Jj i a ai ^j a M a irMXuj Kt a ^ &ik 
 
QJatncU Untucratty SItbrarg 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY 
 
 COLLECTED BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 
 1854-1919 
 BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 arV13428 , 
 
 ,n ..e high cpurt..afjusa,0a|,,ir 
 
 ""'""3 1924 031 494 275 
 olin.anx 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031494275 
 
Queen's Bench Division, June. 18tli, 1877. 
 
 THE QUEEN 
 
 V, 
 
 CHARLES MADLAUGH 
 
 AND 
 
 ANNIE BESANT. 
 
 (Specially Reported.) 
 
 LOND ON ; 
 FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 28 Stonecutter Strei-t> E.G. < I i 
 
^•^9 
 
 PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BESANT, 
 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.G. 
 
PRE FACE. 
 
 It is as a contribution to the discussion of the Population 
 Question that we issue this report of the prosecution 
 against ourselves for publishing Dr. Charles g,nowlton's 
 pamphlet, entitled " Fruits of Philosophy." Dr. Knowl- 
 ton's pamphlet, although an ably and carefully written 
 essay by a thoughtful and scientific man, is not, of itself, of 
 vital importance ; its importance lies in the fact that it is 
 condemned — says Lord Chief Justice Cockburn — because 
 it advocates prudential restraint to population, while also 
 advocating early marriage. It is the advocacy of pruden- 
 tial checks after marriage that is now said to be a punish- 
 able offence. Many a better book than that of Dr. Knowl- 
 ton might be written on the same subject to-day, for we 
 have had 40 years of scientific improvement since " Fruits 
 of Philosophy " was penned ; until, however, the judgment 
 against Knowlton is reversed, no better book can be pub- 
 lished, for doctors will not write, and publishers will not 
 sell, a work which may bring them within the walls of a gaol. 
 It was for the sake of free discussion that we published the 
 assailed pamphlet when its former seller yielded to the 
 pressure put upon him by the police ; it was not so much in 
 defence of this pamphlet, as to make the way possible for 
 others dealing with the same topic, that we risked the penalty 
 which has fallen upon us. The accounts of the trial which 
 have appeared in the daily and weekly papers have brought to 
 the knowledge of thousands a great social question of whose 
 existence they had no idea before this prosecution took 
 place. Once more a cause has triumphed by the fall of its 
 defenders. Once more a new truth has been spread every- 
 
U PREFACE. 
 
 where by its persecutors, and has gained a hearing from the 
 dock that it could never have won from the platform. It 
 had been thought by many that the right to free discussion 
 had been won by the gallant struggles of the earlier half of 
 the present century ; it was never dreamed that Lord 
 Campbell's Act might be strained to include medical and 
 scientific works ; its author scouted the possibility of such 
 misuse, and himself limited its object to the seizure of the 
 foul literature of passion and sensuality. By the judgment 
 in this cause every medical bookseller is put in jeopardy, 
 and medical authors must find their own safety in the high 
 price — and consequent restricted circulation — of their 
 works. Ignorance has again become a cardinal virtue, and 
 the tree of knowledge is again guarded by the fiery sword 
 of the law. 
 
 What will be the ultimate issue of the stru[;gle is certain; 
 this battle will end, as every other such battle has ended, 
 in the triumph of a Free Press. There is but one limit to 
 that Freedom, and that is that slander and libel should be 
 easily punishable by the law, so that the pen should not be 
 permitted to vent private maUce in assault on private reputa- 
 tion. The discussion of a question of ethics, of social 
 science, of medicine, is an attack on no one; no one's repu- 
 tation is injured by it; it can have nothing in it of the nature 
 of slander. Such discussion has always been the medium 
 of progress, and the right to it must be won at all hazards. 
 
 Charles Bradlaugh. 
 Annie Besant. 
 
THE OUEEN 
 
 CHARLES BRADLAUGH & ANNIE BESANT. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice took his seat at 10.30 a.m. 
 precisely. The Solicitor-General, Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. 
 Doaglas Straight, and Mr. Mead appeared for the prosecu- 
 tion ; Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh appeared in person. 
 On calling over by ballot the list of special jurymen, the 
 following gentlemen answered to their names : — Alfred 
 Upward, 16, Linden Gardens, N. H., gentleman ; Augustus 
 Voelcker, 39, Argyle Read, chemist ; Captain Alfred Henry 
 Waldy, 9, Stanhope Gardens, esquire; Thomas Richard 
 Walker, 31, Colville Gardens, bank manager ; Robert 
 Wallace, 32, Lancaster Road North, gentleman ; Edmund 
 Waller, 33, St. Mary Abbott's Terrace, gentleman ; Arthur 
 Walter, 15, Queen's Gate Terrace, gentleman; Charles 
 Alfred Walter, 7, Holland Road, gentleman ; John Ward, 
 79, Ladbroke Grove, N.H., gentleman; Arthur Warre, 109, 
 Onslow Square, Brompton, gentleman; and the two 
 talesmen, who were afterwards added to make up the number, 
 were George Skinner and Charles Wilson. 
 
 The Special Jury list having thus been called over, there 
 were only eleven persons present who answered, and the 
 eleventh made an application to the judge to be excused 
 from serving as he was the director of a public company. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh, rising, said : Before the jury are sworn, 
 my lord — I think this will be the proper time — I have a 
 motion to make to your lordship. The motion is to quash 
 the indictment, on the ground 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not think I can allow 
 that. I am sitting here in nisi prius. 
 
 A 2 
 
Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, the 14th and isth Victoria, 
 cap. 100, says, "That any objection to any indictment for 
 any formal defect apparent on the face of the indictment 
 shall be taken by demurrer or motion to quash such indict- 
 ment before the jury shall be sworn, and not afterwards," and 
 it is for a defect on the face of the indictment that I move to 
 quash it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then you should move in 
 banco, and not in this court. Surely that contemplates a 
 motion in banco. What do you say, Mr. Solicitor? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Yes, my lord, that is, as I take 
 it, the meaning of these statutes. These pleadings here are 
 in the Crown Office, and if the defendant was intending to 
 demur he should have moved in that way, or by motion in 
 court. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not intend to demur, my lord, but 
 I do intend to submit that, under the statute, my right to 
 move to quash the indictment is clear, and I should respect- 
 fully insist 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Well, I will reser\-e that 
 point. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then your lordship will reserve that 
 point. Need I state to you the grounds ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No. I will reseire the 
 point. If it is competent for me to hear the motion at all 
 this will preserve your right. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : That will give us all I wish to obtain. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, I presume that you will reserve 
 it for me as well ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh (handing in the Attorne)'-Generars 
 warrant) : Then I will pray a tales. 
 
 On this, the usher was sent for one common juryman to 
 make up the mystic twelve. 
 
 The jury were about to be sworn, when 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice said : This gentleman has a 
 strong wish not to serve, as he is the director of a public 
 company (indicating the juryman who had asked to be 
 excused). If you have no objection to raise I will release 
 him, as a tales has been prayed by Mr. Bradlaugh. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : If your lordship pleases. 
 
 A second common juryman was then added, and the yoxy 
 were sworn in the usual way. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh, handing up a number of conies of the 
 
" Fruits of Philosophy," said : It may be convenient for 
 the Court— I have spoken to the Solicitor-General on the 
 subject — if your lordship does not object — for the jury to 
 have each a copy of the work in question. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : It will be very convenient 
 indeed to do so, and it will render unnecessary the reading 
 of certain passages out of the book. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is absolutely essential that 
 the jury shall be thoroughly possessed not only of the sub- 
 stance but of the actual language of the book. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I quite agree in that, and 
 cannot object. 
 
 Mr. Mead, as the junior counsel, having formally stated 
 the pleadings, 
 
 The Solicitor-General then commenced his address 
 to the jury. He said : Gentlemen of the jury, the two 
 defendants before you are indicted for having published 
 an obscene libel, which is the form, according to our Eng- 
 lish jurisprudence, the criminal courts adopt for the purpose 
 of preventing the dissemination of any matter which is 
 cal'culated to destroy or corrupt the morals of the people, 
 and, perhaps, it is not altogether immaterial that I should 
 narrate to you, in the first instance, the mode in which this 
 prosecution comes before you, because I cannot help feel- 
 ing, and the magistrates who have moved in this prosecution 
 probably could not help feeling, that, in itself, it is (I mean 
 the prosecution) a thing which may produce mischief I 
 think, before the end of the case, it will be found it has 
 produced mischief already; Ijut the circumstances were 
 such that those who, to some extent, possessed authority in 
 the City of London, were put in the dilemma of either per- 
 mitting this publication to be sown broadcast over the 
 whole of the City, and to be placed in the hands of any 
 person, however young, or else to institute this prosecu- 
 tion. Now, the circumstances were these : It would appear 
 that a Mr. Watts had published (I believe some years 
 ago) a book which he called the "Fruits of Philosophy; 
 or, the Private Companion of Young Married Couples." 
 Probably, gentlemen, you never heard of it, and, hap- 
 jjily, I think, I may say, the world had never heard 'of 
 it until it was published in Bristol, and became the sub- 
 ject of an indictment there, and attention having been 
 called to it, the defendants appear to have come to the con- 
 clusion that the result of that case was unsatisfactory, and 
 
they determined to test the question whether persons were 
 not entitled to publish that book (substantially it is the 
 same book, as you will see presently) ; and, accordingly, 
 they appear, having published a new edition, to have sent a 
 memorandum to the magistrates and to the police in these 
 words : — " From the Freethought Publishing Company, 28, 
 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, E.G. All orders t» 
 be addressed to the manager, Mr. W. J. Ramsey. March 
 23Td, 1877. To Mr. Martin, Guildhall.— Charles Brad- 
 laugh and Annie Besant will attend at the above address to- 
 morrow, from four to five o'clock, to sell the enclosed 
 pamphlet." That is the pamphlet which is the subject- 
 matter of this indictment. Then they sent a similar notice 
 to Detective-Sergeant William Green : — " Charles Brad- 
 laugh and Annie Besant will attend at the above address 
 to-morrow, from four to five, to sell the enclosed pamphlet ; 
 and this notice is sent to you officially to report to the 
 superior person from whom you received instructions to 
 prosecute in the case.'' Well, gentlemen, upon receiving 
 this notice they proceeded to the place in question, without 
 receiving any instructions ; but the authorities subsequently 
 confirmed their action in the matter. They proceeded to 
 the place, and purchased some of these pamphlets ; and the 
 result is, that the question which, in truth, has to be 
 decided by this indictm.ent, is, whether or not the defen- 
 dants were entitled to sell for sixpence this book, which I 
 hold in my hand, to every person to whom it may occur 
 that it is interesting, or amusing, or exciting to the morbid 
 appetite, to purchase a book of this description. Upon the 
 question (it sometimes is the question, of course, upon 
 which matters of this sort turn) whether there has been any 
 publication of the pamphlet, no question will arise here. 
 The publication is of an absolute character. The sum 
 sought to be charged is sixpence ; and the only question, 
 therefore, which will remain for your decision, will be 
 whether or not this is an obscene book. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that quite so ? Is it not 
 that the language, if it cannot be called obscene, is such 
 that its effect might be to vitiate public morals ; and 
 although the work in point of language may be perfectly 
 free from any objection, still I think that then, in point of 
 law, it would be a libel. A work may not be obscene, it 
 may not be prurient, it may not be open to objection in 
 that respect, and yet it might tend to subvert public 
 
morality, I do not know that by public morality we mean 
 only those rules which regulate the intercourse of the sexes. 
 It involves every rule of human conduct. If a person, in a 
 book, were to teach a thing recommended in certain cases, 
 assassination, you could not characterise that as an, obscene 
 book. It would yet be open to the objection that the book 
 tended to subvert public morals in the other accepta- 
 tion. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I was using the word obscene 
 rather in the sense in which your lordship has used it — in 
 the sense of depraving morals ; and in the case which I 
 shall have to quote from, your lordship there uses the words : 
 "Not using the word ' obscene ' in the sense of involving 
 any coarseness or vulgarity of expression, but as something 
 which is calculated to destroy the morals," in giving judg- 
 ment in the case of the Queen v. Hicklin, vol. 3 of the 
 Reports of the Queen's Bench, page 371. That is the 
 passage from which I am about to quote. The report 
 commences at page 360, and youi lordship, in giving judg- 
 ment, said : " I think the test of obscenity is this : whether 
 the tendency of the matter charged- is to deprave and 
 corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral 
 influences, and into whose hands it is likely to fall." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : V/hat was the character of 
 the book ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : The character of the book 
 there was of this sort, that it was a publication of a 
 Protestant society, which had taken a very strong view 
 against the impurity of certain questions asked and ideas 
 suggested by the Roman Catholic priests in the confessional, 
 and it quoted a variety of the doctors of the Roniish Church, 
 Sanchez, Loyola, and a great many others, and the Protestant 
 Society in question had published this book for the purpose 
 of showing how wicked and immoral and depraving was the 
 institution, and it seems to me that your lordship's words 
 there are perfectly applicable to this case. The contention 
 of obscenity seems to me to be exactly what I would suggest 
 to the jury as applicable to the case before the court. Nov/, 
 gentlemen, the book in question, as you will see, is a book 
 comprehending in the edition with which we are dealing, 
 forty-sevon pages ; and that which had been described in 
 the original book from which it is taken and which gave rise 
 to this prosecution, as " the private companion of young 
 married couples," becomes in the edition to which your 
 
8 
 
 attention will be called an "Essay on the Population 
 Question," and the nature of the book — before I read 
 any part of it, appears to me to be this — the writer contends 
 that it is not an improper thing to gratify any animal 
 passion which human nature may be susceptible of, that the 
 gratification of the animal instincts in the commerce of 
 the sexes produces in a great many instances an over- 
 crowded population. The writer appears to contend that 
 for the cure of that evil, and for the purpose of enabUng 
 persons to gratify their passions without that evil being so 
 great as it is, and may be, in the world, it is lawful and 
 proper, and expedient, to disseminate among the people a 
 minute description of physical means whereby the popula- 
 tion may be checked, that the commerce of the sexes may 
 be permitted to continue, and that by various means which 
 he minutely describes, the result of conception, and the 
 consequent birth of children, may be averted. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think it is hardly right to 
 say that unless you introduce another element into the argu- 
 ment, which is that the restrictions which another celebrated 
 writer on population pressed as the means of correcting 
 the evil of excessive population was the restriction upon 
 marriage, and the author of this book says : " That is 
 wrong. Marriage — and marriage at an early stage of life 
 ■ — should be encouraged ;" but he argues rhat, as the eft'ect 
 of early marriage is to increase population, so those arti- 
 ficial means of preventing population should be resorted to, 
 but you must not leave out one element of his reasoning, 
 that he insists upon marriage, and does not profess to 
 suggest these means of checking population as the reason 
 why marriage may be dispensed with. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I did not mean to represent 
 that there was an actual mention of commerce between the 
 sexes without marriage. Whether or not it might obviously 
 suggest itself to persons who wished to gratify their passions 
 without marriage, I will not say. I was about to say that 
 marriage is continually mentioned in the course of the 
 book. This was what I should be disposed myself to 
 suggest as a mere colourable introduction of that which in 
 terms suggests marriage, but which it will be for the jury, if 
 they look at the whole scope and tendency of the reasoning, 
 to consider whether it is more than a colourable — the in- 
 troduction of the word marriage, from time to time, in the 
 progress of the argument. But the argument wiiich I was 
 
dealing with was the mode in which it was suggested that 
 the evils of over-population could be avoided by physical 
 checks. (The Solicitor-General then briefly alluded to the 
 contents of pages ii — 18, 18 — 33, 44, and 38 — 41.) That 
 is the nature of the book. The mode in which the subject 
 is treated I am afraid you must hear more minutely here- 
 after. That is the scope and tenor of the arguments. As 
 my lord has pointed out to you (and, indeed, as I had 
 intended to point out to you), all this is put before 
 the reader under — what, I should say, in speaking plainly— 
 under the guise of philosophy. The writer professes to 
 entertain deep sympathies with the poor curate, and the 
 artisan, who is, by the circumstances of his life, unable to 
 afford the means of the care and rearing of an enormous 
 family. The book, I think it may be said, is carefully 
 guarded from any vulgarity of expression ; the whole tone 
 of it is, as I say, under the guise of philosophy and medical 
 science. Further, it may be said that the two defendants, 
 v/ho are the publishers, in the preface here, say that they 
 are neither of them doctors, that they do not affirm the 
 medical truths which are laid down by the author of the 
 book, who, perhaps, I should have told you before, Was a 
 Mr. Knowlton, a medical man, and they profess, therefore, 
 not to entirely assent to, or advocate, all the medical truths 
 which the writer puts forward in the book ; and, further, 
 with respect to the philosophical proem which precedes the 
 book, they profess to disagree with the propositions which 
 appear in that part of the work. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The book has been pub- 
 lished in America, and was first introduced in this country 
 forty years ago, I think ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I believe so, my lord. They 
 further proceed to say they do not agree with some of the 
 propositions in the philosophical proem, and which I rather 
 think they say are mistakes. But what underlies apparently 
 the whole thing, and what may be taken to be the principle 
 of the defence here as far as one gathers is this : that it is a 
 subject of interest, that the subject of the population, and the 
 relations between the sexes, may involve a subject of deep 
 national interest, and, therefore, the defence appears to be of 
 this character : although we do not agree with some of the 
 medical knowledge, and although we do not agree with all 
 the philosophical proem, yet, as it is a subject of interest we 
 claim a right to publish it, because, in the conflict of opinion, 
 
and the discussion which may ensue, the truth ultimately 
 may be elicited. That appears to me to be the main pro- 
 position underlying the whole of the contention, that they 
 have a right to publish this work. Gentlemen, I will now 
 read to you the preface, which will put you into possession, 
 at all events, of the ground upon which the writer, or the 
 publisher rather, in this case, feels himself at liberty to 
 publish this broadcast all over the country. 
 
 (The Solicitor-General here read the preface at length, 
 and, when he came to the words where the change of the 
 sub-title is spoken of, he said : Gentlemen, that is the title 
 which I will remind you was in its original form — " The 
 Private Companion of Young Married Couples" — and that 
 is now omitted. The Solicitor-General then read the 
 preface to the end.) 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have thought it right that you should be 
 at once in possession of the defence which it is intended to 
 suggest for the publication of the work in question, because 
 I think it will be found that what may be called the ultimate 
 object and intention of the persons publishing is not the 
 question which you have to determine. Although there are 
 many passages in this work which might be the subject of 
 unfavourable commentary, I would rather have you believe 
 that the persons publishing this work were actuated by the 
 motives which their defence sets forth. But the question 
 will still remain, whether they are justified in publ'shing and 
 circulating in the wholesale and umestricted way which I 
 have pointed out to you, that which — if in the result you 
 should be of that opinion — is an obscene work. Gentlemen, 
 that question arose some few years ago, it is in fact very 
 much in the course of discussion at the present moment, as 
 I had occasion to observe in speaking of the case from which 
 I am about to quote. A discussion took place some time 
 ago on the subject of the confessional in the Romish Church, 
 and it was a subject of the deepest interest both to those 
 who took the Protestant view that the confessional was 
 wrong, and to the Roman Catholic party, who were of opinion 
 that it was a sacrament, and essential to the discipline 
 of their church. This discussion, no one can deny, was fraught 
 with most important consequences on each side, and on the 
 one hand the directions which were given to confessors by 
 doctors of the Roman Church were veiled in the compara- 
 tive obscurity of a learned language. Those who took the 
 other view though; themselves justified, and it was held by 
 
courts before whom the question came that it ought to be 
 assumed in their favour in the discussion of the question that 
 they really did believe that, for the purpose of getting rid of 
 the evil effects of the confessional, they were entitled to pub- 
 lish to everybody the sort of questions which it was urged 
 confessors were authorized to put to those who were con- 
 fessing in the confessional. It was argued on the one side : 
 this is a most important public question ; this is a matter 
 which affects the relations between the great Christian 
 churches into which Christianity is divided, and, therefore, 
 this is a matter of the greatest public concern, and should 
 have the most absolute and unreserved publicity in discuss- 
 ing all that is relevant to the question. Gentlemen, that 
 question came before this court, and I can do no better, I 
 think, than read to you what was said upon that subject, 
 because it seems to me to go to the very pith of the matter 
 which we are at present discussing. Now here I might call 
 to your mind the motive which is said to influence the per- 
 sons who are publishing this book — viz., the motive of the- 
 general welfare of mankind, avoiding the evils due to the 
 increase of the population, and the misery which it is said is 
 inflicted on persons of small means who marry and are 
 unable to sustain large families. There the object was to 
 destroy what was considered to be a false system of theology, 
 and now remembering that, I think I cannot do better than 
 to read to you on that subject the judgment which my lord,, 
 who now so happily presides here, concurred in, as it was. 
 by the whole court present. The Solicitor-General theri 
 read as follows : — 
 
 " We have cotisidered this matter, and we are of opinion 
 that the judgment of the learned Recorder must be re- 
 versed, and the decision of the magistrates affirmed." This 
 was a proceeding under 20 and 21 Vict., c. 83, s. i, whereby 
 it is provided that in respect of obscene books, &c., kept to 
 be sold or distributed, magistrates may order the seizure 
 and condemnation of such works in casethey are of opinion, 
 that the publication of them would have been the subject- 
 matter of an indictment at law, and that such prosecution 
 ought to have been instituted. Now, it is found here, as a. 
 fact, that the work which is the subject-matter of the 
 present proceeding was, to a considerable extent, an obscene 
 publication, and, by reason of the obscene matter in it, cal- 
 culated to produce a pernicious effect in depraving and 
 debauching the minds of the persons into whose hands it 
 
might come. The magistrates must have been of opinion 
 that the work was indictable, and that the pubhcation of it 
 was a fit and proper subject for indictment. We must take 
 the latter finding of the magistrates to have been adopted 
 by the learned Recorder when he reversed their decision, 
 because it is not upon that ground that he reversed it : he 
 leaves that ground untouched; but he reversed the magi- 
 strates' decision upon the ground that, although this work 
 was an obscene publication, and although its tendency upon 
 the public mind was that suggested upon the part of the 
 information, yet that the immediate intention of the appel- 
 lant was not so to affect the public mind, but to expose the 
 practices and errors of the confessional system in the Roman 
 Catholic Church. Noav, we must take it upon the finding 
 of the Recorder that such was the motive of the appellant 
 in distributing this publication — that his intention was 
 honestly and bon&fide to expose the errors and practices of 
 the Roman Catholic Church in the matter of confession ; 
 and upon that ground of motive the Recorder thought an 
 indictment could not have been sustained, inasmuch as to 
 the maintenance of the indictment it would have been 
 necessary that the intention should be alleged and proved — 
 viz., that of corrupting the public mind by the obscene 
 matter in question. In that respect I differ from the 
 Recorder. I think that if there be an infraction of the law, 
 the intention to break the law must be inferred, and the 
 criminal character of the publication is not affected or 
 qualified by there being any ulterior object in view (which 
 is the immediate and primary object of the parties) of a 
 different and of an honest character. It is quite clear 
 that the publishing of an obscene book is an offence 
 against the law of the land. It is perfectly true, as has been 
 pointed out by Mr. Kydd, that there are a great many pub- 
 lications of high repute in the literary productions of this 
 country, the tendency of which is immodest, and, if you 
 please, immoral, and, possibly, there might have been sub- 
 ject-matter for indictment in many of the works which have 
 been referred to. But it is not to be said, because there 
 are in many standard and established works objectionable 
 passages, that therefore the law is not as alleged on the 
 part of this prosecution — viz., that obscene works ai-e the 
 subject-matter of indictment, and I think the test of ob- 
 scenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged 
 as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds 
 
13 
 
 are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands 
 a publication of this sort may fall. Now, with regard to 
 this work, it is quite certain that it would suggest to the 
 minds of the young of either sex, or even to persons of ad- 
 vanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous 
 character. The very reason why this work is put forward to 
 expose the practices of the Roman Catholic confessional, is 
 the tendency of questions, involving practices and pro- 
 pensities of a certain description, to do mischief to the 
 minds of those to whom such questions are addressed, 
 by suggesting thoughts and desires which otherwise 
 could not have occurred to their minds. If that be the 
 case as between the priest and the person confessing, it 
 manifestly must equally be so when the whole is put into the 
 shape of a series of paragraphs, one following upon another, 
 each involving some impure practice, some of them of the 
 most filthy and disgusting and unnatural description it is 
 possible to imagine. I take it, therefore, that apart from 
 the ulterior object which the publication of this work had in 
 view, the work itself, in every sense of the term, is an obscene 
 publication, and that, consequently as the law of England 
 does not allow of any obscene publication, such publication 
 is indictable. We have it, therefore, that the publication 
 * itself is a breach of the law. But then it is said for the 
 appellant, ' Yes, but his purpose was not to deprave the 
 public mind ; his purpose was to expose the errors of the 
 Roman Catholic religion, especially in the matter of the 
 confessional' Be it so. The question then presents itself 
 in this simple form : May you commit an offence against 
 the law in order that thereby you may effect some ulterior 
 object which you have in view, which may be an honest and 
 even a laudable one ? My answer is emphatically, ' No.' The 
 law says you shall not publish an obscene work. An obscerie 
 work is here published, and a work the obscenity of which is 
 so clear and decided that it is impossible to suppose that the 
 man who published it must not have known and seen that 
 the effect upon the minds of many of those into whose 
 hands it would come would be of a mischievous and demo- 
 ralising character. Is he justified in doing that which clearly 
 would be wrong, legally as well as morally, because he 
 thiriks that some greater good may be accomplished ? In 
 order to prevent the spread and progress of Catholicism in 
 this country, or possibly to extirpate it in another, and to 
 prevent the State from affording any coimtenance to the 
 
14 
 
 Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, is he justified in doing 
 that which has necessarily the immediate tendency of demo- 
 ralising the public mind wherever this publication is circu- 
 lated ? It seems to me that to adopt the affirmative of that 
 proposition would be to uphold something which, in my 
 sense of what is right and wrong, would be very repre- 
 liensible. It appears to me the only good that is to 
 be accomplished is of the most uncertain character." 
 Gentlemen, I pause here to say that I most deeply regret 
 tliat every word which I am now reading, applying to the 
 " Confessional Unmasked," is applicable to this work. I 
 have it on the face of the last edition, which bears on its 
 title-page these words, " This is the one hundredth thou- 
 sand." The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment, continues: 
 ■" This work, I am told, is sold at the corners of streets and 
 in all directions ; and, of course, it falls into the hands of 
 persons of all classes, young and old, and the minds of the 
 hitherto pure are exposed to the dangers of contamination 
 and pollution from the impurity it contains. And ■ for 
 what ? To prevent them, it is said, from becoming Roman 
 Catholics, when the probability is that nine hundred and 
 ninety-nine out of the thousand into whose hands this 
 work would fall would never be exposed to the chance 
 of being converted to the Roman Catholic religion. 
 It seems to me that the effect of this work is mischievous 
 and against the law, and is not to be justified because the 
 immediate object of the publication is not to deprave the 
 public mind, but it may be to extirpate Roman CathoHcism. 
 I think that the old sound and honest maxim, that you shall 
 not do evil that good may come, is applicable in law as well 
 as in morals, and here we have a certain and positive evil 
 produced for the purpose of effecting an uncertain and remote 
 nnd very doubtful good. I think, therefore, the case for the 
 order is made out, and although I quite concur in thinking 
 that the motive of the parties who published this work, how- 
 ever mistaken, was an honest one, yet I cannot suppose 
 l)ut what they had that intention which constitutes the 
 criminality of the act, at any rate, that they knew perfectly 
 well that this work must have the tendency which, in point 
 of law, makes it an obscene publication, namely, the tendency 
 to corrupt the minds and morals of those into whose hands 
 it might come. The mischief of it, I think, cannot be exag- 
 gerated. But it is not upon that I take my stand in the 
 judgment I pronounce. I am of opinion, as the learned 
 
IS 
 
 Recorder has found, that this is an obscene publication. I 
 hold that where a man publishes a work manifestly obscene, 
 he must be taken to have had the intention which is im- 
 plied from that act, and that as soon as you have an illegal 
 act thus established, quoad the intention and quoad the act, 
 it does not lie in the mouth of the man who does it to say : 
 ' Well, I was breaking the law, but I was breaking it for 
 some wholesome and salutary purpose.' The law does not 
 allow that ; you must abide by the law, and if you would 
 accomplish your object, you must do it in a legal manner or 
 let it alone ; you must not do it in a manner which is 
 illegal. I think, therefore, that the Recorder's judgment 
 must be reversed, and the order must stand." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; In that case it was alleged 
 that the questions put in the " Confessional " were calcu- 
 lated to suggest unchaste and unclean thoughts, and, there- 
 lore, it appeared to me, they were calculated to lead to 
 immorality, and that a man could not say, " I published a 
 work of an immoral tendency, but to effect what I thought 
 would be a greater good." We all held that that was no 
 answer. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : No doubt, my lord, your lord- 
 ship will remember that the whole of the questions used 
 m the " Confessional " jvere published side by side with the 
 strongest protest against such questions being permitted to 
 be put. Tlie mere fact of publishing the work the full Court 
 held to be illegal. The other judges concurred in your 
 lordship's judgment, giving their special reasons. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think the questions were 
 pretty nearly the same as those recently referred to in the 
 House of Lords. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I have no desire to unnecessarily 
 interrupt the learned Solicitor-General ; but I would submit, 
 my lord, that he has no right to present to the jury some- 
 thing which he must not prove until after the verdict, and 
 •which does not relate to the matter at issue ; and therefore 
 I think it is hardly fair for him to introduce into his speech, for 
 the purpose of influencing a verdict, the alleged fact he has 
 recently referred to with regard to the publication of the work. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Perhaps it would be better 
 to confine the case to the issue there is to be tried. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : A part of my case is that the 
 publication of this work recently must affect the act ot 
 publication, and is important for the jury to know. 
 
i6 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : The indictment is for a publication on 
 March 24th and March 29th. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I decide that point for you, 
 Mr. Bradlaugh. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well ; I thank your lordship. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I must not be taken to consent 
 to its not being important now, and shall have to refer to it 
 again. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I will take my objection at the proper 
 time. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : In questions of this kind it 
 should be borne in mind by the jury, not only the nature of 
 the work published, but the mode of publication, and I 
 cannot do better than to read to you, gentlemen, his lord- 
 ship's own language inthecase I have already referred to — The 
 Queen v. Hicklin. His lordship, at page 367 of " Common 
 Law Reports, Q. B.," says : "A medical treatise, with illus- 
 trations necessary for the information of those for whose 
 education or information the work is intended, may in a 
 certain sense be obscene, and yet not the subject for indict- 
 ment, but it can never be that these prints may be 
 exposed for any one, boys and girls, to see as they pass. The im- 
 morality must depend upon the circumstances of the publica- 
 tion." Therefore, gentlemen, as it appears to me, it is a matter 
 worthy of your consideration, not only the nature of the 
 work itself, but the mode in which it was and is now 
 claimed to be published. It is not whether a work of this 
 kind can be submitted to a college of philosophy, but 
 whether it can be sold at the price of sixpence about the 
 streets of London and elsewhere, and it is with a \iew to 
 stopping that publication that the law has interfered. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is assuming always 
 that it is an obscene work. I did not intend it to apply to 
 a work on a scientific question. 
 
 The Solicitor-General: No; it may be absolutely 
 necessary for the medical profession that plates and works 
 treating on obstetric matters should be published ; but who 
 v.'ould say it would be right to publish such things indis- 
 criminately throughout England ? And it is to that ques- 
 tion that I venture to think the distinction of my Ic^d 
 , seems to point. The morality or immorality in such a case 
 must depend upon the circumstances of the publication. 
 We have here, in the work before us, a chapter on restric- 
 tion published, not written in any learned language, but in 
 
17 
 
 plain English, in a facile form, and sold in the public 
 streets at sixpence. Of course, as my lord has pointed out, 
 although the question is one of publication, the mode of 
 publication is involved. You must first establish that the 
 work is an obscene work. Now, gentlemen, I do not wish 
 to read you extracts from the work. I would rather refer 
 you to the passages in the copies of the work you have 
 before you, which we, the prosecution, rely upon as being 
 obscene. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Meaning by obscene, tend- 
 ing to influence the passions, or recommending some course 
 of conduct inconsistent with public morals. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I do not want, gentlemen, to 
 trouble you in going through many passages of this' work ; 
 but at page 34 you will find a chapter on promoting and 
 checking conception. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I am not sure, my lord, whether your 
 lordship had a copy of the same edition as that which the 
 Solicitor-General and the jury have ; but I will hand your 
 lordship one. 
 
 Having handed one to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord 
 Chief Justice said : I found a difference in the paging. 
 This, Mr. Bradlaugh, is the same edition as that which 
 the Solicitor-General is about to refer to ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Yes, my lord ; and the same as the 
 
 one on which the indictment is founded ; there is a little 
 
 left out of the one which is contained in the other edition. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And the same as the jury 
 
 have is this ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Yes, my lord, and the same as that 
 which is the subject of the indictment. The one your lord- 
 ship had was the later edition, handed up on the motion for 
 the certiorari. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : The whole chapter, gentlemen, 
 is, as you will perceive, devoted to the subject of promoting 
 and checking conception, referring, amongst other matters 
 to the use of cayenne ; and, gentlemen, I do not desire to 
 read it. I would rather refer you to the chapter, and ycu 
 will perceive for yourself what it purports to be. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Are you not going to read it ? 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not wish to compel the Solicitor- 
 General to read the pamphlet, but I require to know the 
 exact parts relied on to support the indictment. I have 
 applied to the prosecution for a statement of the parts relied 
 
on, and have been refused. I am afraid for our defence I 
 shall have to require the prosecution to read the work to the 
 jury, unless we are allowed to know the exact words relied 
 upon by the learned gentleman. 
 
 The Lord' Chief Justice : Yes, I think that is fair. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I thought it would be unfair 
 to the defendants in one sense to select any part of the 
 book. I presume Mr. Bradlaugh's motion which he 
 was about to make was on the ground that there were no 
 passages mentioned in the indictment, but merely that the 
 work was an obscene book. It seemed to me that it would 
 be unfair to the defendants and to the prosecution to select 
 any one part of the book. I thought we needed only to- 
 give the jury that which it seemed to me was the key to the 
 whole publication. If not, the whole book must be read. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I quite agree ; but still I was. 
 supposing that if there was anything independent of the 
 whole scope of the work that you could put your finger on 
 and say it tended to obscenity, it is right that the defendants 
 should know it. In one part he discusses the causes 
 of sterility in females, and how it may be cured by means 
 of certain remedies such as he suggests. One, for instance, 
 you say, is by the use of cayenne. That, it may be argued, is 
 medical information ; but, on the other hand, it may be said to 
 be an indecent and indictable passage. It is well known that 
 sterility is a source of great discomfort to women who wish 
 to be blessed with children, and any man who can suggest a. 
 mode for its removal would be a benefactor to humanity ; 
 but, as you say, that may be used as a disguise to instil bad 
 notions into the mind. That is aquestion for the jury to decide, 
 and for that purpose they must have the subject before them. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I shall have to read the whole 
 of that chapter ; but I did not wish to give the jury the 
 pain and trouble to hear it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Very well, read it. The 
 book must be read, sooner or later, either by you, Mr. 
 SoUcitor, or the officer of the court. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I thought it was unfair to read 
 a part. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Whatever part of the work the learned 
 Solicitor thinks it his duty to refer to, I have a large number 
 of standard medical works, of the highest character, which I 
 shall have to read extracts from, showing that e\-ery line 
 of Knowlton is amply covered by the best authorities. I 
 
19 
 
 mention that, as I should like the Solicitor-General to know 
 how I put it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What I shall ask the jury will 
 be very much like this : If they take the statements con- 
 tained in the work to be a treatise on obstetric medicine, do 
 they consider there is anything in it which the writer was not 
 justified in writing? And, looking to the whole character of 
 the work, do they think it is introduced into the work merely 
 for the purposes of medical knowledge useful for the people 
 to know, or do they think it tends to immoral results? 
 Whether you read it, or whether it is read by the officer of 
 the court, or the defendaTits, matters little ; the jury must 
 hear it. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I only want the passages the Solicitor- 
 General reUes on precisely stated, so that I may identify the 
 parts I have to answer. I do not want to put the Solicitor- 
 General, or the officer of the court, to the inconvenience of 
 reading it. Nor do I desire thus to waste thet ime of the court. 
 The Solicitor-General to the jury : I will point out 
 one of the passages which, I think, evidently not only shows 
 the object of the writer but illustrates the mischief and evil 
 that the work is liable to produce. It is really extremely 
 painful to me, (hesitating) very painful, to have to read this. 
 At page 38 you will find — [Here the Solicitor-General read 
 to the end of the chapter]. Gentlemen, I have read the 
 whole of that, and I assure you that it has been with 
 extreme pain and regret that I have found myself compelled 
 to read it, and if it were possible — I don't know that it is, 
 but if it were — to do what the defendant said in his inter- 
 locutory statements, i. e., to produce from any number of 
 medical works observations supporting this book in its 
 entirety, I should submit that a medical work, published as 
 this is, would be properly the subject of an indictment. It 
 must not be assumed that, peradventure, a great number of 
 works having been published that have not been made the 
 subject of indictment, that another should not be pro- 
 ceeded against. No one feels more deeply than I do that 
 these prosecutions are fraught with danger, and that 
 any number of authorities may be brought before you 
 to suggest that these works are not novel. Any autho- 
 rities of that sort I should recommend you to disregard. 
 You may tell me about American doctors ; but it is 
 not to be permitted that doctors in England shall have 
 a right to circulate such filth, and then be allowed to 
 
 B 3 
 
20 
 
 substantiate it by instances from other medical works. 
 Many things — medical treatises, recommendations for the 
 use of medicaments, herbs, and so forth — applicable to the 
 ills under which humanity may suffer may, in the study of 
 the physician, be properly considered for the purpose of 
 applying to mankind some kind of remedy for the evils 
 under which they may suffer. But is it to be said that 
 because these things may be discussed and considered in the 
 closet of the physician, that they maybe cast broadcast all over 
 the streets ? If you accept that, you entirely subvert the princi- 
 ple which is properly deducible, and there is no such thing as 
 indecency and obscenity at all. A man who had the view 
 that the human figure was the most beautiful in the world 
 might claim the right to walk naked through the streets, and 
 might triumphantly say, " I am exhibiting nothing but the 
 natural parts, and it is only a prurient mind that will see 
 anything improper in it." And you might push it to the 
 extreme of saying that, inasmuch as sexual intercourse 
 is a natural provision, there is nothing improper in 
 publicly performing it. — [We paraphrase the extreme coarse- 
 ness of the language here used by the learned counsel]. 
 There is no limit to the extent to which a proposition like 
 that may be carried. The question is for the good sense of an 
 English jury, whether what I have read to you — and I don't 
 wish to read any more^may be properly sold. I rely upon that 
 passage readasindicatingwhat is the nature, the extent, and the 
 scope of that particular passage led up to, as I have told you 
 it is, by a description of the parts engaged. It may be said that 
 parts of this book — the defendant will be entitled to point 
 to them, and I wish to make no concealment of such pas- 
 sages — contain passages in which the general scope and 
 thesis enforced relates to marriage, which is introduced where 
 the connection between the sexes is spoken of Therefore, 
 you may read it thus : I recommend this not as a mode 
 by which persons who are unmarried may gratify their pas- 
 sions without the consequences which follow from that grati- 
 fication. You may read it in every line that the defendant 
 recommends and points out this simply as the use that ia 
 to be made of the preventive check, assuming that lawful 
 connection between the sexes, and assuming that marriage 
 has sanctified the intercourse of which he is speaking. Gentle- 
 men, the question for you is, whether a book of this sort, 
 published to everybody, would not suggest to the unmarried 
 as well as to the mairied, and any persons into whose hands 
 
this book might get — the boy of 1 7 and the girl of the same 
 age — that they might gratify their passions without the mis- 
 chief and the inconvenience and the destruction of cha- 
 racter which would be involved if they gratified them and con- 
 ception followed. Gentlemen, that is one of the questions 
 which you will have to determine. I venture to submit that 
 the whole scope and tendency of giving such a minute de- 
 scription of all that has relation to the sexual appetite and 
 the apparatus concerned therein — the effect of that is to 
 constitute an obscene book. Gentlemen, there is one passage 
 at the very end of the book, pp. 44and45, which I will also read. 
 [The Solicitor-General here read p. 44 and to the end of p. 
 45.] Now, gentlemen, I pause for one moment upon that. 
 These expressions, which you find all scattered through the 
 book, assuming that they are meant for married per- 
 sons to put a check upon undue population, I submit to 
 you that is colourable, and that the object of the whole 
 book, the scope of this book, is to permit people, indepen- 
 dent of marriage, to gratify their passions, independently of 
 the checks which nature and providence has interposed. I 
 say that the object of this book is to tell everybody how 
 they may do that, and yet have no children, whether they 
 are married or not. Now, I invite your attention to the 
 last passage. You will obserye the thesis is the necessity, 
 in point of health and in point of morals and mental tran- 
 quillity, for the gratification of this particular passion, and 
 observe — " It is a fact universally admitted, that unmarried 
 females do not enjoy so much good health, and attain to so 
 great an age, as the married." What is the inference fromthat? 
 Here are the means by which the unmarried female may gratify 
 her passions. The truth is, those who publish this book must 
 have known perfectly well that an unlimited publication of 
 this sort, put into the hands of everybody, whatever their 
 age, whatever their condition in life, whatever their modes 
 of life, whatever their means, put into the hands of any per- 
 son who may think proper to pay sixpence for it — the thesis 
 is this : if you do not desire to have children, and wish to 
 gratify your sensual passions, and not undergo the responsi- 
 bility of marriage ; if you are desirous of doing that, I show 
 you by a philosophical treatise, forsooth, how you may effect 
 that object satisfactorily and safely, after a long experience, 
 collected from a great number of scientific persons ; the 
 expedient I recommend has never been known to fail. And, 
 therefore, this is to be put into the hands of every 
 
one, and it is sought to be justified upon the ground that 
 it is pnly a recommendation to married people, who under 
 the cares of their married life are unable to bear the burden 
 of too many children. I should be prepared to argue 
 before you that if confined to that object alone it would be 
 most mischievous. The Christian religion is happily still a 
 part of the law of this country, and if it were confined simply 
 to that recommendation, I certainly should have _ a great 
 deal to say to you, and would point out that that is immoral 
 in the higher sense to which my lord at the commencement 
 of the case referred. I feel it would be inappropriate to 
 enter upon a discussion of this character, because it would 
 appear to concede that this book is only intended for 
 circulation among persons so situated. I deny this, and I deny 
 that it is the purport and intention of this book. This 
 book is sold for sixpence, and at such a price as that it will 
 induce a circulation, which you may well conjecture, and 
 it may be induced amongst an enormous population, there 
 will be so many sold to boys and girls and persons who 
 may obtain it with perfect facility in the streets ; I decline 
 to argue the question, and it would be most inappropriate 
 and inadequate to discuss the book as if it were a document 
 handed to a young couple who are anxious to avoid the 
 evil and misery, which, as the writer states, a large family 
 produces. That is not the ground on which I should dis- 
 cuss it. I submit to you, that from what I have read, it is 
 an obscene book. The mode of publication is such as does 
 not justify the book, and it is calculated to deprave and 
 destroy the minds of those young persons especially into 
 whose hands it may come, and therefore, it is properly the 
 subject of an indictment. Don't talk to me about doctors ! I 
 care not if every physician in England had written a book of 
 this character — although God forbid that I should suggest anv 
 physician could do so ! — if you collesgt into this book all that 
 maybe found relatingto one subject-matter scattered in various 
 books, it is a totally different thing. Apart from such a question 
 altogether, if you were to prove to me that any physician in 
 England had published a book like this, I submit tliat there 
 can be no justification for that book to be quoted, which 
 is calculated to deprave the minds of those into whose 
 hands it may fall. I therefore ask your judgment that tliis 
 book is an obscene publication. 
 
 William Simonds, detective officer. City of London 
 police, examined by Mr. Douglas Straight : 
 
Did you, on the 24th of March, go to 28, Stonecutter 
 Street ?— Yes, I did. 
 
 Is that the Freethought Publishing Office ? — Yes, sir. 
 
 Did )'0u go into the shop? — I did. 
 
 Whom did you see there? — I saw Mr. Bradlaugh and 
 Mrs. Besant. 
 
 What did you say ? — I aslced for a copy of the " Fruits of 
 Philosophy." 
 
 By the Lord Chief Justice : Whom did you see ? 
 
 Mr. Straight : He says he saw the two defendants. You 
 purchased a copy ? 
 
 Witness : Yes, I bought a copy of the " Fruits of Philo- 
 sophy." 
 
 To whom did you address yourself? — To Mrs. Besant. 
 
 What took place? — She supplied me with a copy, for 
 ■which I paid sixpence. I gave her a shilling, and she gave 
 in.e sixpence change. 
 
 Did the defendant Mr. Bradlaugh hear what you said ? — 
 He was close beside, and could hear what was said. 
 
 Did you go again on the 29th of March ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you purchase another copy on that occasion ? 
 
 By Mr. Bradlaugh : One moment, pray. Were either of 
 the defendants there then ? — No, they were not. 
 
 Neither of them were there. Who served you ? — A 
 young man in the shop. 
 
 By Mrs. Besant : How long have you been in the detec- 
 tive force ? — About 13 years a detective. 
 
 AVhat "Wages do you get ? — Thirty-one shillings and six- 
 pence. 
 
 Has it been raised at all ? — Yes ; I get an extra portion 
 for my clothes. 
 
 You did not get so much at the beginning ? — No ; about 
 28s. or 29s. 
 
 By Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you the documents you pro- 
 duced before the magistrate? — I have, sir. 
 
 Will you just let me look at them ? — I will, sir. 
 
 The documents were produced, and proved to be memo- 
 randa from Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant to Detective- 
 Sergeant Green, of the City Police, and to Mr. Martin, the 
 ■Chief Clerk of the Guildhall Justice-room, intimating that 
 Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant would attend to personally 
 ^dispose of the first hundred copies of the Knowlton 
 pamphlet. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you received a letter from me 
 
24 
 
 since the commencement of this prosecution ? — Yes, about 
 three weeks ago. 
 
 Have you got it ? — No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh (to City Solicitor) : Do you produce this 
 letter. I gave you notice to produce it. 
 
 Witness : All the letters I received I handed over to the 
 City Solicitor. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It is simply a letter asking him if he is 
 the prosecutor. I ask did you give an answer to that 
 question? Did you reply whether or not you were the 
 prosecutor ? Did you say yes or no ? 
 
 Witness : No, I did not. 
 
 Edwin Williams, constable of the City Police, called. 
 
 Mr. Mead : On the 24th of March did you go to Stone- 
 cutter Street ? 
 
 Witness : Yes, sir. 
 
 Whom did ybu see ? — I saw Mrs. Besant and Mr. Brad- 
 laugh. I asked Mrs. Besant to give me the book called the 
 " Fruits of Philosophy." 
 
 Did she give you the book ? — She gave me the book, and 
 I paid sixpence for it. 
 
 Did the other defendant hear what was said ? — Yes ; he 
 was standing close by, sir. 
 
 That is the only time, I think, you went ? — That was the 
 only time. 
 
 Have you the book ? — Yes. 
 
 Hand it in, please. 
 
 (Book handed in.) 
 
 No questions were put to this witness by either Mr. Brad- 
 laugh or Mrs. Besant. 
 
 Detective Sergeant Robert Outram, City of London 
 Police, called. 
 
 Mr. Mead : On April sth, did you obtain a warrant at 
 the Guildhall Justice-room ? — No ; I received the warrant at 
 the head ofifice. 
 
 Did you go with the warrant to 28, Stonecutter Street ? — 
 I did. 
 
 With the two last witnesses ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see the two defendants ? — I did. 
 
 Did you search the premises? — When I saw them I 
 told them I was a detective-sergeant, and that I held a 
 warrant 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Don't tell us anything about the war- 
 rant if you have not got it here. 
 
25 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When you said warrant, you 
 must have described it in some way. — I said I had a warrant 
 for their arrest, also a search warrant. I read the warrant to 
 Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, and I also searched the 
 premises. 
 
 Did you find any books ? — I did not. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice : You did not find any books there ? 
 — No, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Mead : Did the defendant say anything ? — When 
 I read the warrant to him he said there was no t a 
 book on the premises which would come under the 
 warrant. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh made that reply. What else did he say ? 
 — He said he had a few copies, which they would require 
 for the defence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Require for what ? 
 
 Sergeant Outram : For their defence, my lord. 
 
 You then took both defendants into custody ? — Yes. I 
 afterwards took them to Bridewell police-station. 
 
 Solicitor-General : Now, my lord, I propose to prove 
 what I referred to in opening, what the publication is since, 
 and the extent of the publication. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice : That the defendants have pub- 
 lished you have proved. 
 
 Solicitor-General : This book bearing their imprint 
 must surely make them publishers of other copies. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice : Somebody else may have bought 
 up all the other copies ; if you can show that the sale took 
 place in their premises — but you don't say so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I should submit that even this would 
 be no evidence on an indictment charging us with specific 
 sales on the 24th and 29th. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice (to Solicitor-General): I don't see 
 what you want. You have proved the sale of two copies 
 of this work by the defendants jointly. The only question 
 for the jury is, what is the objector effect of the work. If the 
 defendants should be convicted, you can produce the other 
 evidence hereafter, by way of aggravation, that many other 
 copies have been sold by the defendants. One sale is. 
 enough, and you have proved it. 
 
 The Solicitor-General . It strikes me as important that 
 it was being published everywhere. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does not the preface sohw 
 that it was intended for general circulation ? 
 
26 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Simonds, I believe, has not 
 identified the copy in court. 
 
 Simonds recalled. 
 
 The Solicitor-General to Witness : Just look at the 
 copy attached to the deposition ; is that the copy you pur- 
 chased on the 24th ? 
 
 AViTNESS : It is the copy purchased on the 2gth. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Then youhavea copy purchased 
 on the 24th; you should have handed both in. (To the Lord 
 Chief Justice.) That is my case, my lord, but after ^vha tyour 
 lordship has said it would be right to call attention to 
 certain passages in the book, and to ask the officer of the 
 Court to read them. 
 
 Mr, Bradlaugh : To save both the officer's time, and 
 that of everyone else, it vdll be sufficient if the passages are 
 pointed out distinctly with the page, and identified as begin- 
 ningwith such a word and ending with such a word ; we do not 
 wish to put the officer of the court to the necessity of reading 
 them ; it will only be uselessly taking up time. I will only 
 .ask the learned counsel to be particular in the references he 
 gives. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I should like the jur^-, if your 
 lordship will be good enough, to look at page 8 (in any 
 instance down to the end of the chapter), then page 11. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: But where do you finish ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : At the end ot the chapter. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : That will be page 9. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then page 11? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : "What I said was page 8 to the 
 «nd of the chapter. Then page 11 from "fully to effect,'" 
 pages, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The whole portion of the 
 description ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then where will that end ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General ; " Induced by too frequent 
 and promiscuous intercourse.'' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : All the way through to page i S? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Yes. Then page 27 " con- 
 sidering it important to do away with," down to the end of 
 the chapter, page 33. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : The whole of the inter\-ening pages ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Yes. I do not think I can 
 draw any distinction in chapter 3, on checking conception. 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : The whole of chapter 3 ? 
 
27 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Then page44, beginning "every 
 young married woman," down to the end of tlie chapter. That 
 is my case, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I will just call over the pages to see if 
 we have got them rightly. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think you may assume thatthe 
 learned Solicitor-General objects to the whole book from be- 
 ginning to end. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well, my lord, then we must de- 
 fend the whole. If your lordship will allow it, I have 
 arranged, for our mutual convenience, that Mrs. Besant 
 should make her defence first. I do not know whether your 
 lordship would adjourn now (12.30), before the case for the 
 defence is commenced ; it will be utterly impossible for 
 Mrs. Besant to conclude before the adjournment for 
 luncheon. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We have an hour yet. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I only suggested it for the convenience 
 of the Court. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, and gentlemen of the jury — It 
 will not seem strange to any of you if, in defending myself 
 here to-day, I find myself slightly over-weighted by the 
 amount of legal ability which the prosecution has thought 
 it well to bring against me. I know that names such as 
 those who stand as advocates against me must carry — and 
 must rightly carry — a certain amount of weight with those 
 to whom I have to appeal. When you find the learned 
 Solicitor-General engaged in the case, and when his great 
 legal knowledge is not enough to conduct it with- 
 out the assistance of two other counsel learned 
 in the law, you must come to the conclusion 
 that you have two great criminals before you, be- 
 cause, if it were not so, the prosecution would not^ go 
 into the very large expense entailed in this case. I might 
 feel less hopeful of success did I pretend to rival the 
 learned Solicitor-General in legal knowledge, in force of 
 tongue, or in skill of dialectic. But, gentlemen, I do not rely 
 on these : I rely on a far mightier power ; I trust to the 
 goodness of my cause, and I am sure that, when you have 
 heard the evidence which I shall lay before you, you will 
 feel that to give a verdict of " guilty " would be to give a 
 verdict against the weight of the evidence, and would have 
 a most unfortunate effect upon the public outside. But, 
 gentlemen, I do not mean that I have had the impertinence 
 
28 
 
 to come before you without a careful and thorough con- 
 sideration of the case which I submit. I haye spent the 
 few weeks I have had between my arrest and the present 
 time in studying the case I have to set before you. I have 
 done my best during these few weeks which have intervened 
 to make myself acquainted with those trials of the past 
 which bear upon this subject, and those state trials from 
 which I could gather some ideas by which I might move 
 you, or some words which I could use when appealing to 
 you. It is not as defendant that I plead to you to-day — 
 not simply as defending myself do I stand here — but I 
 speak as counsel for hundreds of the poor, and it is they 
 for whom I defend this case. My clients are scattered 
 up and down through the length and breadth of the land ; I 
 find them amongst the poor, amongst whom I have been so 
 much; I find my clients amongst the fathers, who see their wage 
 ever reducing, and prices ever rising; I find my clients 
 amongst the mothers worn out with over-frequent child- 
 bearing, and with two or three little ones around too young 
 to guard themselves, while they have no time to guard them. 
 It is enough for a woman at home to have the care, the cloth- 
 ing, the training of a large family of young children to look 
 to ; but it is a harder task when oftentimes the mother, who 
 should be at home with her little ones, has to go out and 
 work in the fields for wage to feed them when her presence 
 is needed in the house. I find my clients among the little 
 children. Gentlemen, do you know the fate of so manv of 
 these children ? — the little ones half starved because there 
 is food enough for two but not enough for twelve ; half 
 clothed because the mother, no matter what her skill and 
 care, cannot clothe them with the money brought home by 
 the breadwinner of the family ; brought up in ignorance, 
 and ignorance means pauperism and crime — gentlemen, your 
 happier circumstances have raised you abo\-e this suffering, 
 but on you also this question presses ; for these o\er large 
 families mean also increased poor-rates, which are growing 
 heavier year by year. These poor are my clients, and if I 
 weary you by length of speech, as I fear I may, I do so be- 
 cause I must think of them more even than I think of your 
 time or trouble. You must remember that those for wnom 
 I speak are watching throughout England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland, for the verdict you will gi\e. Do you wonder I 
 call them my clients, these poor for whom I plead ? they 
 cannot bring the fee of gold such as is received by the 
 
29 
 
 learned gentlemen who are briefed against me here; but they 
 bring what is better than gold — they send up a few 
 pence week by week out of their scanty wage for as 
 long as the trial lasts; they send up kindly thoughts 
 and words of cheer and of encouragement ; mothers who 
 beg me to persist in the course on which I have entered — 
 and at any hazard to myself, at any cost and any risk — they 
 plead to me to save their daughters from the misery they 
 have themselves passed through during the course of their 
 married lives. Gentlemen, I may perhaps say one word for 
 myself before I go right into my case. The learned 
 Solicitor-General has had the kindness to say that he does 
 not impute bad intent to us in publishing this work. What 
 bad intent could there be ? I had nothing to gain in pub- 
 lishing this work — I had much to lose. It is no light thing 
 for a woman, whose ambition is bound up in the name 
 which she hopes to make, to have the imputation thrown 
 upon her of publishing indecent books and of disseminating 
 obscenity amongst the young. I risk my name, I risk my 
 liberty ; and it is not without deep and earnest thought that 
 I have entered into this struggle. And when I shall lay before 
 you the indictment against me, I must ask you if you will be 
 able to bring in a verdict of guilty on an indictment such 
 as this. The cases of myself and my co-defendant are prac- 
 tically the same ; and while we do sever in our defence, and 
 each conduct our own, we have thought it wise that we 
 shall not severally go over the whole of the case. 
 I have thought that I shall best consult the 
 convenience of the Court by leaving the purely physio- 
 logical details to be dealt with by my co-defendant. Although 
 I do not pretend to the extreme delicacy displayed by the 
 learned Solicitor-General ; while I should hardly have 
 imagined it possible that a counsel who has had such wide 
 and large experience in criminal cases should have hesitated 
 to read extracts which deal with facts perfectly well known 
 to any doctor ; at the same time, I think it will be more 
 fitting, more in good taste, more agreeable to the Court, if I 
 leave these purely physiological details to my co-defendant. 
 I do this, not as admitting that these details are obscene or 
 indecent in any respect, but simply because I think that 
 such a course will be pleasanter to all concerned. I propose 
 . to deal chiefly with the other parts of the pamphlet. The 
 questions are : What is this pamphlet ? What is it intended 
 to do ? What purpose is there in the circulation of it ? 
 
3° 
 
 One or two physiological questions I shall touch upon and 
 deal with generally, because I feel myself compelled to do 
 so in the interest of my clients, in the interest of the poor 
 woman who has only 6d. to spare, and should be allowed to 
 purchase with that 6d. the knowledge which richer women 
 can obtain for 2S. 6d., ss., or 6s., at any of the railway 
 bookstalls of Messrs. Smith and Sons. The learned Solicitor- 
 General spoke most disdainfully of a book that should be 
 sold for 6d. ; but when people have to live on 13s. 
 a week, 6d. is quite as much as they can afford 
 to pay for a book containing useful and necessary sanitary 
 information. Gentlemen, I do not think there is anything 
 to fear in this presence, from statements outside, calculated 
 to arouse prejudice against us. I do not think I need do 
 more than refer to prejudice which has been sought to be 
 aroused against us by certain newspapers — one in particular, 
 which I will not here mention, whose editor, when attacked, 
 has a habit of hiding himself behind an infant. That 
 paper charged me with child murder, and referred to me as 
 an advocate of promiscuous intercourse. Gentlemen, if 
 some word as to promiscuous intercourse had not fallen 
 from the lips of the learned Solicitor-General, I should have 
 thought that such a charge was too foul and too baseless to 
 have been founded on a pamphlet such as this. You will have 
 seen some of these papers, but I am sure that you have left 
 them outside the Court, and that you will not allow them to- 
 influence your verdict here, and that any word which may 
 have fallen in another case will not be allowed by you t& 
 prejudice this. One great fault charged against us, though 
 shut out by the ruling of the learned judge, is, that books 
 which are not ours, and do not emanate from us, are sold by 
 men who get drunk, and swear in the public streets. I 
 am not here to defend these hawkers. I can only say 
 that that to which objection has been made is the 
 fault of the Solicitor-General himself, or of the prose- 
 cution which he represents. This pamphlet had a sm^ill 
 sale for years back of about 700 copies annually, and for the 
 number that have been sold since our arrest, you must blame 
 the prosecution, and not me. It is the prosecution ■i\hich has 
 given the importance to this book. If we had wanted to 
 do so we could have hired men to sell the work at the 
 street corners, but we did not care to ha\e our book in the 
 hands of men bearing the — not good — character of too many 
 of this class of persons. We sent these men away from 
 
31 
 
 the shop when they came to buy, and we absolutely refused 
 to supply them, and we have done nothing to spread the sale 
 of this pamphlet, as we have done with our other publica- 
 tions. We have not even advertised it in our own paper, 
 except once, and then only because we wanted to make it 
 known that we were going to sell it for the first time at our 
 office. Spurious copies were printed and sold at the street 
 corners, because it was difficult to get the real pamphlet, 
 and the whole annoyance is due to the action of the 
 prosecution ; they have given a purely factitious 
 importance to an old and almost forgotten pamphlet 
 which had been supplanted by more modern treatises; 
 and the more they prosecute the more they will 
 cause this anno)'ance to continue, because these men 
 sell whatever they can get a high price for, and people 
 buy it now simply because it is prosecuted. I come now, 
 gentlemen, to the question of the indictment ; I do not know 
 if it has been laid before you or no. This indictment 
 charges Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant that " un- 
 lawfully and wickedly devising and contriving and intend- 
 ing, as much as in them lay, to vitiate and corrupt the morals 
 as well of youth as of divers other liege subjects of our said 
 lady the Queen, and to incite and encourage the said liege 
 subjects to indecent, obscene, unnatural, and immorai 
 practices, and bring them to a state of wickedness, lewdness. 
 anddebauchery,"they did publish a certain book, which it then 
 goes on to describe in words which I will not read because of 
 their extreme and unnecessary coarseness. Gentlemen, I 
 think I may fairly lay some complaint before you against 
 the language of this indictment. I may be told that it is 
 pleaders' language, and I have, fortunately, not very much 
 knowledge of pleaders' language, but I must really put it tO' 
 you that the learned Solicitor-General does not accuse me 
 of what is charged against me in this indictment. If he 
 wants to accuse me, as he has done, of pubhshing a bad 
 book with a good intent, he ought to amend the indictment,, 
 which has been so clumsily drawn up. If you refer to. 
 Archbold, you willsee that the ordinary indictment for selling; 
 an obscene book is very different to that to which I 
 am called upon to plead to-day. You are told in this indict- 
 ment that we intend, and devise, and contrive to corrupt 
 the morals of youth as much as in us lies, and it then goes 
 on to give the very coarsest possible description of the book. 
 It seems to me as if the learned counsel who drew this up 
 
had gone through every indictment he could find, and had 
 picked out every unpleasant adjective which could prejudice 
 us with those to whom we have to plead, and had thrown 
 them together into this. The learned Solicitor-General says 
 it was too much trouble to put the whole of the book into 
 the indictment ; but I say that unless every page of the 
 pamphlet is indecent, you cannot convict us on this indict- 
 ment. We have then to deal with a prosecution which 
 endeavours to do too much, and which is likely, therefore, 
 to do nothing. But, gentlemen, the malice of the prosecu- 
 tion has overreached itself. Since no distinction is drawTi 
 between one part of the book and the other, you must find 
 that the whole of it is obscene before you convict me. You 
 must take the whole book. You have heard the preface 
 read — and I was very glad that the learned Solicitor-General 
 did so read it — are you prepared to say that the preface is 
 an obscene, immodest, and disgusting production ? Unless 
 you include the preface in your verdict, you must acquit 
 the book in your verdict. The very way the indictment 
 has been framed makes it fatal to the prosecution. 
 But you have got more to do than to find the whole 
 of the book obscene. You have got to find that our 
 object in publishing it was to vitiate and corrupt 
 the morals of youth as of divers others, and unless you 
 believe that to have been our object, no verdict can be given 
 against us on this indictment. I am perfectly aware that 
 you must allow the intention to exist if you can prove that 
 the work is thoroughly obscene ; but then you must get at 
 the intent. Take the case of two men, one of whom has a 
 pistol, and the second man, who has not a pistol, is found 
 shot. It does not follow that the second man, even if found 
 with the pistol in his hand, has been guilty of murder. If 
 that man were set before you on the charge of murder, you 
 would find out what the intent was which might have 
 governed his actions. You would ask if there had been 
 malice between them, or quarrels between them, in the time 
 that had gone. You would ask what intention perhaps was 
 in the mind of the man who shot, before you would bring 
 him in guilty of the murder of his fellow man. I put 
 it to you that much more, in dealing with a medical book, 
 you must show the intent to be malicious, before you can, 
 by any possibility, bring in a \'crdict of guilty against me 
 here. The Solicitor-General says the intent is good. If 
 that be so, the duty of the Solicitor-General is to get up and 
 
33 
 
 say that he drops the charge against us, for as the indict- 
 ment falls through by his own admission, he has no right to 
 keep you here wasting your time on an indictment which he 
 himself confesses is bad. But, then, he puts it, that the 
 intent does not matter. I say, gentlemen, that the intent is 
 the vital part of the charge. The intent of the book 
 is what you really will have to judge. The learned 
 Solicitor-General put that strongly when he said there 
 was a colourable pretence of philosophy, a colourable 
 use of the word marriage, when really what was intended 
 vas not to give philosophy, but gratiiication of passion — 
 ■not to teach married people how to restrain their families, 
 but to teach the unmarried how wrongly to gratify their 
 passions. How utterly untrue that is I shall show you as I 
 go on through the pages of this book. The intent in a 
 medical book must be taken to be the very essence of the 
 character of the book. If Sir James Paget wrote a book 
 simply on the diseases of the generative organs, no kind of de- 
 scriptionofthoseorgans could makethe book obscene, because 
 Sir James Paget would write the book not with the intention 
 of corrupting the mind, but with the intention of curing the 
 diseases with which he dealt. In every book that contains 
 physiological details, the intent, therefore, is the very essence 
 of the charge. The intent makes the difference between 
 decency and indecency. A medical book which describes these 
 organs with the intent of a useful purpose is a proper book, 
 and a book that may rightly be published. A medical book 
 that makes such description with the intent to arouse 
 passions is a bad book, and against such an indictment 
 ■would fairly lie. I am not talking now whether or not it 
 would be wise to prosecute a book of that kind, because I 
 -hold that such a prosecution really spreads the book more 
 ■widely than otherwise it would be ; but I must acknowledge 
 that every medical book may be read for a bad purpose by 
 an impure mind. There is no question that with great 
 medical men (although the learned Solicitor-General says 
 he does not care about medical men, and that we are not to 
 talk to him about medical men, or to tell him what they 
 have written) — I must submit to you that it is not wise, 
 that it is not moral (for I hold morality to be that which 
 makes individuals and societies happier and better than 
 they were before, and wiser than they were before) — it does 
 not conduce to morality to say that these men shall not 
 spread knowledge, because that knowledge may be made 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 impure by the impure minds that read it. Every book, 
 however good the book may be — any of your old classics, 
 any of your standard English works, may be read for the 
 vilest purposes, if the impure mind is to be permitted 
 to characterise them and put upon them the shame that only 
 comes from its own obscene impurity. Then I will put it to 
 you, and I will venture here, instead of using my own 
 words, to plead in the words of one of our mightiest advo- 
 cates — that Erskine, whose name is known as one of our 
 mightiest pleaders wherever the English language has made 
 its way. The case is that of The King v. J. Lambert, 
 J. Perry, and J. Grey, for a seditious libel, in " Howell's 
 State Trials," 22nd vol. Erskine says :—" When a man. 
 accused of libel is brought before a jury, they are to con- 
 sider only the mind and intention with which the matter was- 
 written ; and, accordingly as they shall find that, they are ta 
 form their decision of guilt or innocence." Gentlemen, 
 that is the contention I am raising to you — that you are to 
 think of our minds and intents in publishing this book ; and 
 I take publishing to be the same as writing a book ; and 
 according to that you are to find us guilty or innocent. Mr. 
 Erskine goes on : — " The jury are to dismiss from their 
 minds every other consideration, and allow themselves to be 
 biassed by no motive of party or of political convenience. 
 There is this essential difference between criminal and civil 
 cases : in criminal cases, the jury have the subject entirely 
 in their own hands; they are to form their judgment 
 upon the whole of it ; not only upon the act 
 alleged to be criminal but the motive by which it was influ- 
 enced, the intention with which it was committed, and, 
 according to their natural sense of the transaction, they 
 ought to find a man innocent or guilty : and their verdict is 
 conclusive. Not so in civil cases. In these the jury are 
 bound to abide in their decision by the law as explained by 
 the judge ; they are not at liberty to follow their own , 
 opinions. For instance, if I am deprived of any part of my 
 '' property, the loss of my property lays a foundation for | 
 1 an action, and the fact being found, the jury are bound to 
 find a verdict against the person who has occasioned my loss, ' 
 whatever might be his intentions. Here the judge pronounces 
 the law, the jury only find the fact. The law and the fact 
 are as distinct and separate as light from darkness, nor can 
 any verdict of a jury pass for a farthing in opposition to the 
 law as laid down by the judge, since the courts have a 
 
35 
 
 power to set such a verdict aside. But in criminal cases 
 the very reverse has been immemorially estabhshed — the 
 law and the fact have been inseparably joined; the intention 
 of the party accused is the very gist of the case. We are 
 criminal only in the eyes of God and man as far as 
 the mind and intention in committing any act has 
 departed from the great principles of rectitude by which 
 we are bound as moral agents, and by the indispensable 
 duties of civil society. It is not the act itself, but the 
 motive from which it proceeds that constitutes guilt." 
 I ask you to bear that passage in mind, from one of the 
 highest authorities in a court like this. When you are 
 considering your verdict after the defence is made, Erskine 
 reminds you : " You are solemnly set in judgment on the 
 hearts of the defendants in the publication of this paper. 
 You are to search for their intention by every means which 
 can suggest itself to you. You are bound to believe in 
 your consciences that they are guilty of malicious and 
 wicked designs before you can pronounce the verdict of 
 guilty. It is not because one of them published the paper, 
 or because others are the proprietors of it, but because they 
 were or were not actuated by an evil mind, and had sedi- 
 4(ous intentions, that you must find them guilty or not 
 guilty." And Erskine states, gentlemen, that that was the 
 law as laid down by the celebrated Hale ; and I am sure, in 
 putting it to you so, you will see the authority with which I 
 am dealing here. He points out in another place that this 
 had been contested in earlier days, but in his own time it 
 was made law; and then, in deaUng with this very case, where 
 a book was held to be libel .against the king, but where, 
 because the intent of the publisher was good, no sentence 
 was ever passed upon him, and the jury refused to find 
 him guilty of a publication with malicious intent, as 
 charged in the indictment ; in dealing with that 
 Erskine says : "If you give the defendants the 
 credit of honest feelings and upright intentions, on my 
 part any farther defence is unnecessary ; we are already 
 in possession of your verdict ; you have already pro- 
 nounced them not guilty; for you will not condemn 
 the conduct when you have acquitted the heart." That^ 
 gentlemen, is Erskine's speech in pleading to the jury, 
 and I will ask you to remember that if you bring me in 
 guilty on this indictment you will have done it only because 
 you believe my intent to have been bad, believe my desire 
 
 C "a 
 
36 
 
 is to cotrupt and deprave the young ; and unless you find 
 that, you are bound in justice, you are bound to give me a 
 verdict of Not Guilty. Then the learned Solicitor-General 
 'turns to the case of the Queen v. Hicldin, and points out 
 that the good intent of the publisher cannot be held to 
 ■protect the work. But we find there that the work was 
 an utterly obscene work, and in that part which the learned 
 Solicitor-General read (and I was glad to hear him read it, 
 because Lord Chief Justice Cockburn at that time made 
 practically the very contention which I shall plead to you 
 lo-day) it was put that if the book was utterly obscene no 
 amount of good intention could justify the publication of 
 obscene matter. That book was to show that the questions 
 asked in the confessional were depraving to the mmd, 
 and would vitiate the morals of youth. The whole of 
 the object of the book, and the publication of the book, 
 would fall to the ground unless the matter contained in the 
 book was obscene. The very contention of the publisher 
 was that the contents depraved and demoralised. Well, if 
 they depraved and demoralised in the confessional box, they 
 Vifould do so still more when printed and circulated to the 
 public in a book. The contention of the publisher des- 
 troyed his own case. Gentlemen, unless the book contained 
 obscene matter there was no reason for the publication of 
 the book for which he was put on his trial. This case of the 
 ■Queeii V. Hicklin does not in any fashion touch the case on 
 •which you are called to pass your judgment. I know the 
 learned Solicitor-General says that some of the worst quota- 
 tions in the book were veiled in learned language, and that 
 : side by side with them were placed some of the \try 
 strongest observations against their character. These obser\-a- 
 'tions condemned the book which the publisher had issued, for 
 .'if he thought the questions in the confessional depraved and 
 ■.demoralised, he must have known that they ^yould be likely 
 .to do the same thing with whoever should read them. But 
 you don't pretend to say that physiology is in itself indecent, 
 and you will find Lord Mansfield saying in the case of the 
 King ». Woodfall : " Where an act is in itself indifferent, if 
 done with a particular intent it becomes criminal ; then the 
 intent must be proved and found. But where the act is in 
 itself unlawful (as in this case), the proof of justification or 
 excuse lies on the defendant, and in failure thereof the law im- 
 plies a criminal intent." You cannot pretend that physiology 
 is initself an indecent thing; you cannotsay that medicalstudies 
 
37 
 
 are in themselves indecent. All you can say is that physiology 
 may be used for an indecent purpose and may be made the 
 cover of indecent suggestions. We come, then, to the v^ry 
 case Lord Mansfield puts where the act is in itself indifferent 
 and only becomes criminal when the intent is a criminal 
 intent. The intent in the case of the Queen ?'. Hicklin was 
 to break the law, and the Lord Chief Justice laid down that 
 where a man publishes a work manifestly obscene he has 
 no right to say that he breaks the law with a good intent. 
 Gentlemen, I admit that to the very fullest extent. I admit 
 that there is no justification in law for publishing an obscene 
 book. I admit that if this book is obscene no amount of 
 good and pure intentions on my part can possibly purge it 
 from its obscenity. I bow thoroughly here to the judgment 
 laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in this case. But I 
 contend that this book is not an obscene book, and that 
 therefore the case of the Queen v. Hicklin has no authority 
 here. I will pass, then, to the matter of the book. I say 
 that the matter is not obscene ; that our intent in 
 publishing the matter was good ; that the knowledge con- 
 veyed in the book is useful and necessary, and that, because 
 it is useful and necessary that knowledge ought to be 
 within the reach of all. Unless you disbelieve, gentle- 
 men, the whole of what I am going to say to you — 
 unless you believe not only that the book is obscene — and 
 if you do that you will be branding with the stigma of ob- 
 scenity every great surgeon and medical man of eminence 
 that has made our English name known throughout the 
 world for our books ; and I acknowledge that I reverence 
 the medical profession for the work they do, and I trust you 
 will not be a party to branding as obscene those men into 
 whose hands at the most critical moment you place the 
 health of your wives, your daughters, and your sisters ! — a 
 verdict of guilt)?, or not guilty, does not depend upon 
 whether you approve of that book or not. It does not depend 
 onwhetheryou may think that there are passages in it which had 
 better not have been there. It does not depend on that ; nor 
 isitenough you mighthave thought some of the language coarse, 
 although the Sohcitor-General has kindly stated that the lan- 
 guage is free from any taint of vulgarity. You must take one 
 part with the other. Turning to the case of the King against 
 Daniel I. Eaton for publishing a libel, you find this plainh' 
 put by the Judge himself, the Recorder who summed up 
 the evidence, which I hold to be analogous to the case 
 
38 
 
 before you : " If the book was published as the work of a 
 philosopher, for the benefit of mankind, then this man will 
 not have to answer for the publication. If published with a 
 malicious view, then he will have to answer for it, if you 
 are convinced of the fact of publication." , 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What was the nature of the ; 
 publication ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : There, again, it was a case of a blasphe- ; 
 mous libel, one of the many cases brought up at that time. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It was for publishing one of Paine's 
 works. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : We find here, in this same case, that it 
 was put that you must give a verdict upon the whole 
 matter put in issue before you, that you must affirm every 
 allegation in the indictment to be true; that if you dis- 
 believe and negative any one allegation, you are bound to 
 find thi defendants not guilty. Gentlemen, I will ask you 
 to remember that, when you go away to consider your 
 verdict ; I will ask you to take a copy of the indictment 
 with you and read it through, and say solemnly whether, 
 on your oath, you can find every count in that indictment 
 has really justified you in a verdict against us ; and if I 
 press this specially upon you, gentlemen, it is because I 
 feel that in this matter I have so much to lose if your 
 verdict should go against me, and I will ask you, therefore, 
 if at any time during the trial (which may, in some parts, 
 perchance, become wearisome to you), if, at any moment, 
 you think you are kept here to your own annoyance and 
 inconvenience, I ask you to put that momentary annoyance 
 of, at the utmost, but a few days' detention in a crowded 
 court, against the penalty which lies on me, unless I 
 can succeed in obtaining a verdict of not guilty — a 
 penalty which does not mean confinement for a few 
 days, or for any length of time which the judge can i 
 sentence, but which means, practically, almost the 
 extinction of my future life until I can wipe off the stain 
 which your verdict, if guilty, will put upon me. Do not 
 mistake me by thinking that I should think myself guilty ; I 
 should not do so. I ha\e done this thing with full thought 
 and with full knowledge of the responsibility I incurred. 
 Knowing it all, I should proceed to do it again, with tlie 
 experience I have had since my arrest. I should bring in 
 myself not guilty, whatever your \-erdict might be at the end 
 of the trial. Now, alleging our intent to be good Cand I 
 
39 
 
 "hold myself and Dr. Knowlton to be identical in the matter, 
 for the words in the preface, where we said we did not agree 
 in everything, were not intended in any fashion to avoid the 
 Tesponsibility of the publication of every word in the 
 pamphlet), I acknowledge the responsibility t« the very 
 fullest extent — I stand responsible for every word from 
 beginning to end. I challenge, practically, your verdict by 
 the course I have taken, and, therefore, I am willing to take 
 the responsibility of every syllable in the pamphlet. Let 
 me, for a moment, deal with the word obscene, for on your 
 ■consideration of that word will practically come your verdict 
 in this matter. I contend that the book is not an obscene 
 book, and you get the diificulty here that you have no statutory 
 •definition of the word obscene. You have not only n« statutory 
 ■definition of the word, but you have not even any unchallenged 
 authoritative judgment on the matter, for I shall show you 
 presently, dealing with the Lord Chief Justice's remarks, that 
 the circumstances of that case unfortunately prevented him 
 from giving a carefully defined meaning of the word, 
 ■simply because the matter was admittedly obscene on every 
 liand. In almost all other offences, you know with what 
 offences you are dealing. Take murder. Murder is care- 
 fully defined in books of law. Take manslaughter : that is 
 •also carefully defined, and if you are in any doubt, you 
 liave only got to turn to the accepted legal authority and 
 then judge whether the prisoner has committed a certain 
 act or not ; you are able to say whether he has committed 
 a murder, or whether he has only committed what is called 
 manslaughter. But you have no such thing to help you 
 ^vhen you are dealing with the offence of an obscene libel. 
 So far as I can find, I have not been able to discover a single 
 ■case where a book, incriminated as this one has been, has 
 been defended on the ground that the book was not an obscene 
 iDOok. Palliations have been brought in, excuses have been 
 made, circumstances that made it justifiable have been caused 
 tobepleadedjbutlcannotfind one case through thewhole Eng- 
 lish law where the publisher accused of publishing an obscene 
 book has stood up and said that the book did not contain bad 
 matter, and has stood by it. That makes it very difficult for a 
 jury to decide whether a book comes within the scope of the 
 law. One might almost put it to you — though I do not 
 intend to base my case on that ground — that no book ought 
 to be considered as obscene which does not incite to the 
 commission of those acts which are defined by the law to be 
 
40 
 
 obscene, because, when you come to obscene acts, you find 
 these acts laid down and specialised in the law books, and an 
 obscene book may be fairly taken to be a work which incites 
 to the commission of those obscene practices which are indict- 
 able under the common law as misdemeanours. For the pur- 
 poses of this trial, I take a narrower definition than this. I put 
 it to you that an obscene book is a book "written for the single 
 purpose of corrupting the morals of youth, and of a nature 
 calculated to shock the feelings of decency in any well-regu- 
 lated mind." That is the definition on which I stand for my 
 trial, and that definition is at least worthy of some reverence 
 in this court when I tell you it comes from Lord_ Camp- 
 bell, a man who was in the very highest position in 
 our land, and who brought in the very act under which the 
 seizure-warrant was issued which was brought to search at 
 Stonecutter Street. I am quoting from Hansard, vol. 146, 
 No. 2, page 329. It is a definition, gentlemen, which I put 
 before you as the true definition of the word "obscene." And 
 I am the more glad to do that because it thoroughly coin- 
 cides with the words of the learned judge in the case of the 
 Queen v. Hicklin, which was put before you. You will find 
 him saying, that " I think the test of obscenity is this : where 
 the tendency of the matter charged with obscenity is to de- 
 prave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such 
 immoral influences, and into whose hands publications of 
 this sort may fall." That is what my Lord Chief Justice 
 Cockburn laid down as the law ; and, as I pointed out to 
 you, it was, perhaps, unfortunate that the circumstances of 
 the case did not enable his lordship to give us a thoroughly 
 careful definition, which would have been so invaluable to 
 us for our guidance on the trial of to-day. But on that 
 trial there was no question raised as to whether the matter 
 published was obscene or not, for on all hands it was 
 admitted that the subject-matter was obscene ; and 
 where it was taken that the work was an obscene 
 publication, the learned judge would have been going 
 out of his way if he had carefully laid down a strait de- 
 finition in what obscenity consisted. I will put it to you 
 that obviously the Lord Chief Justice meant the same as Lord 
 Campbell meant, and that the single word "well-regulated" 
 should be inserted. The opinion of the two learned judges 
 thoroughly coincided on that matter — a vital point; and that 
 "well-regulated" is implied in the case of the Queen ?». 
 Hicklin. I cannot put it to you too strongly that it must 
 
41 
 
 be a well-regulated mind which has to be dealt with in a 
 question of this kind. Should you say that the book is to be 
 adjudged obscene because some utterly ill-regulated mind 
 found something which raised wrong passions or impure 
 desires ? You must take the normal mind — the normally- 
 regulated mind — and think of the influence the book would 
 have upon that, for to the impure mind the purest book 
 will have a bad effect, because you get the reflection of the 
 mind in the book. In dealing with the word obscene on 
 any wider definition you will find yourself making a law 
 which will have the most unfortunate effect in the time to 
 come. In this very case you find a debate in the House 
 of Lords, and of course I am not going to put this in 
 evidence here, but simply as showing you the difficulties 
 into which you will plunge the law if you take a wider 
 definition than that of Lord Campbell. You find Lord 
 Lyndhurst putting the objection that might easily arise. 
 He objected to Lord Campbell because he said, "what 
 is the interpretation which will be put on the word 
 obscene ? " "I can easily conceive (he says) that two 
 men will give an entirely different conception as to 
 the meaning of the word," and then you find him 
 drawing a picture of a detective officer going into a print- 
 seller's or a booksellers, under the new act, and asking for 
 photographs of all the most celebrated pictures, by the 
 greatest masters, going with these photographs to the police 
 magistrate, and not saying what the picture was intended to 
 represent, and then getting a v/arrant from the magistrate to 
 destroy all the works, which might include some of the 
 greatest productions of art. The difficulty is, that if you are to 
 allow the word obscene to be stretched into meaning any- 
 thing which is coarse, which deals with the human figure, 
 you must make a clean sweep of your literature and 
 your art right through. I don't mean to say that because 
 there is not another book before you, you should acquit 
 the book which is before you ; but I ask you where you 
 will land yourself if by a verdict of guilty you are going 
 to include books under Lord Campbell's Act, which were 
 never intended to be included in it when the act was 
 drawn? Nothing can be stronger than the way in which 
 Lord Campbell put it that he did not intend to put 
 down medical works, physiological treatises, and standard 
 authors; and yet every one of them might be practi- 
 cally put down,, if by a verdict of guilty here you make every 
 
42 
 
 •common spy and informer able to go to the shops of the 
 best publishers of London, and put them to the annoyance 
 and expense of such a prosecution as this, simply because 
 by a verdict of guilty against us you will have given a verdict 
 of guilty against every one of them. I think I may fairly 
 argue that the difference between coarseness and obscenity 
 is this — that obscenity is coarseness written with intent to 
 corrupt, with intent to vitiate, with intent to destroy the 
 good feelings and arouse the evil ones. Coarseness has not 
 that meaning; it is low, it is revolting, but it does not 
 •endeavour to corrupt. The learned Solicitor-General pointed 
 •out a passage which, by itself, he thought would move your 
 feelings, and I think he was wise in the matter of not read- 
 ing the whole of the book to you, for if he had done so 
 you would have seen that what he read as obscene was 
 simply a part of the whole work. Take this passage from 
 " Tristram Shandy," and judge what would be the feelings 
 ■of some people in hearing it read out in public ; I shall not 
 read it, but will simply hand it up to you. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I am very reluctant to inter- 
 fere, my lord ; but I think I must take your judgment 
 whether or not such passages ought to be read. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I should submit, respectfully, that it 
 "has been decided over and over again, that if we prove the 
 publication of a work — and no work will be produced which 
 ^ve are not prepared to prove the publication of — we shall 
 liave the right to put in the passages as evidence at any 
 Tate, if not to read them as part of the defence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How can two negatives make 
 an affirmative ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not put it on that ground, my 
 lord ; but there have been some very strong arguments as 
 to the right to refer to other publications 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Ha\-e you got the authority ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It is in the case of the King v. Carlile. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: AVell, I remember a case 
 that the late Serjeant Thomas defended here in which, 
 upon an indictment of a similar character, I do not think it 
 was reported, but I happened to be present in court ; he 
 read a long string of passages, and referred to a \arioty of 
 public representations. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I shall be prepared to argue the point 
 later on, my lord. I have the case looked up, but I did not 
 think it would arise so soon. 
 
