For many years after the publication of Mr. Malthus’s great essay, the principle which
he had formulated did not pass beyond the region of more or less academic controversy.
The “theory of population” was denounced from countless pulpits and assailed by the
pens of ready writers; but, being based upon a patient and accurate observation of
the facts of nature, it remained unshaken when the preachers and critics were forgotten.
It would be absurd to doubt that so important a contribution to social science influenced
the minds and helped to shape the conduct of thoughtful men; but it is beyond [18]question that no organised attempt to popularise and propagate the teachings of Malthus,
and to make known the nature of preventive checks amongst the people of this country,
was undertaken until the year 1877. In the first quarter of the century, Richard Carlile
published a small pamphlet on the subject; but there is no reason to suppose that
its effect was appreciable. Mr. Francis Place and Mr. Robert Dale Owen in later years
wrote essays embodying practically the modern Malthusian view.
In 1833, Dr. Charles Knowlton, of Boston (U.S.A.), issued a small work on the subject
of population, entitled The Fruits of Philosophy. For over forty years the book was sold in England, but its sale was so small that
very few people were even acquainted with its title, and it remained in its native
obscurity until it was dragged into the light of day by the fortunate folly of persons
who imagined that it was possible to check the spread of moral enlightenment by means
of legal “repression.”
In 1876 a police prosecution was instituted against a man in Bristol for selling The Fruits of Philosophy, and a conviction was obtained. In the following year the publisher of the pamphlet
was also indicted and committed for trial; but he was liberated on promising that
he would no longer issue the work. Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs. Annie Besant thereupon
undertook the task of defending the right of publication. They reprinted and published
the pamphlet, formally inviting the authorities to prosecute them. “It was for the
sake of free discussion that we published the assailed pamphlet when its former seller
yielded to the pressure put upon him by the police; it was not so much in defence
of this pamphlet, as to make the way possible for others dealing with the same topic
that we risked the penalty which has fallen upon us.”1
The police authorities accepted the challenge, and a prosecution was immediately commenced.
The trial, which lasted four days, took place in the Court of Queen’s Bench, before
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury. Sir Hardinge Gifford (then Solicitor-General),
Mr. Douglas Straight and Mr. Mead appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Bradlaugh and
Mrs. Besant appeared in person.
[19]
The indictment charged the defendants with having published and sold an obscene book,
with intent to contaminate and corrupt public morals. The author of The Fruits of Philosophy advocated early marriage with limitation of families, and referred in the course
of his work to such preventive checks as were known at that time. The Solicitor-General,
in opening the case, sought to persuade the jury that Dr. Knowlton speciously used
that line of argument as a disguise and pretext for suggesting illicit intercourse
without risk of pregnancy ensuing. An indignant rebuke from Sir Alexander Cockburn
caused the Solicitor-General to abandon that line of false suggestion, and to fall
back upon the contention that it was illegal to issue a work containing “a chapter
on restriction, not written in any learned language, but in plain English, in a facile
form, and sold … at sixpence.” He therefore asked the jury to declare that the book
was an “obscene publication.”
The speech of the Solicitor-General and his general conduct of the case are matters
of trivial importance; the notable features of the trial were the addresses of the
two defendants and the summing-up by the Lord Chief Justice. Mrs. Besant’s speech
to the jury was a remarkable and memorable effort. She examined and discussed the
population question in every aspect, contending that, in view of the evils arising
from excessive increase, the advocacy of prudential methods was a sacred duty to humanity.
In the opening passages of her speech she pointed out, in the most impressive manner,
that she pleaded for the welfare of others:
It is not as defendant that I plead to you to-day—not simply as defending myself do
I stand here—but I speak as counsel for hundreds of the poor, and it is they for whom
I defend this case. My clients are scattered up and down through the length and breadth
of the land; I find them amongst the poor, amongst whom I have been so much; I find
my clients amongst the fathers, who see their wage ever reducing, and prices ever
rising; I find my clients amongst the mothers worn out with over-frequent child-bearing,
and with two or three little ones around too young to guard themselves, while they
have no time to guard them. It is enough for a woman at home to have the care, the
clothing, the training of a large family of young children to look to; but it is a
harder task when oftentimes the mother, who should be at home with her little ones,
has to go out and work in the fields for wage to feed them when her presence is needed
in the house. I find my clients among [20]the little children. Gentlemen, do you know the fate of so many of these children?—the
little ones half-starved because there is food enough for two but not enough for twelve;
half-clothed because the mother, no matter what her skill and care, cannot clothe
them with the money brought home by the breadwinner of the family; brought up in ignorance,
and ignorance means pauperism and crime—gentlemen, your happier circumstances have
raised you above this suffering, but on you also this question presses; for these
over-large families mean also increased poor-rates, which are growing heavier year
by year. These poor are my clients, and if I weary you by length of speech, as I fear
I may, I do so because I must think of them more even than I think of your time or
trouble.
