OPPONENTS.
No one of so dynamic a temperament could pass through life without
making some enemies and rousing opposition, but until recent years
the number of Dr. Stopes’s opponents or enemies was remarkably few.
Before she published “Married Love” she once said to me: “I believe
the only people who do not like me, and try to minimize what I do, are
the men who have made love to me--and, of course, to whom I have not
been able to respond.” There were also a few small-minded wives of the
professional men with whom she came in contact, whose instinct was
to feel that any woman who could enter into the intellectual fields
pursued by their husbands must be dangerous, but beyond these trifling
and sporadic difficulties she might be said to have had no enemies
until she encountered the Roman Catholics. That she encountered them,
purely by accident, was due to the publication of her book of poems,
_Man, Other Poems and a Preface_. Up to that date she had not realized
that such a thing as organized Roman Catholic hostility to any person
existed, nor, consequently, that it was possible to arouse it, and
she was much surprised to find she had aroused the rabid hostility of
a botanist on the staff of the British Museum, Mr. James Britten. He
was a Roman Catholic and an exceedingly active worker for the Catholic
Truth Society.
Dr. Stopes tried, but failed, to make him understand she had had no
intention of offending Roman Catholics, and could not imagine that
they would apply to themselves the words of her poem, as she had no
antagonistic thought when they were penned. The hostility of this Roman
Catholic botanical editor was unappeasable however.
Warned by this previous encounter, when she published _Married Love_,
she thought she would secure herself by obtaining a commendation from a
Roman Catholic, and, as previously mentioned (see p. 155), she obtained
a most cordial foreword of approval of the book from a member of the
Society of Jesus. Undoubtedly this safeguarded the first appearance
of the work, which was hailed by many Roman Catholics and was pushed
actively by them in many directions until her more practical work in
the foundation of a birth control clinic aroused the hostility of the
Church of Rome. Thereafter her books were taboo, the cordial treatment
she had received from many experienced Catholics who well knew the
value of her work was quenched, and organized hostility against her was
instituted which, to those who have not themselves suffered from such
organized hostility, may appear incredible in England in the twentieth
century. What Dr. Stopes has to tell of underground opposition would
fill a volume, and includes whispered slander of the most personal
kind, definite tales and stories circulated in London clubs, some of
which sound very plausible, for almost correct anecdotes about her are
subtly twisted to convey a false meaning. Almost every newspaper has
been bombarded by her enemies.
In illustration, let me note what happened in _The Times_. Up to the
date of this hostility, and after the publication of _Married Love_,
Dr. Marie Stopes had always had very kindly treatment from _The Times_
newspaper. She was, for instance, one of the few people of a literary
tendency who had never had a letter refused for publication, nor an
article rejected. Indeed, one day she took down an article of a column
length and said: “This simply _must_ go in to-morrow, and I hope you
will put it in,” and it appeared. Other papers would often telegraph to
her to send articles by return, but since the Roman Catholic campaign
against her began changes in the attitude of the newspaper press became
so remarkable that some details of them should be mentioned. One may
say, in general, that editors and advertisement managers are very busy
people whose chief contact with their public is through correspondence,
and that if they receive two or three dozen letters expressing more
or less similar opinions, they are apt to imagine that these letters
represent a general feeling, and to allow themselves to be guided by
them.
A skilfully organized campaign of anonymous and also of signed letters,
against Dr. Stopes and the work that she stands for, is a part of the
Roman Catholic campaign. Evidence of this appeared in the course of
the trial in the High Court between herself and Dr. Sutherland, a Roman
Catholic, when, before giving judgment, Lord Justice Scrutton made the
following statement:--
“Since we reserved judgment in this case I, in common with other
members of the Court, have been pestered by anonymous communications
all proceeding from and advocating the side of the defendant.
Of course, I acquit the legal representatives of the defendant
absolutely of having anything to do with these communications. I have
also no reason to believe that the defendant himself had anything to
do with these communications, but I think it is right to say that
such communications are absolutely improper and are punishable as
contempt of Court.”
