the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would not suspect me for a moment—but because I think it would help to remove some of the prejudice against Northern Ireland which exists in some Labour circles. It is a great pity. I tried to encourage them to do that, and indeed I spoke there in the last Election. The vote was a bit better, but my ambition did not succeed, and I think it is a pity.
I have visited Southern Ireland and the Irish there are charming people, good hosts and good friends. I met Mr. de Valera and had an hour and a half's private discussion with him about

487
British-Irish relations. I have always found Mr. de Valera, both there and in Strasbourg, an exceedingly charming man. He would have made a first-class British Cabinet Minister; but that was not to be. I like him very much. He has great ability and I think he has been a considerable Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, as he is now a considerable President. He knows his way about. He is a good negotiator, a good persuader, and you need to have your wits about you when you deal with him. His Government was good enough to give me a dinner party, and we had a very good time. I have been to Trinity College (the College which has been mentioned) and I had a good time there. The only trouble about going to Trinity College debates is that you have a job to get to bed afterwards. The boys are very anxious to keep you up all night and make you less and less capable of remaining mentally alert. But they are very hospitable, and that is the danger. Therefore I have no bias against Southern Ireland.
However, I must say I have an affection for Northern Ireland and I like the way they have stuck to their British connections. They played a great and loyal part in the last war. Therefore, while I do not object to the noble Lord's Motion in principle, I should not like it to be interpreted in a way which would weaken either the economy or the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
3.39 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, when I saw that this Motion was to be moved by the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, I felt that possibly it might be a good thing if someone whose home is in Northern Ireland, and who has had a good deal to do with Irish affairs over a considerable number of years, said a word during the debate. After all, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has a land frontier with the Republic of Ireland. I was a little surprised—though very grateful to him—at some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just said about Northern Ireland. I thought that this debate was to be mainly, in fact, entirely, confined to economic and cultural matters; and
488
the noble Lord, much though I agreed with everything that he said, has undoubtedly put a political slant upon his speech, which I hope I shall definitely not do.
When I was speaking a few days ago to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, he told me that it was nine years since Ireland had been discussed in any way in your Lordships' House. I have been a Member of this House for nearly eight years, and certainly I remember no debate on Ireland. It is a remarkable thing that that should be so, when one thinks how much the Irish scene occupied the political life of this country in years past, and how some of the most dramatic events in the history of this House took place in the old days over the Home Rule controversies.
I have always found that few people realise that in about 1845—that is to say, 115 years ago—the population of Ireland was about 8 million, when the population of England was 16 million. In other words, 115 years ago, the population of Ireland was half the population of England. To-day, the population of Ireland is about 4 million, or even less, whereas that of England is over 50 million.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to be pedantic, but it is over 4 million.
LORD RATHCAVAN: It may be just over 4 million. In other words, in a little more than 100 years, the population of Ireland is half what it was, and the population of England is three time what it was.
This trend still continues. In the Irish Republic, between 1951 and 1959, the population declined by 3·8 per cent., whereas in Northern Ireland it rose by 2·7 per cent. Of course, the population of Ireland in 1845, when it was 8 million, was far too great for the country's resources. Ireland was an agricultural country, as it is to-day. They had no manufacturing industries of any consequence. The peasant population had very large families living on land which was quite unable to support them. Consequently, there was great poverty and great distress. Then, in 1845, came the great potato famine, with all its terrible consequences, one of the principal consequences being the mass

489
emigration of the Irish people to the United States of America, and to a lesser extent to Australia, causing a decline of population in a way to which I think it would be very difficult to find a parallel in any other part of the world.
It seems to me that probably it would be true to say that there has been no great change in the economic set-up of Southern Ireland in the last 100 years. She is still mainly an agricultural country. She still has no really great industries or enterprises, in spite of the few in the Shannon area, to which the noble Lord referred. She still has people leaving the country, though now they do not go to the United States or to Australia—they come here to Great Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, thousands of people from the Irish Republic come over here to take up work and are now living in Great Britain. I think that it would not be an exaggeration to say that at this time a large section of the population in the Irish Republic is living on remittances received from workers in this country who are earning good wages.
Northern Ireland is also mainly an agricultural country—that is to say, agriculture is still its largest industry—but within the last 100 years it has developed great industrial enterprises. There is shipbuilding. The great yard of Harland and Wolff in Belfast has built some of the finest passenger vessels which sail the seas to-clay. They built most of the great ships for the P. & O. Line and the Royal Mail Line. There is the great linen industry, originally introduced into Northern Ireland by Huguenot immigrants from France in the days of the persecution of Protestants there. There is also a large number of new industries which have been established within the last ten or fifteen years, including several industries with American capital and controlled by citizens of the United States.
The interesting thing about the industries of Northern Ireland, which applies both to shipbuilding and to linen, is that they have been built up without any what I might call natural help from the country itself. In shipbuilding, all the raw materials—steel and so on—must come from over the sea, mostly from this
490
country. In the linen industry, the raw flax comes mainly from Europe, from Belgium. It used to come from the Baltic States and Russia; and I believe that a certain amount still comes from there. My point is that the industries which the Ulster people have built up over the last 100 years have been built up in spite of the fact that the raw materials for those industries have all had to be imported from abroad. The same is true of the cotton industry in Lancashire.
I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said about the recent alarming increase in the freight rates between Great Britain and Ireland, whether North or South. There is one other point, to which I should like to refer, on the economic side. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he comes to speak, is going to refer to a suggestion recently made by Mr. Lemass, the Prime Minister of the Republic, for economic talks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with a view to reducing duties on certain Northern Irish goods entering the Republic.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not know why he is so firm in his opinion of what I might say. I have not published my intentions. I might say something of the sort, or I might not, but I cannot help wondering why the noble Lord is so certain that I intend to deal with that topic.
LORD RATHCAVAN: I can give the noble Lord a complete answer. I was yesterday in the Northern Ireland Office, in Regent Street, in London, asking for some statistics, and they told me that the noble Lord had been telephoning to them and had asked them for particulars about the very matters I am going to mention.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was anxious that any statements made by Lord Brookeborough which have already been published should be made available to me so that I should not misrepresent him. I was not asking for any private information, and I am bound to say that I was not under the impression, when I spoke to those excellent officials, that they would want to convey what my intentions were to the noble Lord. But that is a matter of taste.
LORD RATHCAVAN: Whether the noble Lord will refer to the matter or not, I intend to say a few words about it; that is to say, about the economic talks which Mr. Lemass, the Prime Minister of the Republic, wished to have with the Government of Northern Ireland, with a view to reducing the duties on certain Northern Ireland goods entering the Republic. The Northern Ireland Government have not made a very favourable response, and I should like to explain to the House the reason why.
In the first place, the Government of Northern Ireland have no power to conclude any tariff agreement with the Republic, because Customs and Excise are entirely within the purview of the United Kingdom Government. But let us suppose that this difficulty could be overcome and that a joint request was made to the British Government to implement any arrangement which might have been made. What then would the position be? It would mean that certain Northern Ireland goods entering the market in the Irish Republic would have been granted privileges not available to goods from other parts of the United Kingdom. In other words, it would mean treating Northern Ireland's industry as something separate from British industry; and that might be the thin end of the wedge towards undermining Ulster's present position as part of the United Kingdom, with complete equality as regards trade and industry within the United Kingdom economic unit. That is a situation which Ulster could never contemplate, because her membership of the United Kingdom is her economic sheet anchor.
I was looking the other day at some figures, which have just been published by the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast, as regards exports from Northern Ireland in the year 1959. The value of exports from Northern Ireland in 1959 was £321,686,000—a record figure. Of those exports 93 per cent. went to Great Britain or to other countries via Great Britain, and only just over 4 per cent. went across the land frontier to the Irish Republic. So that, in any event, the amount of exports which might be affected by any agreement between Northern Ireland and the Republic on tariffs is so infinitesimal that it is really hardly worth considering.
492
Here are some more figures that I have, illustrating in detail what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to just now—namely, the economic advantages which Northern Ireland has through being an integral part of the United Kingdom, as compared with the situation in the Irish Republic. Wage rates in Northern Ireland are universally higher. The wage of agricultural labourers is nearly 50 per cent. more than in the Republic. In the Irish Republic unemployment benefit is 40 per cent. less than it is in Northern Ireland; sickness benefit is 40 per cent. less; widows' pensions are 40 per cent. less; family allowances 50 per cent. less, and maternity grant 84 per cent. less. In agriculture, Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, receives the full benefit of all guaranteed prices and subsidies. And on a population basis, as regards trade, the trade of Northern Ireland is four times as great as corresponding values in the Irish Republic. I mention those figures merely to show what was so well said just now by the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth: that the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom is for her, from the economic point of view, of such tremendous importance that she could not possibly consider any discussions with Southern Ireland which might tend in any way to diminish that great advantage.
3.57 p.m.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, as has been said earlier, it is, I think, eleven years since Ireland was mentioned in this House; and I, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who lives in the Republic of Ireland, have not been here since then, because the few things I know about have not been discussed. It was some 25 years ago that I rose to make my maiden speech here, at the time of the discussion on the return of the ports. Soon after that the 1938 Act was passed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who moved the Motion, referred. All our economic developments date from that period.
I came here this afternoon rather 'under the impression that we were to confine ourselves largely to cultural and economic matters, and I was a little surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, getting up and making a speech part of which might have

493
been made from the Unionist Front Benches in the last century, and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, getting up and making a speech about Northern Ireland when the Motion is on the Republic of Ireland. But in many ways I am delighted about the latter. The first remark I was going to make was that I thought it a pity that this Motion did not cover all Ireland, because, whatever differences we may have, our economic and cultural problems are the same. We dive in a day when some people in Ireland feel that when the words "unity" and "union" are discussed in other spheres, at least we can find our common denominators. One thing the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, did was to explain that the economic problems of Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Great Britain and the world are exactly the same as those in the 26 counties of the Irish Republic. The sooner we can sit down and face those realities, and not make, for example, a customs barrier an official excuse for not discussing mutual problems, the better it will be, not only for Ireland, but also for the British Isles and Western Europe, in which we in Ireland, both North and South, feel we mast play our part.
I always find it difficult, because like so many Members of your Lordships' House I have a foot on either side of the Irish Sea. I hope no one minds my saying that, just as naturally a Scotsman's first loyalty is to Scotland, so my first loyalty must be to Ireland. Therefore, if I make a slight mistake when I say "we" or "I", I am thinking purely of a personal point of view. Personally, I think it is sad, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has frequently mentioned at Stormont, that the customs barrier between the North of Ireland and the Republic is a great stumbling block. But the moment a suggestion is made in Dublin that it could be removed, wonderful excuses are found in Belfast to place the responsibility on Britain. It would be very easy to remove that small barrier. It is a matter of adjustment and negotiation, and at this moment officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office are having discussions in Dublin—one of the regular discussions arising out of the 1960 Agreement. I hope that this question of the possibility of Northern Ireland being able to trade with the Republic without paying customs duty will
494
be reviewed. I am in touch with Unionists and Republicans of all extremes, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, is not representing all Northern Irish businessmen when he says there is no desire to have that tariff removed. I did not come here to talk politics, but I find myself having been led on, and I apologise for doing it.
There are certain spheres where I think the interests of Great Britain and Ireland are closely associated. If we want to have close relations between Ireland and England, the one thing we must make easier is travel between the two countries. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised that point. Aer Lingus, the Irish Airlines, in which B.E.A. originally had a minority holding and has now, I am glad to say, alternating British directors, both Members of your Lordships' House, runs in conjunction with B.E.A. an extremely good service, not only between London and Dublin, but between Dublin and the greater cities of England. Not only that, but Ireland also links us with America, and I am glad to say that the Lord Mayors of Belfast, Dublin and Cork, and several British Mayors, only last week went through Dublin on the first Boeing flight to the United States.
Air transport, I think naturally, is hard pushed at Christmas-time, like everything else; but it has moved with the times, whereas it would appear that the rail and sea transport has really not. progressed. If you want to go by sea you go either from Liverpool to Dublin or from Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire. The Liverpool service, which goes under the Irish flag, is in paint of fact a subsidiary of Coast Lines, and is controlled from this side of the Irish Sea. It grew out of the cattle trade, and I find that it has not improved as might have with the competition with air since the war. The many visitors who wish to go to Ireland, and especially if they wish to take their cars to travel there, have facilities which do not compare with my personal experience on similar types of journeys in the Mediterranean or between Scandinavian countries.
Far worse is the British Railways route. We want to encourage tourists to Ireland, and the best tourists we have are the British. They come over with great regularity and are extremely popular.

495
But at the peak season the Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire (Kingstown) service is far from adequate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, asked for concrete suggestions about this. There is one ship called the "Princess Maud." I must say that her days must be nearly numbered, and she needs replacing. If she is replaced, I would suggest that a completely new look should be taken at the communication's and the approach to communication. Whereas the Liverpool-Dublin service was based on cattle, the Holyhead-Kingstown service was chiefly based on the day of the emigrant traffic. To-day, many of our emigrants coming over here, as the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, said, earn a lot of money and are not used to travelling in bad conditions.
It needs a completely new approach, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make capital available to British Railways and the British Transport Commission, Who control this service, so that we can have a ship which can make a quick turn-round, take 150 cars, and have seats like buses—the journey takes only three hours—a modern concept, instead of the extremely uncomfortable accommodation for the general public and a limited number of cabins, which I imagine must date from the days when people like my grandfather and predecessors had the special privilege of travelling first-class in the few luxurious cabins.
As regards the tourist trade, there is no doubt at all, as I mentioned just now, that our best visitors and those who create the best relations between Ireland and England are the English. Our people come here to work and English people visit Ireland for holidays. Also, a large number of Americans come into Europe each year, and I think it would be in the common interest of the North of Ireland, of the Republic of Ireland and the British, that there should be more concentrated and co-operative work between the various tourist organisations. Many tourists come to Ireland who might well be channelled to visit Britain but who, instead, go on to Europe. In the same way, many people come direct to England who might well spend some of their time in Ireland.
496
On the question of culture, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned the Dublin Theatre Festival over which I preside. He also mentioned the fact that the Royal Ballet has visited Ireland. I should like to inform your Lordships that through the Dublin Theatre Festival —which is now purely a theatre festival, although originally we had ballet—we brought to Dublin the Royal Ballet and the Festival Ballet and, this year, the Old Vic and the Belgrade Company from Coventry. That had to be done purely by means of Irish subsidies—from the money we were able to raise to support our Theatre Festival. The reason why I think we do not get assistance for British companies to come to Ireland, as do the French and Italian companies, is because we are in a strange position. Sometimes people say that we get the best of both worlds, but that in culture we fall between the Arts Council and the British Council.
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind that it should be possible, when the Old Vic is going abroad, as it is in the case of Russia, and comes to Dublin as its first place, for the British Council to extend their facilities so that some of the grant might be used for that purpose. I must mention that the British Council are taking three plays to Russia, two of them written by men born in Dublin, one of them Shaw and the other Wilde. Also, I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who said that since O'Casey and Synge there have been no great playwrights. It is very hard to judge playwrights of the present time. I must remind him of Beckett and Brendan Behan. Although they may make the headlines in rather odd ways, they are people with considerable impact. I remember Peter Ustinov coming to Dublin to an International P.E.N. Conference of which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, is now Chairman. Peter Ustinov opened his speech by saying:
"Gentlemen, I think I am the only English playwright who is not Irish, and I am Russian."
But that theatre tradition continues. I sincerely hope that we shall continue to bring important English companies to Dublin. But we shall not be able to do that unless we receive some further financial assistance such as we get from the French or the Italians.

