[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Permit me to
protest soberly but as strongly as possible against your article entitled " An Adult Review."
In the first place your writer appears to forget that Mr. Harris differs from himself in the matter of anonymity. This relieves the English Review of the charge of adopting Mr. Harris's views. It may be taken that the English Review is, on the one hand, a party organ. As such it prints articles frankly one-sided. Its politics, I may state, I dislike as strongly as yourself can do.
But, on the other hand, it professes to be, let us say, an arena in which all moralities may contend. I think that the writer of your article—at any rate in his more fair-minded moments—will hardly maintain that discussion of moral matters is altogether to be eschewed. Mr. Harris has stated the ordinary and commonplace British point of view, for who, even amongst your readers, will be found to deny that most Britons, most Europeans—nay, most inhabitants of the globe— believe that it is beneficial, or at least necessary, for a young man to sow his wild oats ? For this is all that—with a profuseness of phrase !—Mr. Harris seems to be trying to say.
Your reviewer will probably contend that the sin lies, not in holding these views, but in uttering them. That, of course, is a point of view respectably British. But in the end there is something more serious than the respectable British point of view, and such a journal as the Spectator takes upon itself a very solemn (I am tempted to say a very awful) respon- sibility when it attempts to interfere with freedom of expression in this country.
The advertisement that your writer quotes might, perhaps,
have been more happily conceived, but, whatever its wording, it does effectually enough convey the fact that the English Review is a journal, that is, let us say, not to be left about. It cannot, therefore, be seriously contended by your writer that the paper is dangerous, if it be dangerous at all, to any but such morbid imaginations as must always be in danger.
And I think, Sir, that you will not deny that your article— when it is read in cold blood—is unfortunate in tone, for who but a writer writing in haste could have made references to Mr. Harris's personal appearance? Indeed, I am tempted to permit myself the remark that when it gets upon these sub- jects the Spectator simply loses its head, for I cannot forget that it once accused a writer, so personally harmless as myself, of being—of all things in the world !—a blackmailer. And, indeed, it cannot be doubted that the writer of the article has lost his sense of proportion in this matter. For, supposing that the English Review had printed Mr. Harris's article anonymously, his attack would have been perfectly justified, since that fact would have shown that the English Review advocated a young man sowing his wild oats. Or still more justifiably would your writer have written supposing that the English Review refused to print an article expressing the moral views of the Spectator itself (supposing that article to be as well written as Mr. Harris's).
This last is really the crux of the matter.
I appeal to you, Sir, to consider whether you will not be raising the tone of controversial matters in the Press of this country if you acknowledge that—in this present case at least—you have uttered views too hasty. No one could object to your replying in tones of whatever abhorrence you might feel to Mr. Harris himself, or even to your criticizing the wording of the advertisement in question, but such a whole- sale attack—which embraces practically all the distinguished men of letters, foreign as well as English, who have supported this periodical—does surely lower the standard of English journalism. And, whatever ground of quarrel I, among others, may have with the Spectator, it is not credible that this should be your aim.
I beg also to point out that I have no connexion of any kind with the periodical under consideration.—I am, Sir, &o., FORD MADOX nIIRFPRIA.
Authors' Club, 2, Whitehall Court, S.W.
[We of course made no allusion to Mr. Harris's personal appearance, and could not do so, as we have not the slightest idea what he looks like, nor do we propose to inquire. The notion that we ever accused Mr. Ford Madox Hueffer of being a blackmailer is equally far-fetched and ridiculous. Mr. Hueffer avoids all the real points at issue, and we shall not, therefore, deal further with his letter.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
