The Chatterley trial – 50 years on

October 22, 2010 at 10:12 pm (censorship, Civil liberties, Free Speech, history, literature, relativism)

“Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters – because girls can read as well as boys -reading this book? Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?”  – Mervyn Griffith-Jones, prosecuting counsel.

Fifty years ago (Friday October 21 1960), the case of The Crown  -v- Penguin Books began in the Old Bailey. It was arguably the single most important British trial of the entire twentieth century. Prior to the “Chatterley trial”, all British cultural life was strictly censored and anything considered likely to “deprave and corrupt” (as in the case of Lawrence’s book) would simply not see the light of day - because the publishers knew it would be banned outright.

However in 1959 the new Obscene Publications Act had (thanks to a young Labour MP called Roy Jenkins) allowed for the publication of works that might otherwise be considered obscene, on the grounds of “literary merit.” This was the loophole that Penguin Books used in order to publish Lady Chatterley’s Lover, written by Lawrence in the 1920′s but unpublished in Britain because of its explicit sexual descriptions and use of “obscene” language including “fuck” and “cunt.”

The trial itself was an extraordinary affair, derided by some as a “circus” but regarded by many people on both sides of the argument as a crucial moral, cultural and political battle. History has proven those who took the trial seriously to have been correct.

The defence produced an impressive array of literary and cultural figures including Cecil Day-Lewis, EM Forster and Rebecca West, all of whom emphasised the bvook’s literary merit. But it was the relatively obscure Midlands academic Richard Hoggart who made the greatest impression, and moved the argument on from one of pure literary merit, to one of freedom of speech (though that phrase was, to the best of my knowledge, never usede during the trial. Kenneth Tynan writing in The Observer of 6 November 1960 commented:

“Looking back, I think I can isolate the crucial incident. It occurred on the third morning during the testimony of Richard Hoggart, who had called Lawrence’s novel ‘puritanical’. Mr Hoggart is a short, dark, young Midlands teacher of immense scholarship and fierce integrity. From the witness box he uttered a word that we had formerly heard only on the lips of Mr Griffith-Jones; he pointed out how Lawrence had striven to cleanse it of its furtive, contemptuous and expletive connotations, and to use it ‘in the most simple, natural way: one fucks’. There was no reaction of shock in the court, so calmly was the word pronounced, and so literally employed.

“‘Does it gain anything’ asked Mr Gardiner, ‘by being printed ‘f-’? ‘Yes’, said Mr Hoggart, ‘it gains a dirty suggestiveness.’

“Rising in cross-examination, Mr Griffith-Jones wanted to know what Mr Hoggart meant by ‘puritanical’, receiving an answer to the effect that a puritan was a man who felt a profound sense of responsibility to his own conscience. Counsel then read out a series of excerpts from the novel. It must have been by chance that he chose the most impressive passages, the most solemnly ecstatic, the ones about, ‘the primeval roots of true beauty’ and, ‘the sons of men and the daughters of women’; but slowly, as he recited them, one realised that he genuinely thought them impure and revolting. With every defiling inflection he alienated some part of his audience, seemingly unaware that what he had intended for our scorn was moving us in a way he had never forseen; yet still he continued, bland and derisive. Having finished, he triumphantly asked the witness whether a puritan would feel such ‘reverence for a man’s balls’. ‘Indeed, yes’, said Mr Hoggart, almost with compassion.”

Hoggart’s impressive evidence was crucial to the outcome; but so too were the class-prejudiced comments (anachronistic even in 1960) from Griffith-Jones, quoted at the top of this post. It was clear to everyone (including the jury) that this was essentially a battle between progress and reaction, openness and repression, truth and hypocrisy, hygiene and infection.

And, of course, the left of 1960 was in no doubt at all as to which side it took in the battle .

But since the shameful role of sections of the “left” over The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons, could we be so sure about much of today’s “left”, especially if Islamic forces were involved? Actually, remembering what happened over The Satanic Verses there’s no need to ask that question, is there?