that it should be dealt with by enforcing the law with regard to obscene detail ?I have been already asked a question before you, Sir, came into the room, if you will pardon me saying so, whether in my opinion divorce reports could be so framed that they should not give offence, and I replied, Yes, I do think that is the case.

1,024. That does not answer my point, quite ?—I am sorry; I have been trying to follow the point.

1,025. So far as divorce reports are thought by some people to be objectionable, they are thought to be objectionable not by reason of any special detail which would be liable to the law, but owing to the cumulative effect of a number of statements, whether in evidence or otherwise, not one of which taken individually could be made subject to the law as being obscene. Would you agree with that statement ?--I should find it very difficult to agree that such a report should not be published because it had certain statements in it; it might be I should regard those statements as essential to the proving of the case in fairness to one or other of the parties.

1,026. I should be sorry to be thought pertinacious?-I am very sorry that I am not taking your question as you wish.

1,027. I am really trying to ask you whether you think the distinction is a clear one, or whether you would agree that so far as the great number of reports of divorce cases are concerned there is hardly one sentence in them at all which in itself taken alone would be liable to the law as being obscene ?-That would be a matter of opinion, would it not? Take, for instance, the details of the chambermaid's evidence which states the things found in the bedroom, and so on. I do not know how you would regard that: whether you would regard that as a matter which by itself was so unpleasant that it ought not to be published.

1,028. If I may say so, this is your recommendation as to how the law should be improved; therefore, if I am pertinacious upon it, it is upon a point which you yourself suggested?—Quite.

1,029. Do you think therefore that there are obscene details in the present reports and that dealing with these might create an improvement ?—If it is to be known by the Press that the Legislature or the Judiciary will protect the public from the issuing of indecent details in reports of divorce cases, I think there would be a general trimming up, generally more carefulness in the handling of

[Continued.

divorce reports. I believe it is quite possible to present the details without offence.

1,030. Would this be too much to ask you to take a report of the most notorious case that has recently happened, which we all know is the Russell case, and to take your owń blue pencil and to send to the Chairman the report of that case, marking those details which you think could be dealt with under that suggestion of yours?—The Judge in that case, I believe, expressed the opinion that a tenline paragraph every day would suffice for the purposes of the Court, and I daresay there are a great many people who agreed with him. There are others who did not; but personally I am bound to say there would be a lot of blue pencil used if I had to subedit the report of the

case.

:

1,031. We have got this conflict of evidence really the evidence of some people who say it is not the obscene details that matter, and your evidence which goes to the effect that dealing with the obscene details would meet the case. Therefore what I would really ask you, quite genuinely, is whether you could send to the Chairman any account that you may choose, from whatever paper you may choose we could keep the identity of the paper confidential, if you wishand mark those parts of it which you think might be dealt with under this paragraph, which you say would be an improvement ? -I do not think I would be inclined to undertake that task. I have already said I am not an expert Divorce Court reporter. I will say this in addition, that I think you are suggesting an extremely hard task. You are taking a particular instance, one of the most flagrant cases of nauseousness ever heard in the Courts, and you are asking one to deal with that particular case. I would say that only the most experienced reporters of Divorce Court cases are capable of doing that in a case of that kind. I would not be tempted to do it. I do not think I have the skill.

1,032. Perhaps I am pressing you too hard; but I am pressing you purposely, for this reason. If it is one of the most nauseous cases, and if it is one of the most striking from that point of view, surely it would be one of the easiest in which to denote passages which could be dealt with under the law of obscene publication, and which would show that your suggestion might be operative to make things better? -Well, Sir, I am nothing if not courageous; if you are pressing me to send you

in a blue-pencilled report, I will endeavour to do so. I may tell you my time is very short; I am going away to the Continent on Sunday by an early train.

1,033. Very well; I will not press it further. Now supposing you were yourself asked, with all your experience of newspapers, which report, if any, was liable to cause most harm to the public, would you really say that they were divorce reports or reports of other matters? Are we really making too much in the Bill of one aspect of the subject and leaving others untouched that perhaps might be needed?-I think you are making too much of one aspect in the Bill. I do think that. You must remember, Sir, speaking for the Provincial Press, the number of divorce cases we handle is small relatively to the number of other cases which come before our Courts.

