often little or no connection with the others. The “Cracksman,” or
housebreaker, would no more think of associating with the “Sneaksman”
than a barrister would dream of sitting down to dinner with an
attorney; the perils braved by the housebreaker or the footpad make
the cowardice of the sneaksman contemptible to him; and the one is
distinguished by a kind of bulldog insensibility to danger, while the
other is marked by a low cat-like cunning. The “Mobsman,” on the other
hand, is more of a handicraftsman than either, and is comparatively
refined by the society he is obliged to keep. He usually dresses in the
same elaborate style of fashion as a Jew on a Saturday (in which case
he is more particularly described by the prefix “swell”), and “mixes”
generally in the “best of company,” frequenting--for the purposes of
his business--all the places of public entertainment, and often being
a regular attendant at church and the more elegant chapels, especially
during charity sermons. The Mobsman takes his name from the gregarious
habits of the class to which he belongs, it being necessary, for the
successful picking of pockets, that the work be done in small gangs or
mobs, so as to “cover” the operator. Among the Sneaksmen, again, the
purloiners of animals, such as the horse stealers, the sheep stealers,
the deer stealers, and the poachers, all belong to a particular tribe
(with the exception of the dog stealers)--they are agricultural
thieves; whereas the others are generally of a more civic character.
The Shofulmen, or coiners, moreover constitute a distinct species, and
upon them, like the others, is impressed the stamp of the peculiar line
of roguery they may chance to follow as a means of subsistence.
Such are the more salient features of that portion of the voluntary
non-workers who live by _taking_ what they want from others. The other
moiety of the same class who live by getting what they want _given_ to
them, is equally peculiar. These consist of the “Flatcatchers,” the
“Hunter” and “Charley[13] Pitchers,” the “Bouncers” and “Besters,” the
“Cadgers,” the Vagrants, and the Prostitutes.
The “_Flatcatchers_” obtain what they want by false pretences; as
swindlers, duffers, ring droppers, and cheats of all kinds.
The “_Hunter_” and “_Charley Pitchers_” obtain what they want by
gaming; as thimblerig men, &c.
The “_Bouncers_” and “_Besters_” obtain what they want by betting,
intimidating, or talking people out of their property.
The “_Cadgers_” obtain what they want by begging, and exciting false
sympathy.
The _Vagrants_ obtain what they want by declaring on the casual ward
of the parish workhouse.
The _Prostitutes_ obtain what they want by the performance of an
immoral act.
Each of these, again, are unmistakeably distinguished from the rest.
The “Flatcatchers” are generally remarkable for great shrewdness,
especially in the knowledge of human character and ingenuity in
designing and carrying out their several schemes. The “Charley
Pitchers” appertain more to the conjuring or sleight-of-hand and
blackleg class. The “Cadgers,” again, are to the class of cheats what
the “Sneaksmen” are to the thieves, the lowest of all, being the least
distinguished for those characteristics which mark the other members
of the same body. As the “Sneaksmen” are the least daring and expert
of all the thieves, so are the “Cadgers” the least intellectual and
cunning of all the cheats. A “shallow cove,” that is to say, one who
exhibits himself half naked in the streets as a means of obtaining his
living, is looked upon as the most despicable of all, since the act
requires neither courage, intellect, nor dexterity for the execution
of it. The Vagrants, on the other hand, are the wanderers--the English
Bedouins--those who, in their own words, “love to shake a free
leg”--the thoughtless and the careless vagabonds of our race; while the
Prostitutes, as a body, are the shameless among our women.
Such, then, are the characters of the voluntary non-workers, or
professionally criminal class, the vagrants, beggars, cheats, thieves,
and prostitutes--each order expressing some different mode of existence
adopted by those who object to labour for their living. The vagrants,
who love a roving life, exist principally by declaring on the parish
funds for the time being; the beggars, as deficient in courage and
intellect as in pride, prefer to live by soliciting alms of the public;
the cheats, possessed of considerable cunning and ingenuity, choose
rather to subsist by continual fraud and deception; the thieves,
distinguished generally by a hardihood and comparative disregard
of danger, find greater delight in risking their liberty by taking
what they want, instead of waiting to have it given them; while the
prostitutes, as deficient in shame as the beggars are in pride, prefer
to live by using their charms for the vilest of purposes.
