The preliminary investigation before the magistrates at Guildhall duly
came on upon April 17th, the prosecution being conducted by Mr. Douglas
Straight and Mr. F. Mead. The case was put by Mr. Straight with extreme
care and courtesy, the learned counsel stating, "I cannot conceal from
myself, or from those who instruct me, that everything has been done in
accordance with fairness and _bona fides_ on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh
and the lady sitting by the side of him". Mr. Straight contended that the
good intentions of a publisher could not be taken as proving that a book
was not indictable, and laid stress on the cheapness of the work, "the
price charged is so little as sixpence". Mr. Bradlaugh proved that there
was no physiological statement in Knowlton, which was not given in far
fuller detail in standard works on physiology, quoting Carpenter, Dalton,
Acton, and others; he showed that Malthus, Professor Fawcett, Mrs.
Fawcett, and others, advocated voluntary limitation of the family,
establishing his positions by innumerable quotations. A number of eminent
men were in Court, subpoenaed to prove their own works, and I find on
them the following note, written by myself at the time:--
"We necessarily put some of our medical and publishing witnesses to great
inconvenience in summoning them into court, but those who were really
most injured were the most courteous. Mr. Trübner, although suffering
from a painful illness, and although, we had expressed our willingness to
accept in his stead some member of his staff, was present, kindly and
pleasant as usual. Dr. Power, a most courteous gentleman, called away
from an examination of some 180 young men, never thought of asking that
he should be relieved from the citizen's duty, but only privately asked
to be released as soon as possible. Dr. Parker was equally worthy of the
noble profession to which he belonged, and said he did not want to stay
longer than he need, but would be willing to return whenever wanted.
Needless to say that Dr. Drysdale was there, ready to do his duty. Dr.
W.B. Carpenter was a strange contrast to these; he was rough and
discourteous in manner, and rudely said that he was not responsible for
'Human Physiology, by Dr. Carpenter', as his responsibility had ceased
with the fifth edition. It seems a strange thing that a man of eminence,
presumably a man of honor, should disavow all responsibility for a book
which bears his name as author on the title-page. Clearly, if the 'Human
Physiology' is not Dr. Carpenter's, the public is grossly deceived by the
pretence that it is, and if, as Dr. Carpenter says, the whole
responsibility rests on Dr. Power, then that gentleman should have the
whole credit of that very useful book. It is not right that Dr. Carpenter
should have all the glory and Dr. Power all the annoyance resulting from
the work."
Among all the men we came into contact with during the trial, Dr.
Carpenter and Professor Fawcett were the only two who shrank from
endorsing their own written statements.
The presiding magistrate, Mr. Alderman Figgins, devoted himself gallantly
to the unwonted task of wading through physiological text books, the poor
old gentleman's hair sometimes standing nearly on end, and his composure
being sadly ruffled when he found that Dr. Carpenter's florid treatise,
with numerous illustrations of a, to him, startling character, was given
to young boys and girls as a prize in Government examinations. He
compared Knowlton with the work of Dr. Acton's submitted to him, and said
despondingly that one was just the same as the other. At the end of the
day the effect made on him by the defence was shown by his letting us go
free without bail. Mr. Bradlaugh finished his defence at the next hearing
of the case on April 19th, and his concluding remarks, showing the
position we took, may well find their place here:
"The object of this book is to circulate amongst the masses of the poor
and wretched (as far as my power will circulate it), and to seek to
produce in their minds such prudential views on the subject of population
as shall at least hinder some of the horrors to be witnessed amongst the
starving. I have not put you to the trouble of hearing proof--even if I
were, in this court, permitted to do so--of facts on the Population
Question, because the learned counsel for the prosecution, with the
frankness which characterises this prosecution, admitted there was the
tendency on the part of animated nature to increase until checked by the
absence or deficiency of the means of subsistence. This being so, some
checks must step in; these checks must be either positive or preventive
and prudential. What are positive checks? The learned counsel has told
you what they are. They are war, disease, misery, starvation. They are in
China--to take a striking instance--accompanied by habits so revolting
that I cannot now allude to them. See the numbers of miserable starving
children in the great cities and centres of population. Is it right to go