With righteous indignation Mrs. Besant repelled the accusation that The Fruits of Philosophy was an “obscene” publication. She showed by a quotation from Lord Campbell’s Act
(upon which the prosecution was based) that the statutory definition of obscenity
could not possibly be applied to a book containing “dry physiological details put
forward in dry, technical language.” She next proceeded to urge that the right of
free discussion upon matters of public welfare was really attacked by the prosecution:
Do you, gentlemen, think for one moment that myself and my co-defendant are fighting
the simple question of the sale or publication of this sixpenny volume of Dr. Knowlton’s?
Do you think that we would have placed ourselves in the position in which we are at
the present moment for the mere profit to be derived from a sixpenny pamphlet of forty-seven
pages? No, it is nothing of the sort; we have a much larger interest at stake, and
one of vital interest to the public, one which we shall spend our whole lives in trying
to uphold. The question really is one of the right to public discussion by means of
publication, and that question is bound up in the right to sell this sixpenny pamphlet
which the Solicitor-General despises on account of its price.
It would, however, be impossible to give, by extracts of reasonable length, an adequate
idea of the striking and eloquent speech which Mrs. Besant addressed to the jury in
her defence. The whole question of over-population and its consequences was examined
with the greatest care and completeness. Profoundly convinced of the justice of her
cause, Mrs. Besant pleaded that the teachings of New-Malthusianism, by making early
marriage possible, promoted happiness and morality. She said:
I think, therefore, I may fairly put it that every young man naturally desires to
make a home and enter upon married life when first he comes out into the world. I
do not believe that any young man sets out with the intention of rushing into fast
life and [21]dissipation, but men are frequently drawn into habits of that kind because they fear
the results that follow from early marriage. Since I am told that our object is to
increase immorality, and that we only use the word “marriage” to conceal the foulest
designs upon the purity of society, I may say freely that I hold early marriages to
be the very salvation of young men, and especially of young men in our large cities.
I hold the belief with a depth of conviction which I cannot put to you in words, that
for one man and one woman to help, comfort, and support one another, which they are
by nature adapted to do, is a state which is to be reached, which is to be perpetuated,
by marriage and in no other way. It is only by companionship, and the union between
a man and a woman, that this is possible. Shut a man out from the loving influence
of home, the golden institutions of the fireside, his wife’s society, and the happiness
of becoming a father, and you induce a life of profligacy. Gentlemen, do not be deceived.
There is no talk in this book of preventing men and women from becoming parents; all
that is sought here is to limit the number of their family. And we do not aim at that
because we do not love children, but, on the contrary, because we do love them, and
because we wish to prevent them from coming into the world in greater numbers than
there is the means of properly providing for. Children, I believe, have an influence
upon parents purifying in the highest degree, because they teach the parents self-restraint,
self-denial, thoughtfulness, and tenderness to an extent that cannot possibly be over-estimated;
and it is because I wish to have it made possible for young men and for young women
to have these influences brought to bear upon them in their youth, that I advocate
the circulation of a book that will put within their reach the knowledge of how to
limit the extent of their families within their capabilities of providing for them;
for no man can look with pride and happiness upon his home if he has more children
than he can clothe and educate. It is because I wish them to marry in the springtime
of their youth that I ask you by your verdict in this action to make discussion on
these subjects possible, and that men should not be driven to find a substitute for
true and pure womanhood and wifehood in other directions. If you render this possible
you will make your streets purer and your families happier than they are at present.
Having in the course of a prolonged speech explained and vindicated the New-Malthusian
doctrine from misrepresentations inspired by ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry, Mrs.
Besant concluded her memorable address in the following words:
I fairly put it that unless you honestly believe that my whole speech to you has been
one mass of falsehoods; unless you believe my intent to be a bad intent; unless you
believe I have been deliberately deceiving you throughout, and stand here before you
in the very worst character a woman could take upon herself, namely, that of striving
to corrupt the morals of the young under the false pretence of purity here put forward,
and unless you think that, for the after-part of my life, I deserve to pass through
it with the brand [22]upon me that twelve gentlemen, after all patience, thought not only that the book
was a mistake, the opinions wrong, and the arguments unconvincing, but, in the terrible
language of the indictment, that I am guilty of “wickedly devising and contriving
as much as in me lay to vitiate and corrupt the morals of youth” as well as of others,—unless,
I say, you believe that that has been my object and purpose, on this indictment, I
shall call upon you, gentlemen, to return a verdict of “Not Guilty,” and to send me
home free, believing from my heart and conscience that I have been guilty only of
doing that which I ought to do in grappling honestly with a matter I consider myself
justified in grappling with—that terrible poverty and misery which is around us on
every hand. Unless you are prepared, gentlemen, to brand me with malicious meaning,
I ask you, as an English woman, for that justice which it is not impossible to expect
at the hands of Englishmen—I ask you to give me a verdict of “Not Guilty,” and to
send me home unstained.
