victory, returned to the warpath. Henry Vizetelly was again summoned,
this time for selling the following books: "The Assommoir," "Germinal,"
"Fat and Thin" ("Le Ventre de Paris"), "The Rush for the Spoil" ("La
Curée"), "Abbé Mouret's Transgression," "How Jolly Life is" ("La Joie
de Vivre"), "The Fortune of the Rougons," and "His Excellency E.
Rougon," by Zola; "Madame Bovary," by Gustave Flaubert; "A Love Crime,"
by Paul Bourget; "A Woman's Life" and "A Ladies' Man" ("Bel Ami"),
by Guy de Maupassant. At the same time W. M. Thomson, discharged when
summoned for "The Decameron," was prosecuted for selling a translation
of "The Heptameron," as well as other works, and other booksellers were
likewise proceeded against in connection with some of the American
versions of Zola's novels. The cases were heard by Mr. Vaughan, a testy
old magistrate who long presided at Bow Street, and who committed
Vizetelly for trial with respect to the following works: Zola's "Abbé
Mouret's Transgression," "The Rush for the Spoil," "Fat and Thin," "His
Excellency E. Rougon," "How Jolly Life is"; Bourget's "Love Crime"
and Maupassant's "Ladies' Man." A few objections had been raised in
the press apropos of the prosecution of "Madame Bovary," and with the
gracious approval of the great Stead of the "Maiden Tribute," the
summons respecting that work was eventually adjourned _sine die_.[28]
When Vizetelly returned to his office from Bow Street on the day of
his committal, he took the only course consistent with integrity. He
assigned everything he possessed for the benefit of his creditors,
in order that his business might be liquidated. It was impossible to
carry it on any longer. The wreckers had resolved to ruin him, and had
succeeded to their hearts' desire. Friends came and expressed their
sympathy--among others, Sir Henry Irving, the late Sir John Gilbert,
and Mr. Birket Foster--but there was virtually no opportunity for any
public protest. Not a newspaper now dared to print a word on behalf
of this old servant of the press whom the "Vigilants" had chosen for
their victim. On the morrow of the first trial the "leader" writers had
hastened to avail themselves of his plea of guilty to pass unanimous
condemnation on him. The delighted "Vigilants" had promptly printed and
circulated extracts from the "Times," "St. James's Gazette," "Whitehall
Review," "Star," "Globe," "Morning Advertiser," "Saturday Review,"
"Methodist Times," "Liverpool Mercury," and "Western Morning News";
and those samples of English press opinion might have been multiplied
indefinitely. They showed all parties in agreement: the Tories and
the Radicals, the Puritans and the Publicans. Coote, the secretary
to the "Vigilants," had become _censor morum_, and all bowed to his
authority. Yet some members of this so-called "National Vigilance
Association" had been mixed up in various nefarious matters. There
had been, as Mr. George Moore subsequently wrote, "the case of an
unfortunate foreign prince, who was dragged into court on a charge of
abduction or seduction, or both; when the matter came to be sifted it
was found that he was absolutely and wholly innocent. So conclusive and
so unimpeachable was the evidence, that Mr. Besley, who prosecuted for
the Association, had to admit that he had nothing to say, and the judge
replied, 'I should think not, indeed.'"[29]
Again there was a notorious Leamington case in which the "Vigilants"
prosecuted, and in which, as Mr. Moore again pointed out, it was
proved that two women clandestinely took an innocent girl from her
employment, plied her with filthy questions, threatened her, and
induced her to sign a paper which might have led to a boy of fifteen
being sent to prison for two years![30]
And this was the class of person that assumed the prerogative of
Literary Censorship. The press prostrated itself before the new Terror,
and the Government supported it by again taking up the prosecution of
Vizetelly. The trustees of his estate resolved to fight the case and
provided funds for that purpose, but while the selection of counsel
was in abeyance, Mr. Frank Harris, then editor of "The Fortnightly
Review," and one of the few who realised that an odious tyranny was
being established, generously offered to bear all Vizetelly's expenses.
Mr. Harris desired, however, that the defence should now be entrusted
entirely to Mr. Cluer, who had acted as Vizetelly's junior counsel at
the first trial, and who had also appeared for him at the recent police
court proceedings. There were various advantages in such a course.
