Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 19 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 6

CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Debate resumed on the motion:—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

In speaking to the Bill yesterday I endeavoured to show that it was introduced because the existing law had failed to deal with the evil of immoral literature. The Minister for Justice, in speaking to the Bill. stated a proposition with which I was in through agreement. He said: "The aim of the Bill is not an unwarrantable infringement of the liberty of the subject." There is a certain section of the Press which has been industriously engaged, for some considerable time, in endeavouring to prove that this Bill was an infringement of ordinary liberty, in the ordinary accepted sense of the term.

I heard John Stuart Mill quoted on a couple of occasions during the debate yesterday, and if there is one authority upon what constitutes the liberty of the subject I think that authority is John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill laid down two fundamentals for liberty. He said first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions so far as these actions concerned the interest of no person but himself. The second fundamental that Mill laid down was that, so far as such actions are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and subject to either legal or social punishments, if society is of opinion that such punishment is requisite for its protection. That sums up in a word the very proposition that the Minister for Justice put before this House. These are two principles upon which the Bill rests, and they are principles which no fair-minded man could object to. The liberty of the Press has been abused, not by our own national Press, but by a licentious and alien Press, which has been engaged in rivalry amongst a certain section of it. A certain section of that Press has obtained huge circulation by means of the propagation of a vile type of publications which every Deputy in this House objects to. We are all aware that huge sums for advertising purposes are netted by advertisements of cantraceptives, by the sale of contraceptives, and by a propaganda which deals with birth control.

This Bill is effectively designed to put a check to the operations of that foreign Press that circulates amongst us. The Bill is not designed to curtail the liberty of the Press. The Bill is designed to curtail the licentiousness of the Press. In this House yesterday there appeared to be no difference of opinion, as far as this Bill is concerned, in dealing with what a Deputy very properly termed fugitive literature. But in criticising this Bill a very eminent Senator said that the object of the Bill was to eliminate foreign competition in our Irish markets. Will any Deputy either in this House or any member of the Seanad contend that the Irish markets exist for the benefit of and for the profit of the alien Press that is in circulation amongst us? Will and Deputy contend that the English motor markets exist for the benefit of the productions of Cork rather than for the benefit of the productions of Coventry? If the English Press cannot carry on with the national Press fair and legitimate competition on sane and healthy lines, the duty of this State is to see that such competition must be put an end to. I, for one, have no sympathy whatever with that particular point of view which has been put forward.

May I turn for one moment to the second aspect of the Bill which some of the Deputies representing the universities, and some, perhaps, of the best educated men in this House endeavoured to have removed from the Bill? I refer to the question of the publication of books. Deputy Law suggested it would be better to leave books alone. He stated that he doubted if it was worth while. Other speakers seemed to me to follow similar lines and appeared anxious to eliminate this section of the Bill which deals with the publication and restriction of books. I do suggest to the Minister for Justice that he should stand firm over this section of the Bill. I do suggest that this section is as vital and just as important as the sections dealing with what has been termed the fugitive Press. Is it suggested in this House that the standards of literature are of such high excellence that we can with safety give them free circulation amongst us, or will any Deputy say that their circulation requires no check and no prohibition? I think anybody who would give just a moment's consideration to that aspect will admit straight away that there can be no justification for such a statement.

There has been an extraordinary fall in the moral standard in recent English literature. Speaking in this House, I hope it is not rank heresy to say that. I should like to quote an eminent authority dealing with that matter in the "Evening Standard." That authority is Dean Inge. He dealt with what he considers to be the standard of morality of literature in England to-day. Dean Inge said:—

"A corrupt following of Continental novels, French and Russian, has introduced both vulgarity and indecency into most English fiction. They have found their way in under the the specious name of realism and problem psychology. We are threatened with an outbreak of licentiousness like that which followed the Civil War in the 17th century and the Napoleonic Wars of 100 years ago."

I think that the Minister for Justice dealt in a very able and lucid manner with this aspect of the question. The Minister in dealing with the question of books said: "A book can only be fairly condemned when its tenor is bad and when it is systematically indecent. It must not be condemned for one or two passages." And he instanced such a work as Thackeray's "Vanity Fair."

