{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_59480/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_59480","id":"gutenberg_59480","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59480","summary":null,"tags":["Birth control","Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Malthusianism"],"text":"Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net/ for Project\nGutenberg (This book was produced from scanned images of\npublic domain material from the Google Books project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                        THE MALTHUSIAN HANDBOOK\n\n                  Designed to induce Married People to\n                Limit their Families within their Means.\n\n\n                            PRICE SIXPENCE.\n\n                                LONDON:\n                    W. H. REYNOLDS, NEW CROSS, S.E.\n                          4th Edition.--1898.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIn every civilised State the problem of poverty is one which presses\nfor solution. In some European countries it has, at times, locally\nassumed a critical and menacing form, threatening the very foundations\nupon which society is based. Revolutions have sprung from the fact\nthat people needed food and could not obtain it; and, even in our own\n\"highly favored\" land, honest, industrious men are often driven to\ndespair because they can neither get work nor food.\n\nOccasional outbreaks and demonstrations, however, are by no means the\ntrue measure of national poverty. Beneath the glittering surface of\nsociety there lies a seething mass of want and misery. The victims\nsuffer in silence and make no sign, but their existence constitutes a\npermanent danger to the general welfare. Destitution is in numberless\ninstances the parent of crime and prostitution, with their chain of\ndisastrous consequences; overcrowding, semi-starvation and squalor are\nthe fruitful sources of disease which scruples not to travel beyond\nits birthplace and to infect the homes of the wealthy. Modern society\nmay be fitly compared to a magnificent palace reared in a miasmatic\nswamp, which fills the air with its death-dealing exhalations. No\ncunning artifices of builders or engineers can afford protection in\nsuch a case. In like manner, society cannot hope to escape from the\ninfluences which make for corruption and ultimate dissolution whilst\nit suffers poverty to remain in its midst.\n\nIt is, indeed, unnecessary to insist upon the evils and the national\ndangers arising from poverty; for they are admitted upon all hands. The\nproblem is: How can poverty be abolished? Upon this vital point\nopinions differ widely. The evil is so complex and many-sided that\nobservers are apt to be misled by a partial view of the symptoms. For\nexample, a total abstainer, concentrating his attention upon instances\nin which poverty has been brought about by excessive indulgence in\nalcoholic liquors, urges that drink is the \"cause of poverty.\" The\nSocialist asks \"Why are the many poor?\" and answers that the remedy\nconsists in the nationalisation of land and the instruments of\nproduction, the abolition of competition, etc. Others attribute\nthe existence of poverty to idleness or to want of thrift amongst\nthe workers. In no case, however, is the alleged cause equal to the\npalpable effect; and it is necessary to extend the enquiry in another\ndirection if we are to discover the cause which, above and beyond all\nothers, produces the want and misery that everybody desires to remove.\n\nThe purpose of this little work is, first, to show that an excessive\nincrease of population is the source from which these evils arise. In\nthe second place, the means by which population may be kept under\ncontrol will be explained, for it is useless to warn people of a\ndanger if they are kept in ignorance of the means by which it may\nbe avoided. Above all, it is to the poor that this knowledge must be\nconveyed, for, as we shall show in the following pages, the indigent\nclass multiplies far more rapidly than the well-to-do, and it is upon\nthemselves that the consequent misery necessarily falls.\n\nExperience teaches that almost all the ills which afflict mankind can\nbe obviated by a careful study of nature and by conduct based upon\ndue observance of natural laws. In the darkness of ignorance men\nmust stumble into many pitfalls; but in the clear light of reason\nand knowledge they can discern the path which leads to freedom and\nhappiness.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MALTHUSIAN HANDBOOK.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nMALTHUS AND THE LAW OF POPULATION.\n\n\nIf it be desired to discover a remedy for an admitted evil, the first\nstep must necessarily be to ascertain its cause. All schemes for\nthe mitigation of the effects of poverty must in the long run end in\nfailure, no matter how ambitious may be the undertakings of those who\nengage in this futile work. The captain of a sinking vessel does not\nconfine his attention to the pumps, he seeks without delay to stop\nthe inrush of water. And in dealing with the question of poverty it\nis essential that its root-cause be discovered before any hope of\narriving at a solution of the problem can reasonably be entertained.\n\nAn enquiry into the facts of nature will show that all forms of\nvegetable and animal life are capable of reproducing themselves\nin almost boundless profusion. Darwin, in his work on The Origin\nof Species, points this out with the greatest clearness. He says:\n\"There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally\nincreases at so high a rate that, if not destroyed, the earth would\nsoon be covered with the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding\nman has doubled in twenty-five years; and at this rate, in a few\nthousand years, there would literally not be standing-room for his\nprogeny. Linn\u00e6us has calculated that if an annual plant produced\nonly two seeds--and there is no plant so unproductive as this--and\ntheir seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then, in twenty\nyears there would be a million plants.\" After giving the example of\nthe slow-breeding elephant, he continues: \"Still more striking is\nthe evidence from our domestic animals of many kinds which have run\nwild in many parts of the world; if the statements of the rate of\nincrease of slow-breeding cattle and horses in South America, and\nlatterly in Australia, had not been well authenticated, they would\nhave been incredible. So it is with plants: cases could be given of\nintroduced plants which have become common throughout whole islands in\nless than ten years. Several of the plants, such as the cardoon and\na tall thistle, now most numerous over the wild plains of La Plata,\nclothing square leagues of surface almost to the exclusion of all other\nplants, have been introduced from Europe; and there are plants which\nnow range in India, as I hear from Dr. Falconer, from Cape Comorin\nto the Himalayas, which have been imported from America since its\ndiscovery. In such cases, and endless instances could be given, no\none supposes that the fertility of these animals or plants has been\nsuddenly and temporarily increased in any sensible degree. The obvious\nexplanation is that the conditions of life have been very favorable,\nand that there has consequently been less destruction of the old and\nyoung, and that nearly all the young have been able to breed. In such\ncases, the geometrical rate of increase, the result of which never\nfails to be surprising, simply explains the extraordinarily rapid\nincrease and wide diffusion of naturalised productions in their new\nhomes. In a state of nature, almost every plant produces seed, and\namong animals there are very few that do not annually pair. Hence\nwe may confidently assert that all plants and animals are tending\nto increase at a geometrical ratio; that all would most rapidly\nstock every station in which they could anyhow exist, and that the\ngeometrical tendency to increase must be checked by destruction at\nsome period of life.\"\n\nIt was the observation of this striking fact in nature which led\nan English clergyman, the Rev. Thomas B. Malthus, to study deeply\nthe question of poverty, and to formulate as \"the principle of\npopulation\" that which is now almost universally regarded as a law of\nnature. Before he published his great work the view was generally\naccepted that the wealth of a country was in proportion to its\npopulation; and statesmen frequently attempted to stimulate, by the\ndistribution of bounties to the parents of excessively large families,\nthe natural rate of increase. A few far-sighted men, such as the\nelder Mirabeau, Quesnay, and Adam Smith, partially perceived the true\ndoctrine; but it remained for Malthus to examine the question in all\nits bearings, and to collect patiently and laboriously an overwhelming\narray of facts which established his contention beyond all reasonable\ndoubt. It will be well here to give some account of this remarkable\nman and of the work with which his name is indissolubly associated.\n\nThomas Robert Malthus was born at Dorking, Surrey, in 1766. At the\nage of thirty-one he became a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge,\nand shortly afterwards took orders, officiating in a small village\nin Surrey.\n\nIn the closing years of the eighteenth century, the minds of men in\nEngland were powerfully influenced by the great social upheaval taking\nplace in France, and political views in this country were entering\nupon a new phase. The rights of man were coming to be regarded as\nsomething more than a phrase, and a generous desire to promote the\nwelfare of the people was gradually taking the place of selfish\nindifference. Condorcet in France, and William Godwin in England,\npromulgated the view that the happiness of mankind depended chiefly\nupon the justice of political institutions, and that national welfare\ncould be indefinitely promoted by just government. Daniel Malthus (the\nfather of Thomas Robert), a man of sanguine and romantic temperament,\nwarmly espoused the ideas set forth by Godwin, and frequently discussed\nthe subject with his son. The younger man, however, by no means\nshared the paternal enthusiasm, and, following the lines suggested\nby Hume, Adam Smith, and other writers, he maintained that vice and\nmisery were two powerful obstacles to the improvement of society,\nand urged, further, that the tendency of mankind to increase more\nrapidly than the means of subsistence gave rise to these evils. His\narguments made a deep impression upon the mind of Daniel Malthus, who\nrequested his son to put them in writing. This was accordingly done,\nand in 1798 T. R. Malthus published the first edition of his work:\nAn Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future\nImprovement of Society; with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin,\nMr. Condorcet and other Writers. (London: 1798. One volume.)\n\nThis book aroused a lively controversy, the writer's theories and\nconclusions being attacked and defended by various writers. The great\ninterest excited by his essay caused Malthus to enquire still more\ndeeply into the phenomena of poverty, and he determined to travel\nthrough Europe for the purpose of collecting facts bearing upon the\nsubject. In 1799 he visited the continent, passing through Denmark,\nSweden, and part of Russia, and, later, Switzerland and Savoy. The\nresults of his researches furnished overwhelming proof of the accuracy\nof his contention; and in 1803 he published a second and much enlarged\nedition of his Essay, in two volumes. During the remainder of his\nlife, Malthus thrice edited new editions of his work, which to this\nday remains the greatest monument of his honorable career. He died\non 29th December, 1834.\n\nIt is not intended here to give an exhaustive analysis of Malthus's\nPrinciple of Population. [1] We are concerned only with his theory\nof population and the conclusions to which that theory points. \"The\nprincipal object of this essay,\" says the author, \"is to examine the\neffects of one great cause intimately connected with the very nature\nof man, which, though it has been constantly and powerfully operating\nsince the commencement of society, has been little noticed by the\nwriters who have treated this subject. The cause to which I allude\nis the constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the\nnourishment prepared for it.\n\n\"Dr. Franklin has observed that there is no bound to the prolific\nnature of plants or animals but what is made by their crowding and\ninterfering with each other's means of subsistence. Were the face of\nthe earth, he says, vacant of other plants, it might be gradually sowed\nand overspread with one kind only--as, for instance, with fennel;\nand were it empty of other inhabitants, it might in a few ages be\nreplenished from one nation only, as, for instance, with Englishmen.\n\n\"This is incontrovertibly true. Through the animal and vegetable\nkingdoms Nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the\nmost profuse and liberal hand; but has been comparatively sparing\nin the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs\nof existence contained in this earth, if they could freely develop\nthemselves, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few\nthousand years. Necessity, that imperious, all-pervading law of Nature,\nrestrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and\nthe race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law, and man\ncannot by any efforts of reason escape from it.\n\n\"In plants and irrational animals the view of the subject is\nsimple. They are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase\nof their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no doubts about\nproviding for their offspring. Wherever, therefore, there is liberty,\nthe power of increase is exerted; and the superabundant effects are\nrepressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment.\"\n\nMalthus then adduces evidence of the extremely rapid increase of\npopulation amongst mankind under conditions in which food is abundant\nand easily obtainable. He calculates that population, if unchecked,\ngoes on doubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a\ngeometrical ratio. But he points out that the food supply can by no\nmeans be increased with equal facility. Even if it were possible in\none period of twenty-five years to double the amount produced, there\nis no reason to suppose that the operation could be repeated during\nthe following twenty-five years. As the demand for food increased,\nless fruitful soils would be taken into cultivation, and the additions\nthat could be made to the former average produce would be gradually and\nregularly diminishing. Malthus then makes the following calculation:\n\n\"Let us suppose that the yearly additions which might be made to the\nformer average produce, instead of decreasing, which they certainly\nwould do, were to remain the same; and that the produce of this island\nmight be increased every twenty-five years, by a quantity equal to\nwhat it at present produces. The most enthusiastic speculator cannot\nsuppose a greater increase than this. In a few centuries it would\nmake every acre in the island like a garden.