DEMORALIZING LITERATURE. [To TIER EDITOR Or Tni " SPECTATOR. "]
Sin,—Your issue of January 27th contains a speech delivered by Mr. St. Loe Strachey on introducing to the Home Secretary a deputation on demoralizing literature ; and in your " Notes of the Week" you would seem to give your support to the aims of that deputation. Perhaps you will allow me to enter a very strong protest against the course which it recommended, and which I believe to be inimical to the best interests both of art and of public morals. As a preliminary, allow me to say that, while I think the great majority of authors sympathize with the objects of the deputation as expressed by Mr. Strachey, we cannot expect that an Act of Parliament will embody his reser- vations. An Act of Parliament cannot be drafted to meet exceptional cases—an attempt to do so results in the Act being vaguely worded—and when an Act is vague in its wording it is almost invariably mischievous and unjust. Law is inflexible, and we have to consider the request of the deputation, not in its relation to the motive which inspired those who preferred it, but in relation to its possible consequences or effects.
Mr. Strachey divided the books of which the deputation complained into two classes. "The first class is that of obviously obscene books, which can and ought to be dealt with by the police and ruthlessly stamped out." To my mind no question arises with reference to this class of book : machinery
exists for dealing with it. The second class consists of "books which though poisonous and demoralizing in character cannot fairly be regarded as coming within the law against obscenity " ; and Mr. Strachey continues : "Such books, in our opinion, must he left to voluntary action."
I agree entirely with this statement, An editor is strictly within his rights in warning the public against a book which shows an immoral or indecent tendency ; and let us remember, too, that every book is isolated, and can be dealt with in a review without any prejudice to general literature. Why, then, ask that in the Bill " the word 'indecent' should be used in conjunction with the word `obscene,'"? The reply is "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." Quite so; the judge or magistrate is to be invested with vague, general, ill-defined powers over the second class of book, for which reason a vague, general word like " indecent " is used. What value, then, can we attach to the opinion of the deputation that such books should he loft to voluntary action ? Do not let us be duped by words. Let us ask ourselves how far this Act will apply to books which may be considered works of art. Such books obviously come within the scope of the proposed Act, for, to quote Mr. Strachey, "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 the author was not to make money out of indecency, but to carry out his particular view of art or to further some genuine opinion, such evidence should be given due weight to by the magistrate." The depu- tation, to put It bluntly, asked that an artist in literature should first be humiliated in the dock and then dismissed on a quibble. It is a monstrous suggestion. Upon another ground I object to the same proposal. The law may take cognizance of the intention of a man to commit murder, but I can imagine nothing more mischievous than the presentfash ion, that seeks to extend this principle, and speaks of the " political " motive which in- duces a. suffragette to burn his Majesty's mails. All crimes are political. The laws that govern a society should take eogni. zance not of motives but of effects. We know the prejudice which a charge of indecency provokes, and we know how questionable expert opinion invariably seems to magistrates and to juries, who should only be called upon to decide questions of fact. To me, after a careful consideration of Mr. Strachey's speech and the course suggested to the Home Secretary, Mr. Strachey's further statement that he does not wish to establish a censorship has an irony about it which is almost Sophoelean. I regret his attitude and that of the gentlemen with -whom he was associated, because with the best intentions and with a conspicuous sincerity they are advocating a course which if persisted in will make literature subject to administrative torpor, and liable at any moment to be sacrificed to the clamour of a narrow and intolerant faction. I regret that the Spectator should seem to support the deputation, because in doing so it betrays and repudiates the principles of individualism which have so long guided its policy. It is supporting a movement to make people moral by Act of Parliament. It has not applied here the same principle which it has applied to the present Government's licensing and insurance legislation, and which would, I think, have saved it from taking up this false position ; while it has out away from under its feet "the honest tradesman" argue monk which has always seemed to me perfectly sound, and to which I have given always such support as I have been able to give.
You have mentioned Mr. Gosse's letter in the Times, and I agree with you that the authors should acquaint the Home Secretary with their opinions immediately. The reason given by you as to why no author was included in the deputation I think scarcely sufficient. Mr. Murray, who was reported to have said that the " producer " should be more severely dealt with than the "distributor," did not welcome Mr. Gosse's letter very cordially, and, it seemed to me, spoke slightingly of Mr. Gosse as censor censorum; but Mr. Gosse has as much right to speak for authors as Mr. Murray for any other section of public opinion. The authors, I should imagine, are entirely solid on this question. I am persuaded that the great, majority of us write our books without taking into considera- tion either the incompetent Puritan or the incompetent sensualist. Both seem to us entirely irrelevant. But if we have to choose between them, we cannot do better than recall Renan's words: .111 lens vent tin peuple immoral qu'un peupte [Our view was fully set forth in Mr. Strachey's speech, and need not therefore be repeated. When the text of the Home Office Bill is published we do not think that it wilt be found to make any encroachments on the legitimate rights of authors. It will merely seek to prevent prosecutions failing, not because it was doubtful whether the books were of the
kind that ought to be suppressed, but because magistrates sometimes took so technical a view of what was obscene that
only books in which outrageously filthy words and phrases occurred were regarded by them as within the statute.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