43 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then, perhaps, this would be 
 a convenient time to adjourn ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : If your lordship pleases. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 After the adjournment, 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh said that, with regard to putting in the 
 publication "Tristram Shandy," it was not intended by the 
 defendants to do so in any way as evidence, but they 
 were entitled to read or to communicate it to the jury as 
 part of the defence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice,: I have been consulting with 
 my learned brothers, and they agree with me that it is so. I 
 am bound to reject every publication as evidence, but I 
 can't prevent Mrs. Besant from committing a passage to 
 memory and reciting it as part of her speech, nor from 
 reading from a book as if reciting from memory. But the 
 book is not evidence, and need not be proved, nor must it 
 be handed to the jury. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : There is a curious case, but, unfortu- 
 nately, it is only the informal report of a Recorder's opinion. 
 It is the case of the King v. Carlile, in which a reference 
 to a public newspaper was objected to because, as was said 
 by Mr. Adolphus, it might have been printed in the defen- 
 dant's back shop ; and the Recorder said to Mr. Carlile, 
 " If you mean to read that, you must prove its publica- 
 tion." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : A person could not be sup- 
 posed to recollect the whole of it. [To Mrs. Besant]. You 
 can read anything you wish. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I do not propose to read any quotations 
 from " Tristram Shandy," my lord ; it would be an utter 
 waste of the time of the Court. I was stopped when 
 I was going to hand up to you " Tristram Shandy," and the 
 Solicitor-General objected to the book being put in evidence. 
 I quite agree that books ought not to be put in evidence 
 on any point unless the publication of these books be proved, 
 because if you do that you would open the door to a large 
 amount of abuse ; and, although we might not take advan- 
 tage of it, it might seriously, if it were permitted by the learned 
 judge, prejudice or unfairly decide trials in the future. 
 Therefore, I do not think it would be worth while to read 
 any passages of " Tristram Shandy " to you, although if it 
 had been permitted and thought right by the learned judge, 
 you might haved glanced at a single passage, and have seen 
 
44 
 
 how far one passage might be used to destroy a v.hole 
 book if, as the Solicitor-General has done, you were to pick 
 out a passage most likely to prejudice the book. I simply 
 want to show to the jury how books which you find in the 
 library of every gentleman who has any pretence to culture 
 or education might be branded in the same way, and 
 put down by an ignorant jury as obscene publications- 
 I have one great advantage — I do not for one mo- 
 ment conceal it from myself — and that is the fact that 
 it has been thought right in this case to give us the very 
 great advantage of a special jury, because, to hand up to an 
 ignorant jury a passage from "Tristram Shandy" would be 
 utterly condemnatory of the whole book ; but from the cir- 
 cumstances of your education, and from your having had. 
 the opportunity of becoming perfectly familiar with the 
 whole of our standard English literature, I feel that I have 
 nothing to fear from a miscarriage of justice, such as I 
 might fear from a jury less cultivated. I put it to you that 
 in any one of those books which every one of you have in 
 your libraries, you could find passages which, if taken by 
 themselves, might be said to have a tendency to vitiate 
 and corrupt, and I think I shall not be dealing unfairly if 
 I say to you that in every great dramatist of England you 
 would find such passages. I take Shakespeare as an ex 
 ample, whom no one would desire to see blotted out of 
 our literature, and imagine that some spy of some society — 
 we will say of the Society for the Suppression of ^'■ice — took 
 one of Shakespeare's poems, such as " Venus and Adonis," 
 and founded a prosecution on it. We all know that it would 
 break down. But you must not forget that a publisher's 
 prosecution means an enormous amount of damage to him, 
 whether a verdict is obtained or not. Some people (two 
 or three in every town) devoted to us, and wishing to 
 serve us in the same way that Hetherington was served, 
 though most unwisely, might institute prosecutions against 
 other booksellers for selling works of a similar character. 
 Imagine the number of prosecutions to which your verdict 
 would give rise. You would throw open prosecutions against 
 every bookseller in London, vvith the exception, perhaps, of 
 some little publisher who has not the power or the capital 
 to publish books that the public want to read. You do not 
 want to throw open the door to every mischievous man 
 who seeks notoriety, to prosecute such publishers as 
 Churchill, Loncrnian, and Smith. I might also allude to the 
 
45 
 
 works of Mr. Bohn, who will be one of the witnesses for 
 the defence in this case, and whose Standard Library gives 
 text-books for the education of your sons in every public 
 school in England. Do you want to offer a premium to 
 every miserable spy, who may wish to ruin these men by 
 the chance he possesses of getting a verdict in his favour ? 
 Iwould remind you that you are going to take the effect of lan- 
 guage into your consideration, and you will see that the com- 
 parison between Knowlton and these dramatists, on the ques- 
 tion of the effect on the passions, is in Knowlton's favour, 
 because medical books have no tendency to arouse sexual 
 feelings. If you want a book of an improper character you 
 must carefully avoid physiological works. Your common 
 sense tells you that a medical book is a book that no man 
 or woman would read for the purpose of arousing sexual 
 passions of any kind. I will come to that in a later portion 
 of my speech. If you want to arouse sexual passion you 
 might do so by some foul works, and you might even do so 
 by some of the grandest of our dramatists and novelists. 
 You will find passages calculated to arouse sexual passion 
 •in Fielding, Congreve, and Wycherley, but you will never 
 arouse that passion by dry physiological details put forward 
 in dry technical language. I put that to you because I 
 say that while the language in many of these books would 
 arouse the sexual passions far more than the language of 
 any medical book, it would be an utter blunder — I say it 
 would almost be a crime — to prosecute these books because 
 of occasional coarse passages in them. If you are going to give 
 a verdict of guilty against me — a verdict that means to me 
 the momentary destruction of all that I work for — you must 
 make up your minds that no statement that certain passages 
 might be more carefully worded will authorise you in giving 
 that verdict. I say to you, remember that in the days to 
 come you will never free your minds from the remembrance 
 of what is happening in this court. The verdict that you give 
 maymean to us almost destruction — destruction againstwhich 
 we are strong enough to fight — destruction that will not 
 ultimately touch our future very much, though unkind things 
 may be said about it. If you give a verdict thoughtlessly, 
 carelessly, or indifferently, carried away by prejudice against 
 me and my co-defendant — if, I say, you give a verdict against 
 us which you would not give against your wife, your daughter, 
 or your brother — a verdict based not on evidence, but based 
 on a prejudice against us because of other Vi^ork in which we 
 
46 
 
 have been engaged, I remind you at the very outset of this 
 case that a great responsibiUty rests upon you, and that you 
 will remember during all the remainder of your lives the 
 verdict you will give at the close of this trial. I do not say 
 so to prevent you from giving a verdict of guilty. Every 
 Englishman and citizen has the duty to discharge thefurictions 
 of juror without any regard to the consequences that will flow 
 from his verdict to those whom he convicts of crime. But 
 I say, do not let any carelessness or thoughtlessness prevent 
 your giving your whole brains and hearts to a decision that 
 is vital to us both. I have now to remind you of the 
 definition of obscene, which I put forward, and I ask you to 
 bear it in mind ; I do not propose to repeat the arguments, 
 but simply to read the words upon which I rely. If 
 you are to narrow it down to the definition of Lord 
 Campbell, he says that his Act is intended to apply to 
 works "written for the single purpose of corrupting the 
 morals of youth, and which are of a nature calculated to 
 shock the common feelings of decency in any well- 
 regulated mind." We stand or fall upon the definition. I 
 remind you — and unless you take Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet 
 to be written with the single (but not possible) purpose, in 
 the mind of the writer, and in the mind of the publisher 
 (which for the purposes of this trial are identical) — unless you 
 think it written for the single purpose of corrupting the 
 morals of youth, you have no right to bring in a verdict of 
 guilty against us ; and I lay stress upon this, because Lord 
 Campbell says, "The question whether the pictures or 
 books impugned were obscene or not, is to be left 
 to the jury to decide." My lord, I don't know whether I 
 am going out of my case, but I think if the light could be 
 prevented falling on the jury-box, it would be an improve- 
 ment. It is a great point to me to keep the jury in good 
 temper, my lord. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice .directed that this incon- 
 venience should be stopped, and added : I must do you 
 the justice to say, that up to this time you have Siud 
 nothing that could produce any other result. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : If I say anything that goes further, it will 
 be because I think it necessary to win my case, and that is 
 vital to me. The Solicitor-General made one remark which I 
 had the pleasure of agreeing with, and I did not agree with 
 much that fell from my antagonist's lips. He said that you 
 are the guardians of public morals. There is no point on 
 
47 
 
 which I feel more strongly than the value of our present 
 system of law, and it is because of that that my co-defendant 
 and myself, instead of publishing the work and leaving it to 
 be prosecuted, thought it the best plan to challenge the 
 verdict of a jury, because we believe that the verdict of a. 
 jury is the right, legal, and constitutional fashion of settling 
 questions of this kind ; so much is this the case, that the 
 jury have the whole decision in their hands in these cases. 
 I have no doubt that the learned Judge on the bench would 
 endorse what I say to you, when I put it that even the judge's- 
 opinion is not binding on the jury. The judge has a right to 
 lay down the law and explain the law, and the jury has the 
 duty of finding a verdict in accordance with the law, and I 
 press that upon you, for while I don't want for a moment 
 to pretend that the Lord Chief Justice will rule against us ^ 
 while I have the utmost confidence in his complete and 
 thorough impartiahty in this case — feeling sure that 
 what he beHeves to be right he will say without 
 favouring either the one or the other, and without fear 
 of anything outside which may go in favour of one side 
 rather than the other — while I have the most complete con 
 fidence in him, I do not want that one single member of 
 the jury should for one moment imagine that he can throw 
 his responsibility upon the learned judge who lays down the 
 law in this case. I am dealing with a question on which I 
 might pile up authorities one after the other ; I do not 
 intend to do that, although in a case so important as this- 
 I must guard myself step by step by those precedents 
 of English justice which are the real safeguards of justice in^ 
 our land. I will point out to you that the Lord Chief 
 Justice Eyre, dealing with the case of the King v. 
 Hardy — and I am now quoting from proceedings taken in 
 the Old Bailey in a case of high treason— a case where the 
 life of a man hung upon the decision of a jury — you will 
 find that Lord Chief Justice Eyre distinctly lays down that 
 the responsibility lies upon the jury, and not upon the 
 judge : " Every verdict upon a clear point of fact ought to be 
 the jury's own choice, and in a case of this nature more parti- 
 cularly so, because, to be sure one great object of this 
 prosecution is, that the country may be satisfied, that they 
 may see that the public justice of it has taken its fair course, 
 and that the prisoner has that deliverance made for him 
 which the laws and constitution of the country in his case 
 call for." He laid it down that the responsibiUty of the 
 
48 
 
 verdict did not lie with the judge. I find that the Right 
 
 Hon. Chief Justice Pennefather, dealing, thirty or forty 
 
 years ago, with one of those cases that aroused so much the 
 
 popular feeling of the country — the case of The Queen 
 
 -i>. Daniel O'Connell and others that I find in " Shaw's 
 
 State Trials for 1844," — the judge laid down the doctrine 
 
 that, whatever the judge's opinion might be, the jury were 
 
 " the constitutional judges to determine and to come to a 
 
 just conclusion." And you will also find that Erskine, to 
 
 whom I referred before, pointed out that the jurymen were 
 
 the real judges, and added that they were to " examine the 
 
 judge's opinion as rigorously as that of the advocate at the 
 
 bar"; and the curious point in that case is, that, while 
 
 the judge summed up directly against the prisoner, the jury 
 
 gave a verdict against the judge. Gentlemen, I put these 
 
 cases before you because I desire you to feel that it 
 
 is not possible for you to shift in any way the 
 
 responsibility on to his lordship, in whom rightly and 
 
 naturally you must have such thorough trust. If this 
 
 question were by English law to be decided by him, I 
 
 should be fully content to put my fate in his hands ; but 
 
 when the English law bars the judge from the verdict, and 
 
 gives it to the hands of the jury, then I must remind you 
 
 that you cannot evade your responsibility. The learned 
 
 Solicitor-General told you that you are the guardians of 
 
 public morals ; and if you give a verdict against us, it will 
 
 make a grave breach of morality, which it will take many 
 
 decisions to cure. If I say that, do not think that I say it 
 
 because I have not confidence in the verdict of twelve men, 
 
 sworn to do justice between the Queen and ourselves. I 
 
 do not forget what AVhiteside put so well in his great case, 
 
 when he was speaking on behalf of some of those who 
 
 were tried with Daniel O'Connell. Although an advocate 
 
 there, you cannot forget that AVhiteside afterwards became 
 
 Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and.^ave from the bench proofs 
 
 of that genius which he had so long shown at the bar. 
 
 Gentlemen, the question for your consideration is whether 
 
 in days to come you would wish your names to be handed 
 
 down to posterity amongst the juries who by their verdicts 
 
 have induced freedom, or whether they shall be handed 
 
 down with those who have narrowed freedom, those who, 
 
 in cases such as this, wheiein liberty of discussion has been 
 
 concerned, have returned verdicts of repression, verdicts 
 
 tifterwards to be reversed, as all such verdicts ai'e, on 
 
49 
 
 appeal to the higher court of posterity. Do you, gentle- 
 men, think for one moment that myself and my co- 
 defendant are fighting the simple question of the sale or 
 publication of this sixpenny volume of Dr. Knowlton's ? 
 Do you think that we would have placed ourselves in the 
 position in which we are at the present moment for the mere 
 profit to be derived from a sixpenny pamphlet of forty-seven 
 pages? No, it is nothing of the sort; we have a much larger 
 interest at stake, and one of vital interest to the public, one 
 which we shall spend our whole lives in trying to uphold. 
 The question really is one of the right to public discus- 
 sion by means of publication, and that question is 
 bound up in the right to sell this sixpenny 
 pamphlet which the Solicitor-General despises on account 
 of its price. We are not fighting simply to obtain your 
 verdict for the sake of selling this work. I, personally, 
 don't care, if your verdict is in my favour, to sell another 
 copy. I sell it so long as the detective police spies and 
 secret agents of a society calling itself a Vice Society resort 
 to the practices that they do to get respectable booksellers 
 into trouble ; so long as that goes on, so long shall we 
 endeavour to uphold those principles v/hich we maintain 
 with reference to the right of public discussion, by fighting 
 this great battle until we win ultimate success. This 
 pamphlet is valuable to us just as is the piece of silk to 
 the soldier who wins the battle lor his country : it is the 
 flag which represents the cause we have at stake. It is 
 with that feeling — and that feeling alone — that we stand 
 here to-day to uphold the right to publish this pamphlet, 
 and I fight that I may make here the right of open 
 and free discussion on a great and important social 
 subject. There are various rights of speech which 
 the public enjoy. The right of discussion in theology 
 is won ; the right of publicly discussing politics is won ; but 
 as to discussion on social subjects, there is at present no 
 right. There will be this day week, if your verdict is in our 
 favour, because, you may depend upon it, that verdict once 
 given no one will ever go against it ; everyone will then 
 feel free to discuss a point of vital interest to society; 
 but till that verdict, that right is not one which can be 
 exercised with impunity. However much you may dis- 
 agree with Dr. Knowlton's theories — and I don't pre- 
 tend to agree with him on all his points — however much 
 I say you disagree, that is no reason why you should brand 
 
 D 
 
5° 
 
 his book as obscene. Difference of opinion is not to be taken 
 as proof of obscenity against any particular subject, and the 
 more you may differ in opinion from Knowlton so much the 
 more jealously should you guard his right of discussion. If 
 it were only to gain your sympathies with Dr. Knowlton's 
 work, I would not waste your time or mine here to-day ; 
 but it is because I want you, by your verdict, to lay down this 
 great and just principle — that opinion, honestly given 
 opinion, honestly expressed opinion, freely and fairly pub^ 
 lished, shall not be prevented pubUc expression because a 
 police-officer does not agree with the opinion so expressed 
 upon matters in which probably he is not at all informed. 
 I have in my hand the opinion of Mr. John Stuart Mill, in 
 ■which he treats of the right to free discussion : he says, 
 in his Essay on Liberty : " But I deny the right of the 
 people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves 
 or by their Government. The power itself is illegi- 
 timate : the best Government has no more title to it 
 than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, 
 when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when 
 in opposition to it. If all mankind, minus one, were of one 
 opinion, and only one person were of the contrary 
 opinion, mankind would be no more justified in 
 silencing that one person than he, if he had the 
 power, would be justified in silencing mankind." 
 I put it to you that a medical work, published by a medical 
 man of eminence to raise a great public and social ques- 
 tion, must not be branded as obscene because you disagree 
 with it ; but the more you disagree the more you are bound 
 to give weight to the arguments we put forward here. 
 But, after all, does any single one of you believe that my 
 co-defendant and myself desired, in publishing this work, 
 that it should tend to corrupt the morals of the 
 public ? This is not a question merely of publishing an 
 indecent work. For what reason are we dragged here — 
 a man and a woman whose whole lives disprove the alle- 
 gation against us ? What hidden motive is there for bring- 
 ing us here to answer so monstrous an accusation ? White- 
 side once said of a prosecution in which he defended the pri- 
 soner (and may not his words be used to-day with refer- 
 ence to the present proceedings?): "The whole object of 
 this unprecedented prosecution is to stifle the discussion 
 of a great public question. Viewed in this light, all other 
 considerations sink into insignificance; its importance be- 
 
SI 
 
 <3omes vast indeed. Destroy the right of free discussion 
 and you dry up the sources of freedom. By the same 
 means by which your Hberties were won can they be 
 increased or defended." It is said that that principle 
 of free discussion may be carried too far, but Whiteside, 
 whom I have just quoted, deals with that point, in refer- 
 ence to prosecution on these matters. He holds that pro- 
 secutions, with regard to division of opinion, are unjust and 
 unfair, as I shall show you this prosecution is in a few 
 minutes. " Quarrel not," he says, " with the partial evils free 
 discussion creates, nor seek to contract the enjoyment of 
 that greatest privilege within the narrow hmits timid men 
 prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extravagance 
 contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped upon 
 man. Free discussion gave to Europe the reforma- 
 tion, which I have been taught to believe the mightiest 
 event in the history of the human race — illuminated 
 the world with the radiant light of spiritual truth. 
 May it shine with steady and increasing splendour. Free 
 discussion gave to England the revolution, abolished 
 tyranny, swept away the monstrous abuses it rears, and 
 established the liberties under which we Uve. Free dis- 
 cussion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved, 
 but purified our constitution, reformed our laws, reduced 
 our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence 
 to every portion of our political system. The spirit of 
 inquiry it creates has revealed the secrets of nature — 
 explained the wonders of the creation, teaching the know- 
 ledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, sciences, 
 civilisation, freedom, pure religion, are its noble realities. 
 Would you undo the labours of science, extinguish literature, 
 stop the efforts of genius, restore ignorance, bigotry, barbar- 
 ism, then put down free discussion, and you have accomplished 
 all. Savage conquerors, in the bhndness of their ignorance, 
 have scattered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a 
 great antiquity. ' Those who make war on the sacred right 
 of free discussion, without their ignorance, imitate their 
 fury. They may check the expression of some thought, 
 which might, if uttered, redeem the liberties or increase the 
 happiness of man. The insidious assailants of this great 
 prerogative of intellectual beings, by the cover under which 
 they advance, conceal the character of their assault upon the 
 liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the 
 liberty to discuss — blame only its extravagance, pronounce 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 hollow praises on the value of freedom of speech, and 
 straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy it." 
 That is exactly what our prosecutors are to-day trying to do ; 
 don't forget that stopping us in our object will only tend to 
 cause some others to rise on the same subject, who may do 
 better than those who went before them ; but if you find a 
 verdict of guilty against us you may stop the discussion of the 
 whole population question until we try the matter again. 
 I will ask you whether, when I unfold to you the nature 
 of this prosecution, you will not feel that Knowlton is not 
 guilty of using the word marriage to cover obscenity, but 
 rather that the prosecution is using the name of Knowl- 
 ton to smother the right of free discussion and free press in 
 this country. Now, gentlemen, I must appeal to you on a 
 simple matter of justice. I must ask you to look at the 
 way in which this prosecution is conducted. I asked Detec- 
 tive Simonds what his weekly wage was, and how long he 
 had been in the detective force. Probably, when I asked 
 him those questions, you may have thought that I was asking 
 useless ones without an object, and although in most instances 
 you would have been right in considering they were not 
 directly to the issue, and therefore inadmissible according 
 to the laws of evidence, I asked them with no idle intention. 
 I asked them for this reason — It is one of the principles of 
 English justice, that those accused shall be placed face to 
 face with their accusers, and shall understand who brings 
 them to answer before the bar of justice. Our difficulty in 
 knowing the aim of the prosecution is, that v,e don't know at 
 the present moment who is prosecuting us. When first we 
 were arrested and taken to the Guildhall we were kept waiting 
 for more than two hours shut up in the cold and uncomforta- 
 ble cells under the Guildhall court of justice. 'We were 
 then told that we were kept there to await the presence ot 
 the City Solicitor, who had the conduct of the prosecution. 
 Hearing that, we thought we were to fight a prosecution 
 conducted by the city authorities. We WTOte to the City 
 Solicitor, and our belief was strengthened by his answer, 
 because the City Solicitor, writing on the paper of the 
 Corporation, using the stamp of the Corporation, and 
 signing under his name "City Solicitor," has only the right 
 to use the funds of the city to conduct prosecutions for 
 the city authorities ; we naturally then belie\-ed that we were 
 beifig prosecuted by the cit}' authorities. Imagine our aston- 
 ishment when on Mr. Bradlaugh asking whether that was 
 
53 
 
 so, we were told that " the Corporationof the City of London 
 has nothing and never had anything to do with the prosecu- 
 tion against you and Mrs. Besant " ! This came to us as a 
 greater surprise because Mr. Douglas Straight, instructed 
 by the City Solicitor, said in open court that he appeared on 
 behalf of the Corporation. You may imagine that we found it 
 difficult to discover what private malice had been brought to 
 bear in the institution of the prosecution against us. We 
 tried to find out ; we wrote to the solicitor and he wrote us 
 telling us the Corporation had nothing to do v/ith it, 
 -and referred us to the head of the Police of the 
 ■city, who in his turn, in answer, said he had nothing 
 to do with it and that we must refer to the information. 
 We found upon the information the name of William Simonds, 
 therebeing no address given. We wrote for the address, which 
 was furnished to us, and we then wrote to detective Wm. 
 Simonds asking if he were the man responsible. We 
 received in return merely an answer expressing his pleasure 
 at receiving our letter. Now Mr. Wm. Simonds has been 
 in the force for 13 years. He commenced at 28s. a week, 
 and has risen to 31s. 6d., and he has some clothes in addi- 
 tion. I will ask you to use your common sense whether Mr. 
 Wm. Simonds on 28s. a week, rising to 31s. 6d., has made 
 such large economies that he has been able to save sufficient 
 money out of his salary to find the fees and engage the 
 services of the Solicitor-General, Mr. Douglas Straight,, 
 .and Ml. Mead, instructed by the City Solicitor, to prose- 
 cute us ? If it be possible to live upon so small a sum 
 of money and also put by sufficient means to fight one's 
 difficulties with the aid of a powerful retinue of legal ad- 
 visers such as the learned counsel engaged in this case, there 
 can be no necessity for appealing to Dr. Knowlton's 
 work with any desire to keep down one's family on the 
 ground of want of means. (Laughter.). Why, when Dr. 
 Knowlton's work was commenced to be published in Eng- 
 land^that was forty-two years ago — Mr. William Simonds 
 must have been a little boy. He must have made this pro- 
 secution the far-off ideal of his life, and undoubtedly he must 
 have commenced to have saved the 6d. or gd. a week, which 
 he should have spent in sugar-plums or toffee, to have then 
 commanded means sufficient to have retained the services of 
 the Solicitor-General and these other gentlemen. Now, see 
 the position in which we stand with regard to this prosecu- 
 tion, which is a disgrace to English justice. If fl'e win. the 
 
54 
 
 whole of the costs will fall on William Simonds — as the 
 country allows nothing for expenses — -as the only responsible 
 prosecutor in this case. We know that the Queen is. 
 nominally our prosecutor, but there is no public fund out 
 of which the costs of our prosecution can be paid. Where, 
 I should like to know, do the costs come from, and 
 who is hidden behind the city constable that they 
 refuse to let us and you know? If we win the verdict, 
 who is to pay the costs? Poor Wm. Simonds — is it 
 possible that we can look to him? or are there people 
 hidden behind the coat of the city detective, of whom 
 we have a right to hear, and the hiding of whom tends 
 to open the door to the greatest scandal in the prose- 
 cution of public justice in this country? Where has this 
 sudden virtuous inspiration sprung from ? I have a right 
 to assume its real origin, because our names have been 
 dragged into another prosecution which is being carried 
 on, and which was only commenced in order to prejudice 
 this case. Its representatives are here to-day, brought here 
 lest the failure of the Solicitor-General and the two 
 learned counsel whom he leads should need the fostering 
 care of these hidden abettors. Forty or fifty years ago there 
 was a society called the Society of Vice, but better known 
 as the Bridge Street gang ; in this Society, under cover of 
 a few respectable names, a herd of spies and informers 
 carried on their despicable work, and hunted down honest 
 booksellers, whose works are now tbund on the shelves of 
 every thinker. This society sank out of sight under a 
 weight of shame and disgust, but it has again arisen, and is 
 once more at its foul work. It is to-day worthily represented 
 by its secretary, Mr. C. H. CoUette, solicitor, and he boasts 
 openly that he " prompts " the Solicitor-General against us. 
 That he is starting all these prosecutions is very suggestive, and 
 I ask you whether you will countenance a society like that, 
 sheltering itself under a police detective in order to prose- 
 cute a man and a woman who are spending their lives 
 in trying to do good to their fellow-creatures ? If you think 
 we are wrong in doing so, we must bow to the result of your 
 verdict ; but I submit that the whole conduct of this pro- 
 secution has been malicious and disgraceful, and I trust 
 that in a case like the present you will pause before you 
 give a prosecution, instituted as this one has beeny any 
 encouragement. I now come to deal with the pamphlet itself. 
 The Solicitor-General has read the whole of the preface, and 
 
55 
 
 has thus saved me from having to read it over again. Allow 
 Ine to refer to the history of the pamphlet. The Solicitor- 
 General exhibited a curious — if not a pretended — ignorance 
 on the subject when he spoke of " Mr. Knowlton." No 
 doubt the learned Solicitor-General's time has been so fully 
 occupiedin the conduct of his wide criminal practice, that he 
 has had very little opportunity of studying the details of med- 
 ical works ; Mr. Chas. Knowlton might be anyone ; but 
 Chas. Knowlton, M.D., is a medical man, who, by reason 
 of his position, has more right to deal with physiological 
 details than a layman. He was an M.D. in good practice 
 in Boston, which city is said to be considered by the Americans 
 as the "hub of the universe" — the "hub," meaning the 
 acme of culture, of education, of scientific thought and ability. 
 Chas. Knowlton not only practised in Boston as a leading 
 physician, but he was also a contributor to the foremost scientific 
 journals of that city. That city is the American centre of pure 
 intellect, and the greatest proof that I can give you of the 
 qualifications of Dr. Charles Knowlton is the fact of his 
 contributing to those journals, when I tell you that those 
 leading medical journals of the city of Boston rank in the 
 same category as do the Zara«^ and Obstetric Journal published 
 in England. I point out that to you with a knowledge that 
 these are not matters of evidence, but because I think it 
 important to you to know that Dr. Charles Knowlton was not 
 only looked up to and respected throughout his native town 
 but throughout the v/hole of the United States. In con- 
 sequence of its not being evidence we did not think it 
 worth while to bring from America Messrs. Seaver& Mendum, 
 the proprietors of the leading Boston Freethought paper, to 
 prove thatDr. Knowlton was to their knowledge a man of blame- 
 less life. I contend that such observations as those of the 
 Solicitor-General should not be allowed to be brought 
 against the character of a man of Dr. Knowlton's capacity, 
 and that it is going too far, even in a criminal prosecution, 
 to cast unfair slurs on the name of a dead man. Dr. Knowl- 
 ton's book was published in America, and was largely sold 
 there. In 1833 it was pubUshed in London by Mr. James 
 Watson, who died the year before last. He also was a man 
 of unblemished life, who, while he had been prosecuted 
 by the Government for the sale of political and other 
 pamphlets,'; now generally published, had never had the 
 smallest shadow cast upon him as seller of an indecent 
 book. He was one of those men who persisted in selling 
 
S6 
 
 unstamped papers, and the penny newspaper press of this 
 country is the result of the struggles in which Mr. James 
 Watson took part ; it was the result of those struggles which 
 made it possible to sell for a penny those journals which 
 were previously sold bearing a sixpenny stamp. When he 
 died he was honoured by all who knew him, even by those 
 who had prosecuted him in his lifetime. That was how this 
 book was first issued forty-four years ago. Mr. James Wat- 
 son died, as I have already said, about a year and a-half ago. 
 We had thought of putting his widow into the box to prove 
 the publication ; but in consequence of her ill-health, and 
 her desire not to be troubled with an examination in a public 
 court, we have determined, in reverence for the memory 
 of her dead husband, not to bring her here against her will. 
 The book was not only sold by Mr. James Watson but 
 also by Messrs. Holyoake & Co. One of this firm was 
 Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, whose name is probably 
 fairly well known to you. The other was Mr. Austin Holy- 
 oake. He it was whose " Thoughts in a Sick Room," 
 written when he was dying, were spoken of admiringly by 
 Miss Frances Power Cobbe, a lady whose opinions might 
 not be supposed to be favourable to such a man as Austin 
 Holyoake. He recommended this book, in a pamphlet of 
 his own, in conjunction with Robert Dale Owen's " Moral 
 Physiology," and the "Elements of Social Science," a book 
 which no one yet has had the courage to attack. It was 
 also sold by Brook & Co., 282, Strand, but I will not con- 
 ceal from you that the moment the prosecution was instituted 
 the last-named firm sold the copies they had at once, that 
 they might not stand in the same position as v,'e stand in 
 to-day. It is not pleasant for booksellers to stand in such a 
 position, and I cannot blame them if they did not persist in 
 the sale of the pamphlet. From Mr. Holyoake the book 
 went into the hands of a Mr. Charles Vv'atts, and on James 
 AVatson's death he bought the plates of the work together 
 with many others from the widow. His plea to the indict- 
 ment of wilfully publishing an obscene book was, as you 
 know, a plea of guilty. The Solicitor-General, doubtless 
 from forgetfulness, entirely omitted any reference to that 
 trial, and spoke as though we republished the book because 
 of the Bristol affair. It is not the case that we published 
 the book because of the prosecution of the man named 
 Cook, at Bristol. AVe should never have troubled to repub- 
 lish a book because a man named Cook, at Bristol, had been 
 
57 
 
 called up about it. It seems, from the reports I have seen, 
 that he was not really called up for this pamphlet, although 
 ■nominally he was prosecuted for it ; he was a bookseller of 
 known bad character, and he sold very few of these works, 
 because they are not written in a style which a vendor of 
 obscene literature would find it profitable to sell. It so 
 happened that this Mr. Charles Watts had published for iTiy 
 co-defendant for some years, and for me for a short time, 
 thus somewhat connecting our names with his, and bringing 
 us into the disgrace of his yielding. Mr. Watts thought it 
 right to plead guilty, and I feel this fact is calculated to 
 prejudice our case, and that if you did not hear our defence 
 the very plea of guilty, put in by the man who published 
 the book, would make you put the book down to be one of 
 that set of obscene publications which are sold for the pur- 
 pose of making a large profit. We felt that the book could 
 not be given up in that fashion. Gentlemen, that book 
 had been published for more than forty years by those with 
 whom my co-defendant had worked, and whose work I have 
 inherited (for I have only come young into the work). That 
 book .being so published, we felt it our duty to the dead 
 who had gone before, as well as to those yet living, that 
 no plea of guilty should be allowed to stand, and that im- 
 prisonment should be braved rather than that the stigma of 
 indecency should attach to those whom we reverence. 
 Neither Mr. Bradlaugh nor myself had previously had any- 
 thing to do with the purely technical details connected with 
 publication. We took this new work upon ourselves in 
 order that we might issue this book that everybody shrank 
 from issuing. We were not printers before, but we became 
 printers that we might print this book ; we became pub- 
 lishers that we might publish this book ; we took a shop 
 that we might sell this book ; and we did all this at a time 
 when danger attached to it, and we had nothing to gain and 
 much to lose by so doing. That, gentlemen, is the history 
 of the book. The Solicitor-General stated that the sub-title 
 of the book has been changed. Gentlemen, that is perfectly 
 true. The sub-title of the book used to be " Private Com- 
 panion to Young Married Couples," or, " Young Married 
 People." That sub-title is just like the title of Dr. Cha- 
 vasse's book. He calls his book " Advice to a Wife," and 
 Knowlton's was called "Adviceto Young Married Couples." 
 Frankly, I don't like titles of that character. Dr. Chavasse's 
 book is a good and a useful book, and labelling it " Advice 
 
S8 
 
 to a Wife " gives a kind of suggestiveness to it, and hints 
 that you might get a special kind of knowledge, which is, I 
 think, a mistake when you are dealing with a book to be put 
 on railway bookstalls. But I hold that there is nothing 
 indecent or obscene in calling a book " Advice to a Wife," 
 or " Private Companion to Young Married People." 
 Gentlemen, I have no experience of obscene literature ; I 
 have never seen a book which has* been made the subject of 
 a prosecution such as this, but I understand that it is the 
 usual thing, where an obscene book is published, that the 
 printer's and publisher's names are omitted, and they so 
 evade responsibility. I may say there is no attempt at con- 
 cealment here, when you find that right through this book is 
 openly published ; first by James Watson (holding up the 
 works cited in turn), then by Holyoake & Co., then by 
 Austin & Co., then by Brook & Co., then once more pub- 
 lished by James Watson & Co. at a later address, then 
 published once more by James ^^'atson at another address, 
 and, latterly, by the " Freethought Publishing Company," 
 bearing the imprint " Printed by Annie Besant and Charles 
 Bradlaugh." There is here throughout no concealment of 
 publisher or printer. Having once found how the responsi- 
 bihty of the printer might be treated when it was challenged, 
 we made up our minds to put our own names on everything 
 we published for the future, so that we alone might be re- 
 sponsible for every word we thought it right to issue to the 
 public. So much for the history of the pamphlet ; now for 
 the pamphlet itself. If it would not trouble you too much, 
 gentlemen, I would ask you kindly to mark the passages 
 with which I deal, because I don't want to give you the 
 trouble of going over the same ground twice. I will first 
 take the preface, for, although I thought that the preface 
 could not be attacked, I heard it read by the Solicitor- 
 General as part of the accusation. It might be thought that 
 the case for the prosecution was so small that he was obliged 
 to fill up the necessary time by reading the preface, for I 
 don't see anything obscene or immodest in it. But to 
 suggest that that could have been his object would be dis- 
 courteous to my learned antagonist. I will refer to a 
 passage at page 6, dealing with the publishers' preface, from 
 " We publish this pamphlet " down to "sound judgment." 
 I need not read it as you have already heard it read. The 
 Solicitor-General said" we do not " agree " in our preface 
 with the medical views or the philosophical proem ; we 
 
59 
 
 simply wanted to guard ourselves against endorsing every, 
 one of the medical and metaphysical views of Dr. Knowlton. 
 The Solicitor-General put it that we did not agree with them,, 
 but whether or not we agree with them, we are responsible 
 for them for the purpose of this trial. However much we 
 may disagree with Dr. Knowlton, we are responsible for 
 every syllable that he has written. I hold that everyone 
 who prints and publishes a book ought to be held to the 
 fullest extent responsible for that which he issues to the 
 public. I hold that nothing is so cowardly, nothing is so 
 mean or so disgraceful, as for a publisher to issue a book, or 
 for an editor to issue a journal, and then, when challenged 
 by the law, to shrink back and say " I did not know what I 
 was doing." If publishers are not aware of what is in the 
 books they publish, they ought to be ; and if editors do not 
 know what is in their journals, they ought to know. You 
 have no safety for character, or for morality, or for any of 
 our valuable institutions, unless you make the publisher 
 responsible for everything which he issues. Therefore, in 
 saying that I don't endorse Dr. Knowlton on some points, 
 I don't want to shirk full responsibility for all he has here 
 written. That preface was written because we hold that, 
 on social questions, discussion is a vital necessity, and we 
 pubhshed Dr. Knowlton's views, not because we agreed 
 with him, but simply because we think that his views, 
 ought to be heard. I agree with Dr. Knowlton's principle ;, 
 I think that some kind of check to population ought to be 
 adopted ; but when this preface was written, I did not know 
 enough of medical books to know whether his checks would 
 tend to promote health. I put it to yourselves that it is a 
 question very mucfi discussed in France — what kind of 
 checks are healthy to the women and the children. You 
 must get that question settled, for on the question of the 
 health of the women and children depends the deterioration 
 or the improvement of the next generation. You cannot 
 settle that question unless you permit doctors to discuss 
 what checks are healthy and what are not. Amongst the 
 French doctors' books I have read in the course of this 
 defence, I have found some objections raised to some of the 
 checks put forward by Dr. Knowlton. But, I say, you 
 cannot deal with this question unless every man is free to 
 put forward his medical knowledge without fear of prosecu- 
 tion, or of the disgrace of obscenity being attached to the 
 book that he may issue. That may, perhaps, cover the 
 
6o 
 
 point of the Solicitor-General as to our agreement with 
 Knowlton. I will only, in the next page, page 7, draw your 
 attention to the three concluding lines of the first paragraph, 
 with reference to the names of other works being given in 
 foot notes. Not desiring that Dr. Knowlton's views should 
 fee taken without study, we thought it right to add the re- 
 ferences, so as to afford any one the opportunity of seeing 
 what might be said against as well as for. The preface 
 ■says : " We advocate scientific checks to population, because 
 solongaspoormenhavelargefamiliespauperism is a necessity 
 and from pauperism grow crime and disease." I shall have 
 to deal with that a little more fully later on, and I will only 
 put it to you now, that you have got before you a great 
 social question which is becoming more and more pressing 
 as every year goes by — a question the gravity of which is 
 recognised by men like John Stuart Mill, by men like Pro- 
 fessor Fawcett,by men like Professor Cairnes and Professor 
 Bain, as well as by some of those whom we shall put into the 
 witness box. I must put it to you that if pauperism is the 
 consequence of large families and that if from it grow 
 crime and disease, then you will be bound to bring in a verdict 
 of " not guilty," because we shall have shown that our object 
 in publishing this pamphlet was not in any way to arouse the 
 passions of the unmarried, but simply to prevent the curse of 
 pauperism, which is becoming more and more a pressing 
 question with every [year that rolls over our heads. You 
 ■will now permit me to refer to the former pubUsher's preface, 
 ■^vhich is not in the copy now before you. The Solicitor- 
 General thought it right to put it to you, without offering 
 one word of proof, that Dr. Knowlton used the word 
 ■" married " to cover unmarried people, and that he really 
 meant to suggest promiscuous intercourse. In fact, he speaks 
 most warmly against it. You find he says : " It is a notorious 
 fact that the families of the married often increase beyond 
 ■what a regard for the young beings commg into existence, 
 or the happiness of those who gave them birth, would dictate." 
 He goes on, to say that in publishing the pamphlet his 
 only object is to enable married people to have some con- 
 trol over the number of children they bring into the world. 
 It is a fact that the object of this pamphlet, so far from 
 destroying marriage and so far from approving any kind of 
 illicit connection between the sexes — it is a fact that this 
 pamphlet is written by Dr. Knowlton, and circulated by us 
 to-day, for the purpose which the learned judge suggested 
 
6i 
 
 was a. question of great importance, that of making early 
 marriage possible to a very large number of young men to- 
 day. Our object is not to destroy marriage but to make 
 it more widely prevalent ; not to encourage prostitution, but 
 to destroythat which is a very prolific source of prostitution^ 
 the shrinking, of young men from marriage because of the 
 terrible responsibility that marriage often brings with it. 
 That is the object of my co-defendant and myself I lay 
 stress upon another part of the preface, because the Solicitor^ 
 General seemed to insinuate an objection to the idea : " with- 
 out even a partial sacrifice of the pleasure which attends the 
 gratification of the productive instinct." I put it to you that 
 there is nothing wrong in a natural desire rightly and properly 
 gratified. There is no harm in feeling thirsty because people 
 get drunk ; there is no harm in feeling hungry because 
 people over-eat themselves, and there is no harm in gratify- 
 ing the sexual instinct if it can be gratified without injury to 
 anyone else, and without harm to the morals of society, and 
 with due regard to the health of those whom nature has given 
 us the power of summoning into the world. I put it to you 
 gravely, that it is only a false and spurious kind of modesty, 
 which sees harm in the gratification of one of the highest 
 instincts of human nature — an instinct which goes through 
 all the world, not only in the animal but in the vegetable 
 kingdom ; if you are to blame Dr. Knowlton because he 
 recognises a great natural fact, then it is your duty to blame 
 the constitution of the world, and the arrangements of 
 nature, because you find that the reproductive instinct is 
 attended with pleasure in its due gratification. The notion 
 that pleasure ^ud pleasure is wrong is an ascetic notion, 
 which is at the base of a large amount of the profligacy of 
 the present day. You even find it stated, right through the 
 teaching of the Christian moralists, that Providence annexed 
 pleasure to the reproductive function in order to ensue the 
 perpetuation of the species. Take Jeremy Taylor. No one 
 will say that in his " Living and Dying," he wrote a book in- 
 tentionally calculated to arouse sexual desires. You will 
 find he says that God appointed sexual pleasure in order to 
 ensure the reproduction of the species. It is not only by 
 those to whom the co-defendant and myself belong that this 
 fact is recognised. You find it in the bishops of the Church 
 of England and your great moralists. They say that it is , 
 the special plan of Providence so that the species in the 
 animal and vegetable kingdom may be preserved. Mon- 
 
62 
 
 taigne truly said, that it is only an impure mind which 
 sees impurity in the function which brings mankind into the 
 world. I put it to you that the pamphlet is specially 
 addressed to the married, and there is not one single syllable 
 in it that gives colour to the insinuation that the word " mar- 
 riage " is used as a cover to unlawful desires. I now come to 
 the Philosophical Proem. I do not agree with it, but I say 
 there is not a single syllable which even the Solicitor-General 
 can twist into indecency, and I hold that in order to convict 
 on this indictment you must take the whole book to be ob- 
 scene. 
 
 The Lord Chief-Justice : I don't want to interrupt you, 
 but that is going too far. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Is it putting it a little too strongly ? 
 
 The Lord Chief-Justice : You are wrong there. The 
 question is whether the book is obscene, not whether there 
 may be intermediary passages that are not obscene. You 
 must take it as a whole. They have charged the whole 
 book. The jury must look at the scope and effect of the 
 whole. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I am much obliged to you, my lord. You 
 must read the whole of the publisher's preface,- and judge of 
 that part which will tend to produce obscenity taken as a 
 whole. I will call your attention to a sentence in the Philo- 
 sophical Proem to show the tone of Dr. Knowlton. He 
 speaks of — "Passions acquired by habit — habitually hanker- 
 ing for stimulants, as spirits, opium, and tobacco, is one of 
 these." Dr. Knowlton, you will see, is not a man specially 
 given to physical or sensual indulgence. You -will find that 
 on many points he is, what would be called by many people, 
 ascetic. In the third paragraph you will see : — " That 
 which gives rise to agreeable consciousness is good, and 
 we desire it. If we use it intemperately such use is bad, 
 but the thing itself is still good." How can the Solicitor- 
 General, then, pretend that intemperate passion is advised by 
 Knowlton? The only other passage in the philosophical 
 proem with which I need trouble you is the second para- 
 graph on page 3. We are told there, " Man by nature is 
 endowed with the talent of devising means to remedy or 
 prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying 
 our appetites, and it is as much the duty of the physician to 
 inform mankind of the means of preventing the evils that 
 are liable to arise from gratifying the reproductive instinct 
 as it is to inform them how to keep clear of the gout or 
 
63 
 
 dyspepsia." And I will put it to you that that is true. 
 The doctor cannot pick out one portion of the human frame 
 and say : I won't deal with that because, in so doing, I may 
 be branded as indecent. It is the physician's business to 
 deal with the whole man and woman, and so to deal with 
 them that he may warn them from what disease is likely to 
 arise, and what methods they may take in order to prevent 
 such arising, and you will find right through this that 
 Knowlton, writing as a scientific man to those whom he 
 desires to instruct, is really giving them such physiological 
 knowledge as will tend to the preservation of their health ; 
 and, more than that, you will find that duty thoroughly recog- 
 nised by other doctors as well as by Knowlton. Now, take 
 the case of Dr. Acton, where he is dealing with some of the 
 questions which are most objected to by the learned Solici- 
 tor-General. Knowlton also deals with them, and I take 
 leave to say that, after all, a doctor of medicine in America 
 may surely be permitted to deal with subjects that a doctor 
 of medicine in England is also allowed to deal with. You 
 fmd in dealing with Acton that he publishes a book treating 
 right through of the functions and disorders of the reproduc- 
 tive organs, a book which he does not intend to go amongst 
 medical men, but which he intends for more general cir- 
 culation, because he distinctly says he hopes it will exert 
 good influence on public health and public morals. You 
 will find Dr. Acton arguing : " I have been entreated over 
 and over again to urge on parents, guardians, schoolmasters, 
 and others interested in the education of youth, the necessity 
 of giving their charges some warning, or some intimation 
 of their danger." Dr. Acton, gentlemen, is dealing specially 
 with one of the intemperate practices to which Dr. Knowlton 
 alludes in some five lines, and which Dr. Acton gives a large 
 portion of his book to, and he is dealing there with the 
 question as to whether it is wise or not to publish details of 
 that kind, and he publishes here details which Knowlton 
 does not, and you will find, when my co-defendant comes 
 to deal with his book, that he clearly puts there that you 
 cannot possibly — especially with young men — avoid their 
 having knowledge regarding their own bodies, and that it is 
 better — especially so long as you allow them to read the 
 classics — that they should have some kind of what I may, 
 perhaps, call an antidote, in physiological knowledge, to that 
 thoroughly sensual set of ideas that they get in dealing with 
 the classical authors ; and he says : " it is in this way that 
 
64 
 
 men of my mode of thinking view the distinction between 
 he modern newspaper details and the prurient literature 
 which has been generally known as Holywell Street. In 
 this last-named literary garbage, illicit pleasure was depicted 
 in all its most attractive and meretricious forms, but the 
 anonymous author, like the translators of the Greek and 
 Latin lores of the heathen gods and goddesses omitted to 
 allude to the frightful consequences that illicit love or bestial 
 propensities produce on all those who directly or indirectly 
 indulge their animal propensities." That, Dr. Acton says, is 
 the distinction between decency and indecency, and right 
 through this book you will find the strongest language em- 
 ployed by Dr. Knowlton against such intemperate indul- 
 gence as is bad for the healtii of those for whom he writes. 
 With that, I think, gentlemen, I may almost leave this philo- 
 sophical proem, although I had marked, to read to you, two 
 sentences that follow the one I have just read to you, putting 
 it that the reproductive instinct, being a physical need 
 like hunger or thirst, comes as much within the pro- 
 vince of the physician as any other part of the human 
 body, and I will put iiere what is matter of fact — as later, 
 I can show you from Mr. Darwin — that what Knowlton 
 says about health is shewn to be true by the fact that married 
 women live longer than unmarried women, and this is 
 a point you get right through every census table that you 
 can take up. You will find there that marriage has a. 
 distinctly lengthening effect on human life ; you will find 
 that bachelorhood or spinsterhood distinctly shortens life ; 
 and it is only reasonable it should be so, gentlemen, 
 because those who despise the natural instincts of 
 nature can scarcely be surprised if nature revenges herself 
 by shortening the life which they do not know how to use. 
 That, ^then, I will put to you, that you find — especially 
 dealing with, my own sex — that unmarried women (and if 
 any of you are doctors you will know it well) suffer from a 
 number of diseases, special to the reproductive organs, that 
 married women, as a rule, do not suffer from, because- they 
 have not thwarted nature in the fashion that those who lead 
 a celibate life must do. And I may say here, too, that Dr. 
 Knowlton remarks that "mankind will not so abstain;" as 
 a simple matter of fact, I must put it to you that men and 
 women, but more especially men, will not lead a celibate Hfe, 
 whether they are married or unmarried, and that what you 
 have got to deal with is, that which we advocate — eai-Iy mar- 
 
65 
 
 Tiage with restraint upon the numbers of the family — or elr-.e 
 a simple mass of unlicensed prostitution, which is the ruin 
 both of men and women when once they fall into it. 
 I will pass, gentlemen, from that, on to the first chapter of 
 Dr. Knowlton's essay. Dr. Knowlton writes the first chapter 
 to show "how desirable it is, both in a political and social 
 point of view, for mankind to be able to limit at will the 
 number of their offspring, without sacrificing the pleasure 
 that attends the gratification of the reproductive instinct ; " 
 and I will put it broadly, that mankind will not sacrifice the 
 pleasure that attends the gratification of the reproductive 
 instinct, and that you have got to deal with things as they 
 are, and not with things as they might be — if ascetics could 
 form the world better, as they think, than nature has already 
 formed it. It has been put that the political economy of this 
 pamphlet is only a cover for an indecent object. If so, it 
 seems almost strange and suicidal on Dr. Knowlton's part 
 that he should speak so strongly against profligacy as 
 you find him do in this first chapter. It is not usual for a 
 man who wants to induce young people to become profligate, 
 to carefully point out to them all the harm that will come 
 from their following his advice, and all the misery that will 
 attend them in after-life if they carry out liis suggestions. I 
 am inclined to think, taking the learned Solicitor-General's 
 point of view, that Dr. Knowlton, instead of being at- 
 tacked for writing an obscene pamphlet, ought almost to 
 have been shut up in a madhouse for taking the veiy 
 means that must utterly destroy the end which he pro- 
 posed to himself to attain. This chapter, then, which is 
 part of the incriminated book, deals with a serious 
 question of political economy, and I will draw your attention 
 now to the first paragraph, " in a political point of view " — ■ 
 *' If population be not restrained by some great physical 
 calamity, such as we have reason to hope will not hereafter 
 be visited upon the children of men, or by some moral 
 restraint, the time will come when the earth cannot sup- 
 port its inhabitants. Population, unrestrained, will double 
 three times in a century. Hence, computing the pre- 
 sent population of the earth at one thousand millions, 
 there would be at the end of one hundred years from 
 the present time, 8,000 millions ; at the end of 200 years, 
 64,000 miUions ; at the end of 300 years, 512,000 millions, 
 and so on, multiplying by eight for every additional hundred 
 years. So that, in 500 years from the present time, there 
 
66 
 
 would be thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty- 
 eight times as many inhabitants as there are at present. If 
 tjie natural increase should go on without check for 1500- 
 years, one single pair would increase to more than thirty- 
 five thousand one hundred and eighty-four times as many 
 as the present population of the whole earth ! " I urge, 
 gentlemen, that this chapter cannot be separated from the 
 book when you are dealing with the intent of the book ;■ 
 that you have no right to presume an indecent intent unless 
 you have some amount of proof which shall show that the 
 intent is bad ; and I urge that the whole of the tone of 
 this first chapter directly negatives the contention which the 
 Solicitor-General put forward to you in opening the case for 
 the prosecution. That contention of Knowlton is one that 
 is thoroughly and fully recognised by others ; and when you 
 are dealing with it, if you once allow my definition of this 
 first chapter to stand, you cannot convict on the remainder 
 of the book ; because, if I can prove to you that you must 
 have some checks on population — that you have only got 
 the choice between the checks of vice and misery and the 
 scientific checks for which we plead — if I can pro^'e that tO' 
 you, you cannot bring in a verdict of guilty against us. You 
 may say," physiological details are introduced ;" but you can- 
 not discuss the population question without introducing phy- 
 ■jiological details. You may lay do\vn the law, as Knowlton 
 ioes in his first chapter, without physiological details ; • but 
 it is no good laying down the law if you don't apply the 
 law ; and you cannot apply the law until you make the 
 people acquainted with the simple mechanism of their own 
 bodies, as Dr. Knowlton does here ; and I will put it that 
 there is nothing more hopeless to us than if the in- 
 crease of our knowledge is simply to pointout to us the doom 
 which we are powerless to avert ; you had better have no 
 political economy at all, no science at all, if that science is 
 only to drive us to despair by giving us the knowledge of an 
 approaching misery, while you forbid us in any fashion to 
 discuss the means whereby we may avert it ; you can no 
 more discuss the population question without physiology 
 than you can solve an arithmetical problem without figures. 
 If you tried to do it you would utterly fail ; you might lay 
 down your law, but you could not apply it without the de- 
 tails. The economical law teaches the danger of over-pro- 
 duction ; nature teaches us that men and women will marr)'; 
 and the object of medical science is to teach us how the 
 
67 
 
 law of political 'economy, and the law of nature, may be 
 shown so to dovetail into each other, that they may be 
 both obeyed by human beings without wrong or harm 
 being done to any one. The prosecution, when pressed 
 specially — I may say pressed almost by the learned judge 
 himself — picked out one or two extracts of the bobk which 
 it characterised as specially obscene. Our duty is, then, to 
 brmg forward the other parts of the book which show that 
 those parts of the book are simply necessary for the solving 
 of the question in hand ; and as the intent is part of the 
 indictment, if I can show you that Knowlton's intent, and, 
 therefore, our intent, is a scientific intent, you will be 
 bound to bring us in not guilty of the indictment against us. 
 That I think you will find to be so strongly decided in a 
 number of trials that I have put down here, that unless my 
 course of dealing with it is objected to by the prosecution 
 I won't trouble you with the references I have made. On 
 the fourth page you find Knowlton putting forward : — 
 "Some check, then, there must be, or the time will 
 come when millions will be born but to suffer and 
 to perish for the necessaries of life. To what 
 an inconceivable amount of human misery would such 
 a state of things give rise ! And must we say that 
 vice; war, pestilence, and famine, are desirable to pre- 
 vent it? Must the friends of temperance and domestic 
 happiness stay their efforts ? Must peace societies excite to 
 war and bloodshed ? Must the physician cease to investi- 
 gate the nature of contagion, and to search for the means of 
 destroying its baneful influence? Must he that becomes 
 diseased be marked as a victim to die for the public good, 
 without the privilege of making an effort to restore him to 
 health ? And, in case of a failure of crops in one part of 
 the world, must the other part withhold the means of sup- 
 porting life, that the far greater evil of excessive population 
 throughout the globe may be prevented ?" Gentlemen, that 
 is practically putting that law of population, which was laid 
 down first, in the year 1798, by the Rev. T. R. Malthus, 
 who was a fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, and a professor 
 of history and political economy at the East India College, 
 in Hertfordshire. Malthus wrote that the law of population,, 
 which he then pressed on the people of his time, was that 
 " there was aconstant tendency in all animated life to increase 
 beyond the nourishment prepared for it. It is observed by 
 Dr. Franklin that there is no bound to the prolific nature of 
 
 E 2 
 
68 
 
 plants and animals but what is made by their crowding and 
 interfering with each other's means of subsistence " ; and he 
 goes on to say, "And it may safely be pronounced 
 that the population, when unchecked" — and I lay 
 great stress on the "when unchecked," that you may 
 find out the terrible nature of those checks, against ( 
 which we are setting ourselves in this trial — " popu- ■ 
 lation, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every 
 twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical ratio. The . 
 rate according to which the production of the earth may be 
 supposed to increase will not be so easy to determine. Of 
 this, however, we may be perfectly sure, that the ratio ot 
 their increase in a limited territory must be of a totally 
 different nature from the ratio of increase in the population. 
 A thousand millions are just as easily doubled every twenty- 
 five years by the power of population as a thousand, but the 
 food to support the increase of the greater number will by 
 no means be obtained with the same facility. Man is con- 
 fined in room. When acre has been added to acre until 
 all the fertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food 
 must depend on the amelioration of the land already in pos- 
 session." That is the way that Mr. Malthus puts it, and I 
 may perhaps deal there with the figures he puts because 
 he puts it so clearly that I think that by reading this I 
 shall give you the whole gist of Malthus's " Law of 
 Population." "Let us call," he says, "the popula- 
 tion of this island eleven millions. Suppose the present 
 produce equal to the easy support of such a number 
 (and I may remind you, in passing, that the popu- 
 lation which Malthus speaks of as eleven millions — ^which 
 was then nearer ten millions — has since then gone up to 
 something like twenty-three millions, while, as you know 
 from the price of food, food has not multiplied itself with 
 the rapidity which population has done), " in the first 
 twenty-five years," he says, " the population will be twenty- 
 two millions, and the food being also doubled, the means 
 of subsistence would be equal to the increase. In the next 
 twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, 
 and the means of subsistence only equal to the means of 
 twenty-three millions." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : He hardly makes any allow- 
 ance for deaths. He gives the actual increase, and not the 
 ratio ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant ; He deals with that further on, and I shall 
 
69 
 
 show, in a few moments, the checks that keep it down. Mr. 
 Malthus does make allowance for what should be the ordi- 
 nary death-rate, and be points out the misery that results 
 from war and starvation, which are the checks that are acting 
 to-day; and that is the justification, my lord, for our 
 pamphlet. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not know how long your lordship 
 will sit. At this stage Mrs. Besant is about half-way through 
 the matter which she has to bring before your lordship. I 
 have been following it on the brief. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We must go on, I think, for 
 another half-hour, unless Mrs. Besant feels exhausted. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Oh, no ; I can go on. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then I think we must take 
 another half-hour. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : The reason why I am bringing this 
 forward, gentlemen, is that I shall have to show you — as lean 
 show you, and I shall bring some figures to-morrow morning 
 to show you and the learned judge — that the population 
 does double itself in 25 years, in countries where food is 
 sufficient to support it. That, gentlemen, is really the 
 justification of our pamphlet ; for we believe that the present 
 checks that keep population down are the misery and 
 starvation that result from over-crowding, and we want to 
 substitute scientific checks for those. I was quoting from 
 Malthus, where he was pointing out the rate of subsistence 
 that is natural to the human kind ; you find in the " second 
 25 years the population gets to 44 millions, and the means 
 of subsistence to only 33 millions. In the next period the 
 population is 88 millions, and the means of subsistence just 
 equal to half. At the conclusion of the first century, the 
 population would be 176 millions, and the means of sub- 
 sistence only equal to the support of 55 rpillions, leaving a 
 population of 1 2 1 millions totally unprovided for " ; and then 
 he goes on to point out that the human species woul'' 
 increase, with a sufficiency of food, in the ratio of th j 
 numbers i, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and so on. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : In other words, geometric- 
 ally. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Yes ; in the geometrical ratio, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Whereas the food increased 
 in arithmetical proportion. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : That is just how he puts it ; I was putting 
 it in figures, lest the technical terms should not so well 
 
70 
 
 convey the idea. Then that is Malthus' "Law of Population," 
 published by him, as I put to you, in 1798. Since that 
 time, gentlemen, a very large number of books have been 
 ■written, all bearing on this subject, and, almost without 
 exception, the books of the leading political economists 
 follow the theory propounded and laid down by Mr. Malthus. 
 You may remember that Miss Martineau said that it would 
 be as absurd to try to upset the law of population as to 
 upset the law of arithmetic. That is putting it very plainly.. 
 But it just shows you the view that thinkers take on the 
 subject. I do not mean to give all the quotations I might 
 to back up Malthus, or many except on special points, but 
 I may say that both John Stuart Mill and his father. Pro- 
 fessor Cairnes, Professor Fawcett, Mrs. Fawcett, Professor 
 Bain, and many others, whose works, at the present time, 
 are the text-books for the instruction of young men at the 
 Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge, as well as at other 
 universities, that all those do agree, without exception, in the 
 law laid down by Malthus ; that they all, without exception, 
 acknowledge his division as to positive and preventive 
 checks, which I shall have to deal with to-morrow, 
 and all, without exception, do say that unless you 
 can find some way of limiting the population of the 
 world by preventive checks, you must be content to 
 remain with those old barbarous means, which the 
 Solicitor-General said were the provisions made by God 
 and nature for our benefit : those provisions are — war, 
 famine, disease, misery, starvation, overcrowding, preventible 
 disease, infanticide, baby-farming, and all other horrors 
 of our civilization : those are the means which the Solicitor- 
 General says God and providence give us in order to prevent 
 the over-increase of our population. Gentlemen, when the 
 Solicitor-General said that, I remembered the same expression 
 being used, now almost one hundred years ago, when, in the 
 House of Lords, it was ventured to be put forward that the 
 use of the Red Indians to scalp our American brethren was 
 a means that God and nature had put intoour hands to crush 
 the powers of rebellion, and I remembered the fiery indigna- 
 tion of Lord Chatham, who, whatever may have been his faults, 
 at least remembered England's honour in dealing with this 
 point, and he said — " God and nature ! I have yet to learn, 
 my lords, that these sacred names are to be employed in 
 fashion such as that !" and when I heard the Solicitor- 
 General, when telling you of nature and providence, as 
 
71 
 
 3ie put it, when he spoke of the miseries I have seen in 
 our citiesas one of the means God and nature have employed 
 to destroy children brought into the world, children often 
 born from drunken parents, in misery, in wretchedness and 
 lilth, which, gentlemen, your circumstances have happily 
 removed you from; when I heard those things put down 
 as a provision of God and nature, I trusted that, at least 
 vi-ith you, terms used in cant fashion such as that 
 would not have more influence than when used in that 
 other fashion in the House of Lords in the last century. 
 That, you will find is the law, and now what is the applica- 
 tion which the learned judge suggested when I was speak- 
 .ing? Twenty-five years was the time within which Mr. 
 Malthus said population doubled itself unless checked by 
 .misery, and war, and starvation. Refer, gentlemen, to the 
 Northern States of America, and you find there, as a matter 
 of fact, put forwa.rd here by Mr. Malthus and since then 
 -endorsed in America by Professor Draper — whose works are 
 probably familiar to all of you — that in the Northern States of 
 America, " where the means of subsistence have been more 
 -ample, the manners of the people more pure, and the checks 
 to early marriages fewer than in any of the other modern States 
 of America and Europe, the population has been found to 
 double itself, within the last century and a half, in less than 
 twenty-five years." That was written in 1798; during the 
 time that has passed since then, you will find, gentlemen, 
 fif you consult the census returns of the United States, that 
 the population has doubled itself in every twenty-five years, 
 ■and in some of the States — if I may take the evidence of 
 Professor Draper as thoroughly reliable on that point — in 
 some of the States, he says, it has doubled itself in twelve 
 years, instead of in fifty. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that including the results 
 of emigration ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : That is excluding the emigration 
 returns. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that so ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is very astonishing ! 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It is very astonishing, but it is the 
 result, after carefully excluding the emigration returns. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : One may weary you with it, ir.y lord, but so 
 many of these things are not known generally, that you will 
 pardon me. if I put them to the. jury, sd that they may 
 
72 
 
 see how we, who have studied this matter, put the question, 
 and why we think it so vital a question, when dealing with it 
 before you. The population does not increase, as my lord fairly 
 pointed out, at this rate in this and other countries. Why not ? 
 " Population," says Malthus, " is necessarily limited by the 
 means of subsistence. Population invariably increases where 
 the means of subsistence increase, unless prevented by some 
 very powerful and obvious checks. These checks, and the 
 checks which repress the superior power of population, and 
 keep its effects on a level with the means of subsistence, are 
 all resolvable into moral restraint, vice, and misery." 
 I shall put it to you, gentlemen, that you must have some 
 checks, that the only choice you have got is, not whether 
 there shall be checks, but what the checks shall be. You 
 have got that choice, if you agree with the Solicitor-Gen- 
 eral. You may think the means of nature (for 1 won't bring 
 the other name into a contention such as this) — you may think 
 the means of nature are those you prefer, and then I put it 
 to you, if so, that you go back to the old savage times where 
 you get those checks in their full swing. You do get them 
 there, gentlemen. If you want to go back, you must decide 
 for these checks. I will now lay before you the di\ision of 
 checks made by JMalthus,and it is with that division, I almost 
 think (with my lord's permission), that I shall finish my speech 
 of this afternoon, simply because, my lord, it makes a clear 
 division of sense which it will be valuable to me to keep. 
 
 Those checks are divided into what are called " positive " 
 checks, and what are called " preventive " checks. Positive 
 checks for a moment I will call " natural " checks, following 
 out the line of thought which the learned Solicitor-General 
 kindly draws formyguidance,but theyare " natural" only in the 
 sense of being general throughout Nature ; that is to say, it is- 
 the death-producing check which is the positive check, the 
 check that produces death. You find it in the ^•egetable 
 kingdom ; you find it in the animal kingdom ; the trees 
 produce a number of seeds more than can ever grow 
 into plants, animals produce far more young than ever 
 can grow into maturity. If any of you have taken an 
 interest in natural history, you will have seen there (and 
 even without that you must know it from the common every- 
 day matters of life), that the death producing check is the 
 one check that acts throughout nature of all the young 
 brought into the world, not one tithe survives to gi-ow uj> 
 into maturity ; but that check is only a natural check in the 
 
73 
 
 sense that nature is opposed to art, to science, or to men's 
 reason. It is only natural, when you exclude man from 
 nature and treat nature as simply brutal animal instincts 
 and passions, and nothing more. The moment you admit 
 man's reason into nature, that death-producing check is no 
 longer a natural check, because man's reason is given him by 
 nature, in order that by being thrown into the mass of a 
 number of mute laws he may learn to balance law against 
 law, and in doing that may use his reason to bring him out 
 of the terrible crushing wheel of nature, that breaks down the 
 lower organisms that have not our brain. I plead for pre- 
 ventive check. Preventive check means that man's brain is 
 used — preventive check means birth-restricting check as op- 
 posed to death-producing check ; and I hold, in the words of 
 our preface, gentlemen, that it is more moral to prevent the 
 birth of children than it is after they are born to murder them 
 as you do to-day by want of food, and air, and clothing, and 
 sustenance. Gentlem.en, I call it a birth-restricting check — an 
 artificial check if you will, because all comfort and all civiliza- 
 tion are artificial. It is the natural way, as the Solicitor-General 
 put it (although not delicately, perhaps), for a man to go about 
 naked ; though that is not respectable, that is the natural 
 way of doing things. We, however, prefer the artificial fashion, 
 which has the decency of clothing, instead of that which the 
 Solicitor-General put, and I plead for what is called the 
 artificial check — the preventive check ; and I say that man's 
 reason is given him by nature in order that he may, by his; 
 reason and by his intellect, prevent that suffering which 
 results from the laws of nature, if you take nature with- 
 out man. That, gentlemen, is what I shall pleadforto-morrow. 
 I have brought you down now partly through our pamphlet, 
 with our reasons for doing it. I have put to you as plainly 
 as I can the meaning of the word obscene, which will govern 
 your verdict ; I have pleaded that our intent is good, and 
 that the purpose at which we aim is good, because it con- 
 duces to human and to social happiness. I ha\ e shown you 
 from Malthus — and he has never yet been disproved — 
 what the law of population is. I have shown that some 
 checks must prevail,, either positive or preventive, and 
 to-morrow I will deal with these. 
 
SECOND DAY. 
 
 Ti-iE Court sat again, exactly at 10.30, and on taking his scat 
 the Lord Chief-Justice intimated that he had received a 
 letter from a gentleman who did not append his signature, 
 complaining of the want of ventilation in the court, and 
 requesting that more windows might be opened. He should 
 certainly most willingly have granted the request, only that 
 there were no more windows to open. 
 