to these people and say, 'bring into the world children who cannot live',
who all their lives are prevented by the poverty-smitten frames of their
parents, and by their own squalid surroundings, from enjoying almost
every benefit of the life thrust on them! who inherit the diseases and
adopt the crimes which poverty and misery have provided for them? The
very medical works I have put in in this case show how true this is in
too many cases, and if you read the words of Dr. Acton, crime is
sometimes involved of a terrible nature which the human tongue governed
by training shrinks from describing. We justly or erroneously believe
that we are doing our duty in putting this information in the hands of
the people, and we contest this case with no kind of bravado; the penalty
we already have to pay is severe enough, for even while we are defending
this, some portion of the public press is using words of terrorism
against the witnesses to be called, and is describing myself and my
co-defendant in a fashion that I feel sure will find no sanction here,
and that I hope will never occur again. We contest this because the
advocacy of such views on population has been familiar to me for many
years. The _Public Journal of Health_, edited by Dr. Hardwicke, the
coroner for Central Middlesex, will show you that in 1868 I was known, in
relation to this question, to men high in position in the land as
original thinkers and political economists; that the late John Stuart
Mill has left behind him, in his Autobiography, testimony concerning me
on this subject, according unqualified praise to me for the views thereon
which I had labored to disseminate; and that Lord Amberley thanked me, in
a society of which we were then both associates, for having achieved what
I had in bringing these principles to the knowledge of the poorer classes
of the people. With taxation on every hand extending, with the cost of
living increasing, and with wages declining--and, as to the last element,
I am reminded that recently I was called upon to arbitrate in a wages'
dispute in the north of England for a number of poor men, and, having
minutely scrutinised every side of the situation, was compelled to reduce
their wages by 15 per cent., there having been already a reduction of 35
per cent, in the short space of some twenty months previously--I say,
with wages declining, with the necessaries of life growing dearer and
still dearer, and with the burden of rent and taxation ever increasing--
if, in the presence of such a condition of life among the vast industrial
and impoverished masses of this land, I am not to be allowed to tell them
how best to prevent or to ameliorate the wretchedness of their lot--if,
with all this, I may not speak to them of the true remedy, but the law is
to step in and say to me, 'Your mouth is closed'; then, I ask you, what
remedy is there remaining by which I am to deal with this awful misery?"
The worthy magistrate duly committed us for trial, accepting our own
recognizances in £200 each to appear at the Central Criminal Court on May
7th. To the Central Criminal Court, however, we had not the smallest
intention of going, if we could possibly avoid it, so Mr. Bradlaugh
immediately took steps to obtain a writ of _certiorari_ to remove the
indictment to the Court of Queen's Bench. On April 27th Mr. Bradlaugh
moved for the writ before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice
Mellor, and soon after he began his argument the judge stopped him,
saying that he would grant the writ if, "upon, looking at it we think its
object is the legitimate one of promoting knowledge on a matter of human
interest, then, lest there should be any miscarriage resulting from any
undue prejudice, we might think it is a case for trial by a judge and a
special jury. I do not say it is so, mark, but only put it so, that if,
on the other hand, science and philosophy are merely made the pretence of
publishing a book which is calculated to arouse the passions of those who
peruse it, then it follows that we must not allow the pretence to
prevail, and treat the case otherwise than as one which may come before
anybody to try. If we really think it is a fair question as to whether it
is a scientific work or not, and its object is a just one, then we should
be disposed to accede to your application, and allow it to be tried by a
judge and special jury, and for that purpose allow the proceedings to be
removed into this court. But, before we decide that, we must look into
the book and form our own judgment as to the real object of the work."
Two copies of the book were at once handed up to the Bench, and on April
30th the Court granted the writ, the Lord Chief Justice saying: "We have
looked at the book which is the subject-matter of the indictment, and we
think it really raises a fair question as to whether it is a scientific
production for legitimate purposes, or whether it is what the indictment
alleged it to be, an obscene publication." Further, the Court accepted
Mr. Bradlaugh's recognisances for £400 for the costs of the prosecution.