1,034. Other cases which are really just as nauseous ?-There are the Police Courts and there are the Sessions and the Assizes held in our counties. The other cases that arise in those Courts are very much more numerous than the divorce

cases.

1,035. I do not wish for a moment to institute any comparisons with regard to what you say as regards the Provincial Press or to impugn what you say. If, as you say, great trouble has been taken, which I do not doubt for a moment, to keep, putting it broadly, bad stuff out of the Press, would a restriction like this really hamper you much ?—I think I have already said that so far as clause 1 (1) (b) is concerned, we should not regard it as a restriction which would hamper us. We think that clause 1 (1) (a) would hamper us very seriously. We feel that we would get no report at all. I have given reasons for that already, and I have mentioned some detailed criticism of the items themselves, which is on the note.

Mr. Jowitt.

1,036. I should like to question you a little further on the point which Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland put to you, which is a very vital point. He asked you to take the Russell case, and in your mind, at any rate, to imagine yourself going through it with a blue pencil. I was impressed by your answer. You said you did not think you had the skill to do it. Do you remember that answer ?Yes, I said so. I have not had the experience in Divorce Court reporting.

1,037. If it is a matter of indecency, you or I or anybody else, apart from

[Continued.

experience, could deal with it. Anybody is as good a judge of indecency as anybody else?-I amended my answer by saying that I was willing, if I had time, to undertake the task that Sir Arthur put to me.

1,038. I was not meaning that. You demurred rather because you stated you had not the skill or the experience to do the work?—I did not want to give the Committee the impression that I was capable of doing something that I was quite sure others, with greater experience, would do very much better. I had already mentioned to the Committee that in some respects I should think they would get more valuable evidence from expert Divorce Court reporters than they could get from a person like myself.

1,039. In so far as it is a question of merely cutting out or blue-pencilling indecency, you could do that as well as it could be done by anybody else?Yes, I think I can agree that.

1,040. Does it not really come to this? You have a phrase, I think, in newspaper circles, writing up," have you not ? You write a thing up ?—Yes.

66

1,041. Let me put a hypothetical case. Do you not think it is possible that without putting down a single indecent word, an unscrupulous journalist, employed by an unscrupulous editor, can write up a divorce case so as to lend a kind of false romantic glamour to the whole thing and make the adulterer appear as a hero, and so on. Do you follow what I mean ?— Yes, I follow what you mean.

1,042. Is it not quite possible for a competent journalist to write in that way? -Yes, a romancist can do anything in that way, but it is a very dangerous proceeding, having regard to the law of libel. It can easily get him into trouble. My instructions to my staff always were to keep to the facts and not to romance. It is very dangerous for a journalist to romance in matters dealt with in a Court of Law.

1,043. Do you not think there is a tendency to invest with a kind of romantic glamour what is really at best a sordid story ?-I am not sure that I am aware of that.

1,044. Has it never occurred to you ?— It has not occurred to me. I think some of the papers are apt to make too much of the thing, with big headlines, and so on.

1,045. Is not that a very typical instance: big headlines, and so on, of what I mean by writing up ?-Writing up is quite different from headlines. Writing up is

this. Take a case which has occupied the Court all day, a full report of which would occupy many columns. This is written up in three-quarters of a column, and that requires the skill of an experienced reporter, who has to be particularly careful that in shortening his report he does not do injustice to any one.

1,046. I am using a wrong phrase, am I? By writing up you mean cutting down ?-Yes, exactly.

1,047. I mean nothing to do with length at all; just get that out of your mind altogether. I mean presenting a picture in a false light, be it a long picture or a short picture ?--I can only say that I do not know a newspaper that does so. I do not know a report of the character that you are referring to.