 Mrs. Besant, resuming her address, said : My lord, gentle- 
 men, of the jury: You will remember that when the Court 
 rose, yesterday afternoon, I had just brought my argument 
 down to the necessary checks on population which, following 
 the rule laid down by Malthus, I had divided into two 
 classes — one class being those positive, which I characterised 
 as death-producing checks, which the learned Solicitor-Gene- 
 ral named as being that with which Nature and Pro\'idence 
 had interposed, and the other those preventive, prudential, 
 or birth-restricting checks, of which I am here the advocate. 
 I propose, this morning, to take up my argument exactly 
 where I laid it down, for it is very important for me in this 
 trial that I should build up, step by step, the arguments 
 which I desire to lay before you, and by which I hope to 
 overthrow the contention of the learned Solicitor-General, 
 that the whole of the philosophy of this book is only a cloak 
 put to cover the body of a vicious and demoralising intent. 
 I laid the foundation of the argument yesterday, and I shall 
 proceed to take it step by step to-day, and while I shall do 
 my best to compress my arguments so far as I can, I am 
 quite sure that I may ask from your sense of justice, and 
 from your patience, the full consideration which will be 
 necessary, if I am to put before you the contention which I 
 raise. I feel slightly encouraged to-day, in trespassing on your 
 time, from the fact that even this morning we have had the 
 pleasure of receiving a letter from Professor Bain, a man 
 who will be known to all of you, a man who is known where- 
 cver thought has spread, in which he says, that he regards 
 this trial " as one of the most critical trials in the history of 
 our liberties." If that be true, or if it is possible that it can 
 
75 
 
 be true, you will not think I am unduly trespassing on your 
 time if I leave no argument untouched which may avail to 
 move you at a crisis So important. It is the positive checks 
 •with which I have to deal first. Malthus puts it that 
 the ultimate check on population appears to be " want 
 ■of food arising necessarily from the different ratios according 
 to which population and food increase." You will remember 
 that the learned judge pointed out that population increased 
 in a geometrical ratio, while the means of supporting the 
 population only increased in an arithmetical ratio. "The 
 immediate check," says Malthus, " may be said to consist in 
 ill! those customs and all those diseases which seem to be 
 generated by a scarcity of the means of subsistence, and all 
 those causes independent of this scarcity, whether of a moral 
 ■or a physical nature, which tend prematurely to weaken and 
 to destroy the human race." These are the checks of which, 
 for the purpose of his argument, the learned Solicitor-General 
 thought it right to speak in words of praise. These checks 
 are found to apply most rigorously in savage nations, the 
 tendency of civilisation being, instead of leaving the rough 
 natural checks and other injuries to operate, to bring the 
 means of neutralising the effect of natural laws. It is 
 to savage nations, then, that we first turn. You get as 
 a check on population, war, that in savage nations mows 
 down so many of the strongest of the tribe, and, by destroy- 
 ing men in the prime of their life, acts, to a very great 
 and wide extent, as a check on population. You get also 
 the hardship of the daily life killing off the sickly and the 
 young — a check that Malthus characterises in the very 
 strongest terms, pointing out, as he goes through his great 
 work, that, amongst some savage nations, a large proportion 
 of children die because their baby frames are unable to 
 support the hardships of their life. You have the difficulty 
 ofsubsistence and of getting food, on which Darwin lays special 
 stress as being a universal check ; in his great work on the 
 ■" Origin of Species," p. 6 1, he remarks that "of the manyindivi- 
 duals of any species which are periodically born, but a small 
 number can survive," and on p. 63, he says : " A struggle 
 for existence inevitably follows, from the high rate at which 
 all organic beings tend to increase. Every living being 
 which, during it.s natural lifetime, produces eggs or seeds, 
 ir.ust suffer destruction during some period of its life, and 
 during some season or occasional year ; otherwise, on the 
 principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly 
 
76 
 
 become so inordinately great that no country could support 
 the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than 
 can possibly survive, there must, in every case, be a struggle 
 for existence, either one individual with another of the same 
 species, or with individuals of distinct species, or with the 
 physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus 
 applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vege- 
 table kingdoms, for in this case there can be no artificial 
 
 increase of food, no prudential restraint from marriage 
 
 There is no exception to the rule, and every organic being 
 naturally increases at so high a rate that, if not destroyed, 
 the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single 
 pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five 
 years, and, at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would 
 literally not be standing room for his progeny." He further 
 goes on to point out that people do not recognise " this fact 
 as thoroughly as they ought to do, owing to the fact that 
 among the larger domestic animals we see no great destruc- 
 tion falling on them, and we forget that thousands are 
 annually slaughtered for food, and that in a state of nature 
 an equal number would have somehow to be disposed of"' 
 You get another check on population, operating in savage 
 nations, and I shall have to put it to you as largely prevail- 
 ing amongst ourselves. Amongst savage nations you get 
 infanticide openly practised to a large extent. In the ruder 
 tribes of America it is practised by many mothers, who do 
 not wish to burden themselves by rearing more than two out 
 of their offspring. If a mother endeavours to rear the whole 
 of her children, a large proportion inevitably perishes under 
 the rigorous treatment which must be their lot in a savage 
 state, where, probably, none of those who laboured under 
 any original weakness or infirmity could possibly attain the 
 age of manhood. If they do not get cut off as soon as they 
 are born they cannot long preserve their lives under the severe 
 discipline that awaits them. You get another check in the 
 murder of the aged, for the moment they cease to become 
 productive, and can no longer make food for the tribe, their 
 lives are put an end to. You get the whole thing well 
 summed up in Malthus, who urges that all the checks 
 you find in the savage state may be summed up in 
 misery. He speaks of "the frequent wars of these 
 savages with different tribes and their perpetual contests 
 with each other; their strange spirit of retaliation and 
 revenge, which prompts the midnight murder and 
 
77 
 
 the frequent shedding of innocent blood ; the smoke 
 and filth of their miserable habitations, and their poor mode 
 of living, productive of loathsome cutaneous disorders ; and, 
 above all, a dreadful epidemic like the small-pox, which 
 sweeps off great numbers " (p. 17). It is thus that Malthus 
 sums up those checks on the increase of mankind which 
 prevail amongst savage nations, and what I want you to bear 
 in mind, gentlemen, if you will kindly do so right through, 
 is that we have got to deal with phases of these checks 
 amongst ourselves, and it is to you that the poor of this 
 country are now looking, hoping that you will say that, in- 
 stead of these checks that mean misery and vice, you will 
 give them the chance of a scientific check, which means 
 happiness and comfort for the home. Looking through 
 history, all the great periodical famines that kept down the 
 European population may be traced back to this same 
 species of check. All the great incursions of the Northmen 
 and of the Goths were simply produced by the want of the 
 means of subsistence, and, overcrowded in their own land, 
 these strong and vigorous races they overflowed into 
 more fertile lands that they might find them there. These 
 .are the only answers that savage nations have found to 
 the great population" question — simply starvation, war, 
 famine, and disease ; these are the checks which have 
 prevented savage nations from increasing as rapidly as 
 they would have done otherwise. Now, we come to a 
 slightly more advanced state of civilisation, and since I 
 do not want to follow Malthus in his great work from 
 country to country, because to do that would make 
 my speech last nearer a week than the day to which 
 I hope to confine it, I will take one single instance, 
 that of China, which may be considered as, a repre- 
 sentative country, where the population difficulty is 
 bringing now tremendous social and political difficulties 
 that have already touched America, and have touched our 
 own colonies in Australia, and that may touch England as 
 well, unless we can find some better solution than is at 
 present afforded. China, as you know, is a country that 
 may almost be said for thousands of years to have been 
 growing into such an instance as I want to lay before you. 
 They were against emigration^ were shut up within their 
 own circle, and, in addition to that, their creed gave them 
 special encouragement to marry, to marry at a very early 
 ao-e and to bring into the world as many human beings as 
 
78 
 
 possible. We find in the "Statesman's Year Book" that 
 the population of China in the year 1877 is reckoned at 
 
 40S,2i3>i34- 
 
 The LoRD' Chief Justice : For what year? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : The present year, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it the present population ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It is an estimate ; hardly an official 
 census. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It refers to the present 
 population ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It does ; and it is taken upon estimates 
 based upon the Chinese official returns. The " Statesman's 
 Year Book " goes oh to point out that the above population, 
 giving 263 souls per square mile, appears to be excessive, 
 considering that some of the outlying portions are by no 
 means densely inhabited. It goes on to say that the census 
 taken in 1842, which would be rather before the enormous 
 amount of emigration, showed a population of 419 millions, 
 and in 1852 it was 450 millions, that increase being enor- 
 mously rapid, while it has, during the last few years, been 
 somewhat checked by the very large emigration which has 
 had most lamentable results. The result in China, as laid 
 down by Malthus, has been most unfortunate, for he points 
 out that, " notwithstanding the great sobriety and industry 
 of the inhabitants of China, the prodigious number of 
 them occasions a great deal of misery. There are some 
 so poor that being unable to supply their children with 
 common necessaries they expose them in the streets," and 
 that, gentlemen, is a resource which you know is unfortu- 
 nately not confined to the inhabitants of countries like 
 China. We are told that the country, " extensive and fertile 
 as it is, is not sufficient to support its inhabitants," and 
 that "four times as much territory would be necessary to 
 place them at their ease," and he points out that that \^Tetched- 
 ness has been the consequence of the over rapid increase. 
 You get in China, as another result of this population 
 question, an enormous amount of infanticide, chiefly amongst 
 female children — because the males being more productive 
 the female children are those who suffer most — and you find, 
 as a consequence of this, that terrible prevalence of unnatural 
 crimes right through China, — crimes so shocking in theircha- 
 racter that I will not even mention them in this Court. You 
 find in America, where these Chinese have spread, carrying 
 with them those unnatural crimes which always result from 
 
79 
 
 a thwarting of nature — you find in America continual com- 
 plaints of the Chinese servants, who are beginning to over- 
 run the land, so that it is impossible to put children into 
 the care of Chinese men because of the terrible habits 
 that they have brought with them from their over-populated 
 county. The very reason of our last war in China recalls 
 us to another branch of the great question that we are 
 discussing to day. We went to war on the question of the 
 opium traffic. Opium is simply taken there in order to buy 
 escape from the terrible sexual difficultywhich arises from the 
 fact that the number of men far exceeds the number of 
 women in that unfortunate land ; for taking opium does at 
 first give rise to some of the feelings which should be only 
 naturally aroused, and then later it entirely destroys the 
 sexual instinct ; that is one of the answers that China has 
 given to this question in her utter ignorance. In Australia, 
 our government there sent home to complain that- the pro- 
 portion of women amongst the immigrant Chinese 
 was utterly inadequate to sexual needs, for only four or 
 or five women went over, amongst literally cart-loads- 
 of men. Sixteen women, my co-defendant tells me, 
 to some 15,000 men, was the proportion that one table 
 shewed, as having emigrated from China. Your experience 
 is sufficient to tell you the terrible amount of crime and 
 disease to which such a state of things must necessarily 
 give rise. Leaving then that part of the question, because 
 your own reading must have made you familiar with so 
 many of these questions that I need not trouble you more with 
 them here — I will come to those checks on population in 
 Europe, which, as my lord pointed out, seemed to neutral- 
 ise, to some extent, the conclusions of Malthus. You 
 find, in Europe, that these positive checks have been so 
 extremely marked, so curiously and strongly marked, that 
 right through the 1000 years that are taken as the Middle 
 Ages, the population of Europe had not even doubled. 
 During the whole of that long period some tremendous 
 checks must then have been in operation in order to 
 keep down the natural fertility of the human species. 
 Later, the increase has been very rapid, and it is only rea- 
 sonable, therefore, to try to find out what has caused the 
 change between the stationary state of things for lobo 
 years, and later, the very rapid increase. The rapid 
 increase has simply been due, generally, to the fact that 
 civilization has removed many of those checks which, in 
 
8o 
 
 the more barbarous time of the Middle Ages kept down 
 the population of this Continent. Non', instead of the 
 sickly being left to die without treatment, they are cured 
 by the advance of sanitary science, and we now take more 
 ■care to prevent disease, as well as possess more skill in 
 curing it. These are the reasons why you find the popula- 
 tion to-day increasing so rapidly, and it becomes a practical 
 question for us to grapple with the ever-growing danger. 
 And not only is it the tendency of civilisation ' to reduce all 
 those checks that are called death-producing checks or posi- 
 tive checks by Malthus, but you have the tendency to reduce 
 these ever more and more rapidly. War is beginning, although 
 ■very slowly, to be replaced by arbitration, and although that 
 lias not yet been thoroughly carried out, we may hope that, 
 as nations become wiser and more civilised, we shall have 
 fewer wars and more frequent resorts to arbitration and to 
 legal and reasonable remedies. One may hope also that we 
 shall be able to cure disease more extensively the more 
 ■doctors discover of the secrets of nature ; and as many diseases 
 are preventible, we may look forward to the time when the re- 
 turns of the Registrar-General will showmore deaths from old 
 age than from any other cause. You thus come to the point 
 put by Knowlton on page 4, " that some check there must 
 be, or the time will come when millions will be born but to 
 ■suffer and to perish for want of the necessaries of life." The 
 advantages of civilisation are to some extent neutralised by 
 the terrible idea that the more civilised we become the 
 more we remove the natural checks, and, therefore, the more 
 ■quickly approaches the period of actual general privation ; 
 the sick, instead of being left to die, are cured by medical 
 skill ; hospitals are built, wherein they are sheltered, and 
 -not only is it that the sickly do not die, but they sur\-ive 
 and marry, and so pass on the inheritance of their own 
 feebleness to the children who proceed from such marriages. 
 The aged in the Middle Ages died far more rapidly than 
 they do now; now their life is lengthened by the care, 
 nourishment, and comfort which they enjoy. Then, such 
 plagues as that which visited Florence, and the great plague 
 of London, in the reign of Charles the Second, have now 
 become almost impossible, owing to our improved sanitary 
 arrangements. Since these checks are now so much di- 
 minished by science, it is necessary to bring in some scientific 
 checks to take their place. Nature, left to herself, balances 
 herself; but if we interfere with nature by curing the sickly 
 
8i 
 
 whom she is lulling, and preserving the life which she has 
 doomed, it becomes necessary to substitute scientific for 
 natural checks — for you must not interfere on one side with- 
 out interfering on the other ; the increase of science other- 
 wise means only the increase of human misery. It may be 
 said that the result is a long way off, and that it is not worth 
 while to trouble ourselves with what will only affect the 
 century that follows us. Is this so ? You find that a gentle- 
 man called Mr. Montague Cookson, who is well known in 
 this court, and who would not be inclined to frighten 
 people for the purpose of causing an effect, says, in an 
 article which appeared' in the Fortnightly Review of October, 
 1872 : " But, without being extravagant, we may, nay must, 
 go further. If there were no counteracting causes, sooner 
 or later the time would come when this little island would 
 be overstocked to such a degree that the great bulk of the 
 inhabitants would be unable to procure the bare necessaries 
 of life, and ultimately this would be the case, not only in 
 England, but in all the countries of the globe. However 
 unpalatable the truth, it is useless to disguise the fact that 
 the sources of food are limited, whereas, but for war 
 and disease, which many people " — (Mr. Cookson says, 
 here anticipating the Solicitor-General) — " openly treat as 
 special interferences in man's favour, the augmentation of 
 human beings would be unlimited. Emigration somewhat 
 interposes ; but emigration is only effectual so far as it 
 aids equal distribution, and is, therefore, but a temporary 
 method of dealing with the difficulty which will have to be 
 disposed of at no distant day, on a more gigantic scale." 
 That is the argument put forward by Mr. Cookson in an 
 article in which he is dealing with the very subject under dis- 
 cussion here. It is entitled " The Morality of Married 
 Life," and I shall refer to it several times, in order to show 
 that if you give a verdict of guilty against us you must re- 
 member that you are not only branding us but half of the 
 leading writers in England, every one of whom has substan- 
 tially taken our side on this great question. What, then, 
 are the checks in England? In 1821 the population of 
 England was 12,000,236, and you find that fifty years later 
 — in 1871 — it was 22,712,266. When you think, gentlemen, 
 how, during that time, the cost of food and living has risen, 
 I think you will say with me that this population question 
 is not a question for the future, for if we have nearly doubled 
 our numbers in fifty years, in spite of those lamentable checks 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 to which in a moment I shall have to draw your attention, 
 what will be the rate of increase during the next fifty 
 years — the time that our children will have this country — 
 unless some greater thought can be brought to bear 
 upon it? You know from your own experience how 
 rapidly food is rising at the present day. During 
 the last ten or twelve years, those things which are 
 regarded as most necessary to human life have in- 
 creased in the most rapid proportion. Bread, meat, 
 and milk, all most necessary things for men, women, and 
 children, have gone up in price. These are things Icnown 
 to every housekeeper — and this is a point where a woman 
 may speak with almost more knowledge than a man would 
 be expected to possess, seeing that though men have to pay 
 the bills generally the women have to buy the necessaries, — 
 and, therefore, the question is a personal one to ourselves. 
 I find that Professor Fawcett, in his essay on " Pauperism, 
 its Causes and Remedies," published by Macmillan and Co. 
 in 187 1 — I may say, my lord, that we are prepared to prove 
 the publication of every book we use in this way — Professor 
 Fawcett puts it very strongly and clearly. He says that the 
 "population of England and Wales in 1810 was about 
 10,000,000, and 50 years later, in i860, it had grown to 
 20,000,000. At the present time it is growing at the rate of 
 200,000 every year, which -is almost equivalent to the popu- 
 lation of the county of Northampton. If in 50 years the 
 descendants of one million become two millions, it is obvious 
 that in 100 years the two millions will have become four 
 millions, so that if the population of England were eight 
 millions in 18 10 it would be 80 millions in i960." So he 
 goes on to point out that if 22,500,000 now find it difficult 
 to obtain sufficient food, what would it be if there were 
 40 millions to be maintained ! This wiU be our popu- 
 lation in 40 years if the rate of increase which has pre- 
 vailed since the beginning of the century continues. 
 "At the present time it is said that there is a great redun- 
 dancy of labour. Many who are willing to work cannot find 
 employment ; in most of our important branches of industry 
 there has been great over-production ; every trade and every 
 profession is over-crowded ; for every vacant clerkship there 
 are hundreds of applications. Difficult as it is for men to 
 obtain a liveUhood, it is ten times more difficult for women 
 to do so; partly on account of unjust laws, and partly 
 because of the tyranny of societ)-, they are shut out from 
 
83 
 
 many employments. All that has just been stated is admitted 
 ©y common consent — it is the topic of daily conversation, 
 and of daily complaint— and yet with the utmost com- 
 placency we observe 200,000 added to our population every 
 year, and we often congratulate ourselves upon this addition 
 to oUr numbers, as if it were an unerring sigil of advancing 
 prosperity. But viewed in relation to the facts just men- 
 tioned, what does this addition to our numbers indicate ? 
 To this question only one reply can be given — that in ten 
 years' time, where there are a hundred now seeking employ- 
 ment, there will then be a hundred and twenty. This will not 
 ■apply simply to one industry, but will be the case throughout 
 the whole country. It will also further happen that in ten 
 jears' time, for every hundred who now require food, fuel, 
 and clothing, a similar provision will have to be made for 
 •ti hundred and twenty. It therefore follows that, low as the 
 .general average standard of living now is, it cannot by any 
 means be maintained, unless in ten years' time the supply of 
 all the commodities of ordinary consumption can be increased 
 by 20 per cent., without their becoming more costly." 
 ■Gentlemen, if I may trouble you to look at it from that 
 point of view, you will understand how grave is the feeling 
 ■with which we argue for this pamphlet — not because we 
 •want this pamphlet carried on — not because we attach 
 special value to this one pamphlet — but because a verdict 
 •of guilty against this pamphlet means that it will not be safe 
 for medical men, or for political economists, to discuss 
 the question of population at all ; and we feel that unless 
 the question of population may be discussed, you will come, 
 in ten or twenty years, to an amount of suffering of v/hich 
 Vfe can scarcely realise the extent. Professor Fawcett quotes 
 Ireland as showing the effect of overcrowding on population 
 ' — and when we are dealing with Ireland you must admit that 
 you are dealing with a land at our very doors, and in whose 
 prosperity we are deeply interested. Professor Fawcett says, 
 " Ireland should serve to warn us of the terrible misfortunes 
 brought upon a country by an undue increase of population. 
 At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the population 
 of that country was about two millions : maintaining for the 
 next 150 years a smaller rate of increase than is now going 
 on in England, the two millions had grown into eight millions 
 in the year 1847. The country, at this time, became so 
 densely peopled that a considerable portion of the nation 
 could only obtain the barest subsistence ; still, nothing was 
 
84 
 
 done to avert the suffering that was certain to ensue ; the 
 people went on marrying with as much recklessness as if they 
 were the first settlers in a new country possessing a bound- 
 less area of fertile land. All the influence that could be 
 exerted by religion prompted the continuance of habits of 
 utter improvidence ; the priests and other ministers of reli- 
 gion encouraged early marriages. At length there came one 
 of those unpropitious seasons which are certain occasionally to 
 recur : the potato, the staple food of the people, was diseased, 
 and it was soon found that there were more people in the coun- 
 try than could be fed." And then he comes to a description 
 of the terrible Irish famine, which was only really put an end 
 to by the enormous emigration from Ireland which carried off 
 the surplus population. I put this to you : what is there to 
 prevent that happening in England which has happened in 
 Ireland? We are following the Irish plan, we are increasing 
 the population \yith more rapidity than we are increasing: 
 the food supply. What right have we to think that we shall 
 escape the terrible sufferings of Ireland, if we go on ignor- 
 ing with Irish recklessness questions like that for which I 
 am pleading to-day? But the justification of this pamphlet 
 lies in the checks that are operating round us on every side. 
 I have put it to you that there must be some checks ir> 
 operation, because we are not increasing at the natural rate. 
 Malthus puts it that every check on population may be put 
 down as referable either to moral restraint, to misery, or to 
 vice. Moral restraint being unfashionable in this countrj-, 
 and it being dangerous to venture to treat the subject at all, 
 as my presence here to-day shows you, we are driven back to 
 accept those checks of poverty and vice which Malthas 
 says are the only checks except moral restraint that can be 
 brought to bear. The justification of this pamphlet is, there- 
 fore, the nature of the checks that are operating on every 
 side. First, I shall put the overcrowding in towns which 
 you, gentlemen, from your happier circumstances, may not 
 have seen much of, but which I, who have gone mucii 
 among the poor, know from personal experience. When 
 the time comes to bring evidence before the Court. 
 I shall call one or two clergymen of the Church of 
 England, who will bear witness to the terrible nature of 
 the evils against which we speak. The Rev. Mr. Horsley, 
 late of St. Michael's, Shoreditch, and now chaplain of the 
 House of Detention at Clerkenwell, will tell you that I 
 am not in any way exaggerating the extent of this 
 
8s 
 
 check, and he will speak from his own personal know- 
 ledge. I also propose to call the Rev. Stewart Headlam, 
 now of the parish of Bethnal Green, who fr6m his own 
 knowledge and experience will tell you the nature of these 
 checks on population. He will also give you some idea of 
 the extent to which it has a terribly demoralising effect on 
 the young' of both sexes, who are necessarily subject to it. 
 Personal witnesses will perhaps be more effective than 
 any books I could read. When you are dealing with a 
 scientific subject, it has always been ruled that scientific 
 evidence may be adduced, not as giving an opinion on 
 the special subject at issue, but simply as a doctor may 
 bear witness to a certain fact as having come within his 
 ■own personal knowledge. In the proceedings of the 
 National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 
 there is an essay read by George Godwin, F.R.S., pressing 
 this question of population very strongly. He states that 
 he himself traced it out in one of the poorest districts of the 
 metropolis. Mr. Godwin says : " Evidences of overcrowding 
 turn up from time to time where they are not looked for. 
 It was but the other day that a child was found dead in 
 Brownlow Street, and, on inquiry, it v/as learnt that the 
 mother, a widow, and six children slept in one bed in a small 
 room. The death, of the child was attributed to the bed 
 clothes. In such an atmosphere as a room so occupied must 
 have, the vital power necessarily becomes weak, and to kill 
 is easy. In a house of respectable appearance outside I 
 found a hole under the stairs iTiade the sleeping place for 
 three persons, twenty-one, seventeen, and fourteen years of 
 age. It was intended originally for the reception of coals ; 
 it is not more than four feet deep, and the height, of course, 
 diminishes to nothing, as the steps descend. When the door 
 is closed there are only seven small gimlet holes in the stairs 
 for ventilation. Is it surprising that fevers break out under 
 such circumstances ? One is struck, sometimes, with the 
 strange contrivances resorted to to meet the difficulty of want 
 of room. Thus, in a model lodging-house for families, a 
 father, who with his wife and one child occupies one room, 
 has accommodated six of his nine other children cross- 
 way on two camp bedsteads, while three elder girls, 
 one sixteen years old, sleep on a small bedstead 
 near. The room is well ventilated and clean, but the same 
 .sort of stowing away is to be found in hundreds of cases, 
 undev '"'■■'^.umstances which render it deadly. In another 
 
86 
 
 room in the same building, a wooden shelf has beer? 
 contrived, which can be pushed under the bed during 
 the day, and drawn out at night to accommodate a pile 
 of children. In a respectable house, not far from the- 
 last, occupied by steady artisans and others, I found that 
 nine persons slept in one of the rooms (12 feet by 
 14 feet) — a father, mother and seven children; eleven 
 shoemakers worked in the attics ; and in each of the- 
 other five rooms there was a separate family. I could 
 quote scores of cases of overcrowding, in what would 
 seem to be decent houses, but the repetition might tire. 
 No words, even aided by the pencil, can give a full idea 
 of some of the dens which are occupied by a lower and 
 different class ; many born to evil and without the power 
 to rise; others the victims of more recent misfortunes or 
 their own conduct. The world has still an interest in 
 improving their condition : children, as yet innocent, cry 
 aloud to be rescued from the othenvise inevitable gulf. 
 In some places, in the eastern districts, quite recently 
 visiLed, I have found ten, eleven, and in more cases than 
 one, fourteen persons occupying a single room." These 
 are some of the facts which being known to my co- 
 defendant and myself have made us feel it a duty which 
 no personal considerations can make* us shrink from, 
 to publish for sixpence that information which might be- 
 utilized to prevent continuance of si>;h misery — information 
 which wealthier women can obtain in higher-priced pubUca- 
 tions. When it comes to a question of -immorality, you get 
 far more immorality by crowding five or six boys and girls 
 together than you can get from giving them dry physiological 
 knowledge, such as is given in the pages of Knowlton. Mr. 
 Godwin gives a number of cases, of which I take one more, 
 the description of a house in Bemerton Street, Caledonian 
 Road : " The basement below the level of the street con- 
 tains, in the front room, an old man and his wife ; in the 
 back room, two lodgers ; in the parlours, there are a man 
 and his wife and eight children ; on the first floor a man and 
 his wife and infant, two girls 16 and iS years of age, and 
 occasionally their mother, all in the front room ; and in the 
 small back room, two women, a girl, and two young children. 
 On the second floor, a father, mother, two young grown-up 
 sons, an infant, and a brood of rabbits. Two women and 
 two boys in the back room make the whole population of the 
 house thirty-four. In the next house there were thirty-three 
 
87 
 
 persons similarly divided." These are things which will be 
 explanatory to many of you gentlemen, who may wonder 
 what motive we could have for bringing forward such a 
 question as this, for it will show you how the overgrowth 
 of population affects the poor. Dr. Lankester, who, as 
 coroner for Middlesex, is surely some authority, says that, 
 " In the parish of St. James, which is not one of the 
 poorest districts in the metropolis, there are 10,000 persons 
 who, for the sake of their health, ought to be removed 
 from the parish." That is not the amount of the whole 
 population, but the amount of the surplus population, whom 
 Dr. Lankester states should be removed from the parish if 
 that parish is to be put into a healthy condition. You find 
 him urging that over and over again. At a vestry meeting of 
 Marylebone, Dr. Bach, medical officer, said the horrible state 
 of sorae of the places could scarcely be described f " human 
 beings were there living in such a state of squalid misery 
 that a horse that was kept in the worst possible stable was 
 better provided for. There were 19 houses in which 
 were 8g families, comprising 300 persons. There was one 
 room eight feet square, with a small opening for a window, 
 but no glass, and a man, his wife, and five children lived in 
 it, and there had been seven children." I find that Mr. 
 W. Rendle, who is thoroughly acquainted with this subject, 
 when speaking to an audience of doctors at a meeting of 
 the British Association, said that, though there was this 
 overcrowding in the face of a steadily-increasing population, 
 no real attempts were being made, to any appreciable ex- 
 tent, to prevent it ; and he dilated upon the consequent 
 evils : " Overcrowding, the mixing of the sexes, and the 
 results — incest, bastardy, filthy and degrading habits, and, 
 as a consequence rather than a cause, a degraded home, 
 drunkenness, and generally an absence of religion and 
 morality in any true sense." This is the testimony of one who 
 had seen what he speaks of. It is these terrible evils that 
 we are striving to grapple with in some fashion ; and if you 
 think our view a mistaken one, and that we are blundering 
 in the remedy we propose, you must say that we are grap- 
 pling with an evil the gravity of which you cannot over- 
 estimate ; and, therefore, if we err, it is from want of know- 
 ledge, and not from evil will. If this effort of ours is to be met, 
 it is not by the brutal method of repression. The proper way 
 of meeting mistake is argument, and the proper way of meet- 
 ing error is to bring truth to oppose it. If Dr. Knowlton 
 
88 
 
 is wrong in his checks, let some one who is competent to do 
 it write a pamphlet pointing out his objections, but do not 
 bring us in as criminals when we are tr)'ing to grapple with 
 a terrible amount of immorality in our capital. You find 
 this immorality quite as prevalent in the agricultural dis- 
 tricts as in the towns. I am now going to quote from a report 
 of the e\'idence which came before the " Royal Commission 
 on the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children 
 in Agriculture," published in 1868. I shall quote the evidence 
 of one gentleman, the Rev. J. Fraser, now so worthily 
 elevated to the see of Manchester, and who has made him- 
 self remarkable as a bishop by his intense sympathy with 
 the poor. I am willing to base my case here purely on the 
 report, and I shall not weary you by unnecessary comments. 
 I find that in this report Dr. Fraser, dealing with this very 
 question of overcrowding, puts the case in a terribly strong 
 fashion: — "It is impossible to exaggerate the ill effects of 
 such a state of things in every respect — physical, social, 
 economical, moral, intellectual. Physically, a ruinous, ill- 
 drained cottage, ' cribb'd, cabin'd, confined,' and over- 
 crowded, generates any amount of disease — fe\ers of everj' 
 type, catarrh, rheumatism — as well as intensifies to the 
 utmost that tendency to scrofula and phthisis which, from 
 their frequent intermarriages and their low diet, abounds so 
 largely among the poor. Socially, nothing can be more 
 wretched than the condition of ' open ' parishes, like Dock- 
 ing, in Norfolk, and South Cerney, in Gloucestershire, into 
 which have been poured remorselessly the scum and off- 
 scouring of their ' close ' neighbours. Economically, the 
 imperfect distribution of cottages deprives the farmer of a 
 large proportion of his effective labour power. The em- 
 ployer who has no cottages to offer those whom he employs 
 must either attract labourers by the offer of higher wages 
 or must content himself with refuse ; and in either case, 
 when he gets his man gets him more or less enfeebled by 
 the distance he has had to travel to his work. The moral 
 consequences are fearful to contemplate. ' I only wonder,' 
 writes one clergyman to me, ' that our agricultural poor are 
 as moral as they are.' Modesty must be an unknown 
 virtue, decency an unimaginable thing, where, in one small 
 chamber, with the beds lying as thickly as they can be 
 packed, father, mother, young men, lads, grown and growing 
 up girls — two and sometimes tliree generations — are herded 
 promiscuously ; where every operation of the toilette, and of 
 
89 
 
 nature— dressings, undressings, births, deaths— is performed 
 by each within the sight or. hearing of all ; where children of 
 both sexes, to as high an age as twelve or fourteen, or even 
 more, occupy the same bed ; where the whole atmosphere 
 is sensual, and human nature is degraded into something 
 below the level of the swine. It is a hideous picture ; and 
 the picture is drawn from life. Mr. Clarke, of Norwich, 
 can tell any one who will ask him tales of things that he has 
 himself seen, horrifying enough to make the very hair stand 
 on end. The medical gentleman, whose evidence I publish, 
 assures me that cases of incest are anything but uncommon. 
 We complain of the ante-nuptial unchastity of our women, of 
 the loose talk and conduct of the girls who work in the 
 fields, of the light way in which maidens part with their 
 honour, and how seldom either a parent's or a brother's 
 blood boils with shame — Jure, in cottage herding, is the 
 sufficient account and history of it all." It is, indeed, a 
 fearful picture, but it is one drawn from the life by the 
 Bishop of Manchester, whom you cannot imagine is making 
 a sensational tale for the purpose of attracting popularity. 
 I have myself seen four generations of human beings 
 crowded together into one small room, simply divided into 
 two or three beds, and I will ask you if, after such an expe- 
 rience as that, you wonder that I risk even prison and fine 
 if I can bring some salvation to those poor whose misery I 
 have seen. I Vvfill not trouble you to read an extract from 
 proceedings before the Truro magistrates, concerning a man 
 named Tonkin, with nine . little ones, seven of whose 
 children were found huddled up in one corner, while the 
 rest were lying about the floor without bedding. He was 
 told that he must clear out ; he did not want to go to the 
 workhouse, but he was told that '' the nuisance must be 
 abated," and he had to go. There are so many of these 
 Tonkins, but they only come to the top when the crimes 
 that flow from their habits of life shock the public ear. 
 These crimes are the natural results of the way they live ; 
 and if we took our own children, gentlemen, and herded 
 them among the filthy associations of these poor people, could 
 we expect from them in their manhood and their womanhood 
 that purity and refinement which we pride ourselves on making 
 possible for them ? There is one additional evil, and that is 
 the large amount of illegitimacy which overcrowding gives 
 rise to in country parishes. It is no doubt a fact that among 
 illegitimate children you get a far higher death-rate, the 
 
90 
 
 reasons for which are so obvious that I need not dwell upon 
 them. At Shefifield, the proportion of deaths of illegitimate 
 children is just now 305 per 1000 in the first year. I 
 think, my lord, that is a check on population of a 
 most terrible character, and the report of the registrar 
 of Sheffield has been copied into the papers as show- 
 ing the terrible way in which that check has affected 
 the increase of the population. Leaving the question of 
 overcrowding, there is the question of insufficiency of food, 
 and of its unwholesome character. I put it to you that this 
 is caused by the fact that inany a man does not earn suffi- 
 cient wages to maintain the number of children he brings 
 into the world. It was said when the Corn Laws were 
 repealed that the effect of that measure would be an 
 enormous reduction in the price of bread, which would 
 enable the poor to live in comfort. Starvation then got so 
 far in England that it was common in the agricultural 
 districts to get up riots against the farmers because the 
 people, in the misery of their starvation, imagined that the 
 farmers hoarded up the corn, and so kept up the price of 
 bread. There is no question that if books of this character 
 had been circulated then, you would not have had that 
 sudden increase of the population which was one of the 
 most remarkable effects of the repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 In the Registrar-General's returns you find that, in conse- 
 quence of the high rates of wages, marriages are more 
 frequent in certain districts. It is an unfortunate thing 
 that wherever you get more food you find this reckless, 
 improvident fashion of never pausing to think whether the 
 increase of to-day may not be followed by a decrease 
 to-morrow, and that, if so, the food will be insufBcient for 
 the little ones to be brought into the world, fur the food 
 which would be sufficient for a small family is quite insuffi- 
 cient for a large one. We hear much talk about the physical 
 deterioration of Englishmen ; we hear much talk about the 
 artisan of Sheffield or of Manchester not being the same 
 strong, healthy man that his grandfather was, and the reason 
 is not far to seek. When his grandfather was born the popu- 
 lation of England was about half what it is at the present time, 
 so that the man of to-day has less room to live in, less food, less 
 clothing, less possibility of health, and that will (grow and is 
 growing) worse year by year unless some scientific thought may 
 be brought to bear upon this great question. I need not repeat 
 that all these are the checks which the Solicitor-General 
 
91 
 
 said were afforded by nature and providence. Another 
 of the natural checks is the terrible drunkenness prevailing 
 among a large number of our poor. It is oftentimes the 
 result of want of food, simply because with so little money 
 they seem to think they can get temporary oblivion with 
 a small amount of drink, while they cannot get enough whole- 
 some food to stop the craving which nature gives. All these 
 causes operate in a double fashion, causing premature 
 death among the adults, and acting in an even more terrible 
 fashion upon the unhealthy children who are born of drunken 
 and dissolute parents, amidst such awful associations, grow- 
 ing up feeble, blood-poisoned, and only half human in many 
 ways. It has often been remarked that when you get to the 
 lowest grade of the criminal class you observe a kind of 
 marked type. This is because the lives of their parents- 
 have so unhumanized them, that the children born of such 
 parents are literally a lower race than those of parents 
 whose happier circumstances have raised them above 
 that condition. If you want to know how these checks, 
 operate there, again, I think I shall be able to call before 
 you clear medical evidence. For instance, v,'e find Dr. 
 Drysdale, whom we shall, by and bye, put into the box, wha 
 will tell you, I have no doubt, how these checks oper- 
 ate, and the reflbx results which arise from over-crowd- ■ 
 ing, with the consequent and continual advance of death 
 rate among the children of the rich as well as among the 
 children of the poor. I say among the rich as well as- 
 among the poor, though among the poor the death rate is 
 three times as heavy as among the rich. If you go t» 
 Islington you find, a million of children, all under fivc' 
 years of age, and among them the death rate is 66-9 in 
 a thousand, although Islington is one of the healthiest 
 districts in the metropolis. The death rate, however, is- 
 nearly double that in the eastern districts. If you go to- 
 Whitechapel, for instance, there the death rate is as much 
 as 102 in a thousand; they die before reaching the age of 
 five years. In Manchester, agaiii, the death-rate is 117 in a 
 thousand; in Liverpool it is 132 in a thousand; and all that 
 death rate I put down as death resulting from what I call 
 preventible diseases, and I urge that you can only judge upon 
 this case when you put before yourselves clearly whettier it 
 is either moral or right to allow children to be brought into 
 the world, inoculated with the predisposition to be at- 
 tacked by these preventible diseases, mstead of putting, as 
 
92 
 
 I believe you ought to do, a check which would effectively 
 relieve the population so terribly overcrowded ; and you 
 have to consider whether by refusing to apply such a check, 
 we are not, by the very refusal, making a large class of 
 criminals. I will put it to you whether such a checlc would 
 not be a moral one, and I need not enter very fully into all 
 the details, my point being only that some preventive check, 
 is necessary and would be effectual "This excessive 
 mortality is no doubt mainly due to our crowded 
 and unwholesome dwellings, and to insufficient 
 food and clothing ; these causes more or less directly 
 originate from poverty, and therefore would work with 
 intensified effect if poverty were increased. It may be, 
 therefore, thought that the evil of over-population carries 
 with it its own cure ; that as the people increase in number 
 poverty beomes greater ; that, if there is more poverty there 
 will be a larger number of deaths. A check to increasing 
 population is thus brought into operation, and hence things 
 will be restored to the same state as they were before. The 
 hardest words which have been ever used against Malthusi- 
 anism altogether fail adequately to characterise such a 
 
 doctrine Some definite idea may be formed on the 
 
 subject by considering the results involved in the present 
 high death-rate prevailing amongst the children of the poor. 
 Assume that there are looo of these children, that 500 of 
 them die before the age of five, whereas if they were as well 
 cared' for as the children of more wealthy parents, only 200 
 of them would die before this age. The death, therefore, 
 of 300 is to be traced to defects in our social and 
 economic condition. These children are literally slaughtered 
 and in a manner, moreover, which indicates prolonged suffer- 
 ing. But this is only a part, and perhaps the smaller part, of 
 the mischief which is done : the causes which produce 
 this excessive mortality do not alone aflect the children 
 who die ; all those who survive are also brought under 
 the same blighting influence. Consequently, to all, the 
 struggle for existence becomes more severe, the more 
 weakly succumb ; even the stronger who survi\-e, in passing 
 through the trying ordeal, often contract the germs of 
 future disease, their constitutions being in too many cases 
 undermined. Physical deterioration ensues, and a whole 
 people may thus become gradually stunted and enfeebled." 
 Mr. Fawcett, in his essay on "Pauperism, its Causes 
 and Remedies," page 107, says:— "There is amongst 
 
93 
 
 the poorer classes mi excessive mortality amongst 
 children. In the wealthy parish of St. George's, 
 Hanover Square, less than one-third of the total number 
 of deaths is of children under five years old ; whereas, in 
 the poor parish of Bethnal Green the deaths of children 
 under five amounted to more than half the total number of 
 deaths." Another check on the population is what is called 
 baby farming. Some years ago, as you may remember, 
 there were brought before the police courts very terrible 
 facts in connection with this point, in consequence of prose- 
 cutions that were instituted with reference to what was 
 called " baby farming." Just take one instance which I 
 find mentioned as occurring about that time. A child three 
 years of age was employed in one of those places as a ganger 
 over eight other children, in the midst of whom it sat up in 
 bed and as soon as any one of them awoke it was its duty 
 to put the bottle into its mouth. If any of you, gentlemen, 
 have children three years of age, what would you say of 
 putting such babies over eight other children still younger 
 than themselves, which it would be their duty to take 
 care of all night? Consider this fact, gentlemen, and 
 then say if you can wonder at the terrible preventible 
 morality among the children of the poor ? These are the 
 views which we hold, and however this trial may end, 
 whether we succeed in the action that is pending or not, it 
 will still be our bounden duty to proceed on the course 
 in which we have set out — not, I wish to say, in a spirit of 
 undue defiance, but in a patient and yet persistent manner 
 on the path of duty which every good citizen owes to the 
 country — to bring these subjects manfully forward, and to 
 urge them upon the careful consideration of our countrymen 
 and countrywomen until, even if we have to pass through a 
 prison in the doing, we shall at last succeed, as all great 
 causes do, and we shall relieve the ruin caused by over- 
 population, and shall bring happiness to the poor, the down - 
 trodden, and the oppressed. There is another kind of 
 check which Dr. Drysdale puts, about which, when he 
 comes before you, he may have something to say. I refer 
 to the very common occurrence of overlying children 
 amongst the poor. Dr. Lancaster puts the case, let me say, 
 very strongly when he states that there are 16,000 mothers 
 in London who have in this way committed child murder. 
 I shouM be very sorry to believe that this is the case, and 
 I may venture to hope that it savours something of 
 
94 
 
 rhetorical exaggeration ; but in spite of that, this habit of 
 overlying amongst the poor, resulting in coroner's inquests 
 and verdicts of accidental death, is far too common, v.-hen in 
 one district in the metropolis alone we find that it gives 
 rise to loi inquests in the course of a single year, and I 
 cannot help thinking that this is one of those preventible 
 causes of death to which I have been referring. In many 
 cases doctors, driven to their wit's-end, have been forced to 
 give certificates of accidental death from suffocation, while 
 they were aware that there might have been motives for the 
 occurrence, as evidenced by the fact that the child was con- 
 sidered by the parents unwelcome, and as adding a new 
 burden in the struggle with which the poor are afflicted. One 
 other cause I shall put before you, upon the clearest possible 
 evidence, and it shall be the last of the direct checks of 
 which, for the moment, I must speak. One other check, I say, 
 to the growth of the population, of the most fatal character 
 to the mind, as well as to the body, is the great, and I 
 fear ever increasing, prevalence of what is rightly and 
 justly called the social evil, the characteristics of which 
 are known to you all. Knowlton puts it that this terrible 
 scourge leads to sterility, and that sexual intemperance 
 brings in its train the most baneful results. Another of 
 the results which flow from sexual vice is illegitimacy, 
 and, in the case of such children, the chances of life 
 are very small, as will readily be seen, when we consider 
 the circumstances under which such children are born. 
 These are the direct checks v/hich, among us, are at present 
 keeping down the ever-growing increase of the population, 
 in addition to the most fatal diseases that flow from them, 
 all of which, or at any rate, most of which, are, as I contend, 
 preventible, and which will, I fear, still more increase unless 
 we take steps to remove the cause. These diseases I need 
 scarcely add are a fruitful cause of the gradual deteriora- 
 tion which we see taking effect among the working classes, 
 and unless some means can be adopted to stop them, they 
 will increase more and more. Professor Fawcett, in his 
 Manual "of Political Economy, 1 find urges upon his 
 readers, on the very same grounds, this question which 
 I have ventured to put before you, and I need not add 
 that it comes from him with far greater weight than it 
 possibly can from me. He states that among " children 
 belonging to the upper and middle classes 20 per cent, 
 die before Ihey reach the age of five ;" and he adds 
 
that the amount is more than doubled in the case of chil- 
 dren belonging to the labouring classes. This great mor- 
 tality amongst poor children is caused by neglect, by want of 
 proper food, and by unwholesome dwellings. When wo 
 take these facts, and find that this large number of children 
 have literally been murdered ; when you consider that the 
 number of these children who, if they had been born in a 
 higher rank would not have died, is calculated by Professor 
 Fawcett at 1,150,000, taking the proportion into account 
 that die amongst the poor more than among the rich, you 
 ■will see what a large and important question this is, and you 
 will be able to estimate the nature of the evil against which 
 I am pleading to-day. Professor Fawcett in this matter is, 
 I may say, strengthened by the observations of Mrs. Faw- 
 cett, that Millicent Garrett, who has become so well and 
 so honourably known. She, too, says that the alarming 
 death-rate amongst the children of the poor, which is in- 
 duced chiefly by the want of food, clothing, and atten- 
 tion, and from over-crowding " in those districts where 
 they herd together," is " appalling, and is a blot upon 
 the civilisation of this country" ("Political Economy for 
 Beginners," p. no). Are you, gentlemen, going to give a 
 verdict of guilty against my co-defendant and myself — 
 against a man and a woman whose only efforts have been to 
 consider seriously the means by which this wholesale death 
 may be arrested, and thus to remove the blot which Mrs. 
 Fawcett says has been put upon the civilisation of the 
 country to which we are all proud to belong ? These are 
 the natural checks to the overgrowth of the population im- 
 posed " by Nature and Providence ;" and I will now ask you 
 to consider the means by which the wholesale misery can 
 be avoided which is caused by the operation of those 
 checks. I put it to you whether you are prepared to take 
 upon yourselves the task of bringing in a verdict against us, 
 who, feeling the terrible responsibility lying upon us with 
 regard to the poor, and seeing that the natural checks are 
 incapable of keeping down the population to legitimate 
 limits, and that its undue increase brings about us a mass 
 of human crime and misery, try to substitute prudential for 
 positive checks. It is that crime and misery which we 
 desire to alleviate by applying checks to the over-population 
 of the country — checks so much required at the present time. 
 In that endeavour, so far as it is set forth in this publication, 
 we — Dr. Knowlton, my co-defendant, and myself — we are 
 
96 
 
 all equally responsible. Our desire is common. We wish 
 to bring in effectual checks if possible, and checks which, at 
 the same time, will not harm those who apply them, and 
 which in themselves are neither immoral nor degrading. If 
 the preventive check, the birth-restricting check, does not 
 touch human happiness or affect national morality, 
 it is surely preferable to the terrible checks provided by 
 "nature and providence." One argument only of those 
 which are used against the checks which we propose to in- 
 troduce is deserving of smallest consideration. Mr. Darwin 
 in his "Origin of Species" puts that argument in the strong- 
 est light. Mr. Darwin thinks rightly, with reference 
 to the lower animals, that the apphcation of " natural '"' 
 checks upon the natural rate of increase is really for the 
 welfare and progress of the various classes of brutes ; and Mr. 
 Darwin thinks this " natural" check good for the human 
 species, and in this he is supported to a certain extent by Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer. I will venture to lay before you what I 
 consider to be his strongest statement of that argument, and 
 therefore of any possible objection. Mr. Darwin, writing to us 
 a few days since, ^^'^''nted our attention to the follo\ving ex- 
 tract from nis " Descent of Man," p. 6i8 : — •' The ennunce- 
 ■"..ent of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem ; 
 all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject 
 poverty for their children, for poverty is not only a great 
 evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness 
 in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has re- 
 marked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless 
 marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better 
 members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no 
 doubt advanced to his present high condition through a 
 struggle for existence, consequent on his rapid multiplica- 
 tion, and if he is to advance still higher it is to be feared 
 that he must remain subject to a severe struggle ; other- 
 wise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men 
 would not be more successful in the battle of life than the 
 less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though lead- 
 ing to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly dimi- 
 nished by any means." That is Mr. Dar\vin's position, and, 
 putting aside for a moment the awful amount of human 
 misery which it accepts as the necessary condition of pro- 
 gress, let us see if the position be defensible. I have no 
 doubt that if natural checks were allowed to operate right 
 through the human, as they do in the animal, world, this re- 
 
97 
 
 ■suit would follow. But I may be allowed to direct atten- 
 tion to the point that Mr. Darwin has overlooked, the fact 
 that these natural checks are not so allowed to operate 
 among men and women. Mr. Darwin, you must remember, 
 is accustomed to dealing chiefly, if not exclusively, with the 
 animal kingdom — I mean the animal kingdom as excluding 
 man. He, therefore, overlooks the elements which ac- 
 company the struggle for existence as it goes on among 
 the higher class of animals — i.e., man — and that it 
 is in no way comparable with that which goes on 
 among the lower. Among the brutes the weaker are 
 driven to the wall, the diseased fall out in the race of 
 life, and the old brutes, when feeble or sickly, are killed. 
 We all know and have read of instances in which wounded 
 stags have been set upon by their companions and killed. 
 If that were the case amongst men — if the drunken and the 
 improvident were over ridden in the struggle for existence 
 by those who were careful and temperate — the result might 
 be to improve those who survived, and Mr. Darwin's position 
 might be true. If men insisted that those who were sickly 
 should be allowed to die without help of medicine or of 
 science — if those who were weak were put upon one side 
 and crushed — if those who were old and useless were killed 
 — if those who were not capable of providing food for 
 themselves were allowed to starve, — if all that were done, 
 the struggle for existence among men would be as real as 
 it is among brutes, and would doubtless result in the 
 production of a higher race of men ; but are you willing to 
 do that, or to allow it to be done ? If not, you are taking 
 away the natural checks instead of keeping them; and 
 instead of improving the race of human beings in the midst 
 of a struggle for existence, you are perpetuating that which 
 tends to the deterioration of the race. For what are you 
 doing ? You are protecting and fostering the most careless, 
 the most improvident, the most thoughtless, the most 
 drunken, the most miserable, the most criminal elements of 
 your population, and so you are perpetuating improvidence, 
 crime, misery, disease, and all that tends to the deterioration 
 of the race, while the more provident and more thrifty — 
 those whose qualities should be transmitted, are exactly 
 those who do not marry. Put in this way, the objection, I 
 think, is not vaUd ; and it seems to me that in his argument 
 Mr. Darwin has altogether overlooked this aspect of the ques- 
 tion, which is fatal to the ground that he has taken up — the 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 ground that the natural checks should be sufficient in the 
 human as in the animal kingdoms to overcome the tendency 
 to over-population. We have not, therefore, to deal with 
 natural so much as with scientific checks. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think that is a point very- 
 well worthy the serious consideration of Mr. Darwin.- 
 Whether there may result, as a consequence of the struggle- 
 for existence among mankind, the survival of a smaller 
 number of the strongest, or a larger number of the weaker^ 
 and whether, should it be found that the weaker survive^ 
 the race is not by that means in process of deterioration^ 
 The process might result in a few of a higher race, but the 
 effect on the masses would be an increase of suffering and 
 of misery. 
 
 Mrs. Besant: That, my lord, is just the point that I 
 have been endeavouring to make. My contention is that 
 these natural checks cannot have free operation among 
 men, and, although where they have, they eliminate the 
 weaker portions of races, they cannot be fairly applied to- 
 mankind ; and I trust I shall be able to show that as they 
 cannot be so applied, we are left with the great difficulty that 
 the weaker, who, in the animal world would be pushed out 
 of existence, are, among men, capable of communicating 
 their weaknesses to their offspring, and so they deteriorate 
 succeeding generations. It is for that reason that we seek 
 to bring in an artificial check. Nature balances herself, but 
 if we remove her checks by civilization, and cure those whom 
 she would kill, we must put some other checks in their place. 
 Mr. Darwin beheves with us that is necessary to apply some 
 check, in order to promote civilization among men, and to 
 eliminate the elements which all are agreed should be 
 suppressed if possible. He points out (p. 133), that among 
 " savages, the weak, in body or mind, are soon eliminated," 
 and that "we civilized men, on the other hand, do our 
 utmost to check the process of elimination; we build 
 asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we 
 institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their 
 utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last 
 moment. There is reason to [believe, that vaccination has 
 preserved thousands, who, from a weak constitution, would 
 formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak 
 members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No 
 one who has attended to the breeding of domestic 
 animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the 
 
99 
 
 race of man." But Mr. Darwin does not meet his own 
 argument. He states his case, he puts the fact upon 
 record, but he does not suggest any positive remedy, nor 
 does he show how such a remedy, if known, can be appHed, 
 so as to ensure success. The checks we propose might 
 eliminate the sickly, just as does the struggle for existence. 
 Dr. Knowlton insists that the proper check to be apphed is, 
 not to interfere with the natural and healthy play of the 
 feeling of mankind, but one which may be applied after 
 marriage, and that check, he contends, would deal with 
 the evils of over-population successfully. He does not 
 propose that the check should involve any undue or 
 any unnatural restraint, and so far he is at complete 
 issue with Mr. Malthus, who argues in favour of late, and 
 against early, marriages. Differing, as I do, with Malthus on 
 this point, I here utterly sever my allegiance to him. I do not 
 believe in delaying marriage until a late age in consequence 
 of the considerations he urges for doing so. Malthus puts his 
 argument very clearly and strongly, and it is one which, in 
 my opinion, very few people indeed will be found ready to 
 adopt. No doubt late marriage, from his point of view, 
 would provide some sort of check, but the attendant evils 
 are so great that I infinitely prefer a check which does not 
 necessitate • late marriages. Such a check, I believe, has 
 been found by Dr. Knowlton. Malthus says, pp. 404, 405 : 
 " When the wages of labour are hardly sufficient to maintain 
 two children, a man marries and has five or six ; he, of 
 course, finds himself miserably distressed. He accuses the 
 insufficiency of the price of labour to maintain a family. He 
 ' accuses his parish for their tardy and sparing fulfilment of 
 their obligation to assist him. He accuses the avarice of the 
 rich, who suffer him to want what they can so well spare. 
 He accuses the partial and unjust institutions of society, 
 which have awarded him an inadequate share of the produce 
 of the earth. He accuses, perhaps, the dispensations of 
 Providence, which have assigned to him a place in society 
 so beset with unavoidable distress and dependence. In 
 searching for objects of accusation, he never adverts 
 to the quarter from which his misfortunes originate. The 
 last person he would think of accusing is himself.'' 
 I shall put it to you that whether the man be a labouring 
 man or one of higher rank who marries, and, in course of 
 time, brings into the world a number of children, when 
 he has not sufficient income to provide adequately for 
 
 C 2 
 
100 
 
 their wants, is a man who commits a crime, not only against 
 the children themselves, who are born into misery, but 
 commits a crime against the society of which he is a member, 
 because all the children brought into the world, which 
 cannot be sufficiently provided for by their parents, are 
 thrown, for maintenance, upon the saving, the thoughtful, 
 and the self-restraining portion of the community, who have 
 not given rein to their passions. You have Malthus 
 saying that, by the proposal he puts forward, there is 
 a fair prospect that those who bring children into existence 
 shall have a fair means of supporting them; but it did not 
 strike him that young men would not exercise that self- 
 restrain which he advocated, and which he holds to 
 be the bounden duty of men before marriage. He says : 
 " Our obligation not to marry till we have a fair prospect of 
 being able to support our children will appear to deserve 
 the attention of the moralist, if it can be proved that an 
 attention to this obligation is of most powerful effect in the 
 prevention of misery ; and that if it were the general 
 custom to follow the first impulse of nature, and marry at 
 the age of puberty, the universal prevalence of every known 
 virtue in the greatest conceivable degree would fail of 
 rescuing society from the most wretched and desperate 
 state of want, and all the diseases and famines which usually 
 accompany it." And he urges : '• All that the society can 
 reasonably require of its members is that they should 
 not have families without being able to support 
 them. This may be fairly enjoined as a positive duty." 
 "This preventive check does act," he says, "to some extent. 
 The most cursory view of society in this country must con- 
 vince us that throughout all ranks the preventive check to 
 population prevails in a considerable degree. Those among 
 the higher classes, who live principally in towns, often want 
 the inclination to marry, from the facility with which they 
 can indulge themselves in an illicit intercourse with the sex. 
 And others are deterred from marrying by the idea of the 
 expenses that they must retrench, and the pleasures of which 
 they must deprive themselves, on the supposition of having 
 a family. A man of liberal education, with an income only 
 just sufficient to enable him to associate in the rank of gentle- 
 men, must feel absolutely certain that if he marry, and have 
 a family, he shall be obliged to give up all his former con- 
 nections. The woman whom a man of education would 
 naturally make the object of his choice, is one brought up 
 
in the same habits and sentiments with himself, and used to 
 the familiar intercourse of a society totally different from 
 that to which she must be reduced by marriage. Can a 
 man easily consent to place the object of his affection in a 
 situation so discordant probably to her habits and inclina- 
 tions ? Two or three steps of descent in society, particularly 
 at this round of the ladder, where education ends and 
 ignorance begins, will not be considered by the generality 
 of , people as a chimerical, but a real evil." Malthus also- 
 points out, but I will not trouble you or take up the time 
 of the Court by quoting the passage, that this check acts 
 in the most unfair fashion. It is not those who ought to 
 refrain from marriage, but those who ought to marry who 
 hesitate. It is those who by extra carefulness and fore- 
 sight fear the results, those who feel the full weight of the 
 responsibility pressing upon them, to whom marriage is dis- 
 agreeable, and on the other hand it is those who have no care 
 or prevision for those whom they will in the natural order of 
 events have to support, who rush into marriage, and never 
 think of consequences. But is late marriage a good check, 
 and is it productive of morality? The Lord Chief Justice 
 pointed out yesterday that the object of this book was not to 
 preventearlymarriages, because the authorof it speaks strongly 
 in favour of them, but simply to discover someway in which 
 the moral effects of early marriages might not lead to the 
 immoral effects which occur from over large families. To 
 put off marriage to a late age is, in my opinion, almost cer- 
 tain to lead to immorality, and to consequences of the most 
 unfortunate and regrettable kind. In the first place, people 
 would never consent to the long continuance of self-denial 
 which is involved in the idea. You will never get any large 
 majority of men or women whose natural instincts lead them 
 to join their hands in marriage to forbear, and, therefore, I 
 consider that this is one of the most impracticable schemes 
 which ever entered into the brain of a man of intelligence 
 to propound. Dr. Knowlton's scheme is a very different 
 one. He states that it is a piece of folly to suppose that 
 men and women " will become monks and nuns during the 
 very hoUday of their existence, and abjure during the fairest 
 years of life the nearest and dearest of social relations, to 
 avert a catastrophe which they and perhaps their children 
 will not live to witness." I say that men and women will 
 marry young — in the flower of their age — and more espe- 
 cially will this be the case amongst the poorer classes. You 
 
■will find that Mr. Montague Cookson, who is one of Her 
 Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and whose duty 
 it is to assist and promote, not to hinder, public 
 morality, ridicules the idea that a young man who 
 has the chance of marrying will refrain from doing so. 
 He says : " To tell a labouring man who has the chance of 
 a cottage that he is not, on prudential grounds, to think of 
 marrying until he has mastered the law of averages, and 
 that even then he is running a considerable risk, is little else 
 than a solemn mockery, and he is entitled to retort that he 
 does not care to be more prudent than his betters. To 
 him a wife is infinitely more necessary than to those of 
 ampler means ; for, the public-house apart, all his material 
 comforts must be looked for in his own home, whilst 
 his richer neighbours may satisfy all their wants abroad. 
 It is one thing to have a club-kitchen, and another 
 to have a kitchen for your club." That passage 
 puts shortly and fairly the very feeling that I have 
 myself I cannot go to the poor man, and tell him that 
 the brightest part of his life is to be spent alone, and that 
 he is to be shut out for years from the comforts of a home 
 and the happiness of married life. I shall have to press this 
 point strongly upon you because the Solicitor-General, in the 
 remarks he addressed to you yesterday, told you that Dr. 
 Knowlton used the word " marriage " merely to cloak his 
 hidden object of advocating a system of immorality. If that 
 is true, the same censure passed on the author of this book 
 must equally attach to my co-defendant and to myself; but let 
 me point out to you' that to put forward such a theory is 
 really .preposterous, and had it come from any one else than 
 a Solicitor-General who is so high in his profession, so well 
 practised at the bar, and so thoroughly acquainted with the 
 courtesies which belong to a court of justice, I should say that 
 it was one of the most unjust and malicious suggestions that 
 could have fallen from the mouth of an unjust advocate 
 against any defendant whom he was prosecuting. I 
 am going to put this point strongly before }-ou. What 
 do you find ? Why, that amongst young professional men 
 marriage is less common than it was ; not that they ha\-e 
 any disinclination to the married state, not that they 
 shrink from the enjoyment of wife and home, but. because 
 they have seen and taken to heart the miseries which 
 too often follow early marriages, and a consequent large 
 family, and they refrain from following their natural incli- 
 
103 
 
 nation from prudential motives. The struggle through which 
 they have to pass before they arrive at an honourable position 
 -either at the bar, in medicine, or in the church is such 
 that they reflect three times — ay, four times, before they 
 ask a woman of culture and refinement to place herself in a 
 position where for perhaps eight or nine years her home-life 
 will be a mockery . of comfort and a weariness. And yet 
 I say that to put off marriage to a late age is utterly de- 
 moralising in its tendency. You will find that fairly put 
 in the first chapter of the " Fruits of Philosophy ;" and while 
 I read the extract, I ask you to remember that of such a pas- 
 sage it is put to you by the Solicitor-General that the language 
 is only used as a cover for the advocacy of public immorality. 
 Dr. Knowlton says of late marriage : " But, besides being 
 ineffectual, or if effectual, requiring a great sacrifice of 
 •enjoyment, this restraint is highly objectionable on the score 
 of its demoralising tendency. It would give rise to a fright- 
 ful increase of prostitution, of intemperance and onanism, 
 and prove destructive to health and moral feelings." And 
 lie goes on : " Let us now turn our attention to the case of 
 immarried youth. Almost all young persons, on reach- 
 ing the age of maturity, desire to marry. That heart 
 must be very cold, or very isolated, that does not find 
 .some object on which to bestow its affections. Thus, 
 •early marriages would be almost universal did not prudential 
 considerations interfere. The young man thinks ' I cannot 
 marry yet, I cannot support a family. I must make money 
 first and think of a matrimonial settlement afterwards.' 
 And so he goes to making money, fully and sincerely re- 
 solved, in a few years to share it with her whom he now loves. 
 But passions are strong and temptations great. Curiosity, 
 perhaps, introduces him into the company of those poor 
 creatures whom society first reduces to a dependence on the 
 most miserable of mercenary trades, and then curses for being 
 what she has made them. There his health and moral feel- 
 ings alike make shipwreck. The affections. he had thought 
 to treasure up for their first object are chilled by dissipation 
 and blunted by excess. He scarcely retains a passion but 
 .avarice. Years pass on — years of profligacy and speculation 
 —-and his first wish is accomplished, his fortune is made. 
 Where now are the feelings and resolves of his youth ? He 
 is a man of pleasure, a man of the world. He laughs 
 at the romance of his youth, and marries a fortune. If 
 gaudy equipage and gay parties confer happiness, he is 
 
104 
 
 happy ; but if they be only the sunshine on the stormy sea 
 below, he is a victim to that system of morality which for- 
 bids a reputable connection until the period when provision 
 has been made for a large expected family. Had he mar- 
 ried the first object of his choice, and simply delayed becom- 
 ing a father until his prospects seemed to warrant it, how 
 different might have been his lot. Until men and women 
 are absolved from the fear of becoming parents, except 
 when they themselves desire it, they ever will form mer- 
 cenary and demoralizing connections, and seek in dissipation 
 the happiness they might have found in domestic life." 
 This is written by the man whom the Solicitor-General 
 would have you believe advises young people to rush into- 
 promiscuous intercourse and give the reins to their unre- 
 strained passions. You are asked ito believe that, and I 
 can only hope that the sudden strain of parliamentary 
 duty which has lately taken up so much of the time of 
 the Solicitor-General has prevented' him from reading 
 this bopk over with that carefulness which it deserves. If 
 it is not so, I fear I should have to accuse him of something 
 worse than I feel disposed to do under the circumstances. 
 There is nowordorsuggestionof promiscuousintercoursehere. 
 Gentlemen, this is the language of a man who is put before 
 you as one desirous of stirring up the passions of youth, and 
 I ask you whether a man with that intention at heart would 
 be likely to preface his book with remarks directly aimed 
 against profligacy of every sort, and with such solemn, 
 warnings against every kind of unfair and immoral living. I 
 think, therefore, I may fairly put it that every young 
 man naturally desires to make a home and enter 
 upon married life when first he comes out into 
 the world. I do not believe that any young man sets 
 out with the intention of rushing into fast life and 
 dissipation, but men are frequently drawn into habits of tha, 
 kind because they fear the results that follow from ear', 
 marriage. (Since I am told that our object is to increase 
 immorality, and that we only use the word " marriage 
 to conceal the foulest designs upon the purity of society, 
 I may say freely that I hold early marriages to be the very 
 salvation of young men, and especially of young men in 
 our large cities. [I hold the belief with a depth of convic- 
 tion which I cannot put to you in words, that for one man, 
 and one woman to help, comfort, and support one another, 
 which they are by nature adapted to do, is a state which 
 
I OS 
 
 is to be rccached, which is to be perpetuated by marriage^ 
 and in no other way. It is only by companionship, and the 
 union between a man and a woman, that this is possible. 
 Shut a young man out from the loving influences of home, 
 the golden institutions of the fireside, his wife's society, and 
 the happiness of becoming a father, and you induce a life of 
 profligacy. Gentlemen, do not be deceived. There is 
 no talk in this book of preventing men and women from 
 becoming parents ; all that is sought here is to limit the 
 number of their family. And we do not aim at that 
 because we do not love children, but, on the contrary, 
 because we do love them, and because we wish to prevent 
 them from coming into the world in greater numbers than 
 there is the means of properly providing for.j Children, 
 I believe, have an influence upon parents purifying in 
 the highest degree, because they teach the parents self- 
 restraint, self-denial, thoughtfulness, and tenderness to an 
 extent that cannot possibly be over-estimated ; and it is. 
 because I wish to have it made possible for young men and 
 for young women to have these influences brought to bear 
 upon them in their youth, that .1 advocate the circulation of 
 a book that will put within their reach the knowledge of 
 how to limit the extent of their families v.dthin their capa- 
 bilities of providing for them ; for no man can look with 
 '^ pride and happiness upon his home if he has more children 
 ■jthan he can clothe and educate. It is because I wish them 
 'to marry in the springtime of their youth that I ask you by 
 your verdict in this action to make discussion on these sub- 
 jects possible, and that men should not be driven 
 to find a substitute for true and pure womanhood and 
 wifehood in other directions, j. If you render this possible 
 you will make your streets purer and your families 
 happier than they are at present. You have frequently 
 heard the question of disinclination to marry brought 
 forward, and it was not so long since discussed 
 in the public newspapers, and I put it to you whether 
 that was the case fifty years ago ? If it was not, what is the 
 reason ? Any young man might have married and brought 
 up a family then in comfort, while with the same income he 
 would find it impossible to do so to-day ; marriage is less 
 frequent because young men have felt the effects of the law 
 of over-population without knowing clearly from what they 
 are suffering. The increase of population has decreased 
 the value of income, and where the income does not in- 
 
io6 
 
 ■crease with tlie family, an over number of children brought 
 into the world only means pauperism. Hence it is that the 
 iiatural desire for marriage is thwarted by the present state 
 •of things, and this leads, as Dr. Knowlton puts it, either to 
 proflicacy or to asceticism. I need not re-read the passage on 
 profligacy to you; you have seen he speaks strongly against 
 it. Take a passage from Mr. Montagu Cookson on the 
 same subject. He says : " If, indeed, we could all become 
 perfect beings, the rule of life deduced by Malthus from 
 the unalterable law of population would be both practicable 
 .and safe : as it is, it has a direct tendency to promote the 
 ■cardinal vice of cities — that of unchastity. The number of 
 women in England who ply the loathesome trade of prosti- 
 tution is already large enough to people a county, and, as 
 our great thoroughfares show at nightfall, is certainly not 
 ■diminishing. Their chief supporters justify themselves by 
 the very plea which Malthus uses to enforce the duty of 
 continence, namely, that they are not well enough off to 
 maintain a wife and family. If they could be sure that they 
 ■could limit the number of their children, so as to make it 
 commensurate with their ihcome, not only would the plea 
 be generally groundless, but I believe it would not be urged, 
 and the so-called social evil would be stormed in its strongest 
 fortress. The vice itself would become more immoral, 
 because more without excuse, and its greater immorality 
 would, as in the case of other offences, help to make it more 
 rare. The world at large is only tolerant in matters relating 
 to the sexes when the frailty of human nature makes it 
 necessary that it should be." But, gentlemen, we are not 
 perfect beings ; and if young men only knew how to limit 
 the number of their families, then they would have no dis- 
 inclination to marry. I may just put before you the terrible 
 results of profligacy, and in doing so do not imagine that I 
 think you do not know far better than I do the enormous 
 amount of damage which comes from that which is called 
 ■" the great social evil," against which it has been thought 
 necessary to invoke a special class of most unfortunate 
 Icgislatiori. It is not only a danger for the bodies of young 
 men, but, perhaps, a still greater danger to their minds, 
 for association with women of the character of those to 
 whom I refer malces a man lose his respect for pure woman- 
 hood, and taints the sacred bond of married life e\-en 
 when it is at last entered upon ; and to the unhappy women 
 who are the victims of this terrible evil the injury is yet 
 
107 
 
 ■worse : they become hardened out of all that is womanly , 
 ireckless intheirshame, theyrush into drunkenness and excess, 
 and end, too often, a miserable life with a disgraceful death. 
 These are some of the miseries which flow from the social 
 evil ; and if we could introduce checks alter marriage has 
 taken place, we should wound the evil in its vital point. 
 If the Solicitor-General should again endeavour to make you 
 imagine that we are using the word marriage because our 
 real and our avowed objects are opposed, let me ask you to 
 remember what I have said on this point If profligacy is 
 bad, what shall we say of asceticism ? If you now take 
 up the passage on page 7, where I left it a short time ago, 
 you will see how he treats the matter of asceticism : " Some- 
 times, if even rarely, the young mind does hold to its first 
 lesolves. The youth plods through years of cold celibacy 
 and solitary anxiety, happy, if before the best hours of his 
 life are gone, and his warmest feelings withered, he may 
 return to claim- the reward of his forbearance and his industry. 
 But even in this comparatively happy case, shall we count 
 for nothing the years of ascetic sacrifice at which after 
 happiness is purchased ? The days of youth are not too 
 many, nor its affections too lasting. We may, indeed, if a 
 great object require it, sacrifice the one and mortify the other. 
 ■ But is this, in itself, desirable ? Does not wisdom tell us 
 that such a sacrifice is a dead loss — to the warm-hearted 
 often a grievous one? Does not wisdom bid us temperately 
 enjoy the springtime of life, 'while the evil day come not, 
 nor the years draw nigh, when we shall say we have no 
 pleasure in them.' Let us say, then, if we vnW, that the youth 
 who thus sacrifices the present for the future, chooses wisely 
 between the two evils, profligacy and asceticism. This is true ; 
 but let us not imagine the lesser evil to be a good. It 
 is ni?f good for man to be alone. It is for no man or woman's 
 happiness or benefit that they should be condemned to 
 Shakerism. It is a violence done to the feelings and an 
 injury to the character. A life of rigid celibacy, though 
 infinitely preferable to a life of dissipation, is yet fraught 
 with many evils. Peevishness, restlessness, vague longings, 
 and instability of character, are amongst the least of these ; 
 the mind is unsettled and the judgment warped. Even the 
 very instinct which is thus mortified assumes an undue im- 
 portance, and occupies a portion of the thoughts which does 
 not of right or nature belong to it, and which ddring a life 
 of satisfied afi"ection it would not obtain." So he goes on to 
 
io8 
 
 point out that both are evils, but that it is more wise_ to 
 choose asceticism than profligacy ; yei, at the same time 
 he points out clearly the evils that flow from asceticism as 
 well as those that result from, profligacy. For aceticism is 
 an evil, though not so great a one as profligacy ; it is un- 
 natural, and therefore it is unhealthy. We know from a 
 large mass of statistics collected from the census returns 
 that married people live longer than the unmarried. In 
 1853, for example, we find that the unmarried men in 
 France between the ages of twenty and eighty died in 
 a much larger proportion than did those who were mar- 
 ried. The figures show that 11 "3 annually die out of a 
 thousand among the unmarried, whilst the proportion of 
 married men is only 6 '5. Similar results are found in 
 1863-4 with reference to the entire population of ScoUand 
 above the age of twenty. Out of a thousand between the 
 ages of twentyand thirty i4'97 unmarried men died, whilst the 
 proportion of married men was only 7 "24, which is less than 
 one-half These figures, it seems to me, are destructive of 
 the theory of Malthus against early marriages. One other 
 point I will put before you. Dr. Drysdale, in his pamphlet 
 on Prostitution, dealing with the evils of celibacy, says : — 
 " Sir Benjamin Brodie at the meeting of the Social Science 
 Association in Birmingham, said that the evils of celibacy 
 •were so great that he could not mention them ; but that 
 they fully equalled those of postitution." We find also 
 that Mr. Holmes Coote, late surgeon to Bethlehem 
 Hospital, used to speak in the same way, and regarded 
 celibacy as one of the causes of lunacy. Evidence so 
 strong, you will agree with me, tells convincingly in 
 favour of early marriages, and against either profligacy 
 or celibacy. You can find, indeed you know without 
 my telling you, what is the opinion of medical men 
 regarding the evils which follow from subduing the natural 
 instincts and living in a state of entire celibacy ; and 
 perhaps the evils that result from an unmarried life arc 
 more terrible amongst women than amongst men, because 
 when women are unmarried they generally lead purer lives 
 than do the majority of men. And you find among monks 
 and nuns the natural sexual desires coming out in the most 
 curious forms. In countries where monasteries and convents 
 abound a kind of thwarted sexual feeling arises, and it is 
 strangely exhibited even in the hymns that are sung and the 
 prayers that are used. Anyone who is familiar with Roman 
 
109 
 
 Catholic or with High Church manuals will recognise this 
 fact. The misplaced sexual feelings run, in the case of the 
 monks, towards the Virgin, and in that of the nuns to the 
 son of the Virgin, and so nature avenges herself when she 
 is dwarfed and stunted, when the natural affections are not 
 allowed to flow in the channel prescribed by nature. The 
 same thing is observable among High Church sisterhoods 
 in this country, and is exemplified in the character of the 
 hymns and prayers used. These are some of the evils 
 that arise from celibacy, and on this point let me refer you 
 to the last paragraph on page 8, which I will not read, as you 
 have the books before you. I want to draw your attention 
 to the diseases that arise from celibacy, and I would specially 
 point out to you the value of Knowlton in such a case as 
 is there alluded to. You know the unhappy position of those 
 who are persuaded by quack doctors, playing upon their 
 ignorance, that they are not in a condition to enter the 
 married state. You can imagine the unhappiness of those 
 who fall into the hands of these people. They play upon 
 the fears of young men, and are the ruin, both in pocket 
 and in body, of all those who have anything to do with 
 them. Many of these poor victims would have been saved 
 a life of misery if this little sixpenny book had fallen into 
 their hands when they were entrapped by quack doctors ; 
 yes, even if the book had been sold them by a hawker — 
 one of those who have been sent to prison — at the 
 corner of a street ; for on reading it they would 
 have learned to distrust the men who falsely told 
 them they were unfit to marry, and they would, in 
 later life, have blessed the chance opportunity that 
 threw the publication in their way, as they enjoyed the 
 blessings of a happy home, and looked around with 
 thankfulness upon their two or three children. Such 
 are a few of the evils of profligacy and asceticism, 
 both of which are bad, and both of which may be 
 obviated by early marriages. Perhaps I may here advert 
 to what Mr. Montagu Cookson says of the evils result- 
 ing from celibacy to both sides. We have often heard those 
 hard and unwarrantable sneers that are levelled at old maids 
 in this country. It is true they are often hard and sour, 
 because, nature being thwarted, they are thrown back upon 
 themselves ; they are dwarfed, dried up, and withered, all 
 the more certainly because they have no means of preventing 
 their solitary condition. Mr. Cookson puts this point very 
 
no 
 
 strongly. He says : " To refuse marriage to men altogether, 
 or to require them to postpone it indefinitely after the maturity 
 of their judgment has justified their choice, is to inflict an 
 injury on, the whole community by encouraging special 
 forms of evil, perhaps even calling them into existence. 
 Many a woman whose daily life is now dedicated to her 
 dress, or her household, or who has become so entangled in 
 the narrow meshes of acquaintanceship — -which she dignifies 
 by the name of society — as not to have an idea beyond, 
 might have escaped all this bondage if imagined necessity 
 had not doomed her to spinsterhood. Many a man into 
 whose soul has stolen the slow poison of moral and intel- 
 lectual cynicism, might have retained his early freshness if 
 the example of some friend had not taught him to remain, 
 single, rather than succumb to the yoke of marriage, with its 
 heavy, because uncertain, burdens. Meantime better, per- 
 haps, not to prytoo closelyinto the consolations he allowshim- 
 self, or the mode in which he seeks to reconcile what is v/ith 
 what might have been." That is the way in which Mr. Cookson 
 pleads against late marriages. By postponing marriage, 
 people in middle life often find, when they take upon them- 
 selves its duties, that nature revenges herself upon them for 
 having thwarted her teachings, and too often such marriages 
 turn out barren, simply because the married persons, from 
 their long celibacy, are incapacitated from producing children. 
 Nature denying her blessings to those who have despised 
 them. I leave these remarks for your consideration. I do 
 not now deal with the effect of all this upon society, because 
 I have already said as much upon that aspect of the ques- 
 tion as I think necessary, and I conclude that both profligacy 
 and celibacy are evils, and if it is argued that early 
 marriages produce as great evils, we are placed in a 
 dilemma as to what course should be recommended. 
 We must inquire whether we cannot secure the benefits 
 of early marriages without undergoing the evils of over- 
 population which result from them ; but to do that we 
 must maintain the preventive, the birth-restricting, check, 
 as preferable to the death-producing, but we must bring 
 this check into operation after marriage, and not before. 
 
 This is the object which this book has in view, and it is no 
 part of its object either to destroy marriage, or to favour pro- 
 fligacy, or to promote promiscuous intercourse ; but, on the 
 contrary, to enable people to marry early, and, at the same 
 time, to avoid those evils which come by over-population. 
 