Some, who have never read the Knowlton pamphlet, glibly denounce it as a
filthy and obscene publication. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Mr.
Justice Mellor, after reading it, decided to grant a writ which they had
determined not to grant if the book had merely a veneer of science and
was "calculated to arouse the passions". Christian bigotry has ever since
1877 striven to confound our action with the action of men who sell filth
for gain, but only the shameless can persist in so doing when their
falsehoods are plainly exposed, as they are exposed here.
The most touching letters from the poor came to us from all parts of the
kingdom. One woman, who described herself as "very poor", and who had had
thirteen children and was expecting another, wrote saying, "if you want
money we will manage to send you my husband's pay one week". An army
officer wrote thanking us, saying he had "a wife, seven children, and
three servants to keep on 11s. 8d. a day; 5d. per head per diem keeps
life in us. The rest for education and raiment." A physician wrote of his
hospital experience, saying that it taught him that "less dangerous
preventive checks to large families [than over-lactation] should be
taught to the lower classes". Many clergymen wrote of their experience
among the poor, and their joy that some attempt was being made to teach
them how to avoid over-large families, and letter after letter came to me
from poor curates' wives, thanking me for daring to publish information
of such vital importance. In many places the poor people taxed themselves
so much a week for the cost of the defence, because they could not afford
any large sum at once.
As soon as we were committed for trial, we resigned our posts on the
Executive of the National Secular Society, feeling that we had no right
to entangle the Society in a fight which it had not authorised us to
carry on. We stated that we did not desire to relinquish our positions,
"but we do desire that the members of the Executive shall feel free to
act as they think wisest for the interest of Freethought". The letter was
sent to the branches of the Society, and of the thirty-three who answered
all, except Burnley and Nottingham, refused to accept our resignation. On
the Executive a very clever attempt was made to place us in a difficult
position by stating that the resignations were not accepted, but that, as
we had resigned, and as the Council had no power to renew appointments
made by the Conference, it could not invite us to resume our offices.
This ingenious proposal was made by Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, who all
through the trial did his best to injure us, apparently because he had
himself sold the book long before we had done so, and was anxious to
shield himself from condemnation by attacking us. His resolution was
carried by five votes to two. Mr. Haines and Mr. Ramsey, detecting its
maliciousness, voted against it. The votes of the Branches, of course,
decided the question overwhelmingly in our favor, but we declined to sit
on the Executive with such a resolution standing, and it was then
carried--Mr. Holyoake and Mr. Watts only voting against--that "This
Council acknowledge the consideration shown by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs.
Besant for the public repute of the National Secular Society by tendering
their resignations, and whilst disclaiming all responsibility for the
book, 'Fruits of Philosophy', decline to accept such resignations". So
thoroughly did we agree that the Society ought not to be held responsible
for our action, that we published the statement: "The Freethought party
is no more the endorser of our Malthusianism than it is of our
Republicanism, or of our advocacy of Woman Suffrage, or of our support of
the North in America, or of the part we take in French politics". I may
add that at the Nottingham Conference Mr. Bradlaugh was re-elected
President with only four dissentients, the party being practically
unanimous in its determination to uphold a Free Press.
The next stage of the prosecution was the seizure of our book packets and
letters in the Post-office by the Tory Government. The "Freethinker's
Text Book", the _National Reformer_, and various pamphlets were seized,
as well as the "Fruits of Philosophy", and sealed letters were opened.
Many meetings were held denouncing the revival of a system of Government
_espionage_ which, it was supposed, had died out in England, and so great
was the commotion raised that a stop was soon put to this form of
Government theft, and we recovered the stolen property. On May 15th Mr.
Edward Truelove was attacked for the publication of Robert Dale Owen's
"Moral Physiology", and of a pamphlet entitled "Individual, Family, and
National Poverty", and as both were pamphlets dealing with the Population
Question, Mr. Truelove's case was included in the general defence.