497
One last thing. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned sport—and again I must apologise for mentioning my own position, because I happen to be President of the Olympic Council of Ireland and, with the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, I sit on the International Olympic Committee. I am glad to say there is no doubt at all that the relationship which exists in sport is one of the healthiest and best for Anglo-Irish relations. There used to be a time when the games of Rugby football and soccer were called garrison games by some. The Gaelic Athletic Association has done a great deal to promote sport in Ireland. Recently in South. London, on Mitcham Common or some other Common, I saw what I at first thought was hockey being played, but which I found was the Irish national game of hurling. I feel that this exchange of games, and the very fact that Irishmen can fill Wembley Stadium with hurlers and their supporters in the same way as crowds at Lansdowne Road watch Rugby football could not he healthier. Most sport, like practically everything cultural in Ireland, such as the Royal Irish Academy, Hibernian Academy, and so on, is organised on an all-Ireland basis and free from politics. Field and track is the only exception. We seem to have innumerable organisations running this branch of athletics, which unfortunately is due to politics.
I can assure your Lordships that there is a great change in Ireland, and those of us who know the North well, know the Republic well and know England well realise that to-day there is more practical thought on the question of unity and co-operation. I disagree with the two noble Lords who have spoken; I am one who believes strongly in the eventual future of a united Ireland: whether it is within the Commonwealth or what its relation is to this country is not for us to discuss to-day. I do know that in Ireland we have one people and one culture, whatever our differences in politics and religion are at the moment.
4.12.p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I admire the courage of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in bringing his Motion, but my doubts, before he brought it, as to the wisdom of doing so have, in fact, been confirmed by most of
498
what has been said. I admire the self-control of the noble Lord who has just spoken, who seems to me to have done his best to bring us back to the subject Lord Windlesham wished us to talk about. The fact is, as he himself said, the Motion is cast in very wide terms, and although we have in fact succeeded in keeping off the Border, except by implication, it was bound to arise at some lime during this debate. I think I shall have little to say that is political—indeed I have little to say at all.
I am certain of one thing, arid that is that, so far as anybody wishes to see better relationships, and possibly a united Ireland, the less he should say about it. It seems to me to be a danger that whenever Irish affairs are discussed, and particularly if they are discussed in this country, it can only give rise to discussion of the history of the past, about which we in this country have little to be proud and on which the Irish also have something to be ashamed. But I do not wish to go into the past in any detail, beyond saying that every time the Border is mentioned or, equally, every time a bomb is thrown, the further a united Ireland—and I admit that I am emotionally in favour of a united Ireland —is put off; because the people of this country (and I am quite sure my noble friend who spoke on the Front Bench would agree) are not willing to be party to the weakening of the Northern Irish position.
I should like to concentrate on the points which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, tried to bring out—namely, cultural relations and, indeed, economic relations. Here I think there was a certain unreality about some of the debate. Conditions may be very difficult for people going to Ireland in the peak season. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, should try going to the Isle of Wight in the peak season. He would find that he would be packed like cattle on that journey. Whether it is a criticism of British Railways or of our habits as holiday-makers I do not know; but the fact remains that some of those things cannot be put right easily. Nor can we alter the fact that the Republic of Ireland is now outside the Commonwealth, and the encouraging thing is the limitation of the damage that might have arisen from that particular move. Undoubtedly the personal relations between

499
the Irish and the English as individuals have never been better. Certainly the general exchange of people has never been larger. The largest exports of the Irish at the moment—or the most important, so far as this country are concerned—are, of course, in manpower, and I think it is true that many of the essential services of this country would break down without them. I doubt whether, if the Irish were removed, enough of the lifts would continue running in London to get us up to the top floors of many buildings.
The other exchange, which is one on which I think we have not acknowledged our debt to Ireland, is in the matter of education, and particularly university education. The university population of Ireland is somewhere around 6,000 at any one time, and a very high proportion of British students go to Trinity College, Dublin, while a certain number of other Commonwealth students, and a few British, too, go to the National University. On this Ireland is paying for what we get, because we are in a privileged position in our access to those universities. We in this country have a special responsibility for Trinity College, Dublin. It is the old Elizabethan University, which was founded by Archbishop Loftus, who was an ancestor of mine, and I do not doubt was an ancestor of many of your Lordships. Trinity College, Dublin, contains some of the most beautiful 18th century buildings to be found anywhere. It provides an education for many British students, whether they be from this country or from the Commonwealth, and they are freely accepted there. Some of the great treasures which the noble Lord mentioned, like the Book of Kells, are housed there. It is one of the copyright libraries. But we must recognise that the Republic of Ireland is a poor country. They do need support for carrying out their responsibilities, which are part of our general cultural heritage, whether British, Irish, European or of the world. I hope there will be support for the exhibition which is shortly to take place at Burlington House.
I have nothing more to add, beyond this: that I hope there will be a continued recognition that it is not wholly to the disadvantage of this country that the Irish Republic is to-day a Republic.
500
The part that Irish statesmen have played in world affairs is something which certainly has been to the advantage of this country and, indeed, of the West as a whole. The part that Ireland, as a neutral country, is playing in those appalling conditions in the Congo is something we can recognise. At least, Ireland is one country we have not heard (unless I have missed it) that threaten to withdraw her troops: practically every other country has. To that extent we have gained. I am sure that all noble Lords, however much they may be divided on certain issues like the Border, will be at one in wishing to see closer cultural relations and, if I may say so, a wise, and at times silent, approach to their improvement.
4.20 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has rendered a valuable service in raising this debate to-day. So often Ireland is regarded as a kind of backwoods country of uneducated people. Those who come over here are frequently blamed for crimes such as drunkenness, allegations which in my submission are completely unfair. My only qualification for taking part in this debate is that the first Baron Auckland was in the latter half of the 18th century Chief Secretary of Ireland. I myself have spent two very pleasant and memorable holidays in that delightful country. Two of the few times in my life when I have been near to tears were on occasions on which I had to leave Ireland and return home. That is not said by way of disparagement of my own country, but to show my intense love and affection for that country during my visits.
On that point, may I say that the last time I was in Ireland was at the time of the tragic Harrow rail disaster. In the small town of Mallow, where I was holiday-making, almost every shopkeeper expressed the sincerest sympathy with both myself and other English and British people of that community on this tragic disaster. The pro-British feeling in Eire is far more considerable than many people may think. The Irish are essentially most charming and sincere people. They are often regarded as perhaps dreamy and of a not sufficient-unto-the-day mentality; but sincerity is one of their great virtues.

501
I am not going to say anything on the economic side of this Motion; I wish to concentrate my few remarks on the tourist and the cultural side. Several noble Lords have expressed their opinions as to the inadequacy of travel between this country and Southern Ireland, and I would wholeheartedly agree with them. I myself travel between Fishguard and Rosslare and Cork during the off-tourist season in October, and even those conditions have been most inadequate. I am not going to apportion any particular blame for this, but I would urge Her Majesty's Government to contact the British Transport Commission to see whether anything can be done to alleviate the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rightly said, a number of Irish people in this country wish to get home at holiday Time, and the services afforded to them are., I submit, in many cases very poor indeed.
Figures of the tourist trade between this country and Eire are most encouraging. Only a short time ago I contacted the Irish Tourist Travel Board, and they told me that in the year 1959–60 there was an increase of 8 per cent. on the number in the previous year of people travelling to Eire on holiday. That is most encouraging, and I should like to see that figure exceeded. This has come about despite what, in my opinion, was most insidious propaganda put forward last year regarding the Irish horse trade. I think a lot of it was misinformed. The fault was not primarily with Eire. It is at least encouraging to see that this did not have a great deal of effect on people travelling to Ireland. At least one well-known tourist agency boycotted bookings to Ireland. I think that was an unfortunate course of action to take.
Many people think that Killarney alone is a place of beauty in Southern Ireland. I would immediately dispel that illusion. I should say that Lismore, Connemara and Donegal have equal, if not more, beauty, and excellent hotel facilities. So far as culture is concerned, last year the London Symphony Orchestra had an extremely successful tour of Southern Ireland. They visited Limerick, Wexford, Cork and, I believe, Dublin. I should like to add this rider. They arrived at Limerick at 3 o'clock in the morning, and at quite a small hotel where they were staying they were
502
served, without any complaint, with hot bacon and eggs and coffee. That is something of which certain four or five-star British hotels might take note so far as foreign travellers are concerned. I know that that is not directly within the range of the debate, but certainly my experience of Irish hotels has been one of cleanliness, efficiency and courtesy. The same applies to Irish railways. Admittedly, schedules are not entirely punctual; but on the occasions on which I have had breakfast on the Irish railways the meal has been hot, cooked to order and served with absolutely clean white tablecloths.
I would reinforce the plea for closer liaison between the Arts Council, the British Council and their counterparts in Southern Ireland. I was most happy to hear from the noble Lord. Lord Killanin, that the Old Vic company has been to Ireland. I should like to see this occur regularly, perhaps with the Abbey Theatre company coming over here. Recently Synge's great play, The Playboy of the Western World, had a season in London. I did not see it, but I read the comments on it and, apart from the criticism that some of the actors talked rather too quickly, the play was most favourably received. I have seen a number of Irish plays by Synge on television, and they have been beautifully acted, with such actors as Michael MacLiamóir, Harry Hutchinson and Donal Donnelly. There are some fine actors and musicians in Ireland There was, of course, the late Count. John McCormack, and singers such as Veronica Dunne. There is the excellent Radio-Eirean symphony orchestra, and orchestras of which we hear all too little but which have great talent. One wishes that they would come over here more often. There are such novelists as Liam O'Flaherty. One of his greatest books, The Informer, was filmed some years ago, with that great actor Victor McLaghlan. I think this was one of the greatest films of all time. Admittedly, it presented a controversial picture of Ireland, but it was done with tremendous realism.
Then there are the Irish nurses. I should like to see a scheme whereby there might be some interchange of nurses between the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is, of course, a shortage

503
of nurses in this country which may make such an arrangement difficult at the present time, but certainly I would say that in my experience Irish nurses are some of the finest and kindest in the world. So far as recreations are concerned, that of shooting is one which encourages much of the tourist industry. Snipe in Ireland is almost a form of currency, and snipe shooting is a sport indulged in by all classes of society, from the richest to the poorest; and a number of tourists, too, take part. I feel that this has been a very worthwhile debate, and I should like to see Her Majesty's Government taking some positive action in seeking and striving for a much greater cultural, tourist and economic relationship between these two neighbouring countries.
4.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am always happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and certainly what he has said will be appreciated when it is, read in Ireland. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for raising this subject and doing it in so charming a way. He gave very firm instructions to those who were to follow regarding the speeches they were to make; and indeed more or less wrote them for us at one time. But his directive seemed to be aimed particularly at the two Cabinet Ministers who were to come later. Clearly, the noble Lord was not referring to me; although I had the great honour of being First Lord of the Admiralty I was never a member of the Cabinet. The noble Lord must have been referring to the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Rathcavan—who, I take it, was a member of the Cabinet of Northern Ireland. He shakes his head but surely he deserved that position.
Certainly if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was hoping they would follow his instructions, he was disappointed, because no one could have said that either of those mighty noble Lords confined themselves to questions of economic and cultural relations with Southern Ireland. Nevertheless, I will try to restrain myself, though it may not be altogether possible. For many years I have held strong views on Irish questions and have expressed them freely in
504
speech and in writing, even on one occasion inflicting 100,000 words at a time on the public. My position to-day is rather like that of a young man who wrote a letter to a counsellor on a woman's paper. His letter ran roughly as follows:
"Dear friend, for some time I have been trying to please my fiancée by making myself as much like Adam Faith as possible. I have had my hair nibbled in front."—
that, of course, would be beyond some of us in these later days—
"Now she tells me she fancies someone more mature, like the Duke of Bedford. Will you please tell me how I am to set about imitating him? "
Your Lordships will see me in the capacity of someone trying to be as mature as possible, as much like the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, as possible, or indeed any other noble Duke —say, the noble Duke who I am so glad is to answer this debate. If I am duller than I should wish, it may come partly from nature and also because it has been imposed upon me.
I shall say little about cultural questions, but I hope that if I pass them over rather rapidly that will not be put down to lack of interest. I am greatly honoured to belong to a Committee which is appealing in this country, and is responsible for the British part of the appeal, on behalf of Trinity College. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has left us for the moment, but what he said on that was of the utmost value. My elder brother, who I hasten to point out is a staunch Irish Protestant and was at one time a senator, has run a theatre in Dublin and in other parts of Ireland for many years; so I am not lacking in interest in Irish culture.
I pass over the religious field, inseparable though it is from any discussion of Irish culture, except just to say that nothing could do more in the long run to bring our two people together than greater understanding and sympathy between the main Christian communions. And I cannot refrain from paying my respectful and very sincere tribute to a certain memorable visit which will be in the minds of many of us here. But perhaps the House would rather hear from me, if at all, on the economic side. I am chairman of a clearing bank founded by Daniel O'Connell, with branches in all parts of

505
Ireland. I must not engage in what is called a "plug", but I cannot help mentioning that part of my credentials. We are represented in Northern Ireland but not as strongly as I could wish. We are engaged on a policy of expansion there, so if the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, wonders whether I am blind and deaf to the charms of his part of Ireland, let me assure him that I am well aware of the old saying:
"Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also."
And so I am full of good will and keen interest in Northern Ireland—which I hope will be reciprocated.
Banking and Rugby football—and, I should add, a common aversion to Lady Chatterley's Lover— are attributes which overrun the Border in Northern Ireland. It would be tempting for me (though not pleasant for your Lordships) to unload a mass of statistics about the development of the Irish economy and Anglo-Irish trade. I will resist that temptation except to point out that British exports to Ireland—and when I say "Ireland" the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, will forgive me if I use the expression as meaning the Irish Republic, because, in fact, I am anxious to use the right word—are running at a rate of about £1 00 million a year, and in return we in this country are buying from Southern Ireland—leaving out the North for the moment—something between £80 million and £90 million a year.
Professor Jewkes the Oxford Professor of Economic Organisation, recently pointed out the importance of the trade of each country to the other. No doubt it is true that the smaller country—the Irish Republic—is not as likely to be as important in a trade sense to the larger one—Britain—as Britain is to the smaller. I should point out, however—and this point has not come up in the debate, though it is fundamental for those who are concerned with running the economic life of Ireland —that the presence of a wealthy country like Britain so close to the shores of Ireland is not an unmixed blessing. It brings advantages and disadvantages, as well. It virtually imposes upon Ireland the effort to maintain the standard of life which the Irish Republic must maintain if her population is not to disappear or very greatly diminish.
I am sure that, on balance, both countries benefit, and benefit greatly, from
506
the free movement of population between the two; but the really grave long-term problem facing Ireland's economic planners is how to maintain the population. For good or ill, it would be much easier (I am not saying on balance it would be a pleasanter situation), though it would mean a low standard of life, if Ireland were several hundred miles away. That is an absolutely basic condition of all Irish planning.
In spite of all her problems—and we in this country have plenty at the moment —things are going pretty well on Ireland's economic front. I do not want to embark on an invidious comparison between the situation in the South and that in the North. I am hopeful that both will do well, and equally well. Per head of the population, the North is a richer community—I would not deny that. But while her wealth is greater it would seem that just at this particular moment the North is confronted with more acute difficulties than the South. I do not take any pleasure in that and I hope those difficulties will he overcome. I can never remember, in my lifetime, a time when the economic prospects of the Irish Republic were so bright.
If I may quote Professor Jewkes again —and he has no Irish connections I know of, except that I think he advises at least one great firm which operates there; but he is an excellent professor and is quite dispassionate—he says that in the case of Ireland:
"We are discussing a country which is instinctively and stubbornly disposed to put first things first. The great debate within Ireland About major economic strategy is being conducted at the high level which befits a country possessing first-class economists, an admirable array of economic statistics and a set of basic economic documents, both public and private…which have set out the issues with a rare combination of analytical power and business acumen."
So Professor Jewkes considers the problems there are being faced in a most sensible fashion.
I have no Irish Party politics, and there are good men on all sides there, but, by general consent, the country possesses in Mr. Lemass a Minister of good will and much realistic statesmanship. And I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth paid a tribute which I thought, if I may say so, came very much from the heart to Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera has been the

507
centre of many disputes in the course of forty years of public controversy, but to-day he surely is regarded all the world over as a man of unexampled or, at any rate, unsurpassed integrity and idealism.
Those of us who are explaining the Irish problem (though I hope I am not putting matters from one point of view only) are not to-day coming to the House to plead the cause of an oppressed victim, as it was pleaded with incomparable eloquence by Mr. Gladstone in 1886. The noble Viscount will remember those words because he is, I am quite sure, soaked in great orators. Mr. Gladstone said,
"Ireland stands at your Bar expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant."
Well, that was true at that time. There is a picture in a passage here of this House throwing out, a few years later, the second Home Rule Bill, by, I think, 419 votes to 41—a terrible error, as I think most of us would regard it now. But that, in a sense, belongs to the past.
I myself, in my own book on the Irish Treaty, fifty years after Mr. Gladstone and after his great speech, 25 years ago ended as follows:
"Whatever England's policy, it remains for Ireland to do herself justice as a nation. For that she has not yet done. Whatever Ireland's policy, it remains for England to make atonement. For that she has not yet made."
I wrote those words 25 years ago and I have no desire to unsay them. But we are not coming down to this House this afternoon to talk that particular language. We are discussing these matters to-day not in terms of supplication or recrimination, but in an effort to see where good relations can be further improved by any methods that are of mutual advantage.
I am anxious to say as little as humanly possible about Irish partition and Irish unity this afternoon, but I feel that I have been given perhaps some slight excuse in what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan. So far as I am concerned, I hope he will intervene far more often in our debates and return to these subjects. However, if I said absolutely nothing about the unity of Ireland I think there would be thought to be something positively sinister about it, so may I say these few sentences? I take it for granted that no solution can ever be arrived at which is not accepted voluntarily by Northern Ireland. That is the
508
beginning of all wisdom in the matter. A great British Government servant—I hesitate to indicate him more precisely, but he is a Member of the House, a man to whom Ireland has much reason to be grateful—said to me many years ago that the only rational solution was the political unity of Ireland and the strategic unity of the British Isles. And certainly one would think so if one looked at the map.
Since he said that to me we have seen many developments. The Commonwealth has assumed new and ever more liberal forms of partnership. Ireland has left it. I have often wondered whether that would have occurred if the question of Ireland's leaving the Commonwealth had arisen just after the Indian solution was reached instead of just before. I think it was one of the tragic accidents of history that the problem became so acute in the Irish case before the Indian solution was arrived at. But certainly the Commonwealth to-day is very different from the old Empire against which Irish nationalists struggled for so long. Ireland has gained (as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said) new prestige through her Presidency of the United Nations Assembly; and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth for what be said about Mr. Boland, an old son of Trinity College, as Lord Shackleton will be aware. Ireland has played a part in the Congo which has brought much admiration, and she has responded to her losses in a spirit which every Member of this House would applaud. At this moment I think that a Bill is being passed through the Irish Parliament which will enable her to replace her troops in the Congo when the time comes; and I hope and believe that she is setting an example which other parts of the world will follow.
Some of us felt a little while ago that the real danger to Ireland—a danger arising through circumstances which were not a fault of hers, and which would become really serious if it continued—was a kind of mental isolationism which one found inclined to grow up. In the last few years, particularly under the impact of recent events, there are unmistakable signs of Ireland's breaking out of any isolationism in thought and rededicating herself to an historic international mission.

