TO

WITH THE
COMPLIMENTS
OF

ROBERT HARLING

10 HERTFORD STREET
LONDON W1
GROSVENOR 3477

6 Lansdowne Road,
Holland Park,
W.11.

7th December, 1954.

served in The Times of the 3rd instant that the publishers
in Control", and other individuals, were found not guilty
of a Criminal Court of publishing an obscene libel.

no idea that the Company and individuals had been
and I am indeed shocked, as I have read the book and there
is evidence justifying the launching of a

It is true that the book deals with a lesbian situation,
whole of English literature is to be banned on the basis
of considered undesirable in life it not to be referred to,
some that about 95% of all literature would be permanently
to the public. If the basis of this prosecution, and
is that books tend to corrupt, then it does not seem at
some why corruption is limited on the whole to sexual
at least the sexual function is natural to man, be it in a
sm or not, but wars, murders, violence, tortures and all
matter of books which are passed without comment, are
cruising in their influence, and if, on the basis of this
prosecutions, the matter is carried to its logical conclusion,
that apart from technical books, no literature should be
In any case, it is manifest that violence is far more
an sex and I can only think that some one in the relevant
which commences these prosecutions is either living in the
the late Victorian era, or is of some fanatical disposition,
iced.

Apart from the fact that almost every reasonable minded person
that I meet is fast coming to the conclusion that the liberty of the
individual is being impinged by these ridiculous prosecutions, I am
extremely concerned as a tax payer, since they are taking place at my
expense and I desire a question to be asked in the House as to whether
anything is being done by the Government to put a stop to such
prosecutions, which are clearly not the result of objective contem-
plation but contain all the subjective content of individuals who are
themselves either sexually frustrated or, as I have already mentioned,
fanatical for personal reasons or unbalanced.

COPY

Park 5959

GB/SD

7th December, 1954.

Dear Sir,

I observed in The Times of the 3rd instant that the publishers of "The Man in Control", and other individuals, were found not guilty in the Central Criminal Court of publishing an obscene libel.

I had no idea that the Company and individuals had been prosecuted and I am indeed shocked, as I have read the book and there is not one scintilla of evidence justifying the launching of a prosecution. It is true that the book deals with a lesbian situation, but if the whole of English literature is to be banned on the basis that anything considered undesirable in life it not to be referred to, it seems to me that about 95% of all literature would be permanently unavailable to the public. If the basis of this prosecution, and many others, is that books tend to corrupt, then it does not seem at all clear to me why corruption is limited on the whole to sexual matters. At least the sexual function is natural to man, be it in a perverted form or not, but wars, murders, violence, tortures and all other subject matter of books which are passed without comment, are far more corrupting in their influence, and if, on the basis of this and other prosecutions, the matter is carried to its logical conclusion, it would seem that apart from technical books, no literature should be read at all. In any case, it is manifest that violence is far more corrupting than sex and I can only think that some one in the relevant department which commences these prosecutions is either living in the atmosphere of the late Victorian era, or is of some fanatical disposition, or is unbalanced.

Apart from the fact that almost every reasonable minded person that I meet is fast coming to the conclusion that the liberty of the individual is being impinged by these ridiculous prosecutions, I am extremely concerned as a tax payer, since they are taking place at my expense and I desire a question to be asked in the House as to whether anything is being done by the Government to put a stop to such prosecutions, which are clearly not the result of objective em- plation but contain all the subjective content of individuals who are themselves either sexually frustrated or, as I have already mentioned, fanatical for personal reasons or unbalanced.

2.

I should like to make it clear that I am not discussing
the effect of books and so-called comic papers, etc. on
children, as this is a matter for their parents, and I am
entirely in favour of any steps which may be taken to make
inaccessible to children undesirable cheap papers, but this has
nothing to do with the right of the adult to read such literature
as he may wish to read.

I take the view that this present spate of prosecution
is a very serious manifestation, containing something of a
Fascist element in its make-up.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) Glynn H.R. Barton.

GB/SD

21st December, 1954.

Dear Sir,

Mr. Tom Hopkinson thought that a letter I wrote to my Member of Parliament, together with a copy of his reply, might be of interest to you, bearing in mind that you are Chairman of a Committee making recommendations to the Home Secretary, and I am accordingly sending you some.

Incidentally, I have not received the comments for which Mr. Rogers has asked, and I do think, as a taxpayer, that a question ought to be asked in the House. I shall be glad to receive your views thereon.

I feel very strongly that all censorship should be abolished and that adults should be at liberty to read and see what they wish and when I say censorship, I include in this all the voluntary censorship set up by various organisations as it seems to me quite time that the adult population was treated as adult and not as infantile. As regards children, which is an entirely different matter, books, films and plays should be marked as fit for children, who should not be allowed otherwise to purchase or see them, except with the consent of their parents, just as they are not allowed to go into public houses when under age. Incidentally, to mark a film, for example, as fit for children is a much better way than marking it as unfit for children, which is one way exhibitors take of advertising a film.

I think more is at stake than the liberty of the authors, and that is the liberty of the public.

Sir Alan P. Herbert,
12 Hammersmith Terrace,
W.6.