Mar, 28.
Following upon the condemnation of "The Well of Lone ness," the whole edition of 1 vel "Sleeveless Errand," by Miss Norah C, James," has been seized by the London police; anit papers recently from Home report the proceedings at the Row Street Police Court, when the publisher, Mr, E. ILI, Partridge, wat summoned to show—cuts why the copies should not be destroyed. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions suid that the story, which cov a period of two days, "wa: told in the form of conversation by: persons entirely devoid of decency and morality, who for the most part were under the influence of drink, Filthy lange uage and indecent conversation appeared to be the keynote of the book." He went on to argw that "it was the aim of some writers to pass off as literature matter which could only have a dexcrading, immoral—influense and to command a market writing daring and corrupt stories." In this class he clearly included the author of "Sleev less Errand." Counsel for the defence protested that there was nothing obscene in the book: "there were a lot of horrible things in it, but the object of the book was to hold up ly horror the mode of life and the language and habits of certain section of the community. It called attention to the despair and hopelessness an waste of the life alluded to by contrasting it with " norma ite." It does not seem to hav: been noticed in court, but the fact that the edition was limited to 600 copies rather weakens the force of this argument. For if the author's object was to good in the way described, sure the widest possible sale should have been sought. The Magis trate found that the book was certainly calculated to suggest obnoxious thoughts and ordered the copies to be destroyed though with seven in which to lodge an appeal.
A great deal of space has bea given in the Home press latterly to the question of obnoxious literature and especially the Act of 1857 under which proseentions take place, the contention as regards the latter being that is altogether too loosely framed for the requirements and dreader views of to-d Sir William Joynson Hicks has been asked to find time for discussion by the House of Commons of a censorship of books and says that this might be managed, but prays not to have the task of investing " board of censors {heust upon him,—The views teresting. The "Glasgow Her-Tt should be generally accepted Iso that the novelist possesses. the ight to deal with all types of de-proved people, and that he will be ood novelist who writes of such people out of sympathetic pity and floes not let the render feel that they are the salt of the earth."
With this principle to act upo the author is bound by certain rules and it will be for "respon-criticism to say rales have been over stepped." What, however, is happen when -overstepping occurs?) That question is not jznswered. The "Yorkshire Post" thinks that "the ordinary man or woman is not at a loss tw Judge whether a book is bad or harmless" and that the public is beginning to wonder on what authority so. many" prosecutions place, The two papers quoted might be expected to take a strict view in these matters, so that the views they actually express are the most interesting. Two of the older generation of journalists, however, have no difficulty in making up their minds. Mr, A. G. Gardiner, writing in the "Star," refers to one book which is in wide circulation and comment "It the author's conversat were on a par with his written work hho would be banned by the critics themselves ax a lewd fellow. But in the name of the liberty of the Press' he is applauded for: publishing broadcast the sort of putrescence that he would he cut' for uttering in private, The liberty Press' is not a fetish: it is certain Mr. Gardiner's remedy is, not trial by officials, still less professional orities but "the tribunal of public opinion represented by that ancient and very sound vehicle, the common jury." And Me, J. A. Spender writing in the "Daily News" says:
"Nothing is less to be desired than that the deliente and difficult] issue of literary decency should fal! into the hands of Home Secretaries, Postmaster -Genevals and. police magistrates, but it will to a certainty, unless literature can police itself.
"Again and again in recent months I have read. books which Ihave boon the subject of high tiulogies by critics who are themselves men of impeccable taste and refinement, and found in them passages which are not merely indecent, but physically nauseating, and which seemed to me entirely unre-Aicemed by what Stevenson called the great anti-septic style.
There is a plain common sens: in these two writers which will appeal strongly to plain men.
We believe that the feeling of most people ix that an immense Amount of nonsense, and—per-vicious nonsense, is talked by people who try to justify dards of normal w those referred to by Mr.
iner and Mr, Spender, music ithout melody, vers libre, cubi painting and sculptures' un anything outside a museum for monstrosities, may be excused belonging to the abnormal state ili which the world is pas3- ing now, as it has occasionally passed Vefore, but on no other svannd that one can imagine. One would not say that there the argument mode of life" of certain people, but the average reader, presented with this excuse for a book of the sort that "Sleeveless serand" appears to be, is in-crined to reply rudely, but with unassailable conviction: "Bosh.
The author wanted to make money, or be thought daring or something. Most people never come across the sort of dexencrates these books gloat over and never will, and it's much better for them not to read about doings into which they're in no danger of falling. For every horror' you hold up, you'll better without." The reviewer's task is particularly hard. He feels that such books are equal! an offence against taste and against the great traditions of English literature; but if he condemns them, he knows unfortunately that he is onl stimulating the sale. The general opinion is, we think, that while some injustices may perpetrated by magistrates under the Act of 1857, that is of less moment than to put a stop 2 the licence which some writers permit themselves,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.