Mr. Cluer's knowledge of the French language was perfect; he had read
Zola's works in the original, and he knew with what a lofty purpose
Zola wrote. The present writer favoured the suggested arrangement, but
he had no power in the matter. Any suggestions he made were invariably
set aside throughout the affair, on the ground that he had not been
long resident in England, that there were many things which he did not
properly understand, and so forth. There was some truth, no doubt, in
those objections; but it often happens that a person who stands a
little apart from a battle has a clearer perception of its chances than
those who are actually engaged in it. The writer feared that a fresh
conviction was virtually inevitable, but he also felt that Mr. Cluer
would do his best for his client, and that the ship, though it might
well go down, would then at least do so with colours flying. But it was
held imperative that a Queen's Counsel must be engaged, for it would be
ridiculous to pit a stuff-gownsman against the Solicitor-general! And
so, after various delays and difficulties, as on the former occasion,
the late Mr. Cock, Q. C., was retained, Mr. Cluer again being secured
as junior counsel.
Henry Vizetelly and his trustees were still resolved to fight the
case, after their own fashion; and by way of answering any charge of
having broken the previous undertaking it was proposed that Ernest
Vizetelly should give evidence respecting the recent expurgation of
Zola's books. His father inquiring if he were prepared to do so, he
immediately assented. He went further: he agreed to take, so far as the
Zola volumes were concerned, at least the odium of this second affair
on himself by assuming responsibility for what had been done. It was
impossible for him to hesitate,--no son would hesitate to shield his
father as far as might be possible,[31]--but now that the time has come
to write of these matters he owes it to himself, and particularly to
his children, to point out that the responsibility which he assumed
was not really his. The expurgatory work he had accomplished had been
limited by the conditions imposed on him; within them he had done his
best; but, even then, he had submitted his work for approval, saying:
"This is all I can do. If anything further is required another must
do it." He knows, by the "proof" slips in his possession, that a few
further alterations were made in his work, the bulk of which, however,
was passed, and sent to the printers. He was not surprised by that, and
would not be surprised by it now, for he holds that the alterations he
made were sufficient to satisfy everybody except fanatical Puritans. At
the same time, in that hour of frenzied cant and unscrupulous injustice
the responsibility he assumed was no light one, for even though he
could not be proceeded against at law, the odium attaching to it might
be very prejudicial to him. And while he had a wife and children to
support, he had no interest in his father's business beyond being its
paid servant; he knew that it had been established for the benefit of
his younger brothers; which consideration had largely deterred him from
pressing his own advice during the affair, for he did not wish to be
accused of attempting to supplant anybody. If, to-day, he has pointed
out the actual circumstances it is because he does not wish anybody to
believe, as many have inferred for years, that his father's ruin and
imprisonment proceeded from any neglect of his. It is true he has long
allowed that to be thought,--it might be assumed from the account of
his father in the "Dictionary of National Biography,"--but the facts
were really such as have been stated here.
Vizetelly & Co. intending to fight the case, as soon as the amount of
Mr. Cock's fee had been ascertained it was voluntarily increased to a
larger one in order to induce him to do his utmost. An attempt was
made to arrange a consultation some days before the trial, but as a
matter of fact Mr. Cock was not seen until about half an hour before
the case opened at the Central Criminal Court, on May 30, 1889. Ernest
Vizetelly accompanied his father, who was now in very bad health
indeed. Mr. Cluer introduced them to Mr. Cock, and a conversation
took place in a room adjoining the robing room at the Old Bailey. At
the first words, Mr. Cock declared there could be no defence. He did
not pause to argue. It was plain he wished to dispose of the case as
quickly as possible. The defendant, said he, must throw himself on the
mercy of the court, that was the only thing to do. Henry Vizetelly,
who had come to the Old Bailey expecting something very different, was
overwhelmed by this intimation. The blow was a _coup de massue_ for
him, and at first he could say nothing. His son, likewise very much
amazed, and, in particular, disgusted with this blustering barrister
who threw up the sponge at the moment of going into court, tried to
interject a few words, but was curtly silenced. There was nothing,
nothing to be done, so Cock, Q. C., repeated. Under the circumstances
he might have returned the extra fee which had been sent him to induce
him to make a good fight, but he never did. There was, however, one
course that he was willing to take when he saw the distress of his
ailing old client. He offered to ascertain what would be the result of
a plea of "guilty." To Vizetelly's son that seemed a strange course to
pursue. He did not like hanky-panky or aught suggestive of it. However,
Mr. Cock rose--he was a fat, unwieldy man, with a startling red
face--and rolled out of the room. Whom did he actually see? The writer
is not certain, and in a case of uncertainty it is best to stay one's
pen. But when Mr. Cock returned he _said_ in presence of the defendant,
his son, and Mr. Cluer, that the Solicitor-general was not leniently
inclined and that Vizetelly's recognisances "to be of good behaviour"
would have to be estreated; while the Recorder, Sir Thomas Chambers,
held that there must be some imprisonment. Did Henry Vizetelly hear
those last words? According to his own account, afterwards, he never
did; for had he done so, in spite of all Mr. Cock's bluster, he would
never, he said, have pleaded guilty. But the poor man may well have
misunderstood his counsel. He was in a condition little short of actual
physical collapse. In a dreamy way, as it were, he gave, or seemed
to give, a feeble assent to everything. Had there been time, his son
would have made an effort to reopen the question, for it occurred to
him that, even then, one might perhaps have dispensed with Mr. Cock's
services and have induced Mr. Cluer to undertake the defence unaided.