Judges in the High Court are not, of course, swayed by correspondents,
but letters fictitiously signed, or signed by persons paid to write
them, in addition to those written by individuals who really feel what
they write, are handy weapons to use against an opponent whose natural
outlet through the press certain people wish to stop. The result of
such influences is seen in _The Times’_ refusal of advertisements
of her books for the last year or two, though they were previously
advertised in its columns, as indeed in those of almost every other
reputable paper in the country. _The Times_ also began to refuse the
lecture announcements of the C.B.C. Society when they contained Dr.
Stopes’ name as taking the chair, and it was necessary to see one of
the Directors to get this ban lifted, as it has recently been, since
when the Society’s announcements have regularly appeared. Still more
incredible seems the fact that a double advertisement of the birth
of her son was refused by _The Times_, although the announcement
was worded in the simplest and quite usual form,[2] first, under
the surname “Roe”; second, under the surname “Stopes” (as the baby
will have both surnames, Stopes-Roe), and in the exact wording of
the announcement which appeared in the _Morning Post_, the _Daily
Telegraph_, and other first-class papers. Moreover this refusal was
not made to an employee, but personally to Mr. Roe, who took the
advertisement himself to all the offices that there should be no
mistake. After the birth of her son Dr. Marie Stopes was seriously ill
for a long time.--As a consequence of her world-wide travels she has
many friends in various parts of the world who are anxious to have
news of her. _The Times_ is the principal paper to penetrate Embassies
and outlying British homes, and was therefore practically the only
convenient medium of communication with those friends, but a short
paragraph for the Social Column, announcing that she was out of danger,
was also refused, and friends consequently remained in ignorance of the
state of her health, although a little later on an advertisement was
accepted by a different department for the personal column. Neither Dr.
Stopes nor her friends attribute such disheartening incidents to any
definite policy on the part of the press, but to the sporadic successes
her enemies achieve through individuals who come directly or indirectly
under their influence.
_The Times_ report of the Sutherland case had been quite fair, yet in
its legal columns reporting her application against two Roman Catholic
editors, the words of her own Counsel, as also of the Judge, were
altered so as to degrade her from being “Dr. Stopes” to “Mrs. Stopes.”
On the day that this appeared, her solicitor wrote to _The Times_
drawing the editor’s attention to this mistake. Nevertheless a few days
later in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Roche _The Times_ report again
altered his words so as to alter her description, and this in a case
in which the title to which, as a learned Doctor of Science, she is by
Act of Parliament entitled, was of material importance to her. This is
amazing, considering the reputation _The Times_ has long enjoyed for
accuracy, and the fact that it is frequently referred to in Court as
evidence of what has occurred.
It is hard to calculate what Dr. Stopes’s movement has lost by the
absence of the normal press publicity and support to which her work is
entitled, and which it would no doubt have continued to receive from
the press had it not been for the machinations of the Roman Catholics,
for the public forms its opinions of persons and movements very largely
by what it reads of them in the press.
Those who wish to minimize her work sometimes say of Dr. Stopes: “But
she is not a _proper_ doctor, and is therefore not qualified to deal
with these matters.” But, in the first place, under the laws of the
land, only the learned doctors of the various Faculties, that is to
say, Doctors of Science, Doctors of Laws, Doctors of Medicine, Doctors
of Music, Doctors of Divinity, and so on, are legally entitled to
be called “Doctor,” though the practising medical profession very
frequently and impudently appropriates that title, and many who are
only Bachelors of Medicine, or even less, call themselves “Doctors,”
and are so called by the public.
An M.B. (_bachelor_ of medicine) is, of course, fully qualified to
practise in this country as a physician, but this does not legally, and
should not in any way, confuse him with the learned _doctors_. If a
short name is wanted, he should be called a “Medico.” Dr. Marie Stopes,
as a learned Doctor of Science, has more right to the title than the
majority of the medical profession.
It should also be pointed out that what the ordinary medico practises,
he or she has learned from the Doctors of Biological and Medical
Science. Pasteur was not a practising medical, but nearly the whole
science of medicine now bases itself upon his scientific foundations.