\n\n\"If this supposition be applied to the whole earth, and if it be\nallowed that the subsistence for man, which the earth affords, might\nbe increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what it\nat present produces, this will be supposing a rate of increase much\ngreater than we can imagine that any possible exertions of mankind\ncould make it.\n\n\"It may fairly be pronounced, therefore, that considering the\npresent average state of the earth, the means of subsistence, under\ncircumstances the most favorable to human industry, could not possibly\nbe made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio.\n\n\"The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when\nbrought together, will be very striking. Let us call the population\nof this island 11,000,000 (Mr. Malthus writes in 1806), and suppose\nthe present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In\nthe first twenty-five years the population would be 22,000,000, and\nthe food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal\nto this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would\nbe 44,000,000, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support\nof 33,000,000. In the next period the population would be 88,000,000,\nand the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half that\nnumber. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population\nwould be 176,000,000, and the means of subsistence only equal to the\nsupport of 55,000,000, leaving a population of 121,000,000 totally\nunprovided for.\"\n\nNow let us see how this stupendous possible power of increase in the\nhuman race has been kept in check.\n\nThe positive checks (i.e., checks which have operated through the\naction of natural laws) to an excessive increase of population\ncomprehend the premature death of children and adults by disease,\nstarvation, war and infanticide. Nature has a short and sharp way\nof dealing with her superfluous children. Amongst savage tribes the\npositive checks alone are brought into operation. The pages of human\nhistory teem with tragic records of famines decimating the unhappy\nvictims of over-population; of pestilence stalking through the land,\nslaying its tens of thousands; of wars devastating countries and\noverwhelming the inhabitants in ruin, misery and death. In certain\nparts of the world the pangs of hunger have destroyed in men and\nwomen the primal instinct of parental love; and, in the fifth chapter\nof his work, Malthus shows how, in the South Sea Islands, where the\npossible expansion of population was extremely small, the frightful\nexpedient of infanticide was largely resorted to by the inhabitants to\ncheck their natural increase. Even then, however, the pressure on the\nmeans of subsistence was so great that food became scarce at certain\nseasons of the year, and destructive wars ensued. Captain Vancouver,\nvisiting Otaheite for the second time in 1791, found that most of the\nnatives whom he had known fourteen years before had perished in battle.\n\nIn the course of numerous examples of the effects of over-population\nupon the condition of the masses in various countries, Malthus gives\na striking example of the appalling misery to which even industrious\nlaborers were reduced in densely-peopled China. He quotes the words\nof a Jesuit missionary, who stated that a Chinaman \"will pass whole\ndays in digging the earth, sometimes up to his knees in water, and\nin the evening is happy to eat a little spoonful of rice, and to\ndrink the insipid water in which it is boiled.\" This is obviously\nan exaggeration, since it would be impossible to maintain life under\nsuch conditions; but it serves to show the deplorable state to which\nthe workers may be reduced by excessive population.\n\nIt is unnecessary here to follow Malthus through his exhaustive\nsurvey of the condition of nations affected by over-population in\nvarious stages of the world's history. Our purpose is rather to\nfurnish an indication of the principle than to reproduce in detail\nthe observations upon which it is based. The most concise formula\nin which the theory of Malthus has been expressed is as follows:\n\"That population has a constant tendency to increase beyond the means\nof subsistence.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE REMEDY: OLD AND NEW.\n\n\nThe principle stated at the end of the preceding chapter being assumed,\nthe question arises: How can the evils caused by the constant tendency\ntowards over-population be prevented? The method which Mr. Malthus\nproposed was the substitution of the prudential (or birth-restricting)\nfor the positive (or life-destroying) check. He advised late marriage\nand celibacy as the most moral means of restraining population. He\nurged that men should wait until they were in a position to provide\nfor a family before undertaking the responsibilities consequent upon\nthe marriage state. He says: \"Our obligation not to marry till we have\na fair prospect of being able to support our children will appear to\ndeserve the attention of the moralist, if it can be proved that an\nattention to these obligations is of more effect in the prevention of\nmisery than all the other virtues combined; and that if, in violation\nof this duty, it was the general custom to follow the first impulse\nof nature, and marry at the age of puberty, the universal prevalence\nof every known virtue in the greatest conceivable degree would fail of\nrescuing society from the most wretched and deplorable state of want,\nand all the diseases and famines which usually accompany it.\"\n\nThis, then, was the prudential check advocated by Malthus; but since\nhis time it has been perceived that his remedy is in itself the cause\nof evils scarcely less terrible than those which it was designed\nto remove. Further, it is one which, in the vast majority of cases,\ncould not possibly be put into practice; for it assumes a power of\nmental control over the sexual passion which exists in a comparatively\nsmall number of individuals.\n\nThe physiological evils arising from celibacy, and, in lesser degree,\nfrom prolonged abstention from marriage, are of the most disastrous\nnature. Celibacy is necessarily a condition of privation and suffering,\nsince it involves the deliberate and incessant suppression of the\nmost powerful instinct of mankind. The pure and elevating joys of\nwedded and family life are shut out, and existence is shorn of its\nmost delightful features. The unselfish pleasure of promoting the\nhappiness of a loved wife and children is denied to the morbid and\ngloomy celibate, doomed to a solitary and cheerless existence. And\neven when permanent celibacy is not contemplated, marriage may be\ndeferred until the bloom and brightness of life are gone for ever,\nuntil delay and disappointment have soured the temper and choked the\nfountain of affection.\n\nDr. Bertillon, of Paris, has proved conclusively by statistics derived\nfrom France, Holland and Belgium, that married persons, especially\nmales, live much longer than single ones, and are less liable to become\ninsane, criminal, or vicious. It has been shown that the married state\nreduces the danger of insanity by nearly one-half. With regard to the\neffects of celibacy upon individuals, Dr. Holmes Coote is reported\nin the Lancet to have said: \"No doubt incontinence is a great sin;\nbut the evils connected with continence are productive of far greater\nmisery to society. Any person could bear witness to this who has had\nexperience in the wards of lunatic asylums.\"\n\nIn addition to the personal ills arising from celibacy, it must be\nremembered that late marriage directly encourages prostitution, the\nmost hideous blot upon our social state. Malthus, indeed, laid great\nstress upon the duty of chastity whilst young men were engaged in\naccumulating the means to enable them to marry and rear a family later\nin life. He might as fitly have preached to the whirlwind, or exhorted\nthe storm to moderate its violence. The power of restraint is given\nto but few men; and, even when that restraint can be exercised, it\nis only at the cost of much suffering and physical and moral detriment.\n\nThe later school of thinkers, whilst adopting the principle formulated\nby Malthus, propound an infinitely better method of compassing the\nend which he had in view. They advocate early marriage and limited\nfamilies. It is not necessary that young men and women should sacrifice\nthe youth and freshness of their lives in order that they may marry\nwhen the evening shadows are lengthening around them. The blessings\nof domestic comfort, of intimate companionship and of family love\nare opened to them in the noontide of life, when the possibility of\nenjoyment is at its highest point. Mrs. Annie Besant says: \"To be\nin harmony with nature, men and women should be husbands and wives,\nfathers and mothers, and until nature evolves a neuter sex celibacy\nwill ever be a mark of imperfection.... No one who desires society\nto be happy and healthy should recommend late marriage as a cure for\nthe social evils around us. Early marriage is best, both physically\nand morally; it guards purity, softens the affections, trains the\nheart, and preserves physical health; it teaches thought for others,\ngentleness and self-control; it makes men gentler and women braver\nfrom the contact of their differing natures. The children that spring\nfrom such marriages--where not following each other too rapidly--are\nmore vigorous and healthy than those of middle-aged parents; and in\nthe ordinary course of nature the parents of such children live long\nenough to see them make their start in life, to aid, strengthen,\nand counsel them at the beginning of their career.\"\n\nMedical science has shown that the size of families is absolutely\nunder the control of parents, if they will but exercise a reasonable\ndegree of care and forethought. A young couple may now enter the\nmarriage-state without misgiving: for the number of their offspring\ncan be regulated in proportion to their means as surely as they can\ndetermine the amount of their expenditure upon clothing or luxuries.\n\nThus the teachings of Malthusianism, combined with the later\ndevelopment of innocent prudential checks, open up boundless\npossibilities for the improvement of social conditions. When the law\nof population--a law of nature--is clearly understood, it becomes\npossible for man, by the exercise of his reason, to control its\noperation, just as he constructs dykes to protect his crops from\nfloods, or diverts the lightning harmlessly into the ground.\n\nLet us see, then, how the general adoption of the New-Malthusian\nprinciple of early marriage and limited families would affect the\nwelfare of individuals and of the nation at large.\n\nThe knowledge of prudential checks immensely increases the\npossibility of happiness for every man and woman whose means are\n\"limited.\" Marriage ceases to be a hazardous enterprise, which may\nbring in its train liabilities terribly out of proportion to the\npower of meeting them. The husband is relieved from anxiety lest\nhis children may increase whilst his ability to provide suitably\nfor them remains a fixed, or even diminishing, quantity. The wife\nneed no longer dread the burden of continual child-bearing and the\nincessant servitude of domestic drudgery. How much of the drunkenness\nthat exists amongst the working-class is due to the discomfort of a\ncrowded and cheerless home! The husband, wearied with his day's toil,\nreturns to his narrow lodgings to find his wife, harassed and soured\nby the petty cares of a large family, sharp in temper and tongue. The\ntender romance of courtship is dispelled by the never-ending round\nof household slavery, with the constant need of \"making both ends\nmeet,\" of contriving that every sixpence shall do the work of a\nshilling. And over all there hangs the haunting fear that sickness\nor loss of employment may disable the bread-winner, and that the\nwolf of hunger, ever waiting outside, may show his fangs within\nthe door. Little cause is there for wonder that in many cases the\nsweetheart of happier days becomes a shrew and slattern, or that the\ntoil-worn husband flies to the ruinous joys of the tap-room in a vain\nattempt to escape from the vexations that surround him in his \"home.\"\n\nAnd what of the children? They are at once the innocent cause and\nthe helpless victims of the misery that encompasses them. The wage\nthat would amply provide for two or three is inadequate for the\nproper support of seven or eight, and their little frames suffer from\ninsufficient nourishment. The overburdened mother cannot bestow upon\nso large a flock the loving care and attention that children need for\ntheir proper physical and mental development. Thus they grow up (if\nhaply they survive), enfeebled in mind and constitution, transmitting\nto the next generation their own defects in an aggravated form.\n\nIt is amongst the very poorest of our fellow-creatures that we see\nthe horrors of over-population in their most heartrending aspect. In\nthe squalid courts and alleys of our great cities the dismal stream\nof child-life is constantly at high-water mark. The parents, ignorant\nand hopeless, callous by reason of their daily contact with misery,\n\"increase and multiply\" instinctively, as do the beasts of the\nfield. Amongst the poor the birth-rate is (broadly speaking) double as\nhigh as that of the richer classes. A few years ago the birth-rate in\nwealthy Kensington was 20 per 1,000; in the poor district of Bethnal\nGreen it was 40 per 1,000. This deplorable state of things is not\npeculiar to Great Britain: it prevails, with slight variations as to\ndetails, in all so-called civilised countries.\n\nBut the birth-rate tells only one-half of the piteous tale: it is the\ndeath-rate which completes the measure of human suffering caused by\nthe insensate increase of population. In the course of his address\nto the Association of Sanitary Inspectors in 1888, Sir Edwin Chadwick\nstated that amongst the gentry and professional persons the deaths of\nchildren under five years of age in Brighton formed 8\u00b793 per cent. of\nthe total deaths, while among the wage-earning class they formed\n45\u00b744 per cent. He also said that in Brighton the mean (or average)\nage at death for wage-earners is 28\u00b78 years; for the rich it is 63\nyears. Dr. Playfair has shown that 18 per cent. of the children of\nthe upper class, 36 per cent. of those of the tradesman class, and\n55 per cent. of those of the workmen die before they reach the age\nof five years.