Another eminent member of the House instanced certain works which deal with venereal disease and prostitution. Those subjects can be dealt with in a very different way than that in which the present-day writers are dealing with them. Anybody who has read the immortal works of Dickens knows that he has dealt with the very seamy side of life, and that his pen-pictures of those aspects of life stand as a moral warning to generations upon generations. Anybody who has read these portraits of life knows the moral drawn is only for the good of the people. Is it not a very well-known fact that most of the large sellers as far as books are concerned to-day deal absolutely with problems of sex, thinly veiled indecency from cover to cover? Is there not a very large sale for the type of book that is absolutely subversive of religion. This has led, in the words of the Bishop of Durham, "to the disintegration of the home, and a nation of churchless and creedless Christianity." That is literature as it stands to-day.

Deputy Law gave us some examples of books which were upon the border line, but Deputy Law did not deal with the examples which really matter, the examples which really count. I ask the House, does it intend to tolerate the admission of such books as "Woman and the New Race," by Margaret Sanger; "The Well of Loneliness," by Radclyffe Hall; "Lady Chatterley's Lover," by D.H. Laurence, and "Sapho," by Flaubert. There are other books such as Fielding's "Tom Jones," which I think this country could be better without. There is another very prolific writer, Doctor Marie Stopes, who deals with sex problems, with birth control and with things which no father would permit his child to come in contact with. I have here in my hand a cutting from the "Sunday Chronicle" dealing with the banning of the novel of a famous writer. It says: "A sensation has been caused in the literary world by the dramatic action which has been taken by the British Customs authorities against the astounding book, ‘Lady Chatterley's Lover,' by D.H. Laurence." It has been printed for subscribers only, and it is reeking with obscenity. We have the picture of a paralysed husband drawn in the book.

Mr. DERRIG

Why give it a free advertisement?

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

Where is it to got?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Lady Chatterley and her lover go into minute descriptions in the book, and such words are used between them that it is absolutely impossible even to hint at their nature. Now that we are dealing with the subject of evil literature it is just as well to look facts in the face and realise for ourselves what the position actually is. I suggest that the literature of to-day is on the down grade. I suggest there is an absolute necessity for this section of the Bill. Deputy Law appeared to think that if we took such action as that we would be inflicting very considerable hardship upon those engaged in the book-selling trade. I have before me a quotation from "The Book-seller," the official organ of the book-selling trade. It says: "The more one discusses the question of the decadent the more the problem seems to bristle with difficulty. The book-seller is too frequently blamed, but he should share the blame with the author, the publisher, and the public who ask for it. Realistic fiction seems to come in waves. The war made people think and write loosely, and what is the book-seller to do? Indecency in fiction, no less than in any other sphere, should be regulated by civic action, and is a matter for the authorities."

It has been suggested here by some of those who are engaged as authors in the production of books that there is a very rooted objection to anything in the nature of a check or prohibition as far as the activities of authors are concerned. Anybody who has read the report issued by the Catholic Truth Society on the problem of undesirable printed matter, and who has looked at the section of the Bill dealing with books, can only come to one conclusion that this is a vital section in the Bill. On page 44 of that report I see where Dr. Weber, vice-chancellor of Austria, has received from the Austrian branch of the German Writers' Federation, the oldest association of the kind in Germany, a protest against the present output of pornographic literature. The protest is as follows:—

The Austrian Group of the German League of Writers feels it a duty to take a definite stand in regard to the increased output, in the fields of books and of journalism, of publications which exceed all bounds of decency and morality, and which, masking under the name of science or philanthropy, or else openly, under no mask whatsoever, pursue no other aim than that of carrying on a lucrative business by serving to the reading public a constant output of sexual arguments, thus stimulating the most perverse instincts.

It appears to be a most horrible action on the part of this House to introduce a Bill that would deal with books. In America a Clean Books Bill has been introduced into the Legislature of Albany. Under its provisions any publisher who issues any printed matter that is found to be lewd, lascivious or obscene can be sent to jail for from 10 days to one year, and, in addition, may be fined from 50 dollars to 100 dollars. The Bill the Minister has introduced is not nearly so drastic as that, and we have been told that if the section referred to is persisted in it will do more harm than good. I think we ought to have the courage of our convictions, and I agree with Deputy Lemass when he said that we are really behind the times as far as dealing with evil literature is concerned.

