MR. STRACHEY'S SPEECH ON DEMORALIZING LITERATURE.

WE cannot for obvious reasons comment on Mr. Strachers speech introducing to the Home Secretary the Deputa- tion on demoralizing literature. Since, however, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding—witness Mr. Goose's letter to Thursday's Times—as to what was said by the introducer of the Deputation we print his speech verbatim :- "Before I deal with the main object of this Deputation may I make my own position clear P From several points of view I am not well

qualified to undertake this work. In the first place I am afraid I

do not go quite so far as many members of the Deputation. Though agreeing with them generally as to the evils of poisonous literature and as to the necessity of wakening public opinion on the matter, I feel that I might be guilty of seeming something like a hypocrite— that worst of crimes in morals—if I did not say that personally I

do not take what may be called the Puritanical view in regard to purity in literature. I expect that if my bookshelves were minutely scrutinized, or if I wore put under examination as to my own read- ing, or, again, as to the advice as to reading which I have given to young persons, including members of my own family, I might be told that I had trodden very dangerous ground. For example, one of the first contributions I ever made to literature was the editing

of an unbowdlerized selection from the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, which included what is probably one of the most out-

spoken plays of an outspoken age. For that action I am bound to

say I feel no sort of remorse, nor do I consider that any apology is necessary, though I admit it may seem to lay me open to the allegation "How can you who reprinted the Maid's Tragedy' dare to arraign modern fiction, which is far less impure ?" Shortly my answer is that each ease must be judged upon its merits, and

that it is my belief that great works of imagination and literature, of which the Elizabethan plays are an example, have not the corrupting and demoralizing effect which is caused by the books of which this Deputation specially complains. Taken generally, I believe that high imagination and high poetic gifts act as a kind of antiseptic, and that it will generally be found that corrupt

literature is had literature. I believe that experience will justify this view. Those who want to worship the goddess Lubricity are

bored by, say, Beaumont and Fletcher, and choose books without poetry and imagination. Base superstition was seldom inspired by a beautiful statue, but often by some crude and ugly idol.

Another reason why I am not an ideal person to introduce this Deputation is that I cannot claim to have any very close first-hand

knowledge of the corrupting works of fiction in regard to which

it is desired that action should be taken by the police. Frankly, I have not had the time to study many of these books, though I do not doubt from the reports which I have read that they are sufficiently disgusting. One specially bad book I did read at the desire of Mr. Marchant—to whom this movement owes so much— and I am bound to say that the teak was as dreary as it was unpleasant. With so much of preface I should like to say that I am heartily with those who think that the time has come to do something to stop the flood of demoralizing literature. In my opinion that literature ought to be divided into two classes. The first class is that of obviously obscene books, which can be and ought to be dealt with by the police and ruthlessly stamped

out. Here no question as to the liberty of the Press or as to put-

ting literature into a strait-waistooat arises. Every State bae claimed, claims, and must claim tho right to suppress such books and punish with fine and imprisonment those who produce them. On this point I need only quote what was said by the greatest defender of unlicensed printing. Milton in his " Areopagitica" speaks as follows :— "That also which is impious or evil absolutely, either against faith or manners, no law eau possiblypermit that intends not to unlaw itself."

In the opinion of this Deputation the police have not been quite vigilant or quite severe enough in the matter of prosecution in recent years. They seem to dread too much the idea of failing in proceedings against obscene books. Hero I venture to say they are mistaken. I do not believe that such failures do harm. If failures are due to the fact that the law is not strong enough or on technical grounds, then such failures are the best possible argument for strengthening the law. In fact, a strengthening of the law can only be properly demanded if it has been proved by failure that the police are not at present armed .with sufficient powers. No one, of course, suggests a censorship, that is, an attempt to have books submitted to a licenser before they appear. Let them appear, but if they are found to be within the grasp of the law let those who produced them take the consequences. I come next to that largo division of books which, though