\n\nHere we see the painful positive or natural checks to population at\nwork in our very midst. Death stands with his sword and ruthlessly\nstrikes out the redundant lives. What pen can picture the frightful\nsuffering indicated by the figures given above? The mother's pangs\nof child-birth: her protracted agony of grief as she watches the\nravages of disease upon the weakly frame of her ill-fed, ill-clothed,\nill-tended babe: the last dread scene when death releases from\nits misery the child that should never have been called into\nexistence! This squalid tragedy is enacted a thousand times; and the\nupshot of it all is five hundred little coffins hastily thrust into\nthe earth.\n\nAnd what of those that survive? Here and there one may rise above\nhis fellows in the struggle for existence; but the vast majority of\nthose who pass through the valley of the shadow of death emerge into\na laborious and joyless existence. Of the males a section will drift\ninto pauperism or crime; many of the females will be driven by want\nto the shameful traffic of prostitution. The honest and industrious\nare doomed to a life of incessant toil and privation; and with their\nnumerous offspring will begin another cycle of the obscure tragedy.\n\nIn this way, the nation ever renews within itself the elements\nof its own weakness and despair. The question of the unemployed is\nultimately a question of over-population; and wages are reduced by the\ncompetition, one against another, of desperate men seeking bread for\ntheir wives and families. Trade Unions and other forms of combination\nmay partially and temporarily improve the condition of a section of the\nworkers; but in the long run every advance in comfort is overtaken and\nswallowed up by the increase of population stimulated by prosperity.\n\nThus, unless the teachings of New-Malthusianism be generally acted\nupon, poverty will remain a permanent feature of society; and, as we\nhave already said, the element of poverty is a constant menace to the\ncommunity at large. The strength of a chain is that of its weakest\nlink. The wealth, luxury, and refinement of society exist upon a frail\ntenure if the desperation of the poorest class is suffered to pass\na certain limit. History has shown us the civilisation of centuries\nextinguished by hordes of barbarians, driven by hunger from their\nsterile lands. In Paris, during times of revolutionary excitement,\nthe Faubourg St. Antoine pours forth its thousands of gaunt and\ntattered spectres to make war upon society.\n\nPrudence in the matter of population, then, is seen to be the only\nway of conserving the most valuable and progressive elements in\nhuman society. In this, as in other countries, the apostles of the\nnew teaching have been confronted by the prejudices handed down from\nprevious generations; and in the succeeding chapter we shall trace\nthe history of the Malthusian movement in England and abroad.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE MALTHUSIAN MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND.\n\n\nFor many years after the publication of Mr. Malthus's great essay,\nthe principle which he had formulated did not pass beyond the region\nof more or less academic controversy. The \"theory of population\" was\ndenounced from countless pulpits and assailed by the pens of ready\nwriters; but, being based upon a patient and accurate observation\nof the facts of nature, it remained unshaken when the preachers and\ncritics were forgotten.\n\nIt would be absurd to doubt that so important a contribution to\nsocial science influenced the minds and helped to shape the conduct of\nthoughtful men; but it is beyond question that no organised attempt to\npopularise and propagate the teachings of Malthus, and to make known\nthe nature of preventive checks amongst the people of this country, was\nundertaken until the year 1877. In the first quarter of the century,\nRichard Carlile published a small pamphlet on the subject; but there\nis no reason to suppose that its effect was appreciable. Mr. Francis\nPlace and Mr. Robert Dale Owen in later years wrote essays embodying\npractically the modern Malthusian view.\n\nIn 1833, Dr. Charles Knowlton, of Boston (U.S.A.), issued a small work\non the subject of population, entitled The Fruits of Philosophy. For\nover forty years the book was sold in England, but its sale was so\nsmall that very few people were even acquainted with its title, and\nit remained in its native obscurity until it was dragged into the\nlight of day by the fortunate folly of persons who imagined that it\nwas possible to check the spread of moral enlightenment by means of\nlegal \"repression.\"\n\nIn 1876 a police prosecution was instituted against a man in\nBristol for selling The Fruits of Philosophy, and a conviction was\nobtained. In the following year the publisher of the pamphlet was also\nindicted and committed for trial; but he was liberated on promising\nthat he would no longer issue the work. Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and\nMrs. Annie Besant thereupon undertook the task of defending the right\nof publication. They reprinted and published the pamphlet, formally\ninviting the authorities to prosecute them. \"It was for the sake of\nfree discussion that we published the assailed pamphlet when its\nformer seller yielded to the pressure put upon him by the police;\nit was not so much in defence of this pamphlet, as to make the way\npossible for others dealing with the same topic that we risked the\npenalty which has fallen upon us.\" [2]\n\nThe police authorities accepted the challenge, and a prosecution was\nimmediately commenced. The trial, which lasted four days, took place\nin the Court of Queen's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn\nand a special jury. Sir Hardinge Gifford (then Solicitor-General),\nMr. Douglas Straight and Mr. Mead appeared for the prosecution;\nMr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant appeared in person.\n\nThe indictment charged the defendants with having published and\nsold an obscene book, with intent to contaminate and corrupt\npublic morals. The author of The Fruits of Philosophy advocated\nearly marriage with limitation of families, and referred in the\ncourse of his work to such preventive checks as were known at that\ntime. The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, sought to persuade\nthe jury that Dr. Knowlton speciously used that line of argument as\na disguise and pretext for suggesting illicit intercourse without\nrisk of pregnancy ensuing. An indignant rebuke from Sir Alexander\nCockburn caused the Solicitor-General to abandon that line of false\nsuggestion, and to fall back upon the contention that it was illegal\nto issue a work containing \"a chapter on restriction, not written\nin any learned language, but in plain English, in a facile form,\nand sold ... at sixpence.\" He therefore asked the jury to declare\nthat the book was an \"obscene publication.\"\n\nThe speech of the Solicitor-General and his general conduct of the case\nare matters of trivial importance; the notable features of the trial\nwere the addresses of the two defendants and the summing-up by the Lord\nChief Justice. Mrs. Besant's speech to the jury was a remarkable and\nmemorable effort. She examined and discussed the population question\nin every aspect, contending that, in view of the evils arising from\nexcessive increase, the advocacy of prudential methods was a sacred\nduty to humanity. In the opening passages of her speech she pointed\nout, in the most impressive manner, that she pleaded for the welfare\nof others:\n\n\n    It is not as defendant that I plead to you to-day--not simply\n    as defending myself do I stand here--but I speak as counsel\n    for hundreds of the poor, and it is they for whom I defend this\n    case. My clients are scattered up and down through the length\n    and breadth of the land; I find them amongst the poor, amongst\n    whom I have been so much; I find my clients amongst the fathers,\n    who see their wage ever reducing, and prices ever rising; I\n    find my clients amongst the mothers worn out with over-frequent\n    child-bearing, and with two or three little ones around too young\n    to guard themselves, while they have no time to guard them. It\n    is enough for a woman at home to have the care, the clothing,\n    the training of a large family of young children to look to;\n    but it is a harder task when oftentimes the mother, who should\n    be at home with her little ones, has to go out and work in the\n    fields for wage to feed them when her presence is needed in the\n    house. I find my clients among the little children. Gentlemen,\n    do you know the fate of so many of these children?--the little\n    ones half-starved because there is food enough for two but not\n    enough for twelve; half-clothed because the mother, no matter what\n    her skill and care, cannot clothe them with the money brought\n    home by the breadwinner of the family; brought up in ignorance,\n    and ignorance means pauperism and crime--gentlemen, your happier\n    circumstances have raised you above this suffering, but on you\n    also this question presses; for these over-large families mean\n    also increased poor-rates, which are growing heavier year by\n    year. These poor are my clients, and if I weary you by length\n    of speech, as I fear I may, I do so because I must think of them\n    more even than I think of your time or trouble.\n\n\nWith righteous indignation Mrs. Besant repelled the accusation that\nThe Fruits of Philosophy was an \"obscene\" publication. She showed\nby a quotation from Lord Campbell's Act (upon which the prosecution\nwas based) that the statutory definition of obscenity could not\npossibly be applied to a book containing \"dry physiological details\nput forward in dry, technical language.\" She next proceeded to urge\nthat the right of free discussion upon matters of public welfare was\nreally attacked by the prosecution:\n\n\n    Do you, gentlemen, think for one moment that myself and my\n    co-defendant are fighting the simple question of the sale or\n    publication of this sixpenny volume of Dr. Knowlton's? Do you\n    think that we would have placed ourselves in the position in\n    which we are at the present moment for the mere profit to be\n    derived from a sixpenny pamphlet of forty-seven pages? No, it\n    is nothing of the sort; we have a much larger interest at stake,\n    and one of vital interest to the public, one which we shall spend\n    our whole lives in trying to uphold. The question really is one of\n    the right to public discussion by means of publication, and that\n    question is bound up in the right to sell this sixpenny pamphlet\n    which the Solicitor-General despises on account of its price.\n\n\nIt would, however, be impossible to give, by extracts of reasonable\nlength, an adequate idea of the striking and eloquent speech which\nMrs. Besant addressed to the jury in her defence. The whole question\nof over-population and its consequences was examined with the greatest\ncare and completeness. Profoundly convinced of the justice of her\ncause, Mrs. Besant pleaded that the teachings of New-Malthusianism,\nby making early marriage possible, promoted happiness and morality. She\nsaid:\n\n\n    I think, therefore, I may fairly put it that every young man\n    naturally desires to make a home and enter upon married life\n    when first he comes out into the world. I do not believe that\n    any young man sets out with the intention of rushing into fast\n    life and dissipation, but men are frequently drawn into habits\n    of that kind because they fear the results that follow from\n    early marriage. Since I am told that our object is to increase\n    immorality, and that we only use the word \"marriage\" to conceal\n    the foulest designs upon the purity of society, I may say freely\n    that I hold early marriages to be the very salvation of young men,\n    and especially of young men in our large cities. I hold the belief\n    with a depth of conviction which I cannot put to you in words,\n    that for one man and one woman to help, comfort, and support\n    one another, which they are by nature adapted to do, is a state\n    which is to be reached, which is to be perpetuated, by marriage\n    and in no other way. It is only by companionship, and the union\n    between a man and a woman, that this is possible. Shut a man out\n    from the loving influence of home, the golden institutions of\n    the fireside, his wife's society, and the happiness of becoming\n    a father, and you induce a life of profligacy. Gentlemen, do not\n    be deceived. There is no talk in this book of preventing men and\n    women from becoming parents; all that is sought here is to limit\n    the number of their family. And we do not aim at that because\n    we do not love children, but, on the contrary, because we do\n    love them, and because we wish to prevent them from coming into\n    the world in greater numbers than there is the means of properly\n    providing for. Children, I believe, have an influence upon parents\n    purifying in the highest degree, because they teach the parents\n    self-restraint, self-denial, thoughtfulness, and tenderness to an\n    extent that cannot possibly be over-estimated; and it is because\n    I wish to have it made possible for young men and for young women\n    to have these influences brought to bear upon them in their youth,\n    that I advocate the circulation of a book that will put within\n    their reach the knowledge of how to limit the extent of their\n    families within their capabilities of providing for them; for\n    no man can look with pride and happiness upon his home if he has\n    more children than he can clothe and educate. It is because I wish\n    them to marry in the springtime of their youth that I ask you by\n    your verdict in this action to make discussion on these subjects\n    possible, and that men should not be driven to find a substitute\n    for true and pure womanhood and wifehood in other directions. If\n    you render this possible you will make your streets purer and\n    your families happier than they are at present.