If I might turn for a moment to the question of artificial birth control, that is another aspect of the problem that must be faced. This country I believe stands for the sanctity of the marriage tie. It stands for the preservation and the shouldering of responsibilities by those who enter into the married state. To the vast majority of the people the limitation, the control of births, or the infliction of race suicide upon this nation is one that is bitterly resented. Anyone who has given it any consideration at all must see that in this matter we are behind the times. If one looks at France, America, Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Victoria he will see that action has already been taken in this particular way. There appears to be an undercurrent of feeling that birth control is more or less in the interests of this State. This very eminent critic in the Upper House, that I have already referred to, appeared to think that the introduction of such a measure would be the infliction of a very grave injury, as he put it, not upon the wealthy classes who would no doubt be able to avail themselves whether there were restrictions or not, but on the poorer classes of this country. Is it suggested by that learned Senator that birth control or race suicide is in the interests of any State? If one might refer with all respect to the great French nation, what has happened there? The French population actually exceeded the German population in 1850. To-day the German population stands at 69 millions and the French population at 39½ millions. Is that for the benefit of France? Does it not cause the gravest concern to French statesmen who have the interests of their country at heart? Does it make for the production of a better race, and what is the effect upon a people from whom all moral responsibility, as far as the marriage tie is concerned, is removed? One might go from one extreme to the other in considering this aspect of the question. One might turn for a moment from the great French nation, which is the acme of European civilisation and glance at China where infanticide is permitted. What happens there? Has it brought about a reduction in the numbers in that country? On the contrary, because there is no responsibility under that particular head the population of China has increased. I do not think any same man could for a moment suggest, as this eminent Senator has suggested, that it is in the interests of the any State, or in the interests of the success of any State, that this question of birth control should go on unheeded and unchecked.

There was rather a grave attack in the House yesterday on the setting up of the Censorship Board. That attack I think crystallised the whole kernel of this question. We read some time ago articles by this eminent Senator to whom I referred which were published in a Manchester paper. One of them stated: "This Bill, if it becomes law, may inflict a dangerous wound upon the Irish intellect."

The Senator does not tell us how, but he goes on to say that if such a Board is established "our zealots' idea of establishing the Kingdom of God upon earth is to make Ireland an island of moral cowards." I wonder who has done more for the uplifting of the intellectual status of this nation. Has it been the incoming flood of literature, to which every right-thinking man has objected, or has it been those zealots, to whom Senator Yeats has taken exception? What have those zealots done for the development of intellect in Ireland? I have no hesitation in saying that I was a pupil of some of those zealots, and I see on the front benches of both the Official Opposition and the Government Party pupils of those zealots, who learned, not alone a taste for literature and the rudiments of knowledge, not alone those things that they required to fit them to fight the battle of life, but who also learned love of country and love of God. I do suggest to this House that the great majority of this great intellectual nation, which was famous, as far as letters were concerned, at a time when other nations were sunk in barbarism, owes to those zealots to whom Senator Yeats has referred a debt of gratitude which they can never pay. I feel that as far as the development of the intellectual status of this country is concerned, we in this House have no hesitation whatever in acknowledging the debt that should be paid to those zealots, and we are anxious to take the development of intellect, not from the flood of evil which has been pouring into the country, but from those zealots who always stood behind the nation in fair weather and in foul.

Mr. O'HANLON

I wish briefly to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this measure, to congratulate the Government for having taken the matter up, and particularly to congratulate the Committee on whose report this Bill has been drafted. I do not propose at this stage to criticise the various sections of the measure; in fact, I think there are only one or two sections which have been the subject of criticism up to this. I have only to say that it is not too soon for a measure of this kind to be introduced, having regard to its importance to our nation. It is a Bill which affects the future of our race, and which affects the mental and physical development of our people, and if we, who have to discuss this measure and to try to make it as good as it can possibly be, bear in mind the important effect that this Bill will have on the future of our people, I think we will set ourselves, in the Committee Stage, to tighten up any clauses in it which require tightening up and to loosen any that require loosening, endeavouring in that way to lay the foundation for the guidance of our rising population in the matter of race control and in the matter of the class of mental pabulum which they should have. I congratulate the Minister and all concerned on the introduction of this Bill.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

In rising to welcome this Bill and to congratulate the Minister on its introdution, I wish to express the hope that when it has gone through its various stages and will appear on the Statute Book, it will be an efficient instrument in combating those evils that everybody in this House so rightly deplores. One very gratifying and satisfactory feature of this debate has been that the fears which a certain section of the Press expressed about this Bill, and those expressed by another section, that I might describe as highbrows, have found no echo here. Deputies who have spoken have more faith in the common sense of the yet unknown censors board that will be set up to administer the Act. I am certainly at a disadvantage in following that eminent, learned and discursive speaker, my colleague for North Dublin, who has just spoken, and I only intend to say that no vote I have ever given here, or will ever give, will be given with more satisfaction than the vote I will register in favour of this Bill.

