to act on the homosexual aspect of the report until the Labor Party is again dominant. This may not occur until nearly 1960, by which time the present government must by law go before the country in another general election. Whatever the general attitude of the Labor M.P.s may be, it is not likely that they would force a vote of confidence on the present government over the issue of this section of the Wolfenden Report. All sides agree, however, that there is a possibility of law change as regards the recommendations about the handling of prostitutes. It would appear, therefore, to be justified to assume that, although the drive is for heavier penalties for prostitutes' offenses than are presently imposed, there is less emotional feeling against prostitution in the British public mind than there is against homosexual practices or at least that there is a less wide divergence of feeling, with less consequent need of proclaiming one's stand and fighting for it. Nor is it possible, in this connection, to avoid wondering how the reaction might have differed if the Report had recommended that the prostitute's patron be given the same penalty that is doled out to her, perhaps on the same grounds by which both parties to a homosexual offense are prosecuted.

"THE TIMES"

As would be expected, "The Times" gave not only the fullest news coverage of the content of the Report the day following its release, but also commented on it in terms that can only be described as sober, clear-cut, and reasonable:

"Adult sexual behavior not involving minors, force, fraud, or public indecency belong to the realm of private conduct, not of criminal law. Nearly all civilized countries recognize the futility of making into crimes what are regarded as sins against morality. Britain recognizes this too in respect of fornication, adultery, prostitution, and lesbian practices, but not in respect of male homosexual practices. This differentiation has already been condemned by the Anglican and Roman churches. It is now as firmly condemned by the Wolfenden committee The report is equally sound on its second big issue, the law of prostitution. It would be wrong to punish the prostitute for being a prostitute. The nuisance of her public behavior-street walking—must therefore be stopped by means which do not entail control of her private conduct. That conduct should be neither suppressed by law nor "tolerated" by law in "licensed houses."

The report finds no great fault with police methods of dealing with prostitutes, and less fault than might have been expected with their methods of catching male importuners. It trenchantly reviews the varying police procedures for cautioning street walkers and, notably, for obtaining evidence (particularly confessions), of homosexual offences. Yet its conclusion that the Judges' Rules must be strictly observed in such cases reads a little lamely after its plain indication that Scottish procedure shows a greater care for individual mattachine REVIEW

rights. For homosexual acts which must necessarily remain punishable it proposes various useful reforms of court procedures, chiefly suggested by Scottish practice.

The following Sunday, however, it devoted a long editorial to "Sin, Crime and Morals," in an attempt to unravel the boundaries of these three approaches to the problem, the theological, the legal, and the ethical. Staunchly British and generally pro-government, whether that government be Conserative, Liberal, or Labor, the newspaper fully endorses homosexuality's sinfulness-an entirely logical position so long as one supports the Established Church in England as part of the country's structural basis, however unreason able and illogical it may appear to others who subscribe to no religious concepts of sin. Its stand on illegality and immorality is not so clear-cut, however, perhaps because traditionally we have tended to fuse and confuse our concepts of "legality" and "morality" to the degree that we merge our concepts of "the law" and justice." Common standards of morality condemn homosexual acts per se; because for a mother to have a son perverted is even more terrible than to have a daughter seduced. If it could be shown, or even if it were confidently believed, that legal condonation of acts between adult men would lower the general moral condemnation of this kind of conduct, and weaken the moral resistance of the young to its temptations, public opinion would undoubtedly be in arms against such a course.

same

The Committee in fact considered and rejected that contention, on the grounds largely that homosexuals are not proselytisers, and tha' men who go with boys are a different type from men who go with men. The argument from moral standards, indeed, cuts both ways: when quite a number of men in the public eye, respected in their professions, are known or at least reputed homosexuals, when scarcely anyone of wide acquaintance does not number among them some of the kind, it would be sheer hypocrisy to say that the public conscience could be appeased only by continuing to treat adult homosexuals on a par with burglars or forgers.

The Churches, as well as social workers and doctors, agree that the present law here does not stiffen morals or improve behavior, but brings both law and morality into contempt.

As a corollary to its acceptance of the Report's recommendation, "The Times" appends a final recommendation of its own:

Where the law steps out, it is all the more the duty of the moralist, the pastor and the social teacher to step in. There is a tremendous challenge here to the leaders of opinion. And not merely to those in high places. The challenge is to the pastoral clergy, to school-teachers, social workers, and above all to parents. For no law and no preaching can make good the shortcoming of the home. This (Continued on Page 42)