Mr. Bradlaugh, in his speech, dealt more fully than his co-defendant had been able
to do with the legal and physiological aspects of the case. In the clearest fashion
he maintained the lawfulness of disseminating the knowledge of innocent prudential
checks:
I submit to you, gentlemen of the jury, that it is moral to teach poor people to marry
early, and that this teaching avoids and will diminish illicit intercourse. I will
not weary you with reading the whole of the report on the “Employment of Women and
Children in Agriculture,” from which my co-defendant quoted that terrible extract
from the report of Bishop Fraser. You will there find that the illicit intercourse
which we are charged with trying to produce is an illicit intercourse which is going
on and bringing with it the birth of the child, and bringing with it the murder of
the child by the mother, because there is the pang of starvation and misery and shame
to contend with. I say that it is amongst the poor married people that the evils of
over-population are chiefly felt, and that it cannot tend to deprave their morals
to teach them how to intelligently check this over-population.… I submit that the
advocacy of all checks is lawful except such as advocate the destruction of the fœtus
after conception or of the child after birth. I say that the advocacy of every birth-restricting
check is lawful which is not the advocacy of the destruction of human life in any
form after that life has been created.
Assuming the legality of such advocacy, it is useless unless conveyed in plain and
simple language:
I say that the advocacy of any check amongst the masses to be useful must of necessity
be put in the plainest language and in the cheapest form, and be widely spread; and
I press that upon you because I understand that the learned Solicitor-General in his
argument put it that one of the faults of this pamphlet was that it was not obscured
in learned language. If we possessed the facility of expressing ourselves in French,
or Italian, or Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, what earthly use would that
be to the poor unfortunate wretches whose misery we want to address?
[23]
After traversing with his accustomed skill and acumen the charges formulated by the
prosecution, Mr. Bradlaugh concluded his address with a peroration full of passionate
eloquence:
We want (he said) to make the poor more comfortable; and you tell us we are immoral.
We want to prevent them bringing into the world little children to suck death, instead
of life, at the breasts of their mother; and you tell us we are immoral. I should
not say that, perhaps, for you, gentlemen, may judge things differently from myself;
but I know the poor. I belong to them. I was born amongst them. Among them are the
early associations of my life. Such little ability as I possess to-day has come to
me in the hard struggle of life. I have had no University to polish my tongue; no
Alma Mater to give to me any eloquence by which to move you. I plead here simply for
the class to which I belong, and for the right to tell them what may redeem their
poverty and alleviate their misery. And I ask you to believe in your heart of hearts,
even if you deliver a verdict against us here—I ask you, at least, to try and believe
both for myself and the lady who sits besides me (I hope it for myself, and I earnestly
wish it for her), that all through we have meant to do right, even if you think that
we have done wrong.… My co-defendant referred, in earnest language, to the letters
which she had received from women, and clergymen, and others throughout the country.
I, too, have received many warm words of sympathy from those who think that I am right.
It is true many of them may be ignorant people, and therefore may be wrong; but they
have written to encourage me with their kindly sympathy in my pleading before you.
If we are branded with the offence of circulating an obscene book, many of these poor
people will still think “No.” They think such knowledge would prevent misery in their
families, would check hunger in their families, and would hinder disease in their
families. Do you know what poverty means in a poor man’s house? It means that when
you are reproaching a poor and ignorant man with brutality, you forget that he is
merely struggling against that hardship of life which drives all chivalry and courtesy
out of his existence. Do not blame poor men too much that they are rough and brutal.
Think mercifully of a man such as a brick-maker, who, going home after his day’s toil,
finds six or seven little ones crying for bread, and clinging around his wife for
the food which they cannot get. Think you such a scene as that is not sufficient to
make both himself and her hungry and angry too? Gentlemen, it is for you, in your
deliverance of guilty or not guilty, to say how we are to go from this court—whether,
when we leave this place, if you mark us guilty, his lordship may feel it to be his
duty to sentence us, and put upon us the brand of a doom such as your verdict may
warrant; or whether, by your verdict of not guilty—which I hope for myself and desire
for my co-defendant—we may go out of this court absolved from that shame which this
indictment has sought to put upon us.