DOMHNALL UA BUACHALLA

Ba mhaith liom a rá ná haontuím le n-a bhfuil ráite ag a lán de sna Teachtaí gur ó léigheamh na bpáipéar a thagann isteach sa tír seo is mó a dintar díobháil. 'Sé mo bharúil-se go bhfuil an oiread díobhála déanta ag na leabhair úr-scéalta saora go dtagann tonaí aca isteach gach seachtain. Scaiptear amach ar shiopaí iad mór dtimpal na tíre agus díoltar iad fé cheilt. Na cailíní óga is mó a cheannuíonn iad, agus is oth liom a rá go sroichid gach bothán sa tír.

I do not agree at all with what has been said by many Teachtaí to the effect that the greatest harm has been done through the reading of newspapers that come into the country. It is my opinion that just as much harm is done by the cheap novels that are imported by the ton every week. They are distributed to the shops throughout the country and they are sold in an underhand way. They are bought principally by young girls, I am sorry to say, and they go into almost every cabin in the country. A short time ago I had occasion to visit a poor woman in an out-of-the-way place in County Meath, about three miles from Maynooth. This woman lived in a two-roomed thatched cabin, and a storm took away half the roof one night. She asked me to go out to have a look at it to see if I could do anything for her. This poor woman and I were sitting by the fire in the kitchen—the roof had been taken off the bedroom— and we were chatting. I saw on a shelf inside the chimney breast a box with some books in it. "Biddy," said I to the woman. "I see you have some books here. Perhaps there may be some valuable old Irish manuscripts among them. May I have a look at them?" She said that I might. I took down the box and examined the contents. There were about ten copies of the "Irish Rosary" and just as many copies of these filthy novels, novels with attractively coloured covers, with their suggestive, immoral, filthy stories. I looked through one of them to see what they were like, and then I asked her where she got them. She said she got them to read from girls in the neighbourhood. Now, what happened there is happening throughout the country, and, as I said before, these books are bought principally by young girls. The result is that the girls are getting a taste for that sort of thing, and their morals are being destroyed. Therefore, I say that at least as much attention should be paid to the importation of these books as to the importation of newspapers.

In connection with this matter I think it is silly to mention at all such works as Shakespeare's or Thackeray's, or scientific and medical books. We all know that the amount of harm that is done by these books is infinitesimal. It is the cheap novel that is doing the harm as well as the filthy newspaper. I would ask the Minister that, when these books are being examined, if there is a doubt as to whether they should be censored or not, not to give them the benefit of the doubt, but to censor them and prevent them coming into the country altogether. The point that I wanted to draw attention to was that I think more harm is being done by these cheap novels than even by newspapers. I know that the poor people in the country do not as a rule read the newspapers. It is very hard to get them to read a newspaper. Of course, I know that they are more inclined to take in the Sunday paper, especially those papers that publish filthy stories and filthy news. I would ask the Minister to pay attention to these cheap novels that come into the country by the ton every week, and that find their way to every corner of the land.

Mr. HASLETT

I do not wish to delay the House very long with what I have to say on the matter. With many Deputies who have spoken already on the Bill, I say that it is a step in the right direction, in so far as it does what it sets out to do, namely, to suppress evil literature. A good deal of ground has already been gone over, and certain distinctions have been made. My support will be given to the Bill in so far as it sets out to suppress, in the words of the Bill, what is obscene and what is indecent. I do not think it would take a censor board of supermen to decide that, but if we are led away further, and into other realms, I think that we cannot give the Bill our unqualified support. The Deputy who has just sat down has recalled some discussions that went on in earlier days when it was thought wrong even to read a novel. I think we have got past that stage. We know that novels are now recognised in the classics, and are of very high educational value. I enjoy reading them myself. I have no taste, and never had, for the yellow back novel to which the last Deputy referred. If we are going to thrust on the board of censors the task of deciding in the matter of other literature— that is, apart from what is indecent and obscene—then I think we are entering a doubtful place.