\n\n\nHaving in the course of a prolonged speech explained and vindicated the\nNew-Malthusian doctrine from misrepresentations inspired by ignorance,\nprejudice, and bigotry, Mrs. Besant concluded her memorable address\nin the following words:\n\n\n    I fairly put it that unless you honestly believe that my whole\n    speech to you has been one mass of falsehoods; unless you\n    believe my intent to be a bad intent; unless you believe I have\n    been deliberately deceiving you throughout, and stand here before\n    you in the very worst character a woman could take upon herself,\n    namely, that of striving to corrupt the morals of the young under\n    the false pretence of purity here put forward, and unless you think\n    that, for the after-part of my life, I deserve to pass through it\n    with the brand upon me that twelve gentlemen, after all patience,\n    thought not only that the book was a mistake, the opinions wrong,\n    and the arguments unconvincing, but, in the terrible language\n    of the indictment, that I am guilty of \"wickedly devising and\n    contriving as much as in me lay to vitiate and corrupt the morals\n    of youth\" as well as of others,--unless, I say, you believe that\n    that has been my object and purpose, on this indictment, I shall\n    call upon you, gentlemen, to return a verdict of \"Not Guilty,\"\n    and to send me home free, believing from my heart and conscience\n    that I have been guilty only of doing that which I ought to do in\n    grappling honestly with a matter I consider myself justified in\n    grappling with--that terrible poverty and misery which is around\n    us on every hand. Unless you are prepared, gentlemen, to brand\n    me with malicious meaning, I ask you, as an English woman, for\n    that justice which it is not impossible to expect at the hands\n    of Englishmen--I ask you to give me a verdict of \"Not Guilty,\"\n    and to send me home unstained.\n\n\nMr. Bradlaugh, in his speech, dealt more fully than his co-defendant\nhad been able to do with the legal and physiological aspects of\nthe case. In the clearest fashion he maintained the lawfulness of\ndisseminating the knowledge of innocent prudential checks:\n\n\n    I submit to you, gentlemen of the jury, that it is moral to teach\n    poor people to marry early, and that this teaching avoids and will\n    diminish illicit intercourse. I will not weary you with reading\n    the whole of the report on the \"Employment of Women and Children\n    in Agriculture,\" from which my co-defendant quoted that terrible\n    extract from the report of Bishop Fraser. You will there find\n    that the illicit intercourse which we are charged with trying to\n    produce is an illicit intercourse which is going on and bringing\n    with it the birth of the child, and bringing with it the murder of\n    the child by the mother, because there is the pang of starvation\n    and misery and shame to contend with. I say that it is amongst the\n    poor married people that the evils of over-population are chiefly\n    felt, and that it cannot tend to deprave their morals to teach\n    them how to intelligently check this over-population.... I submit\n    that the advocacy of all checks is lawful except such as advocate\n    the destruction of the foetus after conception or of the child\n    after birth. I say that the advocacy of every birth-restricting\n    check is lawful which is not the advocacy of the destruction of\n    human life in any form after that life has been created.\n\n\nAssuming the legality of such advocacy, it is useless unless conveyed\nin plain and simple language:\n\n\n    I say that the advocacy of any check amongst the masses to be\n    useful must of necessity be put in the plainest language and in\n    the cheapest form, and be widely spread; and I press that upon\n    you because I understand that the learned Solicitor-General in\n    his argument put it that one of the faults of this pamphlet was\n    that it was not obscured in learned language. If we possessed the\n    facility of expressing ourselves in French, or Italian, or Greek,\n    or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, what earthly use would that be\n    to the poor unfortunate wretches whose misery we want to address?\n\n\nAfter traversing with his accustomed skill and acumen the charges\nformulated by the prosecution, Mr. Bradlaugh concluded his address\nwith a peroration full of passionate eloquence:\n\n\n    We want (he said) to make the poor more comfortable; and you\n    tell us we are immoral. We want to prevent them bringing into\n    the world little children to suck death, instead of life, at\n    the breasts of their mother; and you tell us we are immoral. I\n    should not say that, perhaps, for you, gentlemen, may judge things\n    differently from myself; but I know the poor. I belong to them. I\n    was born amongst them. Among them are the early associations of my\n    life. Such little ability as I possess to-day has come to me in\n    the hard struggle of life. I have had no University to polish my\n    tongue; no Alma Mater to give to me any eloquence by which to move\n    you. I plead here simply for the class to which I belong, and for\n    the right to tell them what may redeem their poverty and alleviate\n    their misery. And I ask you to believe in your heart of hearts,\n    even if you deliver a verdict against us here--I ask you, at least,\n    to try and believe both for myself and the lady who sits besides\n    me (I hope it for myself, and I earnestly wish it for her), that\n    all through we have meant to do right, even if you think that we\n    have done wrong.... My co-defendant referred, in earnest language,\n    to the letters which she had received from women, and clergymen,\n    and others throughout the country. I, too, have received many warm\n    words of sympathy from those who think that I am right. It is true\n    many of them may be ignorant people, and therefore may be wrong;\n    but they have written to encourage me with their kindly sympathy\n    in my pleading before you. If we are branded with the offence of\n    circulating an obscene book, many of these poor people will still\n    think \"No.\" They think such knowledge would prevent misery in\n    their families, would check hunger in their families, and would\n    hinder disease in their families. Do you know what poverty means\n    in a poor man's house? It means that when you are reproaching a\n    poor and ignorant man with brutality, you forget that he is merely\n    struggling against that hardship of life which drives all chivalry\n    and courtesy out of his existence. Do not blame poor men too much\n    that they are rough and brutal. Think mercifully of a man such as\n    a brick-maker, who, going home after his day's toil, finds six\n    or seven little ones crying for bread, and clinging around his\n    wife for the food which they cannot get. Think you such a scene\n    as that is not sufficient to make both himself and her hungry and\n    angry too? Gentlemen, it is for you, in your deliverance of guilty\n    or not guilty, to say how we are to go from this court--whether,\n    when we leave this place, if you mark us guilty, his lordship\n    may feel it to be his duty to sentence us, and put upon us the\n    brand of a doom such as your verdict may warrant; or whether, by\n    your verdict of not guilty--which I hope for myself and desire\n    for my co-defendant--we may go out of this court absolved from\n    that shame which this indictment has sought to put upon us.\n\n\nWe must pass over the evidence given by Dr. Alice Vickery,\nDr. C. R. Drysdale, Mr. Bohn and others for the defence; and refer\nbriefly to the summing-up of the Lord Chief Justice (Sir Alexander\nCockburn). His lordship dwelt upon \"the mischievous character and\neffect\" of the prosecution, and declared that \"a more ill-advised and\nmore injudicious proceeding\" had probably never been brought into a\ncourt of justice. He adverted in terms of severity to the secrecy that\nhad been maintained as to the real originators of the prosecution. In\ndiscussing the questions involved, his lordship referred to the\ntheory of Malthus as \"a theory which astonished the world, though\nit is now accepted as an irrefragable truth, and has since been\nadopted by economist after economist. That the evils arising from\nover-population,\" he continued, \"are evils which, if they could be\nprevented, it would be the first business of human charity to prevent,\nthere cannot be any doubt. That the evils of population are real,\nand not imaginary, no one acquainted with the state of society in\nthe present day can possibly deny.\" Upon the question whether or not\nthe advocacy of prudential checks tended to corrupt public morals,\nhis lordship said to the jury: \"You must decide that with a due\nregard and reference to the law, and with an honest and determined\ndesire to maintain the morals of mankind. But, on the other hand, you\nmust carefully consider what is due to public discussion, and with\nan anxious desire not, from any prejudiced view of this subject, to\nstifle what may be a subject of legitimate enquiry.\" The concluding\npassages of the charge to the jury are so significant that they are\nhere reproduced entire:\n\n\n    If you are of opinion that this work of Knowlton's, although well\n    intended, and although the publication of it by the defendants\n    may be intended for the benefit of mankind, if you think they\n    have taken an erroneous view as to the effect of the work, and\n    that its entire scope is subversive of the morals of society,\n    if that is your opinion, it is then your bounden duty to find\n    the defendants liable. But whilst that is the case, it is for\n    the prosecution to make out the charge they have undertaken to\n    establish. If you think they have failed--if you think these are\n    matters which may fairly be discussed--that the proper answer to\n    them is by refuting them by argument and not by prosecution, the\n    defendants are entitled to your verdict. Or if you have any doubt\n    as to the effect of this work you are bound to bring them in not\n    guilty. I would only say in conclusion, that whatever outrages\n    decency, whatever tends to corrupt the morals of society, and\n    especially the morals and purity of women--whatever tends to have\n    that result is, when published, an offence against the law. But\n    that offence like every other must be made out. If you think it\n    is made out, if there is a conviction in your minds that though\n    they have acted from a desire to do good, yet in your opinion\n    they have done wrong, they have then brought themselves within\n    the definition of the statute.\n\n\nDespite the powerful speeches of the defendants and the obviously\nsympathetic charge of the judge, the jury were not equal to their\nopportunity to make a clear stand for freedom of discussion. They\nreturned a halting \"special\" verdict, declaring that the book was\n\"calculated to deprave public morals,\" but at the same time they\nentirely exonerated the defendants from any corrupt motives in\npublishing it. Upon this the judge reluctantly directed the jury to\nreturn a verdict of guilty.\n\nThe remainder of the story is most concisely told in Mrs. Besant's\nown words: \"Obviously annoyed at the verdict, the Lord Chief Justice\nrefused to give judgment, and let us go on our own recognisances. When\nwe came up later for judgment, he urged us to surrender the pamphlet as\nthe jury had condemned it; said our whole course with regard to it had\nbeen right, but that we ought to yield to the judgment of the jury. We\nwere obstinate, and I shall never forget the pathetic way in which the\ngreat judge urged us to submit, and how at last when we persisted that\nwe would continue to sell it till the right to sell it was gained, he\nsaid that he would have let us go free if we would have yielded to the\ncourt, but our persistence compelled him to sentence us. We gave notice\nof appeal, promising not to sell till the appeal was decided, and he\nlet us go on our own recognisances. On appeal we quashed the verdict,\nand went free; we recovered all the pamphlets seized, and publicly\nsold them; we continued the sale till we received an intimation that\nno further prosecution would be attempted against us, and then we\ndropped the sale of the pamphlet and never took it up again.\" [3]\n\n\n\nHaving given an account of this memorable trial, we proceed to trace\nsome of its far-reaching effects. In the first place, Dr. Knowlton's\npamphlet gained immediately an enormous circulation. Before the\nprosecution the annual sales were very small; within three months from\nthe time when proceedings were instituted against the publishers,\n125,000 copies were sold. But this result, startling as it appears,\nwas by no means the most important phase of the impetus given to the\npublic mind upon the question of population by the cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre of\n\"The Queen versus Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant.\" During the\ntrial the newspapers of this country contained lengthy reports of\nthe proceedings, and the remarkable speeches of the defendants\nwere thus carried far and wide. Their popular statements of the\nMalthusian position, their description of the evils arising from\nover-population and the remedies that they proposed were sent\nforth into many thousands of homes into which no hint of the truth\nwould otherwise have penetrated. The press, with its myriad voices,\nbecame, for the time, a mighty organ of New-Malthusian propaganda,\nrepeating, in tones that echoed round the world, the eloquent words\nof two social reformers to whom the miseries of the poor were known,\nand who had faced the danger of imprisonment and of social obloquy\nin order to proclaim that which they felt to be the only efficient\nremedy for poverty.\n\nAmidst the public excitement caused by this famous trial, The\nMalthusian League was called into existence, and has since carried\nforward the work of propaganda in an organised and systematic\nfashion. It was founded to promote the following objects:\n\nI. To agitate for the abolition of all penalties on the public\ndiscussion of the Population Question, and to obtain such a statutory\ndefinition as shall render it impossible, in the future, to bring\nsuch discussions within the scope of the common law as a misdemeanor.\n\nII. To spread among the people, by all practicable means, a knowledge\nof the law of population, of its consequences, and of its bearing\nupon human conduct and morals.\n\nDr. Charles R. Drysdale, M.D., F.R.C.S., Eng., has from the first\nbeen the President of the League, and has devoted himself to the\nwork of explaining and advocating the New-Malthusian principle. The\nlist of Vice-Presidents has included the names of the late M. Yves\nGuyot, a distinguished French deput\u00e9 and Minister of State, and of\nMr. J. Bryson, President of the Northumberland Miners' Association. A\nreference to its present composition will show the reader that the\nefforts of the League to spread enlightened views on the population\nquestion have the approval and sympathy of influential persons in\nthis and in other countries. [4]\n\nThe work of the League is chiefly carried on by public lectures and\nmeetings, the dissemination of literature, and letters addressed\nto the editors of newspapers. By these means the public mind is\nconstantly being influenced in the direction of rational views upon\nthe population question.