We must pass over the evidence given by Dr. Alice Vickery, Dr. C. R. Drysdale, Mr.
Bohn and others for [24]the defence; and refer briefly to the summing-up of the Lord Chief Justice (Sir Alexander
Cockburn). His lordship dwelt upon “the mischievous character and effect” of the prosecution,
and declared that “a more ill-advised and more injudicious proceeding” had probably
never been brought into a court of justice. He adverted in terms of severity to the
secrecy that had been maintained as to the real originators of the prosecution. In
discussing the questions involved, his lordship referred to the theory of Malthus
as “a theory which astonished the world, though it is now accepted as an irrefragable
truth, and has since been adopted by economist after economist. That the evils arising
from over-population,” he continued, “are evils which, if they could be prevented,
it would be the first business of human charity to prevent, there cannot be any doubt.
That the evils of population are real, and not imaginary, no one acquainted with the
state of society in the present day can possibly deny.” Upon the question whether
or not the advocacy of prudential checks tended to corrupt public morals, his lordship
said to the jury: “You must decide that with a due regard and reference to the law,
and with an honest and determined desire to maintain the morals of mankind. But, on
the other hand, you must carefully consider what is due to public discussion, and
with an anxious desire not, from any prejudiced view of this subject, to stifle what
may be a subject of legitimate enquiry.” The concluding passages of the charge to
the jury are so significant that they are here reproduced entire:
If you are of opinion that this work of Knowlton’s, although well intended, and although
the publication of it by the defendants may be intended for the benefit of mankind,
if you think they have taken an erroneous view as to the effect of the work, and that
its entire scope is subversive of the morals of society, if that is your opinion,
it is then your bounden duty to find the defendants liable. But whilst that is the
case, it is for the prosecution to make out the charge they have undertaken to establish.
If you think they have failed—if you think these are matters which may fairly be discussed—that
the proper answer to them is by refuting them by argument and not by prosecution,
the defendants are entitled to your verdict. Or if you have any doubt as to the effect
of this work you are bound to bring them in not guilty. I would only say in conclusion,
that whatever outrages decency, whatever tends to corrupt the morals of society, and
especially the morals and purity of women—whatever tends to have that result is, when
published, an offence against the law. But that offence like every other must [25]be made out. If you think it is made out, if there is a conviction in your minds that
though they have acted from a desire to do good, yet in your opinion they have done
wrong, they have then brought themselves within the definition of the statute.
Despite the powerful speeches of the defendants and the obviously sympathetic charge
of the judge, the jury were not equal to their opportunity to make a clear stand for
freedom of discussion. They returned a halting “special” verdict, declaring that the
book was “calculated to deprave public morals,” but at the same time they entirely
exonerated the defendants from any corrupt motives in publishing it. Upon this the
judge reluctantly directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty.
The remainder of the story is most concisely told in Mrs. Besant’s own words: “Obviously
annoyed at the verdict, the Lord Chief Justice refused to give judgment, and let us
go on our own recognisances. When we came up later for judgment, he urged us to surrender
the pamphlet as the jury had condemned it; said our whole course with regard to it
had been right, but that we ought to yield to the judgment of the jury. We were obstinate,
and I shall never forget the pathetic way in which the great judge urged us to submit,
and how at last when we persisted that we would continue to sell it till the right
to sell it was gained, he said that he would have let us go free if we would have
yielded to the court, but our persistence compelled him to sentence us. We gave notice
of appeal, promising not to sell till the appeal was decided, and he let us go on
our own recognisances. On appeal we quashed the verdict, and went free; we recovered
all the pamphlets seized, and publicly sold them; we continued the sale till we received
an intimation that no further prosecution would be attempted against us, and then
we dropped the sale of the pamphlet and never took it up again.”2
Having given an account of this memorable trial, we proceed to trace some of its far-reaching
effects. In the first place, Dr. Knowlton’s pamphlet gained immediately an enormous
circulation. Before the prosecution the annual sales were very small; within three
months from the time when proceedings were instituted against the [26]publishers, 125,000 copies were sold. But this result, startling as it appears, was
by no means the most important phase of the impetus given to the public mind upon
the question of population by the cause célèbre of “The Queen versus Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant.” During the trial the newspapers of this country
contained lengthy reports of the proceedings, and the remarkable speeches of the defendants
were thus carried far and wide. Their popular statements of the Malthusian position,
their description of the evils arising from over-population and the remedies that
they proposed were sent forth into many thousands of homes into which no hint of the
truth would otherwise have penetrated. The press, with its myriad voices, became,
for the time, a mighty organ of New-Malthusian propaganda, repeating, in tones that
echoed round the world, the eloquent words of two social reformers to whom the miseries
of the poor were known, and who had faced the danger of imprisonment and of social
obloquy in order to proclaim that which they felt to be the only efficient remedy
for poverty.