Deputy Law, when speaking yesterday, made a distinction between newspapers and books. I confess that I could not follow what he said in support of it, and while the Deputy and myself see eye to eye on a good many things I am afraid that we cannot do so on that. I recall a book that I read a long number of years ago. It was the life of one of America's greatest Presidents—President Garfield. The book was the famous one with the title "From Log Cabin to White House." He tells of where he was first employed he met evil companions amid evil surroundings. These had no effect whatever upon his character, but in the house in which he lodged there were a couple of very bad books of evil tendencies. These were on the point of wrecking what afterwards proved to be a very useful and successful career, so that I cannot see there is any difference between what you read in a newspaper and what you read in a book.

Mr. LAW

I did not say that.

Mr. HASLETT

I am open to correction, but that is what I thought the Deputy said.

Mr. LAW

My whole point was this, that I said it was logically absurd to forbid in a newspaper what would be allowed within the printed covers of a book. What I pointed out was this: that while the one evil was patent, widespread in general, the other, so far as my information goes, was not. We had some other evidence of another kind this morning. So far as my information goes the other evil, if evil it be, was confined to a very small number of people. That is to say, it affected a very small number of people, because the book-reading public would be very much smaller than that reading newspapers. That is the main point I made. The other point was this, that as it was very easy to tell at once the character of a newspaper which blares its character forth on the face of it, it is by no means so easy to distinguish the exact character of a book.

Mr. HASLETT

I accept the explanation. In regard to following up this, it is the duty of this House to see that what is defined is controlled, that is, what is defined as indecent or obscene, but I do not think it is the duty of this House to travel into the realms of other kinds of morality—what I might call the higher morality. I think that problem belongs to another department, the educational department, which ought to be engaged in training the youth of the country in a way that would cultivate what is best in them. I do not think it is the duty of this House to travel into those realms at all. As regards my position, I am prepared to support the Minister so long as he keeps to the hard facts, to what is obscene and indecent; but I certainly will not give him unqualified support to go into other realms wherein we might be questioned. In my opinion it is quite enough for the State to put up finger-posts on the road and not barriers.

Mr. FLINN

I think that the debate on both sides of the House might be summed up in the fact that the House accepts the truth of the proverb "that the best is often the enemy of the good," and that possibly in attempting to kill with a single blow the hydra-headed evil we may fail to kill that evil, overreach our strength, and leave ourselves open to attack which we ought not to be open to. So far as I read the discussion which has taken place, there is unanimous agreement in this House and there is overwhelming agreement outside this House and behind it, in the opinion that a certain particular and restricted kind of evil should be stopped ruthlessly. In so far as the Bill will confine itself definitely to that issue of clearing out the garbage and of suppressing pornographic literature of all kinds and preventing any possibility by casualness or carelessness of evil literature getting into the hands of the ordinary people of this country who are not looking for it—that so far as that is the principle of the Bill and shall express that principle—it will have the unhesitating support of the whole House. The difficulty undoubtedly has been that people have, to some extent, misunderstood and legitimately misunderstood, if they worked merely by what is written in the Bill, the purpose of this Bill. If the Bill was the Bill which was described, justified and excused by the Minister for Justice, then it would have a large measure of support.

Unfortunately, the drafted ambit of the Bill is distinctly different to what is the intention and purpose either of this House or, apparently, of the Government. We start in this country in relation to sexual matters, and, fortunately, that is an issue with one enormous advantage of which you cannot exaggerate the significance, and that is the vast majority of the people are living on the land close up day by day with natural phenomena, and they do know in the simplest, most ordinary, and very best possible manner those facts which in the city, and among the people less fortunately circumstanced, are the subject of prurient curiosity. We do not start with that breeding ground of evil, of curiosity, which cannot be satisfied by legitimate and ordinary means, and in relation to which knowledge among people living in cities invariably and inevitably comes through the wrong source. We start with that immense moral foundation upon which to build. I believe without any doubt that morally and physically this country is healthy and sound, and that the purpose of this Bill ought to be that by no carelessness and casualness should people who are not looking for it be brought into contact with that danger.

