§ Major HAYWARDasked the Postmaster General why the responsible officers of his Department destroyed the whole packet of etchings by Felicien Rops referred to in his answer of 17th February last when they found that certain of the prints only were of an obscene character; whether he is aware of the position of Rops among modern etchers and the value of his works; and whether he will compensate the owners for the destruction of this packet?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe destruction of the whole packet was in accordance with the general practice adopted by my Department with a view to the suppression of the traffic by post in indecent and obscene wares. I am aware that the etchings of Rops possess considerable technical merit and command high prices, but the fact that an obscene picture may be the work of an artist of repute does not render it less objectionable from the point of view of public morals. The Post Office regulations preclude payment of compensation in respect of a packet containing anything not legally transmissible by post, and I am unable to make any exception in the present case.
1437W
§ Major HAYWARDasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what qualifications and training in art are possessed by the responsible officers of his Department who act as art censors under Clause 63 of the Post Office Act, 1908; how they are selected; and whether the officers who ordered the destruction of the etchings by Felicien Rops, referred to in his answer of Monday last, are the same officers who act as censors of copies of La Vie Parisienne and other French pictorial publications and postcards transmitted through the post?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHNo special art training is required in order to determine whether an article is indecent or obscene, and all postal packets suspected of containing such articles are dealt with by the same officers, whether the articles possess artistic merit or not. These duties are allocated to senior officers of wide, general experience.