It is fully within the province of a learned Doctor of Biology to
instruct practising medicals on the scientific bases of any advances in
any branch of their science, and to contribute new knowledge to it. To
give a more recent example, the late lamented Sir William Bayliss, the
greatest physiologist in the world, was not a practising medical, but
medical practitioners all over the world are proud to learn from him.
Dr. Stopes has even lectured to medical students at more than one
medical school. As a fully trained biologist she has published the
first medical and scientific manual in any language on contraception.
This book is entitled “Contraception: Its Theory, History and Practice,
A Manual for the Medical and Legal Professions.” It is published by
a Medical Publisher, and has been cordially received by the medical
press, the _Lancet_ saying:
“Much of the evidence contained in the book is quite unobtainable
elsewhere.”
Dr. Christopher Rolleston, a Medical Officer of Health, said of this
publication:
“I predict a great success for the work, and I wish to record my
thanks to the author for her pioneer work in preventive medicine.”
It is also warmly endorsed by Sir James Barr, M.D., a former president
of the Medical Association, and many doctors from all over the world
use it as the source of their practice.
The fact is that the medical profession had in the past seriously
neglected this subject, which greatly affects the health of the present
and future generations. No instruction in the use of contraceptives
was included in the training of doctors at any of our hospitals before
Dr. Stopes’s work appeared, and practising doctors are generally too
busy to investigate matters not included in their training, and even
if they had the time, most of them lack the kind of training needed
for original research in sex-problems and especially in the relation
of those problems to women. Yet when a qualified woman scientist
specializes in the matter and supplies what the doctors had failed to
provide--the objection is raised that she does not belong to their
trade union, and that matters should continue to be neglected till one
of them some day finds time to deal with the matter.
But while the doctors neglected the subject, another class of people
were actively harmful in disseminating erroneous information. These
were the Roman Catholic priests, whose celibacy, one would suppose,
deprives them of sexual experience and renders them ill-qualified to
deal with the problems of married life, even apart from the fact that a
theological training is a poor substitute for the scientific training
needed for the investigation of such questions.
I have no feeling of ill-will towards the Roman Catholics, whose Church
at various times has rendered great service to humanity, but I feel
sure that many Catholics who value intellectual integrity must blush to
read the pitiful futilities that are put forward as the Catholic case
against birth control.
Beyond the bald assertion that it is “wrong”--which, being the very
question at issue, cannot be decided by mere assertion--they rely on an
obvious misrepresentation of the plain meaning of the 38th chapter of
Genesis, and on other statements and arguments that are so childish as
to be ridiculous. For instance, they habitually confuse abortion--that
is, the killing of the embryo after conception--which is a dangerous
and harmful practice, and a criminal offence in English law, with the
prevention of conception, which is neither dangerous, nor harmful, nor
a legal offence. Those who confuse these two different matters are
either so ignorant that they have no business to offer guidance on the
subject, or they seek with deliberate mendacity to darken counsel by
their words.
Besides this, we have statements that a rational control of births,
to ensure a moderate birth rate with a high survival rate among those
who are born, and a healthy posterity, is “race suicide,” leading
to the depopulation of the world, the spread of immorality, and
various other evils. These assertions are backed by references to the
state of France (a Roman Catholic country, in which birth control
information and the sale of contraceptives is illegal), where, in
spite of a terrible amount of abortion, the birth rate, as shown by
recent statistics, is higher than in England, but the death-rate among
children is so great that the survival rate is very low.
It is natural that people who obstinately opposed the dissemination of
knowledge on these subjects, and have no better arguments than these
to adduce in support of their views, are tempted to betake themselves
to methods such as those referred to above in what has been said about
the pressure exerted on the press to stifle news of the birth control
movement, and the falsehoods disseminated about Dr. Stopes herself.