But there was no opportunity for further deliberation; the court was
almost waiting, and one went downstairs to meet the inevitable.
The proceedings were brief. Vizetelly took his stand at the foot of
the solicitors' table, his son who sat there, and who at every moment
feared to see him fall, holding his hand the while. For an instant,
when challenged, he hesitated, then ejaculated the word "guilty," much
as if he were expectorating.
Thus the case was never argued on its merits. Of course the
Solicitor-general held that the previous undertaking had been violated,
and asked that the defendant's recognisances in two hundred pounds
should be estreated. Then Mr. Cock spoke of the expurgation of the
books, which in his opinion "had not gone sufficiently far," and added
that the defendant was in his seventieth year and in very delicate
health. On that point Ernest Vizetelly testified on oath that his
father had suffered for some years from a complaint which had lately
assumed a very serious character and necessitated the constant
employment of surgical instruments. He then imagined his examination
to be over, and was about to leave the witness-box when Sir Edward
Clarke inquired if he were a member of the firm of Vizetelly & Co. The
witness answered in the negative, he was a journalist by profession,
and if previously employed by the firm he had then ceased to be so. But
the Solicitor-general pressed him for the purpose, so it seemed, of
extracting some undertaking with respect to the future sale of Zola's
works or the destruction of the existing stock. This the witness had no
power to give, and he was determined to say nothing that might lead to
it being given by others. As the pertinacity of counsel continued, the
witness, feeling somewhat ruffled, could not refrain from retorting:
"You have made the defendant a pauper! What more do you want?" "Now,
now," Sir Edward Clarke shouted back, "we want none of that!" "Well, I
have nothing else to say," the witness added. "I do not belong to the
firm of Vizetelly & Co., and I now know nothing about it." Thereupon
the Solicitor-general, somewhat discomfited, had to let him go.
The Recorder then passed sentence. It was useless, he said, to fine
the defendant, as he had no means to pay a fine. But his recognisances
must be estreated, and he must go to prison, as a first-class
misdemeanant, for three months. Vizetelly was at once led below; and
his son applied, through counsel, for leave to speak with him before
he was removed to jail. The Recorder granted permission, but the son
was not allowed to follow his father. He and Mr. Lickfold (Vizetelly's
solicitor) were told to apply at the small barred gate of Newgate,
immediately adjoining the Old Bailey. They went thither and were
admitted. A warder, or attendant, was told of the permission the judge
had given, and went to make inquiries. Mr. Lickfold retired, and the
writer remained waiting. Presently the attendant returned and said to
him: "The Governor's answer is that you cannot see the prisoner. The
judge has no power to give leave to see any prisoner when once he has
left the court." It was useless to expostulate. Ernest Vizetelly could
only withdraw, in considerable distress, for he knew that his father in
the state of his health would require prompt attention and relief; and
he had been anxious to do what he could in that and other matters.[32]
However, he met his brothers, and various arrangements were made to
provide for their father's comfort. As the case was to have been
fought, there had been no anticipation that it would end that same day,
and nothing was actually ready. At last, Holloway being the jail where
first-class misdemeanants are usually lodged, application was made
there; but the officials knew nothing whatever of Vizetelly, he had
not been sent to them. After some discussion Ernest and his brother
Frank Vizetelly, proceeded to Pentonville, where they were received
very courteously by the deputy governor, who said to them: "Yes, your
father is here. Why he was sent I do not know, we have no accommodation
for first-class misdemeanants. None has ever been sent here before.