The exposition of the _causes_ why the several species of voluntary
non-workers object to labour for their living, I shall reserve for a
future occasion; that they do _object_ to work is patent in the fact
that they might sustain themselves by their industry if they chose
(for those who are unable to do so, and are consequently driven to
dishonesty, have been purposely removed from the class).
The number of individuals belonging to the professional criminal class,
we are not yet in a position to ascertain; but few dependable facts
have been collected on the subject, and even these have been obtained
so many years back that, with the increase of population, they have
become almost worthless, except in a historic point of view. Such as
they are, however, it will be as well to add them to this introduction
to the class of voluntary non-workers, as the best information at
present existing upon the subject.
TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF DEPREDATORS, OFFENDERS, AND SUSPECTED
PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE POLICE IN
THE YEAR 1837, COMPREHENDING:--
1. Persons who have no visible means of subsistence, and who are
believed to live wholly by violation of the law, as by habitual
depredation, by fraud, by prostitution, &c.
2. Persons following some ostensible and legal occupation, but who are
known to have committed an offence, and are believed to augment their
gains by habitual or occasional violation of the law.
3. Persons not known to have committed any offences, but known as
associates of the above classes, and otherwise deemed to be suspicious
characters.
--------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
| Metropolitan Police District.
Character and description of Offenders. +--------+--------+-------+------------
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Total
| Class. | Class. | Class.|all Classes.
--------------------------------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+------------
{ Burglars | 77 | 22 | 8 | 107
RAMPSMEN[14] { Housebreakers | 59 | 17 | 34 | 110
{ Highway robbers | 19 | 8 | 11 | 38
|---- 155|--- 47|--- 53|---- 255
| | | |
MOBSMEN Pickpockets | 544| 75| 154| 773
| | | |
SNEAKSMEN Common thieves | 1667| 1338 652| 3657
| | | |
{ Horse stealers | 7 | 4 | | 11
ANIMAL STEALERS { Cattle stealers | | | |
{ Dog stealers | 45 | 48 | 48| 141
|---- 52|--- 52| |---- 152
| | | |
{ [15]Forgers | | 3 | | 3
SHOFULMEN { [15]Coiners | 25 | 1 | 2 | 28
{ Utterers of base coin | 202 | 54 | 61 | 317
|---- 227|--- 58|--- 63|---- 348
| | | |
{ [15]Obtainers of goods by false pretences| 33 |108 | | 141
FLATCATCHERS { [15]Persons committing frauds of any | | | |
{ other description | 23 |118 | 41| 182
|---- 56|--- 226| |---- 323
| | | |
Receivers of stolen goods | 51| 158| 134| 343
| | | |
[15]Habitual disturbers of the public | | | |
peace | 723| 1866| 179| 2768
| | | |
Vagrants | 1089| 186| 20| 1295
| | | |
CADGERS { [15]Begging-letter writers | 12 | 17 | 21 | 50
{ Bearers of begging-letters | 22 | 40 | 24 | 86
|---- 34|--- 57|--- 45|---- 136
| | | |
{ [15]Prostitutes, well-dressed, living in | | | |
{ brothels | 813 | 62 | 20 | 895
PROSTITUTES {[15]Prostitutes, well-dressed, walking the| | | |
{ streets |1460 | 79 | 73 |1612
{ Prostitutes, low, infesting low | | | |
neighbourhoods |3533 |147 |184 |3864
|----5806|--- 288|--- 277|---- 6371
| | | |
[15]Classes not before enumerated | 40| 2| 438| 470
| | | |
Total | 10,444| 4353| 2104| 16,901
--------------------------------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+-----------
The estimate made for five of the principal provincial towns in the
same year was as follows:--
TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF DEPREDATORS, OFFENDERS, AND SUSPECTED
PERSONS BROUGHT WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE POLICE OF THE
UNDERMENTIONED DISTRICTS, IN THE YEAR 1837.
-------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+----------+-----------
| | |
| Number of Depredators, Offenders, | | Proportion
| and Suspected Persons. | Average | of
District or Place. | | Length | known bad
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ of | Characters
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | | Career. | to the
| Class. | Class. | Class. | Total. | |Population.
