Up to this time (January, 1877) Mr. Watts had acted as sub-editor of the
_National Reformer_, and printer and publisher of the books and pamphlets
issued by Mr. Bradlaugh and myself. The continuance of this common work
obviously became impossible after Mr. Watts had determined to surrender
one of his publications under threat of prosecution. We felt that for two
main reasons we could no longer publicly associate ourselves with him:
(1) We could not retain on our publications the name of a man who had
pleaded guilty to the publication of an obscene work; (2) Many of our
writings were liable to prosecution for blasphemy, and it was necessary
that we should have a publisher who could be relied on to stand firm in
time of peril; we felt that if Mr. Watts surrendered one thing he would
be likely to surrender others. This feeling on my part was strengthened
by the remembrance of a request of his made a few months before, that I
would print my own name instead of his as publisher of a political song I
had issued, on the ground that it might come within the law of seditious
libel. I had readily acceded at the time, but when absolute surrender
under attack followed on timid precaution against attack, I felt that a
bolder publisher was necessary to me. No particular blame should be laid
on persons who are constitutionally timid; they have their own line of
usefulness, and are often pleasant and agreeable folk enough; but they
are out of place in the front rank of a fighting movement, for their
desertion in face of the enemy means added danger for those left to carry
on the fight. We therefore decided to sever ourselves from Mr. Watts; and
Mr. Bradlaugh, in the _National Reformer_ of January 28th, inserted the
following statement:
"The divergence of opinion between myself and Mr. Charles Watts is so
complete on the Knowlton case, that he has already ceased to be
sub-editor of this journal, and I have given him notice determining our
connexion on and from March 25th. My reasons for this course are as
follows. The Knowlton pamphlet is either decent or indecent. If decent it
ought to be defended; if indecent it should never have been published. To
judge it indecent is to condemn, with the most severe condemnation, James
Watson whom I respected, and Austin Holyoake with whom I worked. I hold
the work to be defensible, and I deny the right of any one to interfere
with the full and free discussion of social questions affecting the
happiness of the nation. The struggle for a free press has been one of
the marks of the Freethought Party throughout its history, and as long as
the Party permits me to hold its flag, I will never voluntarily lower it.
I have no right and no power to dictate to Mr. Watts the course he should
pursue, but I have the right and duty to refuse to associate my name with
a submission which is utterly repugnant to my nature, and inconsistent
with my whole career."
After a long discussion, Mr. Bradlaugh and I made up our minds as to the
course we would pursue. We decided that we would never again place
ourselves at a publisher's mercy, but would ensure the defence of all we
published by publishing everything ourselves; we resolved to become
printers and publishers, and to take any small place we could find and
open it as a Freethought shop. I undertook the sub-editorship of the
_National Reformer_, and the weekly Summary of News, which had hitherto
been done by Mr. Watts, was placed in the hands of Mr. Bradlaugh's
daughters. The next thing to do was to find a publishing office.
Somewhere within reach of Fleet Street the office must be; small it must
be, as we had no funds and the risk of starting a business of which we
knew nothing was great. Still "all things are possible to" those who are
resolute; we discovered a tumble-down little place in Stonecutter Street
and secured it by the good offices of our friend, Mr. Charles Herbert; we
borrowed a few hundred pounds from personal friends, and made our new
tenement habitable; we drew up a deed of partnership, founding the
"Freethought Publishing Company", Mr. Bradlaugh and myself being the only
partners; we engaged Mr. W.J. Ramsey as manager of the business; and in
the _National Reformer_ of February 25th we were able to announce:
"The publishing office of the _National Reformer_ and of all the works of
Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant is now at 28, Stonecutter Street,
E.C., three doors from Farringdon Street, where the manager, Mr. W.J.
Ramsey, will be glad to receive orders for the supply of any Freethought
literature".
A week later we issued the following address:
"ADDRESS FROM THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY TO THE READERS OF THE
'NATIONAL REFORMER'.