1,048. Has it never occurred to you that in the reports of the Russell case, it was made by some newspapers almost into. what I may call a kind of epic instead of being a sordid tragedy? I am asking you to concentrate your attention on the report of that particular case. Should I not be right in saying that that was written up into a kind of epic rather than a sordid tragedy?—I did not read the report more than once a day, and then I read it in the Times newspaper, and in that newspaper it was not written up in the sense that you are referring to. I have no knowledge of any other report.

1,049. Do you ever read divorce reports in other papers than the Times ?—No, I do not.

1,050. Then your evidence that you are giving is exclusively taken from the Times ?-No. On the contrary I am here to represent the Newspaper Society, which is entirely provincial.

1,051. I am asking you what reports you read so far as your own knowledge goes, and you say you only read the divorce reports which appear in the Times ?-I do not agree. You were asking me about the particular case which I said I read reported in the Times.

1,052. I asked you if you ever read divorce reports in other papers, and you said no. Perhaps you wish to amend that answer?-I must have misunderstood you. I should like to correct that. Of course I read my evening papers as well, and no doubt occasionally I did read part of the Russell case in the evening papers.

1,053. Do you ever read newspapers which devote habitually a considerable part of their more prominent space to divorce details ?-No, I do not read those newspapers. I have seen them.

[Continued.

1,054. Putting purely a hypothetical case -It is not entirely hypothetical I think.

1,055. If you will allow me to do so, I will put it as a hypothetical case. Supposing there is a newspaper which does devote a very considerable part of its prominent space to the reporting of a series of divorce cases, so that if you look at the front page you get, in headlines, sentences culled from this report, and that report, and so on, do you not think that that, altogether apart from any particular indecency in any phrase or sentence, might do a great deal of harm ?--Yes, I do, and I have come here to say so. It is said in my original statement. We are not here to defend that sort of Divorce Court reporting.

1,056. Then if that is so, again my question is on the hypothesis that the harm is done although there is no indecent word or indecent sentence. How do you propose to deal with that ?-Am I to accept the hypothesis that there is no indecent word or sentence in these long reports?

1,057. Certainly ?—I find great difficulty in accepting that. I know there are certain papers, which must be nameless, which do order full reports of cases and may print the greater part of them.

1,058. Then does it come to this: However much space a paper may devote to divorce reporting, however many headlines it may employ, you cannot imagine any deleterious effect being produced upon the readers, so long as there is no indecent word or indecent sentence. Is that what you say?—Yes, I think it comes to that. I dislike intensely the papers which devote their front pages to Divorce Court reports in the mass; that is my personal opinion; but I do not want you to think that I imagine that harm is necessarily done by that sort of thing.

1,059. I must really ask you, to get it clear: Do you, or do you not, think that harm would be done by a paper devoting a considerable amount of its prominent space to divorce reporting, even though there is no indecent word, and no indecent sentence, in it ?-I am very diffident about giving you the answer that you want. I think you are pressing me a little unduly hard for an answer which is very difficult to give. I do not think, Sir, that I need answer your question. have endeavoured to be fair, and tell you everything which is in my mind to tell

you.

I

12 July 1923]

1,060. I am sure you have endeavoured to be fair?-You are asking me really what is a hypothetical question: a page full of reports in which there is not a single indecent word, in which there are headlines of an exciting character perhaps.

Chairman.

1,061. You can answer to the best of your ability.

Mr. Jowitt.

1,062. If you would rather not answer for some reason which I do not appreciate, I will not press it ?—It seems to me that I have said all I can about it.

1,063. You would rather not answer it? -I honestly do not think that reports which have no indecent words in them would do moral harm.

Chairman.

1,064. I think you told Mr. Cassels that if clause 1 (1) (a) in the Bill were to become law you would have no report at all? -If there were no discussion upon points of law we would just get the head and the tail.

1,065. If clause 1 (1) (a) were to become law you would have no report at all?Practically no report. We could not get the body of the case.