John Stuart Mill's work on Political Economy — which is 
 regarded ever)rwhere as a standard work, and is accepted as 
 a text-book at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge for 
 the instruction of young men, and on which young men are 
 examined, and in which they are taught — invites them tO' 
 restrain their passions, and to limit the number of their 
 families ; but, so far as this work goes, they are left in 
 ignorance how the recommendations it contains are to be 
 carried out, and, therefore, they are unable to save them- 
 selves from the very evils against which they are warned. 
 Take the following passage as a fair sample of John Stuart 
 Mill's opinion : — " Poverty, like' most social evils, exists be- 
 cause men follow their brute instincts without due considera- 
 tion. But society is possible, precisely because man is not 
 necessarily a brute. Civilisation in every one of its aspects 
 is a struggle against the animal instincts. Over sorne, even 
 of the strongest of them, it has shown itself capable of 
 acquiring abundant control. It has artificialised large por- 
 tions of mankind to such an extent, that of many of their 
 most natural inclinations they have scarcely a vestige or 
 a remembrance left. If it has not brought the instinct of 
 population under as much restraint as is needful, we must 
 remember that it has never seriously tried. What efforts it 
 has made, have mostly been in the contrary direction. 
 Religion, morality, and statesmanship, have vied with one 
 another in incitements to marriage, and to the multiplication 
 of the species, so it be but in wedlock. Religion has not 
 even yet discontinued its encouragements. The Romaa 
 Catholic clergy (of any other clergy it is unnecessary to- 
 speak, since no other have any considerable influence over 
 the poorer classes) everywhere think it their duty to promote 
 marriage, in order to prevent fornication. There is still in 
 many minds a strong religious prejudice against the true 
 doctrine. The rich, provided the consequences do not touch 
 themselves, think it impugns the wisdom of Providence to 
 suppose that misery can result from the operation of a 
 natural propensity : the poor think that ' God never sends 
 mouths but he sends meat' No one would guess from the 
 language of either, that man had any voice or choice in the 
 matter. So complete is the confusion of ideas on the whole 
 subject : owing in a great degree to the mystery in which it 
 is shrouded bya spurious delicacy, which prefers that rightand 
 wrong should be mismeasured and confounded on one of the 
 subjects most momentous to human welfare, rather than 
 
that the subject should be freely spoken of and discussed. 
 People are little aware of the cost to mankind of this 
 scrupulosity of speech. The diseases of society can, no 
 more than corporal maladies, be prevented or cured with- 
 out being spoken about in plain language." You have 
 the testimony, gentlemen, of the Solicitor-General that 
 in this pamphlet there is no vulgarity of language and 
 no coarseness of expression. He puts it as strongly as a 
 counsel for the defence could possibly put it ; and therefore 
 if it is only spoken in plain language, without unnecessary 
 vulgarity or coarseness, we will deal with it, if you please, 
 as just one of those productions which you think it is right 
 should speak in plain terms of corporeal maladies, and ought 
 not to be dragged — utterly unfairly as it is dragged now — 
 within the reach of the criminal law in this country (for it is 
 only in this country that this subject is thought outside the 
 barrier of ordinary decent discussion : in any foreign 
 country — in France or Italy — all scientific men have full 
 liberty in discussions of this kind). Mr. Mill goes on : 
 " All experience shows that the mass of mankind never 
 judge of moral questions for themselves, never see 
 anything to be right or wrong until they have been 
 frequently told it; and who tells them that they 
 have any duties in the matter in question, while they 
 keep within matrimonial limits ? Who meets with the 
 smallest condemnation, or rather, who does not meet with 
 sympathy and benevolence, for any amount of evil which he 
 may have brought upon himself and those dependent on 
 him, by this species of incontinence ? While a man who is 
 intemperate in drink, is discountenanced and despised by all 
 who profess to be moral people, it is one of the chief grounds 
 made use of in appeals to the benevolent, that the appli- 
 cant has a large family and is unable to maintain them. 
 One cannot wonder that silence on this great department 
 of human duty should produce unconsciousness of moral ob- 
 ligations, when it produces oblivion of physical facts. That 
 it is possible to delay marriage, and to live in abstinence 
 -while unmarried, most people are willing to allow ; but when 
 persons are once married, the idea, in this country, never 
 seems to enter any one's mind that having or not having a 
 family, or the number of which it shall consist, is amenable 
 to their own control. One would imagine that children 
 were rained down upon married people, direct from heaven, 
 without their having art or part in the matter ; that it was 
 
'13 
 
 really, as the common phrases have it, God's will, and not 
 their own, which decided the numbers of their offspring." 
 That is the way John Stuart Mill puts the law, and presses 
 on all those who marry the duty of limiting their families. 
 Professor Leone Levi, whom we find lecturing recently to 
 working men on their " Work and Pay," points out that " a 
 proper restraint in the matter of matrimony and prudence 
 as regards the increase of our families " is necessary ; showing 
 that the prudence must be after marriage, since he is speak- 
 ing of the increase of families, and saying that " we cannot 
 trust on so much wisdom on the part of the people," and so 
 we must turn to emigration. Clearly he thinks that true 
 " wisdom on the part of the people," as he puts it, would lead 
 to prudence as regards the increase of families ; and he says, 
 as we cannot trust to so much wisdom on the part of the 
 people, " our only hope must lie in the vast fields of emigra- 
 tion." Mrs. Fawcett puts exactly the same thing, in words 
 whose meaning cannot be disputed. She had been writing 
 on pauperism, and had been showing that " no speculations 
 as to the industrial prospects of England are worth the 
 paper they are written on if they do not take into account 
 the probable future of pauperism." She says : *' If, in the 
 future industrial competition of nations, England is to keep 
 either first or second in the field, she must devise some 
 means, not only of checking the growth of pauperism, but 
 of eradicating the disease from her social system. And 
 those who deal with this question of pauperism should 
 remember that it is not to be remedied by cheap food, by 
 reductions of taxation, or by economical administration in 
 the departments, or by new forms of government. Nothing 
 will permanently affect pauperism while the present reckless 
 increase of population continues. And nothing will be so 
 likely to check this increase as the imposition by the State 
 on parents of the whole responsibility of maintaining their 
 offspring." When Mrs. Fawcett says that you must check 
 population by making parents maintain their own offspring, 
 she necessarily means that if, after marriage, parents found 
 they had to maintain their own children, they would 
 find some means of checking the rapid increase o,f the 
 family. That same argument I might bring to you very 
 strongly from Mr. Montagu Cookson, who is on some points so 
 extremely clear, that I do not propose to read very much of 
 him, because I am inclined to think that the pages of a ma- 
 gazine are not exactly the medium which I myself should 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 •choose for the discussion of a question of this kind. When 
 people wish to discuss questions of this kind, they should do 
 •so in medical or physiological works. I think that in ordi- 
 nary magazines physiology and other kindred subjects should 
 not be mixed up with more general questions, and I urge 
 •specially in regard to Knowlton that no one need buy his 
 book unless they desire to read it, and that every one who 
 buys it knows exactly what the character of the book is on 
 which he is spending his money. That is hardly so with 
 respect to a magazine of the ordinary character. I think part 
 of Mr. Montagu Cookson's article is far more plain-spoken 
 than I should myself have cared to put in the pages of an 
 ordinary magazine; but that is, of course, a question for his 
 own taste and not for me. He says he need not say more 
 to explain his meaning, which is perfectly true, for he had 
 said quite enough to explain his meaning very thoroughly. 
 Then he goes on : " Those who have followed me so far will 
 hardly need that I should add more by way of explaining 
 my meaning ; and I rejoice to think that there are not a 
 few who are familiar with the moral lesson deducible from 
 these remarks, and whose daily practice it has long since 
 served to shape." And he goes on to point out that many 
 may "Think the practical conclusion to which I point, i.e. 
 prudential restraint after marriage, wilder than anything 
 Malthus ever dreamt, whilst others will regard it with pious 
 horror on moral or religious grounds. To the former I 
 would say it is premature to predict that any untried experi- 
 ment will fail until you have shown that the conditions of 
 its success are at variance either with the established facts 
 or with the ascertained laws. In the case before us, the 
 facts do not belie the conclusions, for, I repeat, there already 
 exists a school of moderation, based on the convictions here 
 stated, which boasts several disciples. I believe there would 
 be vastly more if the force of public opinion were brought 
 to bear upon the question. Of ascertained laws which are 
 fatal to its success there is absolutely not a trace, except it be 
 the law of our own inclination, which, if in earnest, we can 
 mould as we choose, each strengthening each in the task. 
 At present, however, no one thinks of lifting a finger to 
 assist his neighbour in the matter, and as long as such per- 
 fect indifference prevails, and an impenetrable veil of mys- 
 tery is drawn over the whole subject, every man's secret will 
 perish with him, and the advance of the human race in this 
 all-important department of knowledge will, for want of tha 
 
power of transmission, be no more rapid than that of the 
 brutes. To those again who raise objections which appear 
 to them to have their root in morality, as distinct from re- 
 vealed religion, I answer : — It would be interesting if it 
 •were not melancholy, to observe the way in which, both in 
 writing and speaking, men are perpetually admitting the 
 material inconveniences due to an excess of population, 
 whilst they give the go-by to the obvious solution that the 
 numbers of children born after marriage should be limited 
 in the manner I have endeavoured to indicate." I ask you, 
 gentlemen, whether by writing that an impenetrable veil of 
 mystery is drawn over the whole subject, and that '' every 
 man's secret" perishes with him, whether Mr. Montagu Cook- 
 son does not thoroughly suggest to those who are well 
 acquainted with physiological details, that it would be well 
 that every man's secret should not perish with them, but that 
 for the benefit of their neighbours they should transmit to 
 each other that which has been of benefit to themselves. 
 You find him saying that as landlords cannot make the cot- 
 tages large enough for the labourers, the labourers must limit 
 their families to their room. He says the limitation of 
 the number of the family ought to be secured " by 
 ■obedience to natural laws which all may discover and 
 verify if they will, and that such limitation is as much the 
 ■duty of married persons as the observance of chastity is the 
 duty of those that are unmarried. One of the main wants 
 «f the day is, as I conceive, the formation of a sound public 
 opinion on this subject." He does not ask from married 
 people that chastity after marriage which he demands froni . 
 the unmarried. He tells them to discover natural laws, and 
 to apply them, and he says that such limitation is the morality 
 of married life. He says that one of the most importart wants 
 of the day is the formation of a sound public opinion on 
 this subject. Taking that article, and that he says it is to be 
 after marriage that he wants the cottager to limit his family, 
 that it is after marriage he wants the hedger and the ditcher 
 to practise this duty, I ask you how his suggestions can be 
 carried out unless you publish a physiological treatise giving 
 those natural laws which Cottagers and hedgers and ditchers 
 could not discover for themselves, however much Mr. Mon- 
 tagu Cookson may be able to do it ? How is it possible his 
 wishes can be carried out unless at a low price, in plain Saxon 
 English, you get these natural laws put forward whereby the 
 offspring can be limited after marriage ? I believe that in 
 
 G 2 
 
ii6 
 
 dealing with that point Mr. Bradlaugh will have something to 
 mention, because I believe Mr. Montagu Cookson wrote to Mr. 
 Bradlaugh — when he found he was likely to be quoted in a 
 court of law — putting some limitations on the meaning of his 
 words which we do notfind in his essay, an essaywhich is utterly 
 unguarded, and is couched in the strongest terms. I have 
 simply read the passages which give the counsel on this 
 point of Mr. Montagu Cookson, and I have not read 
 certain others which are more suggestive in their wording, 
 because I do not want to make any unpleasantness of 
 feeling in dealing with a subject which is a difficult one for 
 a woman to touch at all in a court of this kind. You have 
 got here to deal with this dilemma : that over-population 
 must be kept down, must be killed down, with misery ; or 
 that you must have delayed marriages, with personal and 
 social evils such as I have hinted at ; or that you must have 
 early marriages with limitation of families. That I conceive 
 is the dilemma with which my antagonists have to deal, and I 
 will go now to the end for which this book is put forward by 
 Dr. Knowlton. You will find on the sixth page some sen- 
 tences, which I mil not read, if you will kindly look at the 
 book, commencing " In a social point of view." In the first 
 place we find it is there stated that "the families of the married 
 often increase more rapidly than a regard for the young beings 
 coming into the world or the happiness of those who gave 
 them birth " ought to permit. I will speak for a moment on 
 women's health in connection with this subject, for to me 
 that is a very vital point in dealing with this book. We have 
 seen the effect on society of over-population ; we have not 
 seen the effect on the women themselves, for the premature 
 deaths which keep down the population do not save the 
 health of the mother, who is exhausted by the over-rapid 
 child-bearing. It may save some of the social effects of over- 
 population ; it does not save the unfortunate mothers whose 
 health is ruined, and you will find that put very plainly in 
 Dr. Knowlton's work, when he says the health of the mother 
 is very often sacrificed, and she is " compelled to toil on 
 even at those times when Nature imperiously calls for some 
 relief from daily drudgery." Here is one point I shall want 
 to prove to you, more from the evidence of witnesses than 
 from a book. There is no question that amongst the 
 women of the poorer classes there is a vast amount of 
 suffering caused by over-rapid child-bearing. You get one 
 special class of disease, that every doctor would toll you 
 
"7 
 
 about, and called, in common parlance, among themselves, 
 " falling of the womb," which is merely the result of this 
 excessive child-bearing, which is caused by their being 
 compelled to go about among their families long before 
 they ought to do so, when health and reason demand a 
 certain amount of rest after child-bearing. I have often myself 
 seen a poor woman, a mother of a large family, standing 
 over the wash-tub three or four days after having borne a child, 
 and upon my representing to her the utter ruin to her health 
 which was involved in such a proceeding I would get the 
 Teply : " What am I to do ? There is another mouth to feed; 
 the children are there and must be provided for, and I must 
 get about." Doctors tell you that you will very rarely find 
 women among the poor who are mothers of large families, 
 who do not suffer from a weakness of this kind, which is 
 entirely referrable to the fact that year after year, without any 
 intermission, they are in an almost continual condition of 
 pregnancy. Dr. Bull in his " Hints to Mothers " — which is a 
 book sold by Messrs. Smith, and seen on nearly every book- 
 stall, and about which there is no pretence of secrecy, for it 
 is nearly always to be seen standing side by side with Dr. 
 Chavasse's "Advice to a Wife" — Dr. Bull says : "It is scarcely 
 necessary to advert to the well-known fact that a woman 
 may conceive while nursing." It is thought by the 
 poor, and by many well-educated people too, who ought to 
 know better, that a woman by keeping a child at the breast 
 can check the likelihood of conception. No mistake is 
 more frequent or more fallacious than this, and Dr. Drysdale 
 and Miss Vickery will tell you that a number of diseases 
 result from over-lactation. It gives rise to a peculiar class 
 of diseases, but it does worse, as you will find from the 
 testimony of a man like Dr. Churchill, whose wide experi- 
 ence in these matters no one can dispute. He gives you 
 his opinion on one disease, and says " Among the many 
 causes of this disease rapid child-bearing and over-suckling 
 are the most frequent. The latter is done by the poor to 
 prevent a rapid increase of their family, which it does very 
 effectually when it gives rise to the disorder mentioned, but 
 at the expense of much suffering and loss of health to the 
 mother." That same point is dealt with by Chavasse, and 
 it will be spoken to by Dr. Drysdale and Miss Vickery, and 
 you will see that these poor women are so convinced of the 
 necessity of some check that in their ignorance they adopt 
 this injurious means. You cannot expect man and wifa 
 
ii8 
 
 to live as if divorced ; you cannot expect them to do so ; 
 and to have some check, therefore, poor women actually 
 resort to the fatal practice of nursing children for a year or 
 longer with the hope that by doing that they may keep off the 
 dreaded increase in the family which they desire to escape. 
 It is fuinous to the health of the mother, to the child at the 
 breast, and also to the health of the unborn child. Thus 
 are three human lives simply sacrificed to the ignorance 
 of the poor — the poor who, in their ignorance, struggle to find 
 some check — and yet we are forbidden to enlighten them, ta 
 give them some means which would act as the check they 
 need and yet would not harm them. It is not only amongst 
 the mothers of the artisan classes that you find this special 
 suffering ; you find it even amongst the wives of professional 
 men ; and here I need not urge upon you that one vast 
 source of suffering in the home is the almost continual ill- 
 health of the wife, whose health is so often broken down by 
 the almost annual increase of the family. I need not teU 
 you, because your own experience tells you, that a large num- 
 ber of injurious checks are not only used, but are constantly 
 talked about by married women for preventing the increase 
 of their families. And this would not be done if you did 
 not deny to them that physical knowledge which it is said 
 to be immoral to give to them ; but, gentlemen, I think it is- 
 far more immoral to force them into ill-health by withholdirig 
 from them that knowledge which they need. Much of the 
 knowledge needed is given to the wealthier women who- 
 wish to have it. That edition of Chavasse which I have, I 
 gave six shillings for at Paddington railway station, and you 
 may get the book much cheaper in paper covers for those who 
 can afford to pay one shilling or eighteen pence, and I know 
 of no reason why Messrs. Smith and Son can go to people 
 who can afford to pay is. 6d. and sell them without fear 
 Exactly the same knowledge which you say becomes obscene 
 when poor people pay sixpence for it. The knowledge 
 given by Chavasse is of the same character as that given by 
 Knowlton, and gives so much information that any intelli- 
 gent person would use it for the purpose of checking as well 
 as of increasing the family. On the father I will not say what 
 is the effect of the yearly increase, because you yourselves 
 can judge of the struggle at home with an ever-growing 
 family while the salary does not grow in the same proportion, 
 and I will only say here that, since this prosecution has been 
 begun, one class of men especially have written to us begging 
 
119 
 
 us to carry on this work. I am not now speaking of the very 
 poor, but we Iiave had a number of letters from country- 
 clergymen and town clergymen (who from their position, 
 many people would expect to be prejudiced against my 
 co-defendant and myself) expressing pleasure that we have 
 had the courage to take this subject up and begging us to go- 
 on with it because of the need they see for it. I put that 
 so because, with two clergymen in the witness box, it is well 
 that you should know that religious feeling is not against us 
 on this point, although many people would think it would 
 be in a discussion of this kind. There is another point as 
 to the health of the woman which Dr. Knowlton has put 
 somewhat strongly ; he urges that " many women are so con- 
 stituted that they cannot give birth to healthy, and some- 
 times not to living, children. Is it desirable, is it moral, 
 that such women should become pregnant ? Yet this is con- 
 tinually the case." I am still reading from page 6 of 
 Knowlton. There is no doubt that many men and women 
 have diseases of the constitution, have, say madness or con- 
 sumption, in the family, with many other kinds of hereditary 
 diseases, and that these people will marry. I ask you, 
 gentlemen, whether it is moral that these people should be 
 allowed to marry, to bring into the world children who will 
 be the inheritors of their own diseases ? Yet it is hard to 
 say that because there is a trace of madness in the family, 
 all the members of that family should be forbidden marriage. 
 If they do marry a sad experience often shows that the dis- 
 eases lying dormant in the parent break out in the child, and 
 cause much misery and suffering. Had you not better teach 
 that they may have the comfort of home, the comfort of 
 married life, but that they must, remembering that they 
 might transmit diseases, keep such restraints over themselves 
 as should prevent them from bringing children into the 
 world to inherit the diseases from which their own families 
 have suffered? Then there are the other cases referred to by 
 Knowlton — cases where the delivery of a living child is im- 
 possible, and may even have been proved impossible. Here 
 I am going to put a point to you which may astonish you as 
 much as it did myself Dr. Fleetwood Churchill, in dealing 
 with " the diseases of women " (I quote from the fifth 
 edition), points out that there are many cases where, from 
 previous experience, they know that a woman cannot give 
 birth to a living child. You will easily understand that there 
 may be cases of that kind which could not be discovered 
 
120 
 
 before marriage, or even until the first child was brought into 
 the world. A large number of cases are given here where the 
 doctors found it was impossible for a mother to give birth 
 to a living child. Instead of telling the mother that it was 
 utterly immoral to conceive a child which could never be 
 born alive, Dr. Churchill comes to the conclusion that where 
 they had once found out that a woman could not be delivered 
 of a living child, it was better to induce premature labour, or to 
 induce abortion at an early stage. I must put it to you, 
 that it is most immoral to allow a woman to go on conceiving 
 children that she will never be able to bring into the world — 
 for I hold that to destroy life, after it once lives, is the most 
 immoral doctrine that can be put forward ; and that when 
 a doctor goes to a man and tells him that his wife can never 
 bear a living child, he ought to be able also to impart 
 to him such physiological instruction as should prevent 
 the recurrence of the conception in future. It can never 
 be right to deliberately give life to a child who 
 can never, as you know, live to the birth — to give a 
 life which you are beforehand determined to destroy. 
 It seems to me that an argument of that kind is the most 
 disgraceful that can be put forward. If you are going to 
 talk about circulating knowledge which makes unchastity 
 safe, I ask you which is the most likely to cause unchastit)' — 
 to allow such principles as these to be disseminated abroad, 
 or to allow the publication of such checks as are advocated 
 by Dr. Knowlton ? Surely the latter are far less likely to do 
 harm, and if knowledge of the ease with which the con- 
 sequences of unchastity may be warded off is injurious to 
 public morality, then how can you permit a book to be circu- 
 lated which, as Dr. Churchill's do2s, gives a detailed account 
 of the fashion in which abortion may be induced — means of 
 which any woman, wicked enough to use them, might most 
 easily avail herself? Another point worthy your considera- 
 tion is taken from the Obstetrical Journal, which is sold at 
 all the railway bookstalls at is. 6d., and is published by 
 Messrs. Churchill, the great medical booksellers of Bur- 
 lington Street — a journal which is illustrated, and being so, 
 when the jury see it, I think they will say it is far more 
 likely to spread unchastity than is Knowlton's work. It 
 says there, that in a case where it was found necessary to 
 perform the Caesarian section on a woman, " while absorbed 
 in this operation it did not occur to anyone of us to so treat 
 the fallopian tubes as to prevent a future conception." If 
 
it is right for one doctor to go through that operation to 
 prevent conception in a married woman, surely it is not 
 wrong in another doctor to show a woman how the concep- 
 tion of too many children can be prevented. I must urge 
 upon you that if you are going to pass a censure on me, and 
 say that it is wrong and immoral to teach married women 
 how to prevent conception, you really ought to take steps 
 to pass a far stronger censure in cases where people are 
 induced to conceive children which it is deliberately pro- 
 posed to murder on bringing them into the world. I would 
 ask the jury to make a particular note of that, and to re- 
 member it in dealing with their verdict. In other cases the 
 doctor warns the father that the mother's health is so bad 
 that the birth of another child is likely to kill her. AVhat 
 can you do ? You cannot expect man and wife to live on 
 as if divorced. What happens ? Another child " comes," and 
 the woman dies. Is it immoral to teach how the wife may 
 live and yet not be divorced from her husband ? There is 
 another class of cases so often known that I need not dwell 
 on them. You do not expect a young man to live an abso- 
 lutely celibate life after marriage. If he does not, what 
 happens ? You get a strong man and a delicate woman. 
 That which is necessary to the health of the man is fatal to 
 the health of the woman. There are too many instances 
 where the home is unhappy because the husband complains 
 of the " coldness " of the wife, but this coldness is often not 
 from lack of love, it comes^ simply from physical exhaustion. 
 The consequence is that the man finds a kind of supple- 
 ment to the home which is simply destructive of everything 
 we wish to see in family life. I urge that it is not fair to 
 bring against us a charge of obscenity, when you find that we 
 are doing what we can to show men and women how to 
 remain thoroughly loyal to each other without injury to 
 the health of either, and so to enable one man and 
 one woman to be thoroughly true to each other through- 
 out the whole of their married life. We find that 
 Dr. Knowlton puts forward these checks as " the only 
 moral restraint to population " (p. 5) with which he is ac- 
 quainted, but that would not prevent another doctor from 
 presenting checks which are better than Dr. Knowlton's. 
 It is for that that I am so anxious to gain a verdict. You 
 will find a discussion going on in France as to these checks, 
 and as to their effects on the health of the married, and it 
 is a vital point to the happiness of the community that 
 
122 
 
 doctors should be allowed to express their thoughts on this 
 subject without the fear of a criminal prosecution, and that 
 they should not be liable to be told that they were endea- 
 vouring to promote promiscuous intercourse between the 
 sexes. That, gentlemen, is the first chapter of the book 
 which is here incriminated, and I will ask you whether, on 
 looking through that chapter, there is one single word which 
 bears out the contention raised yesterday morning by the 
 prosecution? Is there one word which shows that the 
 writer is using the word marriage as the cover for something 
 worse ? Can you, from the beginning to the end of that 
 chapter, honestly and fairly say that this is a cloak of phy- 
 siology, this is a pretence of morality, put on to cover an 
 immoral purpose, such as we are here charged with ? That 
 is dealing with the whole chapter ; and I may again inquire, 
 while I thoroughly bear in mind the ruling of my lord of yes- 
 terday, that you are not obliged to find obscenity in every 
 page; yet, I think, my lord, I may fairly put it that some intent 
 ought to be discoverable from this chapter, something which 
 should lead you to think that the writer's purpose was an 
 immoral one, for it seems unfair to brand a book as immoral 
 unless it is so in intent and in purpose. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Read by itself it might be 
 an introduction to a Malthusian treatise. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Just so, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The only way in which this 
 chapter can be attacked is, by saying what is the conclu- 
 sions to which it is intended to lead up, and then, from that 
 conclusion, it may be argued that, although in form and 
 pi-iina facie it is perfectly moral, yet that, from the conclu- 
 sions it is intended to lead up to, a different construction 
 might be put upon it. That was the argument of the Soli- 
 citor-General yesterday, and it is the only way in which this 
 first chapter can be taken to mean anything else than what it 
 says. Judging from what it says, it might be regarded as 
 perfectly honest and perfectly pure. Take it by itself, and 
 there is not a word in it which could be construed into any 
 impropriety of expression or thought. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : There are, on the contrary, my lord, a 
 great many expressions which show a very earnest mind. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is perfectly open for you 
 to argue that to the jury. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I do not propose, gentlemen, to read to 
 you any more of this chapter. 
 
The Lord Chief Justice : Will you not read the con- 
 cluding paragraph to the jury? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I feared, my lord, to take up more of the 
 time of the Court than your lordship might think necessary 
 for the proving of my case, and I did not wish to try 
 too severely the kindness and patience shown me by the 
 Court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The paragraph is very im- 
 portant, it seems to me, as touching the purpose of the 
 pamphlet. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Thank you, my lord ; I will, then, gentle- 
 men, just read the last paragraph of the chapter. " Inas- 
 much, then, as the scruples of incurring heavy responsibili- 
 ties deter from forming' moral connections, and encourage 
 intemperance and prostitution, the knowledge which enables 
 man to limit the nun;ber of his offspring would, in the pre- 
 sent state of things, save much unhappiness, and prevent 
 many crimes. Young persons, sincerely attached to each 
 other, and who might wish to marry, would marry earl}', 
 merely resolving not to become parents until prudence per- 
 mitted it. The young man, instead of solitary toil and 
 dissipation, would enjoy the society and the assistance of 
 her he had chosen as his companion; and the best years 
 of life, whose pleasures never return, would not be squan- 
 dered in riot, nor lost through mortification." Is that 
 written, gentlemen, with intent to deprave and corrupt ? 
 
 The Court here adjourned for lunch. 
 
 Upon re-assembling, Mrs. Besant continued : I take up 
 the subject at the beginning of the second chapter, and it is 
 only the first and the second paragraphs with which I pro- 
 pose to deal. The whole of the remainder of the chapter I 
 propose to leave to my co-defendant, for I understand that 
 any defence of his which is effectual will practically, if not 
 quite in legal strictness, be taken to cover myself, and, with 
 your lordship's permission and the consent Df the jury, I 
 think it would be pleasanter for all of us that I did not ga 
 through the whole of the details in this chapter. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice made a motion of assent 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It will be pleasanter to let it come from my 
 co-defendant, Mr. Bradlaugh, than from myself, so I will only 
 take the first paragraphs of this chapter. I have only taken 
 the liberty of putting it so, that one might not be thought to 
 be shirking one's duty in the matter. It will be fully dealt 
 with by my co-defendant. I go on then v/ith page 9 of the 
 
124 
 
 pamphlet and the first two paragraphs of Chapter II. I will 
 take the paragraphs separately. Dr. Knowlton says : " I 
 hold the following to be important and undeniable truths. 
 That every man has a natural right both to receive and convey 
 a knowledge of all the facts and discoveries of every art and 
 science, excepting only such as may be secured to some par- 
 ticular person or persons by copyright or patent. That a 
 physical truth, in its general effects, cannot be a moral evil. 
 That no fact in physics or in morals ought to be concealed 
 from the inquiring mind." The first half-dozen lines are not 
 worth troubling you with, but I will take " that a physical 
 truth cannot be amoral evil," and I may say that I thoroughly 
 and entirely endorse that;, that I hold that no physical 
 knowledge, properly taught and properly understood, can for 
 one moment be taken to be a moral evil ; and I think here I 
 may, perhaps, take leave to point out that the case in which 
 your lordship and your learned brethren gave judgment — the 
 case of the Queen v. Hicklin — in that case there were 
 no physiological truths dealt with at all. In fact, that case 
 has really no bearing of any kind on this present case, and 
 has nothing in common with it. There is no kind of con- 
 nection between a case where obscene matter is put forward, 
 with the admission that it is obscene — matter that cannot be 
 any good ; because questions as to certain crimes can never 
 be supposed to convey knowledge that may be useful to 
 either man, woman, or child, and the questions there are all 
 of the most — I was going to say — of the most disgusting cha- 
 racter, without conveying one scrap of knowledge that could 
 possibly be useful to any one, and it stands on an entirely 
 different footing to the case where, rightly or wrongly, a pre- 
 tence of medical knowledge or instruction is put forward. I 
 say a "pretence," because it is said by the prosecution that 
 it is only a pretence, and supposing it were so, nothing in 
 the Queen v. Hicklin would touch this, because, in 
 that case, there was no pretence made of any sort that 
 knowledge useful to the community was sought to 
 be given by the publication. (The Lord Chief 
 Justice nodded assentingly.) Knowlton points out that 
 no physical truth can be a moral evil. It is a point 
 vital to me in this, that you should recognise the fact 
 that no physical truth is in itself indecent. I do not mean 
 that under cover of a physical fact indecent suggestions 
 may not be made. I am bound to admit that they may be 
 made under cover of physical knowledge, but I contend 
 
125 
 
 that in itself no physical fact is an indecent fact. I will put it' 
 that that is especially and strongly shown by the whole action 
 of our present Government. And speaking of govern- 
 ments, I do not mean, in any fashion, to raise a question of 
 the particular Government with which my prosecutors are 
 connected, or even for one moment to insinuate that the 
 matter of party may lend a spirit of maliciousness to this 
 prosecution. In the question of physiology. Whig, Tory, 
 or Radical Government would, I think, act alike, in that of 
 which I am going to speak. You will remember that the 
 learned Solicitor-General said, that if this book were pub- 
 lished in a medical room, or sold to medical students, it 
 would not be indecent, but he contended it was obscene 
 because it might be sold to boys and girls in the public 
 streets, and he contended that practically a book, which to 
 a medical man is a useful book, a decent book, a moral 
 book, would become utterly obscene and utterly indecent 
 the moment it was published in a girls' school, and placed 
 in the hands of girls and boys. Now that, gentlemen, is a 
 very important point. Foj: I hold in my hand the directory 
 authorised by the Government (and for the moment I 
 remind you that the Solicitor-General, being a law officer of 
 the Crown, may fairly be said to be bound by the aqts of 
 his Government). You will find, that at the present moment, 
 the Tory Government — and I mean nothing here as against 
 the Tory Government, for they are carrying on exactly' 
 the same system that was carried on by the Govern- 
 ment preceding — in the directory that I hold here — 
 this directory, ray lord, is revised to August, 1873, and 
 is the 28th edition, with regulations for establishing 
 and conducting science schools and classes, and it is 
 issued by the Science and Art Department, the Committee 
 of the Council at South Kensington — it is printed by 
 Eyre and Spottiswoode, whom you well know, gentlemen, as 
 the Queen's printers, the authorised printers of blue books 
 and Acts of Parliament, so that it comes before you with 
 the whole authority that a Government can give to any pub- 
 lication. You will find that they issue a list of books in 
 which they examine the young boys and young girls who 
 present themselves for examination in the science classes in 
 connection with South Kensington, and your lordship and 
 the jury will be thoroughly well aware that these classes are 
 not intended for adult men and women, but are intended 
 for young boys and gids ; and boys and girls, under the age 
 
126 
 
 of sixteen years of age, are in the habit of attending them, 
 and in the habit of going up for examination ; and you will 
 find in the examination for honours, that candidates will be ex- 
 amined in any subject treated of in the standard English 
 works upon physioloOT, such as Carpenter's " Principles of 
 Human Physiology," Marshall's " Outlines of Human and 
 Comparative Physiology," &c. You will find the Govern- 
 ment putting into the hands of young girls, under the 
 age of sixteen, as text-books : " Lessons in Elementary 
 physiology," by Huxley, "Human Physiology," by Carpenter, 
 a " Handbook in Physiology," by Kirke, and another 
 one by Marshall, in each of which they may be examined. 
 Then in the syllabus, they are told that the knowledge of 
 the candidates respecting anatomy and physiology will " be 
 expected to be real and not mere book work,'" and th^ the 
 candidates should be able to study the bones of the human 
 skeleton, and also the soft parts, as well as the bones, of the 
 higher domestic animals ; and you will find that it is very 
 carefully put forward that they be examined on the v.hole 
 of the system of reproduction, that they are to be thoroughly 
 well acquainted with the structures and character of the 
 male and female organs of reproduction, that they are to 
 know (I will not trouble you here with the technical terms) 
 the whole mode of development of the unborn being, 
 and that right through they are to be prepared to put do^^^l 
 in answers to an examination not only what Knowlton 
 gives, but — in addition to that which is gi\-en by Knowlton as 
 necessary for the point of which he treats — a whole mass of 
 technical and of detailed physiological instruction, not about 
 one sex alone ; and young girls of thirteen, fourteen, and 
 fifteen, are by order of the Government instructed in 
 every detail of the male organs of generation from beginning 
 to end, not one point left out, and it is not dealt with in 
 Carpenter and Kirke in the diy fashion in which Dr. Knowlton 
 deals v.'ith it — mere dry physiological details; it is 
 dealt with, as you will see when my co-defendant speaks, in 
 language which is calculated to arouse passion, because, 
 while Knowlton carefully avoids one syllable which gives 
 the outward form, the attraction which might be supposed 
 to rouse pp.ssion ; while, for instance, he speaks of a girl 
 gaining " a more womanly appearance," and says nothing 
 more, you will find in Carpenter's, and in Kirke's books, 
 put into the hands of children, at the express sanction of tlie 
 Government, of which the Solicitor-General is' an officer. 
 
127 
 
 a detailed description of the attractive results of the 
 development of a girl's form, going through every detail in a 
 style that I should scarcely think it wise to put into the 
 hands of those so young, and also speaking of the attractive 
 influence these changes have on the opposite sex. By the 
 authority of the Government these things are put into the 
 hands of young girls and boys, and I ask you with what 
 kind of decency is it that the Solicitor-General, an officer of 
 the Government which authorises a list of books of that 
 kind, comes here to prosecute us for putting into the hands 
 of people and issuing a book, beside which their own books 
 are, if physiology is obscene and if there is any measure in 
 obscenity, immeasurably more obscene than the one for 
 which I plead to-day? We can bring you the very people 
 who have received these books as prizes for studies under 
 the Government examinations. We can bring you a boy 
 who received Carpenter's " Human Physiology ;" and not 
 only does Carpenter deal with the question in a manner 
 beside which our book is the utmost extreme of delicacy, but 
 Carpenter is illustrated with a number of plates, and when 
 the jury see them — if they have not already dealt with the 
 subject before — they will.be astonished that with the autho- 
 rity of the Government such books are put into the hands 
 of young boys and girls. For myself, I do not object that 
 this should be done, but I do object that the Solicitor-General 
 should say to you that this book circulated in a girls' school 
 would be obscene, because if so it would be hardly con- 
 sistent that such books as those I have mentioned should be 
 placed in the hands of boys and girls under Government 
 authority, and that, then, he should come here and try to 
 rouse your virtuous indignation to pronounce as obscene 
 that for which we plead. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What classes do you mean ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : The school and classes of science now 
 held, my lord, at South Kensington, and the Government 
 put forward a number of books which they require as text- 
 books for the children to be examined in. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : In the larger directory, under the head 
 of physiology, and in the small one, the instruction for the 
 reproductive organs. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : That is a point which is most important, 
 because one would not like to accuse the Solicitor-General 
 of acting an indignation before you that he did not 
 thoroughly feel. We can only suppose, lor a moment, that 
 
123 
 
 he was utterly ignorant that the Government had done the 
 very thing which he characterised as obscene, for I am 
 sure all ties of party, if nothing else, would prevent a gen- 
 tleman in open court from characterising the action of his 
 colleagues in office as actions which were thoroughly obscene, 
 and ought to be indicted at common law. I will claim that | 
 if you bring in a verdict against us it will only be fair that 
 you should also sit in judgment upon my Lord Beaconsfield, , 
 my Lord Salisbury, and my Lord Derby, and that they ! 
 should hold the same position we hold in court to-day, to answer ' 
 for circulating books which are distinctly obscene, which we 
 find them putting into the hands of young girls ; and if you 
 are going to fine us, or imprison us, or if you are going to 
 give a verdict which shall make it the duty of the learned 
 j udge to sentence us to fine or imprisonment, you wiU re- 
 member that we have taken no steps to circulate these 
 books in girls' schools at all ; we have simply treated them 
 in the ordinary way, with no special pressure, and have 
 never, as the Government has done, issued special lists 
 and offered special rewards for the preparing of young girls 
 in them ; we have made a point of putting it to married 
 people, while the Government makes a point of putting it 
 to young unmarried girls scarcely out of their childhood. 
 And I hold so thoroughly that the Government is right 
 in putting that information in the hands of boys and girls 
 (and I am speaking to you here as the mother of a 
 daughter for whose education you must at least suppose I 
 have some care and some interest), that I say deliberately to 
 you, as mother of a daughter whom I love, that I believe it will 
 tend to her happiness in her future, as well as to her health, 
 that she shall not have made to her that kind of mystery 
 about sexual functions that every man and woman must 
 know sooner or later ; that I feel, with Dr. Acton, that it is 
 better to give instruction honestly, decently, and carefully, 
 than to allow it to be thrown into children by their experience 
 of the world (possibly in a bad and evil way), and I put it 
 distinctly that the Government is doing a service to the 
 coming generation when it places in the hands of young 
 boys and girls the exact physiological facts which we are seek- 
 ing to spread among adults to-day. And further I put it that 
 when this Government teaching has had its full course for a 
 generation, this work of Knowlton's will not be wanted any 
 longer. Unfortunately, the adults of the present time have 
 not had the advantage of the instruction which the Government 
 
129 
 
 is now giving to the young : when the young have been in- 
 structed in Carpenter, Kirke, and in other books of physi- 
 ology, this little pamphlet will not be needed, because every 
 scrap of information which is found in it, every line which 
 you can point out as covering any sort of words which you 
 may think to be obscene, will, as you will find from my co- 
 defendant's speech, have been thoroughly covered by words 
 put into the hands of children by the Government, and when 
 they have been trained in this fashion there will be no need 
 to circulate among them that for which we are now indicted. 
 It is only because former Governments have not thought it 
 their duty to circulate physiological knowledge that we are 
 condemned for doing it ; it would be far better that people 
 should gain that information from the mouths of professors 
 in the schools and classes of science. Some 20 or 30 years 
 hence Knowlton will no longer be required ; Government 
 will have taken his position, and will have taught all he 
 teaches, and when the coming generation have had the 
 advantage of that training from men selected by the 
 Government, then will there be no need to give them the 
 physical truths which Knowlton wrote for a generation even 
 more ignorant than the present. Further, not only is a 
 physical truth no moral evil, but I will put it yet more broadly 
 that no physical description in any fashion tends to arouse 
 impure thoughts ; in fact, that it has exactly the opposite 
 effect. Physiological knowledge tends to inspire so deep a 
 reverence for the marvellous way in which Nature acts, for 
 tbe fashion in which she evolves from the apparently most un- 
 likely materials the most unexpected results, that physio- 
 logical knowledge and teaching inspire a feeling for Nature 
 of reverence so deep and intense that there is no room left 
 for a coarse or an impure thought to enter into connection 
 with the matter. There has been no coarseness attached 
 to the reproductive system spread throughout the vegetable 
 kingdom ; and if less mystery were made about the matter, 
 if children were taught that, above all physical functions, 
 they were bound to reverence and think carefully of, and 
 dissever from every element of indecency, that power 
 whereby Nature crowns them with the power of giving new 
 life — if you gave them information such as that, you would 
 do away with the whole suggestion of indecency which 
 hangs around it now. If, for a moment, you will think of 
 the point with which I am dealing, you will acknowledge 
 that in no sense can physiological knowledge be treated as 
 
 I 
 
obscene. Think, for a moment, that every doctor who 
 comes into your homes in time of trial or sickness is a maa 
 to whom every physiological detail of the frame is aa 
 familiar as possible : to a scientific man, or a medical man,, 
 there is no difference between one part of the body and 
 another. There is no more thought of indecency in the- 
 mind of the student connected v/ith the reproductive 
 organs than is connected with the brain. It is simply that 
 the course of habit has thrown over them a stigma of inde- 
 cency which it is ours to try to remove by taking away that . 
 cover of ignorance which has covered them with curiosity. 
 You find Dr. Acton pleading for that knowledge in lan- 
 guage and expression which I cannot pretend to rival. He 
 says that the whole attraction of impure literature simply 
 gains its strength from the fact that people make 
 a parade of concealment about the functions of 
 Nature, thus giving them a factitious allurement that 
 they never would have if they had been dealt with in a 
 a proper manner. So far from a book of this kind raising 
 sexual passions, nothing can show more utter ignorance of 
 mankind than to pretend that it were possible it should da 
 so. If you were going to sit down to a special breakfast or 
 dinner — and, if I were speaking within the confines of -the 
 city, I might say to a Lord Mayor's dinner, for you aa 
 citizens might have been there — you would not choose 
 to stimulate your appetite with a dry physiological treatise 
 on the digestive organs. It is very much the same with phy- 
 siological treatises of the other kind. No man with an 
 impure mind, who wants to rouse sexual passion, who- 
 wants in any way to give reins to his passion, will go care- 
 fully through dry details which, by the kind of thought they 
 give, and by awakening the brain, utterly destroy all possi- 
 bility of passion, as I am sure your own experience will 
 tell you amongst medical men who make these things their 
 study. Passing then from that, I will take the following para- 
 graph : " Some," Dr. Knowlton says, " may make a misuse 
 of knowledge ; but that is their fault, and it is not right that 
 one person should be deprived of knowledge, of spirits, of 
 razors, or of anything else which is harmless in itself, and 
 may be useful to him, because another may misuse it." That 
 point, my lord, is a vital one in this instance, because it is 
 urged, and has been urged in this presence, and urged \-ery 
 strongly outside the court (though I ha\-e no right to intro- 
 duce that here) ; it has been urged here by the learned 
 
131 
 
 Solicitor-General that while this pamphlet, if confined to 
 married people, might do no harm, the danger of the pam- 
 phlet is that, while addressed to married people, amongst 
 whom the knowledge is not injurious, it may fall into the 
 hands of young people, and people who are unmarried, and 
 may point out to young women especially (for young men 
 do not seem to be taken into consideration on matters of 
 this kind ; it is apparently allowed that they may be as fast 
 or as objectionable as they choose) — it has been urged that 
 young women of bad character really, but of good character 
 outwardly, may findthat they may become safely unchaste by the 
 knowledge which is given to them by Knowlton. I hav/eS 
 found very great stress laid upon that by the Solicitor^ 
 General, for he not only assured us that in publishing this 
 pamphlet our intention was to destroy married life, and to 
 promote promiscuous intercourse, and to make unchastity 
 safe — he not only did us the honour to suppose that we should 
 place ourselves in this dangerous position for nothing except 
 for the pleasure of corrupting young girls — not only did he say 
 that was our intent, but also that the book was specially 
 calculated to point out to unmarried females the way in 
 which they could be unchaste without the danger of dis- 
 covery, which might otherwise arise. Now, for a moment, 
 let me say that the misuse of knowledge does not make the 
 knowledge bad ; using knowledge wrongly does not make 
 the knowledge obscene ; the knowledge remains the same 
 v/hether it be used or abused, and the fault of the misuse 
 does not lie with the giver of the knowledge, it lies with the 
 person who abuses the knowledge. I will lay that down as 
 a principle virhich none will venture to dispute. Suppose 
 you say that a knowledge of poisons enables the person 
 who obtains it secretly to kill another, or to poison a family 
 v/ith a safety which he might not secure were it not for the 
 knowledge, would you, because one person might sooner or 
 later poison his neighbour, venture to say that a botanical 
 book which gave all the properties of plants and included 
 poisons, and which was found extremely useful in a medical 
 sense — would you say that was a book calculated to injure 
 the morals of society because it gave that necessary infor- 
 mation, and at the same time enabled some one person to 
 obtain knowledge which enabled him to administer a poison 
 which was not discoverable by medical analysis ? My lord 
 pointed out to the learned Solicitor-General, I thought very 
 fairly — it struck me as a very just point to be put by the 
 
 I 2 
 
132 
 
 judge — he pointed out that in dealing with the word 
 " obscene " it was not in any fashion necessary that the book 
 should in itself contain language obscene and coarse ; on the 
 •contrary, he stated that you might, under the meaning of such an 
 indictment as this, include words which would be calculated 
 to deprave the morals of society, and that it was not merely 
 whether the book was obscene in the common sense of the 
 term, but whether its tendency was to vitiate public morality. 
 And while for a moment that might be thought to be a re- 
 mark which might have been directed somewhat unfavour- 
 ably upon my co-defendant and myself, I yet so thoroughly 
 felt that the learned judge was raising a point which ought to 
 be put before you, that I felt almost grateful to him — if one 
 ■could be grateful for a momentary disadvantage — for having 
 raised the point. I think, however, that the point I put to 
 you about a botanical treatise exactly covers the contention 
 raised by the learned judge, for no one would pretend that 
 the knowledge of poisons in a botanical book ought to be 
 withheld from the public on the ground that that knowledge 
 might tend to harm public morals by giving to already 
 vicious people the knowledge that they might turn to a bad 
 purpose. That is a point which I will take lea^e to submit 
 to the learned judge and to the jury as clearly bearing on 
 this case. And take that part to which I referred as dealt with 
 in Churchill's " Diseases of Women," where knowledge as 
 to the procuring abortion is given. It might be urged that 
 that gave a power of harm, but even then you cannot limit 
 medical thought and medical science by this argument, 
 that people of impure and obsceiie minds may put a bad 
 use on the knowledge which is given. In all knowledge you 
 must get an increased power of harm as well as of good. 
 It is the very condition of knowledge that you have the 
 knowledge of good and evil side by side. You cannot say 
 you will have the one thing without the other; that 
 is entirely beyond your choice, that you cannot have; 
 you must have the knowledge, and with the knowledge 
 of good must necessarily, unfortunately, come also the 
 knowledge of the abuse of what is good, that may 
 fairly be taken as evil. And I put it to you that the 
 argument against Knowlton because Knowlton may be 
 misused is an argument which, if generally applied, would 
 forbid any information to be published, and would make 
 the only virtue of society consist in the utter ignorance 
 of all its members. Take any case you like. Take knives. 
 
133 
 
 for instance; knives are sold, not for the purpose of cutting' 
 people's throats ; but, if you take the case of the sailors round 
 the docks in Eastern London, you will find that every man 
 there carries a clasp-knife in his pocket, and that it is very com- 
 mon for cases of stabbing to arise. The men do not carry the 
 knives to stab their fellows with, they carry them to cut the 
 rigging, among which their work lies, and they are very handy 
 in that capacity ; but you find cases of stabbing arise with 
 far greater frequency than they otherwise would, because the 
 means of stabbing are ready in the pockets of the men whose 
 passions are aroused. Are you going to forbid the use of 
 knives among the sailors because some of them use their 
 knives for the bad purpose of stabbing instead of for the 
 good purpose of cutting the rigging of the vessels ? Are you 
 going to forbid the use of guns because a poacher may 
 misuse one to shoot a gamekeeper instead of using it for a 
 legitimate purpose ? Do you mean to argue that taking the 
 licence off guns is wrong because it enables more people to 
 carry them ? Are you going to argue that ropes ought not 
 to be sold in the public streets because a rope can be bought 
 for 6d., and that that rope can be used by a murderer to 
 hang his victim, and that you must not sell it because a 
 murderer will find it so easy to buy a rope ? Look at lucifer 
 matches. Fifty years ago, when lucifer matches were less 
 common than they are now, it might have been urged that 
 you should not sell lucifer matches among farm labourers 
 because it would be so easy to set fire to farmers' ricks with 
 them. With the old flint and steel it was not so easy to 
 fire a rick as it is with lucifer matches, and clearly, therefore, 
 you must not permit them amongst the agricultural population, 
 because you put a power to injure into their hands that they 
 would not possess if they kept to the old flint and steel. 
 Gentlemen, that argument would never have been brought 
 before you if it had not been that this is not a fair prosecu- 
 tion at all. This is simply a trumped up and malicious 
 prosecution. This book has been in circulation for forty 
 years, and now private spite and private malice have dragged 
 itforwardfrom the obscurity of the very small circulation which 
 it had, and has given it a circulation of an enormous extent, 
 which, otherwise, it never would have had. This prosecu- 
 tion has been made purely and distinctly out of private and 
 party spite, and those who conduct the case are compelled 
 to make up ridiculous arguments of this kind, and to read 
 long quotations, in order to fill up the time for which they feel 
 
134 
 
 ■compelled to speak to the jury. We have heard for this reason 
 the whole of the preface on which I should almost be ready to 
 rest my defence, and of which practically I am following out 
 the lines. They talk of the harm which may ensue to one 
 ■or two people, and so drsig you into the belief of cor- 
 ruption that- has no existence in the book, and^ was 
 never in the minds of the people who published 
 it. You are asked to prevent the circulation of this 
 book because women and others may abuse the know- 
 ledge there given. The circulation of this book, if I may 
 judge in any fashion from my own personal experience, is 
 valued by poor men and women in all parts of the country 
 (and I can't help remembering that the editor of the Times 
 newspaper said that he judged the e :ling of the country by 
 the state of his letter bag in the morning). If the remark 
 of the editor of the Times may be taken as a proof of the 
 feeling of the country, then what you are asked to do is 
 nothing less than to prevent the circulation of a book 
 that may bring comfort to thousands of English homes, 
 because one woman here and there may abuse the know- 
 ledge which it contains. Why, the knowledge is given in a 
 variety of ways, as I shall be compelled to show you before 
 I sit down. The very knowledge given in Knowlton's book 
 is given in a book practically authorized by Government ; 
 I am referring to the report under the Royal Commission 
 on the working of the Contagious Diseases' Acts, and you will 
 find presently that the knowledge most objected to in Knowlton 
 is given there, and it is sold by Messrs Longman, who are 
 not medical publishers, at the price of one shilling. I will 
 only now say that that is a book which, from its very title 
 would attract those by whom the knowledge would 
 be most likely to be misused. I put it to you, is it 
 likely that this knowledge would increase unchastity 
 among women? If you read the appendi.'c — and I 
 may say, though we have printed the appendix, we do not 
 know who ■wrote it. We have printed it because it formed 
 part of the book which was prosecuted before ; and we felt 
 bound to do so, in order to thoroughly challenge the 
 verdict of the jury upon it — in the appendix you will find 
 the argument I am alluding to very clearly put forward. 
 Who this is written by, as I have said, I can't tell ; but it 
 was published in the columns of the Boston Investigator. 
 If you will carefully glance over it, it will sa\-e yourtime, 
 and I will not read it through, as I do not want to weary 
 
135 
 
 you. I You will see that the objection put fonvard by some 
 against diffusing the knowledge contained in the book is 
 the fear that it would increase illegal connections ; and you 
 v'ill clearly remember that I put it to you this morning that 
 the knowledge would have exactly a contrary effect, and it 
 is here put that it is "an outrageous slander" to contend that 
 women are preserved in chastity from the fear of the conse- 
 quences that may result from the contrary. In this English 
 court of justice need I argue for one single moment 
 that English women are not only kept chaste from the 
 fear of becoming mothers? To do that would be to 
 insult your common-sense and to waste your time. I am 
 sure you feel with me that the chastity of English 
 women is maintained by a feeling purer and nobler than 
 the mere fear of the shame and disgrace that might ensue 
 from a motherhood which was unsanctioned by the law. 
 The fact is, that anyone who could misuse the knowledge 
 that is given here, is so far gone already that there is very 
 little to gain by keeping this knowledge from her.j If a 
 woman has been so carried away by passion as to destre the 
 book for purposes of passion, she will not be pushed any 
 further by the possession of this knowledge. Fear, as you 
 know too well, does not keep women chaste, and the only 
 ■effect the book could have on a woman who, for one 
 moment, contemplated the consequences which are spoken 
 of by the prosecution, would be to dissuade her from her 
 passion. The fact that the woman had the patience to wade 
 through dry physiological details, to make- the preparation 
 that is in this book contemplated, shows that it is no longer 
 a question of 'passion carrying her away, but a quiet and 
 steady determination to go on the wrong path, whigh no 
 amount of persuasion would keep her back from. If you 
 are going to say that the niothers of England who seek for 
 this knowledge, that those who plead to me to fight this 
 question for them, are to be kept in ignorance because 
 ■one woman here and there, already unchaste in thought, 
 may become unchaste in act, I say yciu are sacrificing the 
 many scarcely even for the benefit of the few. You are 
 injuring the great majority of decent, modest, respectable 
 vromen, who jiesire to have this knowledge, for the sake of 
 •one here and there whom no care on our part cap prevent 
 from getting the knowledge she desires, f Do not think you 
 can stop the knowledge by stopping this book. There are 
 • plenty of books, unfortunately, of a very different character. 
 
136 
 
 from whicTi those who desire to be unchaste can gain their 
 knowledge. This book will not help them, for Knowlton, 
 warns them too sternly against the evils of unchastity He 
 tells them too much of the dangers that result from un- 
 chastity, too much of the dangers that come from excess. 
 Put the book into the hands of man or woman who is 
 known to be running wild in this tnatter, and you will find 
 that the dangers pointed out in the book will frighten them 
 back and destroy the charm of the temptations which they 
 feels. You will never do harm with a book like that ; there 
 are too many books to which they may turn on the matter for 
 them to go to a dry book like Knowlton's. I put it to 
 you now, as I do not propose to carry on this chapter 
 further, that it is the mothers of families, as a matter of fact, 
 who express so keen an interest in this book ; and if we had 
 been so fortunate, as naturally we have not been, as to have 
 had the pleasure of seeing any of you, or the learned judge, 
 at any of the meetings which have been held on the sub- 
 ject, you would have marked one very curious point — that 
 the whole audience, except the very smallest minority, was 
 composed of the rathermorethanmiddle-aged,somewhat hard- 
 featured, men and women, who certainly would not have 
 been drawn there from any feeling of prurient curiosity, but 
 were simply drawn there by feeling the pressure of their need 
 to know something more than they did at the present time, 
 to learn how they might preserve their children from the 
 sufferings they had themselves undergone. If it were in 
 any degree admissible — and I do not think it is — I believe 
 that the learned judge would feel it his duty to stop me if I 
 brought here in evidence a large mass of letters from women 
 of all classes which I have received : as a mere point of 
 law I might read them one after another, but I think, to do 
 that would be to shelter myself under a point of law which 
 it would not be fair to raise ; for though the learned judge 
 said yesterday that he could not prevent my learning a 
 quotation by heart, and reciting it as part of my speech, 
 and therefore could not prevent me from reading, yet I do 
 not want to weary either the judge or the jury with any 
 unfair amount of matter of that kind. I will therefore, 
 only put it to you shortly that amongst these letters, some of 
 them of the most touching character — letters, gentlemen, 
 that however much you might be prejudiced against me, 
 you could not hear me read without being touched by the 
 tone of their contents — letters of women who have had nine. 
 
137 
 
 ten, or twelve children, imploring me to save their 
 daughters from going through their own deplorable and 
 terrible experience. You would feel, had you seen these 
 letters, that even a man in the rank in the law of the 
 learned counsel for the prosecution, who stands up and 
 puts the taint of obscenity on my intent, simply insults your 
 common sense, and makes a verdict given in favour 
 of the prosecution an entire impossibility to be given con- 
 sistently with your conscience. You will find a mass of 
 letters coming from those who have had this book in early 
 life, and who have experienced the benefits of the work. 
 One I have pairticularly in my mind at the present moment, 
 from a certain station-master in Scotland, who says that his 
 wife, almost dying after her last confinement, the whole future 
 of their lives looked black and gloomy. Some mere chance 
 threw this 6d. pamphlet into their hands, when it was pub- 
 lished by James Watson. He tells how they read the book; 
 how they acted upon it; how his wife grew strong and 
 healthy, and how, at the present time, years afterwards, they 
 are looking forward to an addition to their family with ai 
 pleasure they would never have been able to experience had 
 they not had this book. You may think that in a matter of 
 this kind, I somewhat overdraw it, and that I lay too much 
 stress on a mere 6d. pamphlet, but if you knew the feeling 
 about it, the earnestness, the intensity with which men and 
 women look upon this question, you would not wonder at my 
 zeal. Those who read a book for the sake of the impurity 
 contained in it will not find this pamphlet attractive to them. 
 It is circulated amongst those who need its teachings, and 
 it is those for whom I plead. I acknowledge that medical 
 periodicals may be read for a most impure purpose by- 
 impure minds ; I acknowledge that the Lancet, which is 
 published at all the railway bookstalls, that the Medical 
 Observer, which is sold on the Metropolitan Railway, I 
 acknowledge that all these works may be read for impure 
 purposes by impure minds ; but that is no reason why this 
 book, or those journals, should be suppressed, because the 
 impure gets from them the knowledge which he would certainly 
 get in some other way if he did not get it through these. 
 That is no reason why earnest and respectable people 
 ' should not obtain the knowledge which may contribute to 
 their married happiness. The rest of this chapter I 
 propose to pass right over, and to leave to my co- 
 defendant. I stop for one moment on pages 31, 
 
138 
 
 32, and 33, which I shall not read, only asking you to 
 glance at the subject-matter : but I want first to make a 
 general remark on this chapter; the learned Solicitor-General, 
 ■doubtless through utter ignorance of medical science, 
 used an expression in dealing with this chapter which is 
 ■calculated to mislead you. He pointed out to you, I 
 don't know whether he intended you to read the book or 
 not, or whether he took the point for granted, that this book 
 dealt not only with the reproductive organs but also with the 
 external forms. The word " external," if you_ had not read 
 the book, would convey an utterly false idea to_ you ; 
 " external " and " internal," used as medical terms in the 
 ■ordinary medical division, were pointed out to you as 
 evidence of indecency. The word " external " used as the 
 Solicitor-General used it, conveyed an utterly false impression 
 -which there is nothing in the book to cover. When you 
 come to deal with Carpenter you will find expressions 
 -which do convey indecent impressions to indecent minds, 
 "but you will not find anything here to justify the idea the 
 learned Solicitor-General conveyed. I trust he did that 
 under a mistake, and made a suggestion he will regret. I 
 will now put to you another point which my co-defendant 
 -will put to you more fully : the Solicitor-General inferred 
 that the indecency of the publication was increased because 
 it only dealt with one sex and not with the other. The 
 suggestion was most unwarranted. Knowlton only deals 
 with the physiological details which are necessary for the 
 application of his arguments. He does does not deal with 
 the other sex any further than is absolutely needful, and for 
 the learned Solicitor-General to put as a suggestion of 
 indecency what is simply a delicacy on the part 
 ■of Knowlton is most utterly unjust. I ask you to 
 remember, as I do not doubt .you will have more fully 
 impressed upon you than I will venture to do, that what is 
 really a proof of the delicacy of Knowlton's work the 
 Solicitor-General tries to turn into a suggestion of its com- 
 plete indecency. Now I will refer you to pages 31, 32, and 
 33 for a special reason, but shall have here to put in 
 evidence a book by Dr, Chavasse called "Advice to a 
 Wife," and another book by Dr. Bull, called " Advice to 
 a Mother." The two books are exactly the same in 
 character, and they deal throughout with the wliole 
 of the questions which affect a married women from 
 her marriage day. The only difference between Knov.-ltoa 
 
139 
 
 and these books is that both Chavasse and Bull and 
 are far more detailed in their descriptions. They give a 
 large number of stories to make their works read pleasantly 
 instead of writing a mere dry treatise like that of Knowlton. 
 1 put it to you, as to the information given in those 
 pages which are objected to by the prosecution, that the 
 value of the information to a young' married woman 
 cannot be over-estimated. So great is the truth of 
 this that you will find that many medical men, of careful 
 delicacy of mind, give these books to young married 
 \yoriien who are their patients, for the very purpose of 
 avoiding the necessity of going into many personal details 
 which otherwise they would be compelled to deal with. I 
 am spealung here from my own personal experience, because 
 when I was first married my own doctor gaye me the work 
 of Chavasse, on the ground that it was better for a woman 
 to read 'the medical details than it was for her to have to 
 apply to one of the opposite sex to settle matters vv^hich did 
 not need to be dealt with by the doctor ; practically these 
 pages in Knowlton's work are a very short and very careful 
 summary of the subject dealt with by Chavasse and Bull : 
 -where you have got to deal with a sixpenny book you must 
 summarise the details. Many a young married woman does 
 not like to apply to a medical man on maiiy points that 
 may arise ; she sometimes does herself serious harm, and 
 perhaps brings on miscarriage, and lays the foundation of 
 future ill-health ; or she sometimes thinks herself seriously 
 ill when no real disease exists ; these pages are simply 
 invaluable to a woman, and they give to a poor woman for 
 sixpence that which a richer woman can buy for five or six 
 shillings. I will ask you whether for one moment, seeing 
 that these books are both sold by a member of Her 
 Majesty's Government, that they are not sold with any 
 restrictions, that they are sold on railway bookstalls, whether, 
 if any blame is to rest upon us because we publish a short 
 quietly worded treatise on that which others publish far 
 more warmly worded, no blame is to rest on them ? Surely 
 English justice, whatever your opinion may be, common 
 English justice compels you, if you bring a verdict of guilty 
 against us, to at once institute a prosecution against Mr. 
 Smith, who is one of Her Majesty's Government, for circu- 
 lating amongst the higher classes at 2S. 6d. a work which 
 you say is indecent when circulated amongst the poorer 
 classes at 6d. The point as to the use of these books seems 
 
14° 
 
 to me so thoroughly pertinent, that I will here quote to you 
 what Dr. Bull puts in issuing this work; in his preface 
 he says : " In the minds of married women, and especially 
 in young females, those feelings of delicacy naturally 
 and commendably exist which prevent a full disclosure 
 of their circumstances when they find it necessary to 
 consult their medical advisers. To meet this difficulty, 
 as well as to counteract the ill-advised suggestions 
 of ignorant persons during the period of confinement 
 ^are the chief objects of the following pages." This 
 book is now edited by Dr. Parker, who has edited the 
 work since the death of Dr. Bull. The same remark also 
 applies to another part of the book (pp. 15 and 16), where 
 you will find a number of remarks objected to by the pro- 
 secution. You will also find, when my co-defendant comes 
 to speak, that all its details are collected from books whose 
 circulation has never been interfered with, and that the 
 only difference between Chavasse and Knowlton is that 
 Knowlton is dry and very brief when compared side by side 
 with Chavasse and Bull, both of whom use a large amouijt 
 of what is called " literary padding." Once more I shall 
 have to ask you to look at the book itself for one moment, 
 and refer to pages 34, 35, 36, and 37 ; these pages deal 
 with cases of sterility and impotence, and the Lord Chief 
 Justice — I thought very wisely — pointed out to the learned 
 Solicitor-General that, in dealing with sterility, any man 
 who could give some cure which would remove sterility 
 might fairJy be described as a benefactor to the human 
 race. As this point has already come from the Bench 
 as an expression of opinion, I do not think I need 
 trouble you with any argument on it. Knowlton, in 
 dealing with it has dealt with it thoroughly within the 
 bounds of his subject, and has not included any unnecessary 
 information, but has only given that which it was his duty 
 to include in order that he might be understood by those 
 for whom he wrote. The remedies are here very much the 
 same as thosewhichareapprovedof in the other medical books; 
 but suppose they were not, suppose that there was anything in 
 the suggestion of the learned counsel against one remedy — 
 difference of remedy, surely, cannot constitute obscenity in 
 medical works ; when the remedies which are proposed are 
 different they may be matters of discussion amongst those 
 who are qualified to discuss the question, but it cannot be 
 pretended that one remedy is a remedy that can be de- 
 
141 
 
 fended as decent and the other one condemned as obscene ; 
 that in the mere language in which they are advocated there 
 is nothing, which, to a well-regulated mind, could suggest 
 indecency, has already been allowed. I would draw your 
 special attention to pages 36 and 37 as showing the intent 
 ■of Knowlton in writing. He puts there the very point 
 which the learned judge raised yesterday morning. He 
 says that " Impotency, at a young or miijdle age, and in 
 some situations especially, is certainly a serious misfortune 
 to say the least of it. The whole evil by no means consists 
 in every case, in the loss of a source of pleasure. All young 
 people ought to be apprised of the causes of it — causes 
 which in many instances greatly lessen one's ability of giving 
 and receiving that pleasure which is the root of domestic 
 happiness. I shall allude to one cause, that of premature, 
 and especially solitary gratification, in another place. In- 
 temperance in the use of spirits is another powerful cause. 
 Even a moderate use of spirits, and also of tobacco, in any 
 form, have some effect. It is a law of the animal economy, 
 that no one part of the system can be stimulated or excited, 
 without an expense of vitality, as it is termed. That part 
 ■which is stimulated draws the energy from other parts." 
 Gentlemen, I ask you whether that is the kind of language 
 that would be- used by a man writing with intent to corrupt? 
 And now I will ask you to look at page 37, on which I will 
 call your attention to the following passage : — " As to the 
 remedies for impotency, they are much the same as for 
 sterility. It is 'of the first importance that the mind be 
 relieved from all care and anxiety. The general health is 
 to be improved by temperance, proper exercise in the open 
 air, cheerful company, change of scenery, or some occupation 
 to divert the mind without requiring much exercise of it ; 
 nourishing food of easy digestion ; flannel worn next to the 
 skin. The cold bath may be tried, and if it be followed by 
 agreeable feelings, it will do good." 
 
 I will only ask you whether any possible remedies could 
 show more common sense or less desire to deprave or cor- 
 rupt the minds of the young. Knowlton simply gives- that 
 knowledge which it is to the benefit of men and women to 
 possess, and nothing can be stronger than this chapter to 
 show that he was guided by good and pure motives. This 
 curse of sterility is so great a curse upon married people, 
 that any man who, for 6d., can point out the way to avoid 
 't, may be taken, as my lord said, to be a benefactor of the 
 
142 
 
 human race. The remainder of the chapter deals with 
 checks to population, with which, as I said at the beginning 
 of my address, I propose to leave it to my co-defendant to 
 deal. The whole of this remainder was read out by the 
 learned Solicitor-General, and he put it to you that he read 
 it with a large amount of pain. If it pained him so very 
 much, I do not quite know why he should have read it as 
 he did, because, as you all, every member of the jury, and 
 your lordship, had the book before you, the extreme deli- 
 cacy of the learned counsel might have excused him from a 
 task he said was so painful. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The learned Solicitor-General 
 is not here, and I think you must be just to him. He was 
 rather challenged to read them. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Do you think that I ought to be gentle 
 with him, my lord, as he is absent? (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What I said v»-as, that you 
 must be just to him. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I did not mean to be unjust to him, my 
 lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I said he was called upon to 
 read the passages. I thought it fairer to you that he should 
 point out the passages upon which he relied, and upon 
 which he will rely by-and-by, when he comes to address the 
 Court. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : That is quite fair ; but I thought, if he 
 felt so very much pain, he might have avoided the special 
 anguish of mind he seems to have had in dealing with 
 these passages. I will not press the point any further, how- 
 ever, as the learned counsel is not here. I do feel the posi- 
 tion is especially painful for him, because, if he does not 
 get a verdict against a woman, it does make the position of 
 a learned counsel very painful. (A laugh.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You ha^■e gone through this 
 long — and, I must say, very able — address up to the present 
 without saying anything that could be regarded as painful 
 or offensive to any one. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And I will try to do so to the end. My 
 feelings towards the Solicitor shall be more charitable than 
 his were to me, for he accused me of some of the vilest 
 things a woman could do. But I will not press the matter 
 further, and perhaps, by not too roughly defending myself 
 against him, I shall make my case the stronger. I do not 
 say these checks pointed out by Knowlton are the best pos- 
 
143 
 
 sible ; but, if they are not, that is a question which should' 
 be left to the discussion of medical men. Dr. Knowlton 
 himself is a man of immense learning and culture, and, at 
 any rate, his opinion is entitled to a respectful hearing. If 
 his views are considered erroneous, the proper course is to- 
 write a pamphlet pointing out where Knovdton is wrong, 
 and not to bring in this system of police supervision. There 
 is now only one single piece more in this chapter that I 
 shall trouble at all to draw your attention to, and you will- 
 perhaps kindly excuse me from reading it. I do not know 
 whether I shall be in order if," instead of reading it, I hand 
 the passage to your lordship. 
 
 His Lordship : What is it ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It is a passage from the files of evidence 
 taken before the Contagious Diseases Commissioners ; and ' 
 it is simply a special point that covers much in Knowlton. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If it is anything you would 
 rather not read, you can leave it to your cq-defendant. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Very well, my lord ; then I will only 
 say that it instructs unmarried people to use one of the 
 checks given by Knowlton. I do not propose to deal 
 further with the third chapter. All in that chapter that 
 has given offence you will find put forward in other 
 books, but I do not propose to deal with the details of 
 it in any way. I understand this supposed objectionable 
 portion is confined to three pages and a quarter, and 
 if the object of the book is bad and immoral, then the 
 whole of the remainder must be supposed to lead up to 
 these three pages and a bit ; but this can scarcely be con- 
 tended to be the case. The whole object of the book is 
 to promote marriage, and to teach temperance to those 
 who are married, and it is utterly wrong that you should 
 judge from these three pages, instead of from the rest of the 
 book, which is manifestly good and manifestly pure. I 
 come now to the fourth chapter, in some respects the most 
 valuable in the book, a chapter which is its own defence 
 almost more strongly than anything I can say will 
 make it. You find Knowlton putting forward a quotation 
 from Mr. Robert Dale Owen on the reproductive instinct : 
 " Controlled by reason," he says, " and chastened by good 
 feeling, it gives' to social intercourse much of its charm and. 
 zest, but directed by selfishness or governed by force it is 
 prolific of misery and degradation. In itself, it appears to 
 be the most social and least selfish of all instincts. It fits 
 
144 
 
 Ks to give even while receiving pleasure, and among culti- 
 vated beings the former power is even more highly valued 
 , than the latter. Not one of our instincts perhaps affords 
 Jarger scope for the exercise of disinterestedness or fitter 
 play for the best moral feelings of our race. Not one gives 
 birth to relations more gentle, more humanising and en- 
 ■dearing, not one lies more immediately at the root of the 
 kindliest charities and most generous impulses that honour 
 and bless human nature. It is a much more noble, because 
 less purely selfish, instinct than hunger or thirst. It is an 
 instinct that entwines itself around the warmest feelings and 
 best affections of the heart." You will observe that it is not 
 as the Solicitor General put it, as if this instinct were to be 
 unrestrained, but that it is to be " controlled by reason, and 
 •chastened by good feeling." And I think that one may 
 fairly put it to you that no more elevating idea of love, re- 
 garded as a physical passion, can possibly be put forward 
 than is put forward here. In the next paragraph Dr. 
 Knowlton says : " But too frequently its strength, together 
 "with a want of moral culture, is such that it is not ' controlled 
 by reason;' and, consequently, from time immemorial, it 
 has been gratified, either in a mischievous manner, or to 
 :such an intemperate degree, or under such improper cir- 
 •cumstances, as to give rise to an incalculable amount of 
 human misery." That paragraph points out the mischief 
 that may come from sexual intercourse, and the chapter 
 goes on to show how that mischief may be avoided. I 
 am utterly at a loss to understand how it can be 
 suggested by the prosecution that a part of this book 
 gives encouragement to a loose way of thinking, when the 
 rest of the book is so distinctly against intemperance. In 
 the following paragraph Dr. Knowlton goes on to deal, I 
 think fairly from a medical point of view, with some of the 
 evil consequences that arise from this instinct under the 
 present state of things. Some of these consequences he 
 says it is the business of the " moralist to point out, whilst 
 of others it [falls within the province of the physician to 
 treat." He complains that " physicians have hitherto fallen 
 far short of giving those instructions concerning this instinct 
 which its importance demands. In books, pamphlet^ 
 journals, &c., they have laid much before the public re- 
 specting eating, drinking, bathing, lacing, air, exercise, &c., 
 but have passed by the still more important subject now 
 before us, giving only here and there some faint allusion to 
 
145 
 
 it." Dr. Knowlton wrote to that efifect sonie three-and-fort)' 
 years ago, but since that time many medical works of a 
 similar character have been published, so that Knowlton's 
 complaint would no longer be real. Dr. Knowlton then 
 goes on to say that " true philosophy dictates that this and 
 all other appetites should be so gratified as will most con- 
 duce to human happiness — not merely the happiness attend- 
 ing the gratification of one of the senses, but all the senses 
 — not merely sensual happiness, but intellectual — not merely 
 the happiness of the individual, but of the human family." 
 Taking that position, I will simply ask you whether 
 you think that is the attitude of a man who wishes to 
 degrade the tone of society, and do harm to the morals of 
 the young. The next paragraph I will not read through. 
 It is the paragraph commencing at the foot of page 42 and 
 finishing on page 43. But I may point out that whilst it is 
 said that this pamphlet encourages young lads of seventeen 
 or eighteen to ruin their health by premature indulgence, 
 yet in this paragraph Dr. Knowlton points out that early 
 intercourse means ruin to their health when they come to 
 later years. The next point in the paragraph that I would 
 suggest as extreniely useful is that he points out that the 
 marriage ceremony ought not to remove all restraint to 
 indulgence, or do away with the necessity of temperance. 
 He points out how much harm many young people have 
 caused themselves to suffer, because they utterly disregard, 
 after marriage, all those restraints which all moral people 
 observed before marriage. In the last paragraph of page 43 
 Dr. Knowlton shows that " temperance in this thing is not 
 to be decided by numbers, but that it depends on circum- 
 stances ; and what would be temperance in one may be in- 
 temperance in another. And with respect to an individual, 
 too, what he might enjoy with impunity were he a labouring 
 man, or a man whose business required but little mental 
 exercise, would, were he a student, unfit him for the success- 
 ful prosecution of his studies. Intemperance in the gratifi- 
 cation of this instinct has a tendency to lead to intemperance 
 in the use of ardent spirits. The languor, depression of 
 spirits, in some instances the weakness and want of appetite 
 induced by intemperate gratification, call loudly for some 
 stimulus, and give a relish for spirits. Thus the individual 
 is led to drink. This influences the blood, the passions, 
 and leads to further indulgence. This again calls for more 
 spirits, and thus two vicious habits are commenced ^^•h^ch 
 
146 
 
 mutually increase each other.'' Now I ask you whether 
 that is the language of an immoral or sensually minded 
 man ? Is it not true that in these words he very shortly 
 but clearly points out to married people that they must 
 continue their self-restraint right through life, and that the 
 harm that may be done by lacking self-restraint may lead 
 them to intemperance, which in its turn will re-act again and 
 so make utterly miserable the whole of their lives. I put 
 that to you as utterly destroying the idea that the book was 
 written for the purpose of corrupting morals ; I urge that 
 this charge cannot be maintained against Dr. Knowlton, and 
 therefore cannot be maintained against those who hai-e 
 pubhshed his work. The succeeding paragraph is of exactly 
 the same character, and I do not think that any advice can 
 be purer or more temperate, or more utterly apart from any 
 desire to corrupt than his advice to the married people whom 
 he is addressing — no advice could be more moral, more 
 beneficial, more wholesome, more free from any intention 
 to corrupt than that contained in these passages. 
 Gentlemen, what is Dr. Knowlton's intention and object? 
 Take this chapter — the last paragraph in which I do not 
 read because it has been read already — and we see that his 
 purpose is to promote marriage, and to restrain intempe- 
 rance. He is charged with \rating a bad book with impure 
 intent. But a man of impure intent does not speak against 
 profligacy ; a man of impure intent does not speak in favour 
 of marriage ; a man of impure intent does not urge tempe- 
 rance after marriage as well as before it ; nor does such a 
 man plead for self-restraint as we find Dr. Knowlton doing. 
 The very idea of bad intent — and bad intent is the essence 
 of the charge against which I plead — the \-ery idea is a 
 monstrous idea, and not one shadow of proof has been 
 brought fonvard which will show you in what Dr. 
 Knowlton's bad intent consisted. It is said that Dr. 
 Knowlton was actuated by a bad intent, but it is not 
 shown in any way how that bad intention appears in this 
 pamphlet. But an objection has been raised to its 
 price. I have now finished what I want to say about 
 the book itself, and I now come to the question of 
 price, which has been made the subject of hostile 
 comment. I think I may fairly put it to vou — r.s was 
 almost suggested by the learned judge himself— that if a 
 book is not obscene in itself, the price will not make it 
 obscene. Its low price is pai-t of the value of the liook to 
 
147 
 
 us, because a book at a high price could not reach those 
 poor people in whom we are specially interested at the pre- 
 sent moment ; the poor cottager, the labourer, the artisan, — ■ 
 those, in short, whom Mr. Montagu Cookson desired to 
 reach — cannot possibly be reached and taught how to pro- 
 portion " their families to their room " except by means of 
 low-priced books. They might get all this from Dr. Churchill, 
 Dr. Acton, Dr. Marion Sims, if they could obtain them ; 
 "but all these books are dear, and it is simply mockery to 
 •ofifer poor people books at 30s. or two guineas each. It is 
 said that we sell a book for sixpence to anybody, and that 
 somebody might desire to read it "from curiosity or morbid 
 appetite ;" but I will put it that it is not fair to put a bad 
 motive into the minds of people who are desirous of read- 
 ing a certain medical book. It does not follow that people 
 ■who can only afford to spend sixpence on a book have a 
 desire to gain a bad knowledge with their money. But if 
 the price of this book is really an dbjection, then it does not 
 stand alone. Take the Lancet, a paper which contains 
 medical details beside which Knowlton is chaste in the 
 extreme. The Lancet is sold openly on the bookstalls at 
 id. to anyone who chooses to buy it. The Medical 
 Observer is sold for threepence — ^just half the price of 
 Xnowlton. That journal contains medical details of, 
 •what would be called by the prosecution the most 
 obscene character. Then there is the Obstetrical 
 Jourtial, published at is. 6d., and bearing on its cover a 
 special advertisement of a book on this very subject at 
 3s. 6d. By what reason, by what argument, by what logic 
 are you asked to suppress Knowlton because he is sold at 
 6d., when these books remam unchallenged, some sold at 
 3d., some at 7d.? The price cannot make a book obscene. 
 If it is not obscene at a high price, it will not be obscene 
 when sold at 6d. We must remember that cheap knowledge 
 is one of the great glories of the day ; and such firms as 
 ■ Messrs. Casselly Petter, and Galpin have made their liames 
 famous just because they have put before the world useful 
 books at a price within the reach of everybody. I will ask 
 you not to allow it to go out from this court as the verdict 
 of twelve English jurymen that you measure indecency by 
 the price at which it may be bought, and that you would 
 allow that to pass at a high price which you count worthy 
 of condemnation at a low. Then we are told that the book 
 is being sown broadcast over London ; but why is that? 
 