"When the prospectus of the _National Reformer_ was issued by the
founder, Charles Bradlaugh, in 1859, he described its policy as
'Atheistic in theology, Republican in politics, and Malthusian in social
economy', and a free platform was promised and has been maintained for
the discussion of each of these topics. In ventilating the population
question the stand taken by Mr. Bradlaugh, both here and on the platform,
is well known to our old readers, and many works bearing on this vital
subject have been advertised and reviewed in these columns. In this the
_National Reformer_ has followed the course pursued by Mr. George Jacob
Holyoake, who in 1853 published a 'Freethought Directory', giving a list
of the various books supplied from the 'Fleet Street House', and which
list contained amongst others:
"'Anti-Marcus on the Population Question.'
"Fowler's Tracts on Physiology, etc.
"Dr. C. Knowlton's 'Fruits of Philosophy'.
"'Moral Physiology: a plain treatise on the Population Question.'
"In this Directory Mr. G.J. Holyoake says:
"'No. 147 Fleet Street is a Central Secular Book Depot, where all works
extant in the English language on the side of Freethought in Religion,
Politics, Morals, and Culture are kept in stock, or are procured at short
notice.'
"We shall try to do at 28 Stonecutter Street that which Mr. Holyoake's
Directory promised for Fleet Street House.
"The partners in the Freethought Publishing Company are Annie Besant and
Charles Bradlaugh, who have entered into a legal partnership for the
purpose of sharing the legal responsibility of the works they publish.
"We intend to publish nothing that we do not think we can morally defend.
All that we do publish we shall defend. We do not mean that we shall
agree with all we publish, but we shall, so far as we can, try to keep
the possibility of free utterance of earnest, honest opinion.
"It may not be out of place here to remind new readers of this journal of
that which old readers well know, that no articles are editorial except
those which are unsigned or bear the name of the editor, or that of the
sub-editor; for each and every other article the author is allowed to say
his own say in his own way; the editor only furnishes the means to
address our readers, leaving to him or to her the right and
responsibility of divergent thought.
"ANNIE BESANT
"CHARLES BRADLAUGH."
Thus we found ourselves suddenly launched on a new undertaking, and with
some amusement and much trepidation I realised that I was "in business",
with business knowledge amounting to _nil_. I had, however, fair ability
and plenty of goodwill, and I determined to learn my work, feeling proud
that I had become one of the list of "Freethought publishers", who
published for love of the cause of freedom, and risked all for the
triumph of a principle ere it wore "silver slippers and walked in the
sunshine with applause".
On February 8th Mr. Watts was tried at the Old Bailey. He withdrew his
plea of "Not Guilty", and pleaded "Guilty". His counsel urged that he was
a man of good character, that Mr. George Jacob Holyoake had sold the
incriminated pamphlet, that Mr. Watts had bought the stereo-plates of it
in the stock of the late Mr. Austin Holyoake, which he had taken over
bodily, and that he had never read the book until after the Bristol
investigation. "Mr. Watts pledges himself to me", the counsel stated,
"that he was entirely ignorant of the contents of this pamphlet until he
heard passages read from it in the prosecution at Bristol". The counsel
for the prosecution pointed out that this statement was inaccurate, and
read passages from Mr. Watts' deposition made on the first occasion at
Bristol, in which Mr. Watts stated that he had perused the book, and was
prepared to justify it as a medical work. He, however, did not wish to
press the case, if the plates and stock were destroyed, and Mr. Watts was
accordingly discharged on his own recognisances in £500 to come up for
judgment when called on.
While this struggle was raging, an old friend of Mr. Bradlaugh's, Mr.
George Odger, was slowly passing away; the good old man lay dying in his
poor lodgings in High Street, Oxford Street, and I find recorded in the
_National Reformer_ of March 4th, that on February 28th we had been to
see him, and that "he is very feeble and is, apparently, sinking fast;
but he is as brave and bright, facing his last enemy, as he has ever been
facing his former ones". He died on March 4th, and was buried in Brompton
Cemetery on the 10th of the same month.