Amidst the public excitement caused by this famous trial, The Malthusian League was called into existence, and has since carried forward the work of propaganda in
an organised and systematic fashion. It was founded to promote the following objects:
I. To agitate for the abolition of all penalties on the public discussion of the Population
Question, and to obtain such a statutory definition as shall render it impossible,
in the future, to bring such discussions within the scope of the common law as a misdemeanor.
II. To spread among the people, by all practicable means, a knowledge of the law of
population, of its consequences, and of its bearing upon human conduct and morals.
Dr. Charles R. Drysdale, M.D., F.R.C.S., Eng., has from the first been the President of the League, and has devoted himself
to the work of explaining and advocating the New-Malthusian principle. The list of
Vice-Presidents has included the names of the late M. Yves Guyot, a distinguished
French deputé and Minister of State, and of Mr. J. Bryson, President of the Northumberland
Miners’ Association. A reference to its present composition will show the reader that
the efforts of the League [27]to spread enlightened views on the population question have the approval and sympathy
of influential persons in this and in other countries.3
The work of the League is chiefly carried on by public lectures and meetings, the
dissemination of literature, and letters addressed to the editors of newspapers. By
these means the public mind is constantly being influenced in the direction of rational
views upon the population question.
The annual meetings of members and friends of the League have afforded valuable opportunities
of obtaining expressions of opinion upon the subject of Malthusianism from many influential
persons. Letters expressing hearty approval of the movement have been received from
Mrs. Mona Caird, Lord Derby, Lord Pembroke, the late Lord Bramwell, Mr. Leonard Courtney,
M.P., Mr. W. B. Maclaren, M.P., Professor Bain, Mr. Arnold White, Mr. G. H. Darwin
and others.
Four years after the formation of the League, a “Medical Branch” was established for
the following purposes:
I. To aid the Malthusian League in its crusade against poverty and the accompanying
evils by obtaining the co-operation of qualified medical practitioners, both British
and foreign.
II. To obtain a body of scientific opinion on points of sexual physiology and pathology
involved in the “Population Question,” and which can only be discussed by those possessed
of scientific knowledge.
III. To agitate for a free and open discussion of the Population Question in all its
aspects in the medical press, and thus to obtain a recognition of the scientific oasis
and the absolute necessity of Neo-Malthusianism.
It will be seen that the work of this section is of a special and scientific character.
The names of the officers and members (given in the appendix) will show that the advocacy
of prudential checks to population is sanctioned by a body of physicians of unquestioned
eminence.
Having given an outline of the permanent organisation of Malthusian propaganda which
grew out of the events of 1877, we proceed to trace briefly the history of the movement
from that period. It is in the main a story [28]of petty persecutions on the one side, and, upon the other, of steady persistence
in the work of informing the public mind. The principal obstacle to the progress of
the movement, and one which it is slowly but surely surmounting, is the prejudice
born of ignorance and bigotry. Journalists, statesmen and other leaders of opinion
do not hesitate to avow their adhesion to the principle formulated by Malthus; but
they are, almost without exception, dominated by the fear of Mrs. Grundy, and shrink
from incurring the odium which, they imagine, would result from a frank recognition
of the only logical outcome of that principle. They join loudly in the chorus on the
evils of over-population; but, as a rule, they will lend no public countenance to
the distinct advocacy of prudential checks. Hence the task of the pioneers of the
movement is rendered excessively difficult; but from the very inception of the Malthusian
League, the work of propaganda has been carried forward with unfailing devotion and
singleness of purpose.
In its earliest days, the League was called upon to support one of its most respected
members under stress of persecution. In February, 1878, Mr. Edward Truelove was prosecuted
and tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn for publishing the Hon. Robert Dale Owen’s
pamphlet entitled Moral Physiology, and an essay on Individual, Family, and National Poverty, by an anonymous author. Mr. W. A. Hunter, in defending the case, made a most powerful
speech in support of the Malthusian position. The jury were unable to agree upon a
verdict, and the proceedings came to an abortive termination. Three months later,
however, Mr. Truelove was a second time placed upon his trial, the venue meanwhile
being changed from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Old Bailey. A common jury found
no difficulty in returning a verdict of guilty, and Mr. Truelove (then in his sixty-eighth
year) was sentenced to pay a fine of £50 and to be imprisoned for four months. A great
public meeting was held at St. James’s Hall on June 6th, when Mr. Bradlaugh, Mrs.