1,066. Could you tell me what harm would be done by the restriction of publication to those particulars ?—I thought I had already tried to indicate some difficulties. In my opinion, it is necessary, in the printing of a report, to see that the evidence for the accusation in the case is sufficiently stated, and that the evidence for rebuttal is sufficiently stated, and I venture to say that most journalists will tell you that it takes them a considerable amount of time and earnest care to get that fully done. I think the absence of it is going to deprive the public of something which it is really important for the public to have, inasmuch as if a man has done wrong his neighbours should know with whom they are associating.

1,067. You suggested some amendments. You suggested the names and occupations of the parties might be allowed ?-Yes.

1,068. The grounds on which the proceedings are brought or resisted as set forth in the petition and the particulars? -Yes.

1,069. Then there is the third one which I need not read out, and then in the fourth one you want to put in the summing-up of

[Continued.

the Judge, the finding of the jury, if any, and the judgment of the Court ?-We want to have the right to put in, though admitting, of course, that it would require blue pencilling, undoubtedly in certain

cases.

1,070. Then I still ask the question, so that we can get your answer in a nutshell: What harm would be done by the restric tion of the publication to those particulars as amended ?-I think the answers that I have already given have given expression to all that is in my mind to say.

1,071. Which is, that it is better for the public that a full report should appear? It is better for the parties, and it is better for the public that they should know the truth about the parties rather than that they should simply get a statement and a denial or refutation.

1,072. You do not think that the condition of things under the existing law offends public taste as a rule ?—I do not think, as a rule, it has offended public taste. As I have already said, I have no recollection of objection being taken to any Divorce Court report that I have ever published in my newspaper.

extreme

1,073. Then why is public opinion so much aroused as it is at present ?-My opinion is that there have been cases of nauseousness and, as I said before, the papers rather let themselves go on account of the physiological interest of them. I should imagine by this time they are very sorry they did.

1,074. Do you refer to any particular case in saying that ?—I am referring to the Russell case; that is the flagrant case.

1,075. A colleague of mine wants me to ask you this. If, as you say, it would be so difficult for the most experienced Divorce Court reporter to make out what should be excluded, is not that a reason for excluding all the evidence? Do you think that or not ?-I think that observation was made upon the Russell case. I regarded that as a particularly difficult case; but may I not put this point to you? In the Russell case there were three co-respondents. Was it not fair to them that the public should be told exactly how much or how little the evidence was in their case and why they were acquitted? I venture to think that is a reason that is worth consideration.

1,076. Following on that, you gave us an instance of indecent matter within your experience on one occasion, which was essential as an act of justice to one of the parties?-Yes, it is a long time ago, and I cannot recall the exact conditions,

Chairman.

1,082. The Committee were anxious on this subject to get the educational side of the question represented, and therefore asked you, as Chairman of the Headmasters' Conference and as Headmaster of Charterhouse, if you would be so kind as to come here and help us. I think you have seen the Bill-Yes, I have seen the Bill; it was sent me the other day.

1,083. Have you had opportunity of considering the broad question of the publication of objectionable details in divorce and similar reports as they affect young minds in schools, or have any opportunities come to you specially of being able to give us your experience about it?-No, I do not think So. I think I ought to say that I have not had any opportunity of consulting my fellow headmasters on the question, because I was only given notice of this about two days ago.

1,084. The Headmasters' Conference passed a resolution on the subject, did they not? The Committee, at my sugestion, sent in their backing to the Bill, last time we met a general support; we had not got the Bill before

us.

1,085. Have you the resolution here? -No; I sent that in to you. It was only quite general. It was not with the Bill before us. Your Secretary, in writing to me, said that the views of the Headmasters' Conference were put before the Home Secretary at a Deputation organised by the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality, in January, but I was not aware of that.

1,086. Speaking generally, do you consider that the reports that are being inquired into here are harmful from the educational standpoint, or that they make no difference?-I certainly think they are harmful; I certainly think the publicity and the detail is harmful, but it varies very much, of course, in the different papers. I do not consider that as published in the Times they are so harmful.

1,087. From a school point of view, do you think they make much difference? Have you had opportunities of judging at Charterhouse?-I think they are certainly read by boys when they are thrust upon them in certain papers. I cannot point to definite results from it, but I think it is quite obvious that the results are undesirable.