The Trials of Radclyffe Hall by Diana Souhami (interesting novels to read txt) 📕

presided over this kangaroo court. He opened the case and closed it and pretended unanimity for the decision he and his friends imposed. He held The Well of Loneliness at arm’s length, confided how loath he was to read aloud from it, bowed to the press and said, ‘I shall have to go into a good deal of detail in these passages. I can only hope – and I am sure I may say this – that repulsive as it is to all of us the Press will show their accustomed restraint in reporting the many observations I may have to make.’

He had, he said, no idea whether the book had any literary qualities; his purpose was to show it was obscene. He chose his detail and gave his views. This book would suggest thoughts of a most impure immoral unclean and libidinous character to the minds of the young. It brought the name of God into corrupt passions. The practice in which its heroine Stephen Gordon indulged was referred to in a very well-known passage in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and in a book of Juvenal. It glorified the vice of physical relations between women. It asked for toleration of the people who indulged this vice. It was

propaganda for the practice which has long been known as Lesbianism, a well-known vice, unnatural, destructive of the moral and physical fibre of the passive persons who indulge in it, who are the victims of others; this book is a plea for the active persons who practice this vice.… I submit that it is corrupting and obscene and its publication is a misdemeanour.

Sir Thomas passed two copies of the book to the twelve magistrates. The offending passages were marked with little bits of paper. ‘He was very absurd and he over play acted,’ Radclyffe Hall wrote: ‘I thought him rather a stupid Counsel, but he managed to be extremely vindictive. And yet as I listened to those parts of my book especially selected for its damnation, I was struck with the high moral tone of my writing & with my great decency and restraint.’

James Melville went through a ritual of defence. The previous evening he had sent telegrams to all his witnesses telling them their attendance would not be required. He knew the case was prejudged. He again pleaded for the freedom of literature, again urged the court to differentiate between the theme of a book and treatment of a theme. He might have saved his breath. While he was addressing the court, the Attorney-General Sir Thomas Inskip talked to colleagues and made a fuss about sending someone out for a railway timetable.

The jury retired at two twenty-five p.m. and returned at two-thirty p.m. Five minutes were all that were needed for Sir Robert Wallace to tell them what they must decide. ‘The bewildered and sheepish expressions of Sir Robert’s fellow magistrates provided a memorable spectacle’, Rubinstein wrote. ‘This was the only consolation afforded to our clients.’

Old Sir Robert delivered judgement. It was, he said, undesirable that there should be a constant repetition of the type of passages read to the court. The book was dangerous, corrupting, disgusting, obscene and prejudicial to the morals of the community. It was ‘more subtle demoralising corrosive and corruptive than anything ever written’. It was enough to make anyone want to read it. He dismissed the appeal and the defence again incurred all costs.

Sir Archibald Bodkin was again in court. Joynson-Hicks had asked him for notes on the appeal proceedings. Here is some of what he wrote that day:

… The Court retired for about five minutes and the Chairman in delivering judgement dismissed the Appeal and said the decision of the Court was unanimous; that the book was regarded as a subtle and insinuating one and the more dangerous because of its literary character: that it was corrupting in its tendency, was a condonation of unnatural practices, was a disgusting and obscene book and prejudicial to the morals of the community. The order was therefore confirmed with costs and the Appeal dismissed.

I may mention that there were in attendance as witnesses on behalf of the informant Sir William Willcox [the Home Office pathologist], Dr Birley of 10 Upper Wimpole St, Dr Maurice Wright of 86 Brook St, Miss Lillian Barker and Mr Rudyard Kipling. I desire to place on record the readily-proffered assistance rendered by all these persons and I have no doubt, although not a tenth in number of those proposed to be called on the other side, their evidence would undoubtedly have obliterated any impression which the so-called experts in literature etc., might have made upon the Court. I am writing to them individually to thank them. It may be that the Secretary of State would like to send a line personally to Mr Rudyard Kipling who, although far from well, attended at the Sessions House.

In view of the discreditable action, as I regard it, of Mr Jonathan Cape, it would appear undesirable to accept any undertaking in the future to withdraw objectionable books from circulation. I am afraid the unfortunate feature of the whole matter is that from the proceedings the appellant will have derived very considerable profits, but at least the standard of decent literature in this country has to some extent been maintained. The Attorney General especially referred to the position of the Secretary of State, not only in regard to the law of this country, but also its International obligations.

AHB

Thus the unedifying process of the law, the well-worn drama of the English establishment, the Old Boys, their intrigue, misogyny and blustering terror of sex. Sir Robert Wallace, Sir Thomas Inskip, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Archibald Bodkin, peers of the realm, oligarchs, guardians of the nation’s morals, fools and bigots of their time, puffed with power, tainted with prejudice and sexual unease.

Their views and those of Radclyffe Hall polarized. She preached about congenital sexual inverts, truth, justice, and blind and ignorant persecution. They postured about filthy