Besant, Dr. Drysdale and other friends of the movement protested against the action
of the authorities in thus interfering with the right of free discussion, and expressed
their admiration of Mr. Truelove’s courage and consistency.
[29]
Mr. Truelove endured the privations of imprisonment with fortitude and dignity, sustained
by the knowledge that his cause was righteous. He was taken to Coldbath Fields in
a prison-van, handcuffed like a dangerous criminal; compelled to lie on the “plank-bed,”
and subjected to all the rigors of gaol discipline. During the first three months
he was allowed no meat; after that time he was permitted to have six ounces of Australian
tinned meat per week. Happily the confinement and hardships did not prejudicially affect his health.
On September 12th he was welcomed back to liberty by a large and enthusiastic gathering
of friends at the Hall of Science, London. The leading members of the Malthusian League
were present, and Mr. Moncure D. Conway, and the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam attended
to do honor to one who had suffered for conscience sake. A purse containing £200 was
presented to Mr. Truelove, together with the following testimonial:
To Edward Truelove, on his release from four months’ imprisonment in Coldbath Fields Prison—suffered in
defence of the Liberty of the Press.
The undersigned, on behalf of the National Secular Society and of the Malthusian League,
desire to welcome you on your return to liberty, and to offer you their heartiest
thanks for the courage and endurance you have displayed, in defending the right of
free publication of opinion.
The battle for the liberty of the press has been steadily waged ever since the invention
of printing, and a long muster-roll of names might be given of those who, first at
the stake, and since in prison, have in turn paid their share of the penalty-purchase
for the victories already achieved. You have worthily entitled yourself to an honorable
place in this muster-roll, the more so that you have stood firm in a day when too
many temporise and flinch. From almost every part of England, and from remote districts,
as well as from the great centres of Scotland, many thousands of your fellow countrymen
and countrywomen have pleaded for your release, and from all parts of the civilised
world expressions have been received, of sympathy with you, and of indignation against
your persecutors.
As some slight mark of our gratitude and affectionate esteem, and in recognition of
the honor with which you have crowned a long life of unwavering courage, we present
you this address, and the accompanying purse of gold, begging you to accept with them
our sincerest wishes for your future welfare. Signed on behalf of
The National Secular Society.
Chas. Bradlaugh, President.
Robert Forder, Secretary.
The Malthusian League.
C. Drysdale, M.D., President.
Annie Besant, Hon. Sec.
Hall of Science, 12th September, 1878.
[30]
The case of Mr. Truelove was the last prosecution of importance in this country for
the publication of works dealing with the population question. The proceedings against
Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, after being quashed in the Court of Appeal upon a writ
of error, were never renewed. Dr. Knowlton’s pamphlet, The Fruits of Philosophy, was withdrawn from circulation, and Mrs. Besant wrote a small book, The Law of Population: its consequences and its bearing upon human conduct and morals, to take its place. Of this work nearly 200,000 copies were circulated in Great Britain;
many pirated editions were published in America and Australia; and it was translated
into several European languages. It formed the basis of a remarkable judgment by Mr.
Justice Windeyer (delivered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales), to which further
reference will presently be made.
In June, 1887, Dr. H. A. Allbutt, of Leeds, published a sixpenny pamphlet entitled
The Wife’s Handbook. The following paragraph, taken from the introduction to the book, will explain its
object: “To save the lives and preserve the health of thousands of women, to rescue
from death and disease children who may be born, to teach the young wife how to order
her health during the most important period of her life, to remove from her mind the
popular ignorance in which she may have been reared, and to enable her to learn truths
concerning her duties as wife and mother, I have thought fit to write this little
work.” Shortly after its appearance, the spirit of persecution was again manifested,
this time in an obscure and technical aspect. As a member of the Royal College of
Physicians of Edinburgh, Dr. Allbutt was professionally amenable to the Council of
that body; and he was summoned to appear and show cause why he should not be removed
from the rolls for the offence of writing and publishing The Wife’s Handbook. The matter was warmly taken up by the Malthusian League, and protests were addressed
to the College from all parts of Great Britain and from France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, India and Jamaica. Nothing more was heard of the affair until November, when
Dr. Allbutt received a notice to appear before the General Medical Council, in London,
to show cause why his name should not be struck off the register.
[31]
On November 23rd the complaint against Dr. Allbutt was considered by the General Medical
Council, a body composed of twenty-seven physicians. Dr. Allbutt was represented by
Mr. Wallace (barrister), and the “prosecution” was conducted by Mr. Muir Mackenzie,
the legal adviser of the Council. The following were the points which the Council
proceeded to consider: “(1) Was The Wife’s Handbook a fair medical treatise, or was it an indecent advertisement? (2) Was it practically
an injury to the public and an insult to the profession?” Mr. Wallace, in a very able
speech, traversed the suggestions made by the Council’s solicitor, and challenged
the right of an irresponsible body to determine whether any line of advocacy was “subversive
of public morality.” If Dr. Allbutt had violated the law, he was amenable to legal
proceedings, and it was not for the Medical Council to sit in judgment upon him. Mr.
