take ▁into ▁account ▁the ▁existing ▁reputation ▁of ▁the ▁author , ▁the ▁publish er , ▁the ▁printer " ▁before ▁dec iding ▁on ▁pro sec ution . ▁Roy ▁Jenkins ▁wrote ▁to ▁The ▁Spect ator ▁on ▁ 2 6 ▁August ▁ 1 9 6 0 ▁that ▁the ▁D PP ' s ▁decision ▁to ▁ind ict ▁P engu in ▁was ▁a ▁mis application ▁of ▁the ▁law . ▁ ▁Public ation ▁history ▁Lawrence ’ s ▁novel ▁had ▁been ▁the ▁subject ▁of ▁three ▁draft s ▁before ▁the ▁final ▁un exp urg ated ▁type written ▁trans cript ▁was ▁submitted ▁to ▁the ▁Flor ent ine ▁printer s ▁on ▁ 9 ▁March ▁ 1 9 2 8 ▁with ▁the ▁intention ▁of ▁publishing ▁a ▁private ▁limited ▁edition ▁of ▁ 1 0 0 0 ▁copies . ▁Martin ▁Se cker ▁refused ▁to ▁publish ▁the ▁work ▁in ▁this ▁form , ▁forcing ▁Lawrence ▁to ▁publish ▁the ▁first ▁edition ▁of ▁the ▁final ▁version ▁himself ▁without ▁copy right ▁protection ▁in ▁July ▁ 1 9 2 8 . ▁That ▁August ▁ ▁US ▁custom s ▁conf isc ated ▁imported ▁copies ▁of ▁this ▁edition , ▁as ▁indeed ▁did ▁Scotland ▁Y ard . ▁Although ▁The ▁First ▁Lady ▁Ch atter ley ▁published ▁by ▁the ▁D ial ▁Press ▁in ▁ 1 9 4 4 ▁was ▁declared ▁obsc ene ▁by ▁a ▁US ▁court ▁( over ru led ▁several ▁months ▁later ), ▁it ▁took ▁until ▁ 2 1 ▁July ▁ 1 9 5 9 ▁for ▁a ▁US ▁court ▁to ▁rule ▁that ▁the ▁first ▁author ised ▁un exp urg ated ▁edition ▁of ▁Lady ▁Ch atter ley ' s