poisonous and demoralizing in character, cannot fairly be regarded as coming within the law against obscenity. such books, in our opinion, must be left to voluntary action. It is the business of Societies like the National Council of Public Morals to stimulate public opinion to be watchful and vigilant. We must make men fool that not only by publishing but by reviewing or advertising or selling any of these works they are guilty of an offence against morality. The notion that some publishers and public writers seem to have that the boycotting of books which one believes to be injurious to the public is establishing a censorship and open to the objections to tho censorship is, to my mind, preposterous rubbish. To take an example. I have boon accused by certain publishers and

authors of setting up an index in the Spectator and of copying the methods of the Inquisition because I refused not only to review but to accept advertisements of books which I considered poisonous.

Surely this is absurd. What it means in practice is that I am to be tenoned into a particular form of trading to which, whether • rightly or wrongly, I object. It would be just as sensible to force a chemist who thought some quack remedy was injurious to sell that quack remedy, and to accuse him of a gross act of tyranny if he refused to handle it. Or, again, if the medical papers wore to be called obsourantiets and oppressors because they would not review or advertise such quack remedies. As an honest tradesman I claim the right to trado only in goods which I think can be honestly and honourably traded in, and I think that principle ought to be extended to the ease of all publishers, booksellers, and libraries, whether private or public. If the committee of a public library think that a book is demoralizing, even though it might not ho a book which could be properly prosecuted by the police, they have not only the right but it is their duty to refuse to put such a book on their shelves.

For myself—and here, I think, I probably speak for a very large number of people—I consider that by far the most hopeful way of dealing with the nuisance of poisonous books is a proper awakening of public opinion. If once decent people are made to understand that public opinion will not only support them but expects them to refuse to handle poisonous or demoralizing books, the battle will be more than half won.

To sum up, then, I think that for books which can rightly be called obscene or indecent the police should take action, and take it more vigorously than now, and that if necessary the law should

be strengthened by a better definition of " obscene " and "indecent." Hooke which do not come within this category,

but which, nevertheless, are likely to exercise a demoralizing influence, should be loft to an awakened and stimulated public opinion.

You will perhaps tell me, Sir' that though you have no par- ticular querrol with my general propositions I have not been

specific enough. I admit that this is a capital error in the spokesman of a Deputation. I would therefore ask you definitely in the name of this Deputation to take two stops, one legislative and the other administrative:— 1. The first is to introduce a Bill in accordance with the chief recommendations of the Joint Select Committee which issued its report in July DOS.

There is perhaps no need for me to remind you that the main recommendation of that Committee was that the word" indecent" should be used in conjunction with the word e obscene" in order to meet the case of magistrates or judges who, though they felt that a book was demoralizing, did not feel that it came within the technical definition of "obscene." I should like to add that this Deputation is entirely with the recommendation of the Committee, "that a provision should be inserted to exempt from the operation of the Act any book of literary merit or reputation, or any genuine work of art." We want to kill demoralizing literature which is 'issued for the purpose of demoralizing, or rather to make money out of the trade of catering for depraved appetites, not to crush genuine works of literature, oven though we may dislike and deplore their tendencies. It seems to us quite proper that if bona fide witnesses can be brought to declare that, in their opinion, a particular book is a real work of literature, and that the intention of tho author was not to make money out of indecency, but to carry out his particular view of art or to further seine genuine opinion, such evidence should be given duo weight to by the magistrate. As I have said before, it is very rare that a work of art is far-reaching in its demoralizing effect. I would ask you to note, however, that such a proviso as to books which are declared to be works of art by competent authority only refers to action by the police and legal action. It may still remain the duty of those who believe that certain books, though works of art, are demoralizing to use all their individual influence to prevent their diffusion and to convince the public of their evil tendencies. It is only an exemption from legal prosecution, and nothing further, that is claimed for works of art. We all remain free to use our own opinions and, if we think fit, to claim the right to denounce and discountenance such books.