-------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+-----------
Metropolitan Police District | 10,444 | 4353 | 2104 | 16,901 | 4 yrs. | 1 in 89
Borough of Liverpool | 3,580 | 916 | 215 | 4,711 | ...... | 1 in 45
City and County of Bristol | 1,935 | 1190 | 356 | 3,481 | ...... | 1 in 31
City of Bath | 284 | 470 | 847 | 1,601 | ...... | 1 in 37
Town and County of Newcastle-on-Tyne | 1,730 | 222 | 62 | 2,014 |2-1/4 yrs.| 1 in 27
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |
Total | 17,973 | 7151 | 3584 | 28,708 | |
-------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+-----------
By the above table it will be seen that, in 1837, there were 28,708
persons of known bad character, infesting five of the principal towns
in England: nearly 18,000 of the entire number had no visible means of
subsistence, and were believed to live wholly by depredation; 7000 were
believed to augment their gains by habitual or occasional violation
of the law; and 3500 were known to be associates of the others, and
otherwise deemed suspicious characters. According to the average
proportion of these persons to the population, there would have been
in the other large towns nearly 32,000 persons of a similar class, and
upwards of 69,000 of such persons dispersed throughout the rest of the
country. Adding these together, we have as many as 130,000 individuals
of known bad character in England and Wales, _without_ the walls of the
prisons.
To form an accurate notion of the total number of the criminal
population at the above period, we must add to the preceding amount the
number of persons resident _within_ the walls of the prisons. These, at
the time of taking the last census, amounted to 19,888, which, added
to the 130,000 above enumerated, gives within a fraction of 150,000
individuals for the entire criminal population of the country, as known
to the police in 1837.
Let us now, for a moment, turn our attention to the number and cost of
the honest and dishonest poor throughout England and Wales. Mr. Porter,
usually no mean authority upon all matters of a statistical nature,
tells us, in his “Progress of the Nation,” p. 530, that “the proportion
of persons in the United Kingdom who pass their time without applying
to any gainful occupation is quite _inconsiderable!_ Of 5,800,000
males of 20 years and upwards living at the time of the census of 1831,
there were said to be engaged in some calling or profession 5,450,000,
thus leaving unemployed only 350,000, or rather less than six per
cent.” “The number of unemployed adult males in Great Britain in 1841,”
he afterwards informs us, “was only 274,000 and odd.”
But this statement gives us no accurate idea of the number of persons
subsisting by charity or crime, for the author of the “Progress of
the Nation,” strange to say, wholly excludes from his calculation the
mass of individuals maintained by the several parishes, as well as
the criminals, almspeople, and lunatics throughout the country! Now,
according to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners, the number of
paupers receiving in and out-door relief, in 1848, was no less than
1,870,000 and odd. The number of criminals and suspicious characters
throughout the country, in 1837, we have seen, was 150,000. In 1844 the
number of lunatics in county asylums was 4000 and odd; while, according
to the occupation abstract of the population returns there were in 1841
upwards of 5000 almspeople, 1000 beggars, and 21,000 pensioners. These,
formed into one sum, give us no less than 2,000,000 of individuals
living upon the income of the remainder of the population. By the above
computation, therefore, we see that, out of a total of 16,000,000
souls, in England and Wales, one-eighth, or twelve per cent. of the
whole, continue their existence either by pauperism, mendicancy, or
crime.
Now, the cost of this immense mass of vice and want is even more
appalling than the number of individuals subsisting in such utter
degradation. The total amount of money levied in 1848 for the
relief of the poor throughout England and Wales, was 7,400,000_l._
But, exclusive of this amount, the magnitude of the sum that we give
voluntarily towards the support and education of the poorer classes,
is unparalleled in the history of any other nation, or of any other
time. According to the summary of the returns annexed to the voluminous
reports of the Charity Commissioners, the rent of the land and other
fixed property, together with the interest of the money left for
charitable purposes in England and Wales, amounts to 1,200,000_l._
a year; and it is believed that, by proper management, this return
might be increased to an annual income of at least two millions of
money. “And yet,” says Mr. MʻCulloch, “there can be no doubt that
even this large sum falls far below the amount expended every year in
voluntary donations to charitable establishments. Nor can any estimate
be formed,” he adds, “of the money given in charity to individuals,
but in the aggregate it cannot fail to amount to an immense sum.” All
things considered, therefore, we cannot be very far from the truth, if
we assume the sums _voluntarily_ subscribed towards the relief of the
poor to equal, in the aggregate, the total amount raised by assessment
for the same purpose (the income from voluntary subscriptions to the
_metropolitan_ charities alone equals 1,000,000_l._ and odd); so that
it would appear that the well-to-do amongst us expend the vast sum
of 15,000,000_l._ per annum in mitigating the miseries of their less
fortunate brethren.
