[TO THE EDITOR OP THE 0.sasoraroa.1 SIR, — It may be your
wish, now that your protest has been registered in a particular case, that even the general subject should lapse so far as you are concerned. But may one reader tell you why he is grateful for your article of last week ? It is because he, an ordinary person, feeling as you do on the subject of demoralizing literature, can hoist no signal of distress. If there be defective health conditions in his town he can at least get a hearing in the local Press. If it be a question of poisonous literature—possibly in his favourite paper in the matter of politics—he cannot even lift his flag. The offending journal treats his letter in secret. For obvious reasons rival or opposition papers hold aloof. It is only in such an article as yours, and in all sincerity may I say it who have the misfortune not to agree with your political aspirations—it is only in such a journal as the Spectator that the person to whom degrading magazine or newspaper matter occasions distress can find a voice. A Nonconformist myself, I feel the sting of your comment on the Nonconformist con- science. I wish it were possible to show that you are mistaken. When, a few months ago, the Judges condemned certain newspapers which bad much copy on a notorious criminal case for mere reasons of circulation, not only the Noncou formist but pretty well all the religious journals were dumb dogs. Two secular journals vigorously denounced a course dangerous to public morals—one a Roman Catholic paper, the other a contemporary that loves to make fun of the Noncon- formist conscience.—I am, Sir, &c., Gravesend. J. EDWARD HARLOW.
[We have received a large number of letters in support of our action in regard to the English Review. We are, how- ever, for reasons of space, unable to publish more than the above. We have published all the letters we have received against our action, except two which arrived too late for inclusion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