Your father is in a shocking state, he had been suffering for hours
when he arrived here; I have placed him temporarily in our infirmary.
I telegraphed to the Prison Commissioners but have had no answer. You
should go to them at once at Whitehall, and ask them to remove him to
Holloway."
This was done. The facts were set out in writing and sent in to some of
the Commissioners, who, after an interval of an hour or so, received
Frank Vizetelly, and airily told him that there was no mistake at all,
that his father had been sent to Holloway and would be found there! The
fact is that, while the sons were waiting, telegraphic instructions had
been sent to Pentonville for Vizetelly's removal. That could not be
effected in an instant on account of his serious condition, but when
he was lodged in the infirmary at Holloway the Commissioners felt they
were safe from any charge of neglect. Ernest Vizetelly, however, was
not disposed to let the matter drop, and having drafted a question for
the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) he wrote to Mr. Labouchere, M. P.,
to inquire if he would ask it in the House of Commons. He received the
following characteristic reply:
Dear Sir,--I do not think that the clerks at the table would
accept the question as written, for it enters too fully into
details. However, be this as it may, I should not be the
proper person to ask it, for I have had many actions for
libels, and it would be thought that I had an eye to my
future accommodation. As a matter of tactics, I should advise
that no question be asked, for the only person who can reduce
the sentence is the Home Secretary. I do not know if he will,
but he certainly will not if his hack be put up.--Yours
faithfully,
H. LABOUCHERE.
24 Grosvenor Gardens, S. W. June 1. [1889].
Mr. Labouchere's advice was certainly good, and it was followed. That
is why the facts have never been disclosed till now.
Little more need be added here. Henry Vizetelly left a long account
of his prison experiences which the writer may some day print. He was
fairly well treated at Holloway,[33] but he writes that after he had
left the infirmary (of which he was long an inmate, as the result
of the neglect in which he was left immediately after his trial)
he had great difficulty in obtaining water of the requisite heat
for the treatment of his complaint, his room (previously occupied
by Edmund Yates) being so far from the kitchens that, as a rule,
the water was almost cold by the time it reached him. His health
naturally deteriorated in confinement, but he did his best to look at
things cheerfully, and found occupation in planning various literary
enterprises. Several friends, notably Edmund Yates, showed great
kindness at this time. Mr. George Moore did his best to ventilate the
whole question of the prosecution and Robert Buchanan wrote an able
pamphlet under the grim title of "On Descending into Hell." Ernest
Vizetelly was then chiefly occupied in preparing and circulating
a memorial to the Home Secretary, praying for his father's release
on various grounds. Though two or three of the newspapers were
already beginning to think that matters had been carried too far, few
journalists, unless friends, were asked for their signatures; but
Vizetelly's son had the satisfaction of securing the support of several
notable authors with whom he had never previously held communication.
Their letters of sympathy touched him deeply, and showed him that
though the newspaper press might be so largely under the thumb of
the "National Vigilants," there were men of letters of high standing
who retained all their independence of thought. A few, it is true,
made certain reserves with respect to Zola's works, but all felt that
Henry Vizetelly ought not to have been treated so harshly. The writer,
unfortunately, has preserved no complete list of those who signed the
petition (from one hundred to one hundred and fifty in number), and he
must apologise for the many omissions in the one that follows. It will
be noticed that it contains the names of half a dozen lady writers, as
well as those of some prominent artists, who remembered Vizetelly's
work as a wood-engraver, and all he had done for the pictorial press:
"Sir Algernon Borthwick (now Lord Glenesk), M. P., Sir E. W. Watkin,
M. P., T. P. O'Connor, M. P., Samuel Storey, M. P., Charles Bradlaugh,
M. P., Dr. C. Cameron, M. P., The Earl of Desart, Sir J. E. Millais,
R. A., Sir John Gilbert, R. A., W P. Frith, R. A., Birket Foster,
Linley Sambourne, Harry Furniss, George du Maurier, Prof. Henry Morley,
Prof. Geddes, J. Arthur Thomson, Edmund Gosse, Dr. R. Garnett, Dr. F.