 K 2 
 
148 
 
 The book never would have been spread over London had 
 it not been for this prosecution. Seven hundred copies a 
 year was its circulation before this most ill-judged and most 
 ill-advised prosecution had given the book an importance it 
 did not deserve. This prosecution has given the book a facti- 
 tious importance, because people fancied that when such a large 
 amount of legal talent was brought against it there must be 
 something in it to induce people to buy it. It has been put 
 to you that if medical works were published generally to the 
 public the publishers would be indictable, but I scarcely 
 think the learned judge will allow that that is a fair con- 
 struction of the law, because every medical book we have 
 here to-day is published generally. There is no restriction 
 '.a the sale of medical works. Anyone can go to Messrs. 
 Churchill for a copy of any book, and no question will be 
 asked except " have you the money ?" There is no such 
 thing as restriction of the sale of medical works. If a book 
 is printed for private circulation only, that is a different 
 matter ; there may be no publication then, because there is 
 no sale ; but if the book is once published there can be no 
 pretence raised that it is restricted in its circulation. The 
 enormous number of these medical works published shows 
 that they cannot have been in any way restricted in their 
 sale, for they have been circulated by tens of thousands. 
 But even though the sale were restricted — as it is not — 
 medical works, if obscene at all, would be quite as obscene 
 in the lecture-room as in the street. And provided they 
 are sold, and generally published, I do not see that the 
 price at which they are sold at all touches the question of 
 their obscenity. Nay, the very fact that we have got these 
 medical works here to-day is proof that they are generally 
 published. I do not think Mr. Bradlaugh has himself 
 bought any of them, but they have been bought by Mr. 
 Parris, who is not a doctor, by Mr. Wells, who is still a 
 youth, and one or two by myself. When I happened to 
 want to buy an edition of Bull I simply \vrote to Messrs. 
 Longman for it and got it ; they never dreamt of making 
 any inquiry, but simply treated it as a matter of business, 
 fastened the book up and sent it through the post. If 
 general publication makes a work of this kind obscene we 
 ask you, why we should be specially singled out for prose- 
 cution, why this one book should be specially taken up ? 
 When Mr. Smith is in the box he will tell you there is no 
 restriction placed upon these books ; he will tell you that 
 
149 
 
 their own agent at Paddington sold the book to me and 
 would sell it to anybody and never dream of making any 
 difficulty of any kind. And he will also tell you that the 
 sale of this book has been enhanced by the course taken by 
 this prosecution. The sale of Knowlton has increased 
 enormously during the last three months. Instead of the 
 700 copies published in one year before the prosecution, 
 about 125,000 copies have been sold in three months. 
 The book undoubtedly has circulated largely in all directions, 
 and we have allowed it to do so believing that we were right 
 in defending its free circulation. To have stopped it, it 
 appeared to us, would have been an act which might very 
 justly have been construed into an acknowledgement, on our 
 part, of guilt ; and therefore, I say frankly, we have not tried 
 to stop the sale of it. I openly state to you that we have 
 let the book go its own way, and whilst, on the one hand, 
 we have not taken the trouble of advertising, we have, 
 on the other hand, put no difficulties in its way. We 
 did, however, stop the sale of it at our own place of 
 business. Not that we feared the consequences of 
 selling it; but because we did not wish our shop- 
 people to be subjected to the same annoyance that we 
 have been subjected to. We stopped the sale of it over the 
 counter a:t Stonecutter Street ; and we have stopped also the 
 supply to the hawkers in the streets, for the simple reason 
 that we did not like their manners and customs. Notwith- 
 standing that, however, the sale has risen since the proceed- 
 ings taken against us by the prosecution from 700 a year to 
 125,000 in three months. That is one of the effects of 
 trying in a free country to stop the sale of a book which has 
 been uninterruptedly sold to the public for forty-three 
 years. If, gentlemen, we win your verdict, the book will 
 find its own level. Do not understand me to pretend 
 to say that there is anything specially valuable in 
 Knowlton himself that will cause his book to live 
 long ; far from it, and I, for one, shall not, after 
 an acquittal, care to sell another copy of it. We only 
 want to make the right for others to sell it freely to who- 
 ever desires to buy it. We do not desire to make a gain, 
 and we knew when we were selling it that we were running 
 a risk which no money gain would compensate. We felt 
 that it was necessary to raise the question of the right to 
 ,sell the work; that we have done, and now, if we obtain 
 your verdict, our interest in the pamphlet ceases. The 
 
15° 
 
 moment your verdict is returned in our fevour, that moment 
 anyone can publish it. It will find its own level as a work 
 out of date ; but the great question we are fighting is one o£ 
 liberty of publication, and we ask you by your verdict to say 
 that there is a right to sell all honest thought honestly 
 expressed. That is the point I put to you. I do not, how- 
 ever, pretend to say or think that if we fail to-day — although 
 I think that an impossible result — that then the circulation 
 will cease ; because I think the feeling in this country, on. 
 the subject is so strong, that if we are convicted and 
 punished, you would find it necessary to institute in- 
 numerable prosecutions against persons who entertain: 
 our views on this subject. And now I would ask you, 
 gentlemen, in concluding the remarks which I have thought 
 it right to put before you, and in thanking you for the 
 extreme patience you have exhibited in listening to me 
 throughout what I know has been a very long address, I 
 would ask you, in dealing with your verdict, to consider 
 that you have not only to deal with the two defendants now- 
 standing here to take their deliverance at your hands, but 
 with that great public feeling of England, which by no other 
 means can so rapidly be raised as by any interference with 
 the liberty of the press. It is not only the question of the 
 publication of an obscene book that brings us here to-day. 
 Had it been so there would have been no necessity to 
 have occupied the time and attention of my lord and of 
 you, gentlemen. Had that been the only question the whole 
 matter would have been very quickly settled, and my co- 
 defendant and myself would have been dealt with at the- 
 Old Bailey. It was with a feeling that such a work as the 
 present had no right to be made the subject of a criminal 
 prosecution, that we determined to avail ourselves of the 
 right which a free English justice gives us, of coming into 
 this court and pleading here in defence of our cause, know- 
 ing, as we do, that thousands of the English people think 
 us right. Under those circumstances, I do not know how 
 you, gentlemen, will reconcile it to your consciences to- 
 bring in a verdict of guilty against us, a verdict which 
 means that the work of Dr. Knowlton is one of a most 
 disgraceful kind. And I now leave the matter in your 
 hands, with every confidence, leaving the remainder of my 
 case in the hands of my co-defendant, knowing that his 
 defence really, though not technically, \\-ill cover mine, with 
 the addition of the evidence of skilled witnesses, who 
 
will tell you, not their opinions, but their experience, 
 and who will indorse the points I have put to you. 
 I fairly put it that unless you honestly believe that my whole 
 speech to you has been one mass of falsehoods ; unless you 
 believe my intent to be a bad intent ; unless you believe I 
 ha\-e been deliberately deceiving you throughout, and stand 
 here before you in the very worst character a woman could 
 take upon herself, namely, that of striving to corrupt the 
 morals of the young under the false pretence of purity here 
 put forward, and unless you think that, for the after-part of 
 my life, I deserve to pass through it with the brand upon me 
 that twelve gentlemen, after all patience, thought, not only 
 that the book was a mistake, the opinions wrong, and the 
 arguments unconvincing, but, in the terrible language of 
 the indictment, that I am guilty of " wickedly devising and 
 contriving as much as in me lay to vitiate and corrupt the 
 morals of youth " as well as of others, — unless, I say, you 
 believe that that has been my object and purpose, on this 
 indictment, I shall call upon you, gentlemen, to return a 
 verdict of "Not Guilty," and to send me home free, believing 
 from my heart and conscience that I have been guilty only 
 of doing that which I ought to do in grappling honestly 
 with a matter I consider myself justified in grappling with — 
 that terrible poverty and misery which is around us on every 
 hand. Unless you are prepared, gentlemen, to brand me 
 with malicious meaning, I ask you, as an English woman, 
 for that justice which it is not impossible to expect at the 
 hands of Englishmen — I ask you to give me a verdict of 
 "Not Guilty," and to send me home unstained. 
 
 The conclusion of the address was received with applause, 
 which the officers of the court suppressed. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh then proceeded to open his case. Ad- 
 dressing the Bench, 
 
 Mr. I3RADLAUGH Said : Before I commence my opening 
 to the jury I have again to trouble your lordship, as to the 
 indictment, and I hope, after your lordship's intimation of 
 yesterday morning, you will not think I do so unduly or dis- 
 respectfully. I only want to preserve what I think are my 
 legal rights. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I cannot deal with that. I 
 have told you I will reserve that point if necessary. 
 
 Mr, Bradlaugh : The only doubt is this, my lord. I 
 have been looking at the case of the Queen v. Gold- 
 smith ; but if your lordship will reserve any rights 
 
152 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I have told you I will, already. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then, my lord, I will not press the matter 
 any further. There is, however, a very strong dictum of Lord 
 Chief Justice Bovill in the case of the Queen v. Goldsmith 
 I should have liked your lordship to have seen. I trust your 
 lordship will not think I wish in any fashion to trespass on 
 the Court, but there is another case I would wish your 
 lordship to take a note of It is the case of the King v. 
 James, reported in Cox's "Criminal Cases,"vol. 12, page 127, 
 and I will not trouble your lordship one word more, the 
 points being reserved to myself and co-defendant. 
 
 My lord and gentlemen, I feel the grave responsibility 
 that rests upon me in this case the more because I know 
 that any want of tact in speaking upon the extremely delicate 
 matters which I shall have to deal with may probably tend 
 to damage my co-defendant, who has so ably, and if his 
 lordship will permit me to say, so modestly, but earnestly 
 put her case before you ; and I will ask you to dismiss from 
 your minds in the beginning the whole of the references 
 made by the learned Solicitor-General to some other pro- 
 ceedings which may have been taken in some other place 
 against this pamphlet or some pamphlet similar to it. It 
 was laid down in the case of the King v. Drakard, Howell's 
 " State Trials," vol. 31, page S34,whereit was sought to plead 
 the acquittal of a defendant indicted for publishing a similar 
 libel to the one alleged against Drakard, that any evidence 
 of such acquittal was not admissible — that one jury was not 
 bound by the verdict of another jury, and that each jury 
 was equally capable of judging of the merit of any case 
 submitted to it ; and I draw your attention to that lest you 
 should think that some judgment which was alluded to by 
 the learned Solicitor-General, but of which no sort of evi- 
 dence was or could have been tendered in this case, ought 
 to influence you ; and lest you should think that that judg- 
 ment ought to have any practical effect on your verdict here. 
 I ask you, therefore, to utterly discard the learned 
 Solicitor-General's statement. I will now beg you to con- 
 sider the indictment on which you are asked to pass your 
 verdict against us. The indictment in effect is for publishino- 
 an alleged obscene book, and, as has been pointed out by 
 my co-defendant, there is no statutory definition whatever of 
 the word obscene. In the 20th and 21st Victoria, known 
 as Lord Campbell's Act, there is a reference there to books 
 which are described as obscene books, and if one wanted 
 
153 
 
 to gather what was meant by the word obscene one 
 would try to do so by examining the explanation 
 which was given by the learned judges themselves in debat- 
 ing that statute. In the debate in the House of Lords 
 which took place on the moving for the second reading 
 of the statute under which the seizure warrants are issued 
 against obscene books, Lord Campbell gave the definition 
 already read to you by my co-defendant ; but I shall have 
 to trouble you at a little more length on the subject of that 
 definition and debate, for I am going to submit to my lord 
 and to you that we are indicted under the common law, 
 and that common law is common usage, and that there 
 never has been an indictment tried out under the common 
 law against a work similar to this. I shall show the 
 character of works usually known as obscene to be entirely 
 different to the one under prosecution, and that fair physio- 
 logical treatises of whatever price and however widely circu- 
 lated and published, either by laymen or physicians.- are not 
 and ought not to be considered as obscene works. I have 
 one difficulty to contend with in this crse, and that is that 
 this is the first instance of a prosecution for alleged 
 obscene libel where the publisher has stepped forward 
 and said the book is not obscene. Sometimes the de- 
 fendants have denied the publication, sometimes pleaded 
 ignorance of the contents. We make no denial of 
 the publication of the pamphlet ; we come here admitting 
 that we published it, knowing every line in it, and we say 
 that we believe it not to be obscene. And I hope that be- 
 fore I conclude this speech I shall succeed in showing you 
 that there is not a line or a word in this book which can be 
 fairly or properly put as being of an obscene character. 
 That much may be unfamiliar to you, I can well conceive, 
 for when my attention was first called to this book in my 
 own judgment it seemed to me to contain objectionable 
 features in many of its details. But since I have read Dr. 
 Carpenter's works, line for line of which it will be my duty 
 to take you through, given as prizes at public schools even 
 by the Recorder of the City of London, who charged the 
 grand jury, at the Old Bailey, which found the true bill which 
 has sent us here, and put us on our trial before you, and 
 again, when I read the works of Dr. Kirke, of Dr. Fleetwood 
 Churchill, Dr. Marion Sims, Dr. Nichols, Dr. Brinton, Mr. 
 Hilles, Dr. Graily Hewitt, Dr. Chavasse, Professor Wilder, 
 and many others most probably known to you, but whose 
 
IS4 
 
 writings can never be said to have been intended to inflame 
 the passions, I felt ready to stand before you, not to ask you 
 for deUverance from any Hmited punishment my lord might 
 give me on your verdict, should it be adverse to me, but 
 from the more severe consequences that a conviction of 
 intent to corrupt the public mind will cause me. The stain 
 which will rest on me in such an event will be one which 
 would sorely check and bar the career in which I have 
 hoped, and still hope, to make my way. This punishment, 
 I say, to me would be immeasurable in its severity, compared 
 with the mere sentence that would follow as the measure of 
 punishment I should receive here for what I have done. 
 And in speaking of that alone, I will affirm to you that there 
 is not a line of physiological information in Knowlton that 
 is not chastely put, and that the tone of the work is not 
 calculated in any way to inflame the passions or to deprave 
 the mind. The learned Solicitor-General — and unfortunately 
 my voice does not possess here the weight which his positioa 
 gives him — in conducting this prosecution against us, 
 suggested to you that the work was full of colouring. If there 
 be a colouring in the work it is a colouring we do not make : it 
 is a colouring drawn from the misery, a colouring drawn from 
 the suffering, a colouring drawn from the poverty, a colouring 
 drawn from the despair with which we have to deal. The 
 learned Solicitor-General, I am sorry to say, used one word 
 that I wish he had thought fit to have left out of his speech. 
 I am willing to believe, although not having the honour of 
 being a member of the profession and not having the 
 honour, at least on this side of the water, to be the friend 
 of any of its members, — I am wilUng to believe that a 
 gentleman in the position of the learned Solicitor-General 
 would not — to obtain a verdict in this case — have used the 
 word had it not been in the instructions given to him in his 
 brief; but I have a great difficulty in reconciling to my own 
 mind how he can admit that there is not a trace of vulgarity 
 in the work which he thinks right to describe as "filth." 
 I cannot help thinking that he forgot he ^vas plead- 
 ing for the conviction of a man and woman, and for 
 the moment was led away by the thought tliat he 
 was conducting a civil case where some trick practice 
 would win the verdict of the jury in his favour for 
 the moment, to be ultimately reversed by the deliberate 
 judgment of thinking men. Now, let us consider first what 
 the word "obscene" means. When the matter was first 
 
debated in 1857, not at some common debating society, but 
 before an assemblage including the finest intellects in the 
 world, it was objected to by Lord Brougham with reference 
 to Lord Campbell's Act, that there was no definition of the 
 word "obscene." Lord Brougham asked — Hansard's "Par- 
 liamentary Reports," vol. 146, No. 2, p. 329 — "How did he 
 (Lord Campbell) propose to define what was an obscene' pub- 
 lication ?" and Lord Brougham remindedthe House that "In 
 the works of some of the most eminent poets there were some 
 objectionable passages which, uncfcr this measure, might cause 
 them to be considered obscene publications." What was 
 the reply of Lord Campbell ? If you accept it, it is im- 
 possible for you to give a verdict against us. Lord Camp- 
 bell's reply was that "He had not the most distant con- 
 templation of including in the Bill the class of works to 
 which the noble and learned lord referred. The measure 
 was intended to apply exclusively to works written for the 
 single purpose of corrupting the morals of youth and of a 
 nature calculated to shock the common feelings of decency 
 in any well-regulated mind." And lest there should be any 
 mistake as to what Lord Campbell meant, he added, " Bales, 
 of publications of that description were manufactured in 
 Paris and imported into this country." And to make the 
 distinction still stronger, Lord Campbell then said that the 
 need for the statute was that the people who published them, 
 that is these obscene works, hid their names, were net to 
 be found, and that it was necessary to send spies and infor- 
 mers after them. This was not needed for persons who sent 
 previous notice to the public authorities that they were going 
 to publish a work. The whole offence lies in the intent 
 with which it is published. When did you ever see two 
 people give notice to the police authorities under circum- 
 stances involving a wicked intention of the act they are 
 about to commit. Before one copy was sold by us, as you 
 have heard from the witnesses for the prosecution, myself 
 and my co-defendant gave notice to the police authorities 
 of our intention to Sell. However wrongful our act may be 
 adjudged by you, I deny that you can say we have not 
 acted with frankness and fairness. I deny that you can 
 assume against us any corrupt intent. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That may be sought in the 
 work itself. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I am content, my lord, to accept that, 
 and your ruling in the case of the Queen v. Hicklin, 
 
iS6 
 
 that if within the four corners of the work it tends 
 to corrupt and deprave the public mind then no 
 good intent, either unmistaken or mistaken, can save us 
 from conviction. I would not be so impertinent — ignorant 
 though I may be on some matters of law — as to raise an 
 argument which I thought had no bearing on the matter. I 
 wished to show the jury that on the facts as proved we are 
 not persons who would be likely to publish a corrupting 
 work. The Lord Chancellor, replying to Lord Campbell, 
 said that which I untortunately know to be true — " Who 
 could tell but that the superintendent of poUce or the magis- 
 trates before whom the application came would take a dif- 
 ferent view of what were obscene or indecent publications 
 from the noble and learned lord." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The Lord Chancellor of that 
 day was Lord Cranworth ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Yes, my lord. Lord Lyndhurst, in the 
 same debate, asked, " What is the interpretation which is to 
 be put on the word ' obscene ' ? I can easily conceive that 
 two men will come to entirely different conclusions as to its 
 meaning." No one can help taking a very different view, 
 but in a case where there is no suspicion that one was going 
 to run away, where we went to the police office to look 
 after the authorities, so as to be in readiness if summoned, 
 it is a little hard that difference of opinion should involve 
 personal indignity. Instead of treading us reasonably, fairl}*, 
 and summoning us, we were taken on warrants — an indignity 
 I do not complain of personally, but I do complain of 
 such conduct towards the lady who is my co-defendant, and 
 if I have a greater sense of responsibility in now addressing 
 you it is because this lady, who has to share the result 
 of this trial with me here, has been to no inconsider- 
 able extent influenced in her course of action by my 
 views on the law of population. With me this ques- 
 tion is no new question. I have been a journalist for 
 the last nineteen years, and in my first prospectus I put 
 forward the Malthusian view as part of the editorial 
 intention of that journal, and lest the jury should think 
 that we now take up this struggle in any mere desire for 
 novelty or notoriety, I may mention that the late Mr. John 
 Stuart Mill left me, written by himself, in his autobio- 
 graphy, a few lines stating that I commended myself to him 
 because I took upon myself the advocacy of these Malthusian 
 views when they were even more unpopular than to-day. If 
 
157 
 
 the work of my life has in your judgment been corrupt when 
 I have sought to teach prudential checks, if you think 
 that I have been criminal in that I have tried to cure 
 ]50verty by these remedies, try, gentlemen, to decide for 
 yourselves in what fashion the growing evil of poverty is to be 
 dealt with. My co-defendant has sought to show you what 
 is the condition of the poorer classes. Permit me to add a 
 word from my own experience. Some working men in the 
 North of England recently made me arbitrator in a dispute 
 as to the wage of those men who were workers in one of our 
 coalmines. By my award I took 15 per cent, off that wage, and 
 mostof those men are earning atthis timeless than £^\ a-week. 
 If I am not to be permitted to show to these men how they 
 may prudentially alleviate their poverty, what am I to do 
 for those poor toilers who put their confidence in me, and 
 whose wage I have reduced ? It is with a view to ensure the 
 welfare of these poor people, that my co-defendant, perhaps 
 influenced for some time by my strong views on the 
 question, but now governed entirely by her own views of 
 duty, has with me published the pamphlet which has caused 
 her to be placed in a position which but few gentlewomen 
 would like to take. Is it " obscene " to teach the poor and 
 wretched not to crowd hungry mouths together where food 
 is short and misery plentiful? Lord Lyndhurst asked " what 
 is the interpretation which is to be put on the word 
 obscene ? " And in trying to deal with this question I will 
 endeavour not to travel over that which my co-defendant 
 has so clearly stated to you in her speech. Lord Campbell 
 said the question was for the jury to decide, and I will ask 
 them here so to decide it that no such stain shall rest upon 
 us as the indictment seeks to cast. An expression of 
 opinion fell from the Lord Chief Justice yesterday to which 
 I cannot quite assent. I agree with my lord that there are 
 works which do not come under the ordinary definition of 
 the word obscene, but which might tend to corrupt public 
 morals, and I also agree that a work which recommended 
 assassination would be a work tending to corrupt public 
 morals, but I deny that any such work would be prose- 
 cutable under this indictment. I am not indicted for such 
 a work. This is a specific indictment for publishing a book 
 specially described and the verdict must be in the language 
 of the indictment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Of course. 
 
1S8 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then I will not press that a raoment 
 longer on your lordship. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : A book recommending 
 assassination would not be an' obscene book. But how does 
 that help you ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I will put a case to you, because of 
 ■what fell from the learned Solicitor-General. Supposing — 
 which I utterly and indignantly deny — that this Pamphlet, 
 which, it has been alleged, recommends abortion, actually 
 did so, while I agree it would be an offence of a fit character 
 to justify a prosecution, yet I say it is not one punishable 
 under an indictment such as the one under which we stand 
 charged, and I wish to submit that to your lordship very 
 strongly, because I do not want to raise issues unneces- 
 sary to be raised, nor do I want to have a view passing 
 through your lordship's mind which would involve me in 
 the supposition that I am arguing with reference to one 
 kind of supposed guilt, when actually arguing against 
 another. The offence charged against us is under the 
 common law, that is the common usage of the country, and 
 it is, comparatively, a modern offence so far as the common 
 law is concerned. The case of the King v. Curl, in 1727, 
 is the first case which, as far as I am aware, was ever tried 
 out at common law, so as to obtain condemnation of the 
 defendant. It is reported in Howell's " State Trials," vol. 
 xvii., page 154, and I cannot help thinking that anyone 
 reading, with care and attention, the decisions from the 
 case of King v. Curl forwards to the present day, could 
 come to but one decision, as to what works are intended to 
 be indictable as obscene works, i.e., works which incite to 
 the commission of acts which have been considered by 
 proper legal tribunals to be acts of obscenity. And I sub- 
 mit that, under the common law, you will not now find out, 
 or extract for my prejudice, a definition of the word obscene, 
 which has never yet been laid down by the judgment of any 
 court, or affirmed by the verdict of any jury. I will now 
 deal with the details of the physiological part of the work, 
 with respect to which his lordship has made a remark. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It was not altogether with 
 reference to the physiological details I interfered ; it was 
 rather that these details, though perfectly pure, must be 
 looked at through the intent and purpose of the whole 
 book. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well, my lord. They say then, ia 
 
159 
 
 effect, qua detail, the work is not indictable, but the intent of 
 the work being to preveiit conception under certain circum- 
 stances, the whole of the book is assailable as an immoral 
 book. Now can it be an offence to advocate checks to 
 conception ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If it corrupts the public 
 morals with relation to birth it is. That is a matter for the 
 jury. I certainly shall not withdraw from the jury the 
 question whether the proper construction to be put upon 
 the book is that its opinions with regard to the duties of 
 women had a demoralising tendency. That is for the jury 
 to decide. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then comes the difficulty, indicted as 
 we are under the common law, into which I am placed, that 
 there has never yet been a similar book submitted for judicial 
 decision. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is for the jury to say 
 whether that is or is not an offence ; that is, whether a re- 
 commendation which shall have for its effect this restriction 
 of births does or does not tend to the depravation of the 
 public morals. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I submit we do not come within the 
 terms of an ordinary prosecution where your lordship would 
 direct the jury that the offence is within the statute, or clear 
 under the law declared, because the question is for the first 
 time now to be decided before a judge and jury. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is useless to repeat. What 
 I shall leave to the jury in time is that which has been laid 
 down over and over again when the offence has been com- 
 mitted — i.e., that published matter that tends to deprave the 
 public morals, the effect of which is in the opinion of the 
 jury to corrupt the minds of youth or anyone else, is an 
 offence. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then it will be a question for the jury 
 whether, taking a fair and unprejudiced view of the matter 
 in this pamphlet, it does tend to deprave and corrupt. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is the question I shall 
 put to them. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I am quite willing to accept that, and 
 it is what will govern me in my presentation to the jury of 
 my defence in this case ; and I call your lordship's attention 
 now to the case of the Queen v. Hicklin, and especially to 
 the case of Steel v. Brannan, which was a case of the almost 
 entire republication of the same pamphlet in the report of 
 
i6o 
 
 the trial. 'I'here the defendants submitted that they had 
 left out some of the " most filthy and abominable passages 
 occurring in the former edition," the use of which words 
 precluded the supposition that even the defendants in the 
 Queen v. Hicklin case could contend that the pamphlet 
 there was not obscene. Your lordship's own language in 
 the case of the Queen v. Hicklin seems to me most vitally 
 in my favour. Your words were, " I think if there be an 
 infraction of the law, and an intention to break the law, 
 the criminal character of such publication is not qualified 
 or affected by there being some ulterior object of a different 
 and of an honest character." Upon that I submit that, to 
 find us guilty, the jury must not only be of opinion that there 
 has been an infraction of the law, but an intention to break 
 the law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is not what I said. 
 What I said was, if the effect of the publication was to 
 corrupt the minds of the individuals composing the pubUc 
 it was not because the publisher thought some ulterior good 
 was likely to arise from it, that he was excused. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not in any sort of fashion wish 
 to insist on any words that may be incorrectly applied 
 to you lordship, but I was reading from the Law Journal 
 report. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, that is what I think I 
 said, that is what I meant to say, and what I shall say now. 
 Suppose the effect of this work — I am only putting it hypo- 
 thetically — suppose the jury think the effect of this language 
 is to corrupt public morals, it is not because of a desire to 
 alleviate poverty — it is not that which would excuse an in- 
 fraction of the law, if there has been any. That is all I 
 meant to say then, and shall say now. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: The difficulty, my lord, still passing 
 through my mind is, suppose myself and co-defendant to 
 have believed the pamphlet not to have been an infraction 
 of the law — suppose we made it clear to your lordship and 
 the jury with whom the decision rests that there never has 
 been any hostile judgment against a work of this class, and 
 that, on the contrary, works — innumerable works — containing 
 the same matter had been published unchecked, I only 
 want — not to press it unfairly, but — to have your lordship 
 and the jury in full possession of the contention I wish to 
 raise, that, if so, this is no offence at common law, there 
 having been nothing decided during the last hundred and 
 
i6i 
 
 fifty years to govern us ; I wish to convince your lordship 
 that we cannot be convicted on this indictment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I shall be bound to direct the 
 jury to the contrary. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well, my lord ; I will not press it 
 further. I will come, then, to the dictum in the same case 
 of Mr. Justice Mellor, and that I feel bound to urge on your 
 lordship. In the case of Queen v. Hicklin his lordship, 
 after saying that he arrived at his decision with some diffi- 
 culty, says: — "The subject itself, if it is a subject which 
 may be discussed at all, and I think it undoubtedly may, is 
 one which cannot be dealt with without, to a certain extent, 
 producing authorities. Now I take it for granted that the 
 magistrates themselves were perfectly satisfied that this 
 pamphlet went far beyond anything that was necessary or 
 legitimate for the purpose." Supposing the population ques- 
 tion is a fair subject for discussion one must examine what 
 the object of this pamphlet purports to be, and whether it 
 is reasonably and fairly what it purports to be ? It purports 
 to be an essay on the population question, and I will not 
 venture to go over the grounds put forward so ably and ex- 
 haustively by my co-defendant, who has amply proved that 
 the pamphlet is really what it purports to be. Is it an in- 
 dictable offence to put forward views on the population 
 question, or to discuss checks to over-population, or to re- 
 commend some kind of checks ? Where is any authority 
 for any one of these propositions laid down ? I venture to 
 say it has never been laid down that it is an indictable 
 offence to advocate the Malthusian view of the population 
 question. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Certainly not. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then, if not, comes the next question of 
 advocating checks. It surely is not indictable to advocate 
 checks to over-population ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If you do not advocate it by 
 means which are inconsistent with public morality. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then comes, is it indictable to advo- 
 cate checking population by one means, and not indictable 
 to advocate checking population by some other means ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It might be by late marriages 
 instead of early marriages. There is nothing indictable in 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugi-i : Professor Fawcett and Mr. Malthus no 
 doubt advocated late marriages ; then comes the question, 
 
 L 
 
l62 
 
 is it indictable advocating early ixiarriages, and advising 
 checks to operate after marriage ? I respectfully contend 
 that it is not. The checks have been divided by my co- 
 defendant into death-producing and birth-restricting ; the 
 birth-restricting can only be divided into two kinds, having 
 sub-divisions — the one, late marriage, which I will dismiss for 
 a ntoment, and the other early marriage and small families ; 
 early marriage coming first and the check coming afterwards. 
 You have bad many extracts from "an essay on the morality 
 of married life by Mr. Montagu Cookson, and it is only fair 
 for me to say of Mr. Montagu Cookson that he has written me 
 a letter in which he says that it is not his view which is put 
 forward by Knowlton in this pamphlet. He holds the doc- 
 trine that it is possible for married people to produce or 
 check conception according to the special period of co- 
 habitation, and that, I think, is fairly what Mr. Cooksoa 
 would say if in my place, although it is not my duty to press 
 his language in this way. I do not wish to do any injustice 
 to him. He says it is the right thing to marry early, but 
 you must restrain yourself after marriage, and in his letter 
 he says you can do so by knowing and observing the laws 
 governing the reproductive system of women. There are 
 the mensual periods when women conceive more easily thati 
 at other times, and therefore at such periods restraint is 
 necessary. If that be true, you must instruct the persons 
 whom you desire to practise restraint, and then the whole 
 of that part of the Knowlton Pamphlet, as to the menstrua- 
 tion and the liability to conception, is instruction necessary 
 to be communicated to the mass of the people 
 whom you desire should utilize that knowledge. I must say I 
 heard with some surprise from the learned Solicitor-General 
 that this instruction must be confined to the medical 
 schools and not communicated generally to the publia I 
 submit that such a contention is the height of absurdity. If 
 it is the population you wish to check, you must publish the 
 instruction, enabling such checks to be applied, to the masses 
 of the people, and more especially you must publish to 
 that class, some of whom are even now only earning some- 
 thing like i2s. a week. In Hereford, the other day, I 
 learned from proceedings before the magistrates that there 
 were men in that county who earned but 8s. dd. a week. 
 You say, then, that such men as those are to consult medical 
 practitioners, to whom they must pay a fee for advice on 
 the .subject, and that they must not have this work for six- 
 
i63 
 
 pence, although works of a similar nature, at prices varying 
 from i^. iid. to half-a-guinea, are sold by Messrs. Churchill, 
 Messrs. Renshaw, Messrs. Longman, and Messrs. Triibner, 
 and are to be bought on the railway bookstalls, by all who 
 can aflford? It has been said by the learned Solicitor- 
 General that the book is an obscene one, because it may 
 get into girls' schools. I shall show you that Dr. Carpenter's 
 works and Dr. Kirke's " Handbook of Physiology " are used 
 for the examination of boys and girls in Government 
 schools, for the education of both boys and girls. I am 
 within the ruling of his lordship ; but I am prepared to put 
 into the box scholars who were instructed in these works, and 
 who received them as prizes. It is a work of great diffi- 
 culty to collect this class of evidence, and in our case it has 
 been immense, for there is a reluctance to come forward in 
 a case where obscenity is alleged. . What we have the 
 question narrowed to is this, holding the view that the 
 population has a tendency to increase faster than its means 
 of subsistence, we urge that it is necessary to encourage 
 preventive checks on population. In an essay of my own, en- 
 titled "Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus," I have thus stated the 
 Malthusian position — " Mr. Malthus advanced three propo- 
 sitions : — I. That population is necessarily limited by the 
 means of subsistence. 2. That population invariably in- 
 creases when the means of subsistence increase. 3. That 
 the checks which suppress the superior power of population, 
 and keep its effects on a level with the means of subsistence, 
 are all resolvable into moral restraint, vice, and misery." 
 Take that as a fair summary of Malthus. I say it is not 
 wrongful to advise, as John Stuart Mill, Professor Leone 
 Levi, and Mr. and Mrs. Fawcett have done, that there 
 should be prudential checks in lieu of the positive ones, of 
 starvation, disease, and crime ; and how is the general 
 public to know anything about prudential restraint, or to 
 practise prudence as recommended, unless you publish 
 cheap works in plain language, so that they may be widely 
 circulated? If you tell me that this is a colourable v/ork 
 written for another purpose, that is another thing, and I 
 understood the learned Solicitor-General rather to put it 
 on that issue ; but I emphatically deny that there is any- 
 where in the book the slightest particle ot evidence of any 
 such colourable character. If you tell me that this book is 
 indictable because of its advocating checks which have not 
 become commonly known, and which the English public 
 
164 
 
 have not yet understood, I utterly repudiate the proposition. 
 There are many means of preventing births in cases of 
 disease which are urged by medical writers who have never 
 been made the subject of a criminal prosecution. I will ask 
 your lordship if this is to be denounced as obscene? If 
 it be obscene at all, whether it is to be published 
 in a medical student's room or at Stonecutter Street 
 cannot matter at all. The mere fact that it is widely 
 sold and that it is cheap in price cannot, I submit, in 
 any way affect the judgment which my lord will ask the jury 
 to give upon this indictment. It is not necessary that I 
 should go in any fashion into the long argument with respect 
 to this point of over-population, as my co-defendant has 
 already gone into it so thoroughly ; but I must ask your 
 lordship to bear with me for a moment while I deal with 
 some expressions of opinions of persons nine or ten years 
 ago treating on this question, — a number of persons of 
 whom I was one. The matter is printed in the Journal of 
 Health, then edited by Dr. Hardwicke, the present coroner 
 for Middlesex. In 1868 there was a debate at the London 
 Dialectical Society on a paper read by Mr. Laurie, where I 
 made a speech, with which I will not trouble you. The son 
 of one of the leading statesmen of our time on the Liberal 
 side, Lord Amberley, who is now dead, took part in the dis- 
 cussion. Mr. Laurie had been the tutor of Lord Amberley, 
 and the following is Irom the report : " Lord Amberley said 
 rthat the subject brought forward by Mr. Laurie was of first- 
 rate importance. There was no doubt that prevention of 
 over-population was far the best method of attacking the evil. 
 How was that motion best to be spread ? He was glad to 
 hear Mr. Bradlaugh say that the working-classes were 
 beginning to debate this vital point. Unfortunately, the 
 influence of the clergy, in common with that of society and 
 the natural passions of mankind, were opposed to the pre- 
 vention of over-population. He believed, indeed, that 
 women would naturally have a stronger feeling against large 
 families, had they any say in the matter, and if these opinions 
 were more heard. He was truly glad to hear the credit of 
 the discovery given to the great Malthus. Like all other 
 discoveries, there was something wanting to work out the 
 details of Malthus' views and the way in which population 
 could be prevented with the least pain and discomfort. . . . 
 Emigration was good, but not rapid enough to relieve the 
 pressure caused by rapid multiplication. The practical con- 
 
i6S 
 
 elusion from all of which considerations seemed to him to be, 
 that Malthus was correct, and that if we were to escape from 
 poverty, it must be by means of limitation of our families. We 
 naturally objected to war and famine. He (Lord Amberley) 
 objected to celibacy. Well, then, the only remaining altera- 
 tion seemed to him to be small families ; and this was, in 
 fact, a medical question. He much wished he could stay to 
 hear the opinion of the medical gentlemen in the room 
 whether it was possible to restrain the size of families with- 
 out measures which were injurious to health. The American 
 ladies were in the habit of keeping back their families : but the 
 means used by these ladies seemed to him, as far as he had 
 heard, dangerous to health ; and hence he should much like 
 to hear discussion upon the point whether some less hurtful 
 means could be suggested." I should tell your lordship, 
 that in New England, in the old and settled parts of America, 
 in France, and other countries, the use of checks to pre- 
 vent large families by poor people is a matter of everyday 
 practice ; and I don't know, my lord, how morality is to be 
 measured if I am to be told it is immoral to prevent the birth of 
 those miserable and wretched beings whose state is so depicted 
 in Bishop Eraser's report. No doubt, if so, we are immoral. 
 But, says the learned Solicitor-General, if the work were 
 limited to married people there might be no objection, whereas 
 you put it within the reach of unmarried persons who may 
 abuse it. A man who sells a razor puts in the hands of a 
 person an instrument with which he might cut another's 
 throat, but that man does not advise the other to commit 
 murder, nor would he be indictable if without his participa- 
 tion murder were done. I must complain of unfair 
 suggestions on the part of the learned Solicitor-General, when 
 he said that there was mentioned in the work an instrument 
 for checking population which might be purchased at any 
 chemist's shop for one shilling; he was not familiar, 
 evidently, with the works of Hewitt, Sims, Churchill, and 
 the " Ladies' Companion," which is a journal published by 
 the Homoeopathic Society, or he would have said in so many 
 words that that mysterious instrument was a harmless syringe, 
 which is commonly used for personal cleanliness. The use 
 of the word instrument was calculated to convey an im- 
 proper impression which the language of the work does not 
 justify. What I have to contend is that it is lawful to argue 
 the question of restraint to population, and that the physiolo- 
 gical details of this pamphlet do not, in the language of Mr. 
 
i66 
 
 Justice Mellor, go beyond what may be tended necessary or 
 legitimate for the purpose. I was most pained to hear from 
 the learned Solicitor-General the declaration that the work 
 was to be condemned as obscene because it only describe?' 
 the female organs. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I confess when I heard the 
 Solicitor-General say that I was surprised, because I thought 
 that it was the more a proof in favour of the pure intention 
 of the work. If the work had been intended to corrupt the 
 morals of the young, it would have contained statements which 
 would tend to corrupt the minds of females as well as of males, 
 and if a description of the female tended to corrupt the 
 male youth, it would be natural to suppose that there would 
 be the converse — the description of the male. I don't, 
 therefore, feel any force in the observation of the Solicitor- 
 General. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I will not add one word to what your 
 lordship has said. I have so many details to go through 
 that I feel I may weary the jury, but the length of the case 
 is not my fault. I have asked the prosecution, " What do 
 you rely on ? " and they say, " The whole book." Line by 
 line my co-defendant has gone through a portion of it, and 
 I will go line by line through the other part for the purpose 
 of showing you that no part of it is obscene, and of pointing 
 out to you what I think ought to be your verdict; and I 
 submit that in this work of Knowlton the whole of the phy- 
 siological details given here, beginning with page 1 1 and 
 going forward, are descriptions only of such parts of the 
 female organism as are thought necessary for the reader to 
 know with relation to health and disease of the female when 
 capable of the exercise of her reproductive functions, and from 
 conception to birth. The learned Solicitor-General, with 
 the business of an advocate, regarding the gain of his cause 
 rather than accuracy ot statement, said that the sexual act 
 , was described with a disgusting fullness and particularity. 
 Not only is there no such particularity, but, on the contrary, 
 the details are scant compared with such works as I shall 
 have to compare it with, line by Une, until I have con- 
 vinced you. You will say nothing can be more chaste or 
 delicate than Knowlton, if he is to refer to these matters at 
 all. I need hardly concern myself with the inquiry as to 
 who' is prosecuting us, because, if we have committed an 
 offence, it does not matter ; and if not, no kind of outside 
 influence will here govern the verdict to be given. I will 
 
167 
 
 ■only put it, t!iat it would have been better that we should 
 have stood face to face with our actual prosecutor — the one 
 "who really finds the means of briefing the learned gentlemen 
 -against us. But we do, I hope and belieye, stand face to 
 face with a judge and jury who have not only fairness and 
 patience to hear the arguments we have to offer them, but 
 ■vvho would all dismiss any sort of prejudice that might be 
 sought to be imported into this inquiry. I wondered at the 
 learned Solicitor-General introducing a topic such as the 
 Christian religion intohis address here,andIpasswithoutreply 
 the words so used. If this work is to be considered obscene 
 because it is cheap, what becomes of " Chambers's Encyclo- 
 psedia" and other works issued in numbers, which publish 
 ■descriptions and illustrations of the generative organs. Now, 
 I put it that the fact that some one else maymakeanill-useofthis 
 work is, as my co-defendant put it to you, a matter to be 
 ■entirely dismissed from your mind ; that a work on toxi- 
 cology is not indictable simply because some one may 
 learn how to practise from it a mischief to the community 
 ty taking life with poison. The Recordei", in his charge to 
 the grand jury, who have sent us before you, said that a 
 medical work, though indecent, published for medical 
 students in a medical lecture-room, would not be indictable, 
 but that, circulated widely, it would become so. I submit 
 that if the book be indictable in itself it is indictable 
 wherever published, and that if not' so indictable, the in- 
 crease in its publication cannot create it an offence. The 
 Solicitor-General said that we contended for the right to 
 ■expose the human frame in public, and he gave another 
 illustration not so pleasant to the ears. We make no 
 such contention. There is a distinction that is admitted 
 with regard to acts which are a nuisance and annoy- 
 -ance to others ; a distinction recognised in this country, 
 and, I may say, recognised in every civilized country. I 
 reply that the exposure of the naked human form is 
 ■criminal. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I suppose you would admit 
 that an illustration of the human form in all its details in 
 natural size placarded about the streets would be an 
 ■offence ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Oh, yes, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is not the subject in itself 
 that is indictable. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I only say that exposing the human 
 
i68 
 
 form in all its details, in any size, to the annoyance of the 
 public, is a fair matter to be dealt with and punished by the 
 law. I am not here to start false arguments or to contend 
 for absurd positions. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Go further than that. If a 
 man took it into his head that the exposure of such a matter 
 would tend to the profit of the State, if he went to such an 
 extent, he must take the consequences. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Which ought to be " Colney Hatch," 
 my lord. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I should think so. 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings the Court rose. 
 
169 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice Cockburn took his seat at 10.30 a.m., 
 and the Court was again densely crowded. Mr. Bradlaugk 
 immediately rose to resume his defence. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : There is, in the extremely accurate 
 report in the Times, a comment, my lord, which makes me 
 fear that I failed to convey quite the explanation I intended 
 to put to your lordship on Montagu Cookson's paper in the 
 Fortnightly Revietv. I intended to put to your lordship 
 what Mr. Cookson, in a private letter to myself, had ex- 
 pressed : that the restraint after marriage, upon which he 
 relied, was a restraint in association at certain periods before 
 and after the menstrual period of the woman ; but there is. 
 nothing whatever in the article of Mr. Cookson which in any 
 fashion limits his explanation and the language, as reported 
 in the Times seems to convey the notion of restraint in the 
 sense of a sort of celibacy after marriage. The language of 
 Mr. Cookson's article is entirely at variance with that con- 
 struction, and I hope your lordship will pardon me putting 
 that before you, as I wanted to make quite clear my view sa 
 as not to misrepresent Mr. Cookson, or, on the other hand, 
 to injure my cause. There is one other point — the letter 
 sent to the Times 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We really cannot go into 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well ; I will only ask that nothing 
 that appears in connection with the reports may be taken as 
 militating in any fashion against what is put here in this 
 case. Now, my lord, I submit that the intention to break 
 the law by publishing obscene matter is governed in this 
 way. I will use your lordship's own words, in the case of 
 the Queen v. Hickling — words which, if it were not 
 impertinent, I should say that I urge in the strongest 
 fashion — " Where a man publishes a work manifestly ob- 
 scene, he must be taken to have had the intention " 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Equally so, if. he publishes a 
 book manifestly immoral. Is it desirable to discuss this 
 
legal question ? I must remind you that you are addressing 
 the jury, not me. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Well, my lord, I will pass away 
 from that entirely, and I will put to your lordship, and 
 to the jury, a series of propositions on which I shall ask 
 their consideration, and the answer to which will govern 
 the verdict which you will give in this case. The first 
 proposition I shall submit is one that has already 
 been more than proved to you, that the essay indicted 
 is an essay on the population question, and I submit 
 next, under my lord's correction, that the question is one 
 lawful to be discussed. I submit next that it has been 
 amply shown to you, and could be proved over and over 
 again, that over-population is a fruitful source of poverty, 
 ignorance, crime, vice, and misery ; that therefore the advo- 
 cacy of prudential checks to population is not merely law- 
 ful, but is highly moral. That the prudential checks are all 
 birth-restricting checks. That birth-restricting checks are by 
 ■delays of marriage or by restraint after marriage. That late 
 marriages and celibacy or general abstinence after mar- 
 riage involve horrible diseases and crimes, and perpetuate 
 prostitution. I had, when I framed that last proposi- 
 tion, in thinking of the best way of putting it to the 
 jury distinctly — I had simply put it that late marriages 
 and celibacy involve horrible diseases and crimes, and 
 perpetuate prostitution. Eut when I found that there 
 seemed to be a possible contention that it might be 
 lawful to advocate that which was equivalent to absolute 
 celibacy, so far as all sort of consummation after marri- 
 age was concerned, after going through the marriage cere- 
 mony; that proposition seemed to me to involve all 
 the terrible consequences of ordinary celibacy, both to the 
 x:ian and the woman, with the addition that there would 
 in that case be the provocative excitement of association, 
 and the worse disease arising from a denial of it, if you 
 ■can suppose such a denial possible amongst people of 
 the poorer classes, from whom the great mass of the 
 population spring. That early marriages involve the 
 advocacy of restraint of, and intelligent gratification of, 
 the reproductive functions. I submit that if you are 
 deahng with the question of population, having admitted 
 the law of population, and the doctrine of eai-ly marri- 
 ages that then you must admit the right and duty to 
 advocate restraint; if you hold that doctrine of celibacy 
 
171 
 
 is attended with disease and crime, and perpetuates 
 prostitution, then you must also advocate the intelligent 
 gratification of the t-eproductive functions. That restraint 
 after marriage must be of two kinds : one, the abstinence 
 from cohabitation which has been advocated by many 
 doctors, who contend that during certain periods, i.e., 
 ■within a certain time before or after the menstrual 
 period, conception is either impossible, or, at any rate, 
 •difficult. Against that you have the fact that a well-known 
 people, by their ceremonial laws, are prohibited from sexual 
 intercourse during the period indicated, and notwithstand- 
 ing that they are notoriously a most prolific people, so 
 that I submit that the restraint after marriage must mean 
 the intelligent gratification of the functions, so that the act 
 shall not involve bringing into life a child whom the 
 parents are miable to support. I submit that advocacy. of 
 such a restraint has never been declared unlawful, my lord, 
 and that it is not unlawful, and I submit that advocacy of 
 such a restraint does not tend to deprave and corrupt 
 the public mind, but tends to promote and to 
 increase the morality of the people. I submit further, 
 that the worst evil that could happen, supposing the 
 acceptance of this doctrine, is that unmarried people might 
 cohabit without having children, and that this is not 
 an evil for which we should be held criminally responsible, 
 as the pamphlet urges and insists on marriage in such terms 
 as demonstrates that the insistment is not a colourable pre ■ 
 tence; and here I repeat, with all the force that any earnest' 
 ness can add to the eloquent repudiation by my co-defend- 
 ant of any consciousness on our part of any colourable pretence 
 by Charles Knowlton, that there was no evidence even tendered 
 of any such consciousness. I say, except the unsupported 
 inuendo of the Solicitor-General, required by the exigencies 
 of his brief, there is not a paragraph from one end of this 
 pamphlet to the other to warrant the supposition that it is 
 directed against marriage ; and I say that, in point of fact, 
 at the present time unmarried people do cohabili and have 
 children, and that there are serious consequences flowing from 
 it — consequences so serious that, to use the words of Dr. 
 Lankester, now dead, quoted from the Journal of Public 
 Health in 1868, by my co-defendant in her speech — he 
 said that there were in London in that year 16,000 women 
 who had murdered their offspring. I say that at the very 
 worst this pamphlet might have prevented the repetition of 
 
172 
 
 these 16,000 murders annually. I submit to you, gentlemen 
 of the jury, that it is moral to teach poor people to marry 
 early, and that this teaching avoids and will diminish 
 illicit intercourse. I will not weary you with reading the 
 whole of the report on the " Employment of Women and 
 Children in Agriculture," from which my co-defendant 
 quoted that terrible extract from the report of Bishop 
 Eraser. You will there find that the illicit intercourse which 
 we are charged with trying to produce is an illicit intercourse 
 which is going on and bringing with it the birth of the child, 
 and bringing with it the murder of the child by the mother, 
 because there is the pang of star\'ation and misery and shame 
 to contend with. I say that it is amongst the poor married 
 people that the evils of over-population are chiefly felt, and 
 that it cannot tend to deprave their morals to teach them 
 how to intelligently check this over-population ; and I sub- 
 mit, and I ask your gravest attention to this submission, 
 because if you decide it in my favour it will, without any- 
 thing else, determine your verdict in this case — that the 
 advocacy of all checks is lawful except such as advocate the 
 destruction of the foetus after conception or of the child after 
 birth. I say that the advocacy of every birth-restricting check 
 is lawful which is not the advocacy of the destruction ot 
 human life in any form after that life has been created. 
 Now, gentlemen, if you should decide that in my favour 
 there is an entire end of the whole case ; and I submit to 
 your lordship, and to you, gentlemen of the jury, with whom 
 the arbitrament under his lordship's direction rests, and in 
 ■whose hands our future is placed, that that is a proposition 
 on which we are entitled to ask an affirmative answer at 
 your hands. The proposition is not very long ; permit me 
 to repeat it to you again, because it governs the whole of the 
 case I am goiug to submit to you : That the advocacy of 
 all checks to over-population is lawful except such as advo- 
 catethe destruction of the foetus after conception orof the child 
 after birth. I admit in the fullest sense that any advocacy 
 of the destruction of human life is not simply illegal under 
 statute, is not simply illegal under common law, but is 
 illegal under that moral law which obtains wherever there is 
 an intelligent appreciation of what morality should be. 
 That is, such advocacy is moral because it tends to the greatest 
 liappiness of the greatest number with the least injury to 
 any. I say that the advocacy of any checks amongst the 
 masses to be useful must of necessity be put in the plainest 
 
173 
 
 language and in the cheapest form, and be widely spread ; 
 andlpress thatuponyoubecauselunderstand that the learned 
 Solicitor-General in his argument put it that one of the faults 
 of this pamphlet was that it was not obscured in learned lan- 
 guage. If we possessed the facility of expressing ourselves in 
 French, or Italian, or Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, 
 what earthly use would that be to the poor unfortunate 
 wretches whose misery we want to redress ? It was objected 
 over and over again, as my co-defendant reminded you, that 
 there seemed to be some crime in the price of the book 
 being sixpence, which made it specially objectionable. But 
 if you take the fact, as fact it is, that in the whole of the 
 counties of Northumberland and Durham, while I speak, 
 the best paid class of hewers of coal are not now averaging 
 much more than ;£i per week ; take that for a man and 
 bis wife and three children only. But suppose him to have 
 five. The Pauper Unions allow 4s. 6d. per week, and some- 
 times a little niore, for boarding out a pauper child. Suppose 
 the coalhewer has a family of five, six, or seven — do the 
 multiplication for yourselves, and leaye nothing for luxury 
 or dissipation on the part of the bread winner — I ask what 
 means has he of purchasing the expensive treatises from 
 which I shall quote ? If it be right to advocate such checks 
 — and that is why I say that on the decision of this question 
 depend all the other propositions — it must be in language 
 which shall be intelligible to the people whom you want to 
 reach, and at a price at which they can buy it. It must be 
 widely spread, for it is not to the few, but to the many, that 
 the misery comes of crowding — from the many births of the 
 poor — the crowding of people, jostling each other out of life 
 in the search for employment, and the crowding into narrow 
 dwellings, where disease, vice, squalor, and misery attend 
 them. And it must be plainly put, because they are igno- 
 rant — very ignorant, because they are poor. They are 
 ignorant because the misfortune of their life has made them 
 so. They have to rise early, and work till they are tired, 
 and then some of you who have opportunities for culture 
 and recreation to which you can turn with intelligent plea- 
 sure, you may ask me why some of these men go to the beer- 
 house, or waste their money in the gin-palace ? But if your 
 homes were wretched and miserable ; if you were crowded 
 as I have seen hundreds and thousands of men and women 
 crowded in different parts of the country — three, four, five, or 
 six in one room, something like that described in Bishop 
 
174 
 
 Fraser's report. Let us take the case of a miner, for example, 
 who has gone down into the mine at four o'clock in the 
 morning and works there till eleven, as they do, in a tempe- 
 rature higher than your Turkish bath in Jermyn Street. 
 He has come out, clogged at every part of the skin with 
 coal-dust and dirt. His home — we will suppose it is a hot 
 day like this — is dirty, the floor is dirty, the drainage of the 
 village is bad, there are a few pit cottages together, and 
 the refuse and filth is in front and behind. Do you 
 wonder that he runs to the public-house, driven away 
 by the misery of the home, and yet you tell me 
 that it is immoral to try to do something to prevent the 
 crowding of these little mouths, that by their hungry needs 
 drive away everything like comfort from the home. If you 
 give a verdict against us it should be with grave consideration 
 as to whether the course we are taking is moral or immoral. 
 And then I admit that such advice is liable to be misused 
 by the criminal classes. I have in memory one of Chambers' 
 Encyclopsedias of " Useful Information for the People," in 
 which, dealing with the human frame, the writer points 
 out where it might be extremely easy to destroy life. Un- 
 questionably that passing into the hands of many persons 
 for three-halfpence would enable them to commit murder, but 
 this pamphlet, passing into the hands of hundreds of thou- 
 sands would enable them to avoid calamities which result 
 in disease and death. Such hypothetical or possible misuse 
 cannot make the ground for an indictment for misdemean- 
 our. To say that some time or other such people may do- 
 something we have not recommended under circumstances 
 we have not contemplated, cannot make a ground for indict- 
 ing us here. I now submit that it is impossible to advocate 
 sexual restraint after marriage amongst the poor without 
 such medical or physiological instructions as may enable 
 them to comprehend the advocacy and utilise it. Of what 
 use is it to take a man or woman, totally uneducated, and 
 to tell them their duty, unless you show them how to per- 
 form it. The telegraph is an admirable means of communi- 
 cating from one country to another : but suppose you took 
 a labourer or his wife into the operating room and showed 
 them the apparatus for working the electric machine ; they 
 could not comprehend it, to them it would be useless ; you 
 must give them the information which would enable them to 
 turn it to account. If it is right to advocate checks on popu- 
 •Bition, it cannot be wrong to teach the poor how to apply such 
 
I7S 
 
 checks. I now submit the next question, and I shall use the- 
 words of Justice Mellorj in the case of the " Queen against. 
 Hicldin." Does this pamphlet, in such physiological details, 
 go beyond what is necessary or legitimate ? I reduce it into- 
 four propositions : one, that over-population is a cause of im- 
 morality, and that which hinders over-population hinders 
 immorality, and, therefore, its advocacy cannot be with intent 
 to corrupt and deprave. I submit upon that, that to restrain the 
 population after marriage necessitates giving to the poor 
 and to the ignorant, from whom the bulk of the population 
 springs, the information which shall enable them to compre- 
 hend and utilise these propositions. I submit to you that 
 in this pamphlet there is not a single word which is unne- 
 cessary or which is illegitimate, or which goes beyond what 
 is absolutely necessary for instructing the poor and ignorant.. 
 I hope I shall succeed in establishing that, and if I do so I 
 shall with confidence ask a verdict at your hands. I am, 
 sorry to say that I have a very wearisome task before me, 
 which will not only be wearisome to myself but which, I am, 
 afraid, must necessarily be wearisome to you. For I have 
 got to go through the whole of this pamphlet, except the 
 portions gone through by my co-defendant, not one of which 
 I shall touch ; and I shall have to make out to you, and I 
 believe I shall succeed in doing so, that there is not a. 
 solitary, syllable on which the Solicitor-General can put his. 
 hands which is not chastely, carefully written, and pains- 
 takingly put, in the view of avoiding any sort of morbid 
 Excitement, any sort of improper allurement or enticement ; 
 and if, during, this speech, I shall be occasionally using- 
 words which may seem to you better avoided, I will beg. 
 you to think that I feel to the fullest the responsibility 
 resting upon me, and that I will try to use no word that is 
 unnecessary in submitting to you the proposition that in 
 this pamphlet there is not a word, so far as the sexual 
 details are concerned, which may not be found in works of 
 the highest class. I shall take work by work ; I don't know 
 whether, my lord, you would like to have them as I quote 
 from each work. I have the publisher of each book present 
 in court. I shall ask you, gentlemen, having your books 
 before you, to mark upon the copies of your pamphlets the 
 passages to which I shall draw your attention. The work 
 from which I am now about to quote is " The Functions 
 and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs in Childhood, 
 Yputhj Adult Age, and Advanced Life, considered in their 
 
176 
 
 Physiological, Social, and Moral Relations, by William 
 Acton." This was published by Messrs. Churchill, the 
 eminent publishers of New Burlington Street, and has 
 gone through a large number of editions. I will refer 
 you first to page 8 of the Knowlton pamphlet. You will 
 remember that my co-defendant left unread the last para- 
 graph on that page. I will now quote from Acton. 
 He speaks of young men " who have arrived at puberty 
 and whose innocence has been preserved from unfortu- 
 jiate initiation. Their disposition becomes sour, impatient, 
 and sad. They fall into a state of melancholy." (Mr. 
 Bradlaugh here read pages 28, 29, 30, 3r, and 32 of 
 Mr. Acton's book.) He then goes on to describe in the 
 strongest language the evils that result from a life of celibacy, 
 and then referring to the last paragraph on the page, I bring 
 you to the part which one has some little difficulty in dealing 
 with, in Acton's own words, which are so much stronger and 
 so very much more terrible than anything which occurs in 
 this Knowlton pamphlet, where he describes the disease 
 dealt with by Knowlton, where he describes the exaggeration 
 of the fears of the person and of his sufferings when his 
 feelings are played upon by improper people, and, where he 
 puts it just as Knowlton puts it, and in precisely the same 
 fashion, except that Knowlton is careful and chaste in the 
 extreme in the language he uses. And then, dealing still 
 with the same subject, he speaks of the necessity for giving 
 instructions on this to boys. I am quoting now from the 
 thirteenth page of Acton. He says — " I have been often 
 urged by parents and schoolmasters to draw up a plan which 
 might be of service in teaching them properly to address 
 children, as well as boys." (Mr. Bradlaugh read, at length, 
 from pages 14 and 15 of Acton's work and also from page 
 136.) And on pages 65 and 73 and thence to page 80 
 Dr. Acton deals with some of the terrible evils arising from 
 celibacy in language which I find it difficult here to go right 
 through to you, but respecting which I am placed in the 
 greater difficulty that at some other period in the case I may 
 be told that I had no right to call witnesses to prove this 
 publication or to put it into your hands so that you may 
 read it for yourselves. Acton in some eight or nine pages, 
 from 65 to 73, deals with the whole of the points on pages 8 
 and 9 of Knowlton, and also with the whole of the points 
 on pages 44 and 45, and I urge to you that the language of 
 Knowlton's summary on this sad topic, if judged by Acton, 
 
177 
 
 is as careful, as chaste, as thoughtful, and as delicate as it 
 is possible for language to be. I come next to page 1 2 of 
 the Knowlton pamphlet, because there seems to be some 
 suggestion that the first five lines of the Knowlton pamphlet 
 were specially indelicate, and on that I will refer you to 
 pages 115 to 138 of Acton. There the language of Acton 
 is just as precise, except that it is more full, so that, to use 
 the words of Alderman Figgins, into whose hands I put the 
 book when pleading before this case was committed for 
 trial, it would seem as if Acton had taken his words, not as 
 Alderman Figgins said, from Knowlton — it was impossible 
 that Knowlton could have taken from Acton, because 
 Knowlton published 30 years before Acton — but that both 
 must have taken from some common source, which source 
 I believe I have discovered through the aid of Mr. Bohn 
 and which is a work now in the library of the British 
 Museum. Curiously in the works of Acton, Carpenter, 
 Kirke, and Churchill, it is evident that they have all taken, 
 along with Knowlton, from some common and unacknow- 
 ledged source. The description is however much stronger 
 in Acton, the difference being that Acton had to write for 
 boys and men, whilst I am urging to you that Knowlton 
 wrote a work for women. Acton is more special in his 
 references to the male organs than is Knowlton. Knowlton 
 limits himself entirely to a description of the repro- 
 ductive organs in the woman, giving only the most general 
 of references to the functions of man, because it was 
 not necessary to his object. Now, it may be said, and in 
 fact it was said by the counsel for the prosecution before the 
 magistrate : " Oh ! but Acton's book is a book simply meant 
 to be limited to medical students," or, to use the words of 
 the learned Solicitor-General, only by those in some medical 
 college, or medical school. But on the contrary, in page 2 1 
 of Acton — and I may tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that I 
 have furnished more than six weeks ago a list of all the 
 books to which I shall have to refer to the prosecution ; and 
 in the case of this book and the two next to which I shall 
 refer, I have given this to them with the references all care- 
 fully marked for comparison with the comparison passage in 
 Knowlton ; so much do I rely ©n the strength of my case — 
 Acton says that he means this book to be circulated. He 
 says : — " I would not have that exotic virtue which is kept 
 from the chill blast." And he urges the necessity for -in- 
 structing the young on sexual questions for the purpose of 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 avoiding Immorality. Now, the learned Solicitor-General 
 talked of the extreme minuteness with which the female organs 
 were described, and to the mind of the learned Solicitor- 
 General that seemed to convey an absolute proof that the 
 book was written for the purpose of depraving and corrupt- 
 ing the public mind. And as the learned Solicitor-General 
 has had Acton's book, or, at least, those who instruct him 
 have had it, and he knows from my own written notices that 
 it is one of those on which I rely, he has doubtless read the 
 paragraph from which, in his presence, I will now read to you, 
 as being the completest answer to his allegation these lines : 
 (Mr. Bradlaugh then read from Dr. Acton, pp. 114 and 115). 
 He goes on to say that he deals with these things not for 
 the purpose of depraving and corrupting the public mind, 
 but because he considers it is necessary to point them out 
 for the purpose of avoiding evil habits and for the cure of 
 disease, against which his book is directed. I am obliged 
 to, press that upon you, because this minute particularity was 
 specially alleged as an illustration of what I think the 
 learned Solicitor-General called the " abominable filth" to be 
 found in Knowlton's book. Well, the book is published by 
 Churchill. It has been said that two blacks do not make 
 one white, and I do not want to urge that plea. I urge that 
 neither book is a book which ought to be attacked under 
 the law. I urge that impurity is not to be found either in 
 Acton or in our book, and that both are written for the pur- 
 pose of promoting morality, and not for the purpose of 
 depraving morals; but having to deal with the sexual 
 functions, you are obliged to use the words which will in- 
 dicate them for the purpose of making the instruction 
 clear. 1 will now refer you to page 16, wliich is one of 
 the incriminated portions of the pamphlet, and I will call 
 your attention to page 142 of Acton, the page furnished to 
 the prosecution six weeks ago, and which they have had the 
 fullest opportunity of considering. I must read this lan- 
 guage because it gives you the means of judging of how far 
 in, these five lines which I shall ask you to mark, how far 
 they have been distorted by the prosecution, and used in an 
 improper and unfair way. (Mr. Bradlaugh then read frcMn 
 Acton, page 142, and commented on the character and 
 effect of the illustrations used by Acton.) If you take the 
 words of Knowlton and the words of Acton and compare 
 them, I cannot understand how any man could have thought 
 it necessaiy to lodge an indictment against the former, 
 
179 
 
 Tcnowing that it was impossible-, under ordinary circum- 
 stances, for poor women to get the necessary knowledge 
 before it was too late, and to avert the misery which was 
 certain to ensue if they were allowed to remain in ignorance, 
 and that the author had made his language as chaste as it 
 was possible for anyone to make it. I will take you now to 
 the analysis on page i6, which has also been urged as part 
 of the immorality. I think of the words of the learned 
 Solicitor-General, "the enormous filth of this book," and 
 here you find that only a few of the baldest lines are given : 
 a few lines in a pamphlet which the Solicitor-General himself 
 had the justice to say had not the faintest semblance of 
 vulgarity, while Acton is not only full in his details, but actually 
 gives printed figures to illustrate his meaning. The Solicitor- 
 General may say "it is published for medical students,"but it is 
 advertised and described in Messrs. Churchill's catalogue, and 
 anybody may buy it for himself across the counter, or he may get 
 it by sending postage stamps. And Messrs. Churchill have not 
 been slow to utilise this prosecution, by sending out circulars 
 specially refeiring to one of these works used by me, in 
 order to increase the sale. I do not complain of that, 
 because I believe the books are useful and instructive pub- 
 lications and intended to promote public morality. But I 
 say it is a horrible thing to put us in danger of imprisonment 
 for giving that information to the poor, which may with im- 
 punity be given to the rich. I now take you to page 17 of the 
 Knowlton Pamphlet, to which I will draw your attention. Not 
 «nly does Acton (17 7 to 184) say all that Knowlton says, but he 
 gives plates in order to describe the subject, so that there 
 should be no mistake about it. If you hold up the one 
 against the other, the book of Acton far out-Herods Herod, 
 as against that of Knowlton. As I may not have another 
 opportunity of having the learned Solicitor-General to listen 
 to what I L_7, I will draw his attention to a book circulated 
 by the Government of which he has the honour to be the 
 legal adviser. Acton, I say, is purity itself compared with 
 the books that have been issued for girls' schools by the 
 Government, in the schools at Kensington and the schools 
 under the Science and Art Department, wherein are used the 
 works of Carpenter and of Kirke with plates larger than 
 these, with descriptions fuller than these, with an analysis , 
 more complete than these. I say that when a descrij)- 
 tion far much more voluptuous than anything in Knowlton 
 is put into the hands of girls by order of the Government 
 
 M 2 
 
i8o 
 
 of which he is the legal adviser, how can he say that that is 
 filth in my case which ten thousand times magnified becomes 
 chaste instruction in theirs ? Still keeping you on the same 
 page 1 7, you will find a subject discussed, which you see care- 
 fully stated in Knowlton, discreetly stated in Knowlton, and 
 which you also find stated in Acton, page i8o, I do not say- 
 without care and discretion, but comparatively stated with 
 an enormous deal of fulness. You will also find the same 
 thing, as I shall show you presently, in the work of Kirke, 
 which is circulated in boys' schools and girls' schools, and 
 also in this work of Carpenter, which, as shown by the certi- 
 ficate in it, was given away as a prize at Greenwich by Sir 
 John Lubbock, Bart., M.P. ; and the Right Hon. the 
 Recorder of the City of London, who charged the 
 jury against me, has given away, as a prize, the very book I 
 have in my hand. Carpenter's " Human Physiology." I 
 say that, compared with these works, the details in Knowlton 
 which have been quoted, are chaste and delicate, and are 
 the most carefully-made summary that it is possible for a 
 man to write who wanted to tell the people as much as he 
 could in short compass, so as to give them sufficient informa- 
 tion for the purpose. Still keeping on the same page of the 
 pamphlet, I bring you down now to the part treating on the 
 changes at puberty. On that, I may refer you to the language, 
 which I shall read to you from Acton, page 25. Now, while 
 the language in Knowlton is very quiet, you will find, when we 
 come to deal with Kirke and Carpenter, that if the language 
 were intended — which going into the hands of boys and 
 girls of the Science and Art Department, I do not believe 
 it is — to have the effect of depraving the morals, it certjunly 
 inight be supposed to have that effect from glowing descrip- 
 tions of the comely figure of the opposite sex, and the 
 attractions which the changes afler puberty produce. These 
 are omitted by Knowlton, because it is no part of his busi- 
 ness to give such exciting descriptions. He merely wants 
 to give the information which shall prevent men and women 
 being surrounded by a large number of starving children. 
 If the " filth," the " allurements," are to be found in the 
 prize books issued by the Government, the representative 
 of which is pleading for your verdict against me here, they 
 are not to be found in my pamphlet. I ask you to look at 
 the dry way in which in the line and a half Knowlton states 
 the fact which is necessary, and the fuller way in which you 
 have it here, occupying considerable space. Do not under- 
 
i8i 
 
 stand me as putting any sort of insinuation upon Acton, vrho 
 wrote that he meant his book to go into schools, and who is 
 now dead ; do not let me be supposed to insinuate either 
 that he would think he was writing a work that was filthy, 
 or that he would imagine any one else would think it was 
 filthy. I doubt myself whether, apart from the atmosphere 
 of a law court where it was necessary to win a verdict, the 
 calmer judgment of the Solicitor-General would not feel that 
 the word was unfairly used against a book which he himself 
 describes as entirely free from the faintest trace of vulgarity. 
 How the two ideas can coincide in the learned Solicitor- 
 General's mind is, to me, a problem that I am unable to 
 solve, not having had that high legal training which enables 
 me to misunderstand the case of my antagonist when it is 
 necessary I should do so in order to misrepresent him. 
 You will find that Acton says in page 4, that this point of 
 which he speaks and which the learned Solicitor-General 
 describes as being part of the filth "Ought to be explained 
 to the youngest child." He says, "We must recollect 
 that the child has never been taught." And 
 that which Dr. Acton thought ought to be explained 
 to the youngest child in schools, the learned Soli- 
 citor-General coming here, asks you to correct me for 
 circulating, at the same time having himself been a law 
 ofKcer of the Government which does send that kind of 
 instruction into the schools — ^which not only does that, but in 
 its syllabus on " animal physiology," says to the children : 
 " You are to be examined on the subject of reproduction, and 
 are to give answers to 'the structure of the ovum and of 
 the spermatozoon. The process of yelk division. The 
 formation of the blastoderm and the development therefrom 
 of the body of the embryo, with amnion, allantois, and yelk 
 sac. The nature of the chorion, of the decidua, and of the 
 placenta. The mode in which the foetus is nourished. The 
 development of the heart and the foetal circulation. The 
 changes in the circulation which take place at birth. The 
 lacteal glands and lactation. The modifications in the pro- 
 portions of the body from birth to adult age.'" And now I 
 will ask the learned Solicitor-General, how are children in 
 these schools to explain what these things mean, without 
 much more complete instruction and full detail than even 
 Knowlton can give ? Carpenter gives the detail, Kirke gives 
 it, Chavasse gives it, Marion Sims gives it, Graily Hewitt gives 
 it, Kennet gives it, and a large number of other writers give 
 
it to you, and how are you to examine children at all without 
 giving them this knowledge ? You are to discuss and be pre- 
 ipared to answer, on the process of yelk division, the nature 
 of the ovum and the placenta, the mode in which the fcetus 
 is nourished, the development of the foetal germs, &c., and 
 how are your boys and girls to do that in your schools unless 
 you give them this knowledge ? This is a syllabus for your 
 science and art schools, issued by the Government, and 
 prepared for their instruction, and they are referred for that 
 instruction to the works of Carpenter, and to the works of 
 Kiike, the works on which I am going to rely to make out 
 more fully that which I am dealing with here. You come 
 next, still on the same page 17, and if you, gerjtlemen of 
 the jury, do not think it too much trouble to mark the pages 
 as I go on, I will undertake not to leave you a single word 
 by the time I have finished my speech which is not marked 
 with a black line, as corroborated from these authors at least 
 half a dozen times over, and that out of the very books, 
 authorized by the Government and circulated and put 
 into the hands of the boys and girls whom the learned 
 Solicitor-General deplored anything of this kind reaching. 
 You will find a description given which is under the 
 last sentence. I read to you of the effect of impotency upon 
 certain classes of people, and I can read to you the words 
 of Acton, of page 120 in his book, which you can compare 
 with the words of Knowlton which you have in your hands, 
 remembering that the prosecution have had all these books 
 in their hands for comparison for six weeks. I ask you 
 whether you are to imagine that Dr. Acton — and it is not of 
 him alone : I take him because I do not think that even a 
 Solicitor-General ever urged anything against his morality — • 
 this book has been circulated widely by Messrs. Churchill, 
 who have the character in London of being amongst pub- 
 lishers par excellence the head of the branch of the business 
 they pursue. I put it to you, whether indicted at common law, 
 and measuring common law as common usage, whether you 
 will find that to be depraving and corrupting in Knowlton, 
 when published by me, and at the same time find it to be 
 neither depraving nor corrupting in Acton, when published 
 by Churchill? And the Solicitor-General cannot shelter him- 
 self by saying that it is a medical work only intended for 
 medical students, for Acton himself says his book is intended 
 for young people; that its knowledge may, if possible, prevent 
 evils which if not prevented in youth can never be remedied 
 
i83 
 
 in after age, evils which Knowlton tries in very, very 
 chastest language to put to the poor and the rough 
 with whom he has to come in contact, and which evils 
 he tries to warn them against and prevent j yet the 
 learned Solicitor-General says that this is a book issued 
 to deprave and corrupt the public mind, and that, in 
 the words of the indictment, it is an indecent, a lewd, 
 and a bawdy book. These, gentlemen of the jury, 
 are some of the adjectives which are piled on me, and 
 of which you are asked to find me here guilty. I will 
 now, if you please, take you for one moment, still 
 on the same page, to a reference at the very end of the last 
 paiagraph ; I may refer to the end of the complete paragraph 
 before it, because, if I understand the Solicitor-General's 
 argument at all, and I am not quite sure that I always did, 
 I find him there putting it to you as a sort of evidence of 
 the immorality of this book, for he refers to the delight 
 which might happen in the gratification of the sexual 
 passions. Compare what Acton says (page 154) with the 
 quiet, chaste description in Knowlton, and then, gentle- 
 men, I ask you can you tell me that this book treating 
 on the same subject has been issued for the purpose of 
 depraving and corrupting the public mind — whether the 
 learned Solicitor-General made a mistake and only 
 read the works of the different doctors instead of the 
 pamphlet he was charged to prosecute? Whether he 
 read Carpenter's " Physiology," now issued to children 
 under his own authority, instead of my pamphlet, in order 
 to find a strong description for it, I do not know; 
 but I will appeal to you, step by step, whether such con- 
 demnation is possible here. Now, gentlemen, I will bring 
 you to page 18 of the Knowlton pamphlet, and ask you to 
 take your pencils and then listen to Acton, pages g6 and 97. 
 I will ask you to bear those words in mind when people are 
 talking to you of celibacy, or of restraint after marriage with- 
 out cohabitation. And the learned Solicitor-General thinks 
 this ignorance, which Knowlton and Acton both deplore, 
 ought to be allowed to continue. At any rate the learned 
 Solicitor-General thinks that the education should not be 
 given to poor people at a cheap price. He would have it 
 limited to circles where they would be unable to get it, 
 sold at a price at which they cannot purchase it. They are 
 to suffer in misery— they are to feel the pain of their diseases, 
 they are to know nothing of the possible remedies ; they, 
 
