Unexpurgated Edition Can Now Be Published Lady Chatterley's Lover I The novel Lady Clatterley's Lover, by D. H. Lawrence, was adjudged not to be obscene yesterda) b) a jury at the Central Criminal Court. The jury was absent for three hours considering their verdict. There was an outburst of clapping, in- stantly silenced by the usher, when they announced that the defendants, Penguin Books, Ltd., were Not Guilty under a sumnmons under the Obscene Publica- tions Act, 1959, that they published an obscene book, namely, an unexpurgated version of Lady Chatterley's Lover. The trial had taken six days. Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., for Pen- guin Books, Ltd., applied for costs, sub- mitting that the case was brought before the jury as a test case. Mr. Justice Byrne said he would make no order as regards costs. Mr. Mervyn Griffith-Jones and Mr. Alastsir Morton appeared for the Crown; and Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Jeremy Hutchin- son and Mr. Richard Du Cann for Penguin Books. AT THE FACTORY Continuing his summing up, which he had started on Tuesday, Mr. Justice Byrne said yesterday that in considering whether the merits of the book were so high that they out-balanced the obscenity, so that the publication was justified as being for the public good, the jury must consider the public-" not so much the student of literature who may read the book under the guidance of a tator at a university", he said, " but the person who perhaps knows nothing about literature or the author, but who buys.this book for 3s 6d., or borrows it from a librarv. and reads it, say, during the lunch-time break at the factory, and takes it home in the evening to finish it. " In considering this aspect of the case, I would repeat the observation made by Mr. Griffilh-Jones, who said: 'Keep your feet on the ground.' In other wordc. do not allow yourself to get lost in the higher realmc of literature, education, sociology, and ethics." Two witnesses called by the defence had expressed views which led him to make that observation. One was Mrs. Joan Bennett. who had said: "A reader who is capable of dnderstanding him [Lawrence] could learn much of what his view is." Who, he asked the jury, were the peonle who were capable of understanding Lawrence ? They had to think of the public at large. PROPER MARRIAGE Another witness had said: "I think it is impossible to understand any one book of Lawrence's without having read all, and this book is very fundamental to the under- standing of the whole." If a person was an authority on English literature. or had been a student of this particular author, as the witnesses had been. the jury might think this book presented a very different picture than it would to a person with no literary background, little or no learn- ing, and little or no knowledge of Lawrence. This was the sort of consideration they must apply to this aspect of the case. They had to ack themselves what they understood Mr. Hough to mean when be gnoke of the " nature of proper marriage ". There was a prover marriage in the book -between Lady Chatterley and her lawful husband. Another relationship. which it wac suggested be-ame Permanent, was that between Lady Chatterley and the game- keener. But there was nothing in the book to indicate that it was ever a marriage or ever would be. Lady Chatterley's husband had said be would not divorce her, and the gamekeeper h sd a wife. What the ultimate result would he was a matter for the iury to consider. They were also the final judges of whether there was promiscuity and whether it was condemned in the book by Lawrence. "COARSE WORDS" Other witnesses had referred to what Law- rence was trying to do in his use of the four-letter words. The iury must be care- ful not to be led away bv what some people had decided was the real message and real thought of the autbor. Was he wishing to find language in which these sexual matters could be discussed'. openly, or was he using those words-coarse words, that might be used by a man in the position of a game- keeper-as part of the general make-uP of the book whicb, in the Prosecution's sub- mission, was not justified as being for the public good ? It had been said by some witnesses that the book did not deal simply and solely with sexual relationship, but that it deait with other matters such as the industrial state of the country and the hard lives the people were living. Whether the jury found there was very much in the book which dealt with that aspect or not was a matter for them. But Miss Helen Gardner had said that the "core and heart" of the book's meaning was the description of sexual intercourse. Various witnesses had purported to tell what was in the author's mind, what was (he message he was attemptng to give by this book. The jury might ask themselves whether, unless a person was a student of literature, an authorty on English litera- ture. and.a student of Lawrence, he would ;be able to read into the book the many different t'lings that many witnesses had said he intended should be in the book. LAWFUL MARRIAGE Mrs. Bennett had said that Lawrence believed that marriage. not in the legal sense, but the union between two people for a lifetime, was of the highest import- ance "of an almost sacred form ". What was marriage if it was not in the legal sense ? his Lordship asked. What were they talking about ? This was a Christian c3untry and right through Christianity there had been the lawful marriage, even if it was only contracted before a registrar. The witness had said that a reader who was capable of understanding the book could learn much of what Lawrence's view was. When they read the book, were the jury capable of understanding it ? The Bishop of Woolwich had said he thought Lawrence was trying to portray the sex relationship in a real sense as something sacred-" as an. act of holy communion " It was for the jury to decide, reading the book, whether the author was trying to portray sex in that sense. The Bishop hiad said that this Was a book which Christians ought to read. It was for the iury to say whether they were ot the opinion tha,t it was a book which was justified as being for the public good. Professor Pin-to had said that, in some measure, the book was a moral tract. Did this coincide with their view of the book ? Did they find that-the relationship between Lady Chatterley and the gamekeeper was really moral ? Did they find that there was any spark of affection between these two until quite late in the book ? " There are all the incidents of sexual intercourse between them ", he went on. " Bu,t do you find that in the earlier stages those people had a spark of affection for each other, or were they merely having sexual intercourse and enjoying it, and out of that sex,al intercourse perhaps some affection-ultimately sprang ? It is for you to say." "ANTIDOTE OR NOT?" A number of the witnesses had been looking into the mind of the author and saying what, in their opinion, he was driving at. Whether that was apparent to the jury when they read it was another matter, and whether it would be apparent to the public when they read the book was a question that the jurv had to decide, They would have to make up their minds on whether, as one witness had said, the book was " an antidote " to the idea that sex was nothing more than a physical thrill, or whether it was a book that indicated a tremendous amount of thrill in sexual intercourse. Recalling the evidence by Mr. St. John- Stevas that Catholic priests would profit by. reading the book because it had in common with them the aim of ridding the sexual act of any shame, the Judge said: "You may think it a little presumptuous for him to say that every Catholic Priest should read the book because he would profit by reading it. But he is entitled to express his opinion and he has exoressed it. It is for you to say what you think of it. " It was conceded by the prosecution that there was some literary merit in the book, the Judge went on. " You must ask your- selves whether some people who have siven their different evidence on behalf of the defendants have approached their task on the basis that Lawrence is a great author and this is a book written by Lawrence and therefore. this is a great book." "TWO LIMBS OF CASE " The jury must ask themselves whether, as they read the book. they found they could agree with all the things the witnesses said that Lawrence was trying to say-things that indicated the message he was trying to give his readers-and whether they agreed with those expressions ot opinion or not. They had to remember the two limbs of the case. Had the prosecution satisfied them beyond reasonable doubt that the book was obscene-if not they would acquit-and, if it was obscene, bad the defendants established on the balance of probabilities that the merits of the book as a novel were so high that they out. balanced the obscenity so that its publica- tion was for the public good ? The summing-up lasted for two hours 10 minutes, and the jury were absent for three hours, including the luncheon adjournment. before they returned. UNEXPURGATED EDITION CAN NOW BE PUBLISHED JURY ABSENT FOR THREE HOURS