\n\nThe annual meetings of members and friends of the League have afforded\nvaluable opportunities of obtaining expressions of opinion upon\nthe subject of Malthusianism from many influential persons. Letters\nexpressing hearty approval of the movement have been received from\nMrs. Mona Caird, Lord Derby, Lord Pembroke, the late Lord Bramwell,\nMr. Leonard Courtney, M.P., Mr. W. B. Maclaren, M.P., Professor Bain,\nMr. Arnold White, Mr. G. H. Darwin and others.\n\nFour years after the formation of the League, a \"Medical Branch\"\nwas established for the following purposes:\n\nI. To aid the Malthusian League in its crusade against poverty and\nthe accompanying evils by obtaining the co-operation of qualified\nmedical practitioners, both British and foreign.\n\nII. To obtain a body of scientific opinion on points of sexual\nphysiology and pathology involved in the \"Population Question,\" and\nwhich can only be discussed by those possessed of scientific knowledge.\n\nIII. To agitate for a free and open discussion of the Population\nQuestion in all its aspects in the medical press, and thus to obtain\na recognition of the scientific oasis and the absolute necessity\nof Neo-Malthusianism.\n\nIt will be seen that the work of this section is of a special and\nscientific character. The names of the officers and members (given\nin the appendix) will show that the advocacy of prudential checks\nto population is sanctioned by a body of physicians of unquestioned\neminence.\n\nHaving given an outline of the permanent organisation of Malthusian\npropaganda which grew out of the events of 1877, we proceed to trace\nbriefly the history of the movement from that period. It is in the main\na story of petty persecutions on the one side, and, upon the other,\nof steady persistence in the work of informing the public mind. The\nprincipal obstacle to the progress of the movement, and one which it\nis slowly but surely surmounting, is the prejudice born of ignorance\nand bigotry. Journalists, statesmen and other leaders of opinion do not\nhesitate to avow their adhesion to the principle formulated by Malthus;\nbut they are, almost without exception, dominated by the fear of\nMrs. Grundy, and shrink from incurring the odium which, they imagine,\nwould result from a frank recognition of the only logical outcome\nof that principle. They join loudly in the chorus on the evils of\nover-population; but, as a rule, they will lend no public countenance\nto the distinct advocacy of prudential checks. Hence the task of the\npioneers of the movement is rendered excessively difficult; but from\nthe very inception of the Malthusian League, the work of propaganda has\nbeen carried forward with unfailing devotion and singleness of purpose.\n\nIn its earliest days, the League was called upon to support one of\nits most respected members under stress of persecution. In February,\n1878, Mr. Edward Truelove was prosecuted and tried before Lord Chief\nJustice Cockburn for publishing the Hon. Robert Dale Owen's pamphlet\nentitled Moral Physiology, and an essay on Individual, Family,\nand National Poverty, by an anonymous author. Mr. W. A. Hunter, in\ndefending the case, made a most powerful speech in support of the\nMalthusian position. The jury were unable to agree upon a verdict,\nand the proceedings came to an abortive termination. Three months\nlater, however, Mr. Truelove was a second time placed upon his trial,\nthe venue meanwhile being changed from the Court of Queen's Bench\nto the Old Bailey. A common jury found no difficulty in returning a\nverdict of guilty, and Mr. Truelove (then in his sixty-eighth year)\nwas sentenced to pay a fine of \u00a350 and to be imprisoned for four\nmonths. A great public meeting was held at St. James's Hall on June\n6th, when Mr. Bradlaugh, Mrs. Besant, Dr. Drysdale and other friends\nof the movement protested against the action of the authorities in\nthus interfering with the right of free discussion, and expressed\ntheir admiration of Mr. Truelove's courage and consistency.\n\nMr. Truelove endured the privations of imprisonment with fortitude and\ndignity, sustained by the knowledge that his cause was righteous. He\nwas taken to Coldbath Fields in a prison-van, handcuffed like a\ndangerous criminal; compelled to lie on the \"plank-bed,\" and subjected\nto all the rigors of gaol discipline. During the first three months\nhe was allowed no meat; after that time he was permitted to have six\nounces of Australian tinned meat per week. Happily the confinement\nand hardships did not prejudicially affect his health.\n\nOn September 12th he was welcomed back to liberty by a large and\nenthusiastic gathering of friends at the Hall of Science, London. The\nleading members of the Malthusian League were present, and Mr. Moncure\nD. Conway, and the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam attended to do honor to\none who had suffered for conscience sake. A purse containing \u00a3200\nwas presented to Mr. Truelove, together with the following testimonial:\n\n\n    To Edward Truelove, on his release from four months' imprisonment\n    in Coldbath Fields Prison--suffered in defence of the Liberty of\n    the Press.\n\n\n    The undersigned, on behalf of the National Secular Society and\n    of the Malthusian League, desire to welcome you on your return to\n    liberty, and to offer you their heartiest thanks for the courage\n    and endurance you have displayed, in defending the right of free\n    publication of opinion.\n\n    The battle for the liberty of the press has been steadily waged\n    ever since the invention of printing, and a long muster-roll of\n    names might be given of those who, first at the stake, and since in\n    prison, have in turn paid their share of the penalty-purchase for\n    the victories already achieved. You have worthily entitled yourself\n    to an honorable place in this muster-roll, the more so that you\n    have stood firm in a day when too many temporise and flinch. From\n    almost every part of England, and from remote districts, as well as\n    from the great centres of Scotland, many thousands of your fellow\n    countrymen and countrywomen have pleaded for your release, and from\n    all parts of the civilised world expressions have been received,\n    of sympathy with you, and of indignation against your persecutors.\n\n    As some slight mark of our gratitude and affectionate esteem,\n    and in recognition of the honor with which you have crowned a long\n    life of unwavering courage, we present you this address, and the\n    accompanying purse of gold, begging you to accept with them our\n    sincerest wishes for your future welfare. Signed on behalf of\n\n\n    The National Secular Society.\n\n    Chas. Bradlaugh, President.\n    Robert Forder, Secretary.\n\n    The Malthusian League.\n\n    C. Drysdale, M.D., President.\n    Annie Besant, Hon. Sec.\n\n    Hall of Science, 12th September, 1878.\n\n\nThe case of Mr. Truelove was the last prosecution of importance in\nthis country for the publication of works dealing with the population\nquestion. The proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant,\nafter being quashed in the Court of Appeal upon a writ of error, were\nnever renewed. Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet, The Fruits of Philosophy,\nwas withdrawn from circulation, and Mrs. Besant wrote a small book,\nThe Law of Population: its consequences and its bearing upon human\nconduct and morals, to take its place. Of this work nearly 200,000\ncopies were circulated in Great Britain; many pirated editions were\npublished in America and Australia; and it was translated into several\nEuropean languages. It formed the basis of a remarkable judgment by\nMr. Justice Windeyer (delivered in the Supreme Court of New South\nWales), to which further reference will presently be made.\n\nIn June, 1887, Dr. H. A. Allbutt, of Leeds, published a sixpenny\npamphlet entitled The Wife's Handbook. The following paragraph,\ntaken from the introduction to the book, will explain its object:\n\"To save the lives and preserve the health of thousands of women, to\nrescue from death and disease children who may be born, to teach the\nyoung wife how to order her health during the most important period\nof her life, to remove from her mind the popular ignorance in which\nshe may have been reared, and to enable her to learn truths concerning\nher duties as wife and mother, I have thought fit to write this little\nwork.\" Shortly after its appearance, the spirit of persecution was\nagain manifested, this time in an obscure and technical aspect. As a\nmember of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Dr. Allbutt\nwas professionally amenable to the Council of that body; and he\nwas summoned to appear and show cause why he should not be removed\nfrom the rolls for the offence of writing and publishing The Wife's\nHandbook. The matter was warmly taken up by the Malthusian League, and\nprotests were addressed to the College from all parts of Great Britain\nand from France, Germany, Holland, Italy, India and Jamaica. Nothing\nmore was heard of the affair until November, when Dr. Allbutt received\na notice to appear before the General Medical Council, in London,\nto show cause why his name should not be struck off the register.\n\nOn November 23rd the complaint against Dr. Allbutt was considered\nby the General Medical Council, a body composed of twenty-seven\nphysicians. Dr. Allbutt was represented by Mr. Wallace (barrister),\nand the \"prosecution\" was conducted by Mr. Muir Mackenzie, the\nlegal adviser of the Council. The following were the points which\nthe Council proceeded to consider: \"(1) Was The Wife's Handbook a\nfair medical treatise, or was it an indecent advertisement? (2)\nWas it practically an injury to the public and an insult to the\nprofession?\" Mr. Wallace, in a very able speech, traversed the\nsuggestions made by the Council's solicitor, and challenged the right\nof an irresponsible body to determine whether any line of advocacy\nwas \"subversive of public morality.\" If Dr. Allbutt had violated the\nlaw, he was amenable to legal proceedings, and it was not for the\nMedical Council to sit in judgment upon him. Mr. Wallace justified\nthe course that Dr. Allbutt had taken in publishing his work at a\nlow price in order that it might be placed within the reach of the\npoorest classes. He called the attention of the members to a list of\nthe petitions which had been presented to the Council on the subject\nfrom all parts of Europe. They amounted to over seventy; many of them\ncame from medical, scientific, and political societies. He assured\nthe Council that the members of the medical profession were by no\nmeans unanimous in condemning Mr. Allbutt, and it would run against\nthe feelings of a very considerable minority if they decided adversely\nto his client. The book was written with the express object of saving\npoor people from the misery, poverty, and starvation which resulted\nfrom the over-production of children; and he asked the Council, in\nconclusion, to arrive at a decision which would relieve his client\nfrom the imputation which had been cast upon him, and which would\nrestore him to his proper position.\n\nThe Council having deliberated in private, the President delivered\nthe following judgment:\n\n\"In the opinion of the Council, Mr. Allbutt has committed the offence\ncharged against him, that is to say, of having published and publicly\ncaused to be sold a work entitled The Wife's Handbook, in London and\nelsewhere, at so low a price as to bring the work within the reach of\nthe youth of both sexes, to the detriment of public morals. Secondly,\nthe offence is, in the opinion of the Council, 'infamous conduct in\na professional respect.' Thirdly, the Registrar is hereby ordered to\nerase the name of Mr. H. A. Allbutt from the Medical Register.\"\n\nThus ended the futile attempt of the General Medical Council to\nput a stop to the publication of Malthusian works \"at so low a\nprice.\" Nobody was a penny the worse for the ponderous proceedings\nof this archaic tribunal. Dr. Allbutt has never ceased to practise\nlegally as a physician; twenty editions of The Wife's Handbook have\nbeen issued and 180,000 copies sold.\n\nThis case aroused much attention in the press. The Pall Mall Gazette\ndeclared that \"the decision of the General Medical Council to erase\nfrom its rolls the name of a physician who published 'at a low\nprice' information as to the best means for preventing the excessive\nmultiplication of children beyond their parents' means of subsistence\nor the possibility of education and control, will before long become\nfamiliar as one of the most glaring illustrations of professional\nprejudice and human folly. When such a cool-headed respectable as\nLord Derby feels bound to call attention to the increase of 400,000\nper annum in our population as one of the most pressing problems of\nour day, it is really too fatuous for the General Medical Council to\nbrand as 'infamous' a practitioner who, in a work to which no objection\nis taken on the score of impropriety or immorality, supplies to the\npoor information already possessed by the rich.\"\n\nWe have to record but one later attempt to interfere with the free\ndiscussion of the population question in this country. In October,\n1891, Mr. H. S. Young, M.A., was summoned to appear at Bow Street\nPolice Court on a charge of sending through the post a leaflet\nentitled Some Reasons for Advocating the Prudential Limitation of\nFamilies. The proceedings were taken under the Post Office Protection\nAct. Mr. Besley, in conducting the prosecution, made the remarkable\nstatement that the only check against immorality in this country was\nthe fear of pregnancy! Speaking in his own defence, Mr. Young contended\nthat there was no \"obscenity\" involved in pointing out to the poor\nhow they might limit their families. The magistrate (Mr. Lushington)\nadmitted that the leaflet was written in very careful language, and\nnot intended to be at all offensive; but still he held that it was\n\"obscene,\" convicted Mr. Young, and ordered him to pay a fine of \u00a320\nand costs. The defendant applied to the magistrate to state a case,\nas he intended to appeal; but Mr. Lushington refused to do so.\n\nThis prosecution led to the formation of a Free Discussion Committee,\nand public meetings were held in various parts of the metropolis,\nprotesting against the infringement of public freedom by legal\nproceedings. Repeated attempts were made by Mr. Young and his advisers\nto bring the case before a court of law, but technical difficulties\nrendered this practically impossible, and the matter was allowed\nto drop.