A grave question now lay before us for decision. The Knowlton pamphlet
had been surrendered; was that surrender to stand as the last word of the
Freethought party on a book which had been sold by the most prominent men
in its ranks for forty years? To our minds such surrender, left
unchallenged, would be a stain on all who submitted to it, and we decided
that faulty as the book was in many respects it had yet become the symbol
of a great principle, of the right to circulate physiological knowledge
among the poor in pamphlets published at a price they could afford to
pay. Deliberately counting the risk, recognising that by our action we
should subject ourselves to the vilest slander, knowing that Christian
malice would misrepresent and ignorance would echo the misrepresentation
--we yet resolved that the sacrifice must be made, and made by us in
virtue of our position in the Freethought Party. If the leaders flinched
how could the followers be expected to fight? The greatest sacrifice had
to be made by Mr. Bradlaugh. How would an indictment for publishing an
obscene book affect his candidature for Northampton? What a new weapon
for his foes, what a new difficulty for his friends! I may say here that
our worst forebodings were realised by the event; we have been assailed
as "vendors of obscene literature", as "writers of obscene books", as
"living by the circulation of filthy books". And it is because such
accusations have been widely made that I here place on permanent record
the facts of the case, for thus, at least, some honest opponents will
learn the truth and will cease to circulate the slanders they may have
repeated in ignorance.
On February 27th our determination to republish the Knowlton pamphlet was
announced by Mr. Bradlaugh in an address delivered by him at the Hall of
Science on "The Right of Publication". Extracts from a brief report,
published in the _National Reformer_ of March 11th, will show the drift
of his statement:
"Mr. Bradlaugh was most warmly welcomed to the platform, and reiterated
cheers greeted him as he rose to make his speech. Few who heard him that
evening will forget the passion and the pathos with which he spoke. The
defence of the right to publish was put as strongly and as firmly as
words could put it, and the determination to maintain that right, in dock
and in jail as on the platform, rang out with no uncertain sound. Truly,
as the orator said: 'The bold words I have spoken from this place would
be nothing but the emptiest brag and the coward's boast, if I flinched
now in the day of battle'. Every word of praise of the fighters of old
would fall in disgrace on the head of him who spoke it, if when the time
came to share in their peril he shrunk back from the danger of the
strife.... Mr. Bradlaugh drew a graphic picture of the earlier struggles
for a free press, and then dealt with the present state of the law; from
that he passed on to the pamphlet which is the test-question of the hour;
he pointed out how some parts of it were foolish, such as the
'philosophical proem', but remarked that he knew no right in law to
forbid the publication of all save wisdom; he then showed how, had he
originally been asked to publish the pamphlet, he should have raised some
objections to its style, but that was a very different matter from
permitting the authorities to stop its sale; the style of many books
might be faulty without the books being therefore obscene. He contended
the book was a perfectly moral medical work, and was no more indecent
than every other medical work dealing with the same subject. The
knowledge it gave was useful knowledge; many a young man might be saved
from disease by such a knowledge as was contained in the book; if it was
argued that such books should not be sold at so cheap a rate, he replied
that it was among the masses that such physiological knowledge was
needed, 'and if there is one subject above all others', he exclaimed,
'for which a man might gladly sacrifice his hopes and his life, surely it
is for that which would relieve his fellow-men from poverty, the mother
of crimes, and would make happy homes where now only want and suffering
reign'. He had fully counted the cost; he knew all he might lose; but
Carlile before him had been imprisoned for teaching the same doctrine,
'and what Carlile did for his day, I, while health and strength remain,
will do for mine'."
The position we took up in republishing the pamphlet was clearly stated
in the preface which we wrote for it, and which I here reprint, as it
gives plainly and briefly the facts of the case:
"PUBLISHERS' PREFACE TO DR. KNOWLTON'S 'FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY'.