1 84 
 
 with their 13s. or 14s. a week, are to consult a physician to 
 whom they are unable to pay the guinea fee, and whom from 
 their agricultural parish they are unable to reach. Gentle- 
 men of the jury, I trust your verdict will be a deliverance 
 from the perpetuation of such a state of misery as this. 
 Now, then, at page 20 of the Knowlton pamphlet, and I take 
 you to the bottom of the last complete paragraph on trans- 
 mitted peculiarities ; I will ask you whether Knowlton has 
 not, in two lines and a half, a quiet, delicately w^orded 
 summary of those facts which Acton considers it necessary 
 to teach. On page 22 of the Knowlton pamphlet your 
 attention is called to the paragraph beginning " In relation 
 to these objections;" and to page 24, where Knowlton speaks of 
 the same subject, Acton writes of it in a far fuller manner 
 (pages 90, gi, 142, 149, 150, and 157). Take and compare 
 then pages 22 and 24 of Knowlton with those of Acton, 
 remembering the words of the learned Solicitor-General, 
 " That the sexual act was described with a minuteness and 
 particularity that could only have been done for the purpose 
 of corrupting and depraving the public morals." I cannot 
 understand how it is that the learned Solicitor-General can 
 have said this, when he had reference to all these books 
 from which I am quoting six weeks ago. Why, I have done 
 what I suppose no other defendant in a criminal prosecu- 
 tion ever did. I have furnished to the prosecution a list of 
 the whole of the books (no sort of compulsion being on me 
 to do so, I might have hidden my case from them as much 
 as I could, and as they have hidden their case from me) ; 
 but, to put it frankly, I did hope that common sense and 
 common decency would have prevented even a Solicitor- 
 General from having attributed to me that which, having 
 fairly shown to be applicable only to others, he ought to 
 have known should not have been attributed to me at all. 
 Carpenter's work is a book which the learned Solicitor- 
 General's Government puts in the hands of children ! Lis- 
 ten, and then compare this to the words given by Knowlton 
 on page 22. (Extract read from Carpenter as given in 
 Acton, page 24). Now, compare that with the three or four 
 lines of Knowlton, and tell me whether Knowlton is not 
 chaste and delicate beside this book, which is put into the 
 hands of girls and boys by the Government, which is repre- 
 sented here by the learned Solicitor-General as one of its 
 law officers. I ask you how can you convict me with this 
 directory of the Science and Art Department of the Com- 
 
i85 
 
 mittee of the Council of Education before you, telling the 
 children, on pages 134 and 135, that this Carpenter's 
 " Human Physiology " is a book in which they are 
 to be examined for honours, and which they are 
 expected to know all about. It is simply monstrous 
 to put the words of that indictment to me at all — 
 it is monstrous to tell me that Knowlton is " filth," 
 that he states the act with minute particularity, 
 when, gentlemen, if I do not succeed in winning your assent 
 I shall have to show you in works — in other works by the 
 highest medical men — medical men whom I would rather 
 call to tell their own story, but that I am afraid, my lord, 
 would feel it his duty to rule that such evidence could not be 
 put in, and I am reluctantly striving to make myself my 
 own witness at the risk, I am afraid, sometimes of sorely 
 wearying you. But, if I do not give these statements now, 
 I probably never can give them at all, and I am bound to 
 cover every line of this pamphlet, which can only have been 
 attacked in the manner it has been by a person knowing 
 nothing about medicine or, having the knowledge, wilfully 
 twisting it for the purpose of injuring someone. Here is 
 Carpenter's " Manual of Physiology," published by Churc- 
 hill, and also Kirke's "Handbook of Physiology," published 
 by James Murray. These are the books which are put in 
 the hands of girls— are given to them as prizes and as books 
 in which they are to be examined. I do not want to use 
 words for which my lord might rebuke me. I do not want 
 to use one wrong phrase, but I am pleading here for my 
 liberty. I am pleading for my future. I am pleading for my 
 reputation. It is not pleasant to be indicted as the utterer 
 of an obscene book. From a charge of theft those 
 who know you will acquit you ; from a charge of murder, 
 even, it must be proved ere odium attaches ; but the charge 
 of obscenity is one of those sort of charges which is so 
 difficult to deal with. The very wording of the charge casts 
 a shadow. There is mud enough left on the garment how- 
 ever much you may wash it ; after filth has been so freely 
 thrown some of it is sure to stick — some one is sure to see 
 the stain of it ; some of those who have always malice to 
 see these things kin to their lesser selves. On page 22, of 
 ICnowlton, you find in four lines an attempt to state the 
 subject of satyriasis as chastely as possible, with nothing that 
 could be offensive, without anything which could shock any 
 well-regulated mind, or go in any sense beyond the instruc- 
 
i86 
 
 tion intended to give ; you find here that which Dr, Acton, I 
 will not suggest unwisely, thought it necessary to state with 
 a degree of fulness, which — while I may not use the words of 
 the learned Solicitor General, "it gives me pain to repeat" — 
 I will say it gives me pain to know that there are such terrible 
 diseases to be dealt with, but most of all to know they 
 prevailfromignorance and from misunderstanding of physical 
 laws. I shall be within the correction of my lord, who has 
 travelled many assizes, and I appeal to him whether there 
 are not, at nearly every agricultural assize, cases which the 
 press wisely refrains from reporting, crimes which though 
 existing, English language hesitates to characterize ; whether 
 they do not come before him, arising from this very satyriasis 
 among the poorer classes of wretched, ill-fed, ignorant people, 
 who if they had been instructed earlier in their lives 
 and wisely trained, would have been probably saved 
 from such a distortment of their nature. (After full com- 
 parison of pages 2 2 and 23 of Knowlton and page 157 
 of Action, Mr. Bradlaugh went through pages 25 and 27, 
 and then said — Now I go to page 35 upon which the learned 
 Solicitor-General expended a very large amount of denuncia- 
 tion, and the denunciation was then coupled with the word 
 "cayenne." I have heard Frenchmen denounce Cayenne, 
 because it is a criminal colony to which some of the political 
 convicts are transported, but I hear for the first time in this 
 court that the suggestion that cayenne as a possible remedy 
 or a possible alleviation in some cases of disease can be 
 associated with obscenity and denounced as filthy; and if I fail 
 to answer the learned Solicitor-General on that point, it will 
 only be because I utterly fail to comprehend what he meant 
 when he was putting it to you. There is a still stronger 
 remedy on the same page, that of cantharides, and if you 
 will look at page 132 of Acton — and I shall substantiate 
 this over and over again from the works of other physicians 
 — I shall show you the same thing, as to cantharides and 
 cayenne ; indeed, there is not a single prescription in this 
 book of Knowlton's which is not over and over again g ven 
 in all the authorities which I have before me — given with 
 full language as to the diseases, and full details as to the 
 remedies. Does cayenne become obscene put into a 
 pamphlet and published at sixpence ? and is it all right 
 when advocated in a medical book published at thirty shillings 
 or two guineas? Oh, gentlemen, I cannot believe you will 
 stultify yourselves in any such fashion. Whether the Solicitor- 
 
157 
 
 General's experience in criminal cases ever included cayenne 
 in any fashion which might convey to him any idea of an 
 obscene kind, 1 do not know, and I should not have 
 dreamed of trying to answer it, had I not heard it put in a 
 fashion which was to me utterly inexplicable, as part of the 
 ground of the indictment against me. The same things I 
 say as to the remedies on page 35 will apply as to the 
 remedies on page 37. You will find Acton, over and over 
 again, and at great length, showing the effect of study and 
 excess. This chapter as to sterility has been so much 
 spoken on that I must still ask leave to use a little more of 
 Acton's own words, only regretting that the learned counsel 
 for the prosecution did not think it riglit to state at least 
 some things which he knew might have fairly been said for 
 the defence. I probably have utterly miscomprehended 
 English jurisprudence. I had known that in civil cases, 
 that it was not considered sometimes unfair to leave 
 the advocate for the defence to make out his case, but I 
 had thought that in a criminal case, the second legal leader 
 in England, matched against a man and a woman, with 
 the knowledge before him put into the hands of his clients 
 for six weeks before the commencement of the trial and 
 actually furnished to them by the defendants — I had thought 
 that there was some pressure of honour upon him to put 
 to you in pleading to you for your verdict against us, at 
 least, a little of what we contended for on our side. It 
 was hardly fair to take this chapter, and this was the one 
 that had so " pained " him — it was hardly fair to do that 
 without saying (in justice to the defendants) that they had 
 furnished him with the whole number of books showing the 
 identity of the Knowlton pamphlet with what medical and 
 English doctors of the highest repute had written. You 
 will remember the Sohcitor-General's words, "American doc- 
 tors" — "perhaps some English doctors"- — "God forbid" — 
 were the words of the Solicitor-General, " that there should 
 be any writing — such things." If he did not know that we 
 were going to read these authorities it was only because the 
 solicitors who instructed him did not perform their duty — 
 nd I will not do the solicitor to the city the injustice to 
 think that he did not furnish to the Solicitor-General all the 
 detailed references I had written to him, and given him, 
 with every page carefully marked six weeks ago ; the learned 
 counsel appeared before the magistrates against me, with 
 some of my -references in their . hands. And I ask you,. 
 
i83 
 
 is it fair for the Solicitor-General to trust to our want of 
 ability, or to our want of memory, to make good our case 
 in important details of the kind ? You, gentlemen of the 
 jury, as my lord has well said, you are sitting there as 
 arbiters in this case. It is you I have to convince, and from 
 you I have to win a verdict, and is it fair that the learned 
 Solicitor-General should have left out the whole of these 
 facts, which he must have known if he had beep properly 
 instructed? At any rate, I know the junior counsel knew it, 
 because I myself saw in their hands on the last occasion 
 of appearing before the magistrate my analysis of Acton, 
 furnished them by myself. I do not think that that 
 suppression is quite right. I can scarcely deem it quite 
 honourable. I quite admit that the learned Solicitor- 
 General is fully occupied by questions to him much more 
 important than the simple one of whether I shall go to jail 
 or not ; he has his Parliamentary duties to occupy his time, 
 he has his other important and profitable engagements, but 
 I do not think he should have come here and suppressed 
 and kept hidden from you these matters of our defence 
 which have been so carefully furnished to the prosecution ; 
 for when I afterwards found that I should have to use 
 one or two books not included in the first list, I wrote 
 to the City Solicitor acquainting him with the fact, and giving 
 them the authorities, so that in no case can myself or my 
 co-defendant be said to be acting otherwise than honourably 
 and openly. We may be wrong, but, at any rate, we have 
 fought fairly. Without wishing to use any words from which 
 my lord would think that I have exceeded the privilege 
 given to a defendant to plead for his own justification, I am 
 bound to repeat that I do not think it was entirely fair to 
 conceal all these things from you. I did give the prosecu- 
 tion clear notice that Kirke and Carpenter were used 
 in schools, that other works to which I have referred you 
 were so used, and yet the harsh language came from the 
 Solicitor-General as if these things had never been heard of 
 in the history of the English people except in the Knowlton 
 pamphlet. Well, now I come to page 36, on sterility. Now 
 I ask you to look at that while I read to you from page 192 
 of Acton. I might continue them ad nauseam. I am in 
 this difficulty : I do not want to read to you to weary you, 
 to prejudice you against me, but I am trying to prove my 
 case. I must read enough to show you how utterly unre- 
 liable is all that the learnpd Snliritor-General has said about 
 
iE9 
 
 Knowlton's particularity of detail ; I ask you, are not these 
 words as completely chaste as it is possible to be, if he is to 
 deal with the question at all ? Then, however, on the same 
 page, 36 of Knowlton, treating of premature, and espe- 
 cially solitary gratification, I read to you on that from page 
 28 to page 31 of Acton, where he goes on at length page 
 after page, and shows the evils, including insanity, which 
 arise from this. Knowlton has dealt with this sad phase in 
 the most quiet way, the most simple way, the briefest way 
 human pen can touch it, and yet the learned Solicitor- 
 General indicts me for publishing obscenity ! The same, 
 in order to prevent repetition, may be said in reference to 
 the Knowlton pamphlet, page 44, at the end. I will try as 
 much as possible to prevent repetition, if I can. If you will 
 mark what I mean in that page it will save me again refer- 
 ring to it. But I will ask you, as indeed I think — I. 
 am not quite sure, if not in that, at any rate in another 
 part — my co-defendant did ask you, whether the 
 language at the bottom of page 36 is the language of an 
 indecent writer. He speaks of intemperance in the use of 
 spirits, and says, even a " moderate use of spirits, and even 
 tobacco in any form, have some effect. It is a law of the 
 animal economy, that no one part of the system can be 
 stimulated, or excited, without an expense of vitality, as it 
 is termed." I ask, is that the language of a man who wants 
 to make people immoral? He does not teach them to 
 drink and smoke in excess, but rather speaks against both 
 altogether, and the Solicitor-General insults this man — and 
 I stand here in his place, I acquit myself of no responsi- 
 bility for his words. He has been dead for more than a 
 quarter of a century, and your verdict, though it m^y touch 
 his memory, cannot touch him. It is myself, and my co- 
 defendant, who are pleading here ; I seeking to win your 
 verdict with all the more force, because the advocacy of 
 these views have been mine for so long and hers for so 
 short a time, and she has to pay, with me, the penalty of 
 inculcating what we both believe to be absolutely, and in 
 every sense, the reverse of what the learned Solicitor-General 
 says. The Solicitor-General talked of the colouring ; if we 
 wanted to retort, was not the colouring somewhat in 
 the Solicitor-General's speech? You may think that we 
 have done unwisely in trusting our own tongues to reply to 
 the trained ability matched against us; but we have the 
 confidence, whether right or wrong (a confidence which we 
 
190 
 
 still have), that the liberty of the press, in every age of the 
 history of this country, has been conserved by English juries, 
 and my reading, at any rate, has always compelled me to 
 remember that, even in the worst of our times, when Soli- 
 citor-Generals' voices had more influence — I will not ven- 
 ture to say that the Solicitor-Generals themselves had a 
 higher abiUty, although some of the grandest names after- 
 wards known on the bench were amongst those — it has 
 been the jury that has always stood between the prisoner 
 and the power arrayed against him, and has given him a 
 deliverance from an intent which ought never to have 
 been alleged against him at all. Gentlemen, I am 
 inclined to leave Acton, although I have a very large 
 number of other passages marked right through, dealing 
 "with the whole of pages 38 to 41, 42, 43 and 44, because I 
 shall only be repeating to you the same kind of language, 
 and if the learned Solicitor-General in his reply should ven- 
 ture to say to you that I did not read these passages because 
 they did not make out my case so strongly, then I will ask 
 you to ask him why it is that, having had from me the paged 
 references to Acton's book entirely in his own hands for so 
 long, he has not stated to you the slightest word about them. 
 There are one or two points which it is absolutely necessary 
 that I should briefly allude to, although I will not read them 
 at any greater length than I can help. One is on page 38, 
 where there is a reference to the exhaustive efforts of sexual 
 gratification, and I am obliged to allude to that because it 
 was one of the parts that the Solicitor-General said that he 
 alluded to with so much "pain." (Mr. Bradlaugh here read 
 from Acton, pages 93, 94, and 95.) Compare that with 
 the language of Knowlton, and then say, gentlemen, is not 
 the language of our pamphlet carefully chaste? and you will 
 remember that the learned Solicitor-General, in his speech, 
 alleged to you that the happy gratification of the reproduc- 
 tive instinct was one of the most alluring, and most cal- 
 culated to deprave by its indecency. I now will only take 
 you for one moment to page 43, simply because, although I 
 might occupy a very long time still with Acton, I have so 
 many volumes before me that I am myself feeling that I may 
 be transgressing unduly upon your patience. I will take you 
 to the part of page 43, beginning " Begin temperately." Then 
 on pages 104 to 107, Acton says (Mr. Bradlaugh here read 
 a lengthy extract), and Acton goes into the details of a large 
 number of cases to illustrate it. Now, I might Occupy much 
 
191 
 
 time with pages 43, 44, and 45, the whole of which is relied 
 in by the Solicitor-General as warranting your indictment 
 here. I might rely on an enormous number of quotations 
 from Acton to cover every word of these pages, but this is the 
 closing paragraph on page 45, to which I must allude, 
 because I understood the learned Solicitor-General to sug- 
 gest that these words on this were sufficient to warrant you 
 in finding a verdict of guilty of publishing a filthy book to 
 deprave and corrupt the public mind. I will read the words 
 of Knowlton, although they were read by the Solicitor-Gen- 
 eral. (Mr. Bradlaugh here read slowly the paragraph on p.4S.) 
 I avow, gentlemen, that I do not know what impression that 
 made upon your minds, nor do I know either what impres- 
 sion it made on the mind of his lordship, but I avow that it 
 seems to me that the whole of the argument of the learned 
 Solicitor-General was more than amply answered by his own 
 quotation. He has told you that this book for which we 
 are prosecuted is directed against marriage. It is said 
 that where distinct declarations are made regarding un- 
 married females, filthy and corrupt inuendoes are intended, 
 but in pages 84 and 85 of Acton we have the most dis- 
 tinct declarations of this character, and corroborations in 
 the most precise way of all that is put in Knov/lton. I 
 have now, for one single moment, before I take up 
 another book, just to draw your attention to the character 
 of the book I have been quoting. It is a book published 
 by a man who was in his lifetime one who was accredited 
 with the highest medical reputation, a man against whom 
 either in his lifetime or afterwards there was never uttered 
 -the slightest suspicion of quackery, nor was such an insinua- 
 tion ever urged. The person who reads this book will find 
 it to be full of very painful things. I do not know whether 
 my lord will think that I have the right to hand up to the 
 jury such books as I quote from, where these things 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, I think not. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : You think not, my lord. That being 
 so, I am prevented from putting in these books, and 
 I am afraid that I shall in consequence, in the duty 
 that lies before me, be obliged reluctantly, for the sake 
 of the argument, to go line by^ line through the con- 
 current statements in other books till I have succeeded 
 in impressing you with the defence upon which I have to 
 rely. I am unable to put these books into your hands 
 because 
 
192 
 
 The LoitD Chief Justice : Because they are not evi- 
 dence.' 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Just so, my lord, because they are not 
 evidence, and that being the case, I have only the oppor- 
 tunity of reading them to you as part of my speech. But if 
 I could hand you these books, or if I could put the authors 
 of them into the witness-box, I should be able to show you 
 conclusively that the charges made against this Knowlton 
 pamphlet cannot be sustained. What an unfair position, 
 then, am I in — what a position of difficulty compared with 
 that of the Solicitor-General, who might have told you all 
 these things, as well as saying the ill he did of this pamph- 
 let. I do not say this by way of making any complaint, for 
 since I am in this court I am willing to abide by its deci- 
 sion ; but I am simply making the remark because the rules 
 of the court prevent me putting before you these works, and 
 I am reduced simply to telling you in the best way I can 
 what they contain. I am sorry to be obliged to weary you, 
 and to detain you from your usual occupations, while I have 
 to go through book by book, of which some parts are as 
 dreary as parts of books can be ; and had not the learned 
 Solicitor-General hurled the inuendo at us that we have 
 made a deliberate attempt to corrupt the public morals, it 
 would not be necessary for me to go through this pamphlet 
 line by line to show that its statements are simply chaste 
 abbreviations of those which are put at greater length, and 
 more elaborated in other works written by the highest phy- 
 sicians and openly sold by the most respectable publishers. I 
 only add one word in laying do\vn Acton, if I may be 
 permitted to do so, and that is that as far as my 
 evidence is worth anything, there has never the slightest 
 attack been made upon it, and no charge of obscenity was 
 ever brought against it. The next book I shall refer to, not 
 being able to hand it up, is " Notes on Uterine Surgery," 
 by J. Marion Sims, which is published by the very respect- 
 able firm of Messrs. Hardwick and Bogue. Dr. Sims 
 was a graduate of a university, had obtained a large number 
 of very honourable distinctions, and held a very high posi- 
 tion in his profession, and although I am not permitted to 
 put this in evidence, I wish you clearly to understand that I 
 am not quoting from some disreputable quack, or from some 
 person who, for his own ends, would write and circulate any 
 kind of obscenity. With this book I shall have to deal, step 
 by step, or at any rate with so much of it as I think will con- 
 
193 
 
 vince you into the belief that there can be no such charge 
 as the obscenity or indecency maintained against Knowlton 
 after hearing what Sims has written, or if you are not con- 
 vinced of that, I shall not be able to comprehend the effect 
 of evidence, or at any rate I shall wonder that the plainest 
 possible statements that the English language is capable of 
 can produce upon different minds so different results. Let 
 me direct you to a paragraph on page 1 2 of the Knowlton 
 pamphlet. I trust you will bear with me now ; after the clear 
 and explicit declaration of the Lord Chief Justice, that I 
 cannot put in this medical evidence, the necessity that lies 
 upon me in my speech to put fully before you everything 
 which will entitle me to win a verdict at your hands. I have 
 no wish, believe me, to keep you there a moment longer 
 than is absolutely necessary, still less have I the desire to act 
 in a manner unworthy of the fairness shown to us by the 
 Court ; but I am obliged, not only for myself, but also for 
 my co-defendant — who is in this entirely in my hands — ■ 
 to do all that my poor wit will enable me to clear ourselves, 
 and I have no right to allow one thing to escape to bring 
 about the result. On the 12th page of the Knowlton pamphlet, 
 near the end, you note the paragraph (reading it), and I nov/' 
 take you to page 323 and page 324 of Dr. Marion Sims. 
 (Mr. Bradlaugh here read some extremely strong passages.) 
 After that he gives — through several pages, and with great 
 detail — a large number of cases of this disease, and goes on 
 to describe all the operations of this kind which he has had 
 to perform for the purpose of dealing with this which the 
 learned Solicitor-General has put before you, and which he 
 has chosen to allege is part of the lilth which we have 
 published. Dr. Sims enters upon this subject with great 
 fulness of detail. Turn now to page 13 of the pamphlet, 
 where Knowlton is dealing with the female reproductive 
 organs. The learned Solicitor-General laid great stress, in 
 his speech, on what he chose to call the obscene particu- 
 larity of detail ; but if I were able to put Sims into your 
 hands, I should, I think, be able to show you that here are 
 far filler details, and that they are accompanied by a plate 
 of everything described, in order that it should be more 
 certainly understood. I will read the language of Sims, 
 hoAvever, and ask you to compare it with the modest 
 reference in Knowlton. (Mr. Bradlaugh then read page 181 
 and page 234 from Dr. Sims.) And then he spends exactly 
 two pages and a half, which I will not weary you with, in 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 describing technically the whole of its position, its form, and 
 its size, as well as thickness and capacity. I will still ask 
 you to follow me carefully. We are still at page 12 of 
 Knowlton and 181 in Sims. If you will look at Knowlton, 
 you will see the exact correctness of the description. (Here 
 JNIr. Bradlaugh read another long extract, and held towards 
 the jury box the illustrated plates in Sims' book). Go 
 now, a few lines lower on, to page 13 of Knov/lton, while I 
 read a piece from page 204 of Sims. (Mr. Bradlaugh 
 read another extract.) This subject is referred to by 
 Knowlton on page 14, and on pages 181-2 of Sims; you 
 v/ill find how accurately he has written. I want, here, to 
 press upon you — because it has been expressly referred to 
 in tl.e speech of the Solicitor-General in opening this case, 
 and may be again referred to when he comes to repl}', for 
 he has the right of using every word in this pamphlet 
 against us — that the charge made against Knowlton presses 
 much more heavily upon Sims, for not only is there an 
 enormously long description here, but, if I were able to 
 hand this book up to you, I should show you that it is 
 accompanied by a picture with the end in ^'iew of making 
 the description more comprehensible. That which is put here 
 in Sims with a bold completeness of detail, is delicately and 
 chastely abbreviated by Knowlton, and yet you are called 
 upon to believe that I and my co-defendant ha^'e set out with 
 the intention of corrupting the public mind by publishing a 
 pamphlet stating the fact in that guarded way. (Mr. 
 Bradlaugh read further from Sims, page 1S2, and added), 
 Gentlemen, I will not attempt to weary you with the whole 
 of the pages, for it goes on to give every minutest detail : 
 and yet, when the same facts, which to prevent disease, 
 should be knovm by women, are so briefly stated in Knowlton, 
 they are characterised by the learned Solicitor-General as 
 filth, and I am pre\-ented from shovving \ou hv e\"idence 
 that the pamphlet is a pure work of medical instruction. 
 Although I cannot help thinking that ray case is one that 
 should meet with your sympath}-, I will not complain as 
 to the disadvantage at which I am placed, for it is my 
 duty to .accept the regulations of the court. On the same 
 page, I might read another extract, corroborating Knowlton 
 on this point, but I will lea\-e that, gentlemen. I might 
 indeed occupy much more of your time with this page, 
 but there is nothing in it which suggests sensual ideas to 
 niy niind in reading it, although some filthy-minded 
 
195 
 
 persons have tried to manufacture a complaint— in using 
 the word filthy I may have spoken too strongly — I will 
 say that people entirely ignorant of medicine and medical 
 works, or anything of the mass of detail that belongs 
 to them ; people who are only used to reading law books, 
 have the impertinence to come here and call scientific 
 facts filth. I avow I cannot understand how they can 
 have come to that conclusion from reading this array of 
 books (Mr. Bradlaugh here pointed to several piles 
 of marked medical works, arranged round him, ready 
 for reference), and if they have not read them, although 
 they had notice six weeks ago that I should refer to 
 them, it is more shameful still for the Solicitor General 
 to have used such language. I now bring you, gentle- 
 men, to page 15 of the pamphlet ; there you will find the 
 subject treated of is menstruation. Sims also treats on 
 the subject. (Mr. Bradlaugh here read at considerable 
 length, from pages 39, 40, and 139 of Sims). I am 
 endeavouring now to limit the words as much as possible 
 to those of Knowlton, leaving out as much I can. Sims 
 then goes on to give a large number of cases in illustra- 
 tion, which are painful, and adduces the reasons, with which 
 I need not trouble you, but contenting myself with 
 simply assuring you that Knowlton is chaste and delicate 
 compared with him. We now come to page 16 of the 
 pamphlet, and the same subject is spoken of on page 5 of Sims. 
 You will notice, gentlemen, the very slight reference to 
 pregnancy and menstruation, and the guarded way in which 
 it is put by Knowlton. Sims on page 29 and 30, and on pages 
 380 to 385, gives witli most full details several unpleasant 
 cases which he investigated. I am told that Knowlton goes 
 into minuteness of detail. I am surprised that the Soli- 
 citor could have ventured to say so if he had read this book. 
 Listen to a passage of pp. 384 and 385 of this book of Sims, 
 and tell me what you think. (Mr. Bradlaugh then read a 
 long extract from Sims.) Compare all that with the delicate 
 v/ay in which Knowlton puts it — states the bare, actual facts. 
 I do not think that the book has had the effect upon the mind 
 of the Solicitor-General which it ought to have had, and I 
 urge that he was utterly unwarranted in 'alleging that it was 
 calculated and published for the purpose of corrupting the 
 public mind. We are still on the same page of Knowlton, 
 gentlemen.) Mr. Bradlaugh then verified further parts of 
 p. 16 by Sims, pages 361 and 367, in each case showing the 
 
 N 2 
 
196 
 
 superior style of the Knowlton pamphlet, of which he then 
 took page 1 7. (The learned Solicitor-General talked of the 
 particularity of detail ; but if I had the power to put Dr. 
 Sims in the box, I could, I believe, show you that he goes 
 on to speak on all the same topics, accompanied on p. 363 
 by plates, clearly illustrative of their appearance, and when 
 the learned Solicitor-General speaks of filth, and I find in 
 the books of Carpenter, of Kirke, of Valentine, of Hilles, 
 the same sort of descriptions on this topic, accompanied by 
 similar plates, and that some of these books are put into the 
 hands of girls for instruction and study at schools regulated 
 from South Kensington, surely I have a right to complain 
 of the use of such expressions. Yet I am indicted, and your 
 verdict is asked for against me for the minute particularity 
 with which we put these things. I do not think that I \vili 
 weary you with the full description on p. 17, but if I could 
 put the book into your hands you would, I am sure, say 
 that the language of Knowlton is unmistakably most chaste 
 and delicate when read side by side with this, notwith- 
 standing the unsupported allegations of a Solicitor-General, 
 who, perhaps, had not even read the pamphlet he vilified. 
 I will go on now to page 11, the second paragraph — it is 
 the first complete paragraph about the middle of the page 
 — and refer you to page 340 of Sims, where I find similar 
 declarations uniformerly accompanied Isy matter which, when 
 I come to deal with pages 19 and 22 of Knowlton, I shall 
 have to read to you. (Mr. Bradlaugh read a long extract). 
 The same sort of remarks are made by Carpenter, by Kirke, 
 by Valentine, and in the " Ladies' Own Companion," which 
 is issued by one of the most respectable homoeopathic 
 publishing firms in London, any of which can be bought 
 openly and without question. Any number of cases" in 
 relation to this subject are given in the various books in 
 which young girls have to be examined. In the list of sub- 
 jects printed on the Go\-ernment syllabus they have to deal 
 with this, and they are to comprehend the results incident to 
 pregnancy, and do you mean to tell me that the delicate 
 references to the same subject used in this Knowlton 
 pamphlet are fairly called " filth," are more likelv to corrupt 
 the public mind or to destroy public morality'? And how 
 shall I speak when I am indicted, may be punislicd, may be 
 sent to prison for doing so, and yet see all these unchallenged. 
 I come now to page 1 9, where Knowlton repeats the same 
 doctrines as are laid down in the paragraphs to which I ha\e 
 
197 
 
 referred. He then goes on to the question, difficult to treat 
 here and I am afraid I must give you a case preceding the 
 paragraph in Sims wliich I have annotated in connection 
 witli this in order not to be obliged to have to refer to the 
 subject again. I will on the same topic take you to page 22 
 of Knowlton, and ask you where he uses one word which is 
 impure, or puts one fact which leads you to think libidinously ? 
 Sims, on 340, 341, and 342 gives a collection of cases. 
 Now I will ask you again, is not the language of Knowlton 
 chaste and delicate in the extreme compared with that ? 
 Dealing with the same subject on page 372, Sims precisely 
 states what Knowlton gives, and on page 197, still dealing with 
 the safne subject, he puts the words still more plainly, and 
 he puts it that this is the medical view. If I were permitted 
 to do so I would show you the plate in this page by means 
 of which he describes exactly what he means, so that there 
 is no possibility of misunderstanding, and yet I am told by 
 the Solicitor-General, in this pamphlet I have given 
 currency to the most abominable iilth, minutely particular 
 details, calculated to corrupt the public mind. Can 
 that be so? Can the learned Solicitor-General have 
 used such language and yet have read this book by 
 Dr. Marion Sims, which I gave him notice, weeks ago, 
 I should have to refer to? We are still dealing witli 
 page 19 of the pamphlet and I go now to page 182 
 of Sims, where he speaks more plainly and less delicately. 
 (Mr. Bradlaugh read words.) I think I have now also dis- 
 posed of page 22 of Knowlton, and I need not refer to it 
 again. I come now to page 23, just after the words " John 
 Hunter," about the middle of the page, and go on to the 
 same subject on pages 25 and 26. I will read to you from 
 Sims, who, after long and minute details, gives another 
 series of plates, giving the fullest illustrative descriptions. 
 (Mr. Bradlaugh here read from pages ii6, 119, 363, and 
 372, of Sims). The same facts, however, as you see, are 
 very guardedly and very quietly put by Knowlton at the 
 bottom of page 26. Compare this with the language of 
 Sims, and then say if Knowlton can be called indelicate. I, 
 must also trouble you with the whole of the paragraph, be- 
 ginning page 29 of the Knowlton pamphlet. I am afraid I 
 am asking you to listen to rather too much from Dr. Marion 
 Sims, but, as I am prohibited handing you the book, I must 
 read some of the passages, or you would never imagine to 
 what extent they go. (Mr. Bradlaugh commenced reading 
 
from page 350 into 351). He goes on there to give an 
 enormously long description which I will not pain you with, 
 and adds, on page 354, a plate of the foulest description, 
 according to the theory of the prosecution, which, unfortu- 
 nately, I must not put into your hands. But plates almost 
 identical are put into the hands of boys and girls at school 
 for the purpose of enabling them to study these and kindred 
 subjects, and are even included among the list of prizes 
 distributed to them. Such facts, I say again, are by Knowlton 
 put in the simplest, most chaste, and delicate language, in 
 his pamphlet. I will now read you a paragraph in Sims, on 
 page 372, and refer you to the bottom of the same page in 
 Knowlton ; and on that I will also read you two from pages 
 381 and 387 of Sims, in which is given, in language as 
 explicit as possible, all that is so briefly said by Knowlton. 
 I will now take you to page 330 Knowlton, to the very last 
 three lines of the page, in which, having stated the plair» 
 simple fact, you can easily compare his manner with the way 
 in which Sims treats it. He tells you how he visited his 
 patient, and how, at visit after visit, experiment after e:;peri- 
 ment was resorted to to discover thebest way of ascertaining 
 the facts. Hegoes on for something like two pages describing 
 that, and I ask you whether, assuming the need of plates to aid 
 in the examination of these subjects, Knowlton is not again 
 and again far more chaste and cautious as to entering too 
 minutely into extremely particular details ? I now come to 
 the question of sterility, which is dealt with on page 34. 
 and the first paragraph of chapter 3. Sims says, on page 
 216, not only that Knowlton gives an accurate summary in 
 a third of a line, but on this point he gives two plates for 
 the purpose of showing what he means. Then you will 
 find a fewer lines further down, on page 34 of the pamphlet, 
 and on that I will again refer you to the exact corroboration 
 to be found in the language used by Sims on page 39. (After 
 reading, Mr. Bradlaugh said.) I must here ask you to re- 
 member that the learned Solicitor-General, when pleading 
 against me, read a portion of the book on page 44 as one of 
 the most filthy suggestions which he could conceive it pos- 
 sible to make in a publication. I am not myself unac- 
 quainted with medical technicalities, but I know the diffi- 
 culty without a trained technical skill to pass a criticism 
 upon these dry questions, and to make out a case to vcu. 
 which you will think sufficient ; but I venture to say that 
 we find here much more of what the learned gentleman 
 
T99 
 
 calls filthy suggestions than in the pamplilet for which I 
 am indicted, and that, too, in a book not published by 
 any common quack, but written by a high authority, and 
 circulated by a publishing firm of the first-class. I say this 
 book is much more calculated to deprave. But this book 
 is circulated at a guinea or two, perhaps ; do you mean 
 to tell me that obscenity is measured by the price of a 
 book ? I am not pleading, let me crave to observe, that 
 two blacks make one white, and that because one book 
 is published, for vdiich I am indicted, another book of a 
 similar character should not be allowed to be issued ; but I 
 am saying, and I do most earnestly contend, that it is un- 
 fair to prohibit the circulation of a book merely because it 
 is sold at a low price and distributed among the poor and 
 ignorant for the purpose of improving their minds and in 
 structing them in things they ought to know ; and I say 
 that I should not be held responsible for mere facts put in 
 as clear and chaste a way as they can be. I now refer you to 
 the language of Sims on page 5. (Mr. Bradlaugh again read.) 
 Then let me ask you to read the paragraph on page 35 of 
 Knov/lton, against which the learned Solicitor-General 
 directed so much of his choicest ire and indignation. You 
 will see that the authority quoted by Knowlton is Dr. 
 Dewees, and I may say that we have luckily just at the last 
 moment procured a copy of his works, for it has been out of 
 print a great number of years, and difficult to get. The 
 remedies given by Knowlton were given on his authority ; 
 and on page 144 Sims prescribes exactly the same remedies ; 
 among them tincture of guaiac. And, really, gentlemen, it 
 seems to me a little too much that you should send me out 
 of this court branded as a criminal, and cominit me to gaol 
 for depraving the public mind, because I have given for the 
 sum of sixpence information v/hich for the last half-century 
 has been given in various forms and shapes, and for printing 
 a recipe as others have done ; and because the eye of the 
 learned Solicitor-General caught the word " cayenne " amongst 
 other things, that must forsooth be evidence of the most gross 
 immorality. I will now pass over several pages and go to page 
 38 of the pamphlet, because there are a number of things re- 
 ferred to there v,'hich are more fully given by other books ; 
 but I will make my remarks thereupon as short as possible, 
 in what I fear must at briefest be a wearisome and long - 
 speech. I will take you to the instrument purchasable for 
 a shilling, which is to be made a ground for convicting me ; 
 
and here let nic say that I cannot help wishing that the 
 learned counsel who has addressed you had not used lan- 
 guage which was capable of being misunderstood. When 
 you talk of an instrument in connection with such a topic 
 instead of a harmless syringe, one of the simplest instru- 
 ments, here recommended, the mind would be taken by the 
 Solicitor-General's words to instruments familiarly known in 
 medical jurisprudence, and used for the commission of 
 crime. I venture to say it is outraging all reason and sense 
 when you offer the suggestion that it is recommended here 
 for a criminal or immoral purpose. I think, however, I may 
 manage to save time if I take several paragraphs together, 
 so I will take the paragraphs on pages 38, 39, 40, and 41, 
 so as not to have to refer to them again. And, first of all, 
 perhaps you would hardly believe, but I can assure you that 
 in pages 375-6-7, 380-89, Sims in this book actually gives 
 cases where the use of the syringe has been resorted to for 
 the very purpose recommended in Knowlton, in that one 
 case which is given on page 376. If details of that kind 
 are fairly permissible in a book whose distribution and pub- 
 lication are not restricted, I do not see why I should be pre- 
 cluded from publishing statementso carefully worded as those 
 of Knowlton. Oh, but it is said, such things excite sexual feelings. 
 Let me say that I do not believe that they do anything of 
 the kind. At any rate they do not produce any lascivious 
 thoughts in my mind, but, on the contrary, I assure you 
 that going through these details as I have had to do for 
 the purposes of making my defence, produced upon me, 
 unused as I am generally to such a class of study, the \'ery 
 same kind of revolution which is, I venture to say, passing 
 through your minds at this moment, in being compelled to 
 listen to the reading. A syringe can be bought for a shilling, 
 and can be used for sanitary purposes, some of which are 
 enforced on wretched women under police authority, but 
 here, in Sims, we have plate after plate setting forth the man- 
 ner in which it is to be used, and yet the pamphlet of Knowl- 
 ton is brought into Court, because it suggests a similar use 
 but in much more decent language, and is, therefore, charac- 
 terised as "filth" by the learned Solicitor-General. Books 
 of the very same character may be sold to the rich, but the 
 poor are not to be allowed to get the cheap information 
 because they can purchase it for a shilling. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The argument of the Soli- 
 citor-General, do not understand me for a moment to say 
 
that it cannot be met, ^Yas to this effect, that that which it 
 is essential for medical men to know, is not essential fci' the 
 general public to know, or at least it may not be, and that 
 such information may be used to corrupt the public mind. 
 The Solicitor-General did not say that those things were not 
 to be found in medical works, nor did he argue, as far as I 
 understood, that if those books were published to the world 
 generally they would not be subject to legal consequences, 
 but he said they were allowed to pass unchallenged because 
 they were written for a particular purpose, to give the result 
 of experiment and experience with the view of instructing, 
 and, undoubtedly, in works of that character — works in- 
 tended to give medical information — it is absolutely neces- 
 sary to give those minute details to which you have referred. 
 The argument is that it is unnecessary to give these details 
 to the general public, and I refer to it because I think if the 
 argument can be met it should be met, and if they are so 
 given the tendency is to corrupt the public mind. It is, 
 therefore, I think, of no use to multiply instances, and to 
 pile illustration upon illustration without strengthening your 
 argument. In every work intended for medical purposes, 
 or to give instruction in medical studies, it is necessary that 
 these details should be given to enable medical men to treat 
 the diseases of the various organs, but I question whether the 
 same information given to the general public may be of ad 
 vantage to them, or whether on the other hand it is not 
 calculated to influence them in an opposite direction. That 
 is the argument I think you have to grapple with. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Quite so, my lord. I agree that if it 
 were possible for this proposition to be conceded in any 
 way by the prosecution it would shorten th6 case very much 
 — the proposition that there is no fact stated by Knowlton 
 that is not stated in a variety of books, not only written 
 especially for the medical profession, but that the whole of 
 the details which I have given are in Carpenter's physiolo- 
 gical school books in plain language, which is put into the 
 hands of children, distributed by authority, and given away 
 in the shape of prizes. If that proposition could be con- 
 ceded to me it would relieve me from a considerable ditli- 
 culty and the necessity of inflicting upon the Court and the 
 jury a very long statement, though I trust that your lord- 
 ship will not think that I have detained you too long. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Oh no, not at all. That was 
 not my meaning. 
 
Mr. Bradlaugii : If it is even admitted that these de- 
 tails are not entered into with greater particularity than is 
 necessary for the comprehension of the subject I shall gladly 
 relieve the jury of much that I had intended to say. The 
 contention of the learned Solicitor-General is that we have 
 gone into certain facts only for corrupting the public mind, 
 and my proposition is that- it is necessary to advocate 
 checks upon over-population, and that it is necessary, for 
 these checks to be properly understood, to give information 
 to poor people, among whom the e\'il largely exists — informa- 
 tion upon sexual and physiological matters, and that in 
 doing this the incriminated pamphlet does not contain one 
 word which is not for that purpose legitimate and necessary, 
 not one word which is not pure and iit for the instructing of 
 the poor and ignorant in these matters. That is why I put 
 this proposition at the outset of my argument, and not for 
 the purpose of any special pleading. I only want to show 
 that every statement is legitimate and necessary to the 
 subject treated, and as I cannot give in evidence the books, 
 I fear I must further, unless in some fashion that pro- 
 position is granted to me, pile authority upon authority, as 
 your lordship has observed, to cover my defence and to prove 
 the accuracy of my contention. If the jury think I have 
 said enough upon the subject I would not open another 
 book before them. There is, I contend, nothing indecent, 
 nothing which is not warranted by the matters treated, and 
 we who feel ourselves called upon to face the issue, as 
 the advocates of checks to over-population, contend that, 
 moral or immoral as the book may be thought by others, 
 this pamphlet states neither more nor less than is necessary 
 or legitimate for the purpose. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not think that any one 
 would say that if this were purely and simply a medical 
 work there would be any redundancy of details, or anything 
 more than it is necessary for a medical man to know, and 
 he would be among the most ignorant of his profession if he 
 did not know them ; but then the argument is that this is 
 not a medical book, and that is the point which I think you 
 should meet. 
 
 The Court adjourned for half-an-hour. 
 
 After the adjournment, Mr. Bradlaugi-i proceeded: 
 I have myself, with my co-defendant, gravely considered, 
 as we naturally ought to do, any suggestion coming from 
 
203 
 
 your lordship, and we feci the full force and weight of your 
 lordship's suggestion. I am in this difficulty, that, having a 
 little to plead this medical portion, not only for myself, but 
 for the lady who has so ably defended herself, I feel that 
 she relies a little — indeed, without presumption, I may say 
 she relies entirely — upon any advice I may offer to her as 
 to the conduct of these proceedings. I do not want to do 
 anything which may in any way damage either her position 
 or my own ; and I think, therefore, I shall be consult'ng 
 what is due to the Court, which has listened to us with very, 
 very great patience, if I only make use of some of the books 
 Vtfhich I have here, and which, if I were to attempt to cite 
 passages from them all, judging from the rate at v/hich I 
 have been able to deal with the tv/o already mentioned, 
 would take several days of the time of the Court, and add 
 nothing to the force of what has been adduced. There are, 
 however, one or two books which I think I ought to deal 
 v.'ith. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : By all means. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : If your lordship, then, will permit me, 
 I will cite the wiirks of Carpenter and Kirke as works which 
 are being used in schools ; and I think, if I take one of 
 these works — namely. Carpenter's — it will suffice for the 
 present, because what is found in the one is to a great ex- 
 tent found in the other. That is a book specially designed 
 for young people. It is not issued for the professional use 
 of students at a university or college, but, as I have said, 
 it is intended for the instruction of young people generally. 
 I also intend to make some comments on a book of 
 Churchill's, which was partially alluded to by my co-defen- 
 dant, and, with the exception of some references, without 
 going into details, to Chavasse and Bull, I propose to make 
 no further detailed quotations, thinking that we have at all 
 events impressed the jury sufficiently, and feeling that ,we 
 should not unduly talce up their time, after the passage."; 
 which, I am sure your lordship will not think it impertinent 
 in me to have read as I have from the medical works, to 
 show that there had been nothing unfairly stated in the 
 Knowlton pamphlet. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, you may take it that you 
 have shown that what is in Knowlton, if it were a medical 
 work, would not be so full as other medical works treating 
 similar topics. 
 
 Ivlr. Bradlatjgh : I feel that I should only be taking 
 
204 
 
 advantage of the patience of the jury if, after that intima- 
 tion from the Bench, I unduly pressed the other book;^. 
 I will, therefore, only take Carpenter's " Human Physio ■ 
 logy," a work by Burt Wilder, who was a professor in Cor- 
 nell University, and also some small portions of Churchill's 
 " Diseases of Women," for the reason partially referred to 
 by my co-defendant. These are three large books in wide 
 circulation, and there is no pretence whatever for saying 
 that they are confined to medical men. Before I proceed 
 to deal with them, you will permit me to say — and I hope I 
 shall not unduly put it — that the pretence about the restric- 
 tion of the circulation of medical boolcs is as utterly hollow 
 as it is possible to conceive. In addition to the works to 
 which I have referred, there are some thirty or forty bulky 
 works which I have very carefully compared with Knowl- 
 ton's pamphlet. It was my intention to quote from those 
 works, and to point out that they can be purchased with the 
 gi-eatest facility. They are published, some in Dublin by 
 Hewitt, and some in London by Sampson Low and Co., 
 Churchill, Macmillan, and Smith and Son themselves. One 
 which is called " The Ladies' Manual of Homoeopathic 
 Treatment," is published by the Homceopathic Company in 
 Moorgate Street — a highly respectable company. Certain 
 details are contained on pages 15, 16, and 17 of that book. 
 I have studied those details, and, while I do not want to 
 characterise another book, I should say that they are almost 
 grossly treated compared with the fashion in which Knowl- 
 ton has treated them. But I quite agree with what has 
 fallen from the Bench, that we should in no way strengthen 
 our position here by simply going over book after book for 
 several days, wearisomely to you and to myself I will only 
 put it to you that the richer can afford and do pay 5s., los., 
 or even 21s. for a book; not that there is anything indecent 
 in it, but simply because a woman does not like sometimes 
 to mention to medical men things which this Ladies' Manual 
 lells her, but which are matters of great delicacy. Now, 
 look at the other side. Poor women — women whose claims 
 I am here to advocate, and whose husbands and children 
 are also my clients— they need the same information ; but 
 at the prices I have quoted it is beyond their reach. I can- 
 not help thinking that if there were, as I belie\e there is 
 not, any offence in the publication of such things as are pub- 
 lished here — I cannot help thinking that it is a little hard in 
 the City of London to single out for prosecution those whose 
 
only desire is to teach the poor how to help themselves. 
 The poor have their wants, the poor have their needs, the 
 poor have their failings, the poor have their diseases, and 
 the poor are the most numerous class of society. As a 
 matter of fact, there is no rettriction in the circulation of 
 medical works at all. As a matter of fact, since this prose- 
 cution has been pending, Messrs. Churchill have issued special 
 circulars, drawing attention to these works, and both they and 
 Messrs. Smith and Son have circulated this book of Chavasse's, 
 not simply as I have got it here, but divided into two parts and 
 done up in paper covers, and scores of copies are to be found 
 on every bookstall. I do not blame the publishers for 
 utilising the notoriety given to the book. AH I want to 
 point out is the fact that, since these proceedings began, 
 the publishers are issuing advertisements, and that there has 
 been an increased sale of the work. There is no pretence 
 whatever that it is meant for the medical profession exclu- 
 sively. No fewer than eleven thousand of the last edition 
 have been sold, and that is the eleventh edition of the book. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the name of it ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It is Chavasse's " Advice to Wives," 
 and deals particularly with menstruation, and the develop- 
 ment of the foetus, and it treats also on pregnancy and concep- 
 tion. I do not want to say anything against Chavasse ; but I 
 think he has written a book to sell, with more padding and 
 jokes than can be found in Knowlton's pamphlet — a book, 
 in short, which, though not in any way of an obscene 
 tendency, yet occasionally gives dstails in a very broad style. 
 He deals also with the question of sterility, and indicates 
 the remedies necessary to prevent it. The book of Dr. 
 Bull's is of the same character ; but on the whole I should 
 regard it as a much superior production, though you find in 
 every page the same subjects discussed. These books are 
 to be seen on every bookstall in the country, and are circu- 
 lating by scores of thousands. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Are you sure they are sold 
 by Smith and Son ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I am quite sure, my lord. At the 
 same time I do not want to cover myself by imputations on 
 other people. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am quite certain that the 
 Messrs Smith would not sell a single copy of a work which 
 they considered at all injurious to public morals. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I fully admit that. Both in London 
 
and elsewhere the name of Messrs. Smith can be vouched 
 for as being of the highest standing. My contention is not 
 because other people have done worse than I have, that, 
 therefore, I should be let off My contention is that the 
 rich have certain useful information v/ithin their rer.ch 
 which they have no more right to have it at their disposal 
 for IS. 6d. than the poor have at 6d. Chavasse's book, 
 which, on the branches on which it treats, gives fuller details 
 than Knowlton's pamphlet, is divided into two' parts, one 
 giving hints to wives, and the other hints to mothers, and 
 the object of the division is to make the work cheap. It is, 
 as I have said, done up in paper covers, and published at 
 eighteen pence. It will be fonvarded to any one on the 
 receipt of stamps at Churchill's, Smith's, or at any bookstall, 
 .so that the question of restricted circulation in reference to 
 this class of works is at once got rid of. I purposely limit 
 myself in this case to three books only, hoping the jury will 
 believe that I am not over-stating the truth when I say that 
 I have annotated for reference nearly forty volumes. They 
 over and over again cover every page of Knowlton, and I 
 refrain from reading the passages simply because I acknow- 
 ledge the justice of his lordship's observation that by doing 
 so I should be piling fact upon fact ad nauseam without 
 strengthening my case. Therefore I shall not do anything 
 which the jury, judging as between man and man, may 
 have anything to complain of. I shall take Carpenter's 
 " Human Physiology," reminding )'ou that that is a book 
 recommended by the Committee of Council on Educa- 
 tion in their directory, which regulates the establishing 
 and conducting of science schools and classes. I feel 
 bound to bring that book before you, because I 
 cannot help regretting the point urged by the Solicitor- 
 General — I will not say unfairly but strongly, and put by 
 my lord, from the bench — that there is some difference 
 between a work written, as my lord says, by medical men 
 for medical men or students, or for people desiring to make 
 themselves acquainted with the science of medicine, in which 
 it may be necessary to use certain language for the sake of 
 humanity, and to enter into a variety of details which arc 
 not pleasant reading for the general public But, to use the 
 analogy oi my co-dei'endant, the details of the process of 
 digestion and wliat takes place in that process, would not 
 enable' you to enjoy your dinner if you went into the study 
 of them immediately before the dinner hour. Now, 
 
207 
 
 Carpenter's "Human Physiology" is one of the books in 
 which the young folks are to be examined, and of whiclr 
 many editions have been published. According to the 
 directory of the Committee of Council on Education, this book 
 is to be made one of the standard works for examination, and 
 if the contention is to be made that the giving of the informa- 
 tion contained in this book is obscenity, and that the ten- 
 dency of giving that information is to corrupt and deprave 
 the public mind, then you are landed in a difficulty as 
 regards this case, because the whole of that information is 
 given in the book which I shall bring befsre you. There is 
 this to be said — and I hope I shall not neglect the view 
 which his lordship put — that there is a distinction to be 
 drawn. Carpenter's " Human Physiology," though given to 
 young boys and girls in schools for the purpose of instruct- 
 ing them, among other things, as to what happens during 
 sexual connection, and what happens after it, although it 
 tells them how birth may be forwarded, and how it may be 
 retarded, by giving illustrations in relation to it, the object 
 simply is to instruct them so far, and there is no design in 
 the book of inducing them to limit the number of their 
 offspring. I hope I have fairly stated the point which his 
 lordship put to me ; but there is one thing which I ask you 
 to consider in giving your verdict, namely — Is the advocacy 
 of all checks lawful, except the advocacy of such checks as 
 involve the destruction of the fffitus after conception or the 
 destruction of the child after birth ? I am not asking you 
 to lay down the doctrine that Knowlton Is altogether correct. 
 A doctrine may be unscientific without being immoral ; and 
 I repeat that the point which I desire to put to you is 
 this, Is the advocacy of all checks lawful, except such as 
 involve the destruction of the foetus after conception, or 
 of the child after birth ? I will take you first to page 1 1 
 of Knowlton's Pamphlet, beginning with the second 
 small paragraph in the middle, where you will find a 
 description of the female parts. In Carpenter's " Human 
 Physiology," pages 1021, 1022, and 1023, you will find the 
 same much more fully. I will not trouble to read a 
 word of it to you, because the curious thing v/hich struck 
 me when I first commenced to compare Carpenter with 
 Knov/lton was that in nearly every respect the language was 
 precisely identical, with the one exception that Knowlton 
 was simply an epitome of Carpenter, cooled down. One 
 reason perhaps was that Knowlton had to get all his facts 
 
208 
 
 into a very limited space — I do not want to take more 
 credit for the author than he deserves— and, therefore, he 
 liad to express them in very small compass indeed. To 
 show that I am correct I vs^ill put to you an illustration about 
 four lines down the paragraph, ending page ii. (Mr. 
 Bradlaugh then read a long extract from Carpenter.) The 
 .nuthor then goes into a description which covers several pages, 
 and is as exact in accord with Knowlton as it possibly can 
 be ; and considering that Carpenter's book is used by 
 children in schools, and has a number of plates and pictures 
 of the organs described, it is remarkable that the same 
 language is employed in both Carpenter and Knowlton, 
 page by page, and step by step. Now, bearing in mind that 
 one may overshoot one's mark by continually reading the 
 same things, I will, although several other passages intervene, 
 proceed to take illustration of puberty. It is given on page 
 15 of Knowlton. You will find that it says simply — "A 
 girl acquires a more womanly appearance." On page 958 
 of Carpenter — and this is a book which is put into the hands 
 of girls — you find the same thing thus stated. (Mr. 
 Bradlaugh read a long extract.) Now, I put it to you, 
 as a mere matter of fact, whether the few words " A 
 girl acquires a more womanly appearance," is not the 
 ■ excess of delicacy compared with the other description con- 
 tained in a book put into the hands of young boys and 
 girls from 12 to 16, who are not only instructed in the book, 
 but actually receive copies of it as prizes. The whole of 
 the facts relative to menstruation are there stated with the 
 excess of detail. Pardon me for a moment while I refer 
 you to one passage in order to show how Carpenter deals 
 with the sexual act itself, and I do so simply as an answer 
 to the argument of the Solicitor-General as to the 
 circulation of this book in girls' schools. It is on 
 p.nge 961 section 743, and refers specially to the function 
 of the female which happens to be dealt with hv 
 Knowlton as you knov/. (Mr. Bradlaugh again read.) 
 You find that Carpenter deals with such matters as are on 
 pages 12 to 17 of the Knowlton pamphlet, and gives many 
 pages of description with appropriate plates for the instruc- 
 tion of young girls, and I cannot help thinking that if such 
 descriptions by Carpenter are considered advantageous to 
 moral training, it is a little too hard to say that Knowlton's 
 pamphlet is indecent. In Carpenter reference is also made 
 to the changes which take place in the male. (Mr. Bradlaugh 
 
209 
 
 here read from pages 952 — 953, section 734). In dealing 
 with the sexual act, the particularity is much more extreme 
 in Carpenter's than in Knowlton's work. I will not trouble 
 you with reading one more word from Carpenter. I simply 
 tell you that I have carefully marked page after page of his 
 book, and I have selected passages which do not come 
 within the range of ordinary medical works, but which are 
 considered by the Science and Art Department of the Com- 
 mittee of Council on Education as fit subjects in which 
 young men and young women are to be instructed and ex- 
 amined. The subjects, you will remember, I have already 
 stated to you. I am unfortunately precluded, by the 
 ruling of my lord, from putting this Government syllabus 
 into your hands. I trust I am endeavouring as far as pos- 
 sible to save your time consistently with the merest approach 
 to justice to my case. There is not a page of this pamphlet 
 of Knowlton's relating to the female, her organs and func- 
 tions, which is not over and over again covered by this 
 volume of Carpenter's, and covered in such a way as to 
 show that the latter writer wanted to make his book 
 interesting. It is amply clear that Knowlton had no such 
 object. He had no interest in making his pamphlet even 
 approach indecency, and, on the whole, it is a dry book. 
 Why, we have in court a cyclopaedia of anatomy and phy- 
 siology, published by Longmans, in which all the parts are 
 given with a degree of particularity, and with plates to aid 
 the comprehension, which was not limited in circulation 
 solely among medical men. I will now refer — and not more 
 than is absolutely necessary — to a book written by Burt G. 
 Wilder, a professor of Cornell University, and published in 
 London by Triibner, and in Boston by Estes and Lauriat. I 
 have some knowledgeof thatBostonfirm. It is as respectable as 
 Triibner or Longman, and would not knowingly pubUsh any- 
 thing whatever of an improper character. The author says he 
 wrote the book chiefly for students and unprofessional 
 readers, and denies that the subject cannot be presented 
 with safety to the minds of the young. On the contrary, he 
 says it is a duty to enlighten the young on sexual physiology, 
 in order- that they may not be ignorant of matters of this 
 kind. The book is not written by a quack. You may tell 
 me that it is written by an American professor only. The 
 Solicitor-General, eminent himself as a scientist, sneered at 
 American doctors. I have been treated with great kindness 
 in -the United States, and feel bound to resent the slurs cast 
 
 o 
 
2IO 
 
 upon American doctors. They are as highly educated, and 
 possess as high characters in America as in London, and 
 though, in this great city, from its population, antiquity, and 
 wealth, there are special advantages offered, excelling most 
 cities in the world, there are medical men of as much emi- 
 nence and probity in New York and Boston, and in Paris 
 and Vienna, as can be found in any city in England. It 
 v/as my intention to refer to a large number of French and 
 Italian books, and especially to the " Elementi de Igieni," by 
 Dr. Paolo Mantegazza, one of the present deputies in the 
 Italian Chamber, which defends, in the strongest terms, the 
 checks on population advocated by Knowlton. I do not 
 mention that fact by way of excusing myself; but if you put 
 this case as a precedent, which I think you must, ynu must 
 consider that in fairly dealing with it. Now, Wilder, v,-ho, 
 in his work, gives the fullest physiological instruction, deals 
 with the fact of celibacy, which is also dealt with at page 8 of 
 Knowlton's pamphlet. In his book, written for the young, 
 he says — [Here Mr. Bradlaugh read from pages 14S and 
 149.] Wilder's book, you will see, goes into far greater 
 detail than the Knowlton pamphlet. Its motto is, " Honi 
 soit qui mal y pense " — a motto which, if I may do so with- 
 out impertinence, I would commend to the Solicitor-General 
 and those who conduct this prosecution. On pages 30, 38, 
 40, and 49 of this book, which, bear in mind, is intended 
 for young people, there are given the fullest descriptions, not 
 only of the female organs, but of the male organs as well, 
 with plates to explain them. The descriptions are very 
 plain and explicit, and if they had been copied from some 
 enlarged edition of Knowlton, they could not have been 
 more completely in accord. I must repeat that Wilder's 
 book has been sold in London by Triibner, and at Boston, 
 by Estes and Lauriat, and that it is intended, not for 
 medical men, but for young people. I think you will 
 find there almost the exact words of pages 1 1, 12, 13, and 14 
 of Knowlton's pamphlet. I do not want to seem to savour of 
 impertinence, and I do not want to read the extracts at all. 
 But the passages are often word for word identical, exce]3t 
 where Wilder is much more detailed, and there is, in 
 addition to the letterpress, plates which it is impossible to 
 mistake, and which are given in such a way that those who 
 read the book could not help understanding the whole. 
 And yet, I am told that particularity of detail is evidence of 
 an intention to deprave and corrupt, ^^'hat does 'Wilder 
 
say ? I Viill only give a brief summary. (Mr. Bradlaiigh 
 Iiere read extracts covering much of pages 19 to 44 of the 
 Knowlton pamphlet.) The Solicitor-General does not seem 
 to know what Carpenter and Kirke have written, or that 
 their lessons are taught in the Science and Art Schools of 
 England, and yet we are sought to be prohibited from 
 putting similar knowledge in the hands of the masses of the 
 people at a cheap price. Now, for a moment, I will refer 
 you to another work as to which there cannot be any 
 pretence for saying that it is confined to medical men'. It 
 is a work on Anthropology, by Dr. Nichols, who says that it 
 is such a book we would wish to see in the hands of every 
 man and woman who is wise enough to profit by its pages. 
 There is contained in that book exactly the same information 
 as is contained in the works of Carpenter and Kirke, with 
 pictures showing the dift''erent organs of the hmnan body, so 
 that there should be no mistake. One more topic I must 
 allude to. In my allusions to Carpenter and Wilder, I have 
 not done what I had sketched out in my brief, because if I 
 had done so, there is not one line that would not have been 
 as fully dealt with as in Marion Sims. But I think, in 
 addressing the court and jury, I have no right to thrust 
 upon them anything at unfair length. There now remains, 
 not contention that we have highly coloured or coloured at 
 all, but it is proved we have, or rather Knowlton has, 
 softened down and chastened that with which he had to 
 deal in the discharge of what he deemed to be his duty — if 
 that were not practically conceded to us, I should have 
 felt it necessary for my own sake and for the sake of the lady 
 who is co-defendant with me, to have gone through every lineat 
 the risk of wearying you. But no such responsibility rests 
 upon me. In this pamphlet there is no attempt at indecent 
 statement. The only object is to teach people how to check 
 population after marriage. Is it, then, I ask, such a b®ok 
 that you inust give your verdict against it ? I will refer you 
 for an instant to a book by Dr. Fleetwood Churchill on 
 " The Theory and Practice of Midwifery." There is also a 
 book called "The Diseases of Women," by the same author, 
 nearly to the same effect. The one portion I wish to allude 
 to in each work is more as a measure of argument than as a 
 measure of comparison. Dr. Churchill argues that it is 
 lawful and morally right, in a case where you know that a 
 woman is so diseased or deformed that she cannot on a 
 future pregnancy bring into the vrorld a healthy child,/ 
 
 o 2 
 
so to operate upon her that future conception must 
 be impossible. In addition to that, on pages 298 and 
 299, he argues that it is right, where you know 
 that a pregnant woman is so much malformed, or 
 is diseased to such an extent that she cannot bring into the 
 world a healthy child at the full term, to procure what is 
 sometimes called the premature delivery of the child by 
 drugs or instruments, the object being to save the life of the 
 mother or the child, or prevent the child being bom alive so 
 malformed that life would be a misery to it. Now, if that be 
 right, I ask where is the iniquity of seeking to prevent the 
 conception of children at all, whose life, if created, will be a 
 misery to them and to others? I am inclined here — and I 
 hope by so doing I shall not have done injustice to the cause 
 — I am inclined to abandon the whole of the books I had 
 intended to rely upon in addressing you. I am inclined to 
 abandon them, because if I go through them, I must occupy 
 you for several days, and I do think, with a jury and judge 
 so patient and kind as you have been, I have no right to 
 take up so much of your time. I ask you, then, to consider 
 the issues which I have put to you already and which I put 
 to you again, viz., Is over-population the cause of poverty ? 
 Is over-population the cause of misery ? Is over-population 
 the canse cf crime? Is over-population the cause of 
 disease ? Is it moral or immoral to check poverty, igno- 
 rance, vice, crime, and disease? I can only think you 
 will give one answer, that it is moral to check 
 these evils. You may say : Try to restrain them, 
 like Malthus, by late marriage. Ay, but even to get late 
 marriage, you must teach poor men and women to compre- 
 hend the need for it, and, even then, if you get real celibacy, 
 Acton and others will tell .you what honible diseases are the 
 outcome of this state of things. Really, you never can 
 get even celibacy. You know what takes place in London 
 and Paris. I have passed through Naples and Rome, and 
 I have been shocked at being stopped by lads at night In 
 Florence, in Berlin, in Paris, 30U all know what arises 
 from this pretence of ceUbacy. Even in our own large 
 centres of population, such as Dublin, Edinburgh, and 
 Glasgow, you know what this false pretence of celibacy 
 means. Take the case of Birmingham as an illustration. 
 Walk through the sti-eets of that city betvreen nine and 
 eleven in the evening, and as the gaslight shows the flaunt- 
 ing shame, tell me whether celibacy is a reality or a sham. 
 
213 
 
 Tell me whether or not that terrible word " prostitution," 
 written everywhere in letters of festering curse, is not a dis- 
 figuring scar upon the surface of society. It is said that 
 this pamphlet tries to defend immorality. You must con- 
 tradict every page of it — ignore every word in it — to warrant 
 that assumption. You may say it is very unfair, for example, 
 that the agricultural labourer should have children to burden 
 the poor's-rate. But put yourself in the position of the 
 agricultural labourers. They have not the training and 
 education that you have, and sometimes mere sexual gratifi- 
 cation is the only pleasure of their lives. They cannot read 
 Virgil; they cannot read Dante. They cannot listen to 
 Beethoven ; they cannot listen to Handel. They cannot 
 go to a musical reunion ; and they cannot visit a sculpture 
 gallery. They have no time occasionally to run across the 
 Alps. They have no opportunity of finding recreation in 
 the Pyrenees. They cannot yacht in the North Sea. The)' 
 cannot fish for salmon at New Brunswick or St. John's. 
 They are limited to their narrow parish bound, and 
 their bound is only the work, the home, the beerhouse, 
 the poorhouse, and the grave. We want to make them 
 more comfortable ; and you tell us we are immoral. 
 We want to prevent them bringing into the world little 
 children to suck death, instead of life, at the breasts' of 
 their mother ; and you tell us we are immoral. I 
 should not say that, perhaps, for you, gentlemen, may 
 judge things differently from myself; but I know the 
 poor. I belong to them. I was born amongst them, 
 Among them are the earliest associations of my life. Such 
 little ability as I possess to-day has come to me in the hard 
 struggle of life. I have had no University to polish my 
 tongue ; no Alma Mater to give to me any eloquence by 
 which to move you. I plead here simply for the class to 
 which I belong, and for the right to tell them what may re- 
 deem their poverty and alleviate their misery. And I ask 
 you to believe in your heart of hearts, even if you deliver a 
 verdict against us here — I ask you, at least, to try and be- 
 lieve both for myself and the lady who sits beside me (I 
 hope it for myself, and I earnestly wish it for her), that all 
 through we have meant to do right, even if you think that 
 we have done wrong. I have to put to you this proposition ; 
 you jurymen are to be convinced that we are guilty. If a 
 shadow of doubt go through your minds you have no right 
 to make a deliverance of guilty against us ; and unless you 
 
214 
 
 feel we arc the fit associates of those horrible Holywell 
 Street men, who circulate foul literature day by day, and 
 that we are deserving even of being put in the scale with 
 those who circulate obscene prints, your deliverance must be 
 one of not guilty. It is not a question whether you agree 
 with the methods of checking population ; it is 'not a ques- 
 tion whether you are Malthusians or anti-Malthusians. I 
 put it to you, and I ask you to consider it carefully, that the 
 question which you have to determine is this : — Is the 
 advocacy of all checks to population lawful, except such as 
 advocate the destruction of the fcetus after conception, or 
 of the child after birth ? Is it possible to preach abstinence 
 and prudence to the poor without instructing them in the 
 various matters of physiology which have been dealt with in 
 this pamphlet ? There is not one line in it which goes 
 beyond what is legitimate or necessary. Is there any 
 pretence v.-hatever for saying that we have given any sort of 
 colouring to it v/hich would make it otherwise acceptable ? 
 My co-defendant referred, in earnest language, to the letters 
 v/hich she had received from women, and clergymen, and 
 others, throughout the country. I, too, have received many 
 warm words of sympathy from those who think that I am 
 right. It is true many of them may be ignorant people, and 
 therefore may be wrong ; but they have written to encourage 
 me with their kindly sympathy in my pleading before you. 
 If we are branded with the offence of circulating an obscene 
 book, many of these poor people will still think "No." 
 They think such knowledge would prevent miseiy in their 
 families, would check hunger in their families, and would 
 hinder disease in their families. Do you know what po\-erty 
 means in a poor man's house ? It means that vdien you 
 are reproaching a poor and ignorant man with brutality, 
 you forget that he is merely struggling against that hardship 
 of life which drives all chivalry and courtesy out of his 
 existence. Do not blame poor men too much that they are 
 rough and brutal. Think mercifully of a man such as a 
 brick-maker, who, going home after his day's toil, finds six 
 or seven little ones crying for bread, and clinging around 
 his wife for the food which they cannot get. Think you 
 such a scene as that is not sufficient to make both himself 
 and her hungry and angry too ? Gentlemen, it is for vou. 
 in your deliverance _ of guilty or not guilty, to say how we 
 are to go from this court — whether, when we leave this 
 place, if you mark us guilty, his 'ordship may feel it to be 
 
=15 
 
 his duty to sentence us, and put upon us the brand of a 
 doom such as your verdict may warrant ; or whether, by 
 your \-erdict of not guiltj — which I hope for myself and 
 desire for my co-defendant — we may go out of this court 
 absolved from that shame which this indictment has sought 
 to put upon us. (There was applause in court at the con- 
 clusion of Mr. Bradlaugh's address.) 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not intend, my lord, after the intima- 
 tion which your lordship has been good enough to give me, t j 
 offer any evidence that would really be in any way unneces- 
 sary. There are three or four witnesses only which I will 
 call, with the permission of your lordship. If your lordship 
 should think that I should briefly state the character of the 
 evidence I am about to offer to the court and the jury, and 
 you should think such evidence to be inadmissible, I would 
 iisk your lordship to make a note of the point, so that, if 
 necessary, we may raise it afterwards. I intend, then, to call 
 Miss Vickery, a medical student in London and Paris, for 
 the purpose of proving a number of facts that have come 
 within her own experience as a medical student. I shall, 
 also put in the box Dr. Drysdale, to give evidence of a 
 similar character, because his experience is much wider, and 
 perhaps I shall call the well-known publisher, Mr. Bohn, to 
 give his experience in London and elsewhere regarding the 
 publication of such works as those of Dr. Carpenter, or of 
 this pamphlet by Dr. Knowlton. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is impossible to tell exactly 
 beforehand what the evidence may be, and therefore I thirk 
 you had better call the witnesses, and any objection that may 
 be raised can be considered when it is made. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : A''ery well, my lord; I will now call Miss 
 Vickery. 
 
 Miss Alice Vickery was examined by Mrs. Besant. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I presume, my lord, I can put any ques- 
 tion until some objection is raised. To witness : Your name 
 is Alice Vickeiy ? — It is. 
 
 And you reside at number 333, Albany Road ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you a chemist by examination of the Pharmaceutical 
 Society of Great Britain ? — I am. 
 
 And the first kdy, I believe, who passed the regular ex- 
 amination of that Society ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you study midwifery and diseases of women at 
 any London hospital ? — Yes ; at the Women's Medical 
 College. 
 
2l6 
 
 For how long ? — I have studied medichie for six years. 
 
 Are you at present a fourth-year student of I'Ecole de 
 Medicine at Paris ? — I am. 
 
 Have you attended practical midwifery at the City of 
 London Lying-in Hospital?— I have. 
 
 Have you received a certificate for this ? — I have. 
 
 You have sent your certificates to Ireland, I believe, for a 
 special purpose ? — Yes, but I wrote for them, and have them 
 with me. 
 
 It was intimated to me, my lord, that they had been sent 
 to Ireland, as the witness intends to go up for the Dublin 
 examination. To witness : Do you produce it ? — I have it 
 here. 
 
 Have you also the certificate for midwifery of the Ob- 
 stetrical Society of London ? — I have. 
 
 Do you produce it ? — I can do so (producing papers). 
 
 Have you attended hospital practice for several }ears in 
 London and Paris ? — I have. 
 
 And attended the practice of Surgery, I believe, under 
 the famous Professor Verneuil of Paris ? — Yes. 
 
 And you have devoted some six years of your life, you 
 say, to these studies? — I have studied at least six years. 
 
 Have you read the pamphlet which is the subject of the 
 present charge? — I have. 
 
 With the means of judging derived from the experience 
 of which you have told us, do you consider this pamphlet 
 to have been written by one well-acquainted with medical 
 science at the date of its publication ? — Most decidedly I 
 should say it had been written by one well acquainted with 
 medical science nearly 40 years ago. 
 
 You consider that it is a work written by a competent 
 medical man for general circulation ? — I think it a most 
 important work. 
 
 What I wish to ask you is this : Do you, from your own 
 personal knowledge and experience, consider that, writing 40 
 years ago, his knowledge of physiologj' w.-xs accurate and 
 real ? — Certainly. He must have been a most competent 
 and experienced man. 
 
 In your hospital experience have you any knowledge of 
 the effects of large families ? — I ha\e seen a good deal of 
 them. 
 
 You are speaking from th3 experience of which you have 
 told us, when you say that ? — I am speaking from my own 
 experience and knowledge. I am not dealing with books. 
 
217 
 
 but with facts. I am speaking of my knowledge of families 
 and of the mothers who bear them. 
 
 Then your opinion of the evil effects of over large families 
 is drawn from your own experience, and you know what the 
 effects are upon mothers and children ? — I have studied the 
 question from that point, and there is no doubt, in my 
 mind, from the experience I have gained in hospitals, that a 
 very great deal of suffering is caused by over child-lDearing 
 to the mothers themselves; to the children, because of the 
 insufficient nutriment which they are able to give them 
 and to the children before birth from the condition of the 
 mothers. 
 
 Have you found, in your experience, any bad result to 
 the health of the mother from over-lactation of children 
 amongst the poor ? — Most certainly. There are many evils 
 resulting from over-lactation. One thing is a falling of the 
 uterus, and another the permanent weakening of the mother's 
 health. 
 
 The next question I have to ask you is a most important 
 one. It is : Is it within your own knowledge and experi- 
 ence that poor married women desire very often to check 
 the increase of their families, and that they very frequently 
 seriously injure themselves, by adopting detrimental means, 
 such as deleterious drugs, from complete ignorance of those 
 means which might be adopted without any injury to their 
 health ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is a very comphcated 
 question, and if it is competent to put it at all, I think it 
 should, if possible, be simplified. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I am afraid, my lord, it is rather compli- 
 cated, but I think I could, if you would allow me to do so, 
 divide it. To witness : You have told us that, in your 
 opinion, the health of married women is sometimes injured 
 by over-childbearing. Are you aware whether they ever 
 adopt any means to check the increase of their families ? 
 — Most certainly. 
 
 Do you say that from your own experience ? — I am quite 
 aware that they sometimes do so. 
 
 Do you mean apart from your own experience, or have 
 any instances come within your own knowledge ? — I have 
 in my own experience instances where women have taken 
 means to prevent conception, and after it has taken place to 
 do away with the results. 
 
2l8 
 
 Do you know if this is done by the advice of the husband ? 
 — Yes, by his advice to prevent conception. 
 
 Is it generally considered that over-lactation is one of 
 those means? — It is ; I have known many women who have 
 continued to suckle their children as long as two years, and 
 even longer than two years, because they believed that that 
 would prevent them from conceiving again so rapidly. 
 
 How long is it usual to suckle a child? — It depends ; in 
 some cases a year. Nine months would be as much as 
 could often be done in safety, but a child might in most 
 cases, I think, be suckled a year without injurJ^ 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that the usual time for 
 suckling children among women generally, or among the 
 poor ? 
 
 The WiTN'ESS : Twelve months is a reasonable time, but, 
 as I have said, that maj' in some cases be excessive. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And when it is double that 
 time, is it very injurious in its effect ? 
 
 The 'W^iTNESS : It is, my lord, on the mother as well as 
 on the child. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And you say that that method of warding 
 off an increase is fairly often adopted by poor women ? — 
 Yes, I should say so from my own experience. 
 
 You tell us only from your own experience. Have you 
 had women under your care who have been suffering from 
 the result of over-lactation ? — I have. 
 
 What is the result? — The result is very great .weakness 
 and general debility, and these are the fruitful source of 
 other diseases. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is if pregnancy occurs 
 during the period of lactation ? — Whether it docs or not, my 
 lord. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And you have found that pregnancy does 
 occur in spite of over-lactation ? — Certainl}', over-lactation 
 is no preventive whatever against pregnancy. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But many people, you say, 
 think that it is ? — Many think it is, my lord, but it is not. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And is the result of that ignorance an 
 injury to the mother as well as to the suckling child and 
 to the child unborn ? — Certainly ; it results in weakness to 
 the mother, very often excessive discharge, which is very 
 weakening to the child in the womb, and is the cause of rickets 
 in children, and that leads to numerous other disorders. 
 
 That is the direct result, in your opinion, of trying to 
 
219 
 
 check an over-increase of family without the physiological 
 knowledge of how to do so without dangerous results ? 
 — Certainly. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You must draw the con- 
 clusion in your summing up. 
 
 I\Irs. Besant : Certainly. I hope, my lord, that I have 
 not asked any question which is illegal, and not according 
 to the courtesies of the bar ; if I have done so I hope 
 your lordship will at once give me some intimation of it, so 
 that I may know v/here I err. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I have not stopped you so 
 far, because I see a gentleman behind you (Mr. Douglas 
 Straight) who will, if there is anything of that kind, put a 
 stop to it with promptitude. 
 
 Mr. Douglas Straight : My lord, I have not inter- 
 rupted hitherto because I am anxious that everything should 
 be asked in this case which comes within the limits of the 
 defence under the most liberal interpretation. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I would not do an unfair thing under any 
 circumstances, if I knew it, and I desire to keep within the 
 four corners of the legal restrictions of the court if possible, 
 but I might do so from lack of legal knowledge, so that I 
 hope I shall be stopped so soon as I contravene them. 
 To witness : Have you any experience on this head in 
 Paris ? — My experience there is only small ; I have not 
 much experience of that kind in Paris, because there, as a 
 rule, famiUes are very small indeed ; I have known very 
 few women there who have had more than two or three 
 children. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : What, if any, is your experience on that 
 point ? — My experience on that point is not so large as to 
 entitle me to offer a very decided opinion ; I have been 
 engaged in the study of medicine and surgery in Paris, and 
 I have not had there any particular practical obstetrical expe- 
 rience. What obstetrical experience I have has been gained in 
 London, and that will not enable me to give any opinion 
 worthy of weight as to the circumstances obtaining in Paris. 
 
 You are aware, I suppose, from what experience you have 
 had, that there are in Paris married women whose husbands 
 consent to the use of mechanical means for the restriction 
 of their families? — So far as my own knowledge goes, I 
 cannot answer either one way or the other ; but my patients 
 have told me more than once that their husbands have 
 suggested means for preventing conception. 
 
They told you that it was so ? — I have heard it in several 
 cases. 
 
 I am going to ask you a rather curious question, but I mean 
 no discourtesy. Is it your experience among your fellow- 
 students that knowledge of physiological details tends to 
 deprave and corrupt ? — Most certainly not. 
 
 Have you found that women possessing such knowledge 
 are less pure-minded than hte ignorant ? — Oh, no. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But those would be strong- 
 minded ladies, Mrs. Besant. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I hope, my lord, that all women are strong- 
 minded enough not to use knowledge for an improper pur- 
 pose. To the witness : Is it your opinion that such know- 
 ledge, where it exists, is used for improper purposes? — 
 No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bradlaugh : With the medical ex- 
 perience of which you have told us, are the statements of 
 fact in relation to disease and the remedies for those 
 diseases fairly stated in the pamphlet which you say you 
 have read ? — Most certainly. 
 
 Most certainly. Speaking solely from your experience 
 of medical treatises, would you describe the physiological 
 portions of this pamphlet as highly-coloured or over-stated ? 
 — Certainly they are not highly-coloured in comparison with 
 other books that I have read both in Paris and in London. 
 Compared with these, they are not highly-coloured, but 
 very mildly and quietly put. 
 
 Mr. Douglas Straight : I have no question to put. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale was called and examined by Mr. Bradlaugh : 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Your name is Charles Robert Drysdale ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Are you a member of the Royal College of Physicians of 
 London, and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons ? — 
 Yes, I am. 
 
 Are you also Consulting Physician to the Farringdon Gen- 
 eral Dispensary of London, of which Alderman Figgins was 
 recently chairman of Committee ? — I was physician of that 
 Society for many years, and I am now consulting physician 
 to it. 
 