Wallace justified the course that Dr. Allbutt had taken in publishing his work at
a low price in order that it might be placed within the reach of the poorest classes.
He called the attention of the members to a list of the petitions which had been presented
to the Council on the subject from all parts of Europe. They amounted to over seventy;
many of them came from medical, scientific, and political societies. He assured the
Council that the members of the medical profession were by no means unanimous in condemning
Mr. Allbutt, and it would run against the feelings of a very considerable minority
if they decided adversely to his client. The book was written with the express object
of saving poor people from the misery, poverty, and starvation which resulted from
the over-production of children; and he asked the Council, in conclusion, to arrive
at a decision which would relieve his client from the imputation which had been cast
upon him, and which would restore him to his proper position.
The Council having deliberated in private, the President delivered the following judgment:
“In the opinion of the Council, Mr. Allbutt has committed the offence charged against
him, that is to say, of having published and publicly caused to be sold a work entitled
The Wife’s Handbook, in London and elsewhere, at so low a price as to bring the work within the reach
of the youth of both sexes, to the detriment of public [32]morals. Secondly, the offence is, in the opinion of the Council, ‘infamous conduct
in a professional respect.’ Thirdly, the Registrar is hereby ordered to erase the
name of Mr. H. A. Allbutt from the Medical Register.”
Thus ended the futile attempt of the General Medical Council to put a stop to the
publication of Malthusian works “at so low a price.” Nobody was a penny the worse for the ponderous proceedings of this archaic tribunal.
Dr. Allbutt has never ceased to practise legally as a physician; twenty editions of
The Wife’s Handbook have been issued and 180,000 copies sold.
This case aroused much attention in the press. The Pall Mall Gazette declared that “the decision of the General Medical Council to erase from its rolls
the name of a physician who published ‘at a low price’ information as to the best
means for preventing the excessive multiplication of children beyond their parents’
means of subsistence or the possibility of education and control, will before long
become familiar as one of the most glaring illustrations of professional prejudice
and human folly. When such a cool-headed respectable as Lord Derby feels bound to
call attention to the increase of 400,000 per annum in our population as one of the
most pressing problems of our day, it is really too fatuous for the General Medical
Council to brand as ‘infamous’ a practitioner who, in a work to which no objection
is taken on the score of impropriety or immorality, supplies to the poor information
already possessed by the rich.”
We have to record but one later attempt to interfere with the free discussion of the
population question in this country. In October, 1891, Mr. H. S. Young, M.A., was
summoned to appear at Bow Street Police Court on a charge of sending through the post
a leaflet entitled Some Reasons for Advocating the Prudential Limitation of Families. The proceedings were taken under the Post Office Protection Act. Mr. Besley, in
conducting the prosecution, made the remarkable statement that the only check against
immorality in this country was the fear of pregnancy! Speaking in his own defence,
Mr. Young contended that there was no “obscenity” involved in pointing out to the
poor how they might limit their families. The magistrate (Mr. Lushington) admitted
that the leaflet was written in very careful language, and [33]not intended to be at all offensive; but still he held that it was “obscene,” convicted
Mr. Young, and ordered him to pay a fine of £20 and costs. The defendant applied to
the magistrate to state a case, as he intended to appeal; but Mr. Lushington refused
to do so.
This prosecution led to the formation of a Free Discussion Committee, and public meetings
were held in various parts of the metropolis, protesting against the infringement
of public freedom by legal proceedings. Repeated attempts were made by Mr. Young and
his advisers to bring the case before a court of law, but technical difficulties rendered
this practically impossible, and the matter was allowed to drop.
Meantime the propaganda of New-Malthusian views is steadily continued. The pages of
The Malthusian, the monthly organ of the League, bear constant witness to activity which hastes
not and rests not. Whether its energies are to be again stimulated by persecution,
time alone can show.
A brief statement concerning the position of the Malthusian movement in foreign countries
may be usefully added to this chapter.
Holland.—Several years ago a Dutch Malthusian League was established by Mr. S. Van Houten
(Doctor of Laws, and Deputé), Mr. C. V. Gerritsen, Dr. C. de Rooy, Dr. Lobry de Bruyn
and others. In 1887 the League numbered amongst its members, in Amsterdam alone, six
Doctors of Medicine, eleven Doctors of Law, and three Professors of the University.
