asked the Attorney-General what were the costs incurred by the prosecution in the recent proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act involving the book "Fanny Hill".

£296 3s.

Does the Attorney-General believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer that money should be wasted in this way with no final determination being made upon the case? In view of the fact that this prosecution under a particular Section appears to have been inspired by spleen as a result of failure in the "Lady Chatterley" case, and in view of the public concern, does he not think it would be desirable, if the Director of Public Prosecutions has to behave as a nanny to the nation, that he should take, proceedings in the High Court? If the Director of Public Prosecutions is to behave as a nanny to the nation and take proceedings against this elegant eighteenth century book, will the Attorney-General tell us whether these proceedings will involve the five copies of the book which are in the Library of the House of Commons, which scores of Members are waiting to see?

I am sure that nobody would charge the late Director of Public Prosecutions with having instituted any proceedings out of spleen or in consequence of any other prosecution having failed. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a duty to enforce the law which has been laid down by this House. This House has provided alternative methods, either the preventive procedure of forfeiture before a book gets into general circulation, or a charge under Section 2, which only affects the publication to a particular person and the tendency of that work to corrupt that individual. Of course, the House will be aware that the courts have recently held that to publish to a police officer, who is in a sense wrapped in moral asbestos, may create very great difficulties for the prosecution. There are difficulties in deciding whether to proceed under Section 2 or Section 3, and I recognise this fact. I have not had the advantage of inspecting the works which are at present in the Library of the House, but there is a very great difference between the 3s. 6d. Penguin edition and the other editions which have been published and which have been substantially expurgated.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend make certain that all prosecutions are carried out according to the law and that influence is not used by Members of this House in the House on the Director of Public Prosecutions in discharging his duty?

I certainly think that is the true position, and I am sure all hon. Members recognise this.

Are we to take it from the Attorney-General's absurd reply that Members of Parliament are also wrapped in moral asbestos?

No, I was only saying that I have not had the advantage of discovering which of the different editions Members of this House would perhaps be reading if they went to the Library.

Mr. Gresham Cooke:

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are hundreds of thousands of parents of teen-aged children who think that the £296 was very well spent?