 You are also, I believe. Senior Physician to the Metro- 
 politan Free Hospital of London, and Physician to the 
 North London Consumption Hospital ? — Yes. 
 
 And physician to the Rescue Society's Lock Hospital ? 
 — I am. 
 
Now tell me, have you written several medical works ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And you have been a long time in practice ? — For many 
 years. 
 
 May I ask you, have you read this pamphlet which is the 
 subject of the present charge ? — Yes, I read it many years 
 ago ; I cannot say how many, perhaps twenty. And so far 
 as that goes I read it again only last night, because I thought 
 I might be examined upon it to-day. 
 
 Well, to your knowledge, this book was published at least 
 twenty years ago ? — I have been in London some twenty-five 
 years, and I know I read it shortly after I came, and that 
 must have been a long time — at least twenty years ago. 
 
 Guided by the medical experience of which you have told 
 us, do you consider it a fair work on the subject on which 
 it professes to treat, and are its statements accurate ? — I 
 have always considered it an excellent treatise, and I have 
 found among my professional brethren that they have had 
 nothing to say against it. 
 
 As a medical man of position and experience, do you 
 judge that it is written by a competent medical man.? — It is 
 certainly written by a physician, and an excellent man. 
 Considering that it was written forty years ago, when it is 
 thought that people did not know so much as we do — although 
 I do not believe that we are so very far in advance of the 
 iTien of those days — the writer must have been a profound 
 student of physiology, and far advanced in the iliedical 
 science of his time. 
 
 This is your professional opinion of the scientific merit of 
 the book ? — It is, and it is the opinion of many men in the 
 profession ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You can only speak from 
 your own experience. — Certainly, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is there anything in the 
 pamphlet calculated to raise libidinous feelings ? — On the 
 contrary; no one reading the book would be affected in that 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : If I might introduce my own personal 
 experience, my lord, that is exactly what I have felt in read- 
 ing these medical books. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is there, do you think, any- 
 thing prurient about it ? — Certainly not. It is a most excel- 
 lent little book. 
 . Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you, as a medical man, much 
 
experience, or any experience, amongst the poor of 
 London ? — A great deal too much, unfortunatel}'. I have 
 seen nothing but poverty since I came to this great metro- 
 polis. 
 
 Have you any experience as to poverty being productive 
 of sickness, especially among the poorer classes,- by the 
 production of large families ? — As I have already told you, 
 ray professional life has been amongst the hospitals for 
 many years, and that has led me into a situation of contact 
 with the poor of this city. I have been obliged to see what 
 a miserable condition there is of squalor, utter distress, and 
 sickness, even in the great metropolis of the empire. 
 
 Has your experience connected this circumstance with 
 the large families which the poor generally bear? — ^Yes, 
 certainly. 
 
 Witness here referred to some papers in his hand; 
 whereupon, 
 
 Mr. Straight asked : What are you looking at ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I am only referring to some notes. 
 May I not look at them ? 
 
 Mr. Straight : I am afraid you must put them away, and 
 trust to your memory. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I am much obliged to you ; but I dd 
 not know who you are. I would rather be guided by ray 
 lord than by you. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think you may trke it from 
 the learned counsel. I do not think there has been any 
 desire as yet to act unfairly on either side. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I am afraid you cannot refer to your 
 notes, Dr. Drysdale. So, if you will kindly, from your own 
 experience, answer my question 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : Then I suppose I must put my notes 
 away, my lord ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Unless they were put down 
 fresh from memory. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : That is just what I have done, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Can you say, from your own experience, 
 that poverty and preventible sickness exist among the 
 poorer classes in consequence of large families ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I have been continually obliged to lament 
 the excessive rapidity with which the poorer classes bring 
 unfortunate children into the world, who, in consequence, 
 grov/ up weak and ricketty. You see such children suffering 
 from the rickets and in a very unfortunate condition. Sir 
 
223 
 
 William Jenner has written a great deal upon this subject, 
 and he used to say, what my experience has continually con- 
 firmed since, that when a working man marries, the first 
 child or two look very healthy, whilst the third will look 
 ricketty because the mother is not able to give them that 
 proper nourishment which she lacks herself. And so with 
 both the fourth and fifth. They get more and more 
 ricketty, and if you search the courts and alleys of London 
 you will find great numbers of children whose life is simply 
 a pain to them. If the mother had only had two children 
 she could have supported them well enough, but when three 
 or four are born they get that terrible disease — the rickets — 
 which is a great cause of death in London, a much greater 
 cause than is generally supposed. Many children supposed to 
 die of measles, and other infantile diseases, really die of rickets. 
 In the case of a healthy child such a disease as measles 
 passes off without much dam.age, but when it attacks a weak 
 and ricketty child the > child dies, the death is ascribed to 
 measles, instead of the more largely contributing rickets. 
 Hence the death-rate is largest in large families. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you read the essay on popula- 
 tion by Mr. Malthus? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I read it some thirty years ago ; perhaps 
 more. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh was proceeding to ask W'hether it 
 was a fair summary of Mr. Malthus's views to say that popu- 
 lation was necessarily limited by the means of subsistence, 
 and as to the operation of checks, when 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice said he scarcely thought the 
 question a fair one. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale said : One fact I will mention to draw the 
 attention of yourself and jury to the very important point 
 of infant mortality. That is a very interesting point 
 indeed. With all our advances in science we have not 
 been able to decrease the general death-rate in London. 
 Tv.'enty years ago it was 2 2 '2 per thousand persons 
 living. In 1S76 it was almost exactly the same, being, in fact, 
 2 2 '3. Instead of dying more slowly than we did twenty 
 years ago, we die a little faster. That fact might seem to be 
 a great disgrace to the medical profession, and to those who 
 had to advise as to the public health. Indeed, it has been 
 asked, what is the use of public health officers at 'all. The 
 real reason of this increase in the death-rate is, that the 
 children of the poor die three times as fast as the children 
 
224 
 
 of the rich. If all the parents of the children were as well 
 off as, say the gentlemen of the bar — (laughter) — or of the 
 S;)ecial jury, the consequence would be that the number of 
 children that would die would be very small indeed. Mr. 
 Hanson has pointed out that to every 100,000 children 
 amongst the richer classes — which would, of course, include 
 the barristers — (laughter). 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And solicitors, too, I should 
 think — (laughter). 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : And solicitors, too, my lord, no doubt — 
 in 100,000 children of the richer classes, it was found that 
 there were only 8000 who died during the first year of life ; 
 whereas looking at the Registrar-General's returns we find 
 that 15,000 out of every 100,000 of the general population 
 die in their first year. If you take the children of the poor 
 in the towns you will find the death-rate three times as large 
 as among the rich — instead of 8000 there would be 24,000 
 among the children of the poor. So that you see, the 
 children of the poor are simply brought into the world to be 
 murdered. Hence, on the general average, we do not 
 increase in longevity. The great number of poor people we 
 have accounts for the rate of mortality being kept as high 
 as it has been. If we were all brought up we should live to 
 about an average of 80 years — (laughter) — except we died 
 by accident — (laughter). 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you any experience as to whether 
 large or small families prevail in France ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale l I have lived there much, and I 
 have been to France every year for the last fifteen 
 years; and once took the case of 100 of the most 
 famous gentlemen of I'Ecole de Medicine. Not one 
 had more than three children. Most of them had 
 not more than two ; and I took this as a little index as to 
 the rest of France. French statistics show that there are 
 not more than two children to each family, on an average. 
 They never think of having more than two or three chil- 
 dren. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Do you happen to know, from your omi 
 experience, whether checks to population of the character 
 referred to in this book are adopted by the peasant families 
 in France? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I should like to know if I am allowed to 
 say what I like? (Laughter.) Will it be safe? (Loud 
 laughter.) 
 
2 25 
 
 Mr. Straight : If it will re-assure the witness, I may say 
 that it will be quite safe so far as I am concerned. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I do not know, I am sure. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You can only state what are 
 the facts. 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I mean : is there any privilege in a wit- 
 ness from being prosecuted ? (Loud laughter.) I should like 
 to know I shall not be prosecuted by the Government. 
 
 Mr. Straight : If it is any satisfaction to Dr. Drysdale, 
 I will not prosecute him. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But we do not know who 
 your clients are, Mr. Straight. 
 
 Mr. Straight : I think there is not much doubt about it. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I have much doubt. (Laughter.) 
 You have told us as to the number of children in French 
 families. My question is now, whether your French 
 experience, as a medical man, enables you to say whether 
 or not checks of the description mentioned in this 
 pamphlet are used by the French peasantry ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : The first check mentioned in the 
 pamphlet is used universally. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : It is, perhaps, not necessary to read 
 out this check ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think not. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : If the jury refer to page 38 of the 
 book, they will find this check specified, and that will be 
 sufficient. To the witness : You say that that check is 
 largely practised in France ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It is practised by almost every male in 
 Paris, and all over the country. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I believe you are a Member of the 
 London Dialectical Society ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I am. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Were you present on the ist of July, 
 1868, at a meeting of that Society ? — Witness (after referring 
 to the minutes) : I was. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Was Lord Amberley present ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I wouldn't go into that, Mr. 
 Bradlaugh. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well ; then I won't press one word 
 more 
 
 Mrs. Besant (to witness) : You have stated that you have 
 had a large English hospital experience, and a wide experi- 
 ence amongst the poorer classes : is it within your experience 
 
 p 
 
226 
 
 that any attempts are made by mothers to check the increase; 
 of their famines? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I hardly ever go to my hospital, where on 
 a. certain day of the week I usually see about 80 or go- 
 women, that there are not 5 in 6 cases of women who have 
 suckled children for 18 months or two years in order to> 
 prevent conception. 
 
 Mrs. Besant ; That is the reason they give for suckling- 
 their children so long ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : They will tell you so if you ask them 
 quietly ; but they would probably give some other reason if 
 other people were present. I tell them it is not a good way 
 to act, and advise them to find out a better. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And the effect of this over-lactation on the 
 child at the breast ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It is robbing the child at the breast of 
 its proper food, which ought to be more substantial than the 
 milk of the breast. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And what is the effect on the unborn 
 child, supposing the mother conceives during the time she 
 is suckling ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It suffers from want of nourishment 
 because it does not get enough blood, which should go to 
 fied it before birth. 
 
 Mrs. Besant: AVhat is the effect of very rapid child- 
 bearing upon the mother herself? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : You very often see women worn to death 
 by getting children too rapidly. They hardly seem fit to 
 keep up their own lives, and very often fall into consump- 
 tion. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Is one of the results of over-large families 
 to gradually undermine the constitution ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I think so among town mothers, though 
 a strong woman, with plenty of food, brought up in the 
 country, might, without much injury, have a large number, 
 say, twenty-one. (Laughter). Oh, I have known many 
 women with twenty or twenty-one children, all living. 
 (Loud laughter.) A strong country\voman might, perhaps, 
 have twenty-five — (laughter) — but among the majority of 
 cultivated women, and women brought up in towns, that 
 would be impossible. 
 
 Mrs. Besant: When the father's wage is 13s. a-week, 
 would twenty-one children be healthy ? 
 Dr. Drysdale : To bring so many children into the world. 
 
227 
 
 under such circumstances, I should think one of the greatest 
 social crimes a man could commit. I should look upon it 
 in the same light as habitual drunkenness, and other social 
 crimes. ■ ' ' 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Is not falling of the womb — to use tlie 
 common expression — very common amongst poor women ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It is extremely common. Indeed, when- 
 I was obstetrical assistant at Edinburgh, it was one of the 
 commonest diseases among women — the. .principal one, jh 
 fact. Women ought never to get up from confinement for 
 some weeks after the child is born ; but the'se pOor women 
 are so utterly unable to do without work that they are 
 compelled to get up in a day or two. The wjmb, being 
 full of blood, falls down and produces infirmity for life. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Have you any knowledge as to endeavours 
 among women of the poorer classes to procure abortion ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It is not alone among the poor. I have 
 known it, time after time, amongst educated ladies, who 
 have taken most drastic medicines to try and get rid of the 
 effects of conception. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Would it not be better to prevent concep- 
 tion than attempt to procure abortion ? *- ' 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : To procure abortion, I consider, is almost 
 as bad as murder. But I do not see any crime in prevent- 
 ing conception, otherwise those who remain unmarried 
 should all be prosecuted. (Loud laughter.) ■ . ■ 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Leaving that point, and returning to 
 another partof my opening address, where I dealt with over- 
 crowding — have you, in your ovm experience, seen many 
 cases of over-crowding ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : Near to my dispensary in Holborn I 
 have seen too much of it. In the neighbourhood , of 
 Gray's Inn, where these gentlemen of,' the . bar .abound 
 (laughter) — and these gentlemen of ■ thfe bar might see for 
 themselves if they would (laughter)' — I. must confess to 
 have been ashamed to find such 'an amount of misery 
 existing there from over-crowding. I wish that two or three 
 gentlemen would only take the trouble to go into the little 
 courts and alleys off Chancery Lane and - Gray's Inn Lane 
 and see the frightful misery and crowding there as I have 
 seen there. I have seen six children in one rootn all 
 huddled up together, and all down with typhus fever, the 
 same room being used by three adults ; I have seen such 
 things repeatedly, over and over again. . 
 
 P 2 
 
278 
 
 Mrs. Besant: What is the largest number of human 
 'beings you have seen crowded into one room ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : That is the largest — six children and 
 three adults, with only one bed. 
 
 Mrs. Besant: Is it your experience that typhus fever 
 spreads, most rapidly in crowded rooms ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : The great reason that typhus fever is so 
 terrible a disease is that people are crowded. In all zymotic 
 /diseases, if people are crowded together, when one gets it 
 they all get it. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Then large families actually produce 
 •disease ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : It is impossible to have health with large 
 crowded families. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Does not over-crowding give rise to a ter- 
 rible amount of sexual vice amongst the young of both 
 ■sexes ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : I do not know that of my own experience, 
 ibut one can scarcely doubt that that would be the case. I 
 am surgeon to the lock ward of a Hospital for fallen women, 
 and I know from my own experience there that prostitution 
 is vei-y often brought about in consequence of over-crowding. 
 
 Mrs, Besant : The associations of over-crowding corrupt 
 the young mind, I suppose, and loss of modesty is followed 
 by prostitution ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : , They do not know what modesty is. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Do you know anything of disease caused 
 to young children by being compelled to work at a very early 
 age? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : You see, children in big families are 
 taken out to work very early, and premature exertion often 
 injures them for life. It seems to me I have had numbers 
 •of cases of that kind. Children are not fit to do very much 
 work so long as they are half-developed, and early death is 
 •often the consequence, 
 
 Mrs. Besant : But I suppose they must either work to 
 •death or starve to death ? 
 
 Dr. Drysdale : There is no doubt hosts of children are 
 'worked to death. 
 
 The witness then stepped down. 
 
 Mr. H. G. BoHN was next called and sworn. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh ; Your name is Henry George Bohn, I 
 believe ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : Yes, 
 
229 
 
 . Mr. Bradlaugh : And you were formerly, and untiP 
 latterly, a publisher in a very large way of business ? 
 
 Mr. BoHN : Yes, for about sixty years. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : And a series of works, called " Bohn's 
 Scientific Series," was issued by you ? 
 
 Mr. BoHN : It was. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: Did you publish a book called "Animal 
 Physiology," by W. B. Carpenter ? 
 
 Mr. BoHN : I did. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Do you know that that book has been- 
 largely used as a text-book in schools ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : I do. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : How long v/ere you a publisher ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : Always ; for the last sixty years, and for forty- 
 five years of that time entirely on my own account. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Had you large experience in the sale- 
 ^ of works on physiology ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : I had one of the largest connections in our 
 trade. It was a subject I cultivated in my early days, and 
 nearly all works on the subject passed through my hands. 
 Some of them were my own property. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Have you read the pamphlet which is 
 the subject of the present indictment ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : I have. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Does your experience, extending over 
 forty-five years, in works on physiology, enable you to say 
 whether the statements in that book are statements which 
 you have found in many of the standard works on physio- 
 logy which you have published ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : One important book which was familiar to 
 me years ago — De la Motte Ligniac's " Physical Essay on 
 Man and Woman in a State of Marriage," published with 
 plates — entirely covered your book, and gave a great deal 
 more. Another similar book was Venette's " Tableau de 
 I'Amour Conjugal," of which there have been more than 
 forty editions. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : And are you able, from your own 
 knowledge of this pamphlet, to say that the facts in 
 "Carpenter's Physiology" and other books, and in the 
 " Fruits of Philosophy," allowing for the necessary com- 
 pression of the latter, are identical ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn : Substantially so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Having said there are a number of 
 works on physiology which have been generally sold by you, 
 
230 
 
 containing the; same statements and facts as in the "Fruits 
 of Philosophy," have you ever been prosecuted for 
 obscenity ? 
 
 Mr. BoHi^ : I am not aware that any of them have been 
 molested. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : You communicated with me through 
 your solicitor,' so that you might give this evidence ? 
 
 Mr. BoHN : I did. I felt very strongly on the subject, 
 because many years ago one of my publications had been 
 attacked by what I understood to be the action of the Society 
 for the Supression of Vice, a society from which I am glad 
 to find Mr. Beresford Hope, the vice-president, has just 
 withdrawn his support. I subsequently discovered that the 
 attack on my book was made at the instigation of some 
 Roman Catholic priests, but after a resolute remonstrance 
 on my part I heard no more of the matter. In consequence 
 of the interference of this society, the Society for the Sup- 
 pression of Vice, which I presume to be at the bottom of 
 the present prosecution, my successors, Messrs. Bell and Sons, 
 have been induced to suppress the " Memoirs of the Comte 
 de Grammont," a very amusing book, " Boccaccio's Deca- 
 meron," the works of " Rabelais," and all the other books 
 forming my so-called extra volumes. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I will only put one question to you, Mr. 
 Bohn ; have you ever put any restriction on the sale of 
 medical works ? 
 
 Mr. Bohn: None whatever; on the contrary, I should 
 willingly . have halved the price had I thought this would 
 double the circulation. 
 
 This concluded the examination of the witnesses for the 
 defence, none of whom were cross-examined on behalf of the 
 prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : We had intended, my lord, to call 
 seme clergymen to speak as to over-crowding, but as that 
 would only lengthen the case, and is not necessary, I think 
 I will make this the whole of the evidence. The over- 
 crowding is so clear that further evidence on the point 
 would not strengthen my case one whit. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I had intended to call Mr. Smith, of the 
 firm of Messrs. Smith and Sons, to prove the general and un- 
 restricted sale of Chevasse and Bull, but that will, perhaps, 
 not be necessary, as I believe the fact will not be disputed. 
 
 Mr. Straight : Certainly not. 
 
 JNIr. Bradlaugh : I think, my lord, as a matter of right, 
 
imyself and co-defendant are entitled to say one or two 
 words, in summing-up, to the jury. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Certainly. Would you do 
 that to-morrow? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : That would be better, my lord, as we 
 •could then make it much more brief. Both our summings • 
 •up would be included in the hour in which the Court opens. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I should not take more than half an hour 
 tb three-quarters. 
 
 , Mr. Straight : The reply for the prosecution will be very 
 :short, my lord. , ' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then we shall ' finish to- 
 morrow. 
 
 Mr. Straight : Certainly, my lord, without doubt. 
 
 The Court then rose, and Mrs. Besant and Mr. Brad- 
 laugh were again loudly cheered as they left the hall. 
 
232 
 
 FOURTH DAY. 
 
 THELord Chief Justice took his seat at 10.30 a.m., and 
 the Clerk having handed to him an intimation, in w-riting, 
 from the jury, 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, after reading it, said : It is not 
 consistent with cur procedure to put a question to a person 
 who is on trial ; it is not permitted by law. 
 
 Two jurymen stated that they were not aware of such a 
 communication having been made. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is a very pertinent question 
 to be put, but I cannot pass from the rules of procedure, 
 which do not allow any question to be put to prisoners on 
 their trial. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord and gentlemen of the jury, in 
 summing up now the defence I have laid before you, I 
 propose to do it very briefly, because, practically, one may 
 say one has made the main part of one's defence, and I need 
 do nothing more at the end of this long trial than remind 
 you how much the case has become narrowed since its 
 opening by the learned Solicitor-General. You will 
 remember, gentlemen, without my going from point to 
 point, or from argument to argument — I do not propose to 
 press any of the points on you — you will remember that 
 when the learned Solicitor-General opened the case he 
 stated that we had to deal with a thoroughly obscene book, 
 written with intent to deprave, using the cloak of philosophy 
 to cover that intent, using the colouring of marriage in 
 order to destroy marriage and to increase illicit intercourse, 
 and that all this was done with such disgusting particularity 
 of language as tended to deprave the minds of the young, 
 making altogether a publication which he summarised as a 
 whole by a word of one syllable which I will not repeat. The 
 first point is as to the cloak of philosophy ; I think the defence 
 has proved that the philosophj', at least, is real; also that there 
 is not one wordwhichhas been putinto the philosophical part 
 which is in any sense impure, and if you are to judge of 
 the philosophy as being written with intent to deprave, it 
 must be because there is some other portion of the book 
 
233 
 
 which you read into the philosophy, making that which, in 
 itself, is not there. As to the colouring of marriage, which 
 is the next point raised by the learned Solicitor-General, 
 I will put it to you that marriage is urged all through the 
 book, and that profligacy is spoken against in the strongest 
 terms the writer can use. Not only are profligacy and illicit 
 intercourse spoken against, but the writer goes further, and 
 warns the young of the great dangers resulting, not only 
 from profligacy, but also from the intemperate use of the 
 sexual functions. So that, I think, I may say, concerning 
 the cloak of philosophy and the colourable use of marriage, 
 that there is not one syllable in the book to warrant the 
 argument of the Solicitor-General. You have, then, only 
 to deal with the mere empty assertion of the learned counsel, 
 unsupported by one shadow of evidence, which he has 
 thought right to lay before you. As to the language having 
 a disgusting particularity of detail, you will remember that 
 it has been proved to be delicate and careful in comparison 
 with ordinary medical literature ; and I will put it that the 
 extra delicacy of Knowlton is simply because Knowlton was > 
 writing a work for general circulation, and avoided, as much 
 as possible, the use of terms which, on the general ear, 
 would strike somewhat harshly. And I put it further, that 
 Miss Vickery told us that the language of 'Dr. Knowlton, so 
 far from being highly coloured, was, on the contrary, ex- 
 tremely mild and quiet compared with those books which 
 her medical studies, during the last six years, had compelled 
 her to peruse. You are aware, gentlemen, of the large 
 number of medical books we have here, and you will re- 
 member an intimation from his lordship, yesterday, on the 
 subject. My co-defendant, and myself, talked the matter 
 over, and I felt strongly, that it being apparently put, that 
 provided only the book were a medical book, no objection 
 could be raised to the language in which the medical 
 details were couched, it would be taking advantage of 
 your patience, and of the consideration of your lordship, 
 if we wearied you and ourselves — and it is even more 
 wearying to those who speak than to those who have 
 to listen- — and so have unreasonably dragged on the 
 trial for some five or six days, as would have been 
 necessary had we gone through these books, and piled proof 
 upon proof as to the delicate nature of the language used by 
 Knowlton. I will only say, therefore, that we had begum 
 with those most delicately worded ; and if we had gone 
 
234 
 
 through the whole of them some would have been found to 
 be couched in language of so startling a character that I 
 am only glad the course of justice has not compelled us to 
 quote it in a court like this. The only reason why we felt it 
 to be our duty to put these two books to you was that un- 
 less, gentlemen, you have some medical training, an idea of 
 •coarseness is inspired by the plainness of ordinary medical 
 language, and that idea could only be destroyed by showing 
 the language used in a standard medical work. We may 
 take it that it is practically allowed that if Knowlton's is a 
 medical work then the contention of the learned Solicitor- 
 General as to a disgusting particularity of language falls to the 
 ground, equally with his contention of the cloak of philosophy, 
 or the colourable use of marriage. Thus the case is nar- 
 rowed down to this : Is Knowlton a medical work ? or is it, 
 on the contrary, an utterly obscene book, written witTi intent 
 to deprave ? So far as its being a medical work is con- 
 cerned, I think I may fairly urge that the defence has proved 
 the accuracy of its details from the books read by my co- 
 defendant. I may say also that there are medical notes 
 right through the book referring to standard authors of 
 •eminence who teach the same facts. We find, in referring 
 to Miss Vickery's evidence, that in answer to a question put 
 by me whether with the means of judging derived from 
 the experience she told us she possessed, she thought the 
 pamphlet to have been written by one well acquainted with 
 medical science at the time of its publication, she replied 
 that she did so consider it; and when Dr. Drysdale was in tlie 
 box — a man known equally in England, in America, and on 
 the Continent as a jihysician of eminence and as an author 
 of many scientific works — he said, in answer to a question 
 put to him by Mr. Bradlaugh, that he considered the work 
 a most excellent work, written by a scientific man, WTiting 
 with a full knowledge of his subject, and writing with that 
 ■care and accuracy characteristic of a scientific man. You 
 wU remember that you had the strongest testimony as to the 
 thorough medical character of the work, and this is not sur- 
 prising when you remember that Charles Knowlton held the 
 diploma of Doctor of Medicine in Boston, and was the 
 author of many scientific works ; and I may point out to 
 you that some of his hypotheses ha\'e lately been verified by 
 •experiment, showing him to have been a man of thought 
 beyond the ordinary range of his time. "We have the fact that 
 40 years ago he struck on some intricate physiological points, 
 
235 
 
 on which his ideas have since been proved to be right, to put 
 against the mere assertion of the learned counsel for the 
 prosecution that the pamphlet is not a medical book, 
 written by a medical man — a scientific treatise for a 
 scientific purpose. To succeed, then, in the contention of 
 the prosecution, the prosecution must show an intent to 
 deprave, and the first thing that is done to show the intent 
 is to urge that the book was not written in learned 
 language. I avow, gentlemen, that I do not see that 
 obscenity couched in a learned language becomes any less 
 obscene, nor do I understand the contention that as 
 Knowlton is an obscene pamphlet we should have im- 
 proved Knowiton by translating him either into Latin or into 
 Greek. So far from that, I cannot help remembering that 
 the great Italian Giordano Bruno was burned to death 
 because he spread scientific heresies among the Italian 
 people in the Italian tongue ; agreeing, as he did, with one 
 of his contemporaries, that the dead languages were too 
 often used as a cloak put over science, to cover its real 
 emptiness, and wishing to teach the people, he insisted on 
 speaking in his mother tongue to the people whom he 
 desired to influence. The next thing that is urged to show 
 the desire to deprave is the " unrestricted circulation of the 
 book." I and my co-defendant quite agree that society 
 properly lays a restriction upon showing in shop-windows of 
 streets where people pass, not only anatomical pictures, but 
 also any pictures cf a coarse or a disgusting description. 
 I conceive that as you live in society you have no 
 right to be a nuisance to your neighbours, or to annoy 
 those who pass your shop-windows, by anything of a disgust- 
 ing character : and the law has defined it to be an indictable 
 misdemeanour to expose in a public place any disgusting 
 object. I allow that to the fullest extent. There are plates 
 in the medical books we have here which it would be most 
 indecent to expose in the public thoroughfares, but so far 
 as concerns anything short of that kind of forcing the thing 
 upon the public notice, I must put it that every medical 
 book is an unrestricted publication. The only restriction 
 upon such books as that of Marion Sims is the restriction of 
 price, and that restriction of price is not one that I think, 
 with all submission, ought to be listened to in a court like 
 this ; it would be a most unfortunate thing if, from the 
 highest court of justice in England, which knows no differ- 
 ence before the law between rich and poor, it should go 
 
236 
 
 forth by verdict of the jury that an expensive medical book 
 was a pure book, while a cheap medical book was an 
 obscene publication, which puts its publishers in peril of 
 their liberty. I must remind you of what Mr. Bohn said 
 on this point, when he was dealing in the witness-box with 
 his 60 years of a publisher's life, a life which I believe all 
 will acknowledge to be one without blemish, and whose 
 standard library is one of the credits of our modern English 
 literature. Mr. Bohn distinctly stated that he had published 
 books containing substantially the same as, and much more 
 than, is contained in Knowlton's Pamphlet ; that he thought 
 he knew the book, published very many years ago, from 
 which Knowlton, and Carpenter, and Kirke, had all equally 
 been taken ; that that book was out of print, but was now in 
 the British Museum ; that he had read a similar book before 
 he was twenty-one years of age ; and that during his whole 
 publishing life of sixty years he had never known one case 
 where a prosecution was brought against a physiological 
 treatise on the ground that it was obscene. He told us he 
 remembered about people being warned as to selling the 
 tales of Rabelais, and the " Memoirs of the Comte de 
 Grammont." But this has nothing to do with the selling a 
 physiological treatise, and Mr. Bohn told us that if he had 
 known any way of selling twice as many as he did he wiould 
 have done so. As to the argument of restriction, I reminded 
 you that we had these books here ; I personally bought one of 
 these medical treatises ; I obtained another through the 
 post ; Mr. Parris bought some of them, and a young man 
 of eighteen or nineteen years of age also bought some that 
 might be characterised as strictly medical books ; I only 
 put that to you to show how much easier it is to talk of 
 restriction than to practise it; nor is any effort made to 
 keep them from the general public, else why are these books 
 advertised in the columns of the daily papers, as well as 
 where doctors would naturally look for them, in the Lancet, 
 the medical journal? Then we are told, that though these 
 details are necessary for doctors, they are not necessary for 
 the public. I would urge upon you that poor women need 
 to know the facts concerning menstruation and pregnancy 
 quite as much as do the doctors, for they are often unable, 
 from their poverty, to obtain the advice of medical men. 
 It was acknowledged by the prosecution that no kind of 
 accusation had been brought against Dr. Chavasse or Dr. 
 Bull, and it would have been, indeed, rather awkward if a 
 
237 
 
 principle had been laid down which would apply adversely 
 in the case of books issued by one of the Government, of 
 whom the learned Solicitor-General is the adviser. But if 
 these details show an intent to deprave, I would ask you to 
 carry your memories back, for one moment, to the terrible 
 passage read by Mr. Bradlaugh, from Marion Sims, and ask 
 whether it is not a much greater depravation to suggest 
 putting a woman under chloroform for a certain purpose ; 
 whether that is not a suggestion whereby a wicked person 
 might inflict a most cruel wrong on a helpless woman. 
 Then we come to Carpenter, of whom the prosecution can- 
 not pretend that it is written for medical men, for the in- 
 struction in Carpenter is not couched in the phraseology you 
 generally find in books intended specially for medical students. 
 That book, as well as Kirke's Handbook, are books circu- 
 lated in schools for girls — the girls whose purity of mind 
 the prosecution is so anxious to guard. In speaking of 
 generally-circulated books, I drew your attention to a book, 
 sold for a shilling by Longman & Co., in which the checks 
 advocated by Knowlton for a good purpose are advocated 
 for a bad purpose. The use of an injection is therein 
 advocated for the purpose of keeping an unfortunate class 
 of women in a state which will enable them to carry on their 
 most unhappy trade. If you give a verdict against us, I 
 cannot but think that it will be a most unfair verdict, for I 
 cannot help remembering that it is not only in this country 
 that such books are sold. We find the French Government 
 authorising a book to be sold for one franc — and iriy lord, 
 with his knowledge of France, will know that a book cannot 
 be hawked by a colporteur without bearing the imprint of 
 the Government — a book advocating such checks to prevent 
 over-large families. I am the more encouraged to have 
 faith in my case from the fact that one of the leading 
 writers of the Paris press, Yves Guyot, one of the leading 
 French writers on law. Professor Emile AcoUas, as well as 
 one of the champions of the people. General Garibaldi — 
 all stand round us on our Defence Committee to show their 
 feeling as to the struggle in which we are engaged. Gentle- 
 men, not only is there no intent shown in the book to 
 deprave, but, on the contrary, there is much to disprove 
 that allegation of the Solicitor-General. I would repeat to 
 you the answer which Dr. Drysdale made to the Lord Chief 
 Justice, when the distinct question was put to him, as a 
 medical man, " Is it your opinion that the book is calculated 
 
238 
 
 to arouse prurient or immodest feelings ? " To this the reply 
 was, " No, my lord ; certainly not." I put that opinion of 
 a medical man against the allegation of the Solicitor- General, 
 and I point also to the utter omittance by Knowlton of 
 every unnecessary word of description ; I remind you of 
 his careful avoidance of any outside description, which 
 might tend to arouse those feelings that might be aroused 
 by the work of Dr. Carpenter. The prosecution is now 
 driven to make its case rest on the advocacy of checks after 
 marriage, which is the only point remaining to them. You 
 have seen that Dr. Fleetwood Churchill advocates checks 
 after marriage of a far more terrible character than any of 
 those which Knowlton proposes. You will remember the 
 proposition put by my co-defendant yesterday was that it 
 is lawful to advocate checks after marriage, provided that 
 those checks do not destroy life. I am quite content to 
 rest my case upon that contention. There are but three 
 checks after marriage — celibacy, the check advocated by Dr. 
 Fleetwood Churchill after conception, and the check before 
 conception advocated by Knowlton. The first — that of 
 celibacy — is impossible, for you cannot teach people absolute 
 celibacy after marriage, and unless celibacy is absolute it 
 could be of no sort of use. To teach it would simply mean 
 that men and women were to go through the ceremony of 
 marriage as a mere empty mockery. This is a proposition 
 which, if carried out, would be injurious to health even to 
 the rich people, who would be able to live apart under the 
 same roof I ask you what it would be to the poor mamed 
 couples, obliged to keep in the same room, on the same bed ? 
 I ask you if the poor man's life is to be one long and terrible 
 temptation, lest he should commit the sin of bringing into 
 the world children he cannot support ? The check advo- 
 cated by Churchill I look upon as almost a crime; from my 
 point of view I cannot but think it wrong that, when a 
 doctor has found that a woman cannot bring a living child 
 into the world, he should counsel a check after conception, 
 instead of before. This is a suggestion so horrible, so re- 
 volting, that'' most women would rather, by going the full 
 time, run the risk of perishing in the birth-struggle than 
 adopt such a check ; I feel that to be a most immoral pro- 
 position ; and if the learned Solicitor-General had turned 
 his attention in that direction instead of in ours, he might 
 have had some ground on which to base his prosecution. 
 The only other check is a check which we advocate, a check 
 
239 
 
 before conception ; I am only contending for the principle 
 that Knowlton' lays down, and for the right of doctors to 
 discuss this question. You have heard of the efforts of the 
 poor to find some sort of check to prevent the rapid increase 
 of their families. Miss Vickery, in answer to a question 
 1 put to her, told you that poor married women seriously 
 injure their health by over-lactation, imagining that it will 
 stop conception. Dr. Drysdale carried this further, and 
 said it was injurious both to the mother, to the child at the 
 breast, and to the unborn child, and that the most terrible 
 diseases resulted from those women resorting to this check 
 in their ignorance. He told us that not only do women 
 strive in that fashion to meet the terrible evil with which we 
 are trying to grapple, but that, in his own practice, he found 
 cases of both rich and poor, who used the most deleterious 
 drugs, all this being done with the same hope of warding off 
 pregnancy, and injury to health is thus caused, instead of 
 the moral means advocated by Knowlton being used. 
 You have heard of the checks adopted by the French 
 against over-large families, and yet you know the affection 
 the French entertain for their children; parental and 
 filial love is one of the distinguishing features of that nation. 
 I ask you not to put on a great people the brand of immo- 
 rality for practising that which is thoroughly moral, and I 
 beg you that it should not be said that what is sanctioned 
 throughout France, as a duty to society, is put down by the 
 criminal law in England. Dr. Drysdale has told us of the 
 evils of over-crowding ; he told us how he saw mother, 
 father, six children, and another relative, all down with 
 typhus fever, in one room, and he told us that disease is the 
 direct result of large families ; you will remember how he 
 said that too many women did not even know what modesty 
 was because of the conditions of their youth. I ask you if 
 we are to go to prison from this court because we try to 
 make modesty something more than an unknown word ? 
 We have only called three witnesses, because the facts are 
 so indisputable ; but if we have injured our case by not 
 calling more, it would, of course, be a great cause of regret 
 to us ; but I imagined that to call more would, only be a 
 repetition of the same thing over and over again. I said, 
 in my opening speech, that it was my intention to call the 
 Rev. Mr. Horsley and the Rev. Mr. Headlam into the box 
 ^but the case closed sooner than I had anticipated, and I 
 had released Mr. Horsley from attendance yesterday, as 
 
240 
 
 his duties required his presence at the House of Deten- 
 tion. I did not ask, however, this morning, to be allowed 
 to call any further witness, our case being really proved 
 beyond possibility of reasonable dispute. I ask you 
 now, gentlemen, what proof has been given by the pro- 
 secution of our intent to deprave, of our hatred of mar- 
 riage, or of our intention to promote illicit intercourse ? 
 The intention of the writer of this book and of its pub- 
 lishers is the same ; and whatever is Knowlton's, that inten- 
 tion is also that of myself and my co-defendant. The 
 intention of one is the intention of the others. If Dr. 
 Knowlton uses the word " marriage" in a colourable sense, 
 we have used it in the same. If the author disguises his 
 evil intent under the word " marriage," we have used the 
 same guilty weapon in publishing his pamphlet. Whatever 
 the one intended in writing the work, we have intended the 
 same thing in publishing it and in distributing it broadcast 
 throughout the land. I leave that question of intention upon 
 perfectly intelligible grounds. But what proof of an evil 
 intention has been brought before you ? You must give a 
 clear and definite answer to the question before you can con- 
 vict us under this indictment ; and upon this point, perhaps, 
 you will allow me to remind you of the verdict that was 
 returned in the case of the King v. Eaton, where the jury 
 unanimously decided against the book, but as it was not 
 published with a criminal intention, no verdict of guilty was 
 recorded. The case was carried to the Court of King's 
 Bench, and there a verdict, meant to exclude evil intent, was 
 returned, and no sentence followed. That was all the more 
 strange because the judge summed up evidently against the 
 prisoner, and there the publisher was not fortunate enough 
 to be tried, as we are, before a fair and upright judge, one 
 who administers the law with the equity and impartiality seen 
 in this court. That case of the King v. Eaton fell to the 
 ground, after a double trial, and I ask you whether we can 
 be seriously held to be open to be convicted of obscenity if 
 we have no evil intention to set ourselves deliberately to 
 debase and corrupt the youth of this country ? Whtii you 
 are considering the question of intention, it will be well 
 for you to contrast the course which has been followed 
 by the prosecution right through, with the course which 
 has been adopted by myself and by my co-defendant — 
 the utter dissimilarity between the tactics of the two 
 parties — the concealment which characterised the prose- 
 
241 
 
 ■cution, and the straightforwardness and openness of the 
 ■defence. Remember, I pray- you, that up to this moment, 
 the name of the prosecutor in this case has remained con- 
 cealed. We do not know who our prosecutor is ; and so far 
 .as we have any statements at all on the subject, those of the 
 learned Solicitor-General and the junior counsel are directly 
 contradictory to the letter of their own solicitor. It may be 
 a prosecution by the Government, by the police, by a, 
 magistrate, or by some individual who is actuated in the 
 matter by some private spite or malice. We have no knowledge 
 how it has arisen, whence it comes, and I a^k you not to 
 leave , this out of your consideration when dealing 
 with this case. And what is our position ? Why, 
 from the first we have been perfectly open and frank. 
 We told the prosecution what we were going to 
 do. Weeks ago we sent them notice of every book we 
 ■were going to use, the titles of all the works upon which we 
 relied. And that frankness has been carried out from 
 beginning to end of this prosecution. Do you think that if 
 ■we, had had the criminal intention imputed to us we should 
 have proceeded in that way ? And yet we stand charged 
 ■with a criminal offence before his lordship. Will you, I ask 
 jou gentlemen, give a verdict of guilty against me ? You 
 do not know very much of my life, it is true, and you may 
 not be able to judge from it how far such a criminal charge 
 is well or ill founded. You are not able to Judge how 
 thoroughly absurd — if it were not fraught with such danger 
 — how utterly ludicrous this charge of intent to deprave 
 and corrupt is when levelled against me. I was not, as my 
 co-defendant said he was, born among the poor — I have not 
 the glory, I have not the honour of having risen from among 
 them by sheer brain power and persistent labour, to stand 
 here in right of the position I have made, I have not so won 
 that right of speech which I take to-day. No, that honour 
 is not mine ; but do you think I should have put myself in 
 this position, do you think I should ^ave placed myself 
 in this danger, merely from an intent to deprave and corrupt 
 humanity ? You do not know much of me, it is true, but 
 surely you can Judge something of me by my speech, by my 
 argument before you. Am I one whom you dare convict 
 of intent to deprave and to corrupt ? You may convict me, 
 you may send me to prison, you may bid me herd with those 
 depraved ^nd dissolute women whose very language 
 would be agony to me, worse agony than I can 
 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 put into words — unless, indeed, that, even in that prison, 
 I might even there find means of prosecuting my work 
 among my degraded fellow-prisoners, among the wretched 
 women with whom I should be obliged to consort, as I have 
 for long years carried it on in the cottages and homes of 
 the poor. You cannot give a verdict of guilty against me, 
 guilty of intent to deprave — my whole life gives the lie to 
 it. Think a moment what such a verdict means. It means 
 destruction of all I have worked for in the past, humilia- 
 tion in all the labours of the future. You cannot convict 
 me, and so take from me whatever influence for good I may 
 have won. Yet, no, not the loss of my influence among the 
 poor I have worked for. I cannot believe that, whatever 
 your verdict may be, that there will be any loss of influence 
 among them, for they will know how hard I have worked 
 for them even in this court. You cannot convict me. 
 Think for one moment upon all those who are watching- this 
 trial with the keenest anxiety. Can you let it go forth from 
 this court, and from you, gentlemen, that there is to be no 
 word of consolation or of comfort for the downtrodden, no 
 change in the brutality and the misery of those .overcrowded 
 hovels which we seek to purify — that )-ou tell of no star of 
 hope for those who are writhing under poverty, and racked 
 by pain — no word, no remedy for their miser}', no breaking 
 of the chains that bind them, no deliverance from the 
 despair into which they are fast settling down ? You can- 
 not convict me if you think of the past and look forward 
 to the future. Think of the juries in this great countr}- 
 who have over and over again stood between tyrannical 
 Governments and the oppressed and helpless brought before 
 the power of a court. Think wl\at juries in this country 
 have done. They have stayed the march of power against 
 liberty, have widened freedom, and have protected discus- 
 sion. Juries, too, have also sometimes done irreparable 
 harm, have bound faster the chain upon the sla\'e, and have 
 been assistants of wrong for the sake of a momentar\- 
 applause. Think, I pray you, of those juries who declared 
 in favour of Home, Tooke, and Thelwall. Make them 
 your examples, and set us free to-day. A ^-erdict of guilty ? 
 You cannot give it if you speak for justice and for truth, if 
 you believe in innocence and in purit}^ ■\\'e cannot yield, 
 for we are working for the cause of the poor and the'right 
 to speak. Eut if, by some misdirection, some mismanage- 
 ment of justice, you give a verdict against us to-dav, vou will 
 
243 
 
 be doing what John Stuart Mill spoke of, you will, be com- 
 mitting one of those crimes by which the men of one genera- 
 tion surprise and amaze posterit)'. A verdict of guilty ? If 
 you do this thing, remember that it will be to brand innocence 
 with the infamy of guilt. If you do commit this wrong, then, 
 from your verdict of guilty, we appeal to the verdict to a wider 
 court, of a grander jury. We appeal from you to the people 
 of the civilised world, from this bar to the bar of public 
 opinion, and whatever your verdict may be, that greater 
 jury will bring in a verdict of Not Guilty against us. 
 We appeal from you to the verdict of the history which shall 
 judge us when we have all passed away — that history which 
 shall bring us in not guilty, whatever the verdict may be to- 
 day. History, that weighing us in the far-off to-morrov/, 
 shall say that this man and this woman who stood on their 
 trial here, vfho, knowing the misery of their time, the suffer- 
 ings of their fellows, the agony of the people of their day, 
 joined their hands and their lives together to bring salvation 
 to the homes of the poor, did good service in their day and 
 in their generation — that history shall say to us, "Well done," 
 whatever your verdict may be. 
 
 The address was received with applause in court. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh said : Gentlemen, whatever may be your 
 verdict, and I do not think you will give ofte which you do 
 not think to be right, I and my co-defendant owe you thanks 
 for the very great patience with which you have listened to 
 what we have felt it to be our duty to urge ; and as my co- 
 defendant has done, I, too, will try to show those thanks by 
 at least abridging as much as possible the few words I have 
 now the right to address to you in summing up the argu- 
 ments I have thought it necessary to submit to you. It is, 
 I think, now fairly conceded that if it is lawful to advocate 
 any checks upon over-population after marriage, we do not 
 in this book say one word to advocate anything against the 
 institution of marriage itself. There is no word here that is 
 redundant, prurient, unjust, or unfair ; and the real issue 
 which you will have to decide, and in v/hich you will have 
 to give a verdict — and, after all, the ultimate decision in 
 this case rests with you — is this : that men in England, in 
 the nineteenth century, and the latter quarter of the century 
 — that men ih England, where scientific discussion is 
 free and unfettered — free beyond v/hat is allowed in any 
 other country of the world — shall here stop, once and for 
 all, at any rate so far as their verdict can stop it, the discus- 
 
 Q a 
 
244 
 
 sion of the checks to over-population. I will not attempt 
 to insult you by in any fashion going over again all that 
 which in your kindness you permitted me to go over in the 
 long address with which I am afraid I wearied you. I have 
 now only one difficulty present upon my mind with regard 
 to that address ; and it is whether, where it was needful to 
 go through those medical details, some of which I saw were 
 so distinctly unpleasant to you — as I shall ask you to 
 believe that they were to me, and have been dur- 
 ing the last six or seven weeks that I have been obliged 
 to study them — whether I in any fashion weakened the elo- 
 quent pleadings of my co-defendant, because in the school 
 in which I have been trained — the rude school of experience 
 in the world — in which I have studied and have been pushed 
 about, I have learned that the want of tact is about as great 
 a fault as any man can commit. Well, I felt that I was 
 bound to show from some of those books that the book 
 which was impeached in this court did not deal with the 
 matter in hand either impertinently, with undue particularity, 
 with immorality with prurience, or with redundancy ; but thatl 
 on the contrary, it proved in a just, a plain, a simple abridg- 
 ment that which it intended, and gave to poor people the 
 knowledge thought needful for them, written so that they 
 might understand it, without one word to raise feelings that 
 ought not to be raised. I will ask you to believe that in the 
 oral evidence that we have called — and I do not think we 
 have troubled you with more of that than was necessary — 
 we have a repetition and corroboration of the same kind of 
 evidence that I have drawn from the books. If you allow 
 me, I just want to add one word to tliat which has fallen 
 from my co-defendant regarding the justice and open- 
 ness of our case. I gave to the prosecution, at \erv 
 considerable trouble, the name of every book I was 
 going to use, and in the two books I used yesterday, 
 I gave the precise references to each page to be 
 quoted and its bearing upon the corresponding page of 
 Knowlton, where the same subject is dealt with, ^^'e did 
 not, it. is true, give every page and every reference through- 
 out these books, because to annotate them was a work of 
 great time and gi-eat labour, but we ga\-e the references so 
 far as we had gone, and a great many which we had not used 
 at all. We called attention to e\ery passage in the first 
 books which we were going to use, in order that they might 
 be able, accurately, to follow c\'ery line of our defence. 
 
245 
 
 Was that the conduct of criminals ? Was that the conduct 
 of those actuated by intention to corrupt by the unfair use 
 of the word marriage, or of those who would use the word 
 merely to conceal their desires under the word to promote 
 something worthy of punishment here? The books that I an- 
 notated are amongst the best of their kind, and you may 
 judge from the rate at which I got through the two I used 
 yesterday — ^though they were nothing like the thickness of 
 several others — that my address, as originally intended, would 
 have occupied some days. I felt the difficulty of doing as 
 I intended even before the suggestion was given by his lord- 
 ship. I felt the difficulty of keeping you, gentlemen, from 
 your business advocations, taking up the time of the 
 Court and of all connected with it, while I went 
 over detail after detail ; but, on the other hand, I also felt 
 that it was necessary to do something, not, perhaps, so 
 much for myself as to clear my co-defendant from the 
 charge on which she was indicted before you. I also felt it 
 necessary because of the words that were used by the learned 
 counsel for the prosecution in opening this case, because if 
 they had not been refuted they might have been taken as 
 evidence, or, at any rate, as being incapable of refutation. 
 However, I will say no more about that. Take now the 
 oral evidence which we offered you. Remember that the 
 witnesses did not come here predisposed in favour of a 
 certain case or a certain theory. Miss Vickery, who, asked 
 of one particular of which she was not certain, at once said 
 so, and did not try to answer what she did not know. She 
 did not come here to support persons guilty of possible 
 crime, or of anything which in her view was a crime, but she 
 came here to give testimony from the knowledge and expe- 
 rience which she has gained in her profession. She was not 
 prepared to come here and support those whose views on this 
 point, in her opinion, would have been a stigma upon her 
 professional honour. She is a woman, and she read this 
 book without seeing anything shocking, anything indecent, 
 and you can judge of the value of her opinion by the cha- 
 racter of her evidence, in which there was nothing audacious, 
 ''ither in the manner in which it is given or in the treatment of 
 he subject. Dr. Drysdale from his wider experience, gained 
 by his long association with hospital practice, was able to 
 speak more fully and thoroughly of all this. Dr. Drysdale, 
 I think, proved that within his own knowledge this book had 
 circulated in London for twenty-five years, and during that 
 
246 
 
 time had remained unchallenged by any prosecution until 
 now. Again, upon this point, Mr. Bohn — a gentleman 
 entirely unconnected with either of us, one of the most 
 famous publishers of our times, one who has not only an 
 English or a European, but a world-wide, reputation, from 
 his well-known series of classical and standard works, a 
 gentleman retired from his business and living in privacy, 
 who could feel no necessity upon him of mixing himself up 
 witli this case, or with a book which has been characterised 
 as this has — Mr. Bohn came forward and told you that he had 
 been a publisher on his own account for forty- ive years, 
 and that altogether he had been connected with the publish- 
 ing business for a period of nearly sixty years. He has, 
 therefore, great experience in publishing books, and full 
 knowledge of the character of those that are sold openly. 
 Indeed, he has himself published a great many phvsiological 
 \\'orks containing discussion of the very same matters, only 
 that they were discussed with more particularity of detail, 
 and v/ere more full in some cases. His works have been 
 issued freely for many years, and he told you th.nt he knew 
 this v/ork had been in circulation for a long time. He also 
 told you that a work so rare that it could only b; found in 
 the library of the British J\Iuseum was the fnundation 
 work upon which those of Knowlton, Carpenter, and 
 Kirke were mainly, if not entirely, founded. I am not 
 now alluding to Carpenter's ''Animal Physio"'Ogy," but 
 to his "Human Physiology,'' which I referied to at 
 some length yesterday, and which I told you was used as a 
 handbook and a school-book. There was no necessity on Mr. 
 Bohn to qonie forward and give e\-idence. Now, I wa nt to make 
 this further remark, that all this evidence was unimpeached 
 and unirajeachable, and that none of the counsel on the other 
 side attempted to cross-examine any of the witnesses. I do 
 not say that with any ulterior intention, or put it unfairly to 
 you against the prosecution, for I wish, on the contr;uy, to give 
 them e'.ery credit for having left it open to us to call any 
 evidence v/e cliose, and not to shut out any answer that 
 might come from these witnesses ; and when I ray that, I 
 do not mean to make it a matter of reproach to the prose- 
 cution that they did not cross-examine ; I hope I may say 
 that the evidence of the witnesses we called may help you 
 in coming to a decision upon your verdict. I want to re- 
 mind you, also, because it may weigh against me — although 
 in common with my co-defendant, I may say that I have not 
 
247 
 
 taken up this case in any spirit of bravado or defiance — tliat 
 you should not pay any attention to the publicity, or, per- 
 haps, notoriety, of my name, for a man's name may become 
 notorious justly as well as unjustly, and one must not always 
 listen to what the public impression regarding a man is. I 
 may, therefore, state generally that this question is to me no 
 new question ; that for many years I have advocated this 
 subject in public ; that I have issued a journal declared to 
 be Malthusian in its policy for nearly twenty years, and, as 
 I told you before. Lord Amberley referred to it and to me in 
 a speech which he made at a science assembly in 1868, and 
 thanked me for having pressed this question upon the atten- 
 tion of the working-classes, and the same estimate of my 
 labours in this direction has been left on record by that 
 eminent thinker John Stuart Mill. Gentlemen, I should 
 have been disloyal to my views enunciated long ago, to my 
 programme in connection with the population question issued 
 some twenty years ago, and thoroughly believed in by me 
 ever since, if I had not defended this action. And, gentle- 
 men, I ask you, I ask you confidently — do not think me too 
 bold or too presumptuous when I use the word confidence — 
 for your verdict of not guilty. Let me remind you again 
 what the proposition is for v^hich I contend — the proposition 
 I have already put to you in my address, and stated again 
 yesterday. It is this : Is it lawful or not to advocate the 
 application of checks to the evils of population, provided 
 tiiat such checks do not destroy the foetus after conception, 
 noir the child after birth ? If I needed to strengthen my 
 case, which I don't think I do, I might show you by a 
 reference to the extracts which have already been given to 
 you from Churchill that he ventured to advocate abortion, 
 and I think you will say it is far more moral to prevent, if 
 possible, all conception, than to have recourse to such a check 
 as that. My co-defendant has put that point before you very 
 forcibly, and I refrained from characterising my sense of the in- 
 ducement offered to procure abortion or to bringon premature 
 labour, because, as I thought, my medical knowledge is not. 
 profound enough to enable me — for I doubt whether a man, 
 unless he be trained and profoundly read in medicine, has a 
 right to express a decided opinion on such a subject to 
 enable me with confidence to dogmatize on the question. 
 From our standpoint we believe that to touch hurnan life in 
 any way whatever, or in any fashion — whether overtly or 
 otherwise — is the highest crime. When it comes to be a 
 
248 
 
 question of saving the child or of losing the mother, and ii» 
 that crisis a man who is responsible, a man who has been 
 trained to . the profession of medicine, and has had large 
 experience in the practice of it, comes to a decision one way- 
 or the other, he has the right to act ; but on such a solemn 
 question it is not necessary for me, nor for my defence, that 
 I should urge one way or the other here. What I do say- 
 is that to touch human life wantonly is one of the highest 
 crimes. I leave myself then in your hands, asking you, 
 when the learned Solicitor-General comes to address you, 
 to remember that it is to you I leave the refutation of any- 
 matters in his speech which I cannot then deal with, and 
 which, if I had the right, I would not urge myself. There 
 is another speech to which you ha\-e to listen, and to which 
 I for one shall listen with very great attention ; there will be 
 the address of his lordship, which will have the greatest 
 weight with me, as doubtless it will deserve to be with you, 
 and I will hear it, whether it be for or against me, with 
 reverence and respect, believing that in either case it will be 
 just, if it may be severe ; but I will ask you, gentlemen, ta 
 remember that, after all, the ultimate deliverance is in your 
 hands, and unless in your heart of hearts you feel that we 
 intended to deprave and corrupt public morality by the 
 publication of this book, I ask you to say that we are not 
 guilty of the charge preferred against us. And after you 
 have delivered your verdict, I leave myself to the greater 
 verdict of enlightened public opinion, the verdict which 
 carries weightier and remoter issues than any \-erdict 
 here can do ; and thus I leave myself in your hands. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I do not, gentlemen, wish to- 
 add to the inordinate length of this discussion by anv serious 
 prolongation of it by many words, and so my remarks to- 
 you will be very brief. The question 3'ou ha\-e to try is a 
 very simple one, though the broad one may be \-ery intricate 
 indeed. Let me say one word — and it shall be but one — 
 as to the matters so ably urged upon you by the defendants 
 in this case, and which do not properly arise out of the 
 issue before you at all. You have heard it a\-owed by both 
 the defendants that they challenged this inquii-y, and tha 
 they raised the question before you b)- gi\ing notice to th 
 police that at certain hours and in a certain place on e 
 particular day they would sell this book to anybody tha^i 
 might present themselves as purchasers. There is a police 
 man, who is here as the prosecutor, in the ordinary sense o 
 
249 
 
 the term ; but it appears to me that whoever the prosecutor 
 may be that is quite immaterial to the issue before you. 
 Whether it is a policeman, or the authorities that are behind 
 the policeman, it is quite certain that if the persons who 
 challenged the prosecution had not been brought before 
 you, the persons who have claimed the right to circulate 
 this book to any persons who might present themselves and 
 offer sixpence for it, they would have been entitled to say, 
 and you will judge whether they would have availed them- 
 selves of that or not, that they were selling the book openly 
 in the City of London, after having given notice to the 
 authorities that they would do so. Then the authorities were 
 placed in this dilemma : either they must institute proceed- 
 ings against these persons — and a most unfortunate prose- 
 cution I admit it is, and, as I admitted to you at the first, 
 and repeat to you. now, a most mischievous prosecution in 
 its character, and, probably, in its result — or they must 
 have taken the other alternative, admit what they considered, 
 and what they still consider, something more mischievous 
 still — the admission by the proper authorities that this book 
 might openly be published and circulated in Ihe streets of 
 London. That was the dilemma with which we had to 
 deal, and the circumstances under which we felt bound to 
 interfere. The prosecution is one which, I admitted to you 
 at first, was likely to have the most serious effect ; and I 
 think I may now put it to you that it has, since, as the 
 defendants have told you, the attention to the book has- 
 raised its circulation from, comparatively, a trifling to the 
 enormous amount of 125.000 copies. It appears to me a 
 most disastrous thing that it should have been so ; but, 
 from their point of view, it is not so, for they think the 
 book should be circulated as widely as possible. But those 
 who take the opposite view think that it is indeed inde- 
 cent, and likely to deprave and corrupt the morals of the 
 people. What were they to do ? Were they to allow it to 
 be circulated in that way, or to attempt to suppress it, as in 
 future I hope it will be suppressed, by the strong hand of 
 the law ? That observation reminds me of another,, and 
 that is, that the circulation of this book is not an unim- 
 portant observation in relation to another question. It is 
 unfair to suppose that if this had been a medical book, 
 treating of the liver, or the brain, or the stomach, or any 
 other organs but those which it did treat of, that it would 
 have reached the circulation it had done. Why is it that 
 
250 
 
 it has been circulated to that extent ? Because, unfortu- 
 nately, in a very great number of persons, particularly 
 in the young, there is a prurient curiosity on subjects of 
 this sort, books would reach a circulation of many thou- 
 sands, while, if it had been a treatise on the other 
 organs of the body it would, probably, not have been 
 many hundreds. That is the sort of thing that this is. Let 
 us go back to the question here. We must distinguish 
 between the use of words (no persons are more able to use 
 ' words in a more fallacious sense than the two defendants 
 who have addressed you) — the motive and intention of the 
 persons in circulating a book may be one thing, and the 
 moti^■e, intention, and effect of the book v/hen circulated 
 may be a totally different thing, and as I said to you origi- 
 nally, I did not care to inquire what the motives of the 
 persons may have been. I would rather invite you — although 
 -so.-ne misrepresentations have been made on their behalf — I 
 invite you t6 accept, for the purpose of this inquiry, the sug- 
 gestion made that their conduct was actuated by the desire 
 to benefit their species. Be it so. But there arc some 
 persons who take a reverse view of what is likely to be for 
 the benefit of their species, and the question is, what this 
 book will do when circulated? It is an entire misapprehen- 
 sion to suppose that a man's virtues, the desire of one's 
 mind to benefit his fellow-creatures, will shield them from 
 responsibihty if the character of the book published is one 
 which will corrupt and depra\e the morals. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But here they are distinctly 
 charged with intending to vitiate and corrupt morals. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Yes, my lord, because every- 
 body in a criminal court must be taken to apprehend the 
 natural consequences of his acts, and if the natural conse- 
 quences of the act is that it will depra\'e and corrupt the 
 morals of persons among -whom that person's book is circu- 
 lated, he must be taken to intend that. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But you seem to me to acquit 
 them of any such intent, while the indictment distinctly 
 charges them with it. It is a strange state of things, although 
 that may turn out to be a legal view of the c:vse. It will 
 certainly be a startling result if the person who is represent- 
 ing the prosecution in this case— the Solicitor-General of 
 England — says that the defendants do not intend to corrupt 
 the morals, and at the same time, notwithstanding, their in- 
 dictment charges this, and they should be found guilty 
 of having so intended and so done. 
 
251 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I shall illustrate what I wish 
 to show, my lord. Now, there is a sect in India, as"all of us 
 know, who advocate murder. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then their intent is to 
 murder.' 
 
 The Solicitor-General : So I say that this book is in 
 effect to corrupt the morals. I care not what the intention 
 was in the mind of the man not connected with the book 
 itself. I shall put for your consideration that this sect of 
 whom I speak hold it to be a holy sacrifice to their Deity 
 whom they wish to worship, to sacrifice human life, and if 
 ■ they, in that sense, meaning to do right, should circulate a 
 book which suggested the enforcement and necessity of the 
 Thug practice, who could doubt that that was an indict- 
 able offence, and a misdemeanour in this country ? I shall 
 here (not that I admit the motives of these persons put 
 forward as guiding them), but I say I rather invite you to 
 a.ccept that without inquiry for the purpose of the argument. 
 Their notion is that the population ought to be limited, that 
 it would be a desirable thing that conception should be 
 prevented. I say that that is contrary both to the law of 
 God and the law of man, and if they choose to circulate 
 a document of that sort, which is intended to produce 
 that result, and intended to produce that result in that 
 way, I say that it is immoral, and under the circumstances 
 of the case, an obscene book, and one which ought to be 
 condemned by any jury before whom this question might 
 come. I rather vi^ould protest against arguing, as some qf 
 the defendants have endeavoured to argue it, as if it had 
 been necessary to go into some abstruse and recondite 
 questions of political economy. I say that this is a dirty, 
 filthy book, and the test of it is that no human being would 
 allow that book to lie on his table ; no decently educated 
 English husband would allow even his wife to have it, and 
 yet it is to be told to me, forsooth, that anybody may have 
 this book in the City of .-London or elsewhere, who can pay six- 
 pence for it ! It does not require any abstruse or recondite 
 arguments. The object of it is to enable persons to have 
 sexual intercourse, and not to hstve that which in the order 
 of Providence is the natural result of that sexual inter- 
 course. That is the only purpose of the book, and all the 
 instruction in the other parts of the book leads up to 
 that proposition. Is not that so ? Is not that calcu- 
 lated to deprave and destroy the morals of the persons 
 
2S2 
 
 among whom it may be circulated? I^ook at the object of 
 the proposition and the contents, that a man and woman 
 may ["marry and yet Hmit their family," is a paraphrase of 
 what was said here]. First of all, is that, or is it not, calcu- 
 lated to deprave the public morals ? The recommendation, 
 indeed, is that it may be done under the sanction of mar- 
 riage. Do you limit your sanction, as the original book 
 appears to have intended, as the private companion for 
 young married couples ? Now, gentlemen, I should also- 
 submit to you that it is an obscene book. Are we to argue 
 it on that point ? There is an unreality in the argument. 
 If any boy and girl, of sixteen or seventeen, may go to 
 Stonecutter Street, and buy it for sixpence, and when it is 
 in their hands you are to suppose that the suggestion that 
 this is to be done after marriage, will have a powerful effect 
 upon the young inflamed passions of these young persons, 
 and what they will consider themselves only to be done 
 under the restraint of marriage. A young man and woman 
 have this book put into their hands. They are unmarried ; 
 there are means in the shop of every chemist wliich can be 
 obtained for one shilling, whereby [" they may give way to 
 their passions without fear of results :'' we again paraphrase 
 for our readers' sakes]. I submit to you, that this is a 
 matter to be dealt with, not on abstruse considerations, but 
 with a little manly common sense. Let every man of common 
 sense ask himself what is the inevitable result of dissemi- 
 nating such things among the common people ? They are 
 to study this, forsooth, to study these physiological details, 
 which might do when we reverted to our original state of 
 innocence, and entirely get rid of the ordinary state of 
 decency which keeps certain subjects from common observa- 
 tion and conversation. But the common sense of mankind 
 recognises the fact that we are not perfectly pure nor per- 
 fectly innocent. " Avoid temptation " is the Christian 
 exhortation ; is this, or is it not, temptation to circu- 
 late a pamphlet of this sort amongst the young? Ask 
 yourselves what the inevitable result would be, and when 
 we look at the third chapter, up to which all the 
 rest of it leads .... [the learned Solicitor-General is 
 here too coarse for " the common people " to read, and 
 it is too much trouble to veil him in Latin, and impossible 
 to paraphrase him]. What underlies all this means that you 
 must have free discussion in everything, and that there must 
 be an absolute free discussion to everybody. That seems 
 
253 
 
 to be the suggestion made more than once by both the de- 
 fendants. But that is a question, of course, which the 
 tribunal which has to decide this question — the tribunal of 
 the average English mind is the best that can be obtained. 
 That is the question you have to determine. Is it, or is it 
 not an obscene publication ? It is suggested, Why you may 
 collect from various books, from various medical works, 
 equivalent passages to this ? Be it so. What then ? You 
 may collect from Johnson's Dictionary the foulest and most 
 obscene language in the world, by putting the words together. 
 What is the difference ? Who do you suppose would go and 
 pay the two or three guineas for a medical work with plates 
 for the express purpose of looking at the one plate which 
 might represent the reproductive organs, and which treated 
 of the diseases to which they are subject, and of the mode 
 in which they are treated just to satisfy a prurient curiosity ? 
 Is that an equivalent publication to the one we have here ? 
 We will put that a medical book and the circulation of it 
 -under certain circumstances might be a most improper 
 thing. The book itself might, being circulated in that par- 
 ticular way, be a most improper thing to do, and properly 
 form the subject of an indictment. But we are not dealing 
 with that question here. We are dealing with a book which 
 does not profess to treat of diseases ; what it professes to 
 treat is the destruction of the conceptive power after the 
 sexual act has taken place, and that is the thesis which is 
 put forward before you. Gentlemen, of course it is for 
 you to say whether this is a book which can pro- 
 perly be circulated in the way this book has claimed 
 to be circulated ; and let there be no mistake 
 about it. This is the question which I invite you 
 to consider. This is not a question of whether this 
 matter might or might not be discussed with certain restric- 
 tions, and under certain circumstances. The claim is here 
 put to you to affirm that that claim ought to be conceded to 
 circulate this book in this manner. It is not necessary for 
 me to' do anything more than to ask you to read the book ; 
 and let me in one word — and I decline to go into their long 
 discussions about the questions which might or might not 
 ^j-jse — I ask you to treat it very shortly and very plainly. 
 Is this book a book when circulated in this manner — is it 
 calculated by the tendency of the work itself (never mind 
 the motives of the persons who circulated it) — is the tendency 
 of the book, which they admit they circulated, and which, 
 
254 
 
 if they succeed in gaining your verdict, they will say that 
 you have justified them in circulating — is that a book, or is 
 it not a book, calculated to degrade and destroy public 
 morals ? If it is, then there are no circumstances which 
 justify them in its publication. There are no circumstances 
 which justify them by a supposed relief to human suffering, 
 or anything of that sort ; there is no such justification as 
 may seem proper, though, probably, it is a medical work 
 aimed at the cure or the prevention of disease. That which 
 the work was supposed to do is, as I venture to submit to 
 you, to recommend to the people a mode which is both 
 contrary to the law, which is immoral, which is wicked in 
 itself, and that by describing with minute particularity the 
 organs comprised in the reproductive system ; and, havirjg 
 described these details, proceeds with a degred of detail 
 which I described before as filthy — and I do not retract my 
 words — to describe the sexual act, and what follows 
 thereon, with a degree of filthy detail, and all that be- 
 cause, they say, we are entitled to recommend to 
 you the practice of checking conception and preventing 
 life, and assume for themselves that, while they agree 
 that if conception proceeds to a certain extent (I know 
 not to what particular extent), it is wrong, they assume 
 to themselves to discover at what moment the process of 
 fecundity begins, and yet, after a certain time, it is not 
 lawful, while before that time it is. I deny both principles. 
 I say it is of itself immoral and wicked, and having sub- 
 mitted that to you, you will judge for yourselves whether 
 it is true. If that is true, of course a minute description by 
 which that principal object is to be effected does not become 
 more lawful or more proper, or less obscene or less likely to 
 deprave the public morals ; because a minute particularity is 
 given, not as a medical work, or that it is a work of science, 
 but because it is a matter, able to be discussed in public as 
 a matter of national welfare, and, therefore, e\-cry boy and 
 girl in the City of London may buy the book for 6'd. I 
 said before you were the guardians of the public morals, and 
 the defendants seem to have fully adopted that, and re- 
 commended it to you. The case is, therefore, fairly before 
 you. You are to say, on looking at this work, whether it i.s 
 not an obscene work, and whether it may to-morrow — after 
 your verdict is given, if in favour of it — be sold to anybody 
 who applies for it, and the only reason I refer to the price is 
 because it is that which enables anybody to circulate it. and 
 
255 
 
 get it to be bought with the greatest facility. E^•el■ybody 
 can, therefore, at that cost, go to Stonecutter Street to-mor- 
 row, after your verdict is returned, if your verdict should be 
 in favour of the defendants, and buy this book, and scatter it 
 broadcast over the country. I cannot believe that any English 
 jury, having any reverence for the marriage state, for the 
 chastity and purity of their own wives and daughters, can 
 do any such thing, and, therefore, I do not think it neces- 
 sary to do any more than invite your attention to what I 
 have laid before you. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said : Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury : There is one point on which I think 
 every one who has attended to this trial will cordially concur 
 with the Solicitor-General, who has just addressed you — that 
 is as to the mischievous character and effect of this prose- 
 cution. A more ill-advised and more injudicious proceeding 
 in the way of a prosecution was probably never brought into 
 a court of justice. Here is a book which has been published 
 nov/ for more than forty years, which appears never to have 
 got into general circulation to any practical extent, and 
 which by this injudicious proceeding has been resucitated 
 and sent, into general circulation to the extent of thousands 
 of copies. And when the learned Solicitor-General says 
 that in consequence of the challenge sent forth by the 
 defendants to the police authorities after the work had been 
 given up at Bristol, that they were prepared to publish it 
 and sell it with a view to challenge the question whether it 
 was a work which might really be circulated, when the 
 Solicitor-Ger eral says that left no alternative to the authori- 
 ties but to meet that challenge, I must say that I do not 
 agree with him ; and when he talks of the authorities 
 I should like to know who are the authorities and what are 
 the authorities to whom he refers. He did not venture to tell 
 lis that anybody except the policeman who was put into 
 the box on the part of the prosecution is, in fact, the prosecu- 
 tor in this case. I should very much like to know who are the 
 authorities who are prosecuting, because that has not yet 
 transpired. The Solicitor-General tells us it may have been 
 the magistracy. I do not believe it. I do not believe it. 
 I however, entirely concur with him that, however ill-advised 
 may have been this prosecution, here it is. Every man has 
 a right, even if he is only a detective policeman, to put the 
 criminal law of the land into motion, if he thinks he has 
 ground for so doing, so long as the Government of this 
 
2s6 
 
 country thinks proper to have the administration of justice 
 defective in that which, from this place I say, is an essen- 
 tial necessity with a view to its proper administration 
 {I mean the office of a public prosecutor) — so long as 
 every individual, however rash, however ill-advised, has 
 the right to put the criminal law of the land in motion, 
 if he does so he has the right to ask that the case shall be 
 treated with due consideration, and shall be disposed of 
 according to justice and to law. Therefore, we have the case 
 here, and however much we may deplore the rashness which 
 set this prosecution going, we must deal ^\^th it as though it 
 had had the sanction of the Crown, which I do not think it 
 has, although the Solicitor-General appears to conduct it. 
 It is not a Government prosecution, nor have we any evi- 
 dence that it is a prosecution set on foot by any authority 
 which we should be disposed to treat with any great amount 
 ■of consideration, but it is a case certainly deserving of your 
 most serious attention. There is one thing in which I cor- 
 dially agree with the Solicitor-General, and that is that no 
 better tribunal can be found in the world to judge of such a 
 question as this than the average sound sense and enlightened 
 judgment which is to be found in English society, and 
 I quite agree with what has been said on both sides 
 that the decision in this case, when I have told you what 
 the indictment is, and what the law is, rests solely and 
 entirely and exclusively with you. If you are of opinion 
 that this book in its details, or in its scope, or in its effects, 
 deserves the character that the Solicitor-General says has 
 set its stamp upon it, your verdict ought to be undoubtedly 
 given for the prosecution. But before you arrive at that 
 conclusion, you must carefully consider this work, both in 
 its detail and in its general effect. The indictment charges 
 the defendants that they "unlawfully and wickedly 
 devising, contriving, and intending, as much as in them lay, 
 to vitiate and corrupt the morals as well of youth as of 
 divers other liege subjects of our said lady the Queen, and 
 to incite and encourage the said liege subjects to indecent, 
 obscene, unnatural, and immoral- practices, and bring them 
 to a state of wickedness, lewdness, and debaucheiy, there- 
 fore, to wit, on the 24th day of March, a.d. 1877, in the 
 City of London and within the jurisdiction of the Central 
 Criminal Court, unlawfully, «ickedl)', knowingly, wilfully, 
 and designedly did print, publish, sell, and utter a certain 
 indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene libel, to wit, a 
 
257 
 
 certain indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy, and obscene 
 book, called ' Fruits of Philosophy,' thereby con- , 
 laminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals." That -' 
 is the charge, and here, again, I agree with the Soli- 
 citor-General that if the effect of the work is as the words 
 here designate it, and the defendants did, as they openly 
 avow, intentionally publish the work, and that be its cha- 
 racter, they must abide by the result, however strange and 
 anomalous that may seem ; while it is admitted that they 
 were acting under the belief that they were doing good in 
 what they did, nevertheless they are to be held responsible 
 to the extent of its being found against them that they pub- 
 lished this work, which tends to deprave the morals of 
 society. Now, gentlemen, as I have already said, you are 
 the judges in this matter, and you have had this book before 
 you, and you have had it in all its details and in its general 
 effects commented on by both sides, and by this time you 
 must be pretty familiar with it. I am bound to tell you 
 what the law says about it. Although it is a law of modern 
 times, and unknown, I believe, to the old common law of 
 England, and forming a portion of that part of our law which 
 is called " judge-made law," there it is — it is the law of the 
 land, and we must all abide by it. It is not for the defen- 
 dants to say that the law is a bad law, and inconsistent with 
 that perfect freedom of discussion which is essential to the 
 welfare of mankind. We are a law-abiding people, and no 
 man has a right to set himself above the law and to defy 
 the law. If the law is a bad law, an immoral law, 
 or an impolitic law, and you have it in your power 
 in any way to change it, to abrogate or reverse it, 
 your duty, as a good citizen, would be to -do so. 
 But while the law exists it is your first and bounden duty as 
 citizens to obey it ; therefore, we must not listen to argu- 
 ments upon moral obligations arising out of any motive or 
 out of any desire -to benefit humanity, or to do good to 
 your species. You must not say, I will set the law at defiance, 
 or, I will do what the law forbids. No matter what the motives 
 of the defendants may have been, if the work is what the 
 Solicitor-General for the prosecution alleges it, although we 
 may think we see — and probably we shall be right in saying 
 so — here, in this instance, are two enthusiasts, who have 
 been actuated by the desire to do good in a particular 
 department of society, nevertheless, if in this desire to do 
 good they have done wrong, they must abide by the result. 
 
