‘…these are cases which it is inadvisable to drag into the light of day:’ Revisiting the Historiography of Incest 1885 to 1977

The Incest Bills 1903 and 1907 met severe resistance from the then Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, who thought the subject a repulsive one for public discourse. Concerned that the issue would be greatly magnified if such crimes were prosecuted through the criminal courts he also believed that the press could not be trusted to report them responsibly. Halsbury secured an amendment that prosecutions required the consent of the Director of Public Prosections and be held in camera. Surprisingly, there is little historiographic literature on the enactment of the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 and its wider cultural and legal context. Victor Bailey’s two-part discussion in the Criminal Law Review in 1979 remains the definitive account but this was written well before the digitalization of parliamentary reports and newspaper archives. Drawing on such sources (and increasing acceptance amongst crime historians of utilizing newspaper reportage), this paper aims to revisit the criminalization of incest and analyse the extent to which Halsbury’s pre-emptive criticisms were justified. It is suggested that as cases started to be prosecuted in the courts it was not just the press but also judges and magistrates who expressed disquiet about such censure.