How casual and how careless the disemination of that knowledge may be you can take from this example which, not through propaganda in relation to this, two or three years ago in the ordinary course of conversation I came across. Here in the city of Dublin, on a Sunday afternoon, a father wanting a book to read, picked up a book in his own house and brought it up to his bedroom, but found it was a book unfit for him to read. Being a sensible man he made inquiries, and he found that the book belonged to one of his young boys. On further inquiry he found it had been given to him as a prize in a well-known school in Ireland. Its title was perfectly innocuous, but its contents were abominable. If that sort of thing can happen there is undoubtedly a case for seeing that you have proper safeguards. One thing that struck me in the House up to the present is, that while men have differed as to details in the implications of the Bill we have had no defender of eroticism. Fortunately, this House apparently is clear, and I think the vast body of this country is clear, of any respect for those people who rhapsodise about the lambent beauties, the undefined loveliness of the emanation of the moral garbage table.

We have a member of the Oireachtas who in a letter to some English newspaper said that every educated man in Ireland is against this Bill. Thank heavens, there are very few people in this country who would defame the name of educated to the extent of being in any way against the central principles of the Bill as it has been defined and accepted in all the speeches in this House. Deputy Professor Thrift in his speech touched on a point upon which I would be glad that the evidence for the statement which he made should be made absolutely clear, not merely to this House but through the Press, for this is not a question, I think, upon which the safety valve will be shut down, as to the organisation which is behind the dissemination of this literature. It is an example of what is very common in Ireland. There is nothing accidental in this evil. Deputy Thrift has told us that at the Committee they had definite and conclusive evidence that for the purpose of making money, that for the crude purpose of personal advantage and personal profit, this campaign was organised and was being pursued. The evidence on that point personally I do not question. The evidence upon that point which was convincing to Deputy Professor Thrift ought to be put to this House in some portion of this debate in some way in which it would become part of the common knowledge of this country, that there are certain people interested for a financial, and perhaps for some worse than a financial, purpose in making profit out of the debasement of the minds of the ordinary people.

Professor THRIFT

On a point of explanation, I hope I was clear in saying the Committee had distinct evidence that there were many people using that propaganda for the purpose of profit, but I did not intend to convey the impression that those different bodies of people were organised together and doing it in unity for that purpose. I merely wished to state that there was definite evidence that there were various centres from which for purposes of profit this propaganda was receiving a most extensive circulation throughout the country, but I did not wish to convey the impression that these different centres were specifically organised and guided by one source.

Mr. FLINN

To the extent of which Deputy Thrift has evidence of what he has now said I want known not merely to this House but outside. There is an idea that really we are intellectually low down and lacking in courage. If we want to live on the garbage table it is desirable that people should know the people who are making money, profit and gain, and who organise to make a profit out of a thing of this kind. I have spoken broadly and generally on this question, for I think it is on broad, general lines we should deal with the evil. To the Minister and the Government we say that so long as they confine the Bill to doing specifically the one thing of keeping out of this country pornographic literature, to prevent this source of infection being open into which people can casually drop to get filth, to the extent of which they will seek to do that, they will have every possible support in making the Bill as strong and as definite as they can make it, but in the actual terms of the Bill it must be made perfectly clear that that is what they set out to do, and that is what they have accomplished under the terms of the Bill as it shall finally emerge from this House.

Mr. BRADY

I want to make a few brief remarks with reference to this Bill. Like everybody else here, I am glad that the Bill generally has been welcomed by all Deputies. In considering it, I think we should do so mainly from the point of view of doing the greatest good to all the citizens. One Deputy referred to prohibition and its evils, and compared them to those associated with drink. I do not think that that comparison can stand at all, because we all realise that there are more good books in the world than any of us will ever live to read. The prohibition which this Bill seeks can better be compared to the prohibition of drinking out of poisoned vessels. We are not seeking to restrict the reading of decent literature in any sense. The compaign that is carried on at present, as anyone who takes the trouble of reading the evidence before the Commission that has been set up will see, is of a very vile and well-organised character, and, if the evidence which is available in the library is consulted, we will see that a certain form of evil literature is carried on and is spreading throughout the various countries. Laws are passed in various countries to prohibit or curtail the circulation of this form of literature, and it has been discovered that the law is evaded, because, according to the evidence given at the Commission, this type of journal has legal advisers behind it to help it to round corners and evade the law. That is one thing we must face, that these people who have been making fortunes out of this kind of literature have found it sufficiently profitable to enable them to employ great lawyers to allow them to carry on their trade and evade the law. For that reason I think the Minister would be well-advised to make further provision in the Bill.