At Amsterdam a dispensary has long been open, where a lady (Dr. Aletta H. Jacobs)
and other medical members attend and give advice to those seeking practical information
upon prudential checks. Large numbers of poor married women apply at the dispensary
for instruction as to the best methods by which they can restrict the size of their
families. Several pamphlets upon the population question have been issued by the Dutch
Malthusian League. In 1887, thirty thousand copies of one of its publications had
been circulated in a country with a smaller population than that of London. The most
recent pamphlet on Malthusianism, from the pen of Mr. J. A. Van der Haven, [34]is entitled The Dark Netherlands, and the way out of it. The author draws a sad picture of life in some of the poor quarters of Holland,
where, he says, “laughter is seldom heard, and hunger and early death are constant
visitors.” There is, however, hope for a brighter future. Mr. Gerritsen states that
in Holland “directors of large industrial establishments and railway societies make
their workmen acquainted with the means of preventing themselves from drifting into
poverty.”
Germany.—The Malthusian question has frequently been the subject of discussion in Germany.
Dr. Stille, of Hanover, Dr. Hans Ferdy, Dr. Mensinga, Dr. Zacharias, and other physicians
have again and again called public attention to the importance of the subject; but,
until lately, no combined effort to influence public opinion has been possible. Mr.
Max Hausmeister, of Stuttgart, has at length set on foot an organisation for the propaganda
of New-Malthusian views. On February 12th, 1892, a private meeting was held at Stuttgart
“to consider the advisability of forming a Malthusian Society.” This led to the establishment
of the Sozial-Harmonische Verein (Social Harmony Union), and a monthly journal, Die Sozial Harmonie, was founded “to enlighten the people of Germany upon social, political and economic
questions and the relation of these to sexual matters.” (Subscription: 2·50 marks
per annum.) Germany, with its teeming population of impoverished workers, affords
an enormous field for Malthusian propaganda.
In Holland and Germany alone, amongst continental countries, has the Malthusian view
found organised expression. France, whilst extremely prudent in practice, is strongly anti-Malthusian in theory, at
least so far as the governing class is concerned. Drs. Lutaud, Le Blond, and Rebanté,
of Paris, are prominent amongst the adherents of the New-Malthusian movement in France.
In India, public attention has lately been called to the population question by a prosecution
instituted by the police authorities against Messrs. Taraporewalla & Sons, of Bombay,
for selling copies of a pamphlet entitled True Morality; or, the Theory and Practice of New-Malthusianism, by Mr. J. R. Holmes. The Chief Presidency Magistrate convicted the defendants and
imposed a fine of 201 rupees (about £12. 10s.). The conviction was not permitted [35]to pass without public protest. The editor of a Bombay journal wrote: “The battle
has been fought and won in the West, and the subject is more or less directly treated
in the leading reviews, and books and pamphlets are openly sold in England. Our duty
here is clear enough. Are the Freethinkers in India, whether New-Malthusians or not,
to quietly stand by and see the free discussion of this question denied the public?
We are perfectly aware that although there are many who will aid in this work, there
are few—alas! how few!—who will openly bear the brunt of the fray. However, there
is at least one who will do it. But will the others stand round and give whatever
help they can, even if silently?” The standard of comfort amongst the teeming native
population of India is deplorably low, the average income per head in the north-west
provinces not exceeding 22½ rupees (say £1. 8s. 6d.) per year. And yet, forsooth, those who seek to lift the poor ryots from their abysmal poverty
and misery are confronted with the smug conventionalities of Western Europe, and punished
as distributors of “obscene” literature!
America has no Malthusian organisation, but there are many sympathisers with the movement
in various parts of the country. Dr. E. B. Foote, jr., of New York, is a most active
and earnest advocate of Malthusian views, and has written several popular works on
the subject. The customs and postal prohibitions are very stringent as to the admission
and transmission of Malthusian literature and appliances. Some years ago the late
Mr. D. M. Bennett underwent a term of imprisonment at Auburn for sending through the
post a pamphlet by Mr. Heywood on the marriage question. Just after his arrest Mr.
Bennett stated: “My only object in selling this pamphlet is to vindicate the liberty
of thought, of the press, and of the mails. I have always announced that I did not
approve of it; but as long as Mr. Heywood does, I declare that he has a right to mail
it as part of his right to publish it, and as a necessary part of the freedom of the
press. If this means that I am to go to prison, to prison let it be.”
From this necessarily slight and incomplete sketch of the position of the movement
abroad it will be seen that the theory of Malthus is gradually leavening the thought
and helping to shape the destinies of the civilised world.
[36]