J. Furnivall, Oscar Browning, John Addington Symonds, Leslie Stephen,
Dr. R. Maitland Coffin, Norman Maccoll, James S. Cotton, St. Loe
Strachey, Hon. Roden Noel, Havelock Ellis, Robert Buchanan, Walter
Besant, Hon. Lewis Wingfield, Thomas Hardy, George Moore, W. Clark
Russell, H. Rider Haggard, Hall Caine, 'Ouida,' Mrs. Frances Hodgson
Burnett, Mrs. E. Lynn Linton, Mrs. Mona Caird, 'John Strange Winter,'
Olive Schreiner, Mabel Collins, Harriett Jay, G. A. Sala, Edmund
Yates, Frank Harris, Archibald Forbes, H. W. Lucy, H. D. Traill, A.
W. Pinero, William Archer, Augustus Harris, Sir Henry Irving, Henry
Arthur Jones, Fitzgerald Molloy, Ernest Rhys, S. W. Orson, Hon. F. C.
Lawley, H. Sutherland Edwards, J. C. Parkinson, D. L., Arthur Symons,
Alex. C. Ewald, W. R. S. Ralston, Max O'Rell, Savile Clarke, Brinsley
Nicholson, G. Laurence Gomme, Frank A. Marshall, Grant Allen, Frederick
and James Greenwood, G. B. Le Fanu, F. C. Philips, William Sharp, C. N.
Williamson, William Senior, H. T. Wharton, Julius Mayhew, W. H. Dircks,
Frank T. Marzials, W. Faux, of W. H. Smith & Sons."
Various persons in official positions, whom etiquette prevented from
signing the memorial--for instance Lord Lytton ("Owen Meredith"), then
British Ambassador in Paris,--conveyed privately to Ernest Vizetelly
their hope that it might prove successful, but the only response of the
Home Secretary was that he could not advise her Majesty to interfere
in the case. Thus Vizetelly completed his "time" at Holloway, being
released at the end of August, 1889. He returned to his home at
Putney, and afterwards removed with his daughter and his son Arthur
to Heatherlands, near Tilford, Surrey, where he spent, in suffering,
the few years that were left him. They happily sufficed for him to see
in England a considerable revulsion of feeling with respect to Émile
Zola--of whom he had prophesied, in his letter to Sir A. K. Stephenson,
that time would bring round its revenges. It will be necessary to
allude to him hereafter in connection with Zola's first stay in London,
but here one need only add that he died on January 1, 1894, after a
final distressing illness. And the little graveyard of the village of
Churt became the last resting-place of the man who was persecuted by
the Pecksniffs of Great Britain, and whom the "Dictionary of National
Biography" describes as the pioneer of the world's pictorial press.
[1] See _ante_, p. 214.
[2] The writer has a copy of this article, a very able one, cut from
the pages of a review or magazine, which, unfortunately he has been
unable to identify.
[3] Researches made by the late James T. G. Vizetelly, who was long the
senior member of the family (1818-1897), traced it back to Ravenna,
whence it removed to Venice. Henry Vizetelly, when preparing his
autobiography, had no family documents before him and fell into various
errors in his account of his forerunners.
[4] Even his business, that of Vizetelly, Branston & Co., printers and
publishers, was at one time known merely by the name of the "Co.," that
is as Whitehead's, though J. H. Vizetelly was managing partner. He
had served his apprenticeship with the Coxes, and did not take up his
freedom (his father and grandfather had been freemen of the city before
him) till September, 1827. He was a man of considerable gifts; he
wrote for several periodicals, produced a variety of verse (privately
printed by himself) initiated the famous "Boy's Own Book," as well as
"Cruikshank's Comic Almanack" of which he became the "Rigdum Funnidos,"
and was one of the best amateur actors of his time. He was very
intimate with Edmund Kean, whom he greatly resembled in appearance, and
it is said that more than once when Kean was hopelessly drunk he took
his place on the boards. Such at least was the story often told to the
writer by his grandmother (James Henry's widow) and expressly confirmed
to him by an old family friend, Mr. Lemprière, son of the Lemprière of
the "Classical Dictionary."
[5] He has related the greater part of his career in his "Glances
Back through Seventy Years," and an account of it, of some length,
will be found in the "Dictionary of National Biography." But for the
purpose which the present writer has in view he considers it as well to
recapitulate its chief features.
[6] Among others, James Hannay, Edmund Yates, Robert Brough, G. A.
Sala, Sutherland Edwards, J. C. Parkinson, Augustus Mayhew, Frederick
and James Greenwood, Tom Robertson, John Hollingshead, "Phiz," Birket
Foster, Henry Meadows, Gustave Doré, Charles Keene, Edmond Morin,
Gustave Janet, the Claxton sisters, Matt. Morgan, etc.