Before long it may occur to the more intelligent among Dr. Stopes’s
opponents, that when a great public question fundamentally affects
the vigour of the race, the health of mothers and children, and the
happiness of the whole people, a thin black line of priests and their
dupes cannot permanently block the way to the free and open discussion
of the subject.
The public is naturally asking for an authoritative statement from
the medical profession on the matter, and it should be more generally
known that there is now a Medical Research Committee dealing with
the technique of contraception. When it issued a statement to the
medical and general press early this year after sitting two years
its composition was as follows: Sir James Barr, C.B.E., M.D., LL.D.,
F.R.C.P., F.R.S.E.; Professor Sir William Bayliss, F.R.S., M.A., D.Sc.;
Harold Chapple, Esq., M.C., F.R.C.S.; Dr. Jane L. Hawthorne; Geo.
Jones, Esq., M.A., M.B., D.P.H., Barrister-at-Law; Dr. Maude Kerslake;
Sir W. Arbuthnot Lane, Bart., C.B., M.B., M.S.; Sir John MacAlister,
F.S.A., F.R.G.S.; Sir Archdall Reid, M.B., F.R.S. Ed.; Christopher
Rolleston, Esq., M.D., M.R.C.P., D.P.H.; D. Sommerville, Esq., B.A.,
M.Sc., M.D., M.R.C.P.; Marie C. Stopes, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S., F.G.S.;
H. M. Telling, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P.; Dr. Mather Thomson; E. B. Turner,
Esq., F.R.C.S.
It will be noted that the majority of the Committee are medicals,
and biological science was represented by Sir William Bayliss, Dr.
Sommerville, and the President of the Society, Dr. Marie Stopes. In
addition to the medical members of the Committee, other distinguished
practitioners are in helpful association with it.
In accordance with the objects of its foundation, the Committee
considers a variety of current affairs concerning Contraception, but
its proceedings and minutes are strictly confidential and none of its
deliberations are published, except about points which are specially
passed for publication. The Committee, feeling the importance of the
questions concerned, is in no hurry to draw up reports or make public
statements, but desires to observe and investigate carefully. A number
of new, or supposedly new methods have been brought before it from
various quarters. Due consideration confirms the view that no one
method is applicable, but that several of the simple and well-known
methods which have had a long trial still are the best to meet ordinary
requirements.
At a Committee meeting last spring the following resolution was passed
for publication in suitable quarters:
“The Medical Research Committee of the Society for Constructive
Birth Control and Racial Progress wishes to place on record its
joint and several opinion that the methods now used at the _Mothers’
Clinic_ are the best known at the present time.”
The Mothers’ Clinic, it will be remembered, is the Birth Control Clinic
founded by Dr. Stopes and her husband which has been the subject of so
much ignorant attack.
[Illustration: DR. MARIE STOPES.]
Her Roman Catholic opponents scored a great coup in connection with
Dr. Marie Stopes’s film _Married Love_, or _Maisie’s Marriage_,
which was beautifully produced by Messrs. Samuelsons. The producers,
Captain Walter Summers who collaborated and Dr. Stopes, all agreed
that it should _not_ be pre-eminently a birth control play, but a
melodramatic story of general interest. Dr. Stopes had been a member of
the Cinema Commission, and always desired to produce a film to which
no exception could be taken. This she thought she had done, and the
producers did not believe it possible that any objection could be made
to a film which had been so cautiously produced. The trade show was
very successful, but the Censor, instead of giving the certificate
necessary for universal exhibition in a few hours or a day or two as is
usually done, _held up the matter for four weeks_, a delay which caused
great loss to the producers, for in the cinema world everything must
come like hot cakes after the first announcements. It is an unfortunate
coincidence in this case that the Chief Censor, Mr. T. P. O’Connor,
is a Roman Catholic. In a personal interview all the facts presented
to him failed to influence him, and he insisted on alterations so
harassing that the author could not consent to them. For instance,
though no exception was taken to a cabaret scene that occurs in the
picture, he considered a beautiful rose which faded into a baby’s face
to be improper, and demanded its excision! The play however in its
_complete_ form, exactly as written by the author, was shown to the