509
Is it possible, my Lords, to visualise a lasting political solution? Of all the proposals put forward, that which came some little while ago from Cardinal D'Alton seemed to me far the best. This is not the time to try to lay down precise arrangements in any dogmatic fashion, but the conditions of settlement seem to me to be crystal clear. Whatever the rights and wrongs, it is in my eyes inconceivable that Irish unity will ever be achieved while Ireland remains outside the Commonwealth. On the other hand, if she comes inside I am convinced that all the forces of nature and good sense will lead the men of the North to see their destiny in a 'united country. If that is the right answer, Ireland, a country as proud as England, with a people as ancient as England's, cannot be expected to come forward cap in hand. It should be made publicly clear to her in advance that she would be truly welcome.
I appreciate that it is difficult for anybody of real consequence in the South of Ireland, or in the North of Ireland or in this country, to give a lead in this matter. Everybody, it seems to me, is waiting for everybody else. No one can tell what response would be evoked. But I am passionately convinced that what I have just said had to be said by someone, and I can only hope that your Lordships will forgive me for introducing it into this very rare discussion on Ireland
To be candid—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, greatly —it is very difficult, one might say almost impossible, to discuss the economics of either part of Ireland without some reference to the political framework, for reasons which must have come out this afternoon and are bound to conic out still more plainly as we proceed. The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, signed in April this year, made provision—one of its most valuable features—for regular consultations between British and Irish officials. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has suggested, if I understood him aright, an ad hoc inquiry which would sharpen and focus those discussions. I cannot help quoting in that connection a dispassionate judge, Professor Jewkes again, when he concluded this recent essay from which I have quoted. He said:
510
"It still seems irrefutable that the obstacles to commerce between Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, do not make sense"
I do not know what Professor Jewkes's politics are, if he has any, but he is still speaking as an economist. He continues:
"Could there be anything but advantage in the three Governments setting up a joint expert committee instructed to find ways of removing the obstacles?"
That would be a tripartite expert committee. One would certainly think not. In all humility, I cannot help hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, would not regard this proposal —the one of Professor Jewkes—with quite the same suspicion that has been aroused in his mind by various suggestions for talks which Mr. Lemass has recently been putting forward.
There is, of course, plenty of cooperation in various economic matters between the North and the South of Ireland on the official level. Lord Brookeborough said recently at the Queen's University—and I am quoting from the Belfast Telegraph, with which I was supplied, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear, by the office which he quoted earlier—
"that he was not against the principle of cooperation with Eire, but what his Government was opposed to was any move which would weaken Northern ties with or detach the North from Great Britain. And Mr. Lemass's offers on trade concessions clearly have this object in mind."
Whether Lord Brookeborough is right in his interpretation of Mr. Lemass's intentions—and I have no grounds for saying that he is—he is clearly, if I may say so without impertinence, entitled, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, to hold his view, and is not unlikely to go on holding it. That is a situation which we must probably regard as a fact.
Let us assume—though, of course, I do not myself assume it—that it is in Northern Ireland's best interests that the Border should remain. Let us assume that for the purposes of this debate and for the purposes of any subsequent discussions concerning mutual economic benefit. If the Border has to stay, cannot all concerned at least make the best of the status quo without the fear that trade arrangements of mutual advantage would be a first step towards political obliteration? I raise the question: it is not for

511
me to answer it. I hope that what I have said on this point, though not on the wider issue, will perhaps draw some comment from the noble Duke, though I appreciate that I am really asking a question, part of the answer to which must come from the Northern Ireland Government. Therefore, there is a limit to what the noble Duke could say about the matter.
If bilateral talks on trade arrangements between North and South are felt in the North to be too dangerous, then why not these tripartite talks; or, if you prefer, a tripartite expert inquiry? No one, I suppose, would seriously expect the leaders of the South, of the Irish Republic, to renounce all hope of Irish unity for all time. One could not expect them to say, "We will never try to bring about unification". But I myself—though I am not speaking in any sense as some sort of mouthpiece for leaders in the South of Ireland; I am speaking simply from what would be common sense, and from my knowledge of the land—feel confident that, if there were any triparte inquiry of that kind, and if the Southern leaders would agree to enter it, they would enter it without prejudice to the ultimate arrangements concerning the unity. They would enter it simply as a way of improving the economic position of all parts of Ireland.
My Lords, I said earlier that I could never remember a time when the economic future of Ireland was so bright, and I would add that I can never remember a time when the feeling between the two peoples was so good. I was brought up partly in Ireland and partly in England. In those days no one could pretend that there was not a great deal of anti-British feeling in Ireland and a certain amount of contemptuous feeling towards Ireland in this country, but I would say that there has been a marvellous improvement in the past 40 years or so. That abstraction England—behaved abominably to the Irish people for hundreds of years. That is the lesson of history, of which many of us are aware. But I believe that, in their hearts, most Irish people not only admire the British for the part they played in the war, but are grateful for the British attitude of restraint towards Ireland during that time. It may be said that that gratitude is not often expressed. I do
512
not think proud nations express gratitude very much to each other; but I believe that the restraint exercised by this country during the war won us a new place in the esteem of Ireland. Be that as it may, I believe that the possibilities of friendship between our two peoples, these two democratic, Christian peoples, are unlimited in an age when Christianity and democracy are struggling alike for their existence. I hope and pray that this debate will have served that end, and I am sure that no other purpose than that will be in the mind of the noble Duke when he comes to reply.
4.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for putting down this Motion to-day, and for giving us the opportunity of a very interesting debate. I think it is high time we had such a debate in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, has said, it is many years since Ireland was mentioned. She is almost our nearest neighbour, and I, for one, do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that a subject like this should not be discussed here. I consider that your Lordships' House, which can deal with these matters objectively and without rancour, and with a certain amount of imagination, too, is the best possible forum for debates of this kind. I hope that we shall have many such debates, not only on this subject but also on many other subjects which may be thought to be rather delicate, because very often a great deal of good can be done, in spite of the possibility of some harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said during the course of his speech that there was a danger at one time of Ireland becoming somewhat, as it were, inbred. Perhaps that is not the expression he used, but he meant that they were looking inwards rather than outwards. That was not by any means their fault. For many years they were not a member of the United Nations, and they were not admitted to many of the international organisations. That situation has now gone; and, with other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to congratulate both the Republic of Ireland and Mr. Boland upon the great honour which has fallen to him as President of the United Nations Assembly,

513
and on the way in which he has conducted a most difficult task. No previous President has had to grapple with Mr. Khrushchev, or anyone like him, or has had to deal, in those circumstances, with people of such great world calibre (or, anyway, such world figures) as Mr. Khrushchev and others; and the way he carried out his task is a great tribute to the capacity of Mr. Boland, and reflects credit upon his country. I should also like to pay tribute to the Irish Government for the way in which they have sent troops to the Congo. This is the first time that any Irish troops have ever left the country—officially, anyway—and I think it is a matter upon which they deserve our thanks and our congratulations. It will be a great experience to the troops, and also to the Irish Government.
I must say that I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, in that I thought that both the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were rather negative. I am quite certain that my noble friend did not put this Motion down merely to discuss the question whether Northern Ireland was better off than Southern Ireland. We know that it is; largely because, as Lord Rathcavan said, it gets a very great deal of help from this country. Of course it is better off; but my noble friend did not put this Motion down from that point of view at all. It is rather surprising to me that none of the speakers in this debate has touched on a point which is very much in the minds of the Irish. I went over to Ireland last year and did a tour. I met a very large number of people—Ministers, publicans, poets and pugilists. I met all sorts of characters in the course of that tour, and one thing they all mentioned was that they were Celts, and they welcomed me as a fellow Celt. They might have been Czechoslovakian for all that has been said by noble Lords speaking in this debate. Not even the noble Lord from Northern Ireland has mentioned that this is a Celtic nation. They feel very proud of the fact that they are a great part of the Celtic heritage. Not a word has been said about that, and I should like to rectify the omission.
Your Lordships will have noticed that all the time we have been talking about Ireland discussion has centred upon Eng-
514
land and Ireland, or Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What about Wales and Ireland? What about the Highlands of Scotland and Ireland? What about the other Celtic countries and Ireland? We have many things in common. I was particularly glad to see that last week the Minister of State for Wales, Lord Brecon, visited Scotland. It was the first time in history that any Welsh Minister (not that there has been a Welsh Minister for very long in history, I may say, but even during the period when there has been one) has ever visited another Celtic country. He went there with Lord Craigton, who, unfortunately (I am sure not because of this incident) was immediately taken ill.
Lord Brecon and Lord Craigton went round the country and saw conditions in Scotland, and they came to the conclusion that there were many things in common between Wales and Scotland, as indeed there are. And now officials from Wales are going to Scotland to study the conditions further. Had Lord Brecon been here, and I regret to see that he is not, I should have liked to ask him whether he would now carry on the work which he started and visit the Republic of Ireland, so that he may study there questions affecting the two countries; because they are very similar.
For example, take the situation in the rural areas. There is a declining population; there is a culture which is always being impinged upon by great forces from outside; there is infertility of the soil. There are many problems in common. So far as the West of Ireland is concerned, they are very much in a quandary as to what to do about their cattle population. Nothing has been mentioned about that, but when I was over there that was the thing they talked to me about most. Because unless they can clear bovine tuberculosis from Ireland, it will be very difficult to sell their stock over here. Indeed, in County Clare, the proposition was suggested to me that they might be able to make the whole area west of the River Shannon a tuberculosis-free area, and ship their cattle from Galway to the Welsh ports. In the old days, of course, we in Wales took an enormous number of Irish cattle, but that is more difficult now with the existence of this bovine tuberculosis. That is the sort of problem that I should

515
like Lord Brecon to study on the spot. How can we in Wales help them with their cattle problems, having regard to the fact that they have not yet cleared bovine tuberculosis? We have been able to help them, and this shows that what I am saying is not just "hot air" but has a basis of fact. One of our great plant and grassland specialists—and we in Wales have a great deal of experience with that sort of thing—Mr. Moses Griffith, has been to Ireland, and has done a tremendous amount of work to help them with their grassland.
Now I come to the tourist trade. The Tourist Board spend £500,000 a year in Ireland. It is a well-established industry there, and is very well run indeed. In fact, they can teach us in Wales a good deal about running a tourist industry. We know a good deal about it, but we have not the finance. The Government gives us very little, if any, finance, and therefore, we cannot put into practice many of the excellent projects which the Irish Tourist Board adopt. Furthermore, we are handicapped by the fact that the United Kingdom has never been prepared to establish the links between Wales and Ireland. We were pressing for years for an air car-ferry from the Island of Anglesey to Dublin. That was put off from year to year, and finally one was started from Speke in Liverpool. I myself pressed in your Lordships' House a year or two ago for an air-ferry from Cork to Pembrokeshire. I am glad to say that there is now a possibility of a passenger service, though not an air car-ferry, between those two places. But at least, they have gone some way, and this will be of some consequence.
Finally, culture. When people talk of culture in Ireland, what they mean is Celtic culture. It is very nice, of course, to have things like the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells, and so on; and I am all for that sort of thing. But to my mind culture, to a large extent, is international, and we are very glad to see various products of national culture coming from one country to another. However, in order to make a contribution to the international school of culture, it is essential to have a national culture; and in Ireland that means Celtic culture. Again, I am surprised that the noble Lords from Ireland who have spoken did not mention
516
this enormous flowering of dramatic play-writing which there is in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned it: he mentioned a number of artists who are of great promise in Ireland. Some of them, indeed, are of more than promise—they are mature artists. Cyril Cusack was one; and there are others. At the present time in Wales and Ireland, for some peculiar reason (I do not know why), we have a marvellous school of playwrights growing up. We have a great burst of genius, as it were, among a number of young actors and actresses in both countries. We have great things in common between us, and I am sure that we can help each other a great deal.
I would only wish that I could persuade my compatriots in Wales (I regret to say that as yet I have met with no success, though one may still hope) to broaden out the Royal National Eisteddfod—a cultural occupation of ours—so that it would cater for the six Celtic nations, of which the three main are, of course, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the three others, Brittany, Cornwall and Man. They all come together at the Celtic Congress, which this year was held at Aberystwyth, the President being the Chief Justice of Ireland. I hope that we in Wales will be able to broaden out our own cultural institutions and allow these other Celtic nations to take advantage of this to help us in our own Celtic cultural association.
My Lords, that is almost all I have to say. Once more I thank my noble friend for putting down this Motion. I am sure that it has been a very useful debate, and that it will be looked at with great interest, and heard with great interest, in Ireland. Perhaps there is one circumstance which might be interesting to your Lordships, which I should mention. That is that the radio programmes received in Ireland, particularly on the Eastern side but also on the Western, include, apart from their own programmes, programmes from Wales. Therefore I dare say that the Welsh programmes will carry something of this debate, and the people in Ireland will hear something of this debate. Their papers, I imagine, will also carry part of our debate, and I am sure that they will be interested in it. I only hope that the Dail will have a similar debate, because it is all to the good. I believe

517
that we, should do everything we can to draw closer to the Irish. The old wrongs will then be forgotten and new friendships forged.
5.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in replying to this most useful and interesting debate, I must begin by declaring an interest in the subject, because my family have had, and I am very happy to say still have, property in the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, there is no part of the year to which my family and I look fprward more than that part which we spend in County Waterford.
Much has been said in to-day's debate of what the Republic has to offer to this country, and indeed to the world. To these would add that she provides salmon fishing and, at any rate in my part of the country, a superb climate for gardening. As I have said in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion, I consider myself something of an expert on leisure and I know of no two better ways of spending one's leisure than in fishing and in gardening. And for the many happy hours I have spent in these two activities within the shores of the Republic, I am much in debt to that lovely country. Therefore I most warmly welcome what has been said to further the good relations between the two countries, and in saying this, I say it not only on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but also as one who is happy to have such close personal relations with both countries. I am most grateful, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for instigating to-day's debate, and I feel sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel that we have had a useful afternoon. Since the debate was instigated by a member of a family whose name, I suppose, one might say is a household word in the world of drink, perhaps we may describe the debate as "heady stuff."
Broadly speaking, noble Lords who have spoken have divided their remarks into three categories—political, economic and cultural—and I should like to follow them in this. I will deal with the first heading, which will be by far the shortest—that is, the poli-
518
tical aspects of to-day's debate. Some reference, though not a great deal, has been made to the question of partition. It is not my intention to touch upon this subject, because I am most anxious, like other noble Lords, to stick to the terms of the Motion, though I would say that the House listened with great interest to, and I am sure was deeply moved by, what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenhann, had to say on the Republic and the Commonwealth. I would only add that of course membership of the Commonwealth is not a matter for only the two countries; there are others to be considered. I would also say in general on the question of partition that the policy of the United Kingdom is well known and is embodied in legislation which safeguards the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that I should not be furthering the aim of closer economic and cultural association between the two countries were I to say more on this subject, and it is certainly not my intention to rake over the past—a most unrewarding pastime—because, after all, it is with the happy future relations between the two countries that we are concerned this afternoon.
As to the economic relations between the two countries, as your Lordships will know, and as was pointed out this afternoon, they are governed by three Trade Agreements. The first of these, which may be said to be the main Agreement, was signed in April, 1938, and under it each country extends special preferential treatment to the other's goods. Nearly all the Republic's agricultural and industrial products are allowed into the United Kingdom free of duty or quantitative restrictions. In return, we enjoy in the Republic tariff preference over a wide range of our exports
The Agreement signed on July 3l. 1948, made certain modifications to the main Agreement, particularly with reference to the balance of payments difficulties of both countries and to the United Kingdom bulk purchasing of agricultural products. It left undisturbed the provisions relating to preferential treatment to which I have just referred. In these circumstances, and having regard to the obligations of the United Kingdom under G.A.T.T., our membership of the European Free Trade Association and to the importance of safeguarding the special