But though it may be said that we give altogether 15,000,000_l._ a
year to alleviate the distress of those who want or suffer, we must
remember that this vast sum expresses not only the liberal extent of
our sympathy, but likewise the fearful amount of want and suffering,
on the one hand, and of excess and luxury on the other, that there
must be in the land. If the poorer classes require fifteen millions to
be added in charity every year to their aggregate income in order to
relieve their pains and privations, and the richer can afford to have
the same immense sum taken from theirs, and yet scarcely feel the loss,
it shows at once how much the one class must have in excess and the
other in deficiency. Whether such a state of things is a necessary evil
connected with the distribution of wealth, this is not the place for me
to argue. All I have to do here is to draw attention to the fact. It is
for others to lay bare the cause, and, if possible, discover the remedy.
There still remains, however, to be added to the sum expended in
voluntary or compulsory relief of the poor, the cost of our criminal
and convict establishments at home and abroad. This, according to the
Government estimates, amounts to very nearly 1,000,000_l._; then there
is the value of the property appropriated by the 150,000 habitual
criminals, and this, at 10_s._ a week per head, amounts to very nearly
4,000,000_l._; so that, adding these items to the sum before-mentioned,
we have, in round numbers, the enormous amount of 20,000,000_l._
per annum as the cost of the paupers and criminals of this country;
and, reckoning the national income, with Mr. MʻCulloch and others,
at 350,000,000_l._, it follows that the country has to give upwards
of five per cent. out of its gross earnings every year to support
those who are either incapable or unwilling to obtain a living for
themselves.
OF THE PROSTITUTE CLASS GENERALLY.
We have now seen that the two modes of obtaining a living other than
by working for it are, by forcibly or stealthily appropriating the
proceeds of another’s labour, or else by seducing the more industrious
or thrifty to part with a portion of their gains. Prostitution,
professionally resorted to, belongs to the latter class, and consists,
when adopted as a means of subsistence without labour, in inducing
others, by the performance of some immoral act, to render up a portion
of their possessions. Literally construed, prostitution is the
putting of anything to a vile use; in this sense perjury is a species
of prostitution, being an unworthy use of the faculty of speech;
so, again, bribery is a prostitution of the right of voting; while
prostitution, specially so called, is the using of her charms by a
woman for immoral purposes. This, of course, may be done either from
mercenary or voluptuous motives; be the cause, however, what it may,
the act remains the same, and consists in the base perversion of a
woman’s charms--the surrendering of her virtue to criminal indulgence.
Prostitution has been defined to be the illicit intercourse of the
sexes; but illicit is unlicensed, and the mere sanctioning of an
immoral act could not dignify it into a moral one. Such a definition
would make the criminality of the act to consist solely in the absence
of the priest’s licence.
In Persia there are no professional prostitutes permitted; but though
the priest’s sanction there precedes the surrendering of the woman’s
virtue in every instance, still the same immoral perversion takes
place--it being customary for couples to be wedded for a small sum by
the priest in the evening, and divorced by him, for an equally small
sum, in the morning. Here, then, we find the licensed intercourse
assuming the same immoral cast as the unlicensed; for surely none
will maintain that these nuptial ephemeræ are sanctified, because
accompanied with a priestly licence. Nor can we, on the other hand,
assert that the mere fact of continence in the association of the
sexes, the persistence of the female to one male, or the continued
endurance of an unsanctioned attachment, can ever be raised into
anything purer than cohabitation, or the chastity of unchastity.
Prostitution, then, does not consist solely in promiscuous intercourse,
for she who confines her favours to one may still be a prostitute; nor
does it consist in illicit or unsanctioned intercourse, for, as we have
seen, the intercourse may be sanctioned and still be prostitution to
all intents and purposes. Nor can it be said to consist solely in the
mercenary motives so often prompting to the commission of the act; for
fornication is expressly that form of prostitution which is the result
of illicit attachment.
