H.H. Prince Francis of Teck.
Mr. Grant Allen, author of _The Woman Who Did_.
Mr. W.T. Stead, Editor of _The Review of Reviews_.
Messrs. Eason & Son, booksellers and newsvendors, possessing on
the railways of Ireland a monopoly similar to that enjoyed by
Messrs. W.H. Smith & Son on the railways of Great Britain.
Mr. James O'Hara, of 18, Cope Street, Dublin.
A Clerk.
Now, on the appearance of Mr. Grant Allen's _The Woman Who Did_, Mr.
Stead conceived the desire of criticising it as the "Book of the
Month" in _The Review of Reviews_ for February, 1895. He strongly
dissents from the doctrine of _The Woman Who Did_, and he also
believes that the book indicts, and goes far to destroy, its own
doctrine. This opinion, I may say, is shared by many critics. He says
"Wedlock is to Mr. Grant Allen _Nehushtan_. And the odd thing about it
is that the net effect of the book which he has written with his
heart's blood to destroy this said _Nehushtan_ can hardly fail to
strengthen the foundation of reasoned conviction upon which marriage
rests." And again--"Those who do not know the author, but who take
what I must regard as the saner view of the relations of the sexes,
will rejoice at what might have been a potent force for evil has been
so strangely overruled as to become a reinforcement of the garrison
defending the citadel its author desires so ardently to overthrow.
From the point of view of the fervent apostle of Free Love, this is a
Boomerang of a Book."
Believing this--that the book would be its own best antidote--Mr.
Stead epitomized it in his _Review_, printed copious extracts, and
wound up by indicating his own views and what he deemed the true moral
of the discussion. The _Review_ was published and, so far as Messrs.
W.H. Smith & Son were concerned, passed without comment. But to the
Editor's surprise (he tells the story in the _Westminster Gazette_ of
the 2nd inst.), no sooner was it placed on the market in Ireland than
he received word that every copy had been recalled from the
bookstalls, and that Messrs. Eason had refused to sell a single copy.
On telegraphing for more information, Mr. Stead was sent the following
letter:--
"DEAR SIR,--Allen's book is an avowed defence of Free Love, and
a direct attack upon the Christian view of marriage. Mr. Stead
criticises Allen's views adversely, but we do not think the
antidote can destroy the ill-effects of the poison, and we
decline to be made the vehicle for the distribution of attacks
upon the most fundamental institution of the Christian
state.--Yours faithfully,
------."
Mr. Stead thereupon wrote to the managing Director of Messrs. Eason &
Son, and received this reply:--
"DEAR SIR,--We have considered afresh the character of the
February number of your _Review_ so far as it relates to the
notice of Grant Allen's book, and we are more and more confirmed
in the belief that its influence has been, and is, most
pernicious.
"Grant Allen is not much heard of in Ireland, and the laudations
you pronounce on him as a writer, so far as we know him, appear
wholly unmerited.
"At any rate, he appears in your _Review_ as the advocate for
Free Love, and it seems to us strange that you should place his
work in the exaggerated importance of 'The Book of the Month,'
accompanied by eighteen pages of comment and quotation, in which
there is a publicity given to the work out of all proportion to
its merits.
"I do not doubt that the topic of Free Love engages the attention
of the corrupt Londoner. There are plenty of such persons who are
only too glad to get the sanction of writers for the maintenance
and practice of their evil thoughts, but the purest and best
lives in all parts of the field of Christian philanthropy will
mourn the publicity you have given to this evil book. It is not
even improbable that the perusal of Grant Allen's book, which you
have lifted into importance as 'The Book of the Month,' may
determine the action of souls to their spiritual ruin.
"The problem of indirect influence is full of mystery, but, as
the hour of our departure comes near, the possible consequences
to other minds of the example and teaching of our lives may
quicken our perceptions, and we may see and deeply regret our
actions when not directed by the highest authority, the will of
God.--We are, dear Sir, yours very truly (for Eason & Son,
Limited),
"CHARLES EASON, Managing Director."
Exception may be taken to this letter on many points, some trivial and
some important. Of the trivial points we may note with interest Mr.