I think, for instance, that it would be very advisable if he inserted a clause to make it illegal to advertise or write up any banned literature. I do not know that the Bill provides it. Personally I cannot find it. For instance, certain decent papers are imported from the other side and they have fallen to this profitable business of advertising certain books. Only the other day I was reading a weekly journal dealing with poultry-keeping. I have been reading this paper for years, but I discovered that quite recently it has begun to advertise immoral literature. We certainly do not wish to ban any decent technical book, but I think that once we pass this Bill we should make provision to control the advertisements in the Irish editions of these papers, because I certainly can see the law being evaded, or cheap advertisements being given to books about to be put on the black list by being advertised or written up in these papers. Then there is also the possibility that a certain paper or periodical will be put on the black list, and, as has happened with political papers that were censored or banned, will appear next week under a new title. I think that some provision should be made to prevent that happening in this case. I also notice that throughout the Bill we are dealing with the circulation or importation of books for sale or distribution. That possibly is a legal phrase, but I think it would be well if the Minister made it illegal to import or, plainly, to keep without licence. I mean to leave out certain words, such for instance, as "to keep" and the words which follow "for sale or distribution."

Unless the Minister is able to put some legal interpretation on the words which I cannot see. I can foresee people bringing these books into the country and handing them around from one to another. As a matter of fact I am convinced from what I have heard that the greatest amount of harm is done in this country by books being so distributed. People assemble in dance halls and other places and one asks the other whether he has read so-and-so. Immediately that book is circulated. If you go to a book-seller possibly he will tell you that that book has not a big circulation, whereas it is handed on from one to another. As a matter of fact in the evidence given before the Commission by the Gárdai this very point was suggested by them. "It should be made an offence to sell or purchase, to lend or to borrow." Personally I think that that would be a very useful thing to insert in the Bill. I agree with the majority of Deputies who stated that this Bill is not going to restrict the reading of any people who want to read decent authors. I do not think that any sensible person will believe for one moment that the board to be set up by the Minister will be so foolish as to do that because we all realise, if this Bill is to be a success, that the one way in which we can ensure its success is by having from the very start public opinion behind us. I sincerely hope that the Bill when it is finally shaped will be of such character as will have public opinion behind it.

Mr. GOULDING

There was one point touched on by Deputy Brady on which I would like some enlightenment. I happen to be a member of a Public Library Committee, and I know that quite innocently unsafe books get into that library. Possibly the same thing happens all over the country, as it is impossible for a Library Committee to ensure that every book coming into the library is all right. What will be the position of those connected with libraries when this Bill becomes law if any book in the library is reported to the authorities as unsafe? Some opportunity should be given to Committees of Public Libraries to go through the books and find out what should be deleted from the library catalogues. Readers are not always discriminating. Very often one reader will see in a book great harm, whereas another person will see no harm in it. Who is to decide? We can all decide if a book is very bad, but very often people will not always take the same view of what, for instance, a certain paragraph means. With regard to newspapers, I should say that the daily papers do not do harm, but the weekly papers do a lot of harm. Often they are taken into families and are read aloud by one member. Unfortunately, sordid details are published by them and circulated broadcast. They do far more damage than any daily paper. The point raised by Deputy Brady as to the private circulation of books is very important. I have heard Catholic girls boasting of the fact that they could get a particular book. They get such books and lend them to their friends. These girls have been educated in Catholic schools, yet they take pleasure in circulating such books. That is a source of great damage and should be seriously watched.

Mr. ANTHONY

I want to say that I find myself in entire agreement with the principle underlying the Bill. I think it is agreed by all Parties in the House that it is absolutely essential for public morality that the imported filth which we see on sale in the streets of our principal cities and towns should be kept out of it. But there are some inherent weaknesses in the Bill as we have it presented to us. I am not going into great detail or to examine the Bill clause by clause, but I would like to say, that to me at any rate, the words "public morality" appear to be rather vague, and would require some further definition than that given in the Bill. If I can be assured, as I hope the Minister will assure me, that there is in this Bill no intention of restricting the liberty of religion or of economic or political teaching and thought, then I would be very much strengthened in my attitude of support for the Bill. I want to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to Section 6 relating to recognised associations. In my view—and I want to emphasise the fact that I am not giving the Labour Party's view, but my own view—under this section of the Bill it might possibly happen that you would have very keen rivalry between associations, and you might bring into existence a number of groups of persons of the Nosey Parker type. You may create in this country a number of Nosey Parkers, altogether outside these associations. That is one of the dangers of the Bill.