2. Our next specific request is that you should require the Home Office and the police to be more vigilant and active in the matter of prosecutions ; that you should, in fact, alter the tradition under which the police and the Home Office ant.

We do not for one moment oomplain of the intentions of the Home Office or tho police, and we recognize that the able officials who control both institutions are on the right side in this matter. Wo do think, however, that they are mistaken in supposing that they should never run the risk of prosecuting a book unless they can be sure of success. • No ono would of course wish innocent people to be prosecuted, but we cannot admit that bad rosalts would flow if occasionally a publisher or public vendor of bad books escaped on a technical plea. The ovidenoe brought before us is very strong to show that those who deal in obscene works stand very greatly in fear of a prosecution. Provided the police are not acting foolishly or maliciously, oven an unsuccessful prosecution acts as a powerful deterrent.

One word more. If, Sir, you hold that the law is already strong enough, then. I would ask you at any rate to introduce a codifying and condensing Act whioh should clarify the law and bring it into one simple enactment which can be easily understood and noted on. Such a step, eepecially if it contained clear definitions, would be of the greatest possible use. We should then know where wo stand. This work of clearly setting forth the law is obviously the kind of work which should be undertaken by a public Department rather than by a Society or by individuals.

I have been asked by my colleagues to consider two special points in my remarks. It has been urged that the proposals which I have outlined do not °over the case of newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals which habitually and systematically, week by week or month by month, offend in the matter of obscene and indecent literature. Such publications may be able to keep just within the law as regards any particular number, and yet regarded as an institution they are exceedingly demoralizing, and are infant a public nuisance. Might it not be possible to deal with them as other public nuisances, such, for example, as houses of ill fame

are dealt with ? Might it not be possible in the first place to warn them and then to prooeed against them as public

nuisances and secure their abatement? To put the matter more specifically Why should not the police be allowed to give evidence that a particular newspaper or periodical devotes itself to demoralizing the public and depraving public morals, and got it put an end to ? linear legislation of this kind no newspaper would be able to be attacked which possibly for some

good purpose published details such as wore published some twenty-aye years ago by the Pail Malt Gazette in regard to the Criminal Law Amendment Act. No one could have alleged that there was any habitual publication of indecent matter. The case, however, would be very different if a paper habitually laid itself out to publish similar matter, not for

crusade purposes, but to exploit the taste of a demoralized publio. Next, in asking for an increased vigilance by tho police I should like to suggest the possibility of the police warning the issuers and distributors of indecent and obscene literature that unless they desietod they would be prosecuted. It will be said, probably, that this involves a police oensoreliip, because before they issued their warnings the police would have to road and determine whether books were of a demoralizing kind. I admit that this is a function that the police could hardly undertake. Might not this objection be mot by the police being willing to receive from Societies or individuals complaints as to epecifie books, and then to refer such books to some competent adviser P If they wore advised that the books were bad they might then issue the necessary warning, and, if the warning were not listened to, might then prosecute.

No doubt this suggestion is open to the criticism that it would only mean a censorship at two removes, but for myself I think we must not bo too easily frightened by the word "censor." After a31, if this or any law is to ho put into operation the police must in the last resort take responsibility for taking or not taking action.

The question against whom action should be taken is a diffi- cult one. At present the police authorities are inclined to proceed against the distributors, as they are not people of straw like tho worst type of publishers, and are therefore much easier to get at. This, however, may act very unfairly to the distributor, who is often unaware of what he is distributing, whereas no publisher

can be held to be unaware of the nature of the goods he publishes. Justice would seem to demand that in every case where a dis-

tributor is proceeded against the publisher should be simul-

taneously proceeded against. Ho is time greater criminal if a crime has been committed, and should certainly not escape. But

the greatest of all the criminals is, after all, the author, and his obscurity and his insolvency should not be made a reason for lotting him escape. We ask that in prosecution, wherever pos- sible, the publisher and the author should be jointly indicted with the distributor."