519
position of the members of the Commonwealth as trading partners of the United Kingdom, the scope for still closer economic association with the Republic of Ireland is limited. Nevertheless, our economic relations with the Republic are kept under review. In fact, the latest of the three Trade Agreements, which was signed in April of this year, contains provisions under which representatives of the two Governments meet at least once a year, and at any other time at the request of either Government, to discuss the trading relations between the two countries and, in particular, to exchange information and views on agricultural policies and production trends. A meeting took place in London in September in accordance with this arrangement and a further meeting took place only yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, mentioned.
Of the other provisions contained in the most recent Agreement, perhaps the most important are those referring to livestock imports to this country from the Republic. The Agreement states that:
"On and after 13th April, 1960, attested cattle imported from the Irish Republic and fattened in the United Kingdom for not less than three months qualify for payments under the fatstock guarantee scheme at the same rates as cattle bred in the United Kingdom."
A further article provides for the Government of the Irish Republic to initiate a further review of protective duties and other import restrictions applied in the Republic of Ireland on goods produced and manufactured in the United Kingdom. Steps have already been taken to initiate a review of duties on certain United Kingdom exports to the Republic. Further reviews will follow on items to be agreed between the two Governments. Thus, the conclusion of this 1960 Agreement is evidence of the cordial way in which we are able on both sides to adapt our trade arrangements in our common interests.
It is understandable that some industries may complain about the disparity between the duty free entry accorded to Irish manufacturers exporting to the United Kingdom and the comparatively high rate of duty applied to their products entering the Republic. We can sympathise with these industries for feel-
520
ing aggrieved at this disparity. Its existence is justified, however, when one considers the overall exchange of advantages contained in the Trade Agreements, which are conducive to a high level of trade in each direction, figures of which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. Any industry adversely affected by this disparity is recommended to consider consulting the Board of Trade with the purpose of obtaining a review of the particular duty thaw is affecting it.
Before leaving this aspect of trade between the two countries, may I say a word on what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had to say on the proposal for linking farm prices in the two countries, together with concerted agricultural marketing policies in return for certain unspecified trade concessions to the United Kingdom. As I have already said, there was a thorough joint examination of the whole field of economic relations between the two countries prior to the drawing up and signing of the Trade Agreement of April of this year. During these consultations a proposal of the kind to which the noble Lord has alluded was then scrutinised. The pros and cons of it are thus already known to the United Kingdom Government and, in any case, since the machinery for close consultation in trade matters between the two countries is firmly established, should either country wish to re-examine the setting up of something of this kind, a meeting could always be called for the purpose.
As to the matter of freight rates, which two noble Lords have complained of as being too high, I would just say this. It is Her Majesty's Government's firm and long standing view that freight rates and other such aspects of sea transportation can best be left for commercial negotiations between shippers and shipping companies. I have learned with interest that recently a Shippers' Council has been set up in the Irish Republic, and we regard this as a development of considerable value. Since this Council has now been set up, I wonder whether there might be referred to it not only the question of freight rates but also the matter of inadequacy of travel arrangements between the two countries, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, particularly in regard to travel by the

521
sea routes. I hope that when this Council has found its feet it will perhaps be able to deal with those two matters.
We in the United Kingdom understand the difficulties that have prompted the Government of the Republic to put into effect its current programme of economic expansion, with its emphasis on increasing productivity, on improving marketing in agricultural production and on concentrating industrial investment on those products that can, in the long run, hold their own in a world of increasing free trade. We are glad to note that a considerable measure of success has attended the programme so far. It is, of course, natural that in order to lessen the country's dependance on agriculture as its main source of export earnings, the Government of the Irish Republic wish to do what they can to diversify their country's economy. The establishment of industries which would contribute to these earnings, however, requires the investment of capital on a much greater scale than is available from the internal sources alone. The Government of the Republic, therefore, wish to attract the overseas investor. With this in view they enacted lams in 1959 with the object of encouraging the setting up of new industries in places, including the Shannon Free Airport area, outside existing development areas.
The financial inducements provided under this legislation, which include exemption, under certain conditions, from taxation on profits for a period of years, attracted foreign capital from a number of countries. But—and I should like to stress this point—no advantages are offered by the Irish Government to any other country which are not equally available to United Kingdom investors. While there are indications that the United Kingdom's share in new investment in the Republic was less than that of some other foreign countries in 1959 and in the early part of 1960, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in this connection to look at this matter in a broader sphere. The picture over the past 21½years shows that the United Kingdom are still an important source of external capital investment in the Republic. Out of 88 new factory projects which materialised in the Republic during that 21½ years period, 25 were sponsored by Irish groups in association with foreign groups, 16 by British, 14 by
522
German, 12 by the United States and 5 by Netherlands firms. The remaining 16 new projects were shared among 6 other European countries, South Africa and Japan with one alluded to by a noble Lord.
Arising from this, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised the question of foreign manufacturers' obtaining duty-free entry for their goods into the United Kingdom by having them manufactured by their subsidiaries in the Republic. I think this is a point of some importance, and I should like to explain to the House the conditions under which this duty-free entry can be obtained. For imports to qualify for duty-free entry into the United Kingdom, importers must satisfy our Customs that the goods conform to the statutory requirements as to Commonwealth origin and content. These involve the addition off a substantial element of value in the Republic or elsewhere in the preference area. For almost all the goods which we import from the Republic the addition is 50 per cent. The Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Irish Republic stated in the Dail on June 2 of this year:
"I should like to take the opportunity of warning any industrialists who may be tempted to get around the 50 per cent, requirement that my Department will co-operate in dealing with them … certainly we shall have no hesitation in asking the Revenue Commissioners to make a full disclosure to the Revenue Officers of Britain of any of these activities."
He then made reference to the degree of trust and confidence obtaining between officers on both sides to ensure
"that Ireland will not be used as a back door for the entry of certain types of goods to the British market."
Moreover, we have agreed in our latest trade agreement to consult together to find equitable solutions for any cases of special difficulty that may arise in our trade.
Before I leave the economic side of the debate I should like to say a word or two about the tripartite trade talks mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rathcavan, and also by the noble Lord opposite. I can only endorse what my noble friend Lord Rathcavan had to say on this subject. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Her trade interests are covered by United Kingdom trade interests and by

523
the existing machinery of consultation, to which I have already alluded. To show how well covered Northern Ireland interests are, Northern Irish officials take part in these consultations and in the drawing up of the Trade Agreements. That, I think, shows that there is really no room for tripartite trade talks. Northern Ireland's interests are fully covered by the existing talks that do take place and will take place in the future.
To turn to the cultural side, as noble Lords in all parts of the House have said, the cultural contacts between the two countries are many and wide. As has been said, British theatrical companies visit Dublin regularly. This year the Old Vic took part in the Dublin Festival, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, said, they presented the plays they are to take to Russia next year. Thus we may say that it gives a new twist to the old saying, for what is news in Dublin to-day will be news in Moscow to-morrow. I am only sorry that they did not mingle together with the approval of the noble Lord. The Sadler's Wells and the Royal Ballet go to Dublin, as do the Hallé Orchestra and the B.B.C. Orchestra. I am sure that the more these splendid cultural organisations can cross the Irish sea, the better it will be. Reference was made to the musical festivals at Wexford and at Cork. Here again there are invariably British performers at these festivals, as there are when musical festivals take place in Dublin. They do not take place there every year, but they do from time to time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, there are many students from the United Kingdom in Ireland and from other parts of the Commonwealth. I understand that about one-third of the students at Trinity College, Dublin, come from the United Kingdom. In this connection, it is perhaps of interest to note that Trinity College still retains its statutory right to a copy of every work published in the United Kingdom. Whether or not the College has seen, or will see, fit to exert this right in so far as to acquire a copy of the volume which is to be discussed in this House at the close of this debate is a matter upon which I can only speculate. I might
524
add that, in return for the right to which I have referred, five British libraries retain statutory rights to a copy of every work published in the Irish Republic.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made reference to the forthcoming exhibition of the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels, which are to be shown side by side. I join with him and other noble Lords in hoping that this country will support this exhibition, as the money from it will go towards Trinity College; and as we in the United Kingdom have a large interest in the welfare of Trinity College, I hope that we shall see fit to support the exhibition in the strongest possible way.
While Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the recent agreement for the Lane pictures (it was entirely a matter for the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Commissioners of Public Works in Dublin) Her Majesty's Government naturally most warmly welcome the agreement that has at last been found to this very thorny problem. The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, made reference Ito the benefits we in this country have had in the past from Irish plays and Irish actors and actresses. I would warmly endorse the words of the noble Lord, who said that this benefit was still continuing. The English stage is fortunate to have an injection of Irish culture and Irish acting ability; and indeed, the performance of Siohban McKenna in The Playboy of the Western World, which is still running, is a fine current example.
One word, if I might, on the professions. Because of its former position as part of the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic retains for its professional people many advantages in the United Kingdom. Medical, dental, veterinary and other degrees given in the Republic receive virtually the same recognition as those of the United Kingdom, and membership of many United Kingdom professional bodies is open to Irish citizens. Reciprocal arrangements apply in the Irish Republic, where doctors and dentists with United Kingdom qualifications are permitted to practice without formalities.
The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, made some allusion to the Arts Council. I

525
think it true to say that the Arts Council does operate in certain ways which benefit the relations between the two countries. For example, it has given help and advice to its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Arts Council. In 1948, it arranged for the showing in London of the Jack B. Yeats Exhibition, and only last year under similar arrangements London was able to see and benefit from the Evie Hone Memorial Exhibition of Stained Glass. Some reference was made to the British Council. The British Council has an adviser in Dublin. His main duties are to look after the interests of, and to help and assist, Commonwealth students who are resident there As this debate has shown, the normal exchanges of all kinds between the United Kingdom and the Republic are very considerable. I feel that noble Lords will agree with me when I say that the Council's resources, which naturally have to be limited, should be deployed in countries with special needs and where this cultural exchange does not normally operate.
I have talked for long enough and, with all your Lordships here, it is my earnest hope that the result of this debate will be an added impetus towards establishing a lastingly happy relationship between the two countries. The past history of the two countries and the happy, close but, perhaps, unusual relationship which exists might surprise those who have read only their history books. I do not want to end on a discordant note, but the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made an inaccurate statement. I believe that he aid, alluding to the Republic, "It is just another foreign country—as foreign as any on the Continent of Europe." That is not the case. The Ireland Act, 1949, lays down that:
…notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom…"
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Duke that it is also not a foreign country in feeling or, indeed in any other respect?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would readily endorse what the noble Lord has said. To my mind, how-
526
ever, this unique relationship can be viewed with great satisfaction. And the fact that I, as a member of the Commonwealth Relations Office, am replying to the debate, rather than a representative of the Foreign Office, shows how very Irish the relationship is. My Lords, what could be happier or more suitable than that?
5.36 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the time is getting on, and you have another debate before you. But before asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Motion I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to come and take part in the debate. If I might keep your Lordships for, at the outside, three or four minutes, to mention one or two things that have been said, I should be grateful for the indulgence.
At the beginning of the debate, I was a little worried, as I think several of your Lordships may have been, that the first two speakers confined themselves almost entirely to reaffirming the position of Northern Ireland—a position of which I am well aware, and which I did not intend to query in any way. Nor would I wish to do so. I think the position is quite clear where the Government of Northern Ireland is concerned. I am aware that economic matters cannot be separated in any way. I think the quotation I made from Mr. Lemass's speech, in which he said that the Government of the Republic have no wish to enter into any arrangements with the British Government which were to the detriment of Northern Ireland, should clear up that point. He made that statement quite clearly and unequivocally.
The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, who I am sure your Lordships' will agree we should like to hear more often (he has taken eleven years to address us, and I hope that it will not be another eleven years before he does so again), put up a virtuoso performance which I enjoyed very much indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a little depressing at first. He seemed to deplore the debate at all. He thought it was better to leave tricky problems alone. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, later said—and I agree with him—that thorny problems are not solved by being kept in a drawer. It is the ostrich system, and personally I do

527
not believe in it. I believe that if problems can be pulled out into the open, and discussed in a reasonable way by reasonable people they will be solved. That was the basis of our Motion, and we kept it, so far as we could, on the economic and cultural level which in time we hope may come to solve all differences.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, made a most agreeable speech, for which I was most grateful. He said a lot of nice things. He talked about the charm of the Irish, and if I might keep your Lordships for one moment I should like to tell you this. When I first went to Ireland, the house I was going to move into was full of workmen. Weeks and months went past, and I could not get rid of them; and eventually we had to move in, too, which I believe is the classic remedy. It had no effect. We all settled down in a happy family, and the frequency of cups of tea became absolutely extraordinary. After a week I had to go to London, and on returning I sent for the foreman and addressed him in a peremptory and military way, and said, "How did you get on while I was away?" He said, "Ah, we missed you". My Lords, what can you do with people like that?
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that I had almost written his speech for him. I am quite incapable of doing such a thing. The noble Lord addressed us with great brilliance and eloquence, and he brought up "the 64,000-dollar question". It is too late in the evening to pursue it. He put it, I thought, clearly and sincerely. I think we can leave it on the record for your Lordships to read again to-morrow. I think the feeling in some people's minds that closer economic ties between the Government of this country and that of the Republic will loosen the ties with the North, is quite wrong. Rather is it the other way round: it will strengthen them rather than loosen them, and that has been one of my objects to-day. Lord Ogmore, in his speech, confined himself mainly to the importance of being a Celt. I am sure that it is important. He is one himself, and there is no doubt that the Irish culture is a culture of which they are very proud.
The noble Duke gave us a very comprehensive and reassuring reply, for
528
which I am most grateful. He spoke about certain machinery which was recently set up for the review and discussion, at the request of the Government at any time, of any economic matters that may perhaps (though I am not sure that it will) make the ad hoc committee of experts I advocated unnecessary. I say I am not sure that it will, because there is a difference between having experts from outside, as opposed to civil servants who are concerned in the matter all the time and may perhaps at some stage fail to see the wood for the trees. Nevertheless he made a reassuring reply and I am grateful for it. When I put this Motion down several people came to me and said, "What is behind this Motion of yours?" My Lords, there is nothing behind it, but I very much hope that there may be something before it I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE "LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER" CASE
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the verdict of the court in regard to the book entitled Lady Chatterley's Lover; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take such steps as are possible to ban for all time writings of this nature, particularly those of the author of this book; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to make one or two preliminary remarks before I get down to my Motion. My Lords, what are we coming to? This is a very serious matter. We have the verdict of a British jury which many of us, certainly I myself, deplore. We also have certain recommendations in the Wolfenden Report to which I equally take the greatest exception. What are we coming to? It is all very well for one noble Lord to laugh. This is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious issue that we are facing to-day.
It appears that we can think, we can write, we can print, we can publish, we can act and we can recommend whatever we like. Talk about liberty! This is not a question where liberty comes in at all; it is a question of licence. Have we

529
the licence to do anything we like in any direction? I hold a very strong view on giving unbridled licence to everybody in the country, and I am very anxious lest our world become depraved and indecent, to put it mildly. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us the other day that there is no appeal from the verdict of the jury. Surely, if the British Government and the Ministers concerned wish to bring in legislation to alter this state of affairs they can do so, if they put their hands to the plough.
Let me get to something rather different. Love—and I mean the word in every sense—is one of the strongest influences in the world for good, but if it abused it seems to me that it becomes the work of Satan, indecent and quite dreadful. This question of the true love of one man to another, of one people to another, of one society to another, is being, in my view, undermined by the sort of thing that is going on. It is an affront to the public mind, an insult to our social and moral standards, on which we, my Lords, used to be the leaders. There is nothing finer than the devotion of man to woman, in fact the emotion of devotion between the sexes. What do we have? We have the well-known saying at the time of tragedy, at the time of ships sinking, "Women and children first". That is a sentiment which is the strongest thing in our nature, and I believe that we are now faced with the threat that all those fine feelings that I have tried to describe will he undermined.
The policy of the Government, as was so admirably set out in the gracious Speech, is to encourage and advance the social welfare of our people. Is this sort of thing going to do that? It is said that there will be encouragement and expansion of youth services: is this sort of thing going to do that? They say there should be physical recreation for the young: is this sort of thing going to help towards that end, that splendid end, that the Government are aiming at? What I have referred to in my Motion cannot help the minds of young people. No good can come of it. As I see it, only evil can come of it. What object can possibly be gained by advertising and exploiting private intimacy of the nature described in these
530
writings? And I will come presently to another book which I have not even now made up my mind I am going to quote, because it is perfectly appalling. These writings are quite terrible, in my view, and I am sure in the minds of your Lordships. I have had letters from all parts of the country, and another one this morning, with splendid ideas in it. The public generally are horrified at what has taken place.
There is in the House of Commons a Bill which has just been initiated there —it has only received, I am afraid, the First Reading; I do not know where it will get to—but which is a very proper Bill to carry out the ideas I, and I am sure many others, have. It was introduced by Sir Charles Taylor, and. as I understand it, there are many Members of Parliament—quite a number, of different Parties—who are supporting it.
Let us get down to the realities and the origin of this deplorable book. It emanates from the warped mind of the author. The story he tells is pure invention; it never actually happened. I believe that at one time this book was banned, and then it was freed. I wonder why, and by whom? It is evident to me that the Director of Public Prosecutions must have considered it obscene, otherwise this court action, with its resultant verdict, would never have taken place. Having put down the Motion following the verdict, I found that I had not read the book, so I immediately tried to get a copy, and eventually managed to borrow one. In a way, I wish I had never read it. It was far worse than anything that I could possibly have thought could be published in this country. It was supported, of course, by the jury and by the witnesses, including, I regret to say, the Bishop of Woolwich. I am in entire agreement and align myself most strongly with what the Archbishop of Canterbury said on that subject. All the letters I have received view the whole of this question as obscene, immoral and, in fact, shocking in every way. All express a deep sense of shock at this disgusting, filthy affront to ordinary decencies. Those are expressions that I have had mentioned in the correspondence which has been sent to me.
Now I come to something that I am not at all sure is not worse than the book mentioned in my Motion. Only this morning I had a magazine sent to me which referred to this book, the title of which is The Man Who Died. I am doubtful whether I can really give your Lordships the theme of that book, but I want to make my case as strong as possible because I want something to be done about this matter. The theme of the book is this—I have made up my mind, and I am going to give it to your Lordships now—that Jesus Christ came down from the Cross alive, that he wandered into the Temple of Isis where he seduced a priestess and she eventually became pregnant. Could there be anything more profane, more blasphemous, than that? Yet this same author wrote that book. It is difficult for me, or for anybody speaking on this subject, to go into the details of the book. We have heard a lot about words with four letters, but that is nothing compared to what one can read in this book; the language of it, the sentences in it, are perfectly dreadful. Then to bring religion into it! The Bishop of Woolwich approved of it; he said it was Holy Communion. It is all very well, but we ought to take this matter very seriously.
I am glad to see that the Lord Archbishop of York has come here to-day to this debate, and I am also glad to see the Lord Bishop of St. Albans, whose name appears on the list of speakers. I had a letter this morning from my friend the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, who says that the Lord Lieutenant of the County within his Diocese has died and he has to attend the funeral. He expresses regret that he cannot be here, and I know that he feels strongly on this subject. Everyone who ms written or spoken to me takes the strongest possible view about this situation, and disapproves of allowing this book to be accessible to family or respectable society. To-day I am an old man. In the earlier days of my life as a miner. I mixed with tough fellows on the frontiers of the Empire, and also through the war; but there is nothing that has been said during my life, nothing that has been brought to my notice, that touches the horrible state of affairs which I see in this situation to-day. We must do something about it.
Some of my friends have said, "You know, Charles, you are late. This thing will die; it will be a nine days' wonder." Let me give your Lordships my experience of the last few days. There was an article in the Sunday Express and another article in the Evening Standard of last week; and yesterday, I think, in the Daily Telegraph yet another article appeared. They are going now to make gramophone discs on the subject. This thing is not dead. We must do everything we can to stop any furtherance of its publication. I cannot believe that the Obscene Publications Act can permit it to be called a classic or that it is a thing of literary merit. It cannot possibly have anything of that sort in it.
Then there is the question, where is the law now? It seemed to me that when divorce proceedings were brought, the question of adultery was the final question. What about that now? In view of the verdict of the court is adultery wrong? Is it something that can be put forward as a reason for divorce? I should like to know about that. I have a letter which asks me to do everything I can to have a new administration of the law. I have spoken longer than I usually do but I feel very strongly about this question, and from what some noble Lords have said to me in the last few weeks on this subject I am sure they feel the same way that I do. I beg my noble and learned friend who is going to reply to do everything he can to try to persuade the Ministers concerned and Her Majesty's Government to do everything possible to prevent the furtherance of what is going on now. I beg to move for Papers.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must apologise for addressing your Lordships twice to-day, and I must say straight away that I do not find this subject, on which feelings run so strongly, the easiest to speak to. I fully acknowledge the strength and sincerity of feeling of the noble Lord who raised this matter to-day. But one of the things he said was: How does it come about that this book, Lady Chatterley's Lover, is published now and was not published in the past? The noble Lord asked, by implication, who was responsible. I will say to him that he, and all of us in the House who passed