\n\nMeantime the propaganda of New-Malthusian views is steadily\ncontinued. The pages of The Malthusian, the monthly organ of the\nLeague, bear constant witness to activity which hastes not and rests\nnot. Whether its energies are to be again stimulated by persecution,\ntime alone can show.\n\n\n\nA brief statement concerning the position of the Malthusian movement\nin foreign countries may be usefully added to this chapter.\n\nHolland.--Several years ago a Dutch Malthusian League was established\nby Mr. S. Van Houten (Doctor of Laws, and Deput\u00e9), Mr. C. V. Gerritsen,\nDr. C. de Rooy, Dr. Lobry de Bruyn and others. In 1887 the League\nnumbered amongst its members, in Amsterdam alone, six Doctors\nof Medicine, eleven Doctors of Law, and three Professors of the\nUniversity. At Amsterdam a dispensary has long been open, where a\nlady (Dr. Aletta H. Jacobs) and other medical members attend and\ngive advice to those seeking practical information upon prudential\nchecks. Large numbers of poor married women apply at the dispensary\nfor instruction as to the best methods by which they can restrict\nthe size of their families. Several pamphlets upon the population\nquestion have been issued by the Dutch Malthusian League. In 1887,\nthirty thousand copies of one of its publications had been circulated\nin a country with a smaller population than that of London. The most\nrecent pamphlet on Malthusianism, from the pen of Mr. J. A. Van der\nHaven, is entitled The Dark Netherlands, and the way out of it. The\nauthor draws a sad picture of life in some of the poor quarters of\nHolland, where, he says, \"laughter is seldom heard, and hunger and\nearly death are constant visitors.\" There is, however, hope for a\nbrighter future. Mr. Gerritsen states that in Holland \"directors of\nlarge industrial establishments and railway societies make their\nworkmen acquainted with the means of preventing themselves from\ndrifting into poverty.\"\n\nGermany.--The Malthusian question has frequently been the subject\nof discussion in Germany. Dr. Stille, of Hanover, Dr. Hans Ferdy,\nDr. Mensinga, Dr. Zacharias, and other physicians have again and\nagain called public attention to the importance of the subject; but,\nuntil lately, no combined effort to influence public opinion has been\npossible. Mr. Max Hausmeister, of Stuttgart, has at length set on foot\nan organisation for the propaganda of New-Malthusian views. On February\n12th, 1892, a private meeting was held at Stuttgart \"to consider\nthe advisability of forming a Malthusian Society.\" This led to the\nestablishment of the Sozial-Harmonische Verein (Social Harmony Union),\nand a monthly journal, Die Sozial Harmonie, was founded \"to enlighten\nthe people of Germany upon social, political and economic questions and\nthe relation of these to sexual matters.\" (Subscription: 2\u00b750 marks per\nannum.) Germany, with its teeming population of impoverished workers,\naffords an enormous field for Malthusian propaganda.\n\nIn Holland and Germany alone, amongst continental countries, has the\nMalthusian view found organised expression. France, whilst extremely\nprudent in practice, is strongly anti-Malthusian in theory, at least\nso far as the governing class is concerned. Drs. Lutaud, Le Blond,\nand Rebant\u00e9, of Paris, are prominent amongst the adherents of the\nNew-Malthusian movement in France.\n\nIn India, public attention has lately been called to the population\nquestion by a prosecution instituted by the police authorities\nagainst Messrs. Taraporewalla & Sons, of Bombay, for selling copies\nof a pamphlet entitled True Morality; or, the Theory and Practice\nof New-Malthusianism, by Mr. J. R. Holmes. The Chief Presidency\nMagistrate convicted the defendants and imposed a fine of 201 rupees\n(about \u00a312. 10s.). The conviction was not permitted to pass without\npublic protest. The editor of a Bombay journal wrote: \"The battle\nhas been fought and won in the West, and the subject is more or less\ndirectly treated in the leading reviews, and books and pamphlets\nare openly sold in England. Our duty here is clear enough. Are the\nFreethinkers in India, whether New-Malthusians or not, to quietly\nstand by and see the free discussion of this question denied the\npublic? We are perfectly aware that although there are many who will\naid in this work, there are few--alas! how few!--who will openly\nbear the brunt of the fray. However, there is at least one who will\ndo it. But will the others stand round and give whatever help they\ncan, even if silently?\" The standard of comfort amongst the teeming\nnative population of India is deplorably low, the average income\nper head in the north-west provinces not exceeding 22 1/2 rupees\n(say \u00a31. 8s. 6d.) per year. And yet, forsooth, those who seek to lift\nthe poor ryots from their abysmal poverty and misery are confronted\nwith the smug conventionalities of Western Europe, and punished as\ndistributors of \"obscene\" literature!\n\nAmerica has no Malthusian organisation, but there are many sympathisers\nwith the movement in various parts of the country. Dr. E. B. Foote,\njr., of New York, is a most active and earnest advocate of Malthusian\nviews, and has written several popular works on the subject. The\ncustoms and postal prohibitions are very stringent as to the admission\nand transmission of Malthusian literature and appliances. Some years\nago the late Mr. D. M. Bennett underwent a term of imprisonment at\nAuburn for sending through the post a pamphlet by Mr. Heywood on\nthe marriage question. Just after his arrest Mr. Bennett stated: \"My\nonly object in selling this pamphlet is to vindicate the liberty of\nthought, of the press, and of the mails. I have always announced that\nI did not approve of it; but as long as Mr. Heywood does, I declare\nthat he has a right to mail it as part of his right to publish it,\nand as a necessary part of the freedom of the press. If this means\nthat I am to go to prison, to prison let it be.\"\n\nFrom this necessarily slight and incomplete sketch of the position\nof the movement abroad it will be seen that the theory of Malthus is\ngradually leavening the thought and helping to shape the destinies\nof the civilised world.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nA JUDICIAL VINDICATION OF NEW-MALTHUSIANISM.\n\n\nAs we have shown in the preceding chapter, repeated attempts have been\nmade to suppress, by legal process, the advocacy of New-Malthusian\nviews. Those attempts have failed, as they were bound to fail. By the\nstrange irony of fate, indeed, one of the most powerful, logical and\nconvincing vindications of the prudential limitation of families has\nproceeded from the judicial bench. The famous judgment delivered by\nMr. Justice Windeyer, Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of New\nSouth Wales, on December 12th, 1888, is so important a contribution\nto the discussion of this question that a chapter may profitably be\ndevoted to a summary of its arguments and conclusions.\n\nA stipendiary magistrate in New South Wales convicted Mr. W. W. Collins\non a charge of selling an \"obscene\" book, viz., The Law of Population,\nwritten by Mrs. Annie Besant. Mr. Collins appealed against this\nconviction to the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice Darley\nand Justices Windeyer and Stephen. The sole question at issue was\nwhether the work was \"obscene\"; and upon this the judgment of the\nCourt (the Chief Justice dissenting) was given that the conviction\nshould be set aside.\n\nIn delivering judgment, Mr. Justice Windeyer said:\n\n\n    A court of law has now to decide for the first time whether it is\n    lawful to argue in a decent way with earnestness of thought and\n    sobriety of language the right of married men and women to limit\n    the number of the children to be begotten by them by such means as\n    medical science says are possible and not injurious to health. Of\n    the enormous importance of this question, not only to persons of\n    limited means in every society and country, but to nations, the\n    populations of which have a tendency to increase more rapidly\n    than the means of subsistence, there cannot be the slightest\n    doubt. Since the days when Malthus first announced his views on\n    the subject to be misrepresented and vilified, as originators of\n    new ideas usually are by the ignorant and unthinking, the question\n    has not only been pressing itself with increased intensity of\n    force upon thinkers and social reformers dealing with it in\n    the abstract, but the necessity of practically dealing with the\n    difficulty of over-population has become a topic publicly discussed\n    by statesmen and politicians. It is no longer a question whether\n    it is expedient to prevent the growth of a pauper population,\n    with all its attendant miseries following upon semi-starvation,\n    over-crowding, disease, and an enfeebled national stamina of\n    constitution; but how countries suffering from all these causes\n    of national decay shall avert national disaster by checking the\n    production of children, whose lives must be too often a misery\n    to themselves, a burden to society, and a danger to the State.\n\n\nHis lordship pointed out that public opinion has so far advanced\nthat the abstract necessity of prudential limitation is now generally\nadmitted. \"Statesmen, reviewers, and ecclesiastics join in a common\nchorus of exhortation against improvident marriages to the working\nclasses, and preach to them the necessity of deferring the ceremony\ntill they have saved the competency necessary to support the truly\nBritish family of ten or twelve children.\" It is, however, futile\nto hope that celibacy and continence will furnish the solution\nof the question. The Protestant world has rejected the idea of a\ncelibate clergy as incompatible with purity and the safety of female\nvirtue. How, then, can we expect that men and women, \"with their moral\nnature more or less stunted, huddled together in dens where the bare\nconditions of living preclude even elementary ideas of modesty, with\nnone of the pleasures of life save those enjoyed in common with the\nanimals--... these victims of a social state, for which the educated\nare responsible if they do not use their superior wisdom and knowledge\nfor its redress, to exercise all the self-control of which the celibate\necclesiastic is supposed to be incapable\"?\n\nThe judge then proceeded to argue that, as the evils of over-population\nwere almost universally recognised, the duty of making known to\nthe people the practical method of escaping from them must also\nbe recognised:\n\n\n    Why is the philosopher who describes the nature of the disease from\n    which we are suffering, who detects the causes which induce it and\n    the general character of the remedies to be applied, to be regarded\n    as a sage and a benefactor, but his necessary complement in the\n    evolution of a great idea, the man who works out in practice the\n    theories of the abstract thinker, to be denounced as a criminal? It\n    was only when Jenner ventured to act on the theory which he had\n    founded upon his observations that he was denounced and vilified\n    in language which it is now almost impossible to conceive.\n\n\nAll history, however, has shown that public opinion advances whilst\nthe law remains stationary; and martyrs must suffer until the law is\nbrought into conformity with the public conscience:\n\n\n    A certain number of prosecutions under the law, a certain number of\n    victims to the ignorance or superstition of those who framed it,\n    a certain number of refusals to convict under a growing sense of\n    its unwisdom, injustice and barbarity, seem to be in all societies\n    the stages passed through by laws established for the purpose\n    of coercing the opinions of mankind before they become obsolete,\n    if judge-made, or, if statutes, are repealed as inconsistent with\n    advancing knowledge.\n\n\nWith regard to the pamphlet under consideration, the judge pointed\nout that it did not come before them as an obscene libel at common\nlaw. The question, therefore, whether the purpose advocated in the book\n(i.e., the limitation of families) was inconsistent with the morals of\nsociety, was not relevant. They had only to enquire if the details as\nto prudential checks, given in that pamphlet, were inconsistent with\ndecency. It had been admitted in argument that the greater part of the\nwork, dealing with the abstract necessity of limiting population, was\nnot obscene. The only portion against which obscenity was alleged was\nthe chapter in which the means by which conception could be prevented\nwere stated, and in which the female sexual organs were described as\nfar as necessary for the purpose.\n\nThe question was thus raised--What is obscenity? After quoting\nthe definition of the word which had been adopted in a previous\ncase, Mr. Justice Windeyer laid down the principle that \"it is\nthe circumstances under which language is published, or acts done,\nthat determine whether language or conduct is obscene. No natural\nfunction of the body is obscene itself. In the physical constitution\nof man, including all his natural instincts, there is nothing unholy\nor unclean.\" But certain natural actions, if performed in public,\nwould be a gross outrage upon decency. In like manner, language that\nmight be permissible and necessary if used on certain occasions,\nwould manifestly be an outrage upon decency if used when occasion\ndid not warrant it:\n\n\n    The question therefore is, when language is objected to as obscene,\n    whether the occasion upon which it has been used warrants its\n    use in the manner resorted to. This view of the law, I find,\n    is taken by the most distinguished writer upon the criminal law\n    of modern days--that most acute thinker, Sir James Stephen. That\n    learned judge, in his Digest of the Criminal Law, p. 105 submits\n    the following as the true view of the law with reference to the\n    publication of matter that would be obscene if not justified by\n    the occasion:\n\n    \"A person (he says) is justified in exhibiting disgusting objects,\n    or publishing obscene books, papers, writings, pictures, drawings,\n    or other representations, if their exhibition or publication is for\n    the public good, as being necessary or advantageous to religion\n    of morality, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of\n    science, literature or art, or other objects of general interest;\n    but the justification ceases if the publication is made in such\n    a manner, to such an extent, or under such circumstances, as to\n    exceed what the public good requires in regard to the particular\n    matter published.