Eason's assumption that his opinion is wanted on the literary merits
of the ware he vends; and, with concern, the rather slipshod manner in
which he allows himself and his assistants to speak of a gentleman as
"Allen," or "Grant Allen," without the usual prefix. But no one can
fail to see that this is an honest letter--the production of a man
conscious of responsibility and struggling to do his best in
circumstances he imperfectly understands. Nor do I think this view of
Mr. Eason need be seriously modified upon perusal of a letter received
by Mr. Stead from a Mr. James O'Hara, of 18, Cope Street, Dublin, and
printed in the _Westminster Gazette_ of March 11th. Mr. O'Hara
writes:--
"DEAR SIR,--The following may interest you and your readers. I
was a subscriber to the library owned by C. Eason & Co., Limited,
and in December asked them for _Napoleon and the Fair Sex_, by
Masson. The librarian informed me Mr. Eason had decided not to
circulate it, as it contained improper details, which Mr. Eason
considered immoral. A copy was also refused to one of the
best-known pressmen in Dublin, a man of mature years and
experience.
"Three days afterwards I saw a young man ask the librarian for
the same book, and Eason's manager presented it to him with a low
bow. I remarked on this circumstance to Mr. Charles Eason, who
told me that he had issued it to this one subscriber only,
because he was Prince Francis of Teck.
"I told him it was likely, from the description he had given me
of it, to be more injurious to a young man such as Prince Francis
of Teck than to me; but he replied: 'Oh, these high-up people
_are different_. Besides, they are so influential we cannot
refuse them. However, if you wish, you can now have the book.'
"I told Mr. Eason that I did not wish to read it ever since he
had told me when I first applied for it that it was quite
improper."
The two excuses produced by Mr. Eason do not agree very well together.
The first gives us to understand that, in Mr. Eason's opinion,
ordinary moral principles cannot be applied to persons of royal blood.
The second gives us to understand that though, in Mr. Eason's opinion,
ordinary moral principles _can_ be applied to princes, the application
would involve more risk than Mr. Eason cares to undertake. Each of his
excuses, taken apart, is intelligible enough. Taken together they can
hardly be called consistent. But the effects of royal and semi-royal
splendor upon the moral eyesight are well known, and need not be dwelt
on here. After all, what concerns us is not Mr. Eason's attitude
towards Prince Francis of Teck, but Mr. Eason's attitude towards the
reading public. And in this respect, from one point of view--which
happens to be his own--Mr. Eason's attitude seems to me
irreproachable. He is clearly alive to his responsibility, and is
honestly concerned that the goods he purveys to the public shall be
goods of which his conscience approves. Here is no grocer who sands
his sugar before hurrying to family prayer. Here is a man who carries
his religion into his business, and stakes his honor on the purity of
his wares. I think it would be wrong in the extreme to deride Mr.
Eason's action in the matter of _The Woman Who Did_ and Mr. Stead's
review. He is doing his best, as Mr. Stead cheerfully allows.
The reasonable Objection to Bookstall Censorship.
But, as I said above, he is doing his best under circumstances he
imperfectly understands--and, let me add here, in a position which is
unfair to him. That Mr. Eason imperfectly understands his position
will be plain (I think) to anyone who studies his reply to Mr. Stead.
But let me make the point clear; for it is the crucial point in the
discussion of the modern Bookstall Censorship. A great deal may be
said against setting up a censorship of literature. A great deal may
be said in favor of a censorship. But if a censorship there must be,
the censor should be deliberately chosen for his office, and, in
exercising his power, should be directly responsible to the public
conscience. If a censorship there must be, let the community choose a
man whose qualifications have been weighed, a man in whose judgment it
decides that it can rely. But that Tom or Dick or Harry, or Tom Dick
Harry & Co. (Limited), by the process of collaring a commercial
monopoly from the railway companies, should be exalted into the
supreme arbiters of what men or women may or may not be allowed to
read--this surely is unjustifiable by any argument? Mr. Eason may on
the whole be doing more good than harm. He is plainly a very
well-meaning man of business. If he knows a good book from a bad--and
the public has no reason to suppose that he does--I can very well
believe that when his moral and literary judgment came into conflict
with his business interests, he would sacrifice his business
interests. But the interests of good literature and profitable
business cannot always be identical; and whenever they conflict they
put Mr. Eason into a false position. As managing director of Messrs.
Eason & Son, he must consider his shareholders; as supreme arbiter of
letters, he stands directly answerable to the public conscience. I
protest, therefore, that these functions should never be combined in
one man. As readers of THE SPEAKER know, I range myself on the side of
those who would have literature free. But even our opponents, who
desire control, must desire a form of control such as reason
approves.