1894-01-16 to the Editor of the Daily Chronicle

Printed letter signed, Daily Chronicle (London, 16 January 1894, page 3), 1,174 words

[Edited for paragraph breaks, capitalization, spelling and punctuation.]

[Saturday] Jan. 13.

Sir,

Mr. Coote denies that The Confessional Unmasked was printed and published with the approval of the National Vigilance Association. Under his correction, I will only reply that the printer and publisher of The Confessional Unmasked was the printer and publisher employed by the National Vigilance Association for the printing and publishing of its propaganda. Why, therefore, if there was no connection, did they not prosecute their own printer when they were prosecuting Mr. Vizetelly? Further, why did they not contradict the charge when it was first made by Mr. Labouchere in Truth?

Mr. Coote denies that Captain Verney was ever a member of the National Vigilance Association. At the time of the trial it was stated in the newspapers that he was. However, Mr. Coote's denial merely concerns Captain Verney's official connection with the movement: his unofficial connection was sufficiently intimate, as all the world knows, to justify anyone in receiving the impression that he was actually and

officially a member of the association.

Mr.Coote says that my statements regarding the Leamington case cannot be relied on. He says: “It is utterly false that threats were used to make the girl confess crimes. The facts were not gone into before the magistrates."

Here is the report of the case: —

The Magistrates’ Clerk, addressing the girl, said: "I am going to read to you the information, and, when I have read it, I shall ask you if it is correct, and if you knew the meaning of it at the time that it was read.” The magistrates' clerk then read the information, which alleged that the offence named was perpetrated on March 17, and asked the girl, “Is that information true?"

The Girl: No, sir.

Mr. Maw (instructed by the London Vigilance Association): She told me she swore it under a mistake, and under a misapprehension of the terms.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I ask that question because the girl has been to me this morning, and stated that she was not coming into court; but I advised her strongly to come and appear to the information. This young girl assures me — I think I may state it in open court because I think it necessary that this matter should be thoroughly exposed — she assures me, and is ready to swear it if necessary, that she is a nursegirl in a situation in Leamington, and that a woman called upon her a little time ago and said that Mrs. — , who resides in — , wanted to see her. She went up to see Mrs. — . Is that correct, girl?

The Girl: Yes, sir.

The Magistrates' Clerk: She went up to her, and Mrs. — shut her up in a room by herself alone with her, and said, "Now, I want to ask you a few questions, and if you don't tell the truth you'll be sent to gaol." And then she asked you if you knew — — , didn’t she?

The Girl: Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: And you said yes?

The Girl: Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: And she asked you other names, and you said you did know them?

The Girl: No.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I think she asked you a few other names as well?

The Girl: Yes; she asked me if I knew — — , and I said "Yes."

The Magistrates' Clerk: And you said you did know them?

The Girl: Yes

The Magistrates' Clerk: You only meant that you knew them as acquaintances?

The Girl: Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Now, girl, is it true that this young fellow ever had connection with you?

The Giri; No, sir.

"In this case," said the counsel for the defence, "I am instructed that not only was this girl taken clandestinely from her employment to the house of Mrs. — , but that that lady had her in a room to herself for upwards of one hour, and took down question and answer, asking the girl questions which she did not understand — that she took down herself the answers "Yes" or "No" as they were given, and made the girl sign the document; and that occurred, not only once, but on another occasion, when she was taken to the house of a person named — , in — , where the girl underwent the same treatment. Miss — also took down her statement in writing, and the girl at this moment knows no more than the man in the moon what she signed."

Mr. Maw: Under the circumstances, and the girl having evidently misunderstood the meaning of the terms, the summons must be dismissed, as nothing else can be done.

What does Mr.Coote mean? He says the case was not gone into before the magistrates! What does Mr. Coote mean? He says that threats were not used! "Now I want to ask you a few questions, and if you don’t tell the truth you’ll be sent to gaol."

This at least is a clear question: Does Mr. Coote think his lady vigilantes were acting rightly in taking clandestinely an innocent girl from her employment, plying her with filthy questions, and inducing her to sign a paper which might have got a boy of fifteen sent to prison for a couple of years?

Mr. Coote says that my point about Madame Bovary seems to him to be a quibble. "The case," he says, "was adjourned sine die, and not proceeded with." An accusation of quibbling from Mr.Coote is amusing.

The National Vigilance Association drew up a list of books which they believed could be prosecuted as indecent literature. They obtained a conviction on the book that headed the list — La Terre in the first trial, and on La Faute de l'Abbé Mouret in the second trial. When Mr. Vizetelly was in prison there was no one to proceed against; besides, the books indicated were to all intents and purposes unsaleable.

That Mr. Coote should have learnt through the medium of Mr. Stead that Madame Bovary is not indecent literature is a matter on which we must congratulate ourselves. But as public memory is short, I will take this opportunity of mentioning that the list of books considered by Mr. Coote to be indecent included several volumes by Maupassant and Bourget; if my memory does not betray me, a volume by Goncourt was on this list, Germinie Lacerteux, I think; and on a previous occasion the National Vigilance Association took out a summons against another publisher for selling The Heptaméron, a collection of stories written 300 years ago by Margaret of Navarre. It is true that the summons was dismissed, the magistrate holding that the destruction of classical literature could not be permitted to the vigilantes. Boccaccio was also proceeded against — unsuccessfully, it is true; also a dealer was summoned for selling photographs of pictures that had been exhibited in the Paris Salon. Had that prosecution been successful the National Gallery would probably have been the next victim —

I am, Sir, yours truly,

GEORGE MOORE.