Among the witnesses we desired to subpoena was Charles Darwin, as we
needed to use passages from his works; he wrote back a most interesting
letter, telling us that he disagreed with preventive checks to population
on the ground that over-multiplication was useful, since it caused a
struggle for existence in which only the strongest and the ablest
survived, and that he doubted whether it was possible for preventive
checks to serve as well as positive. He asked us to avoid calling him if
we could: "I have been for many years much out of health, and have been
forced to give up all society or public meetings, and it would be great
suffering to me to be a witness in court.... If it is not asking too
great a favor, I should be greatly obliged if you would inform me what
you decide, as apprehension of the coming exertion would prevent the rest
which I require doing me much good." Needless to add that I at once wrote
to Mr. Darwin that we would not call him, but his gentle courtesy has
always remained a pleasant memory to me. Another kind act was that of the
famous publisher, Mr. H.G. Bohn, who volunteered himself as a witness,
and drew attention to the fact that every publisher of serious literature
was imperilled by the attempt to establish a police censorship.
The trial commenced on June 18th, in the Court of Queen's Bench at
Westminster, before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a special jury.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, the Solicitor-General of the Tory Government, Mr.
Douglas Straight, and Mr. Mead, were the prosecuting counsel. The special
jury consisted of the following: Alfred Upward, Augustus Voelcker,
Captain Alfred Henry Waldy, Thomas Richard Walker, Robert Wallace, Edmund
Waller, Arthur Walter, Charles Alfred Walter, John Ward, Arthur Warre;
the two talesmen, who were afterwards added to make up the number, were
George Skinner and Charles Wilson.
The Solicitor-General made a bitter and violent speech, full of party
hate and malice, endeavoring to prejudice the jury against the work by
picking out bits of medical detail and making profuse apologies for
reading them, and shuddering and casting up his eyes with all the skill
of a finished actor. For a man accustomed to Old Bailey practice he was
really marvellously easily shocked; a simple physiological fact brought
him to the verge of tears, while the statement that people often had too
large families covered him with such modest confusion that he found it
hard to continue his address. It fell to my lot to open the defence, and
to put the general line of argument by which we justified the
publication; Mr. Bradlaugh dealt with the defence of the book as a
medical work--until the Lord Chief Justice suggested that there was no
"redundancy of details, or anything more than it is necessary for a
medical man to know"--and strongly urged that the knowledge given by the
pamphlet was absolutely necessary for the poor. We called as witnesses
for the defence Miss Alice Vickery--the first lady who passed the
examination of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and who has
since passed the examinations qualifying her to act as a physician--Dr.
Charles Drysdale, and Mr. H.G. Bohn. Dr. Drysdale bore witness to the
medical value of the pamphlet, stating that "considering it was written
forty years ago ... the writer must have been a profound student of
physiology, and far advanced in the medical science of his time". "I have
always considered it an excellent treatise, and I have found among my
professional brethren that they have had nothing to say against it." Mr.
Bohn bore witness that he had published books which "entirely covered
your book, and gave a great deal more." Mr. Bradlaugh and myself then
severally summed up our case, and the Solicitor-General made a speech for
the prosecution very much of the character of his first one, doing all he
could to inflame the minds of the jury against us. The Lord Chief
Justice, to quote a morning paper, "summed up strongly for an acquittal".
He said that "a more ill-advised and more injudicious proceeding in the
way of a prosecution was probably never brought into a Court of Justice".
He described us as "two enthusiasts, who have been actuated by the desire
to do good in a particular department of Society". He bade the jury be
careful "not to abridge the full and free right of public discussion, and
the expression of public and private opinion on matters which are
interesting to all, and materially affect the welfare of society." Then
came an admirable statement of the law of population, and of his own view
of the scope of the book which I present in full as our best
justification.