\"\n\n\nMr. Justice Windeyer said he accepted this view as the law, and\nthe question for consideration was whether the chapter detailing\nprudential checks made the publication obscene. To determine this,\nit was necessary to consider the work as a whole, in order that it\nmight be ascertained whether the language complained of was warranted\nby the occasion:\n\n\n    As it cannot be denied that the question propounded for discussion\n    is of enormous importance, and that it is right to advocate in\n    the abstract the expediency of checking the advancing tide of\n    population, it appears to me impossible to contend that language\n    which tells how this may be done is obscene if it goes no further\n    than is necessary for this purpose. Having carefully read the\n    third chapter of the pamphlet, it appears to me to be written in\n    all decent sobriety of language. I see nothing in its language\n    which an earnest-minded man or woman of pure life and morals might\n    not use to one of his or her own sex, if explaining to him or her\n    what was necessary in order to understand the methods suggested\n    by which married people could prevent the number of their children\n    increasing beyond their means of supporting them. There is nothing\n    which points to the conclusion that any language is used with\n    the intention of exciting feelings of wantonness and lust; and\n    it requires but slight acquaintance with the medical profession\n    to discover that the advice given in this chapter is frequently\n    given by them to women suffering from over-childbearing, and to\n    those to whom parturition is dangerous. The information afforded\n    in the third chapter of the pamphlet, if given by a medical man\n    to a patient suffering from over-maternity, or if whispered in\n    matrimonial confidence, or imparted in the privacy existing between\n    the author and the reader of her pamphlet, is not obscenity; though\n    the public proclamation of the same information on a placard in\n    George Street or Piccadilly, so that all who ran might read,\n    would be an obscenity of the grossest kind, so clearly do the\n    circumstances of a publication alter its character. If admitted,\n    as it is, that the information, physiological and otherwise, given\n    in Chapter III. can be found in medical works of an expensive kind,\n    it cannot affect the character of the information for obscenity\n    that it is given in a cheap form. Information cannot be pure,\n    chaste and legal in morocco at a guinea, but impure, obscene\n    and indictable in a paper pamphlet at sixpence. The information,\n    to be of value in a national point of view as a safeguard from\n    the miseries of over-population and overcrowding, must be given\n    wholesale to the masses likely to over-breed. The time is past when\n    knowledge can be kept as the exclusive privilege of any caste or\n    class. The fact that a book may excite prurient thoughts if used\n    for that purpose by the low-minded and the young, does not make\n    it obscene.\n\n    The objection which has been urged, that the means suggested for\n    the prevention of conception might be availed of by the unmarried\n    and immoral for the purpose of enabling them safely to indulge in\n    vice, is simply the application to this subject of the exploded\n    delusion that knowledge is a dangerous thing.... The time is\n    surely past when countenance can be given to the argument that\n    a knowledge of any truth, either in physics or in the domain of\n    thought, is to be stifled because its abuse might be dangerous to\n    society. The guardianship of the eunuch and the seclusion of the\n    harem were not necessary to build up the national character of\n    English women for chastity; and it is an insult to them to argue\n    that it is necessary to keep them in ignorance on sexual matters\n    to maintain it. Ignorance is no more the mother of chastity than\n    of true religion.\n\n\nMr. Justice Windeyer then examined the contention that the prudential\nlimitation of families is \"a violation of natural laws and a\nfrustration of nature's ends\":\n\n\n    The argument that nature intends every woman to conceive as\n    often as is possible would, if carried to its logical conclusion,\n    result in the Indian custom of marrying every female child upon\n    reaching puberty in order that no opportunity of conception should\n    be lost. In all other matters of breeding but the all-important one\n    of the breeding of the human race, the aim of man is to defeat the\n    effects of nature's laws of reproduction, and to limit the number\n    and kind of animals produced to the amount required for the use\n    of man. The forces of nature, blind and ruthless in their effect,\n    we control and defeat in their operation by all the means that\n    science places at our command. To protect churches and hospitals\n    from the operation of nature's laws, we put up conductors to arrest\n    the inexorable effects of lightning, which would remorselessly\n    destroy what piety and humanity would protect. The course of\n    nature is to kill a noble woman, a devoted wife and loving mother,\n    if her pelvis is too small to admit the delivery of a child with\n    an abnormally large head. The practice of civilised man, aided by\n    science, is in such a case of parturition to destroy the infant\n    and to save the mother. The interference with the course of nature\n    is direct, the practice in no way natural; but enlightened public\n    opinion in no way condemns it. But if the pelvis of a woman is so\n    unusually small that she never can be delivered of a child but at\n    the peril of her life, where is the immorality in the husband and\n    wife resorting to any preventive checks that may preserve a life\n    that is dear and perhaps valuable to the world? It is unreasoning\n    prejudice alone that starts the objection that such prevention\n    of all the physical agony involved in a painful and dangerous\n    delivery and possible loss of life is immoral and unnatural.\n\n\nThe case of the Queen versus Bradlaugh and Besant (referred to at\nlength in the preceding chapter) had been cited as an authority\nin support of the contention that The Law of Population was an\nobscene book, inasmuch as the pamphlet which was the subject of that\nprosecution, and for the publication of which the defendants were\nconvicted, advocated the adoption of preventive checks. Mr. Justice\nWindeyer, however, refused to accept that case as a binding precedent:\n\n\n    As I have already pointed out, the case cannot be regarded as\n    an authority upon that point, as there the question was whether\n    the pamphlet was an obscene libel. Whether the verdict of the\n    jury was right in that case is not a matter of law, but of\n    opinion. Reading the summing-up of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn\n    with some knowledge of judicial modes of putting criminal cases\n    to a jury, it appears to me that, though expressing no direct\n    opinion as to its character, the learned Chief Justice thought\n    that the book was not an obscene libel, and was cautiously guiding\n    the jury to that conclusion. By the opinion of a jury coming to\n    the consideration of so delicate a question of social science as\n    was submitted to them, probably without any previous acquaintance\n    with subjects of the kind, I decline to be in any way bound; and\n    I have no hesitation in saying that, had I been a member of the\n    jury, I should have acted upon the reasoning of Lord Chief Justice\n    Cockburn, and acquitted the defendants. Not only does the whole\n    tenor of his Lordship's summing-up appear to me argumentatively in\n    favor of the defendants, but, from certain passages, it appears\n    to me that the inference is clearly to be drawn that he neither\n    thought the physiological details of the book were obscene,\n    nor was of opinion that its teaching would promote immorality.\n\n\nMr. Justice Windeyer quoted several passages from the judgment of Sir\nAlexander Cockburn in support of his view that the Lord Chief Justice\ndid not regard the preventive checks recommended as immoral. How,\nhe asked, could any reasonable man condemn as immoral the wish of\nmarried people to bring no more children into the world than they can\nsupport, and the adoption of the necessary means to effect that wish?\n\n\n    Instead of poor, let a case of consumptive parents be taken, or\n    of parents one of whom has developed symptoms of insanity. Who\n    could suppose that any jury would regard any means adopted by\n    them to prevent the procreation of a number of children, diseased\n    and rickety, or certain to inherit a taint of insanity, would be\n    otherwise than natural and right, and the adoption of any means\n    that medical science could suggest to prevent it not only not\n    immoral but laudable in the highest degree? If it is not immoral to\n    do what the pamphlet advocates, it seems to me impossible to argue\n    that the mere advocacy itself is a penal offence. The question is,\n    Where does the immorality come in? Wrongs can only be regarded\n    as such in their relation to others, or as self-regarding. Is\n    there in the adoption of preventive intercourse any invasion of\n    the rights of others? Certainly none. The use of the preventive\n    checks can only be viewed as a possible wrong in the light of a\n    self-regarding one. How can it be argued with any show of sound\n    reason that the use of preventive checks (adopted, perhaps,\n    from the determination not to bring into the world children that\n    cannot be even fed) can be morally injurious to persons animated\n    by a sense of duty founded upon the noblest altruism? The world\n    would have little need of penal statutes if a consideration of\n    the rights of others actuated the conduct of all mankind. Active\n    altruism--the distinctive feature of Christian teaching, inculcated\n    in the precept, \"Do unto others as you would men should do unto\n    you\"--can never in its application injuriously react upon the\n    moral nature of those who seek to put it in force with regard\n    to any conduct which may affect the happiness of others. The\n    profound law of ethics, that in trying to do good to others we\n    unconsciously benefit ourselves, is no less true here than in all\n    other phases of human conduct. Every thought entertained, every\n    effort made for the good of others, must elevate the thinker and\n    the actor. Who will say that the low and vicious parents of East\n    London's gutter children, brought up amidst all the moral horrors\n    of over-crowding, half-starved, and stunted in growth, without\n    elementary notions of decency or morality--who will say that such\n    parents would not have been morally superior if they could have\n    seen the wrong they were doing in bringing such offspring into\n    the world, and had taken measures to prevent it? Who will say\n    that the future of society would not have an infinitely better\n    outlook if the breeding of such children were to be prevented by\n    the conjugal prudence of parents in resorting to the use of such\n    means as would prevent their procreation? It is idle to preach to\n    the masse, the necessity of deferred marriage and of a celibate\n    life during the heyday of passion. To attempt to stifle the cry of\n    human nature uttered in the voice of its most powerful instinct,\n    is indeed to fly in the face of nature. Like all attempts to\n    regulate conduct by ignoring the facts of human nature, it must\n    signally fail. Prostitution with all its horrors is the outcome\n    of enforced unnatural celibacy. To use and not abuse, to direct\n    and control in its operation any God-given faculty, is the true\n    aim of man, the true object of all morality.\n\n\nIn concluding this memorable judgment, Mr. Justice Windeyer declared\nthat he would not seek to evade the responsibility of deciding the\nmatter submitted to him by shielding himself behind the decisions\nof other judges whose unreasoned opinions were of no weight against\nunrefuted arguments:\n\n\n    So strong is the dread of the world's censure upon this topic,\n    that few have courage openly to express their views upon it; and\n    its nature is such that it is only among thinkers who discuss all\n    subjects, or amongst intimate acquaintances, that community of\n    thought upon this question is discovered. But let anyone inquire\n    amongst those who have sufficient education and ability to think\n    for themselves, and who do not idly float, slaves to the current of\n    conventional opinion, and he will discover that numbers of men and\n    women of purest lives, of noblest aspirations, pious, cultivated,\n    and refined, see no moral wrong in teaching the ignorant that it\n    is wrong to bring into the world children to whom they cannot do\n    justice, and who think it folly to stop short in telling them\n    simply and plainly how to prevent it. A more robust view of\n    morals teaches that it is puerile to ignore human passions and\n    human physiology. A clearer perception of truth and the safety of\n    trusting to it, teaches that in law as in religion it is useless\n    trying to limit the knowledge of mankind by any inquisitorial\n    attempts to place upon a judicial index expurgatorius works written\n    with an earnest purpose, and commending themselves to thinkers of\n    well-balanced minds. I will be no party to any such attempt. I do\n    not believe that it was ever meant that the Obscene Publication Act\n    should apply to cases of this kind, but only to the publication\n    of such matter as all good men would regard as lewd and filthy,\n    to lewd and bawdy novels, pictures and exhibitions evidently\n    published and given for lucre's sake. It could never have been\n    intended to stifle the expression of thought by the earnest-minded\n    on a subject of transcendent national importance like the present;\n    and I will not strain it for that purpose. As pointed out by Lord\n    Chief Justice Cockburn in the case of the Queen versus Bradlaugh\n    and Besant, all prosecutions of this kind should be regarded as\n    mischievous, even by those who disapprove of the opinions sought\n    to be stifled, inasmuch as they only tend more widely to diffuse\n    the teaching objected to. To those on the other hand who desire\n    its promulgation, it must be matter of congratulation that this,\n    like all attempted persecutions of thinkers, will defeats its\n    own object, and that truth, like a torch, \"the more it's shook\n    it shines.\"\n\n    As it seems to me that this book is neither obscene in its\n    language, nor by its teaching incites people to obscenity, I am\n    of opinion that the prohibition should go.\n\n\nMr. Justice Stephen concurred in the judgment given, and the conviction\nof Mr. W. W. Collins was therefore set aside.