533
the Obscene Publications Act in the last Session—passed it without a Division, and freely adopted it—are responsible.
This is an Act which is now on the Statute Book. A case has been brought under it by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not agree with the noble Lord that because the Director of Public Prosecutions brings a case under this Act that case is automatically proven. It is no: proven until a British court of law has passed judgment on it. I believe that in bringing this matter forward—and if it is appropriate and proper for us to do that so soon after passing legislation—we must again look at what we did when we passed the Obscene Publications Act. I have already mentioned that it went through this House without a Division; and, so far as I know, the noble Lord himself made no protest on that occasion. Any noble Lord who feels inclined to-day to protest ought, I think, to give his reasons as to why he did not object to an Act of Parliament which we so freely passed into law.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, surely, the Obscene Publications Act is the very Act which now is being abused and broken by all this. Surely that is so. I do not think it is the fault of the Act itself.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to try to trap the noble Lord in a discussion of this kind, but to say that the Act is being broken when a British jury in a court of law has come to a verdict, is, I think, to suggest that justice is being frustrated. I believe that it might perhaps help if at this moment I were to refer to the provisions of the Act and to the particular points that were made which were adopted at the time we passed the Act so that it became law. The important change—perhaps the most important—was that in the first section it was laid down that:
" An article shall be deemed to he obscene if its effect… is…"
and I assure noble Lords that any words I leave out do not affect the sense—
"taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave: aid corrupt persons…"
This is the test that was applied. Then there were other changes that were brought into effect. It was possible to
534
plead that the publication of an article (in this case a book) was
"in the interests of science, literature, art or learning,"
or indeed of general concern. It was also made possible under the Act to call experts to give evidence purely on the literary or other merits of the book. We cannot re-try this case, but the course envisaged in the words I have read out is precisely that which was followed. And after a pretty full discussion, and after a large number of witnesses had gone into the witness box, twelve British people came to the conclusion that the publishers of this book were not guilty under the Act.
Whether or not the Judge could have asked the jury to give a split opinion, and whether they could have answered other questions, I am not lawyer enough to say. It is possible that they might have regarded the book as tending to corrupt while at the same time regarding it as in the public interest that it should be published. We do not know this, but the book has survived the ordeal of a trial in which there is no suggestion that the prosecution, the Director of Prosecutions or the Judge were in any way soft" to the publishers and to those responsible for publishing the book.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting, because I do not do so wantonly? May I point out to him that in the discussion on the measure to which he refers these technical points were raised by quite a number of noble Lords. They were found to be very difficult, and I believe that a majority of Members of this House can be forgiven for having been unable, at that stage, completely to understand the technical possibilities in the working of the Act. I feel that that fact ought to be mentioned and understood, for it was brought up to a very large extent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure we should all be willing to forgive our fellow-Peers if they failed to understand a technical matter of law. But this was a matter of great importance, and the potentialities were, I believe, as clear as they could be. It seems lo me that the Act was very fully debated. It was the subject of repeated

535
discussions in another place and reached the Statute Book only after a number of attempts.
I want now to turn briefly to the book itself. I do not wish to argue its merits very strongly, beyond pointing out that a large number of people, for some of whose opinions I have certainly a high regard, held this to be a good book and one which, taken as a whole, did not tend to corrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will disagree with them. He is entitled to disagree with them, but they are equally entitled, in a free country where censorship does not exist, to their opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has suggested that the writings of D. H. Lawrence, in particular (he refers especially to this book, but no doubt includes many others) ought to be banned. I am happy to say that the Government have no power to ban books in this country, and this is one of the freedoms which we should be very careful to preserve. But if we are to take this book and go again to what the Act requires and look at particular parts of it, which I believe is what the noble Lord has done, then he exposes a very wide range of literature to the same processes as those to which he would subject Lady Chatterlev's Lover.
The noble Lord may know that Mr. Partridge wrote a book on the bawdy in Shakespeare; that there are many scenes in Shakespeare and in many other writings —indeed, there are parts of the Bible—which are of a kind which, taken out of context, might be held by some to have a tendency to corrupt and deprave. When I look at the books that schoolboys are given to read at school, those of us who have done the classics, whether it be The Golden Ass of Apuleius, the plays of Terence, or, indeed, the performances of many of the gods and goddesses of mythology, I should have thought there were plenty of other matters which the noble Lord would wish to remove from our view.
My Lords, the book we are discussing to-night is certainly about an adulterous relationship. But many other books are also about that. I have not yet heard the noble Lord speak out against a book called Forever Amber, and others. But there is one thing this book is not about. The noble Lord said at the beginning (though it is not relevant to this Motion),
536
that he was opposed to the Wolfenden proposals; and I take it he was referring to the proposals with regard to the reform of the law in the matter of homosexuality. But the one thing this book does not do is to advocate perversion or sadism or violence: and there are many such books which are continually available and which are peddled by the pedlars of pornography, which, among other things, this Act has sought to control. It is an Act, among other things, designed to strengthen the law concerning pornography. And I can tell the noble Lord that if there is one book which is not likely to be peddled by the pedlars of pornography it is Lady Chatterley's Lover, because the books they sell are essentially those which are concerned with sadism, violence and perversion. This book is not, as those many people who have read it, know; and the people who look for that type of thrill will very quickly get bored with Lady Chatterley's Lover.
I would say only a word or two more. Psychologists—and they may be right or they may be wrong—have said that, generally speaking, no single book has been responsible for corrupting an individual: that it is an atmosphere of corruption; an atmosphere of perversion, and particularly an atmosphere of violence; and indeed the type of atmosphere to which I know the noble Lord objects and which may be generally spread throughout society. I should like to know whether the noble Lord would now wish to turn his attention to attacking some of the newspapers, some of the Sunday newspapers, some of the violence that goes on on television. For these are matters which must be taken into account as part of the broad picture in the same way as this Act requires us to look at an article as a whole.
LORD AMWELL: And the cinema.
LORD SHACKLETON: Is this not, in fact, a good test: that we should look at an article as a whole, or a book as a whole, and judge whether it has a tendency to corrupt? Or are we to take little pieces out of life and say that life itself is obscene?—because this is, with the greatest respect, the conclusion that one must come to if one follows the arguments of the noble Lord.
I do not wish to be too personal, but it is not long since the noble Lord

537
advocated in this House another form of censorship. We know he favoured that only the Government should be allowed to make statements on the radio and in other places in regard to matters of foreign affairs. On that occasion most noble Lords, including the Government spokesmen in particular, dealt very effectively with that argument. Does the noble Lord now wish to introduce a form of censorship of a kind that we are proud does not exist in this country? Would he, in fact, ban a book like Dr. Zhivago, which has certainly been a subject of considerable comment in the West because it is not available freely behind the Iron Curtain? In Dr. Zhivago there are certainly incidents of a kind and tendencies of a kind to which the noble Lord would take exception.
I would only say, conclusion, that any noble Lords who support this Motion must disagree, and show that they disagree, with the principles contained in an Act of Parliament which we in this House passed freely through, without a Division. They must also show in the process that they distrust their fellow men in regard to this matter, and they must be prepared to accept a curtailment of cultural freedom; and that, whatever evil there may or may not be in one hook, would, in my opinion, be a far greater evil and far more damaging to the ideals and principles under which we live. I would end on only one point: that there are sins, and though adultery may be a sin, it is also a sin to revile your fellow men.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a definite question in regard to, I think, a Motion I put down —it is some time ago. I still adhere to my view that matters of international and national importance which are the responsibility of Ministers and the Government should not be exploited and advertised by the British Broadcasting Corporation, particularly in "Panorama", without the permission of the Government and those responsible. I adhere to my original opinion on that. I know that my noble friend Lord Boothby, whom I see here, will not agree with me.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY: No; certainly not.
LORD TEVIOT: But that is my opinion.
6.15 p.m
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I was prepared to speak to the unamended Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, drawing attention to this subject, and it was only this morning that I saw his amendment. I have not had time to reconsider what I was going to say, and certainly there has been no time to read D. H. Lawrence's other books, which I should have to do before discussing any ban on them. I am not, therefore, in a position to support this Motion. But I hope in the brief speech that I propose to make that I may give reasons for this statement.
I am reluctant to add more words to the great number that have been spoken on the subject of Lady Chatterley's Lover. It is widely held that too much has already been said. But a tradition of reticence has been broken and this may be a necessary moment to take stock. My Lords, I read the book. I first turned to the second half and understood as I went along the praise that was given to the beauty of certain passages. I then read the whole book and found myself increasingly bored with conversation and description which I should have found disquieting at an earlier age. I do not question that much of the hook is written with tenderness and compassion; nor that censorship may be harmful. In fact, I accept the argument that, after so much publicity, it may be better that the book should be published and openly read rather than smuggled into this country from overseas and passed surreptitiously from hand to hand. This is the sort of thing that surely would happen if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, received sufficient support.
But, my Lords, this book deals with an adulterous relationship; and Christian teaching is that adultery, whether in fact or in lustful longing, is always a sin. I recognise that hundreds of books on this subject are published each year, but the fact that a million and a half copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover have been sold makes my comments necessary. I have no intention of referring here to certain evidence given in the trial by Christian ministers of religion. Rather, I want just to do two things: first, to consider the effect of this book on young people and on adolescents of all ages; and, secondly,

539
to consider what advice should be offered to parents. Now that it is published, where do we go from here? I quote from a priest with 32 years' experience in Oxford:
"I am convinced"—
he has written—
"that purple passages such as occur in this book stimulate the imagination in an undesirable way and often lead to the sort of sins which young people themselves eagerly desire to overcome."
What advice, my Lords, can be offered to some youngster who has read it and been disturbed by it; who has been roused by it and finds himself thinking too much about it? I answer: let him talk about it with some wise adult, a parent or someone accustomed to dealing with people—a priest, a doctor, a teacher, a probation officer, a youth leader. If he is thinking of reading it but has not begun to do so, my further advice would be that he should postpone reading it until he is about to marry, until he is on the threshold of marriage. Then I would recommend him to buy a booklet, the sales of which are approaching the million mark, called, The Threshold of Marriage. It costs 8d., and it is published by the Church Information Board. Here, in the brief compass of some 32 pages, will be found advice on the three-fold aspect of marriage.
Here is a sentence from a Report of one of the Lambeth Conference Committees:
"Sexual intercourse is not by any means the only language of earthly love but it is, in its full and right use, the most intimate and the most revealing."
That sentence, my Lords may well be in tune with a man's mind after reading Lawrence. But there is in this booklet complementary teaching making three points: that it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of intercourse—it is not the be all and end all of married life; that married couples differ greatly in the value they place upon it, for some find it increasingly precious as they grow through bodily union to one-ness of heart and mind; that others, on the other hand, find it becoming less and less important. But in either case—and here I am indebted to a note from a wise vicar—
"the understanding to be reached is surely that of the physical relationship as neither a
540
supreme end in itself, nor an enjoyable triviality, but as a deeply spiritual experience and vocation within marriage. A relationship whose exercise calls forth all those gentle, sincere. thoughtful, tender and compassionate qualities which, flowing throughout the life of the home and the family, make matrimony truly holy and life long. When this is understood, the many practical questions that remain can more easily be answered."
Is there any advice that may be offered to parents?—and many parents must be wondering what is their best course to follow. The publication of this book underlines the responsibility carried by parents and by others concerned with the upbringing and education of children, particularly all who profess to be Christians, to see that the right attitude to sex and marriage is presented to the minds of young people before they are of an age to read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Headmasters and headmistresses whom I know are throwing the responsibility back on the parents; they are refusing to have the book in their school libraries. If parents want their children to read it, let opportunity be given in the holidays; and then, if they know it is being read in their families, parents can encourage their children to talk about it.
Young people growing up in 1960 have, besides novels, a choice of many stimulants, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton has mentioned—magazines and comics, strip-tease, dance fever, violence shown on the cinema and T.V. This book must be seen and considered in that wide context. It has passages of greatness, and reading it is not necessarily damaging but can be used constructively. The publicity may soon be forgotten. Then, we hope, a decent reticence will be restored, and sexual discussion will chiefly be kept within the context to which it belongs—that is to say, the private affairs of husband, wife and family. In passing, it is good to note that many booksellers refuse to exhibit this book or even to stock it, and to hear that librarians decline to put it on public shelves. As has already been said, we must not forget the quantity of printed matter already on sale of which the effect is clearly pornographic. Let no one doubt the menace of such literature to our national life.
To sum up, my Lords, I consider the most important question to be faced

541
to-day is not whether the book is to be banned, but, rather, how those responsible for the welfare of young people can be encouraged and helped to make the best use of the opportunity which is now open to them. A point of contact with many puzzled adolescents has been created. We all know how advertising and the Press, as well as the factors already mentioned, help to keep sex in the foreground of the minds of those still at school. The younger age of puberty, the freedom from conventions, for many the lack of religious ties—these, as your Lordships know, are some of the elements that make young people more vulnerable to-day, and more in need of clear guidance about physical relationships. It is the responsibility of all parents—or, failing them, of leaders and teachers—to try to pass on a view of the sex relationship as neither passing nor selfish, but deep and enduring; a lifelong link, and the true background of the happy, married home from which a new generation of wise parents can again come forward. My Lords, the Church has resources of books and literature and trained personnel who are helping to give this teaching, and who are willing to train others who wish to fit themselves to give it.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we are told that this is the century of the common man, but I often wonder how true that is, because so many experts are rising on so many different subjects that I sometimes feel that there is some danger of the common man, or even the common Peer, feeling guilty of effrontery in having opinions of his own. In this particular case, we have had evidence from experts on the interpretation of the law, experts on Christian ethics, experts on public morals and experts on art and literature, and the jury have given a verdict that this book is no menace to public morals—a verdict which has been hailed in some quarters as a vindication of some great principle, though I am not quite certain what that principle is.
My Lords, I am quite ready to leave it at that. I do not agree with my noble friend that the law should be changed. I am quite ready to leave the question of public morals to those who are experts and who understand those things. But there is also the question—a much
542
less important question, no doubt—of public taste, and this is a matter very difficult to define. It is still more difficult to reduce to a statutory code. It varies from age to age, and it varies from country to country. It is in some ways most illogical, for we seem much more easily shocked by our eyes than by our ears. We have just passed laws to keep prostitutes off the streets, largely because the spectacle of prostitution was held to be distasteful; and I think that even the strongest champion of liberty would have some hesitation in suggesting that this book, in all its detail, should be translated into a film for a public exhibition.
But, in spite of all these inconsistencies, there is, I think, a general consensus of opinion at any given point in history as to what is seemly and what is not. At the present moment, if any of us started introducing some of the language of this book into our speeches, I do not suppose that any of us would feel corrupted or depraved. As has been stated, most of us know these expressions, probably—Her Majesty's judges included. Nor do I think that we should be searching diligently to discover whether there had been some breach of Standing Orders. I am sure your Lordships would resent that kind of language simply because you would not think it a very becoming way to talk in your Lordships' House.
Really, that is the way I feel about this book. I do not think it is a very becoming book to find on our bookstalls, and that is why I am glad that at least one of the largest firms of book distributors do not display it. But if you take that very mild, modest view, that it is a book in had taste, I must say that some of the evidence we have been reading does sound a trifle portentous. When I read about the expert on Christian ethics dwelling on the sacramental aspects of the book, and when I read the long and elaborate explanation of the publisher, giving the reasons why he published the book, I feel no sense of hostility or criticism, only a considerable sense of the ridiculous. It is about as ridiculous as if 'one Member of your Lordships' House seriously proposed an Amendment to the Standing Orders of this House to enable four-letter words to be used in speeches in the interests of complete freedom of debate.