trade, was rapturously received, and obtained excellent reviews in many
solid papers such as the _Daily Telegraph_, and has been shown in its
original form in many of the large towns in England with the approval
of the local Watch Committees; for instance, the very strict Manchester
Watch Committee approved of it, and the film was shown to packed
houses in Manchester. Sometimes efforts were made locally to block it,
but generally the committees came out in its favour; for as Colonel
Giles, of the Folkestone Watch Committee, reported in the _Morning
Post_, said: “One could safely take one’s grandmother to see it,
there being nothing obnoxious in it.” Scotland too welcomed it in its
original form. Mr. T. P. O’Connor wanted to enforce his alterations,
though he had no real _power_ to do so if local Watch Committees
approve of a film he bans. The L.C.C., misinformed about details,
backed the Censor, and at one time even endeavoured to stop the use of
the words “Married Love” in association with the film. Dr. Marie Stopes
received a letter from the L.C.C., however, as a result of her personal
interview with the Theatres and Music Halls Committee, in which they
stated: “The Council has not raised, and will not raise, objection to
the use, in posters and descriptive pamphlets issued in connection with
the film, of the description ‘Maisie’s Marriage,’ a story by Dr. Marie
Stopes, the author of ‘Married Love,’ provided that the words ‘the
author of “Married Love”’ are printed in type which is appropriate to
the description of that nature, and relatively small compared with the
type used for the title ‘Maisie’s Marriage.’”
One wonders under what statutory right they dictated to the advertising
world of the cinema the size of type they may use!
Mr. O’Connor’s intervention with the Home Office led to a circular
letter being sent out from the Home Office to every Chief Constable in
England. Such communications from the Home Office led to local trouble
here and there, notably in Portsmouth, where the booking was cancelled.
Dr. Stopes was personally in Portsmouth the same week and saw the Chief
Constable, and the Town Clerk under whose orders he acted, and they
assured her that there was a misapprehension and mistake in the matter,
and if it came up again no exception would be taken to the display
and exhibition of the film under the above title. Fortunately those
authorities did not take a tape measure to the lettering.
It was a curious coincidence that the week she was banned in the
cinema, Dr. Stopes spoke from the pulpit in Portsmouth. At the Sunday
evening service at which she spoke, the crowds down the aisle, and
standing even on the gravestones outside to hear through the windows,
were so great that people asked if some member of the Royal Family was
there, as they could think of no other attraction likely to draw such
crowds.
Mr. T. P. O’Connor’s interference seemed likely to become the subject
of a public inquiry. In the printed order of the day for the House of
Lords, “Bills appointed and Notices” for Wednesday, November 13, 1923,
the following appeared:
“The Earl Russell.--To call attention to a communication from the
Home Office, of June 30 last, addressed to the Chief Constables and
Watch Committees and marked ‘Confidential,’ attempting to interfere
with the production of a film entitled ‘Married Love,’ by Dr. Marie
Stopes, and to ask His Majesty’s’ Government what official status, if
any, the Board of Film Censors has; whether the censorship is in fact
administered by Mr. T. P. O’Connor; and whether it is the practice
of the Home Office to act as Mr. T. P. O’Connor’s representative in
endeavouring to interfere with the production of particular films
without any independent inquiry on their part.”
Unfortunately it was a few hours too late, for the Baldwin Ministry
resigned, and under the rules of the House the subject could not again
be raised in the succeeding Administration, despite the injury done to
private individuals, who, one would think, should have some means of
obtaining redress from those who succeeded to office. It is a pity that
Mr. Baldwin did not hold the reins a little longer, for in a debate in
the Lords many things of considerable general interest would have come
to light.
[2] Exact wording of the advertisement was--“Roe--On the 27th March
to Dr. Marie Stopes, wife of H. V. Roe, of Givons Grove, Leatherhead,
Surrey--a son”; and “Stopes--On the 27th March, to Marie Carmichael
Stopes and her husband, Humphrey Verdon Roe, of Givons Grove,
Leatherhead, Surrey--a son.”