"The author, Doctor Knowlton, professes to deal with the subject of
population. Now, a century ago a great and important question of
political economy was brought to the attention of the scientific and
thinking world by a man whose name everybody is acquainted with, namely,
Malthus. He started for the first time a theory which astonished the
world, though it is now accepted as an irrefragable truth, and has since
been adopted by economist after economist. It is that population has a
strong and marked tendency to increase faster than the means of
subsistence afforded by the earth, or that the skill and industry of man
can produce for the support of life. The consequence is that the
population of a country necessarily includes a vast number of persons
upon whom poverty presses with a heavy and sad hand. It is true that the
effects of over-population are checked to a certain extent by those
powerful agencies which have been at work since the beginning of the
world. Great pestilences, famines, and wars have constantly swept away
thousands from the face of the earth, who otherwise must have contributed
to swell the numbers of mankind. The effect, however, of this tendency to
increase faster than the means of subsistence, leads to still more
serious evils amongst the poorer classes of society. It necessarily
lowers the price of labor by reason of the supply exceeding the demand.
It increases the dearth of provisions by making the demand greater than
the supply, and produces direful consequences to a large class of persons
who labor under the evils, physical and moral, of poverty. You find it,
as described by a witness called yesterday, in the overcrowding of our
cities and country villages, and the necessarily demoralising effects
resulting from that over-crowding. You have heard of the way in which
women--I mean child-bearing women--are destroyed by being obliged to
submit to the necessities of their position before they are fully
restored from the effects of child-birth, and the effects thus produced
upon the children by disease and early death. That these are evils--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
over-population are real, and not imaginary, no one acquainted with the
state of society in the present day can possibly deny. Malthus suggested,
years ago, and his suggestion has been supported by economists since his
time, that the only possible way of keeping down population was by
retarding marriage to as late a period as possible, the argument being
that the fewer the marriages the fewer would be the people. But another
class of theorists say that that remedy is bad, and possibly worse than
the disease, because, although you might delay marriage, you cannot
restrain those instincts which are implanted in human nature, and people
will have the gratification and satisfaction of passions powerfully
implanted, if not in one way, in some other way. So you have the evils of
prostitution substituted for the evils of over-population. Now, what says
Dr. Knowlton? There being this choice of evils--there being this
unquestioned evil of over-population which exists in a great part of the
civilised world--is the remedy proposed by Malthus so doubtful that
probably it would lead to greater evils than the one which it is intended
to remedy? Dr. Knowlton suggests--and here we come to the critical point
of this inquiry--he suggests that, instead of marriage being postponed,
it shall be hastened. He suggests that marriage shall take place in the
hey-day of life, when the passions are at their highest, and that the
evils of over-population shall be remedied by persons, after they have
married, having recourse to artificial means to prevent the procreation
of a numerous offspring, and the consequent evils, especially to the
poorer classes, which the production of a too numerous offspring is
certain to bring about. Now, gentlemen, that is the scope of the book.
With a view to make those to whom these remedies are suggested
understand, appreciate, and be capable of applying them, he enters into
details as to the physiological circumstances connected with the
procreation of the species. The Solicitor-General says--and that was the
first proposition with which he started--that the whole of this is a
delusion and a sham. When Knowlton says that he wishes that marriage
should take place as early as possible--marriage being the most sacred
and holy of all human relations--he means nothing of the kind, but means
and suggests, in the sacred name of marriage, illicit intercourse between
the sexes, or a kind of prostitution. Now, gentlemen, whatever may be
your opinion about the propositions contained in this work, when you come
to weigh carefully the views of this undoubted physician and would-be
philosopher, I think you will agree with me that to say that he meant to
depreciate marriage for the sake of prostitution, and that all he says
about marriage is only a disguise, and intended to impress upon the mind
sentiments of an entirely different character for the gratification of
passion, otherwise than by marriage, is a most unjust accusation.
(Applause in court.) I must say that I believe that every word he says
about marriage being a desirable institution, and every word he says with
reference to the enjoyments and happiness it engenders, is said as
honestly and truly as anything probably ever uttered by any man. I can
only believe that when the Solicitor-General made that statement he had
not half studied the book. But I pass that by. I come to the plain issue
before you. Knowlton goes into physiological details connected with the
functions of the generation and procreation of children. The principles
of this pamphlet, with its details, are to be found in greater abundance
and distinctness in numerous works to which your attention has been
directed, and, having these details before you, you must judge for
yourselves whether there is anything in them which is calculated to
excite the passions of man and debase the public morals. If so, every
medical work is open to the same imputation."