543
In fact, my Lords, the comment I appreciated the most was that attributed to a Member of your Lordships' House who, on being asked whether he did not object to his daughter reading the book, replied that he had no such objection, but that he had the strongest objection to the book being read by his gamekeeper. Perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for that. There has been a feeling of solemnity to this debate and I am anxious not to displease my noble friend in front of me; but when I think of all the earnest endeavour which has gone into defending what, in my humble estimation, is just a rather bad book in very bad taste, I do not think an element of levity is entirely out of place.
6.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, speaking in such learned company I should like to express my feelings as a very ordinary witness, not liable to be depraved and open to immoral influences. I should like briefly to deal first with the case, and secondly with the existing law. As for the case, possibly under the existing law it was a correct verdict; but for myself I find it wholly unacceptable. I find it difficult to accept many of the expert witnesses evidence. Of certain passages in the book, learned counsel—and I am not ashamed to quote the learned counsel for the prosecution—said this:
"You would have to go some way along the Charing Cross Road, the back streets of Paris, and even Port Said, to find a description of sexual intercourse that was perhaps as lewd as that."
Was the ordinary girl working in the factory going to view the book as a treatment of sex on a holy basis, or was the right reverend Bishop, who regarded it as such, wholly out of touch with the people? Whether one judges the book as a whole or in parts. in my humble opinion I regard it as quite unfit for the young.
As was so rightly pointed out, there are standards which must be maintained in morality, in conversation and in conduct, in respect for the conventions of society. It is these standards which I feel so strongly the law must protect for the young. My Lords, who to-day are the persons the law has tried to protect for so long? It is the youth. No one
544
can suggest that adults will come to much harm from reading a so-called "sex novel"; but the law may be in grave doubt when uninformed minds of children can easily be led astray. The law gives certain protection with regard to licensing laws for public houses, and for films, and I would suggest that similar protection should be given for literature.
The law, as it stands now, invites a jury or a court to consider whether a book should be published on grounds of its literary or artistic merit, in balance with its obscenity. I would ask whether a further distinction could not be made between an adult and a juvenile book? As a result of the verdict of the court, the book in question can be purchased by any child now for 3s. 6d. It might be a great book by a great writer, or a thoroughly boring book. But whichever the answer is, the writer surely never wrote it for any other purpose than as an adult book. There are many books, important and unimportant, which are in the same category as Lady Chatterley's Lover. If some censorship based on age were introduced, no doubt it would be open to abuse. On the other hand, no one would think that, just because the licensing laws can be abused by youths drinking at home rather than in a public house, this law should be repealed. Why could not certain books be listed as not available to those under 17 to 18 years of age? At least it would act as a deterrent.
In announcing last week, as has already been stated, that 1½ million copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover have so far been sold, the managing director of Penguin Books, who gave evidence for the defence at the Old Bailey, said that he was not so happy about the sales of the book as about the result of the case, and that, to quote him—
"A lot of people are buying it for the wrong reasons".
If it is accepted that, in a free society, adults should be allowed, broadly speaking, to read what they like, surely that statement by the managing director makes out the best possible case for a degree of censorship based on age discrimination.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords. I am no plaster saint. Neither am I

545
a plaster philosopher—I hope! But, all things considered, I have the greatest understanding for youth; and I can say, along with a great many other noble Lords, that I have lived and done things that perhaps I would wish to undo now if I possibly could. I feel that there will be a very considerable degree of support for the new Bill which Sir Charles Taylor is introducing. It is not my purpose to anticipate it, but I will pay him the tribute which he deserves for his courage, and I am convinced that many of your Lordships will be with me.
I was a little worried, when listening to your Lordships, because I found that I was in agreement with many remarks made by each and every one of you. I realise that this problem is an extremely difficult one; it is not simple by any manner of means. But to-day I wish to support the noble Lord who is the instigator of this debate, Lord Teviot, to the greatest and fullest extent that I can. Parents are in fear of the inferior laws we are making in this country, which are dividing and destroying families, while offering no protection when it is most needed. We hasten to listen to, and legislate for, a vociferous minority who desire unlimited liberty to live immoral lives. We cast out the cries for justice of those members of society who, by the very orderly quietness of their citizenship, are not by nature vocal. Furthermore, so much that we make the law seems to be so hastily flung together, and rushed into operation, that we are unable to construct our Acts of Parliament in such a way that they take care of all contingencies
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Is he aware that, in fact, the book we are discussing is fully available in practically every country in the world, and is not on the Papal Index?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I have not looked up the Papal Index to find out whether this book is in it. In fact, I do not know where to get hold of it; but I would hardly dispute what the noble Lord says. The Papal Index is mostly what our consciences tell us and has little to do with what is actually written down on a piece of paper, but I will bring this out a little later.
546
To resume, the excuse for what I have been describing lies in the pressure of business. As a result, we form a legal box into which anything can be tossed, and thus anything can be twisted in its interpretation in any direction which suits the mind blowing in a particular Ministry at that moment—and, I may add, in other minds—provided that it does not jump outside the box. Government by statutory instrument, and as often as not by no more than a directive, is what we have to-day in place of the carefully worded Acts of the past, which preserved and protected the fundamentals of our social code and which kept society in reasonable stability for well over 1,000 years. The Lady Chatterley's Lover case, in my opinion is nothing more nor less than an extension of this principle. One bad law deserves another. I will repeat that, my Lords: one bad law deserves another.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: One bad Lord?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: A little bit of both, if you like it that way. We try to set the base of moral security on the shoulders of man alone, so that he is left to decide, in his unenlightened loneliness, wherein lies the foundations of society. We leave our justice to personal interpretation. And this is patently absurd. There are two people in every human being—a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. Of course, this is a simplification of something that every psychologist, philosopher or theologian will recognise and tabulate according to his level of intellectual activity.
Our desire for good may always be constant, but our capacity to achieve it is very much regulated by our understanding of the principles involved. What appears to one person to be good may appear to another to be desirable but unlawful. Most of us have received the promises of Eve's apple, and many of us have fallen to its temptations. There are many sorts of failure in life. Spiritual failure is far more harmful than material failure. The problems and suffering of those who are chained by their bad habits are of a magnitude which can bring about self-destruction. This world is a battleground in which many go under. The cowardly do not try to fight. They just go with the stream and find

547
excuses for their lack of personal discipline. Others, with courage, struggle all their lives to conquer self. I am not speaking "without the book" when I say this, because I have at least tried to fight this battle myself and I know how profoundly difficult it is and how often one is tripped up. The aged who have failed or never try at all look down cynically as they sneer at attempts of others to know the beauties of truth and purity.
These are the very real problems we are setting before youth when we relax our laws governing social obligations and standards of moral behaviour. Let me illustrate it further. I made a trip up the M.1 the other day, on my way to Manchester, and stopped at Forte's restaurant, which spans the motorway. It was the day that Lady Chatterley's Lover was on sale to the public and there, at every serving counter, sat a snigger of youths. Every one of them had a copy of this book held up to his face with one hand while he forked nourishment into his open mouth with the other. They held the seeds of suggestive lust, which was expressed quite blatantly, by glance and remark, to the girls serving them. That I saw with my own eyes.
The truth points to a book with a filthy reputation known to every schoolboy troubled by desire. We all know that lust starts in the mind and not in the actual reading of this or any book. Yet there is nothing to prevent these children from purchasing a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover, as so many noble Lords have told us, with intent to indulge in a feast of mental, and probably physical, impurity. Do not let us fool ourselves that youth with a mind bent on experiment and feeling the first flush of these desires will buy this book for the sake of art. This book exemplifies adultery and fornication, and I find it impossible to understand how anyone can discover in such licensed rubbish the beauty of a sacrament with the cleanliness of mind and the honour of God-fearing ideals. Contrary to some predictions, may I say categorically that we have opened the gate to any book which presents lust and unfaithfulness in what some concupiscent minds will call art. We have given a shove to the ball of social promiscuity which is, in any case, rolling downhill at an alarming rate.
548
The Christian virtues of our ancestors are being violated in order to fill the ever-bulging pockets of unscrupulous publishers with gold filched from the virtues of our children. Such men do not give a button—I could say "damn", which is a four-letter word—for virtue or the health of social morals. And as for love, charity and self-sacrifice, such so-called naive doctrines become completely unintelligible to their earthy and materialistic philosophy of personal gratification.
Let me repeat words of wisdom uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham (if he will forgive me), in his speech of inauguration as Rector of Glasgow University on Friday, October 21, of this year. I am not going to quote it all; it is much too long. He said:
"When I survey the emotional, the intellectual, the moral, the political, even the physical litter and chaos of the world to-day, when truth has almost ceased to be regarded as objective, when kindness is made to depend on the political, class or racial affiliations, when only the obvious stands in need of publicity; when I look at popular idols with the bodies of gods and goddesses and with the morals of ferrets, lurching from one demoralising emotional crisis to another and never guessing the reason,…"
I will stop there, my Lords. I think I have read enough already. I cannot help feeling that the noble Viscount's words are also applicable to the kind of moral disorder we are bent on creating in this country. I believe that his original intention was to show the buffoonery that is set on the world's stage.
What is the result? Purity is sacrificed on the altar of promiscuity as woolly-headed intellectuals pour their vociferous sewage into the ears of the public. The god of progress takes up the cloak of a shabby but sensuous Bacchus washed by science and narcotics, while things of the spirit are relegated to the inferior position of discredited fairy tales. I added this in the train coming up. If Omo adds brightness to material whiteness, we surely need a spiritual detergent for the mind. What is the good of our implementing all the social justice contained in such publications as the Albemarle Report, on the one hand, and commencing a process of complete destruction, on the other, through the corruption of the very nature of youth? Why do we talk about giving parents greater responsibilities, only to deny

549
them the powers and protection which in any case is a natural God-given right through the Marriage Act and the miracle of birth? Such complete and abysmal lack of understanding of the social forces can spring only from a deeply morbid interpretation of right and wrong.
I hope that the noble Viscount who replies will not wave all this aside with the plea that I am romancing, because if he does I shall refer him to something which he has easily to hand—the means lo compare the present and the past in the pattern of social delinquency, whether adult or adolescent. Some will say that other Western countries have the liberties that we seek, but let me point out that these nations have accustomed themselves to their problems, and the social matrix has taken on a pattern which can absorb much of the harm over long periods of time In this respect I do not include Sweden as an example, because here we see the course that we ourselves are starting to develop to an even greater extent; and the harvest they are reaping—including, I believe, the problem of the suicide rate, which is higher than in any other country, and is a certain mark of despair—is well known to all thoughtful men. Also, please note the desire in many nations to clean up these running sores of society. For instance, France is at this moment trying hard to clean up her house and put it in order; and she is not alone.
In the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health for 1959, which was published in mid-November, we find that the number of new cases of the more common form of venereal disease diagnosed at clinics in 1959 was 31,344—not a very pleasant thought—
LORD BOOTHBY: May I ask the noble Earl one question? What has all this to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: Corruption of youth has quite a lot to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so. This figure of 31,344 is the highest reached since 1947, when the situation was still affected by war-time disturbance. This Report specifically mentions young people, and another Report notes that among patients attending 147 centres the largest increase
550
was in the age group between 18 and 19, the increase being 27 per cent. for females and over 36 per cent. for males.
There was a letter sent to Sir Charles Taylor, about which I heard only secondhand—and I am going to bring the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, into this, if he does not mind.
LORD BOOTHBY: Not at all.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: The letter says:
"I read your article… also I saw a T.V. programme about free speech with Lord Boothby on the same Sunday. Much to my regret I am an authority on pornographic literature"—
that is not myself; I am only quoting the letter.
"Scotland Yard and some of your M.P. colleagues will vouch for this statement. I do not know when obscenity starts or when it stops, but I do know when a person comes to my shop for pornographic books for the first time I would start them off with 'Lady C.', and then they would ask for something more bold; and when they read that they would come back and ask for something even more pornographic —teenagers and these juveniles.
"It was like taking dope, and now that the four-letter words are no longer obscene you will have much more filth sold openly in the shops.
"Most of the pornographic books are written by the best authors in Britain and France under a nom de plume. In the area in 1947 there were eight book shops selling pornographic books. To-day in the same area you have forty and in each shop the weekly takings are no less than £500."
I conclude the quotation, and also what I have to say.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would he give some examples of the leading authors who write these works under noms de plume? Otherwise, I think he should withdraw such a statement.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: If the noble Lord went to plenty of these little bookshops he may know about, I am sure he would find them there. I do not read them. I am quoting from a letter.
LORD STRABOLGI: But the noble Earl has made a statement which I think he should withdraw. He has said that the leading authors of this country write pornographic books under noms de plume. Will he please give some examples or withdraw that statement?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I certainly will not withdraw the statement, for the simple reason that I was quoting from a letter.
6.55 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, with every respect to, but in complete defiance of, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I intend to have something to say about matters that do not directly apply to the particular book, Lady Chatterley's Lover. I shall attempt to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot: "Where are we going?"—because the issue is a much bigger one than this particular trial and its outcome. I must say that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans that it is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, should have found it necessary at the last moment to change the terminology of his Motion. The result in both our cases, I think (certainly in mine), will be that if this Motion does happen to reach the Division Lobby we shall not be able to vote for it.
I am a libertarian—one of the few libertarian Socialists that are left—and I do not like banning books. I do not like censorship. I do not think it is necessary to talk about banning books at all, because, after all, the question really is: should we have made this book easier to be obtained by youth, or age, for that matter—it does not matter so much as all that—or made it more difficult? This one makes it easier rather than more difficult. I would not ban the book. I would let the libraries, both private and public, have the book in its unexpurgated form. But I would apply this condition to it: that anyone who wants to read the book should produce his bona fides that he is not pornographically minded, and that he has some consideration for the future of literature and the interests of art. And he can best do that by asking for the book. Possibly a certain amount of courage will be needed in doing that, on the part of the majority of people. I think that would meet the case. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not press on any other occasion for interfering with the freedom of the printed word and the expression of views and opinions.
552
But do we understand, or have we grasped, what this argument is really about? I am perfectly sure that by any standard of decency you like to put up you cannot avoid saying that this book is an indecent book. Whether you like it or not, whether you defend it or whether you do not, it is an indecent book. The point about it is that it is indecent in a certain way that is very offensive, I think, to the majority of the people of this country, and certainly to the majority of people who think about matters of this kind and are at all sensitive in considering such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made a speech in which, if he will allow me to say so, I thought his logic was about as full of holes as a Henry Moore statue. He used long analogies and false applications. He spoke, for instance, about boys acting Shakespeare or acting the plays of the Elizabethan era in their schools.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to correct the noble Lord—I have had an exchange like this with him before—Ibut I never mentioned boys or acting at any time.
LORD BOOTHBY: It was another speech.
LORD AMWELL: It was another speech? That is the second time I have done that. The noble Lord will remember it. Whoever said it, the point is that that particular kind of argument is still as "holey" as ever. Last night I saw a play acted by the boys of a London grammar school, and acted very well. The play was Ben Jonson's The Alchemist as full of bawdy stuff as you can find in any play of the period. But I do not think much harm was done to the boys, who, since they have been given lectures upon the dramatists of that time, probably did not lack an understanding of what the words meant. I doubt whether the audience understood much of it. They did not express themselves, at any rate. The point, surely, is this: the bawdy expressions in that play were not rolled round the tongue; they were not sensuous or passionate; they were not repeated.
There may be an argument for being frank and open, using Anglo-Saxon words, and all the rest of it. There may