It is quite easy to assume, because we have evidence all round us of religious fanatics, that you will get a number of sects calling themselves by fancy names. I met so many "Christian Associations" and "One-and-Only Christian Associations" in the country that I often think it would be well if we got a censorship of religions in this country, or for that matter in adjoining countries. I believe that this section may cause a rivalry of a most unhealthy kind between these associations, whose great object in life would be the poking-out of filth, going around with the muck rake, suggesting that everything is not as it should be, and turning up the whites of their eyes even at a ballet dance. I want to point out that as far as the prohibition of books is concerned a greater advertisement has been given to some of these books in this House than they ever could hope to get by paying through the ordinary channels. I want to relate a little instance in connection with my own period at school which will point the moral. I remember studying under a very good and holy man, and I think the Gaelic book for the year was "Diarmuid and Grainne." There were two pages in that book in which some incident in the lives of Diarmuid and Grainne was related. This good and holy man saw to it that a pin was put in these adjoining pages. I assure you that I had not the book a quarter of an hour in my hand when I asked permission to leave the room, my curiosity was so great. I was at great pains to learn every word in these two pages, and I consulted the dictionary for the words I did not understand. I confess that it was one of those stolen joys which are considered the sweetest. Possibly other people would not like to make such a confession, but if there are teachers in the House—and I think we have far too many in the House— they would agree that if they want to direct attention to a particular classic they have only got to tell the class: "Now, you must not read that."

I very much fear, while I am in thorough agreement with the principle of the Bill, you may go too far with prohibition. Some Deputy suggested yesterday that there may be created in this country a very profitable industry in boot-legging in books. There is no question about it, that if we are not careful we may by means of this Bill give a rather cheap and very effective advertisement to a class of literature which I feel sure we would wish to have kept out of the country. At the same time, as Deputy Byrne mentioned this morning, there are some books in which the prurient-minded might see something that was filthy or unclean which others might not consider so. We all know that the works of Fielding and Smollet are not books which we would put into the hands of a boy of 16 or 18. At the same time, for the student of history, sociologists and others, these books may have a particular interest.

They reflect, of course, the manners and customs of the time, which would not conform to our present social conditions. At the same time they are of value to the student of history—I do not say of inestimable value. The same is true of some of the French writers, whose works, to the prurient-minded, may be filthy and unclean. I could name some which would be banned under this Bill, but which are books of high moral character. In order to preach a sermon, these writers have to touch very largely on the seamy side of life in large centres of population. If these books are to be banned—if we are to shut out certain books on sociology, for instance—I do not think it would be a good thing for the country. I agree that books which are blatantly of a sexual character should be prohibited, but I should like to have clearly indicated in the Bill the class of books the Minister wishes to exclude. When the Bill reaches another stage I hope that it will be found that books dealing with political or economic subjects will not come under the ban.

Let us take a class of literature which might suggest that the present social order is not all that it should be. Assume, for instance, that the sacrament of marriage was dealt with from a physiological or social point of view, say by some dignitary belonging either to the Catholic or Protestant Church, that book would come under the ban. I want to be assured, so far as certain works dealing with economics, philosophy, and sociology are concerned, that they will be free to enter the country. I want to have that portion of the Bill very clearly defined. Does the Minister, for instance, propose to exclude books dealing with philosophy and sociology which may advance certain theories which may or may not be acceptable to the majority of the people, and which under the terms of the Bill might be construed by the board of five as subversive of public morality?

So far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, I support it; but I suggest that the board should consist of nine members, for the very obvious reason that it is possible to get five cranks, as I think Deputy Sir James Craig said, on this board, and by increasing the number it is quite possible that it will be of a more representative character, apart altogether from the Churches. I am not voicing the view of the Labour Party now, but if I had anything to say to the Bill I would put nine laymen on the board. Let me illustrate my point. Many years ago I was present at the initiation of a social welfare league, and a Catholic clergyman was the first to be proposed as a member of the committee. That clergyman, like the sensible man he was, suggested that it was entirely a question for laymen. I do not suggest that there is much of an analogy, but there is something to be said for his attitude. He said that he as a clergyman was cut away from the social life of the city, and that the people whom we wanted to serve were people with whom he was not in close daily contact. In other words, he did not live the life of these people. He, therefore, suggested that the committee should be composed mainly of laymen. I mention that, not as reflecting the attitude of the Labour Party, but my own attitude.

It being now 12 o'clock, and Private Deputies' Business by Order being set down for that hour, the debate stood adjourned.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.