In what, then, it may be asked, _does_ prostitution consist? It
consists, I answer, in what the word literally expresses--putting
a woman’s charms to vile uses. The term _whore_ has, strictly, the
same signification as that of _prostitute_; though usually supposed
to be from the Saxon verb _hyrian_, to hire, and, consequently, to
mean a woman whose favours can be procured for a reward. But the
Saxon substantive _hure_, is the same word as the first syllable of
_hor-cwen_, which signifies literally a filthy quean, a _har_-lot.
Now the term _hor_, in _hor-cwen_, is but another form of the Saxon
adjective _horig_, filthy, dirty, the Latin equivalent of which is
_sor_-didus; hence the substantive _horines_ means filthiness, and
_horingas_, adulterers (or filthy people), and _hornung_, adultery,
fornication, whoredom (or filthy acts). Prostitution and whoredom,
then, have both the same meaning, viz., perversion to vile or _filthy_
uses; and consist in the surrendering of a woman’s virtue in a manner
that excites _our moral disgust_. The offensiveness of the act of
unchastity to the moral taste or sense constitutes the very essence
of prostitution; and it is this moral offensiveness which often makes
the licensed intercourse of the sexes, as in the marriage of a young
girl to an old man, for the sake of his money, as much an act of
prostitution as even the grossest libertinism.
The next question consequently becomes, what are the invariable
antecedents which excite the moral disgust in every act of
prostitution? or are there any such invariable antecedents
characterizing each offensive perversion of a woman’s charms? Is the
offensiveness a mere matter of taste, differing according as the moral
palates of the individuals or races may differ one from the other, and
ultimately referable to some peculiar form of organization, convention,
fashion, or geography? or is it a part of the inherent constitution of
things?--in a word, is there an abstract chastity and unchastity; an
erotic τὸ καλὸν and τὸ κακὸν; an universal standard of moral beauty and
ugliness in woman--that, go where you will, is the same to all natures
and in all countries? or is the vice of one set of people the virtue of
another, as this race admires white teeth and that black?
This is a matter lying, as it were, across the very threshold of the
subject, and which must necessarily, according as one or other view
be taken, give a wholly different cast, not only to all our thoughts
in connection with the evil, but to all our plans for the remedy of
it. If prostitution be loathsome to us, merely because it is the moral
fashion of our people that it should be so, then by popularizing new
forms of thought and feeling among us may we remove all opprobrium from
the act, and so put an end to all the moral evil in connection with it;
but if it be naturally and innately offensive to every healthy mind,
then can it be remedied solely by improving the tone of the thoughts
and feelings of the depraved, and restoring the lost moral sense, as
well as directing the perverted taste to more wholesome and beautiful
objects.
To solve this part of the problem, then, it will be necessary that
we should take as comprehensive a view of the subject as possible,
collecting a large and multifarious body of facts, and examining
the matter from almost every conceivable point of view. It will be
necessary that we should regard it by the light of the early ages of
society--that we should contemplate it amid all the primitive rudeness
of barbaric life--and ultimately that we should study it under the many
varied phases that it assumes in civilized communities.
For the better performance of this task I have availed myself of the
services and assistance of my friend, Mr. Horace St. John, whom I shall
now leave to lay before the reader the many curious and interesting
facts which he has collected at my request in connection with the
ancient and foreign part of the subject, after which I shall return to
the consideration of that branch of the general inquiry connected more
immediately with the prostitution of this country.
OF PROSTITUTION IN ANCIENT STATES: GENERAL VIEW.
In the following inquiry, though the chief object will be to ascertain
the extent and character of the prostitute class of women, it will be
necessary to indicate generally the condition of the sex in various
ages, and among different nations. This will afford a comparative view
of the subject. It is impossible to form a judgment on the condition
of this class, and its influence on society, without learning in what
degree of estimation morality is viewed by a people; what position in
the social scale is occupied by their women; at what price chastity
is held; and what are the relative stations of the sexes. To afford
a correct idea of this, in plain, popular language, is the task to
which we now apply ourselves; and we commence with the ancient states
whose institutions have, in a greater or less degree, influenced those
of all others, in every later age. It is necessary to maintain a
distinction between those countries where marriage was an institution,
and those--if they are not quite fabulous--at least savage communities
where the intercourse of men with women is looser than that of beasts.