553
be a case for saying that an author ought to he allowed to face facts, and to describe things that are factual. That is not the point. In this book not only is the sexual act described, but it is described in intimate detail and in passionate terms—a very sensuous thing in every case. It is not a matter of just a passage here arid there, purple or otherwise. That is repeated in that book thirteen times. Why? The four letter words we have heard so much about are repeated over seventy times. Why? If it is not intended to be pornographic in its effect, what purpose is served by it? What is meant by it?
It is rather a delicate thing to refer to, but we are discussing a very important matter. I will come to the levity in a few minutes—I think this deserves a little levity on occasions. But there is one rather delicate point here. Everyone who is knowledgeable on tie subject knows that D. H. Lawrence was a sufferer, and every doctor knows that the kind of thing he was suffering from is an encouragement to an obsession. That is a fact which is generally known. He had had it on the brain from boyhood. I want to know why his obsession should be spewed out upon the laps of the rest of humanity quite so easily as is allowed at the present time.
My grandchildren can go to the end of my road and can spend 3s. 6d. of their pocket money upon a book that everybody is talking about, arousing their curiosity; and, without going into the shop, they can find it displayed and advertised in big letters in order to obtain trade for that particular book. I do not think that is necessary. I do not think that is desirable. All this talk about the interests of science and the interests of art and literature is so much poppycock. Nobody interferes with the interests of literature and the historical side of British literature. The British Museum still exists, and it has always been possible to get Lady Chatterley's Lover in the unexpurgated edition. That is a lot of nonsense, and not the only nonsense in the discussion which is taking place and has been taking place—I hope it will finish soon—upon this particular book. There is a lot of cant, and we have been told—I forget who it was who said it—to clear our minds of cant. I
554
remember there was a phrase used by the late Lord Morley, in which he said:
"Of all cant, the worst possible kind of cant is the cant of anti-cant."
I think that is very true. We have had quite a lot of it.
I must not say anything about the jury. I do not know what kind of considerations came before their minds. But I do know what this pew of eminent authors, parsons, and all the rest of it, have said upon the matter. We had authors like Dame Rebecca West, and we had Dr. John Robinson, the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, Sarah Beryl Jones, who is Senior Catholic Mistress at the Keighley Grammar School, Mr. G. Hough of Cambridge University, and other people, including Sir Richard Compton, and the author who retired so frequently—I wish he would come back and correct some of the impressions that he has lately made—Somerset Maugham. People of that kind have defended—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MIN ISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not want to state anything which is inaccurate. I have looked through the transcript of this trial. I think the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying that Mr. Somerset Maugham was a witness for the defence. I have read the transcript of the trial, and I may he mistaken, but I think it is not I but the noble Lord who is mistaken.
LORD AMWELL: The noble Viscount is not mistaken. The reason why I hesitated was that it is not upon my list of witnesses. But he has had a lot to say about it, and supports the attitude of these people who, after all, were just out for a joy ride. They were out in order to "cock a snook"—if that is the expression—at their ancient opponent, the censor. There is nothing more to it than that. Of course, there is a great deal in being in the swim. I do not know about the Labour Party—
LORD DALTON: We would not accuse the noble Lord of that!
LORD AMWELL: I know. But I cannot understand why the Left Wing, who can find nothing at all good in capitalism, and find everything associated with the capitalist society so bad, are always

555
ready to rush to the defence of the nastiest aspects of capitalism. I wonder why the Labour Party should forget its ancient pride and its Nonconformist roots. I also wonder what would have happened to Mr. Michael Foot if he had run the recent election upon the basis of Lady Chatterley's Lover.
I do not understand the moderns—these people who call themselves modern and whose standards of value seem to be governed by clocks and railway timetables. To paraphrase Mr. G. K. Chesterton, ten-past-five on a Friday afternoon is so much better than five-to-ten on a Monday morning, simply and solely because of the passage of time. These modernists are the people who talk about Anglo-Saxon literature and Anglo-Saxon words. In my youth I did some study of English literature, and I do not remember those words. I dare say there were some words equally bad, but I certainly do not remember those particular words in any Anglo-Saxon literature that I read. But it is easy to say things like that. Anyhow, why go back to the Anglo-Saxons? Why not go back to the ancient Britons or to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? It would not make any difference to the argument. But that is the kind of argument which is put forward.
We have Dame Rebecca West, who says:
"The baronet and his impotence is a symbol of the impotent culture of his time. The love affair was a calling for the return of the soul to the more intense life that he felt people had in a different culture."
That I call just humbug and poppycock, and Dame Rebecca West ought to know that it is poppycock. The idea of a story like that—it is not a story at all—the idea of a book like Lady Chatterley's Lover being a question of the soul, and impotence, and all the rest of it, reminds me of Bunthorne's song in Patience:
"If you're anxious for to shine
in the high æsthetic line
as a man of culture rare,
You must get up all the germs
of the transcendental terms.
and plant them everywhere.
You must lie upon the daisies
and discourse in novel phrases
of your complicated state of mind,
The meaning doesn't matter
if it's only idle chatter
of a transcendental kind.
And every one will say,
556
As you walk your mystic way,
'If this young man expresses himself
in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!'"
And that is the kind of basis of this modern advertising business. It is the same kind of thing that puts "pop" records up to sales of over a million. It is the racket that is called art and literature at the present time; and that is the direction in which we are going.
Somerset Maugham, who defends all this, writes about infidelity in some of his writings—and very fine they are. But he does so with reticence. Why does he take it at second-hand? If these things are so cultural and valuable, why does he not use them? The same with Dame Rebecca West. I challenge that lady to repeat the words she defends at a Foyle's luncheon, and I will undertake to arrange the luncheon for her. She will not do anything of the kind. The Bishop of Woolwich, who talks literary bunk when he ought to be looking after his own business, talks like this:
"Lawrence's description cannot be taken out of his whole quite astonishing sensitivity to the beauty and value of all organic relations".
We know about people who are sensitive to the beauty and value of certain organic relations—the police are looking for a couple of them at the present time. That is the kind of cant and humbug that is being spread about at the present time, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is justified in asking where we are going.
Does the Bishop of Woolwich think that these words that he praises, that he defends and recommends as the basis of our literature, are so soulful and useful and necessary, repeated 70 times, if you please?—that is one point. If he does, why does he not use them in his own pulpit? You cannot undertake a campaign in favour of youth clubs upon the basis of the language of the urinal, because that is what it amount to. You can find all these things in lunatic asylums written upon walls. Why should they be defended by people of the calibre of these eminent authors and the rest of them who, as I have said, were out for a joy-ride on this particular occasion? We are going far away from the normal, and I doubt if this is not a question of history, repeating itself.
If the Bishop of Woolwich wants crusading material, I will undertake to

557
find him some on his own side of the water. There was a case only this year of a girl of fifteen who taunted her parents at the juvenile court with being old-fashioned and confessed to being the call-girl of 100 men of all ages and colours. Let the Bishop of Woolwich deal with a cesspool of that kind. Take our cinemas. I will take him, if he wishes, to one of the plushiest cinemas in North-West London. There he will find boys and girls, of any age from thirteen upwards, chain-smoking, shrieking and wolf-whistling whenever any near-fornication bit comes upon the screen in front of them. Only a few days ago I was at a cinema and I saw a film which, as a joke for the pleasure, if you please, of the juvenile members of the cast in the picture, spotlighted and brought to the surface the actual copulation of animals. That was in a London cinema only a few days ago, and the film is still running, I believe, at that particular cinema. Would anybody say that any purpose is served by showing that kind of stuff. Yet it was done—not a word said against it; it was done in the name of liberty, this freedom and frankness and openness, and the rest of it.
I have heard it said in this and other debates of a similar kind that there is nothing wrong with the human body. Who said there was? That is not the point. The fact that there is nothing wrong with the human body is no excuse for indecent exposure. It is the same with these animals on the screen. It could easily be said that there is nothing wrong with the animal body. I suppose that a Christian would say there is nothing wrong with creation, but there is a lot to be put right within creation. That is the kind of cant we hear at the present time. It is wrong to spread an atmosphere such as D. H. Lawrence does by such a book as Lady Chatterley's Lover, and then we are told this is such a wonderful piece of writing, such a beautiful piece of sonorous or fine literature, that we ought not to interfere with the prevalence of its distribution. We ought not to touch it. No one is touching it. Anyone who wants it can get it. I would allow him to have it. That is not the subject of the trial we are discussing at the present time
I am not a literary expert, although writing was my trade for quite a num-
558
ber of years and I do know something of the technique of writing. I do not put myself up as a pillar of judgment on literary matters, but in my own view this book is not a patch upon Sons and Lovers. That is a matter of opinion; whether it is agreed with or not is not the point. Here we have a book which would not exist but for the kind of thing we are talking about now. It is not just a few purple patches; it is the whole atmosphere of the book, the whole background of the book, and it is due to the obsession which everyone knows D. H. Lawrence had. We can, of course, be fair about that: we know; we can forgive and understand. But that is no reason, as Whistler said about certain painters, for flinging a pot of paint in the faces of the multitude.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was Ruskin.
LORD AMWELL: Ruskin said that about Whistler. It is very refreshing to be corrected on matters of detail so freely. I do not mind in the least. Please correct me if I am wrong. That bit of cant about the Anglo-Saxons I have referred to. Then there were Sir Compton Mackenzie and Stephen Potter. Take this idea of the human body being something that is not to be regarded as indecent or wrong. Of course that is perfectly correct. No one does. The Venus de Milo in the Louvre is a very beautiful thing. But put a pair of nylon stockings and suspender and a picture hat on the Venus de Milo and it becomes something else. That is what has happened with Lady Chatterley's Lover. It is a definite and purposeful attempt to corrupt because it comes from a corrupt mind.
I realise that it is a delicate matter, but everyone knows that on these particular issues the mind of D. H. Lawrence was corrupted. Why should we defend it? I do say, though, that Lord Teviot's idea of banning must be driven from our minds. We do not want that. We do not want a one-Party State. We do not want that kind of thing. We want to be as free as possible. I would have it all as free as possible, except when it comes to a question of obscenity. Then we should not make it easy, but should make it more difficult for the book to have a general and broad circulation, open to youth as well as to age. That

559
is all that I want to say, my Lords, I apologise for having been perhaps as blunt as some of those old Anglo-Saxon people were, but I wanted to emphasise what I consider to be the fact: that there is a tremendous amount of cant talked about the whole thing from all sides.
7.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies to the debate I hope the House will forgive me if I return to the Motion on the Order Paper. I should not intervene in this debate but for two things. I think it is desirable that some mention should be made of the Act of Parliament under which the prosecution took place, particularly by one like myself who supported my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett when he was piloting the measure through this House. The second ground on which I venture to intervene is that I should hate it to be thought that I agreed with most of the speeches that have been made, or, indeed, that most of the Back Benchers agreed with them. Although an attack has been made upon the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, I must say that I thought he put many cogent considerations before the House; and I also agree with a good deal of what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. Of course, when we are discussing this question of obscenity we are dealing with a notoriously difficult matter, because the problem that every sane person wishes to solve is how to reconcile two desirable things—not to interfere with literature, but to discourage and to prevent pornography.
Nobody supposes that that is a simple matter. But in my opinion, if the House will study the matter, they will certainly come to the conclusion that the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, is a great improvement on the law as it previously existed, and that nothing that has happened since that Act came on the Statute Book gives us any reason to revise that opinion. Of course, that does not mean that this Statute is perfect. There are many matters in the construction of that Statute which will not be finally clear until they have been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in an appropriate case. If I may mention one of
560
those matters, I think it is by no means clear precisely what is meant by an "expert" in Section 4 of that measure, or how some of the witnesses who gave evidence in the recent case came to be considered experts.
What is the general principle of that Act? It is this. When a book is prosecuted under the Act the questions to be considered are, quite briefly, these two: first, is the book obscene? That means, is the book, taken as a whole, such as to deprave and corrupt the reader? Secondly, even if it is, is publication justified as being for the public good, on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of public concern? It is on this last point, whether publication is justified as being for the public good, that the opinions of experts are admissible in evidence.
In the case that is mentioned in the Motion on the Order Paper the jury decided in favour of the defence. This may have meant either of two things. It may have meant that they did not think the book, taken as a whole, was such as to deprave and corrupt, or it may have meant that they thought that publication was justified as being for the public good. Nor is it at all certain that each member of the jury decided the case on the same ground. Provided that each member of the jury thought that one or other of those conditions was satisfied, the jury was rightly unanimous in deciding against the prosecution and in favour of the defence. Neither of those two questions is easy to determine. What I strongly suggest to the House is this: that a jury is a much better body for their determination than any single man, who may be prejudiced. I believe that the better the Judge the more he will think that a jury is the appropriate body to decide these questions. Of course, it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot to say that, if he had been on the jury, he would have decided differently. I dare say he would. But that does not mean to the rest of us that he would necessarily have decided more wisely. The fact is that if you think that the general principles of this Act are right, as I do, and that a jury is the right body to decide the matter, it seems to me that it would be mischievous if every decision of a jury were to be questioned in either House of Parliament.

561
Having said that, let me go on to say that I am not going to discuss the merits of this book, which have, I think, been fantastically exaggerated. It is not, in my opinion, at any rate—here I agree with the last speaker—anything like the best book of this author. But although every one of us is fully entitled to disapprove of this book, or to dislike it, what really appals me is that some noble Lords should apparently advocate the suppression or barring of a book because they dislike or disapprove of it. At this late hour I do not wish to weary the House, but I wish to give one final assurance and recommendation to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I would assure him that, if he finds Lady Chatterley's Lover shocking, I find his Motion on the Order Paper more shocking. May I conclude with a word of friendly advice to the noble Lord? Let him stop reading the works of Mr. D. H. Lawrence. They obviously do him no good and seem to give him very little pleasure. Instead let him read, or re-read, John Milton's Areopagitica. It will do him all the good in the world.
7.30 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, after this prolonged, heated and rather fœted debate I will not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes, but my name, for some reason which escapes me, has been dragged in on one or two occasions. I should just like to say that no one doubts the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, less than I do. I have the highest regard for him. Indeed, my regard for him can be measured only in terms of my total disagreement with him on every single topic of to-day. But my high regard for him remains very great. The noble Lord knows that we disagree about things like television and censorship and, I am afraid, about Lady Chatterley's Lover. But he is perfectly entitled to hold his opinions, and I respect them.
The noble Lord, however, made a rather astonishing statement at the beginning of his speech, when he said that this book not only deals with adultery but deals with adultery that did not happen. That is the thing about fiction; it does not happen. That is something we have to bear very much in mind. And if the noble Lord and
562
the noble Earl, Lord Craven, who rather fortified him on this point, believes that all books or works of fiction which deal with adultery should be banned, that covers a large number of most interesting books. Anna Karenina, held by some to be a very good novel, would be entirely "out" as far as the noble Lord was concerned; and Madame Bovary, too. I could go on with the list indefinitely. I believe that if the noble Lord's thoughts were carried to their logical conclusion the whole fiction of the world would be almost quartered.
The noble Earl, Lord Craven, in his deeply morbid speech, advocated a dogmatic absolutism with a fervour such as I had never yet heard in public life. I only want to ask him: who is going to do all this to us? He said we must all be subjected to this tremendous disciplining The noble Earl thought it would be quite a good thing if we disciplined ourselves, but that because very few of us are able to do so, therefore we should have to be disciplined; and I want to know who is going to do the disciplining. I suggest that we might have a good try at doing a little self-disciplining. I am sure I carry the right reverend Prelate on that point.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord backs me up in the view that we ought to do a little self-disciplining; but I did not mean to direct the expression at him personally.
LORD BOOTHBY: No, but the noble Earl seemed to imply that most of us are unable to discipline ourselves, and that someone else would have to do it in a big way; and I was only mildly curious to know who was to do it. I am bound to say that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans came as a refreshing stream of delightful cold water in the middle of an otherwise rather heated debate. I should only like to say on the subject of this particular book that I agree with noble Lords who have said that a great deal of the evidence at the trial seemed to be pretty fair nonsense. I agree with everybody who says that this is not, by any means, the best book of the author. I think it is pretty boring.
I am happy to report to noble Lords that the only two children of 15 that I

563
know myself to have taken up the book to read, both stuck in it at a quite early stage, because they were so bored, and could not finish it. I do not think it is deliberately pornographic, nor do I think it is deliberately cynical, as undoubtedly were a great many Restoration works which are in free circulation and can be purchased at any library. And I think cynicism is a far more dangerous thing, from the point of view of youth, than the kind of lunatic sincerity, though passionate sincerity, that D. H. Lawrence undoubtedly had.
Speaking in broken tones, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked the rhetorical question: where are we all going? I would suggest to him that we are all getting along pretty well, and going fairly well in the right direction. He suddenly dragged in, for no reason that I can see, the Wolfenden Report—I do not know why, or what that has to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover, or why it should indicate that we are going anywhere in particular. But I want, if I can, to cheer him up a little, because he sounded so frightfully depressed at that point. I see no reason at all for his pessimism. I hate censorship. There has been a healthy distaste of censorship expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon. I am absolutely in agreement with my noble friend who preceded me that the jury is the best judge in all these matters. I think this is an excellent Act. I think this is not a very good Motion. I shall certainly vote against it if it comes to a Division.
The only thing I should like to suggest to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government is that if anything is going to be done, then this Act might be extended a little to cover the Press and horror comics, because while I am not in the least concerned about Lady Chatterley's Lover, I am concerned about the stuff we have been having to read in recent months, particularly about things that have happened or are alleged to have happened, in some Sunday newspapers, some of which are a real disgrace to any civilised country. I am concerned, too, at some of the horror comics which are on sale to children everywhere and which encourage sadism in any shape or form. I am inclined to think that it might be a good idea to widen the scope of this
564
Bill to such a point that juries might be given the opportunity of considering whether a particularly vicious article or horror comic was not having a really bad effect on the younger generation, because I believe that these things are far worse than Lady Chatterley's Lover.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, why does the noble Lord imagine that such things are not already within the scope of the Act?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I understand that newspaper articles are not within its scope.
7.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to assure my noble friend Lord Boothby that the articles and things to which he was referring in his more recent discussion are most certainly within the Act, without amendment. There is no question about that, and my noble friend Lord Cones-ford was perfectly right. As my noble friend has reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked at the beginning of his speech: "Where are we going to?" This is a question I have asked myself, I am afraid, rather more than once during the course of this rather wide discussion. I feel that if I do take a little longer to answer than perhaps I might, I ought really to do so for the sake of clarifying one or two issues. Before I do so I have two confessions to make.
The first is that Penguin Books, who were the firm of publishers involved in the case, published two of my books in 1947 and 1959. I do not think that that is a circumstance which has influenced my mind in any way, nor do I think, strictly speaking, it is an interest, in a sense, that one is bound to declare. But, lest others should take a different point of view, I hasten to disclose the facts myself. Both books sold rather well. Neither of them sold quite as many as 1½ million copies, nor was any second printing of this scale contemplated by Sir Allen Lane. But we all know that, thanks to the eminent but somewhat humourless crowd of experts who gave evidence at the trial, the 1½ million copies of this book are, of course, entirely distributed among those whose sole regard is for its literary merit.