\n\nWe may fittingly conclude this chapter by reproducing from The\nMalthusian a note in which the writer briefly describes the character\nof Mr. Justice Windeyer:\n\n\"In early life I met Mr. Windeyer at his house at Tomago, on the Hunter\nRiver. His father, then dead, had been quite a notable man in the\ncolony, as an able, intrepid, popular and high-minded politician; and\nyoung Windeyer seemed to be his father's son--frank, open, unaffected,\nand with a fine gentlemanly bearing. Since then, his career has quite\nfulfilled its early promise; and, for you, as a warm advocate of\nNew-Malthusianism, the strength of support and encouragement lies,\nI think, very much in the fact that Justice Windeyer is not only a\nman of great legal ability but of high moral character.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nPRUDENTIAL CHECKS.\n\n\nIf the validity of the Malthusian position be admitted, there is no\nlogical escape from the conclusion that the knowledge of innocent\nmeans by which families may be limited should be conveyed to the\npeople. Yet, with characteristic inconsistency, the public advocacy\nof Malthusianism in the abstract is regarded with approval, whilst\nthe practical application of the principle is met with the parrot-cry\nof \"obscenity,\" and menaced with penal infliction. In the Windeyer\njudgment it will be noted that the proceedings against Mr. Collins\nwere based not upon those portions of Mrs. Besant's pamphlet in which\nthe subject was philosophically discussed, but upon the passages\nin which the preventive checks were described. An eminent English\nstatesman, Mr. John Morley, has insisted in a public speech upon the\n\"vital importance\" of the population question, and, he added, \"I\nwish that we did not shirk it so much.\" A popular English clergyman,\nthe Rev. H. R. Haweis, has declared in a popular weekly newspaper that\nthe most important remedy for poverty is \"to control the family growth,\naccording to the family means of support.\" But when the social reformer\npasses from vague precept to direct instruction, he is confronted by\nan anomalous law which threatens him as a foe to public morality.\n\nThe tragical element in this otherwise ridiculous inconsistency lies\nin the fact that the knowledge of prudential checks is denied to\nthe very class which most urgently needs such information. It is the\npoor alone who suffer acutely from the effects of over-population:\nit is they who feel the actual sting of want when the small wage\nis distributed over a large family-area. For the well-to-do there\nis no mystery concerning prudential checks. The family doctor will\nwhisper discreetly into the ear of the wealthy matron whose quiver\nis sufficiently filled. Expensive medical works containing full\ninstructions are at the command of those who can afford to buy\nthem. Why should the poor be kept in ignorance upon a matter of\nsupreme importance to them?\n\nUpon the subject of prudential checks the medical profession as a\nbody has afforded little or no assistance. Here, as in many other\nmatters, \"doctors differ\"; and no steps have as yet been taken to\nascertain, by scientific investigation, the best method of preventing\nconception. The checks now to be described are of two kinds--first,\nthose in which success depends upon self-control; and, second, those\nin which mechanical appliances are used.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nThe practice of withdrawal immediately before the act of coition\nis completed obtains very extensively in France. This, the most\nancient of known methods, is referred to in the Bible (Genesis\nxxxviii. 8-9). The efficacy of the check depends, of course, entirely\nupon the self-control of the husband, and failure is therefore\nalways possible. It may be mentioned that this plan has sometimes\nbeen objected to on the ground of supposed injury to health; but no\nevidence has been adduced in support of the objection. On the other\nhand, Dr. C. R. Drysdale has ascertained by personal enquiry that 100\nmembers of the medical profession in Paris \"had only 174 children in\nall their married lives, or not two as an average.... The question\nof the effect produced upon the health of the parents by the use of\nthe physical check of Genesis xxxviii. was discussed at the meeting\nof the International Medical Congress at Amsterdam in 1879; and two\nmedical men of great distinction--MM. Lutaud and Leblanc--asserted\ndistinctly that these practices of family physical prudence in France\nwere in no way productive of ill-health to either conjoint. And,\nas they were universally made use of by the medical men of Paris in\nlimiting their own families, it was very unlikely that such damage\nto health as had been spoken of would not have been noted and clearly\ndescribed long ago if it existed in nature.\"\n\nAbstinence from intercourse during a certain period is said to be an\neffectual method of avoiding conception. This, however, rests upon the\nassumption that a female is more likely to conceive immediately before\nor after \"menstruation\" (the monthly flow). If connection do not take\nplace within five days before, or eight days after, menstruation,\nthe probability of pregnancy is supposed to be diminished.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nOf the various appliances which have been devised for the prevention of\nconception, the simplest and most effectual is the \"sheath\" (commonly\nknown as the \"French Letter\"). This an envelope of skin or very thin\nrubber, and is used by the husband. It completely covers the male\norgan, and, being closed at the extremity, prevents the semen from\nbeing discharged into the vagina. It is obvious that, if the sheath\nremain intact, it is impossible for conception to take place. The\nonly danger to be guarded against is the breaking or perforation of\nthe sheath, which should in all cases be carefully examined before\nuse. The material may be tested by stretching it gently over the inside\nof the thumb, when the smallest fracture can be detected. If sheaths\nof good quality (not necessarily expensive) be used, and reasonable\ncare taken to avoid accidental breakage, this check is CERTAIN.\n\nThe Enema Syringe is an instrument frequently employed for preventive\npurposes. A solution (composed of a teaspoonful of alum dissolved in\na pint of cold or tepid water) is injected by the female immediately\nafter connection. The vertical and reverse syringe is more likely to\nact efficiently than the ordinary enema.\n\nA very simple and inexpensive method is the use of a small piece of\nfine sponge, soaked in warm water, and placed in such a position as\nto cover the mouth of the womb. The chances of failure are diminished\nby saturating the sponge with a solution of quinine.\n\nPessaries of various kinds are sometimes used to prevent\nconception. The simple pessary (of which there are several\nmodifications) is a small dome-shaped appliance, made of thin rubber,\nand constructed to fit closely round the neck of the womb. If carefully\nadjusted and retained in position, the pessary may be relied upon.\n\nOf late years a new form of pessary has been introduced and is stated\nto have been used with marked success. It consists of a small cone\nof cacao-butter, charged with quinine. The pessary is inserted a few\nminutes before connection takes place; the quinine, being liberated\nby the dissolution of the fatty substance, destroys the vitality of\nthe seminal fluid.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MALTHUSIAN LEAGUE.\n\n(Founded in 1877.)\n\n\nPresident:\n\nC. R. DRYSDALE, M.D., M.R.C.P. Lond., F.R.C.S. Eng.\n\n\nVice-Presidents:\n\nSe\u00f1or Aldecoa, Director of Government Charities, Madrid.\n\nMr. G. Anderson, C.E.\n\nM. Yves Guyot, Deput\u00e9, Rue de Seine, Paris.\n\nMr. Gerritsen, Amsterdam, Holland.\n\nMr. S. Van Houten, Deput\u00e9, The Hague.\n\nMr. P. Murugesa Mudaliar, Madras.\n\nMr. T. Parris.\n\nDr. Stille, Hanover.\n\nDr. Giovanni Tari, Naples.\n\nDr. Alice Vickeby.\n\n\nHon. Secretary:\n\nMr. W. H. Reynolds, New Cross, London, S.E.\n\n\n\n\nRULES.\n\n\nI.--Name.\n\nThat this Society be called \"The Malthusian League.\"\n\n\nII.--Objects.\n\nThat the objects of this Society be:\n\n1. To agitate for the abolition of all penalties on the public\ndiscussion of the Population Question, and to obtain such a statutory\ndefinition as shall render it impossible, in the future, to bring\nsuch discussions within the scope of the common law as a misdemeanor.\n\n2. To spread among the people, by all practicable means, a knowledge\nof the law of population, of its consequences, and of its bearing\nupon human conduct and morals.\n\n\nIII.--Principles.\n\n1. \"That population has a constant tendency to increase beyond the\nmeans of subsistence.\"\n\n2. That the checks which counteract this tendency are resolvable into\npositive or life-destroying, and prudential or birth-restricting.\n\n3. That the positive or life-destroying checks comprehend the\npremature death of children and adults by disease, starvation, war\nand infanticide.\n\n4. That the prudential or birth-restricting check consists in the\nlimitation of offspring by abstention from marriage, or by prudence\nafter marriage.\n\n5. That prolonged abstention from marriage--as advocated by Malthus--is\nproductive of many diseases and of much sexual vice; early marriage,\non the contrary, tends to ensure sexual purity, domestic comfort,\nsocial happiness, and individual health; but it is a grave social\noffence for men and women to bring into the world more children than\nthey can adequately house, feed, clothe and educate.\n\n6. That over-population is the most fruitful source of pauperism,\nignorance, crime and disease.\n\n7. That the full and open discussion of the Population Question is\na matter of vital moment to society, and such discussion should be\nabsolutely unfettered by fear of legal penalties.\n\n\nIV.--Executive.\n\n1. That the officers of the League consist of a president,\nvice-presidents, council, treasurer, secretaries, solicitor and\nauditors.\n\n2. That the government of the League be vested in a council, consisting\nof a president, vice-presidents, and secretary (by virtue of their\nrespective offices), of twenty members who shall be elected annually\nat a general meeting, and of a duly-appointed representative from\neach branch of the League which may hereafter be formed.\n\n3. That the council have power to appoint a treasurer and secretaries\nfrom amongst its own members; to elect a president, vice-presidents,\nand solicitor, subject to the approval of the next general meeting;\nto fill up vacancies in its own ranks, and to make the necessary\nbye-laws for carrying out these laws and for the general management\nof the League.\n\n4. That all candidates for election as officers shall be nominated\none month before the annual general meeting, and that such nomination\nshall be publicly announced, the form and manner to be determined by\nthe council.\n\n\nV.--Membership.\n\nThat the conditions of membership be an annual subscription of one\nshilling, which shall be taken to imply adhesion to the rules of\nthe League; or an annual subscription of two shillings, which shall\nentitle the subscriber to receive the Malthusian. To constitute life\nmembership, a single payment of one guinea.\n\n\nVI.--General Meetings.\n\n1. That a general meeting be held once a year, at such place and time\nas the council shall determine, at which meeting the presentation of\nthe report and balance sheet and the election of officers shall take\nprecedence of all other business.\n\n2. That, on the receipt of a requisition signed by not less than\ntwenty-five members, a special general meeting be, within one month,\ncalled by the council. No other business but that set forth on the\nnotice calling the meeting shall be taken into consideration.\n\n3. That the voting at all meetings be taken by show of hands, except\nwhen a poll is demanded, when the voting shall be taken by ballot.\n\n\nVII.--Expulsion.\n\nThat the council have power to expel any member, but the member so\nexpelled shall have a right of appeal to the annual general meeting,\nor to a special general meeting called for that purpose.\n\n\nVIII.--Alteration of Rules.\n\nThat no alteration be made in these rules, except at an annual general\nmeeting, by the vote of two-thirds of those present, two months'\nnotice of the proposed alteration having been given to the council.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOVER-POPULATION; a Lecture delivered for the Sunday Lecture Society,\nunder the title \"The Law of Population: its Meaning and Menace.\" By\nJohn M. Robertson. Post free, 2 1/2d.\n\nPLAIN HOME-TALK, by Edward B. Foote, M.D. (U.S.A.) embracing Medical\nCommon Sense. 909 pages, with 200 illustrations.\n\n\n    Contents: The cause, Prevention, and Cure of Disease--The Food\n    we Eat--The Liquids we Drink--The Atmosphere we Live in--The\n    Clothes we Wear--Bad Habits of Children and Youth--Bad Habits of\n    Manhood and of Womanhood--Sexual Starvation--How to have Healthy\n    Babies--Private Words to Men--Impotency--History of Marriage, etc.\n\n\n    The book is carefully and thoughtfully written in plain language,\n    easily understood, and with the object of making its readers\n    better parents and better citizens through the knowledge obtained\n    of themselves and their duty to others. No parent should be\n    without this book. Useful for every-day reference.     Post free,\n    six shillings.\n\n\nDR. FOOTE'S HANDBOOK OF HEALTH, comprising information of the utmost\nimportance to all who wish to enjoy life. 128 pages, post free, 1/1.\n\nTHE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF T. R. MALTHUS. By C. R. Drysdale, M.D. 120\npages, with portrait of Malthus. Should be read by every student of\nsocial problems. Post free, 8d.\n\nTHE POPULATION QUESTION. By Dr. C. R. Drysdale. A careful and complete\nstatement of the Neo-Malthusian position. 100 pp., stout wrapper;\npost free 8d.\n\nTHE OVER-GROWTH OF POPULATION, AND ITS REMEDY. An Address to men only,\ndelivered at Lambeth Baths on Tuesday, January 15th, 1889, by William\nLant Carpenter, B.A., B.Sc. Post free, 2d.\n\nEARLY MARRIAGE AND LATE PARENTAGE. The only Solution of the Social\nProblem. By Oxoniensis. Post free, 2 1/2d.\n\nTHE CAUSE OF POVERTY. A paper read at the National Liberal Club,\nby Dr. C. R. Drysdale. Post free 2d.\n\nPOVERTY: Its Cause and Cure. By M. G. H. Post free, 2d.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] This has already been admirably done in two pamphlets by\nDr. C. R. Drysdale, President of the Malthusian League: (1) The Life\nand Writings of Malthus; (2) The Population Question.\n\n[2] Preface to Special Report of Trial.\n\n[3] Lucifer, July, 1891.\n\n[4] See Appendix.","title":"The Malthusian Handbook: Designed to Induce Married People to Limit Their Families Within Their Means.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":19223}