"The pamphlet which we now present to the public is one which has been
lately prosecuted under Lord Campbell's Act, and which we now republish
in order to test the right of publication. It was originally written by
Charles Knowlton, M.D., an American physician, whose degree entitles him
to be heard with respect on a medical question. It is openly sold and
widely circulated in America at the present time. It was first published
in England, about forty years ago, by James Watson, the gallant Radical
who came to London and took up Richard Carlile's work when Carlile was in
jail. He sold it unchallenged for many years, approved it, and
recommended it. It was printed and published by Messrs. Holyoake and Co.,
and found its place, with other works of a similar character, in their
'Freethought Directory' of 1853, and was thus identified with Freethought
literature at the then leading Freethought _depôt_ . Mr. Austin Holyoake,
working in conjunction with Mr. Bradlaugh at the _National Reformer_
office, Johnson's Court, printed and published it in his turn, and this
well-known Freethought advocate, in his 'Large or Small Families'.
selected this pamphlet, together with R.D. Owen's 'Moral Physiology' and
the 'Elements of Social Science', for special recommendation. Mr. Charles
Watts, succeeding to Mr. Austin Holyoake's business, continued the sale,
and when Mr. Watson died in 1875, he bought the plates of the work (with
others) from Mrs. Watson, and continued to advertise and to sell it until
December 23rd, 1876. For the last forty years the book has thus been
identified with Freethought, advertised by leading Freethinkers,
published under the sanction of their names, and sold in the
head-quarters of Freethought literature. If during this long period the
party has thus--without one word of protest--circulated an indecent work,
the less we talk about Freethought morality the better; the work has been
largely sold, and if leading Freethinkers have sold it--profiting by the
sale--in mere carelessness, few words could be strong enough to brand the
indifference which thus scattered obscenity broadcast over the land. The
pamphlet has been withdrawn from circulation in consequence of the
prosecution instituted against Mr. Charles Watts, but the question of its
legality or illegality has not been tried; a plea of 'Guilty' was put in
by the publisher, and the book, therefore, was not examined, nor was any
judgment passed upon it; no jury registered a verdict, and the judge
stated that he had not read the work.
"We republish this pamphlet, honestly believing that on all questions
affecting the happiness of the people, whether they be theological,
political, or social, fullest right of free discussion ought to be
maintained at all hazards. We do not personally endorse all that Dr.
Knowlton says: his 'Philosophical Proem' seems to us full of
philosophical mistakes, and--as we are neither of us doctors--we are not
prepared to endorse his medical views; but since progress can only be
made through discussion, and no discussion is possible where differing
opinions are suppressed, we claim the right to publish all opinions, so
that the public, enabled to see all sides of a question, may have the
materials for forming a sound judgment.
"The alterations made are very slight; the book was badly printed, and
errors of spelling and a few clumsy grammatical expressions have been
corrected; the sub-title has been changed, and in one case four lines
have been omitted, because they are repeated word for word further on. We
have, however, made some additions to the pamphlet, which are in all
cases kept distinct from the original text. Physiology has made great
strides during the past forty years, and not considering it right to
circulate erroneous physiology, we submitted the pamphlet to a doctor in
whose accurate knowledge we have the fullest confidence, and who is
widely known in all parts of the world as the author of the "Elements of
Social Science"; the notes signed "G.R." are written by this gentleman.
References to other works are given in foot notes for the assistance of
the reader, if he desires to study the subject further.
"Old Radicals will remember that Richard Carlile published a work
entitled 'Every Woman's Book', which deals with the same subject, and
advocates the same object, as Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet. E.D. Owen objected
to the 'style and tone' of Carlile's 'Every Woman's Book' as not being
'in good taste', and he wrote his 'Moral Physiology', to do in America
what Carlile's work was intended to do in England. This work of Carlile's
was stigmatised as 'indecent' and 'immoral' because it advocated, as does
Dr. Knowlton's, the use of preventive checks to population. In striving
to carry on Carlile's work, we cannot expect to escape Carlile's
reproach, but whether applauded or condemned we mean to carry it on,
socially as well as politically and theologically.
