POISONOUS LITERATURE.
lATE publish in another column a letter from Mr. Herbert Bull, who has already done, as his letter shows, and as his friends know, admirable work in pro- testing against the dissemination of poisonous books. Mr. Bull ends his letter with some very useful practical suggestions, which we recommend to that very large body of persons who have become thoroughly awakened to the dangers we run from the present deluge of novels with corrupt influences. Mr. Bull proposes, in the first place, the establishment of a guarantee fund, to be used under proper legal advice for the prosecution of those who are responsible, whether as authors, publishers, or distributors, for the dissemination of poisonous literature. His other two suggestions are (2) to " protest as an individual by saying quietly but firmly that you know such a book is not one that any average clean-minded man would like to see his women-folk reading"; (3) to " determine, even at the cost of some personal inconvenience, not to deal with those who continue to sell bad books and magazines, 8r,c., after one warning " We do not propose to deal with suggestions (2) and (3) on the present occasion. They are suggestions for personal and private action, and must be determined upon by each individual for himself. His first proposal, however, is one on which we should like to make one or two practical comments. It is clear that to carry it out some kind of Committee or Association will have to be formed. This body must undertake the difficult and responsible work of deciding whether a book does or does not contain moral poison, and whether those responsible for its production and distribu- tion should be prosecuted under the present law, which, we may say in passing, is amply sufficient to stop really corrupt and corrupting books without setting up too straitlaced or Puritanical a standard. In our opinion, the body likely to do most good in such a matter would be an informal Committee small in number and able to act without too much red-tape. In regard to the composition of that body, our first suggestion would be that none, or at any rate only a very small portion, of its members should be clergymen. This at first sight may seem a somewhat strange proposal, but we make it for the following reason. It is most important to get the support of public opinion, and public opinion of the widest kind. Now a body of clergymen drawn from the various denominations, though they might be in fact men of broad and liberal views, would. almost certainly be suspected. of taking up a narrow Puritanical, or we might say professional, attitude. People would feel, perhaps not unnaturally, frightened of literature being strangled by Clericalism. The Committee which would gain most public confidence would be a Committee of sensible men of the world, who, without making any attempt to strangle literature because it might be couched in too free terms, would at the same time know how to deal with books which were likely to have a bad effect on the body politic. We our- selves do not want, and we are sure the public does not want, to damn every book that would not be approved of by the clergy. All we want to do, and all that it is desirable to do, is to stop books of a really corrupting character. The proper function for the ministers of religion in a matter of this tind is to draw the attention of a Committee such as we are suggesting to specific books, and to give them reasons for taking action. An ideal Committee, as we have said, would consist of men of the world, the kind of men who get returned to Parlia- ment by the best type of constituency. They should certainly number among them one or two lawyers of distinction.
We hate a censorship, and fully recognise the danger of the suppression of good literature which might result from any body of men, however able and well intentioned, who started out with the express object of looking for poisonous literature. A body taking action with such an intention would very soon get its vision out of focus, and would very possibly read into many books things which were not there. The proper function of the Committee should not be to look for bad. books. When, however, an allegation of poisonous literature was made to them, it should be their business to consider the matter very carefully, and to judge whether it would be wise or unwise to take action. Let them come to their decision with unbiassed minds. They should act as Judges rather than as policemen.
We shall be told, no doubt, that several societies already exist for doing the work in question. We admit the apparent strength of the criticism, but we do not think it is really cogent. The kind of Committee that we recom- mend is an informal body,—not a body with paid secre- taries and offices and so forth, but a ,small Committee formed ad hoe, and, we trust, of a temporary character. Let them leave the ordinary obscene literature to the bodies which now deal with it. The function and duty of the Committee of our thought would be to take action in regard to what we believe is only a passing phase in fiction, and to deal with books which are now finding their way into places where a few years ago works of their kind would never have been published or sold. Such a plan as we suggest would avoid the chief evils of a censor- ship. As we have said, we are by no means unaware how serious those evils may become. Indeed, we are sure that the greatest watchfulness will be needed. What we want to see is the organisation of public opinion, so as to make effective the kind of thought that rises in the mind of the decent citizen when he reads a poisonous book and says to himself : " No decent man ought to have anything to do with putting such a work as this into circulation. '
Previous page
