The Trials of Radclyffe Hall Diana Souhami (ereader that reads to you .TXT) 📖

accusations against her. He said she had wrecked his home. She ought not to be co-opted as a member of the council. I did not like to be hostile to her at first, but my own feelings about her have been confirmed by what Sir Ernest Troubridge told me.

Miss Newton thought his accusations ‘risky’. She asked in what way Admiral Troubridge regarded Radclyffe Hall as a ‘grossly immoral woman’. ‘In every way’, Fox-Pitt replied. For one thing, she had lived with the MVA of her paper, who was herself immoral. He said he would oppose this election by all means in his power.

He went to Helen Salter, editor of the Society’s journal, and complained to her too:

Miss Radclyffe Hall is a thoroughly immoral woman. She lived for many years with the woman mentioned in the paper which she and Lady Troubridge wrote, a woman who was a most objectionable person. Miss Radclyffe Hall has got a great influence over Lady Troubridge and has come between her and her husband and wrecked the Admiral’s home. I am quite determined to oppose her election to the council. If I cannot persuade Mrs Sidgwick to withdraw her proposal of Miss Radclyffe Hall for the council I intend to bring the matter before the council myself and put it strongly so as to carry my point, as she is quite an unfit person to be on the council.

Mrs Salter also asked whether ‘immoral’ was a dangerous word to use. Fox-Pitt fidgeted then said, ‘Admiral Troubridge is not at all afraid of anything, and would be quite willing to make this statement publicly. He would not mind it all coming out. He has faced a Court martial at his own request.’

Radclyffe Hall was summoned and told of Fox-Pitt’s words. They were catalytic. Here, demeaned, was her life. She acted with a forcefulness thought to be the prerogative of admirals and lords. She demanded that he withdraw his accusations. He refused. Like others after him, he underestimated her. She said her honour and Mabel Batten’s were impugned and she gave the eighteenth-century equivalent of a challenge to a duel. She saw her solicitor, Sir George Lewis, and took out a slander action.

Fox-Pitt and Troubridge went into a tizz. Money gave Radclyffe Hall power to use the law and they knew it. She challenged them to make their accusations public and to justify their prejudice. She had no fear of the court’s judgement or publicity from such a case. Had the price been crucifixion or public pillory she would have paid it. She was not going to be embarrassed into silence. She was a homophobe’s nightmare: dykish, rich, unyielding, outspoken, successful with women and caring not at all for the small vanities of men. Mabel Batten would have been placatory, smoothed feathers and soothed tempers. Radclyffe Hall wanted justice, honour and scruple to resound.

It took six months for the case to come to court. It was heard in the King’s Bench division before the Lord Chief Justice – the Rt Hon. Rufus Daniel Isaacs – and a special jury. It began at noon on 18 November and finished at seven-thirty the following evening. Una bought a special hat for the occasion, a thing with an enormous bow. Radclyffe Hall wore a discreet cloche and rouched shirt. The public gallery was full, the press eager.

The story made the front page in most of the papers. ‘Society women and the Spooks’ in the Daily Sketch; ‘Spirit Slander Suit’ in the Daily Mirror; ‘Lord Chief and the Spiritualist’ in the Evening Standard. The Times ran twelve columns on it. The photographs told the true story: Troubridge (though he was not in court) in Admiral’s uniform; Fox-Pitt in top hat and tails; Radclyffe Hall in mannish jacket; Una, the erstwhile admiral’s wife, now with bobbed hair and monocle. The unethereal eye could see that here were mortal passions: unconventional infidelity, jealousy, prejudice and pride.

Radclyffe Hall’s counsel was Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, barrister and Unionist MP. Fox-Pitt he said had made

as horrible an accusation as could be made against any woman in this country. The words used by the defendant could only mean that the plaintiff was an unchaste and immoral woman who was addicted to unnatural vice and was consequently unfit to be a member of the council of the Society for Psychical Research.

It was hard to find a law to apply to sexual immorality between women. Homosexual men were criminalized for ‘acts of gross indecency’. But there was nothing on the statutes for lesbians, gross or decent. Men made the laws for their own convenience. The Lord Chief Justice said he was unsure whether the word ‘immoral’ in this case came within the meaning of ‘unchastity’ in the Slander of Women Act. The word unchastity came next to adultery and it might be that both referred only to immorality between the sexes. His advice to the jury was that they must satisfy themselves that the defendant had used the words complained of, and that they were defamatory either as imputing immorality generally, or as imputing ‘unnatural offences’. If Fox-Pitt had used such words, he had to prove them to be true, otherwise damages should be awarded to the plaintiff.

‘All trials are trials for one’s life’, said Oscar Wilde. This one ought to have proved historic. It might have been about consensual sex between women and with what moral tenets this should comply. Radclyffe Hall had a litigious mind. She claimed the high moral ground. She wished to defend her right to love Mabel Batten and Una Troubridge. But both her lovers had husbands. And she had loved them both at the same time.

The case that emerged in court was a mess. Subpoenaed for cross-examination by Sir George Lewis, Troubridge wrote denying that he had ever made any allegations about Radclyffe Hall. Whatever Fox-Pitt said, Troubridge did ‘mind it all coming out’. He was now an admiral and a knight. He had endured humiliation and the downgrading of his career over the