"We believe, with the Rev. Mr. Malthus, that population has a tendency to
increase faster than the means of existence, and that _some_ checks must
therefore exercise control over population; the checks now exercised are
semi-starvation and preventible disease; the enormous mortality among the
infants of the poor is one of the checks which now keeps down the
population. The checks that ought to control population are scientific,
and it is these which we advocate. We think it more moral to prevent the
conception of children, than, after they are born, to murder them by want
of food, air, and clothing. We advocate scientific checks to population,
because, so long as poor men have large families, pauperism is a
necessity, and from pauperism grow crime and disease. The wage which
would support the parents and two or three children in comfort and
decency is utterly insufficient to maintain a family of twelve or
fourteen, and we consider it a crime to bring into the world human beings
doomed to misery or to premature death. It is not only the hand-working
classes which are concerned in this question. The poor curate, the
struggling man of business, the young professional man, are often made
wretched for life by their inordinately large families, and their years
are passed in one long battle to live; meanwhile the woman's health is
sacrificed and her life embittered from the same cause. To all of these,
we point the way of relief and of happiness; for the sake of these we
publish what others fear to issue, and we do it, confident that if we
fail the first time, we shall succeed at last, and that the English
public will not permit the authorities to stifle a discussion of the most
important social question which can influence a nation's welfare.
"CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
"ANNIE BESANT."
We advertised the sale of the pamphlet in the _National Reformer_ of
March 25th (published March 22nd) in the following words:
FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY. By CHARLES KNOWLTON, M.D. PRICE SIXPENCE.
This Pamphlet will be republished on Saturday, March 24th, _in extenso_,
with some additional Medical Notes by a London Doctor of Medicine. It
will be on sale at 28, Stonecutter Street, E.G., after 4 p.m. until close
of shop. No one need apply before this time, as none will be on sale. Mr.
Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs. Annie Besant will be in attendance from that
hour, and will sell personally the first hundred copies.
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
In addition to this we ourselves delivered copies on March 23rd to Mr.
Martin, the Chief Clerk of the magistrates at Guildhall, to the officer
in charge at the City Police Office in Old Jewry, and to the Solicitor
for the City of London. With each pamphlet we handed in a notice that we
should attend personally to sell the book on March 24th, at Stonecutter
Street, from 4 to 5 p.m. These precautions were taken in order to force
the authorities to prosecute us, and not any of our subordinates, if they
prosecuted at all. The account of the first sale will interest many:
"On Saturday we went down to Stonecutter Street, accompanied by the
Misses Bradlaugh and Mr. and Mrs. Touzeau Parris; we arrived at No. 28 at
three minutes to four, and found a crowd awaiting us. We promptly filled
the window with copies of the pamphlet, as a kind of general notice of
the sale within, and then opened the door. The shop was filled
immediately, and in twenty minutes over 500 copies were sold. No one sold
save Mr. Bradlaugh and myself, but Miss Bradlaugh sorted dozens with a
skill that seemed to stamp her as intended by nature for the business,
while her sister supplied change with a rapidity worthy of a bank clerk.
Several detectives favored us with a visit, and one amused us by coming
in and buying two copies from Mr. Bradlaugh, and then retiring
gracefully; after an interval of perhaps a quarter of an hour he
reappeared, and purchased one from me. Two policemen outside made
themselves useful; one patrolled the street calmly, and the other very
kindly aided Norrish, Mr. Eamsey's co-worker, in his efforts to keep the
stream flowing quietly, without too much pressure. Mr. Bradlaugh's voice
was heard warningly from time to time, bidding customers not to crowd,
and everything went well and smoothly, save that I occasionally got into
fearful muddles in the intricacies of 'trade price'; I disgusted one
customer, who muttered roughly 'Ritchie', and who, when I gave him two
copies, and put his shilling in the till, growled: 'I shan't take them'.
I was fairly puzzled, till Mr. Bradlaugh enlightened me as to the
difficulty, 'Ritchie' to me being unknown; it appeared that 'Ritchie',
muttered by the buyer, meant that the copies were wanted by a bookseller
of that name, and his messenger was irate at being charged full price.
Friends from various parts appeared to give a kindly word; a number of
the members of the Dialectical Society came in, and many were the
congratulations and promises of aid in case of need. Several who came in
offered to come forward as bail, and their names were taken by Mr.