565
The other confession I have to make is that, like some other speakers, when this book was first published between hard covers some 30 years ago I was just in the intermediate stage between "Mods" and "Greats" and tried to read it, but utterly failed. It was not because it was disgusting but I am bound to say I found it dull. I was in some doubt in my mind whether I ought to read the book in order to qualify myself for this debate. I thought that perhaps it would be more fun to be unprejudiced; but in the end I succumbed to whatever temptation my noble friend Lord Teviot had placed before me, and perhaps I am now thoroughly depraved and corrupted. But having read, I suppose, every word of it, I am bound to add that my opinion of my literary judgment as a young man of 21 is considerably fortified by my experience of reading the entire book. But this is a personal judgment and I do not propose to rely on it for the purpose of my answer. I may also add that I have read the transcript of the trial for the same purpose, in order to qualify myself to reply to the debate.
I cannot forbear to ask your Lordships whether we really ought to have held a debate like this at all. I am of the opinion, very strongly, that this House ought not to be very lightly made a Court of Appeal from a verdict of a jury in a criminal case. What would people say if, for instance, we substituted in the words of the Motion "Dr. Bodkin Adams" for Lady Clzatterlev's Lover? What kind of precedent is it that my noble friend has set for us this afternoon? Where are we going to, when a trial in a criminal case, properly conducted by one of the most distinguished and experienced criminal Judges, has resulted in an acquittal? Other noble Lords have disagreed with him, but my noble friend, especially in an interruption of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not pretend that he complains of the law. What he is complaining of is the verdict,
Of course, in Parliament it must be, as a residual function of the Constitution, open to everybody to discuss everything on a substantive Motion. I am bound to say I am not sure, having read the re-amended version several times,
566
whether this is a Motion or an Unstarred Question. But it must be open to anybody in Parliament to discuss anything, including the verdict of a jury or judgment of a judge, on a substantive Motion. I give my noble friend the credit for having drafted a substantive Motion. But I think it is a right in relation to criminal trials, especially when these result in acquittals, which should be exercised with the greatest caution; and I very much doubt whether some of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon exercised that caution.
I believe myself that public opinion generally would say that, whatever the merits or demerits of any particular case, once a defendant has been put in peril on an indictment in a criminal cause and acquitted, he should be allowed to go free without further interference, except in so far as the general law can be stated to be at fault. And if the general law is to be held in question. then it is my own opinion that it is far better discussed in principle as a general question of policy than in relation to a particular verdict. Having said that, I must say that it was not plain from the Motion whether what my noble friend was complaining of was the general law, but it is now plain from what he has said that he is not doing so; he is complaining of the particular verdict. Whatever may be the desirability of the House discussing particular verdicts, I am quite sure of one thing; it would not be tolerable for a Minister to express an opinion, and I do not propose for a moment to say whether I approve or disapprove of the verdict of the jury, who were seized of the matter and heard the evidence and saw the witnesses.
But I should like to endorse one or two general questions of policy which I think arise out of this debate, and I may, if I feel I have not imposed too far on the House, make one or two general observations about the book. But I would start at the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, began his speech. That is, we passed less than two years ago an Act of Parliament, the Obscene Publications Act. This was not, if I may venture to correct the noble Earl, Lord Craven, a statutory instrument /his was a most carefully drafted

567
Act of Parliament, passed after prolonged discussion in both Houses, hardly, in the end, with dispute. It succeeded a prolonged discussion in the Press and in the country. There were at least two sessions of a Select Committee of another place which preceded and recommended it. It was supported by the Government. It was introduced into this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, in one of the most splendid speeches which he has given us, and it was passed with general approval.
My Lords, the principles of that Act I do not understand my noble friend to dispute. They are that something is obscene if, taken as a whole, it tends to deprave and corrupt. What could be better expressed than that? If there is a better definition no one has suggested it this evening. There was then further provision: it being recognised that there are a number of works which contain obscene matters and which might come within the definition but which ought, none the less, to be printed, it was decided that expert evidence should be given and that it should be open to a jury to find—the burden of proof resting, unusual in criminal trials, upon the defence—that it was for the public good. notwithstanding the obscene character of a particular work. I have yet to know that there is anything wrong with that Act of Parliament. I have yet to see any particular criticism of it which has been made in this House or outside it which would justify the general jeremiads which have emerged from the noble Lord. Lord Amwell, or the noble Earl, Lord Craven.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I must correct the Minister there. I made no attack upon the Act. I am not a lawyer, and I thought it would be out of place to do anything of the kind. My attack was on the book and upon the possibility of that book having sanction and recommendation from a body of people who, in my opinion, ought to know better.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I repeat, where are we going? It was under this Act, which I now have it directly from the noble Lord he accepts, and which contains the provisions which I have described, that the book was tried properly before a jury: and the jury decided either that it was not obscene at
568
all or that, notwithstanding that it was of an obscene character, it was in the public interest and for the public good that the book should be printed.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the point is that I did not raise that issue. I do not think the subject should have been discussed as it has been discussed this afternoon. Once having it upon the Order Paper, surely I am entitled to say what I think of the issue at large and of the book we are discussing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords nobody is in the least objecting to the noble Lord's saying what he thinks; and the noble Lord should not object to my saying that I do not agree with him. That is the first point I would make. It is to my mind utterly unthinkable that, so soon after an Act has been deliberately passed by Parliament, after so much discussion and with such a degree of unanimity, we should be asked, as a result of a single verdict, to amend it in a material respect. I think it would be utterly unthinkable that we should.
The point is this. My noble friend Lord Teviot did not ask us in terms to amend the general law. I should like to know what he really is asking us to do. He has asked us specifically to take steps to ban—merciful word!; what does it mean?—or to prevent further publication of works of a particular but, none the less, not specified kind—
LORD BOOTHBY: And for ever.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —especially those of a particular named author. This we have no power to do, unless we are to contemplate legislation against individual authors or works, which I should have thought was utterly out of the question. But if that is not what we are being asked to do, I really do not know what my noble friend is asking for.
The other point I would make while discussing the question of law is this. The test of obscenity, whether under the old law or the new, is not whether we agree with the matter or like the matter; it is not even whether the matter is shocking or disgusting. The question, since the new Act, is whether the tendency of the work, taken as a whole, is to deprave or corrupt. And the jury's verdict, in my submission, ought to be

569
accepted on its face value: that either the book does not come within the definition or, if it does, there are substantial reasons of the public good justifying its publication. I hope I shall not be wearying the House—
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD AMWELL: Why not? You interrupt enough, and it is an important point here. The question has now gone from my mind and I shall have to leave it now. I am sorry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I never mind the noble Lord interrupting me: I am always glad to answer his questions, and nothing would stop me from doing so if it had not slipped his mind.
My Lords, this brings me to the book itself, because, if I am not wearying the House at this late hour, there are one or two issues of general policy which (if I might forget for the moment the fact that I am officially answering for the Government) I should like to put before the House on the general issues which have been raised. The book does raise one or two quite separate issues—and I am afraid I am going to be fairly outspoken about this, for a reason which wilt emerge. The first is the issue of the so-called four-letter words. My Lords, I must say at once that I do not like these words. They do not exalt, although Lawrence undoubtedly did intend them to exalt, the seriousness, and certainly not the spirituality, of the sexual relationship; still less do, they exalt, as Lawrence certainly did intend to exalt, the tenderness which should subsist between sexual partners.
I find that this view is very generally shared. Incidentally, it was shared by one of the witnesses for the defence, Mr. Graham Hough, who wrote a book about Lawrence in which he said this about the four-letter words:
"There are arcana in nature as well as religion, and nothing that affects the emotional life as intimately and individually as sex can or ought to be fully' in the open'."
He goes on:
"The passages we have just discussed, describing the sexual act more fully than has ever been done before, can be justified by the whole intention of the book. But when we
570
come to the obscene words and Lawrence's campaign for their revival, I think we encounter an excessive reaction to censorship and prudery. Lawrence uses in Lady Chatterley live four-letter words not commonly seen in print, and uses them probably not more than a hundred times in the course of a longish novel…Of course, it is true that we have no proper vocabulary to discuss sex … Lawrence's remedy is to use the obscene words, familiarly and seriously, so that the tabooed acts and parts of the body can be talked about in natural and native words. An admirable intention, no doubt, but doing no great credit to his literary sense. Writers are masters of language, but they can only become so by respecting its nature. No writer can alter the connotations of a whole section of the vocabulary by mere fiat, and the fact remains hat the connotations of the obscene physical words are either facetious or vulgar. And very useful they are in these contexts. But in any context where dignity, tenderness, respect for one's own person or that of another, is concerned they are impossible. The effect of putting them into Mellor's mouth as they are is either to create the impression that he is, as one of Lawrence's acquaintances described him, a crude sexual moron, or that whole passages of his discourse are disastrously out of character."
My Lords, I entirely endorse that view. But, to come back to the Motion, I would add that I cannot think that your Lordships should waste much lime in discussing the four-letter words. They are generally known to everybody above a certain age, and I cannot believe that there are many people who will take much harm by seeing them in print, although I personally regard such printing as an act of had taste. In certain contexts they might be extremely offensive and obscene; and in such contexts they would certainly be prosecuted; and, if they were, would quite certainly be convicted by juries. I would tell my noble friend, if it comforts him, that, since the Act of Parliament was passed, there have been quite a number of prosecutions which have been successful. There is only one, I believe, which has been unsuccessful, and that is this one which we are discussing to-night.
Now, my Lords, I believe that one's attitude to the book must in the end be determined by one's attitude to the repeated, detailed and colourful descriptions which occur in it of the sexual act. I should like to say that in my belief some of these are exceedingly tasteless, and some others are vulgar and absurd. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to arouse the sniggering and offensive attitude to sex, which Lawrence particularly disliked, than Mellors'

571
lengthy, and to my mind ridiculous and offensive, apostrophe to a portion of his own anatomy in a local dialect. Again, I am exteremly glad to see that this view was supported by at least one witness for the defence in his evidence in the case. I could also refer to the long and, to my mind, highly ludicrous passage in which the lovers entwined wild flowers in each other's bodies. I do not myself believe that this is the stuff of which great literature is made. I do not believe that it achieves the purpose Lawrence undoubtedly had in mind. In the mind of the average adult or adolescent, I can only think that it would excite derision at the author and want of respect for the very thing the author is asking them to hold in reverence.
My Lords, I come now to the more difficult and fundamental question. No one criticises Hamlet because it is a play about murder no one criticises Phedre because it is a play about incest; and no one criticises Antony and Cleopatra because it is a play about adultery. Why, then, should they criticise Lady Chatterley's Lover because it is a novel about sex?—moreover a novel about sex which preaches mutuality and tenderness between lovers, and reverence, and not levity, about the subject? Surely the answer is because, unlike the authors of the plays I have mentioned, who allowed the dramatic quality of the situations they described to stimulate reflexion in their hearers, Lawrence consciously, deliberately, and even stridently, preaches at his readers. Other authors can complain if their works are criticised for their subject matter as distinct from their words: Lawrence cannot.
But, my Lords, the real question underlying this debate (which is, at least in my view, irrelevant to the jury's verdict. but highly relevant to our attitude towards public affairs) is whether it is really legitimate, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said, to seek to prevent the publication of books simply because they embody a philosophy with which one does not happen to agree. My Lords, I am one of those who do not agree with that philosophy. Unlike some of the eminent but, to my mind, as I have said, somewhat humourless witnesses for the defence, I would not recommend the book as reading material
572
for the young and impressionable. It is, I think, essentially a book for those with sexual experience rather than for those without it. But is it to be said that such books cannot be published at all for fear of harming the innocent? It is possible that this view exaggerates the extent to which the innocent are likely to be harmed by works of this nature. Although, frankly, I should have preferred to see it between boards and priced at 30s. than in a paper back and priced at 3s. 6d., I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that I personally know of no principle of jurisprudence which can differentiate between 30s. and 3s. 6d. or between boards and a paper back.
My Lords, I do not myself value very highly even the artistic integrity of the work. Its whole purpose is to describe a relationship as valid and about to become permanent. But, to me at least, the mise en scène is unlikely and the principal characters improbable; and the story ends just when a writer of real artistic integrity ought to have begun answering some of the questions he has raised. Before I accepted as valid or valuable, or even excusable, the relationship between Lady Chatterley and Mellors, I should have liked to know what sort of parents they became to the child, as yet unborn, that they were made to hunch rather irresponsibly into the world; I should have liked to see the kind of house they proposed to set up together; I should have liked to know how Mellors would have survived living on Connie's rentier income of £600, introduced, it seemed to me, solely for the purpose of avoiding the question, which other lovers, adulterous and otherwise, have to face, of how they are going to earn their living; and I should have liked to know whether they acquired a circle of friends, or, if not, how their relationship survived social isolation. It is not, I believe, hard to accept that a physical relationship can become absolutely delightful in the first transports of sexual encounter. But if Lawrence was going to discuss the sexual act at all, I should have been interested if he had gone on to tell us what Mellors and Connie did about it after fifteen years of cohabitation.
Of course, the Bishop of Woolwich made an ass of himself. I wish Bishops would sometimes consult their educated laity before humiliating them in this way.

573
But the true Christian criticism of Lawrence's book is not that it is too realistic, but that it is not realistic enough; not that it is too outspoken, but that it is not outspoken enough. If he had been a story-teller, he would have been entitled to leave the story unfinished as he did. But he was not content to be a storyteller: he set himself up as the prophet and preacher of a new religion in opposition to Jesus Christ. In such circumstances, to have left unanswered the questions which I have indicated was to stigmatise himself. whatever his literary skill, not only as irresponsible but, by the standards upon which he chose to be judged. as a charlatan and a fake.
My Lords, I end with a word to my noble friend, and to other people who, like myself, share the Christian faith. It may well be that we should like to preserve the innocence of our children and of society from the disasters which we believe will follow from the adoption of false creeds, false prophets and false Christs. We cannot do so by prohibiting their works by an act of law. We have to gird our loins and fight, and the battle must involve a willingness on our part to meet our enemies in the open; to defeat them in argument armed with the like weapons of tongue and pen which they themselves have selected, prepared to show that our own beliefs are more realistic and more rational than theirs. We shall not succeed in this day and age by prohibiting their works merely because we regard their opinions as destestable.
8.2 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very gratified by the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. There is an enormous amount in it, which makes me feel justified in putting down this Motion. I should just like to say this to the noble Viscount. He mentioned, I think at the beginning of his speech, that there was some doubt in his mind, or that I ought to have had some doubt, about the legality or advisability, in the eyes of the law, of this Motion being put down at all. But I would remind the noble Viscount that I had a little talk with him, quite privately in his room, about the terms of the Motion, and I went away quite satisfied that I was not out of order in any sense of the word.
574
There are just one or two things that I should like to say with regard to this word "expert". Who is an expert? Simply because someone or other has an opinion, is he or she to be called an expert? If your Lordships remember, the note of the cross-examination of one of these experts at the trial by learned counsel, Mr. Griffith-Jones, included this passage:
Q. "That is your opinion? A. Yes, it is.
Q. "You would not mind if it was put on the television, would you? A. Oh no, that must not be done.
Q. "But why not? If there is nothing wrong about this and it is not obscene, why not put it anywhere?"
Actually, I think that now, if anything of that sort were put on to a gramophone record—and I understand they are now being manufactured—or shown in a cinema, there is no penalty.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not anxious, of course, to interrupt my noble friend, but it might do a great deal of harm if that remark went unchallenged. The fact that a novel in print has been acquitted by a jury should offer no encouragement to anyone to offer it in any other medium, illustrated by pictures or recorded in sound. They would be different works, and there has been no verdict of a court in relation to them. Nor would I give an expression of opinion as to whether there is a penalty.
LORD TEVIOT: In that case, am I to understand that the manufacture of these discs, as reported in the Daily Telegraph. would be illegal?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Only a jury can say whether a particular work is illegal, but obviously they would have no kind of protection from the verdict in relation to the novel.
LORD TEVIOT: Then, my Lords, there it is. I wish to inform the House that in no circumstances am I going to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I therefore beg to press the Motion standing in my name.
On Question. Motion negatived.
House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.