The Lord Chief Justice then dealt with the question whether conjugal
prudence was in itself immoral, and pointed out to the jury that the
decision of this very serious question was in their hands:
"A man and woman may say, 'We have more children than we can supply with
the common necessaries of life: what are we to do? Let us have recourse
to this contrivance.' Then, gentlemen, you should consider whether that
particular course of proceeding is inconsistent with morality, whether it
would have a tendency to degrade and deprave the man or woman. The
Solicitor-General, while doubtless admitting the evils and mischiefs of
excessive population, argues that the checks proposed are demoralising in
their effects, and that it is better to bear the ills we have than have
recourse to remedies having such demoralising results. These are
questions for you, twelve thinking men, probably husbands and fathers of
families, to consider and determine. That the defendants honestly believe
that the evils that this work would remedy, arising from over-population
and poverty, are so great that these checks may be resorted to as a
remedy for the evils, and as bettering the condition of humanity,
although there might be things to be avoided, if it were possible to
avoid them, and yet remedy the evils which they are to prevent--that such
is the honest opinion of the defendants, we, who have read the book, and
who have heard what they have said, must do them the justice of
believing. I agree with the Solicitor-General if, with a view to what is
admitted to be a great good, they propose something to the world, and
circulate it especially among the poorer classes, if they propose
something inconsistent with public morals, and tending to destroy the
domestic purity of women, that it is not because they do not see the
evils of the latter, while they see the evils of the former, that they
must escape; if so, they must abide the consequences of their actions,
whatever may have been their motive. They say, 'We are entitled to submit
to the consideration of the thinking portion of mankind the remedies
which we propose for these evils. We have come forward to challenge the
inquiry whether this is a book which we are entitled to publish.' They do
it fairly, I must say, and in a very straightforward manner they come to
demand the judgment of the proper tribunal. 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 inquiry. But there is another view of
this subject, that Knowlton intended to reconcile with marriage the
prevention of over-population. Upon the perusal of this work, I cannot
bring myself to doubt that he honestly believed that the remedies he
proposed were less evils than even celibacy or over-population on the one
hand, or the prevention of marriage on the other hand--in that honesty of
intention I entirely concur. But whether, in his desire to reconcile
marriage with a check on over-population, he did not overlook one very
important consideration connected with that part of society which should
abuse it, is another and a very serious consideration."
When the jury retired there was but one opinion in court, namely, that
we had won our case. But they were absent for an hour and thirty-five
minutes, and we learned afterwards that several were anxious to convict,
not so much because of the book as because we were Freethinkers. At last
they agreed to a compromise, and the verdict delivered was: "We are
unanimously of opinion that the book in question is calculated to deprave
public morals, but at the same time we entirely exonerate the defendants
from any corrupt motives in publishing it."
The Lord Chief Justice looked troubled, and said gravely that he would
have to direct them to return a verdict of guilty on such a finding. The
foreman, who was bitterly hostile, jumped at the chance without
consulting his colleagues, some of whom had turned to leave the box, and
thus snatched a technical verdict of "guilty" against us. Mr. George
Skinner, of 27, Great Chapel Gate, Westminster, wrote to me on the
following day to say that six of the jurymen did not consent to the
verdict of "guilty", and that they had agreed that if the judge would not
accept the verdict as handed in they would then retire again, and that
they would never have given a verdict of guilty; but the stupid men had
not the sense to speak out at the right time, and their foreman had his
way. The Lord Chief Justice at once set us free to come up for judgment
on that day week, June 28th--the trial had lasted till the 21st--and we
went away on the same recognizances given before by Mr. Bradlaugh, an
absolutely unprecedented courtesy to two technically "convicted
prisoners".[1]
[Footnote 1: A Report of the Trial can be obtained from the Freethought
Publishing Company, price 5s. It contains an exact report of all that was
said and done.]