Parris. The buyer that most raised my curiosity was one of Mr. Watts'
sons, who came in and bought seven copies, putting down only trade-price
on the counter; no one is supplied at trade-price unless he buys to sell
again, and we have all been wondering why Mr. Watts should intend to sell
the Knowlton pamphlet, after he has proclaimed it to be obscene and
indecent. At six o'clock the shutters were put up, and we gave up our
amateur shop-keeping; our general time for closing on Saturday is 2 p.m.,
but we kept the shop open on Saturday for the special purpose of selling
the Knowlton pamphlet. We sold about 800 copies, besides sending out a
large number of country parcels, so that if the police now amuse
themselves in seizing the work, they will entirely have failed in
stopping its circulation. The pamphlet, during the present week, will
have been sold over England and Scotland, and the only effect of the
foolish police interference will be to have sold a large edition. We must
add one word of thanks to them for the kindly aid given us by their
gratuitous advertisement."
[I may note here, in passing, that we printed our edition verbatim from
that issued by James Watson, not knowing that various editions were in
circulation. It was thereupon stated by Mr. Watts that we had not
reprinted the pamphlet for which he was prosecuted, so we at once issued
another edition, printed from his own version.]
The help that flowed in to us from all sides was startling both in
quantity and quality; a Defence Committee was quickly formed, consisting
of the following persons:
"C.R. Drysdale, M.D., Miss Vickery, H.R.S. Dalton, B.A., W.J. Birch,
M.A., J. Swaagman, Mrs. Swaagman, P.A.V. Le Lubez, Mdme. Le Lubez, Miss
Bradlaugh, Miss H. Bradlaugh, Mrs. Parris, T. Allsop, E. Truelove, Mark
E. Marsden, F.A. Ford, Mrs. Fenwick Miller, G.N. Strawbridge, W.W.
Wright, Mrs. Rennick, Mrs. Lowe, W. Bell, Thomas Slater, G. F. Forster,
J. Scott, G. Priestley, J.W. White, J. Hart, H. Brooksbank, Mrs.
Brooksbank, G. Middleton, J. Child, Ben. W. Elmy, Elizabeth Wolstenholme
Elmy, Touzeau Parris (Hon. Sec.), Captain R.H. Dyas, Thomas Roy
(President of the Scottish Secular Union), R.A. Cooper, Robert Forder,
William Wayham, Mrs. Elizabeth Wayham, Professor Emile Acollas (ancien
Professeur de Droit Français à l'Université de Berne), W. Reynolds, C.
Herbert, J.F. Haines, H. Rogers (President of the Trunk and Portmanteau
Makers' Trade Society), Yves Guyot (Redacteur en chef du _Radical_ et du
_Bien Public),_ W.J. Ramsey, J. Wilks, Mrs. Wilks, J.E. Symes, E. Martin,
W.E. Adams, Mrs. Adams, John Bryson (President of the Northumberland
Miners' Mutual Confident Association), Ralph Young, J. Grout, Mrs. Grout,
General Cluseret, A. Talandier (Member of the Chamber of Deputies), J.
Baxter Langley, LL.D., M.R.C.S., F.L.S."
Mrs. Fenwick Miller's letter of adhesion is worthy republication; it puts
so tersely the real position:
"59, Francis Terrace. Victoria Park.
"March 31st.
"My dear Mrs. Besant,--I feel myself privileged in having the opportunity
of expressing both to you and to the public, by giving you my small aid
to your defence, how much I admire the noble position taken up by Mr.
Bradlaugh and yourself upon this attempt to suppress free discussion, and
to keep the people in enforced ignorance upon the most important of
subjects. It is shameful that you should have to do it through the
cowardice of the less important person who might have made himself a hero
by doing as you now do, but was too weak for his opportunities. Since you
have had to do it, however, accept the assurance of my warm sympathy, and
my readiness to aid in any way within my power in your fight. Please add
my name to your Committee. You will find a little cheque within: I wish I
had fifty times as much to give.
"Under other circumstances, the pamphlet might well have been withdrawn
from circulation, since its physiology its obsolete, and consequently its
practical deductions to some extent unsound. But it must be everywhere
comprehended that _this is not the point_. The book would have been
equally attacked had its physiology been new and sound; the prosecution
is against the right to issue a work upon the special subject, and
against the freedom of the press and individual liberty.--Believe me,
yours very faithfully,