258 
 
 Nov>', gentlemen, the law is this — that whatever outrages 
 public decency and actually tends to corrupt the public 
 morals is an offence. It is not necessary to load it with 
 all the opprobrious epithets which have been applied to this 
 work. It is enough to say that the v/ork is a corrupt 
 publication, that it tends to corrupt the morals of the 
 population, and that it is, therefore, an offence against 
 morality. But we must be careful in applying this 
 general principle of law when we come to its i^ractical 
 application, so as not to abridge the full and free right of 
 public discussion, and the expression of public and private 
 opinion on matters which are interesting to all, and mate- 
 rially affect the welfare of society. There is a difficulty in a 
 case of this kind in determining v.'hether that which is 
 put forward in the shape of a publication is matter 
 tending to vitiate and corrupt public morals, or whether 
 i; is matter which it is of interest to mankind to have 
 discussed, and which calls for an' expression of opinion 
 upon it. Now, the Solicitor-General, in opening this case 
 — as he did also in replying to the case for the defence — 
 has asserted not only that this publication is filthy and ob- 
 scene, but also that the purpose of it — and all the details 
 are intended to lead up to that purpose — is inconsistent 
 v,'itli public morality, so that we have to di\ade the con- 
 sideration of the subject into two parts. In the first place, 
 nre there in this publication details inconsistent «ith 
 decency — details calculated to enkindle the passions and 
 desires of lust, and excite libidinous thoughts in the minds 
 of the readers? Even if that should not be the case, the 
 second point is whether the purpose advocated in the work, 
 and the purpose and effect of the details so elaborately 
 given, is a purpose inconsistent with the morals of society ? 
 If so, the work is an illegal work, and the offence with which 
 the defendants are charged is made out. If, on 
 the other hand, that is not established, the defendants 
 are entitled to a, verdict of acquittal. It must not be 
 forgotten that it is for the prosecution to pro-\e its case, and 
 it lies on them to make out that the defendants ai-e guilty. 
 Now, gentlemen, let us see what the work purports to be, 
 and let us inquire whether it is published in the way of 
 information or whether it is at all calculated to corrupt the 
 mind of any one. I divide that into two parts. Is this 
 publication in its scope and object a thing calculated to 
 deprave and debase the morals of those who read it ? That 
 
259 
 
 is one part. Independently of that, are the details given, 
 irrespective of the ultimate purpose of the work, calculated 
 to inflame the passions and corrupt the morals of those 
 readers ? These are two separate and distinct things. Before 
 I call your attention any further to the details, let me allude 
 for a few moments to what, as it appears to me, is the scope 
 and purpose of the work. The author, Dr. Knowlton, pro- 
 fesses to deal with the subject of population. Now,acentury 
 ago a great and important question of political economy was 
 brought to the attention of the scientific and thinking world 
 by a man whose name everybody is acquainted with, namely, 
 Malthus. He started for the first time a theory which 
 astonished the world, though it is now accepted as an irre- 
 fragable truth, and has since been adopted by economist 
 after economist. It is, that population has a strong and 
 marked tendency to increase faster than the means of sub- 
 sistence afforded by the earth, or that the skill and industry 
 of man can produce for the support of life. The consequence 
 is that the population of a country necessarily includes a 
 vast number of persons upon whom poverty presses with a 
 heavy and sad hand. It is true that the effects of over-popu- 
 lation are checked to a certain extent by those powerful 
 agencies which have been at work since the beginning of the 
 world. Great pestilences, famines, and wars, have constantly 
 swept away thousands from the face of the earth, who other- 
 wise must have contributed to swell the numbers of mankind. 
 The effect, however, of this tendency to increase faster than 
 the means of subsistence, leads to still more serious evils 
 amongst the poorer classes of society. It necessarily lowers 
 the price of labour by reason of the supply exceeding the 
 demand. It increases the dearth of provisions by making 
 the demand greater than the supply, and produces direful 
 consequences to a large class of persons who labour under 
 the evils, physical and moral, of poverty. You find it, as 
 described by a witness called yesterday, in the over-crowding 
 of our cities and country villages, and the necessarily de- 
 moralising effects resulting from that over-crowding. You 
 have heard of the way in which women — I mean child-bear- 
 ing women — are destroyed by being obliged to submit to 
 the necessities of their position before they are fully 
 restored from the effects of child-birth, and the effects 
 thus produced upon the children by disease and 
 early death. That these are evils^evils which, if they could 
 be prevented, it would be the first business of human charity 
 
 R 2 
 
26o 
 
 to prevent — there cannot be any doubt. That the evils of 
 over-population are real, and not imaginary, no one 
 acquainted with the state of societ}- in the present day can 
 possibly deny. Malthus suggested, years ago, and his sug- 
 gestion has been supported by economists since his time, 
 that the only possible way of keeping down population was 
 by retarding marriage to as late a period as possible, the 
 argument being that the fewer the marriages the fewer 
 would be the people. But another class of theorists say 
 that that remedy is bad, and possibly worse than the disease, 
 because, although you might delay marriage, you cannot 
 restrain those instincts which are implanted in human 
 nature, and people will have the gratification and satisfac- 
 tion of passions powerfully implanted, if not in one way, in 
 some other way. So you have the evils of prostitution sub- 
 stituted for the evils of over-population. Now, what says 
 Dr. Knowlton ? There being this choice of evils — there 
 being this unquestioned evil of over-population which exists 
 in a great part of the civilised world — is the remedy pro- 
 posed by Malthus so doubtful that probably it would lead to 
 greater evils than the one which it is intended to remedy ? 
 Dr. Knowlton suggests — and here we come to the critical 
 point of this inquiry — he suggests that, instead of marriage 
 being postponed, it shall be hastened. He suggests that 
 marriage shall take place in the hey-day of Ufe, when the pas- 
 sions are at their highest, and that the evils of over-popula- 
 tion shall be remedied by persons, after they have married, 
 having recourse to artificial means to prevent the procreation 
 of a numerous offspring, and the consequent e\ils, espe- 
 cially to the poorer classes, which the production of a 
 too numerous offspring is certain to bring about. Now, 
 gentlemen, that is the scope of the book. With a view to 
 make those to whom these remedies are suggested under- 
 stand, appreciate, and be capable of applying them, he 
 enters into details as to the physiological' circumstances 
 connected with the procreation of the species. The Soli- 
 citor-General says — and that was the first proposition with 
 which he started — that the whole of this is a delusion and a 
 sham. When Knowlton says that he wishes that marriaee 
 should take place as early as possible — marriage beino- the 
 most sacred and holy of all human relations — he means 
 nothing of thekind, but means and suggests, in the sacred 
 name of marriage, illicit intercourse between the sexes, or a 
 kind of prostitution. Now, gentlemen, whate\-er may be 
 
26l 
 
 your opinion about the propositions contained in this work, 
 when you come to weigh carefully the views of this un- 
 doubted physician and would-be philosopher, I think you 
 will agree with me that to say that he meant to depreciate 
 marriage for the sake of prostitution, and that all he says 
 about marriage is only a disguise,' and intended to impress 
 upon the mind sentiments of an entirely different character 
 for the gratification of passion, otherwise than by marriage, 
 is a most unjust accusation. (Applause in court.) I must 
 say, that I believe that every word he says about marriage 
 being a desirable institution, and every word he says with 
 reference to the enjoyments and happiness it engenders, is 
 said as honestly and truly as anything probably ever uttered 
 by any man. I can only believe that when the Solicitor- 
 General made that statement he had not half studied the 
 book. But I pass that by. I come to the plain issue 
 - before you. Knowlton goes into physiological details 
 connected with the functions of the generation and pro- 
 creation of children. The principles of this pamphlet, with 
 its details, are to be found in greater abundance and 
 distinctness in numerous works to which your attention has 
 been directed, and, having these details before you, you 
 must judge for yourselves whether there is anything in them 
 which is calculated to excite the passions of man and debase 
 the public morals. If so, every medical work is open to the 
 same imputation. We know there are books which have, 
 for their purpose, the exciting of libidinous thoughts, and 
 are intended to give to persons who take pleasure in that 
 sort of thing the impure gratification which the contempla- 
 tion of such thoughts is calculated to give. If you think 
 this book is of that character, and is therefore calculated to 
 produce in the mind of any man thoughts of this descrip- 
 tion, then the work would be condemnable upon that 
 point. Though the intention is not unduly to convey 
 this knowledge, and gratify prurient and libidinous 
 thoughts, still if its effect is to excite and create thoughts 
 of so demoralising a character to the mind of the 
 reader, the work is open to the condemnation asked 
 for at your hands. I quite agree that a work of this 
 kind sold at the corners of the streets — or capable of being 
 sold at the corners of the streets and at bookstalls to every- 
 one who has sixpence to spare — may be purchased by per- 
 sons who think there is something in it that will gratify their 
 prurient desires. But it may be contended — and it is per- 
 
262 
 
 fectly true — that details of thi? kind are absolutely neces- 
 sary in a medical or physiological work treating of the human 
 organs, and which professes to give useful information to 
 every person able to pay even sixpence. At the same time, 
 you must consider whether the details given are calculated 
 to do more than give you that fair information which every 
 human being may be assumed to fairly desire to possess — 
 a knowledge of his own organisation. But if you think that 
 it has a tendency to excite unholy desires ; if you think it 
 deserves the character which the Solicitor-General has given 
 to it, and that it outrages decency and tends to coniipt 
 public morals, you are bound by your verdict to condemn 
 the work. Now, let us suppose that you should be of 
 opinion that there is nothing inconsistent with physiological 
 details that may properly be given. I will not trouble 
 you by reading extracts, because you have the book before 
 you. Suppose you are of opinion that there is nothing in 
 those details which should not be given. But here allow 
 me to make one remark. We are not dealing with this 
 work as a matter of taste or feeling. 'We may think it would 
 be better that such details were not given, and so 
 become liable to be placed in the hands of boys and 
 girls. That is quite another matter. You must be satisfied 
 that these details, even if not intended for that purpose, 
 have the effect of corrupting the mind before you condemn 
 the book. That is the charge or proposition which must be 
 made out in order to bring the book within the reach of 
 the law. Suppose now you are satisfied that the Solicitor- 
 General was wrong when he said that, while Knowlton ad- 
 vocates marriage he advocates something else. Suppose 
 you set aside that as groundless, and believe that the phy- 
 siological details as to conception and procreation ha\e not 
 in themselves any corrupting tendency, you then cannot 
 find the defendants guilty upon that ground. Now, we 
 come to what, as it appears to me, is the ^•e^y essence 
 of this inquiry. We come to that part of the case on which 
 your verdict must hinge. The argument with respect to 
 marriage being hastened, instead of, according to the Mal- 
 thusian theory, being delayed, having been disposed of by 
 the author, we come to the point as to how the existence of 
 over-population is to be dealt with, and the misery, disease, 
 and immorality which it necessarily engenders in those 
 classes upon whom over-population presses, and to whom it 
 brings the most serious and fatal of diseases and con- 
 
263 
 
 sequences. How are those consequences to be averted 
 according to this book ? It is by means to be taken, not 
 to prevent intercourse between married people, but to pre- 
 sent the consequences of that intercourse which naturally 
 before place between the sexes in the married state, and 
 therefore means are suggested which, having read the book, 
 you are familiar with. The learned counsel for the prose- 
 cution, says, in emphatic terms, that these means are con- 
 trary to the law of God and the law of man ; in other words, 
 to prevent the natural fruits of matrimonial union is con- 
 trary to. the law of God and man, and contrary to the sound 
 morals which ought to prevail. The question is whether 
 that is the view which you will take of the proposition con- 
 tained in this book. Over-population, says Knowlton, is 
 productive of abundant misery. How can we prevent the 
 over-procreation of the species? If, you check marriage, 
 prostitution takes its place .; and, therefore, the only pos- 
 sible way in which you can grapple with it is to allow 
 legitimate intercourse between man and woman after 
 marriage, but to prevent procreation by applying artificial 
 checks after conjugal and connubial intercourse. 
 Says the SoUcitor-General, that is obscene, no matter in 
 what form that is presented. There are three or four forms 
 in which the preventive checks are proposed. One is 
 specially recommended as efficacious, but it is open to the 
 same objection. as the others — that, it is said, it tends to 
 destroy the morality of conjugal life. Now, there is one of 
 these means which occurs to me in the first instance. 
 Knowlton points out as a physiological fact established 
 by long experience and consistent with the present 
 scientific theory on the subject of procreation, that if 
 conjugal intercourse is avoided at a particular period, 
 and within a certain time of menstruation, conception 
 cannot take place, in fact it becomes physically, 
 or all but physically, impossible. Now, suppose a 
 married man and woman, with limited means, and having 
 as many children as they can maintain, were to come to 
 the resolution to avoid conjugal intercourse at the particular 
 period at which that conjugal intercourse mainly produces 
 its natural result, would that be an immoral course of 
 proceeding? If it would be an immoral course of 
 proceeding, the man who recommends an immoral course 
 of proceeding in an open publication is guilty of an 
 offence against the law. Another artificial check suggested 
 
264 
 
 [Knowlton, p. 39]. These are very unpleasant details 
 in a public court, but we must deal with them. Is that 
 inconsistent with morality? There may be a certain degree of 
 indelicacy in such a suggestion, but the question for your de- 
 cision — and for your decision only — is whether it could have 
 the effect of corrupting the morals of those persons who resort 
 to the practice. A man and woman may say, " We have 
 more children than we can supply with the common 
 necessaries of life ; what are we to do ? Let us have 
 recourse to this contrivance." Then, gentlemen, you 
 should consider whether that particular course of proceed- 
 ing is inconsistent with morality, whether it would have a 
 tendency to degrade and deprave the man or woman. The 
 Solicitor-General, while doubtless admitting the evils and 
 mischiefs of excessive population, argues that the checks 
 proposed are demoralizing in their effects, and that it is 
 better to bear the ills we have than have recourse to 
 remedies having such demoralizing results. These are 
 questions for you, twelve thinking men, probably hus- 
 bands and fathers of families, to consider and deter- 
 mine. That the defendants honestly believe that the 
 evils that this work would remedy, arising from over-popula- 
 tion and poverty, are so great that these checks may be 
 resorted to as a remedy for the evils, and as bettering the 
 ■condition of humanity, although there might be things to be 
 .avoided, if it were possible to avoid them, and yet remedy 
 the evils which they are to prevent — that such is the honest 
 opinion of the defendants, we, who have read the book, and 
 who have heard what they have said, must do them the 
 justice of believing. I agree with the Solicitor-General if, 
 with a view to what is admitted to be a great good, they 
 propose something to the world, and circulate it especially 
 among the poorer classes, if they propose something in- 
 consistent with public morals, and tending to destroy the 
 domestic purity of women, that it is not because they do not see 
 the evils of the latter, the while they see the evils of the former, 
 that they must escape ; if so, they must abide the conse- 
 quences of their actions, whatever may have been their 
 motive. They say we are entitled to submit to the considera- 
 tion of the thinking portion of mankind the remedies which 
 we propose for these evils. We have come forward to 
 challenge the inquiry whether this is a book which we are 
 entitled to publish. They do it fairly, I must say, and 
 in a very straightforward manner they come to demand the 
 
26s 
 
 judgment of the proper tribunal. You must decide that 
 with a due regard and reference to the law, and with an 
 honest and determined desire to maintain the morals of 
 mankind. But, on the other hand, you must carefully con- 
 sider what is due to public discussion, and with an anxious 
 desire not, from any prejudiced view of this subject, to stifle 
 what may be a subject of legitimate inquiry. But there is 
 another view of this subject, that Knowlton intended to 
 reconcile with marriage the prevention of over-population. 
 Upon the perusal of this work, I cannot bring myself to 
 doubt that he honestly believed that the remedies he pro- 
 posed were less evils than even celibacy or over-population 
 on the one hand, or the prevention of marriage on the other 
 hand, in that honesty of intention I entirely concur. But 
 whether in his desire to reconcile marriage with a check on 
 over-population, he did not overlook one very important con- 
 sideration connected with that part of society which should 
 abuse it, is another and a very serious consideration. 
 What the Sohcitor-General has here put before you 
 is, I think, very well deserving of your consideration. 
 The Solicitor-General assumes, for the purposes of argument, 
 that Knowlton is sincere in assuming that he desires to see 
 marriage keeping its proper place in the institutions of man- 
 kind, that he desires, by early marriages, to prevent prostitu- 
 tion and the evils of celibacy, and that, even as regards 
 married people, that which he recommends might be held 
 to be consistent with a proper state of morals ; yet some 
 things that he recommends in marriage may also be made 
 available by those who are not married, and every young 
 man and young woman who may have a tendency to gratify 
 their sexual instincts and desires without entering into mat- 
 rimony have here a means suggested to them whereby they 
 may gratify their instincts and desires without running the 
 risk of having children. Say the defendants, in answer to 
 that very obvious argument : " We have nothing to do with 
 any abuse of what we recommend ; we recommend it only 
 to those who are married, with whom sexual intercourse is 
 a perfectly rightful thing. We don't recommend it to those 
 in whose case sexual intercourse is not a rightful thing, 
 and if they choose to do that which is wrong 
 and, in order to cover their wrongdoings and 
 prevent evil result, they choose to have recourse to 
 knowledge which is not intended for them we are not to 
 blame, and we ought not to be prevented from recommend- 
 
266 
 
 ing to the married that which could be useful to them 
 because other persons abuse that which we recommend." 
 Well, that is true to a certain extent, but, on the other hand, 
 if that which is offered to the married, though in their case — 
 and I say this only hypothetically — it might not be produc- 
 tive of immoral effects, yet if you extend it over the whole 
 of society it may subvert the morals of a portion of society, 
 and it becomes the question whether the thmg proposed is 
 not a thing which from its nature will corrupt the morals of 
 the young. Therefore, it is open to the objection that brings 
 it within the law. It is very true, it may be said in answer 
 — an answer not altogether unworthy of consideration — that 
 the reason why the law makes the publication of works of 
 an improper description illegal is that their tendency is to 
 corrupt the public morals ; but in the case you suppose the 
 persons are already corrupt, and are prepared to give way to 
 passion and set aside the laws of virtue ; therefore, their 
 minds are already corrupt, and will not be corrupted by the 
 remedies we recommend ; they are already willing to go 
 wrong, but for the dangers which they foresee from sexual 
 intercourse. Well, that is very true. That argument may 
 be presented in answer to the one founded upon the possible 
 publication of this work to unmarried persons. It is very 
 true that that answer may be given, but there is a reply to it. 
 If the instincts of unmarried persons are restrained simply 
 by the fear of the consequences of illicit intercourse, namely, 
 the begetting of children, by suggesting these preventive 
 checks you remove a salutary restraint. Therefore, it may 
 be argued, not without foundation, that if the use of these 
 preventive checks were consistent with morality among the 
 married, you are offering to the unmarried a strong tempta- 
 tion by means of the removal of those restraints which keep 
 many in the right course. These are the various forms in 
 which this question may be put. I can only tell you what 
 the general course of the law is. I can only repeat that if 
 you are of opinion that this work of Knowlton's, although 
 well intended, and although the publication of it by the 
 defendants may be intended for the benefit of mankind, if 
 you think they have taken an erroneous view as to the efTect 
 of the work, and that its entire scope is subversive of the 
 morals of society, if that is your opinion, it is then your 
 bounden duty to find the defendants liable. But whilst that 
 is the case, it is for the prosecution to make out the charge 
 they have undertaken to establish. If you think they have 
 
267 
 
 failed — if you think these are matters which may fairly be 
 discussed — that the proper answer to them is by refuting 
 them by argument and not by prosecution, the defendants 
 are entitled to your verdict. Or if you have any doubt as 
 to the effect of this work you are bound to bring them in 
 not guilty. I would only say in conclusion, that whatever 
 outrages decency, whatever tends to corrupt the morals of 
 society, and especially the morals and purity of women — 
 whatever tends to have that result is, when published, an 
 offence against the law. But that offence like every other 
 must be made out. If you think it is made out, if there is 
 a conviction in your minds that though they have acted from 
 a desire to do good, yet in your opinion they have done 
 wrong, they have then brought themselves within the defini- 
 tion of the statute. 
 
 The jury at a quarter to one asked for leave to retire to 
 consider their verdict. 
 
 His Lordship directed that they should do so. 
 
 They returned into court at twenty minutes past two, 
 having been absent an hour and thirty-five minutes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, to the clerk of the court : You 
 had better call over the names. 
 
 The Clerk : My Lord, there are twelve gentlemen in the 
 box. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Very well. 
 
 The Clerk: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your 
 verdict ? 
 
 The Foreman of the jury : We have. 
 
 The Clerk : Do you find the defendants guilty or not 
 guilty of this charge ? 
 
 The Foreman.: We are unanimously of opinion that the 
 book in question is calculated to deprave public morals, but 
 at the same time we entirely exonerate the defendants from 
 any corrupt motives in publishing it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am afraid, gentlemen I must 
 direct you, on that finding, to return a verdict of guilty under 
 this indictment against the defendants. As I have already 
 explained to you the motive and intencion of the defendants 
 cannot, in this case, be taken into account at all. If you find 
 that the book is calculated to corrupt and deprave public 
 morals, you must, althoagh you did not think they had a 
 motive to corrupt public morality, yet as their intention to 
 publish was deliberate, you must find that as it is calculated 
 to do so they had a corrupt motive in publishing it. Of 
 
268 
 
 course your exoneration of them will be taken into account 
 at the proper time, but 1 am afraid you must find a verdict 
 for the Crown, 
 
 The foreman bowed, and turned to his fellow jurymen, 
 some of whom also in that way signified their acquiescence 
 in his lordship's ruling, wnile the majority neither assented 
 nor dissented. 
 
 The Clerk : Gentlemen, you all say that the defendants 
 are guilty upon this indictment ? 
 
 The foreman again bowed, but did not speak, and a 
 verdict of guilty was entered upon the records of the court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice (addressing detendants) : Under 
 these circumstances I will not pronounce sentence against 
 you at present, but I shall order you to come up this day 
 week, when the Court will be sitting in banco ; you will then 
 be heard, as you have given notice upon a point as to 
 the legality of the indictment, you will be heard in exception 
 to it upon any legal grounds you may urge on that day, and 
 if that objection should be over-ruled, the circumstances 
 under which the verdict has been pronounced against you 
 will be taken into consideration, and you can urge anything 
 you desire in mitigation. Until this day week then. 
 
 His lordship then rose. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, do I understand that till this 
 day week we are at liberty to go on the same recognisances 
 as before ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Oh yes, certainly. 
 
 The Court then rose, and a large crowd which had gathered 
 outside to learn the result, heartily cheered the defendants 
 as they passed to their carriage. 
 
269 
 
 FIFTH DAY. 
 SITTINGS IN BANCO. 
 
 June 2 8th. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant attended the Court of 
 Queen's Bench this morning to receive judgment on a ver- 
 dict which was found by a special jury on Thursday last. 
 The judges were Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. 
 Justice Mellor. 
 
 When the Court met the Lord Chief Justice said : Mr. 
 Solicitor-General, do you move ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General bowed in assent. 
 
 After several unopposed motions had been made and 
 disposed of, 
 
 The Solicitor-General rose, and said : I move the Court 
 for judgment in the case of the Queen against Bradlaugh 
 and another. I understand there is some difficulty about 
 the posteu. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Where is the postea i It 
 ought to have been made out and presented to the Court. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : My lord, there was some diffi- 
 culty, as I understand, in regard to that matter, the Crown 
 Office being unable to get it ready in time for the meeting 
 of the Court. 
 
 The Master : The Crown Office has nothing to do with 
 it ; it is the duty of the Associate. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Yes ; of course it is the duty 
 of the solicitor for the prosecution to instruct the Associate 
 to prepare 'd^e.postea. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I do not understand, my lord, 
 that that is the practice of the Court. I have always under- 
 stood that it was the duty of the Associate and not of the 
 prosecution to produce the postea. 
 
The Lord Chief Justice : It is clearly the Solicitor's 
 duty. I don't know how long it may be before you get it, 
 and if you do not get it now it will be very inconvenient, as, 
 after to-day, we do not sit in banco. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I have not got the posiea in 
 court, but I understand it is being prepared. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I don't understand why it has 
 not been prepared. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : My lord, we have taken steps 
 to get it prepared, and I believe that at this moment it is 
 being prepared. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Really, I must say that it is 
 very careless on the part of the prosecution not to have had 
 i\\t postea in court. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : It is not the prosecutor's duty 
 at all, it is the business of the Associate. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is the business of the Asso-, 
 ciate to make it up after it has been applied for. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I don't know when it was 
 applied for. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Only this morning. It 
 appears to me that that places us in a difficulty. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : My lord, I have never felt 
 that difficulty, nor have I understood it to be the practice 
 of the Court to demand it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; That is not so. It is the 
 commonest thing in the world to have the postea produced. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : According to the ordinary 
 ]jractices, both here and elsewhere, it is not usual to apply 
 to have the postea made out. I am told the practice is 
 equally the same on the Crown side. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is not so in criminal cases. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : It is not so when there is an ex- 
 change to this Court. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : When a motion of this kind is 
 made, after a removal by certiorari, it takes the usual course 
 of a civil trial ; and under these circumstances I should 
 have understood that the postea would have been made up 
 by the proper officers of the court. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : It is not so made up. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I would not contradict those 
 who say so, but if anybody says that, I must confess it is an 
 inconvenient practice. When once a case is moved by 
 certiorari to this court, it becomes a ci\-il trial, and I am 
 
271 
 
 told by a solicitor of 40 years' experience that, in that case, 
 the postea is made up by the Associate, as in a civil process, 
 whether it is applied for or not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : All the materials in a case 
 of this kind should have been here, and, if they are not 
 here, it is your duty to have applied for them. 
 
 The Solicitor-Geneual : I have always understood that 
 the Associate must send the postea. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : When was the application made in 
 this motion ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : It was made, at any rate, in 
 time, but I do not know when. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It ought to be ready in 
 court. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I think it is assumed to be 
 ready. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is not assumed at all, Mr. 
 Solicitor-General. The solicitors in this case should have 
 asked the Master what was to be done. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : If that were so, there ought 
 to have been no mistake about the thing, as a matter of 
 course. According to practice, the Associate should have 
 made up the record, and it is not at all usual for the prose- 
 cution to give notice for the requirement of such a record. 
 The rule varies where there is no time fixed ; but in this 
 case it was perfectly well known when it would come on. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The Associate cannot be 
 supposed to make up the postea until he gets notice. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : My lord, that is not the prac- 
 tice, I am told. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do the defendants intend to 
 move for a new trial or not ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I don't know whether they do 
 or do not 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Yes ; certainly we do. My lord, I 
 have three propositions to submit to you. The first one is a 
 motion to quash the indictment ; the second is a motion for 
 arresting judgment on the same ground ; and the third is a 
 . motion for a new trial, which my co-defendant will make. 
 I do not know, my lord, in what order these propositions 
 should be taken, whether the first motion should be to 
 quash the indictment, or whether I should make to your 
 lordship a motion for arrest of judgment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I was not aware, at the time. 
 
272 
 
 what course the trial would take, or what would be the 
 issue which would eventually go to the jury — whether their 
 attention was to be directed to particular parts of the work 
 upon which the prosecution relied, or whether these points 
 were set out in the indictment. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I did not state my objection fully to 
 your lordship ; but I asked if I should state the grounds on 
 which I moved, and your lordship said '' No." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I beg your pardon, you did 
 state the grounds. You objected that those parts were not 
 set out. If the Solicitor-General had relied upon any 
 particular parts of the work, I should have thought it worth 
 notice, and have explained it to the jur}-. I should have 
 asked them whether that was well founded. But the argu- 
 ment of the Solicitor-General was not that — it was whether 
 the whole work was not an offence against the law. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : With all respect to your lordship, 
 I understood your lordship to put it that I was not then 
 moving at the time I should have moved ; and I did not 
 press upon your lordship the grounds upon which, if I had 
 been in time, I should have moved. I stated to you simply 
 that I moved to quash the indictment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I declined to quash the 
 indictment. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I thought it was a refusal to hear the 
 motion. If I had understood that you refused to quash 
 the indictment, I should not have suggested to your lord- 
 ship the grounds on which I felt entitled to move at nist 
 prius ; but, on the contrary, I thought that your lordship 
 said you could not hear the motion at all, and I understood 
 your lordship to say that you would reserve the point to me. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : So I have ; but if you move 
 for a new trial you must state the grounds for saying that 
 the indictment is illegal, and you have a perfect right to 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Quite so, my lord. Then I move to 
 quash the indictment, or to arrest judgment on the ground 
 that the indictment is for an obscene libel, and that the 
 words supposed to be criminal in that libel ought to have 
 been expressly specified in the indictment, and they are not 
 specified in the indictment. In Archbold's " Criminal 
 Practice," page 58 (i8th edition), he says that "where words 
 are the gist of the offence, they must be set forth with par- 
 ticularity in the indictment." 
 
273 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : That is, in a case of libel, it might 
 be so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Very well, my lord. And in the case 
 of the Queen against Sacheverell, which is reported in the 
 iSth Howell, page 466, the Lord Chancellor put this ques- 
 tion to the judges : " Whether by the law of England and the 
 constant practice in the courts in all prosecutions by in- 
 dictment, or information for crimes or misdemeanours, 
 either by writing or by speaking, the particular words 
 supposed to be criminal must not be expressly specified in 
 such indictment or information ? " Baron Lovell replied : 
 " I have always taken it to be so, and by constant experi- 
 ence we have practised it so, that all words or writings which 
 are supposed to be criminal ought to be expressly mentioned 
 in the information or indictment." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Yes, I understand that to be 
 so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Mr. Justice Dormer said, " I am of 
 opinion that by the laws of England and constant practice 
 in all prosecutions by indictment or information for crimes 
 or misdemeanours in speaking or writing, the particular 
 words supposed to be criminal ought to be specified in such 
 indictment, or information in the Courts of Westminster." 
 Baron Bury said, " I am of the same opinion with my 
 brothers." Mr. Justice Tracy said, " I am of the same 
 opinion." Mr. Justice Gould expresses precisely the 
 same opinion, but he states it with a little more particu- 
 larity. He says, " It is our practice in the Court of King's 
 Bench, and we specify the words in the indictment, or it is 
 cause of demurrer." Mr. Justice Blencove and Mr. 
 Justice Powys express the same opinion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Well, we take it to be so from 
 all. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, the whole of the judges, 
 thirteen in all, delivered the same opinion, except that some 
 put it more elaborately than others. There is only one case 
 which I have been able to find which in any way goes 
 against us, and that is the case of the King v. Christopher 
 Layer for high treason, and which you will find reported in 
 the sixteenth volume of Howell, page 317 ; but in the case 
 of the King v. Goldstein, which is reported in the third 
 Broderick and Bingham, page 210, in a judgment referring 
 to another matter, it was then declared that the words in the 
 original libel must be set out. The same thing was put in 
 
 s 
 
274 
 
 the- case of Zenobia v. Axtell, which is reported in vol. six of 
 the Term Reports, page 162 ; and I submit to your lordship 
 that the setting out of the words in the indictment has been 
 the constant practice in the courts. Folkard, on " The Law 
 of Slander and Libel," says that the libellous matter must be 
 set out in the indictment, and that care should be taken to 
 express it correctly.' On page 773, he gives the form 
 for publishing and selling an obscene libel and there directs 
 the passage to be set out. In Mr. Prentice's recent edition 
 of Russell on Crimes, page 219, he says, "The libellous 
 matter must be set out in the indictment, and the libel 
 proved must appear to correspond with the statement of 
 it in the indictment." And on page 252, he gives another 
 illustration of the same contention. Archbold, in his book, 
 on pleading in criminal cases, on page 808, says pretty 
 nearly the same. He says distinctly, " that the libel itself 
 must be produced in evidence, and must correspond in 
 substance with the indictment." On page 803, he gives the 
 form of an indictment, and in that form he specifies that the 
 words to be relied upon ought to be set out On page 806, 
 he says that the indictment must contain the libellous passages, 
 and that these must be set out correctly, and on page 806, 
 he says that besides setting out the words there must be 
 averments to support the indictment on those libellous 
 passages. What I would submit to you, my lords, is this — 
 that the necessity for that procedure becomes very clear. 
 Broom, in his •' Commentaries," says (vol. 4, page 408) 
 that the indictment must have precise and sufficient certainty 
 in order that the defendant may know what it is that he is 
 called upon to answer. Our difficulty, my lord, is this, that 
 it does not appear from the indictment under which we are 
 charged, what we are precisely called upon to answer. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The whole book is complained 
 of, and you are called upon to answer that complaint. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Quite so, my lord ; but we did not 
 know when this prosecution commenced whether we had to 
 answer for the argument of the whole or for the language of 
 apart. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Suppose that they had set 
 out the whole of the book. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: Then, my lord, I should have had 
 nothing to say. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But if that had been so, you 
 would still have been in the same difficulty. It is a book 
 
275 
 
 and you must assume that that means the whole of the 
 book. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : No, my lord, because the difficulty here 
 is that I did not know, at the commencement of these pro- 
 ceedings, and I do not know now after having been tried, 
 and having listened to the address of the learned Solicitor- 
 General, whether the point which makes this book criminal 
 is the advocacy of particular checks to over-population, or 
 whether it consists in the alleged obscenity of some language 
 in which those particular checks are advocated. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Just so ; that is a perfectly 
 valid argument. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, supposing the advocacy to 
 have been obscene in some points, or the language used to 
 have been obscene, that would have been an issue definite 
 and clear ; but, even then, I should argue that the book 
 as a whole, or the parts specified, ought to have been set out 
 in the indictment at length. 
 
 ■ The Lord Chief Justice : Suppose it to be so, then 
 you have a twofold objection. First, that the book is not 
 obscene in its language, and, secondly, that if it is obscene 
 at all, the thing that makes it so is the advocacy of prac- 
 tices that are obscene. In the argument the whole book, it 
 is said, is open to the charge of obscenity. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then, my lord, I say that if that is the 
 offence, it should appear on the face of the indictment I 
 have to answer. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No doubt ; so it is if the 
 whole book is charged, and, if the whole ought to be set 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I submit, my lord, that the setting out 
 of the title of the book is not setting out the obscene words 
 which it is said constitute our offence, and which we have 
 to answer here. I submit, my lord, that the whole of the 
 cases, so far as I have from reports been able to gather 
 them, either put the libel on the ground of obscenity of 
 parts, or of the obscenity of whole bpoks. My lord, in the 
 case of the King against Curll, reported in the 17th of 
 Howell, which is the first case of this character which was 
 ever tried and decided, the libellous passages are set out at 
 length on the face of the indictment. There was one other 
 case prior to Curll which was partially tried, but for some 
 reason or other it dropped through. The first case, how- 
 ever, of an obscene libel which was ever punished by the 
 
 s 2 
 
276 
 
 "Court was the case of Curll, and there, as I have said, the 
 libellous parts of the book were set out. And, my lord, in 
 almost every case that I can find since reported in the 
 books, the parts of the books which have been considered 
 libellous have been set out. The difficulty we are in, my 
 lord, is this : that, as the indictment stands, we do not know 
 whether our offence is for publishing obscene words or for 
 propounding a theory which the jury now find to be within 
 the penalty of the common law. There have been, un- 
 doubtedly, cases in which the statute has very much limited 
 the practice as to setting out documents ; and I shall put it 
 to your lordship that where the statutory limitation in some 
 cases has been made it is ample for the support of my con- 
 tention that there is a strictness to be observed in all cases 
 in which the statutory limitation has not been made, and 
 that this must be so defined in this case. Our difficulty, 
 my lord, is that a new kind of offence is manufactured here, 
 and that deals with the second point which I will put before 
 you, that through the quashing of the indictment, or the 
 arresting of judgment, you will say whether there is any 
 offence against the law made out against us. If our offence 
 be the advocacy of checks to over-population, we say 
 that that is an offence which has not hitherto been known to 
 the common laws of England. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is matter for a new 
 trial, but not for quashing the indictment. 
 
 M. Bradlaugh : It is, my lord, matter for a new trial, 
 and on that point my co-defendant will address you. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you move for a new trial 
 or not ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Well, I will. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You are here two defendants ; 
 "Unless you now ask for a new trial on the ground you have 
 stated, you cannot afterwards do so. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Then, my lord, I ask for a new trial on 
 the ground that the advocacy of checks to over-population 
 does not constitute a libel within the common law. I do 
 think, my lord, from the dictum of my Lord Mansfield in 
 the case of Woodfall, that it would have been also a fair 
 matter for the arrest of judgment, but I do not want to put 
 it improperly to your lordship. I say that the common 
 law on this matter is the common usage, and this common 
 usage commenced with the case of the King against Curll, 
 before which no offence of this character was known to the 
 
277 
 
 common law at all. But at the same time, to be perfectly 
 fair, I admit that it was before that time known to the 
 ecclesiastical law. Since that period, however, the common 
 usage for at least loo years has been to discuss checks to 
 over-population, without any sort of limitation against such 
 discussion, nor has it been even hinted to be an offence 
 against the law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The difference is obvious. 
 The offence clearly is in the suggestion itself. There are 
 checks consistent with morality, and on the other hand 
 there are checks inconsistent with morality, and the 
 question here was, whether the proposal contained 
 in this book for the use of certain checks to over-population 
 was culpable or not. That was the matter for the jury to 
 consider and determine, and they have done it. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : But they have not determined it ; they 
 had not even the power to determine it, so as to create a 
 new offence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is not a new offence. It 
 is an offence against law to publish anything inconsistent with 
 public morality. Before the case of the King v. Curl 
 there was no decision on this matter, but judges have held 
 from that time to the present — and we must take it to be 
 settled law — that you cannot publish a book which is incon- 
 sistent with public morals. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : With all submission, my lord, I will 
 put it to you that Sir James Stephen, in his work of criminal 
 law, page 505, in a note suggests that " A man may write 
 with perfect decency of expression, and in complete good 
 faith maintain doctrines as to marriage, the relation of the 
 sexes, &c., which would be considered highly immoral by 
 most people, and yet I think he would commit no crime." 
 The obscene and the immoral are, in this wide sense, dis- 
 tinct from each other, and I understood the contention of 
 the learned Solicitor-General to be that those checks were 
 iminoral because they might imply, and, in fact, did imply 
 incitements to unchastity amongst unmarried people, and I 
 submit that even if this were so, you could not convict us 
 under this indictment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : As I understood the learned 
 Solicitor-General, his contention was that the practice of 
 such things amongst married people would have a demorali- 
 sing effect, and would have a yet more demoralising effect 
 amongst unmarried people by one of the restraints which 
 now exist being removed. 
 
278 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Even then, my lord, I should submit 
 that this would not be an indictable misdemeanour. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What you argue, then, is that 
 promiscuous intercourse might be lawfully advocated ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not go so far as that, nor does it 
 arise under the circumstances ; but according to the case of 
 the King v. Pearson, which is reported in Salkeld, page 382, 
 — which goes to a length which this pamphlet does not — 
 even supposing it had contained solicitations to unchastity, 
 that would not have been an indictable offence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then, Mr. Bradlaugh, would 
 you say that it is lawful to advocate promiscuous intercourse, 
 or do you say that if a man publish a book recom- 
 mending illicit intercourse that would not be an indictable 
 offence ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not go so far as that, and the case 
 of the King v. Pearson is much stronger than I would 
 be disposed to contend before your lordship. That case is 
 reported in Salkeld, page 382. I should be personally in- 
 clined to regard the illustration which your lordship has just 
 been kind enough to give to me as a fair illustration of a 
 libellous writing. But here I contend that there is no such 
 solicitation to unchastity, no violation of public morality, 
 no outrage of good manners in the mere discussion of such a 
 subject as this, or in the advocacy of checks to over-popula- 
 tion, which the jury have found to be depraving and tending 
 to corrupt public morals ; and I say, my lord, that this ver- 
 dict has so been found, condemning the advocacy of 
 checks, against the common usage, for works advocating such 
 (jhecks have been allowed to be freely printed and openly 
 circulated for nearly one hundred years, and moreover it 
 seems to me that such advocacy is peculiarly moral and 
 reasonable at the present time in this country. I think I 
 shall be within your lordship's remembrance if I put it to 
 the Court that so far as the mere language of the pamphlet 
 is concerned, no fault can be found with it, if it is once con- 
 ceded to me that the advocacy of checks is anywhere per- 
 missible, and if there is nothing immoral in the checks them- 
 selves. If that is so, I need not trouble to contend that the 
 pamphlet is not in its language immoral, and so far I think I 
 have said all that is necessary for the sake of meeting the 
 argument which has been used against me here. I would 
 ask simply, may the jury construe this book, because it 
 advocates checks to the population, as coming within a con- 
 
2.79 
 
 travention of those unwritten laws which are specially 
 against the depraving of public morals ? An advocacy of 
 a particular class of check being, as I think, permissible, 
 I am entitled to advocate such checks here, because clearly 
 there would not be the slightest pretext, if Malthus may ad- 
 vocate the delay of marriage in order to check the over- 
 growth of population, for saying that I may not advocate 
 scientific prudential checks for the same purpose ; and there- 
 fore it cannot come within the scope of juries to judge and 
 condemn a book on that ground. If the argument is fair 
 in the mouth of the Solicitor-General that this case is to be 
 raised into a precedent for condemning that for which there 
 has up to this time been no precedent, I think I am entitled 
 to say that we should look with very great disfavour upon 
 such a mode of extending the law of the land, and I say 
 further that, if your lordship allows this verdict of the jury 
 to be permitted to stand, a new offence will be created — an 
 offence which has hitherto been completely unknown to our 
 law. In the case of the King v. Hicklin, we see that which 
 I am contending for — i.e., that if it is a subject which may 
 be discussed at all, it cannot be discussed without to a cer- 
 tain extent producing authorities and quoting necessary facts. 
 Now, I contend that the right to discuss checks is permis- 
 sible, and that there is nothing in the pamphlet which is 
 not necessary and legitimate to that discussion. 
 
 Mr. Justice MSllor : Is it your contention that if the 
 subject is one which may be discussed at all, it can be dis 
 cussed without violating the law, if the manner in which you 
 discuss it is found to have the tendency to corrupt the public 
 morals ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: My lord, I am contending that the 
 Population Question is one which may be fairly discussed, 
 and for my right to produce scientific and medical authority 
 in the discussion of that subject, and for the right to advocate 
 checks which in themselves are not immoral, and to urge 
 upon people the adoption of such checks to over-population; 
 and even if we should have made a mistake by publishing a 
 book containing a particular character of check which a jury 
 declares to have an immoral tendency, unless we have done 
 that which we have done with a wicked and corrupt motive, 
 and with a bad intention, there is no pretence for saying that 
 we have done anything to violate the law. Nor can it be 
 said that in this book there is anything obscene arising from 
 an exaggeration, indelicate allusion, or highly-coloured 
 
28o 
 
 statement of fact, and, therefore, I contend that you ought to 
 pause before accepting this verdict at the hands of the jury 
 and thus create a new offence for which your lordships might 
 lawfully punish us. If there is any word regardmg such an 
 offence in the statutes of the country, we might be concluded 
 under this indictment, but if there is no such word we can 
 only be concluded by the common usage of the country. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : There you are wrong — the 
 common law of the country. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : An eminent judge, my lord, has put it 
 that the common law of the country was made by the common 
 usage of the country. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We have got a proposition of 
 law to deal with here, and not that it is understood that we 
 are to allow a usage, however common, to override the law. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, I bow, of course, to your lord- 
 ship's doctrines. Some references were made to the work of 
 Churchill, who in the case of some diseases thought it was per- 
 missible to advocate the procuring of premature delivery. Sup- 
 pose thatthe jury were asked to construe its illegality, although 
 there is no violation of good manners, the book of Churchill 
 would be indictable in the same fashion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We cannot suppose that any 
 jury would be so foolish as to find that what a medical man 
 may professionally recommend, in dealing with certain cases 
 amongst his patients in the exercise of his judgment, in order 
 to save life, might be construed into an offence against the 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I do not think, especially with the evi- 
 dence of scientists on our side, that the jury should have 
 come to the conclusion that the check which we advocate 
 for the hindrance of our population is illegal, and yet they have 
 so held. There are other grounds upon which I might urge 
 upon your lordship, that we are entitled to a new trial, with 
 which I shall not trouble the Court, because they are to be 
 argued by my co-defendant, and I have no wish to take up 
 the time of the Court unnecessarily. I have now stated the 
 different points upon which I rely. It would have been 
 easy for me to have gone into the matter at greater length. 
 I would just add that I specially rely upon the first point 
 which I submitted to your lordship. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I move, my lord, as my co-defendant has 
 just done, to quash the indictment : in the first place, on the 
 very ground put by the Lord Chief Justice — viz., that the 
 
whole of the book is supposed to be in the indictment, and, 
 therefore, that the whole of the book must be taken to be 
 obscene. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, no. You put it wrongly. 
 Not the whole of the book, but the book as a whole, is 
 obscene. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : The book, as a whole, is to be taken as 
 obscene. But your lordship drew the distinction between 
 the checks that are advocated and those parts of the book 
 which are not obscene, and I put it to your lordships that 
 the jury in their verdict did not draw that distinction, and that 
 from the verdict of the jury we have no means of knowing- 
 what parts of the book they condemn. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : They condemn the whole 
 of it. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : They condemn the whole of it ; and if I 
 publish another pamphlet in which I should leave out those 
 parts containing the advocacy of checks to population, that 
 pamphlet would also be condemned, because the advocacy 
 of the law of population is condemned by that verdict. 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : No. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, should we not, by that verdict of 
 the jury, know what it is that constitutes our offence ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Your offence is that of pub- 
 lishing such a book as has been declared to be obscene. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : But, my lord, is it for advocating the 
 checks to population that we are condemned ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am bound to say that is the 
 gist of the inquiry. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, I feel that it is, but the jury did 
 not say so. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I agree that the language of 
 the book is not open to any particular objection, and if it 
 had been a medical book it would have been still less 
 objectionable. The question is, are you entitled to say that 
 it is a medical work ? When we come to the checks pro- 
 posed, that was a question for the jury, and it was for them 
 to say whether the proposals were such as ought to be 
 practised at all, and without considering whether your 
 motive was this or that, or that you published the book with 
 this or that object, whether the book was one consistent 
 with public morality or not. That was the issue, and it was 
 determined against you. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : When I come to the arguments for a new 
 
trial I shall put it to you that a jury ought not to be per- 
 mitted, without grave hesitation, to lay down the law on a 
 question of ethics which has never yet been decided, and 
 to decide that the practices recommended by Churchill were 
 right as a recommendation to be made by a medical man, 
 and that another recommendation which is made by 
 another medical man — Dr. Knowlton — was wrong. 
 Besides, there is this difference between the two recom- 
 mendations, that in the first it is advocated under certain 
 circumstances to destroy life, and in the second the recom- 
 mendation is that there should be no necessity for destroying 
 life at all. I will therefore move that the verdict entered on 
 behalf of the Crown should really and truly have been 
 entered for the defendants, on the ground that the verdict 
 was a special verdict, and was really a verdict of not guilty. 
 And I move for a new trial on the ground that the form of 
 words used in the delivery of the verdict was self-contradic- 
 tory, was utterly against the weight of evidence, and that when 
 the verdict was brought in, it was recorded as a verdict of 
 guilty by misdirection. I feel there might be a difficulty 
 here in speaking of misdirection, were it not that I am 
 practically appealing from the decision of the Lord Chief 
 Justice at Nisi Prius to the Lord Chief Justice in Banco, 
 and I am therefore sure of a patient hearing. The verdict 
 as given, was : " We are of opinion that the book is 
 calculated to deprave the public morals, but we entirely 
 exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motive in 
 publishing the book ; " and in the indictment, one copy of 
 which has been handed up to the Bench, we were charged 
 with a wicked and corrupt motive. 
 
 The Lord CnrEF Justice : I did not so regard it. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : We are distinctly charged with having a 
 corrupt intention, and with the object in the publication of 
 the book of corrupting public morals. We are charged 
 with having intended to have caused a corruption of public 
 morals by having published an obscene book. However, 
 my lord, I contend that the special verdict is a verdict of 
 not guilty, because a corrupt intention is distinctly charged 
 in the indictment, and the jury have specifically acquitted 
 us of the corrupt intention. If the jury had returned a 
 verdict of guilty, of course I should not have had the 
 right to make this motion, for a verdict of guilty on the in- 
 dictment would necessarily imply, or at least it would pre- 
 suppose, a corrupt intention, and such a corrupt intention 
 
283 
 
 must have been found to bring us in guilty. Where the 
 jury, however, brought in a special verdict and particularly 
 put the negative on the intention, in that case I contend 
 that they have negatived a vital part of the indictment, and 
 cannot bring us in guilty on the whole, the special verdict 
 having specifically declared that we are not guilty of such a 
 corrupt intention. I find that Lord Mansfield laid it down 
 in the case of the King v. Woodfall, which is reported in 
 Howell's State Trials, vol. 20, column 919, that this must 
 be so. The verdict there was in the nature of a special 
 verdict, although the phraseology used in favour of the 
 accused was not so strong as that on which I am addressing 
 your lordship. I find Lord Mansfield laid it down there : 
 " That where an act in itself indifferent, if done with a 
 particular intent, becomes criminal, there the intent must be 
 proved and found ; but where the act is in itself unlawful, 
 as in this case, the proof of justification, or excuse, lies on 
 the defendants, and in failure thereof, the law implies a 
 criminal intent." I urge upon your lordships that we have 
 not failed in proving our intention to be good, because the 
 jury expressly exonerated us of any criminal intention, and 
 I quote Lord Mansfield to show that where there is such an 
 exoneration by the jury the verdict should be one of not 
 guilty. I will urge further upon your lordships that where 
 the act charged is indifferent — and in this case it surely is 
 indifferent, because unless the intention is corrupt the book 
 is not corrupt — the intent to corrupt must be proved : 
 that on that ground also the verdict should be one of not 
 guilty. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I beg your pardon. It 
 is found that the book is calculated to deprave public 
 morals 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Yes, my lord, to deprave public morals. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And that being so I shall be 
 obliged to hold that the publication of the book is contrary 
 to law. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : When the indictment was drawn up there 
 was no reason to suppose that a physiological treatise was 
 illegal, and therefore the act was presumably an indifferent 
 act. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The person who publishes a 
 work of the kind we are dealing with, and which is open to 
 the objection found against it, must, whatever his intention, 
 abide by the results of his act. 
 
284 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Where the act charged is not known to be 
 unlawful, the defendant surely has the right to show that in 
 the act itself there was a good intention ; and I affirm that 
 in this case we have succeeded in proving that good inten- 
 tion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : There is where you are mis- 
 taken in your law. You do an unlawful act, and you are 
 bound to abide by the consequences. You cannot say, " I 
 disobeyed the law, but I did so with a good intention." 
 Your business is loyally to obey the law, and not to do 
 something which violates it. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, I should not have argued as I 
 am doing if the jury had brought in a verdict of guilty. In 
 that case I would have loyally acknowledged your lord 
 ship's proposition, and felt myself constrained to submit to 
 the decision ; but where they go out of their way to find a 
 special verdict, I plead that it is not a verdict of guilty. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The answer to that is that on 
 the part of this indictment which charges you with an un- 
 lawful offence, the jury have found you guilty. And if the 
 part had never been written which charges the intention, I 
 should have held that the indictment was good without it. 
 It was not necessary to the validity of the verdict that the 
 superfluous part should be found, and the indictment would 
 have been good without it. If you publish a book which i^ 
 calculated to deprave public morals, that is an offence 
 against the law; and although, in the unnecessary and 
 superfluous part of the indictment, there is no judgment 
 against you, the primary matters not being objected to and 
 being found guilty here, the verdict is a perfectly valid 
 one. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Then, my lord, I must urge upon you that 
 if the indictment is badly drawn 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; It is not badly drawn if some- 
 thing is put in that might have been left out altogether. If 
 it is useful enough for the purpose, the useful part is not 
 corrupted by the useless part. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, I argue that the corrupt inten- 
 tion is a vital part of the indictment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Oh, if that is so, you can 
 argue it. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I argue that it is so, my lord ; and that 
 being so, that vital part has been negatived by the jury, 
 and, therefore, the verdict must fall to the ground. I say 
 
28s 
 
 that a good verdict required that the vital part should be 
 found, and that the part which really is vital is shut out by 
 the special verdict given ; and I will put it to you on the 
 authority of Broom, who lays it down on page 41, vol. iv., 
 that in an act which is criminal, the act must be such as 
 affects and prejudices the public ; and, secondly, that the 
 act must have proceeded from a guilty mind, and must 
 have been done with criminal intent. And I urge upon 
 your lordships that throughout the whole course of English 
 law it has invariably been held to be so. Your lordship 
 pointed out to the learned Solicitor-General that it would 
 be a most strange anomaly if a defendant charged with the 
 intention to vitiate and corrupt public morality was, notwith- 
 standing being so charged, acquitted of such intent by the 
 prosecution, and yet found guilty on the indictment. My 
 lord, there is no such anomaly in English law, as I shall 
 hope to show you. Right through the authorities I think 
 your lordships will find that a malicious intent is necessary 
 to the crime. If you take the case of homicide, the offence, 
 whether it be murder or manslaughter, lies in the intention ; 
 and if there was not such intention found or supposed, the 
 charge could not be sustained. If the charge were one of 
 mUrder, the negativing of the bad intention would make that 
 verdict for murder fall to the ground. The man could be 
 prosecuted after for manslaughter, I suppose, but not con- 
 victed of it there and then if the indictment were only one 
 for murder. 
 
 The -Lord Chief Justice : Oh, yes, he could. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : If there was a count for manslaughter in 
 the indictment, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Not necessarily An indict- 
 ment for murder would include manslaughter, because the 
 greater includes the less. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Mr. Erskine, arguing in the case of the 
 King V. John Cuthell, which is reported in Howell, vol. 27, 
 cols. 661 and 662, puts it there that the indictment charging 
 the bookseller with publishing a seditious libel must say 
 that he did so with a malignant intention, and argues that 
 if the bookseller had no such malignant intention he should 
 not be brought in guilty. He puts the very point I have 
 just urged : " Let it, for argument's sake, be taken that such 
 an indictment [for malignantly publishing] may, even as the 
 law stands, be properly maintained ; but, if this be so, why 
 should not the indictment, in conformity with the universal 
 
286 
 
 rules of pleading, charge such negligence by a distinct 
 count ? Upon what principle is a man who is guilty of one 
 crime to be convicted, without a shadow of evidence, or in 
 the teeth of all evidence, of another crime, greatly more 
 heinous and totally different?" That is our own case; we 
 are brought in by direction of the judge guilty on an indict- 
 ment which charges us with a crime from which the jury 
 expressly exonerated us. Erskine might have been pleading 
 our case as he goes on ; he says : " The Libel Act lies 
 before me, which expressly and in terms directs that the 
 trial of a libel shall be conducted like every other trial for 
 any other crime ; and that the jury shall decide, not upon 
 the mere fact of printing or publishing, but upon the whole 
 matter put in issue — i.e., the publication of the libel with 
 the intentions charged by the indictment. This is the rule 
 by the Libel Act, and you, the jury, as well as the Court, 
 are bound by it. What, then, does the present indictment 
 charge ? Does it charge merely that Mr. CutheU published 
 or negligently published, the 'Reply to the Bishop of 
 Llandaff ' ? No ; it charges, ' that the defendant bemg a 
 wicked and seditious person, and maUgnantly and traitor- 
 ously intending to secure the invasion of Great Britain by 
 the French, and to induce the people not to defend the 
 country, had published,' &c., setting forth the book. This 
 is the charge, and you must beUeve the whole 'complex pro- 
 position before the defendant can be legally convicted. No 
 man can stand up to deny this in the teeth of the Libel 
 Act, which reduces the question wholly to the intention 
 which ought to be a foundation for their verdict. Is your 
 belief of negligence sufficient to condemn Mr. Cuthell upon 
 this indictment, though you may discredit the criminal 
 motive which is averred ? The best ^vay of trying that ques- 
 tion is to find the negligence by a special verdict, and 
 negative the motives as alleged by the indictment ; do that 
 and I am satisfied." He asks, in fact, for the very verdict 
 which was given to us. He goes on to urge that a publisher 
 whose whole life disproves the charge, cannot, " by virtue 
 of an abstract legal proposition," be brought in guilty of 
 wicked intent. " I positively deny," he says, " such a doc- 
 trme, and I am sure that no judge ever risked his character 
 with the public by delivering it as law from the Bench 
 The judges may have been bound at Nisi Prius, as I admit 
 they are, to decide according to the current decisions I 
 will meet my learned friend, the Attorney-General in the 
 
287 
 
 Lords' House of Parliament on that question, if you, the 
 jury, will assist me with the fact to raise it by finding as a 
 special verdict — ' That the book, if you please, was a libel 
 — that Mr. Cuthell, the defendant, published it ; but that 
 he published it from negligence" and inadvertency, without 
 the motives charged by the indictment.' " My lords, Lord 
 Erskine did not even ask for a verdict such as ours, a ver- 
 dict exonerating us from all fault ; and he goes on : " If 
 you, gentlemen of the jury, will find such a verdict, 
 i will consent never to re-enter Westminster Hall again, 
 if one judge out of the twelve will, upon a writ of 
 error, pronounce judgment for the Crown." That con- 
 tention, my lord, has been sustained in many cases. 
 In the case of the King v. W. Owen, which you will find re- 
 ported in the 1 8th vol. of Howell, it was argued that you must 
 find the intention before you can find a verdict of guilty. 
 Mr. Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, says (column 1227): 
 — " To show you how necessary it is to prove the intention ; 
 if there is an indictment preferred against a man for an 
 assault, with an intention to ravish, the intention must be 
 proved, or else the jury cannot find him guilty. The same 
 of an assault, with an intention to kill, if the intention is not 
 proved he must be acquitted. If he kills, and the intention is 
 not proved — that is, if it is not proved that he killed premedi- 
 tatedly, and of forethought — it is but manslaughter. There- 
 fore, in the case before us, if that part of the information is 
 not proved, that he published maliciously, &c., you must 
 acquit him." Erskine, in another trial, pointed out that he had 
 argued against Lord Mansfield on this ground, and that the 
 legislature, by statute, had maintained his contention. You 
 will also find that, in the case of the King v. James Lambert, 
 Perry, and Gray, which is reported in the 22nd vol. of 
 Howell, column 10 19, that the verdict there given was 
 ■ " Guilty of publishing, but with no malicious intent." In the 
 case of the King v. Daniel Isaac Eaton the same kind of 
 verdict was returned. In Howell, vol. 22, column 780, the 
 verdict is given : — " We find the defendant guilty of publish- 
 ing, but not with a criminal intention." In that case the 
 counsel for the defendant said that was a verdict of not 
 guilty, and that the verdict must be entered so. The Re- 
 corder said that the verdict must be entered as the jury 
 gave it, and when he was going to explain to the jury, the 
 counsel said : — " I contend thai the verdict of the jury is 
 given, and that it is complete and irrevocable;" and he 
 
288 
 
 urged that it was in fact a verdict of acquittal in the form 
 of a special verdict. The prisoner was let out on bail, and 
 the question as to the meaning of the verdict was referred 
 to the twelve judges, and appears never to have been 
 decided. The man was taken up on another indictment to 
 the Court of King's Bench, where he was tried for practically 
 the same offence. There the verdict given was one of 
 " Guilty of publishing." The Attorney-General, who after- 
 wards became Lord Eldon, moved the Court of Queen's 
 Bench that the verdict should be entered as one of guilty, 
 but he never took any further action, and the whole trial 
 dropped to the ground. The verdict given in the case of 
 Eaton was given against a hostile summing-up, instead of, as 
 in our case, one which was perfectly fair and impartial right 
 through. In spite, however, of that the verdict was not ac- 
 cepted as one of guilty. It stood on the record as a special 
 verdict, and on its first delivery there was a new trial. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : What do you say the precise 
 terms were which the jury delivered in this case. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : "We are of opinion that the book is cal- 
 culated to deprave public morality, but we entirely exone- 
 rate "the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing 
 the book." 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : Well, what happened then? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I told the jury it being found 
 that the publication before them was a publication of the 
 defendants, if^ they were of opinion that the publication was 
 contrary to public morals, and if its tendency was to deprave, 
 then the question of intention was not one of which they 
 might take into account. The want of evil intention might 
 be considered in the question of punishment. But a person 
 that has been intentionally the publisher of a work which 
 the jury found was contrary to public morals was guilty of 
 the offence charged. Therefore the jury found a ^■erdict of 
 guilty. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I urge, with all possible submission to this 
 Court and with every respect to the judge who gave the 
 direction, that the special verdict of the jury, by all prece- 
 dent, ought to have been put on record. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: You cannot argue so. It 
 must either be a verdict of guilty or not guilty. It is open 
 to you to argue that I ought to have directed the jury other- 
 wise, but you must have, in criminal cases, a verdict of guilty 
 or not guilty. 
 
289 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Such a verdict as this has been entered, 
 my lord, as these cases show. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice :' If there was nothing in the 
 verdict which was favourable to the book, then I must put, it 
 to you that there could not, in the end, be a verdict of any- 
 thing else but guilty. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : If the verdict tpf the jury acquitted 
 the defendants of matter essential to the offence, the verdict 
 s,hould be one of not guilty, but that depends upon the pre- 
 vious question, " What did constitute the elements of the 
 offence ? " 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Quite so, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor: I also think that the direction of 
 the judge was perfectly unimpeachable. The intention was the 
 publication of the book, and tJie part of the indictment which 
 laid the intention was not proved ; and, on the other hand, 
 the intention to publish was not disproved. But the inten- 
 tion was to publish the book, and if the book itself be a 
 book having the tendency to corrupt public morals, although 
 the defendants have no corrupt i-stention, the publication 
 itself is an offence, and, as such, put^ishable, and whatever 
 the intention was, the publishing is nd, less an offence, the 
 book being of the character found. I|esides you intended 
 to circulate, and in circulating the book you are doing an 
 overt act, and the judge directed very rightly, I think. That 
 is really the essence of the matter. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I am afraid J aliall be obliged to press 
 upon your lordships that, as the indictment stands, we 
 have been found guilty of an intention to corrupt, in the 
 words of the indictment itself, and it is not quite fair when 
 that is distinctly done away with that the verdict should 
 stand as a verdict of guilty on that indictment, although no 
 such intention as is alleged is found. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: That is as far as you are 
 morally concerned. The jury have acquitted you of any 
 corrupt intention. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And, my lords, having done so, can there 
 be a verdict of guilty ? The verdict of guilty will be recorded 
 on that indictment, and there will be no record of the 
 acquittal of evil motive. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : You are found giiilty of an offence 
 against the law. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : In the cases of Lambert and Eaton, in 
 both of which there was the same verdict as that returned 
 
 T 
 
290 
 
 here, and in all the cases, without one exception, so far as I 
 know, when it ■^^'as moved that the verdicts be set aside, a 
 new trial was granted. There was one case where the 
 verdict was one of " guilty of publishing only." That was- 
 the case of Woodfall, and there, by an appeal to the House- 
 of Lords, a decision for a new trial was given. Lord Chief 
 Justice Mansfield delivered the judgment, and he said that 
 the word " only " entirely vitiated the verdict : "It is im 
 possible to say with certainty what the jury really did mean;, 
 probably they had different meanings. If they could possibly 
 mean that which is expressed would acquit the defendant, he- 
 ought not to be concluded by this verdict. It is possible 
 some of them might meai not to find the whole sense and 
 explanation put upon the paper by the inuendoes in the in- 
 formation. If a doubt arises from an ambiguous and un- 
 usual word in the verdict, the Court ought to lean in favour 
 of a venire de novo. We are under the less difficulty,, 
 because, in favour of a defendant, though the verdict be 
 full, the Court may grant a new trial. And we are all of 
 opinion, upon the whole of the case, that there should be a 
 venire de novo." 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : There is no doubt as to what the- 
 jury intended in your case. They intended to find that the 
 book was one which had a tendency to corrupt public 
 morals. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : And yet they found that we had no such 
 intention to corrupt, which, I venture to .say, is a contradic- 
 tion of terms. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor: You must not confound corrupt 
 intention with intentions of a moral quality. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It was presumably a case of malicious and 
 corrupt intent when a book .was alleged to be dangerous to- 
 the State, and yet, as I have shown, where the verdict 
 was of this character, the Court granted a new trial on the 
 ground of the ambiguity of the verdict returned. I have, I 
 think, therefore, the right to ask your lordships, seeing that 
 the jury were undecided for an hour and thirty-five minutes, 
 and that, at last, they brought in a verdict acquitting us of 
 all intention to corrupt, to grant us a new trial. It is not 
 contended that the book contains language not proper in a 
 medical book; and if is altogether a case of such difficulty 
 that I think we oiight to have a new trial, and so have the 
 opportunity of arguing the case once more. Especially is 
 that reasonable when so many cases are found where special 
 
291 
 
 verdicts have resulted in new trials, and I trust that this 
 Court will not make the new precedent of pressing against a 
 defendant, where a verdict such as this has been given. If it 
 is maintained by this Court that our demand for a new trial 
 should not be allowed, a new law will have been made by the 
 verdict of the jury, because the offence of advocating checks 
 upon over-population was not known to the law until that 
 verdict was given ; and I will venture to urge that, if the 
 verdict be sustamed as a verdict pt guilty, it will be main- 
 taining a verdict of guilt of opinion, and not a verdict of 
 guilt of act ; and, however confident the jury may be that 
 their verdict is right, it should not be allowed that they are 
 a competent tribunal to judge of the character of opinions ; 
 they should have no power to bring the holders of such 
 opinions, whether the opinions be right or wrong, within the 
 reach of the criminal law. If you do that you will be acting 
 in a most high-handed way, and introducing a precedent of 
 a most dangerous character. You will be giving the right to 
 a jury of stopping the discussion of any question on which 
 they disagree with the prisoner, and to maintain that verdict 
 in this Court will be to bring a large number of people 
 within the reach of the law, because they come before a jury 
 whose opinions happen to disagree with those which they 
 hold. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If you put that as a matter of 
 law, I agree that it would be very unfair to create such a 
 precedent, but I doubt whether this verdict does so. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I contend that it does, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You both concurred with 
 the remark of the Solicitor-General, that this was a matter 
 entirely for the jury. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : That is very true, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is not a question for the 
 judge, but eminently for the jury ; but now you say, although 
 on the trial it was entirely for the jury, that because the verdict 
 happens to be against you it should not be allowed to 
 stand. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : No, my lord, I do not say that. I say that 
 the verdict ought to be set aside because it is self-contradic- 
 tory, and also b'fecause the decision of the jury was given, 
 your lordship says, not against the language of the book, 
 which they might fairly' judge, but against the advocacy of 
 preventive checks to population — a question of ethics 
 which, I submit, they are not competent to decide. I 
 
 T 2 
 
acknowledge that their verdict was supreme in the court 
 below, but many verdicts have been set aside, and there is a 
 right of appeal against verdicts given by juries. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No doubt ; but it was a matter 
 entirely and eminently for the jury, entirely within their 
 cognizance, and the Court cannot say that the jury have gone 
 wrong. Why are we to take upon ourselves to say, then, 
 that their verdict should be set aside ? 
 
 Mrs. Besant : They did not bring in a verdict of guilty, 
 my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : They did, indeed. They 
 brought in the verdict they intended. They' said, our 
 opinion is that the book is corrupt, but we do not think 
 the intention of the defendants in publishing the book is 
 corrupt, direct us what to do. And I directed them that 
 if they found the book to be of that character the intention 
 was not for them, and that the verdict was one of guUty. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, I will leave it, then, upon that 
 pDint. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : They did not know how the 
 law would affect the case under the special circumstances. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : This verdict, I think, is of so doubtful a 
 character that it ought to be taken as gi-ound for a new trial. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Suppose another jury had sat 
 upon the case, and that they said the book is not one that 
 ought to be published, but we think the defendants pub- 
 lished it Avith the motive that they thought they were acting 
 for the good of the people, or that they published it in ignor- 
 ance. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : My lord, that happened in the case of the 
 prosecution of the publisher of Paine, and after the second 
 expression of opinion the prosecution dropped, and the right 
 to publish the works became admitted, and they ai-e now 
 openly sold. A verdict of this kind has, many times, been 
 made the ground of a new trial before, and I trust you will 
 think it a ground for ordering a new trial now. I simply leave 
 that for your lordships' decision. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you wish to add anything 
 on the subject of the indictment now, Mr. Solicitor-General? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I would not have been sorry 
 if the defendant had not quoted the case of Dr. Sacheverell. 
 The decision of the House of Lords was, that it was not 
 necessary to set out .the particular words upon the face ot 
 an indictment, ' after the opinion of the judges was known. 
 
293 
 
 In a note appended to the case there is a reference to the 
 case of Layer, where the whole matter was brought up and 
 discussed. It is to be found reported in Howell's State 
 Trials, volume xvi., where it was contended that the matter 
 that was charged was treason, and the act of publishing 
 ought to ha,ve been set out in the indictment. It was 
 decided that the opinions given in the case of Sache\'erell 
 were wrong. That is stated in the note to the passage in 
 the report which was quoted by the defendant. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The difficulty I have, and 
 my learned brother concurs, it may well be said that the 
 matter reUed upon by the prosecution as libellous should 
 be set out in the indictment in order to enable the defendant 
 to demur. He might say we admit the facts ; vre admit the 
 publication ; but we deny that it is libellous matter, and v,'e 
 challenge the decision of the Court upon that. He may 
 raise it when this matter is brought before the Court, and 
 say that it is not libellous. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I submit that he could not do 
 so in this particular case. I am anxious to call your atten- 
 tion to the fact that the words said to be libellous are used 
 in two different senses, and where it consists of obscene 
 language, it is a nuisance and an offence against public 
 morality. One distinction which'will strike you is, that in 
 an indictment for an obscene libel, which is a nuisance, he 
 may urge that it is truthfully and plainly uttered ; that was 
 the defence made at the Sessions, and it is the observation 
 and argum^ents that are made novif. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not know that. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : What we say is, that all libel- - 
 lous matter is calculated to injure public morality — and in 
 this particular case it consists of printed words — and that, it 
 would be equally obscene if it had consisted in a represen- 
 tation by a picture. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : So v/e might have a form of 
 line in the shape of figures instead of words. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : No doubt ; but observe what 
 we would come to if the contention were carried out. Could 
 it be said that an indictment for an obscene libel consisting 
 of a picture, the picture itself should be described, and not 
 only the figures themselves, but the particular indecenc} 
 which the figures suggest, should be fully set out. I am 
 not aware that the question has ever been before the 
 Courts in England, but it has been twice before the Courts 
 
294 
 
 in America. But I argue that this matter should be decided 
 by common sense. Whether the illustration is contrary to 
 public morals, or whether it is described as a printed book, 
 it is sufficient notice to the defendant to give its title, and, 
 whether the indictment charges the whole of the book or 
 not, to call attention to matters which will be proved on the 
 hearing of the charge. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What you rely upon was not 
 the particular tendency of the work, but upon particular 
 passages charged as obscene and indecent. Is a man to go 
 through the whole book to ascertain what passages you may 
 mean? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : If the whole book treated of 
 is not indicted, but if the book as a whole is charged, one 
 of two things would happen — either the whole of it would 
 have to appear upon the records, or it would be suflScient 
 to simply call it an obscene book. It cannot be contended 
 that the whole of a book should be so set out — in this case 
 the book we are dealing with consists of 47 pages, but it 
 might be 447, then it would seem to be bringing the 
 administration of that part of the practice of our law to 
 ridicule — to say that the Court must have the whole of the 
 matter which may be complained of, and which might be 
 of the most offensive character, perpetuated upon its records. 
 Thfere are books which one knows to be of the most 
 indecent possible character, and will it be said that all these 
 books should become public, by being placed upon the 
 official records of this court ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I remember that in the 
 indictment against Wilkes which I recently had occasion to 
 look up, and which was for publishing and circulating 
 indecent matter, that the notice of the book was not con- 
 sidered enough, but the whole of the indecent lines are fully 
 set out. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Yes, my lord, but that was 
 before the passing of Fox's Libel Act, and up to that time 
 that might have been the recognized practice. At that time 
 it was held that libel or no libel was the question for the 
 Court to decide. Then it was not a question for the jury — 
 the only question of fact being that of publication. At that 
 time it was intelligible enough that upon the records should 
 appear that which constituted the subject of the offence, for 
 the Court had to say whether it was libellous or not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : This course might take away 
 
295 
 
 from the defendant the right to demur. The defendant 
 might say : I admit I published the book, but it is not a 
 libel. You may say that it is a nuisance against public 
 morals. I do not agree to that, and I want to Bee the 
 matter which is to be brought to the knowledge of the 
 Court for its decision, because I deny that it amounts to a 
 libel. 
 
 The Solicitor-General ; That is a question which, in 
 the present state of the law, the Court could never deter- 
 mine. It is a question entirely for the jury. That, in my 
 opinion, is one reason why the matter in contest need not 
 -be set forth in length upon the indictment. The Courts now 
 "have no right to say what is libel, or what is not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is for the prosecution, 
 not for the defendant, to contend. Suppose the defendant 
 were to say, I do not desire to have the verdict of the jury. 
 I take my stand upon the law, and say that upon the face 
 of the thing it is no hbel. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I submit to your lordship that 
 'the Court could not decide that question ; it would be ex- 
 clusively a question for the jury to decide. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If once the case comes to 
 the hearing, then it becomes a matter for a jury, and a jury 
 only. But if he takes the preliminary objection, you cannot 
 avoid meeting it. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : The answer to that, my lord, 
 would be, if it was a question of demurrer, that it is not a 
 matter for the Court to decide. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If the defendant sa5's so, 
 and I do not see why he should not, the difficulty would 
 then arise. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : At the time I am referring to 
 my lord, the judges had all held, as a matter of law and 
 practice, that it was for the Court and the Legislature com- 
 bined to declare what was the issue that should go to the 
 jury. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not care who has 
 asserted these opinions : I venture to say, in my humble 
 judgment, that it was a most preposterous and tyrannical 
 law. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : This precise question has 
 come before the Courts in America, and they have held that 
 the indecent matter in the case of "The Commonwealth 
 against Peter Holmes," which you will find in the 17 th 
 
296 
 
 Massachusetts Reports, the defendant was prosecuted foram 
 obscene libel, and was indicted at the Circuit Court charged 
 with circulating the " Memoirs of a ■\\'oman of Pleasure," 
 and publishing the same book, the same objection wasmade, 
 there that is made here. It was contended that the obscene- 
 matter ought to have been set out in the indictment. Chief 
 Justice Parker says that where the charge is for publishing 
 an obscene book, it never can be required that the whole 6f 
 the obscene book or picture should be displayed upon the 
 records of the Court, This would be to require that the- 
 public records should give prominence and notoriety to the 
 obscene libels in order to punish the defendant. This^ was 
 the state of the law up to the time that the prosecution of 
 the Queen r. O'Connell reversed it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : Are you av.-are of any case in Eng- 
 land where there is a conviction for libel contained in any 
 book or newspaper in which the libel has not been fully set 
 out? 
 
 The SoLiciTOR-Gi'xr.RAL : This book was indicted at 
 Bristol, but I am not aware that any book has been indicted 
 in, this particular form till then. That is very recent, and 
 that it has been indicted in this form is certain, and the 
 person who drew up this indictment drew it up from that 
 ^ precedent. Both here and at the Old Bailey that has beea 
 done. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the other case to- 
 which you refer ? You say there is another case ? 
 
 The Solicitor-General : The first is the Commonwealth 
 against Sharpies and Others, and the case' reported in 
 vol. 2 of Sargerton and Rawle in the Pennsj-hania Court. 
 There the indictment v/as for exhibiting an indecent picture, 
 and the particular objection taken was that it vras not 
 obscene. That was the very form of the objection which 
 your lordship put to me just now. It wjs said by the defen- 
 dant that it must set out distinctly, so that he might prepare 
 his defence, and that the Court "might know precisely the 
 charge it had to try. Then follows die argument upon that 
 subject. Chief Justice Tihnan delive'-3 the judgment of the 
 Court. The second reason urged, he says, " is tiiat the pic- 
 ture is not sufficiently described. The indictment de- 
 scribes the position of the figures ; if necessary the jury 
 will judge from the description whether it is sufficient or 
 not. I am of opinion that it is sufficient." That was 
 stated When the Court was sitting in banco. Mr. Justice Yates 
 
297 
 
 and Mr. Justice Brackenbridge were of a similar opinion*. 
 These are the only cases which I can find bearing upon the point. 
 There is no authority in our own courts where a precedent 
 of the same kind is to be found. In Dearsley, page 64,. 
 Queen r. Dugdale, is reported, and that is the only English 
 case that bears in any way on this particular point of law. 
 In that case the defendant was indicted for having these works 
 in his possession for the purpose of distributing, and in his 
 business libels had been printed for the purposes, of circu- 
 lation, but the parts held by the whole Court to be libels had 
 not, been set out on the indictment, the only allegation being 
 that, in printing, he had done so with the intention of pub- 
 lishing obscene libels. 
 
 The Lord (iniEF Justice : The exception taken there 
 was that the libels were not set out. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : I cannot find that that point 
 appears to have been suggested. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then it is not a precedent. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : All that one can say was that it 
 was a discussion upon a point of error, and that it was before 
 Lord Campbell that the case was originally tried at the 
 Middlesex Sessions, and brought here upon a writ of error. 
 The case was argued before Lords Campbell, Cole, and 
 Crompton, and they gave judgment upon the question, 
 whether this nuisance disclosed an offence in point of law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Well ? 
 
 The SoLiciTOR-GENfeRAL : That appears to be the objec- > 
 tion urged, and coming as the case did before such a Court, 
 it seems strange that the objection raised in this catse was not 
 urged by the counsel that were engaged in it. ' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : On a point of error you can 
 only deal with the objection raised. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : And I say, my lord, that it is 
 too late to raise any objection now, for I take it that the- 
 defendants are in the same position now as they were before 
 the tfial, for it would have been too late to have raised it 
 even then. It should have been raised by demurrer. I say 
 it was not competent for him to have raised the question as 
 to demurrer at the beginning of the trial, though if the con- 
 tention was good then, it is good now. Issue was joined, 
 and the pleadings proceeded, and even if he had applied in 
 time to quash the indictment, the universal usage is that the 
 Court will not quash an indictment for defects, but requires 
 that that shall be taken by demurrer. 
 
298 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It may be taken on a motion 
 ■of arrest of judgment. 
 
 The SoLi;rroR-GENERAL; But if the Court had held that 
 the intent was proved, and if it was an averment improperly 
 made, your lordship must have directed the jury to find the 
 defendants guilty, unless the allegation which was improperly 
 made, was protested against at the trial. It is upon the 
 Queen v. Robert Goldsmith, where the indictment charged 
 overt acts and false pretence, without setting out the false 
 jjretence, that the motion in arrest of judgment was too late. 
 You cannot make a motion of that kind on trial which ought 
 to have been taken on demurrer. It is an indecent book, 
 and thejury have found it to be so. If this is so, then the 
 case of the Queen ;'. Dugdale becomes a distinct authority, 
 especially as the specific objection was not in the higher 
 court. If there was error upon the face of it, the Court 
 could then have taken notice of it, although I think, how- 
 ever, as I have said, that coming before such a Court as that, 
 .the question would have been raised. It would produce 
 great scandal to set out the words in an indictment, and 
 would be putting upon public record such obscene books as 
 those that are sold in Holywell Street, and }'et that must be 
 done if the objection is valid. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Where do you find authority 
 for saying that ? The law applicable to offences by libel 
 seems to act in this way. 
 
 Mr. Justice jNIellor : I cannot find any reference to setting 
 out words. It was a question whether it was an offence to 
 have such works for publication, and I cannot find anything 
 in the case upon the point you are arguing. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : In the case of Dugdale, the 
 point was not decided. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Nor does it appear to be pre- 
 sent in the minds of the counsel. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : It was argued by able counsel, 
 and the point is not raised. It was raised in the American 
 ■courts. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Whose decisions are always 
 to be highly respected by us. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : The offence was that it was a libel 
 affecting the public, and not individuals. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : Just so, and that is the very 
 question that is raised here, and the Courts both gave judg- 
 ment that the books and picture were against public morality. 
 
299 
 
 It was held that it was not necessary that these should be 
 set out on the face of the indictment or the records of the 
 court. 
 
 Mr. Mead : I should like to add a word or two to what 
 has been said by the Solicitor-General. I contend that this 
 is not a libel in the technical sense of the word ; and if it is 
 so at all, it is so only in common parlance. If your lord- 
 ;ship takes a dictionary, you will find that two meanings are 
 given. The first, its corrupt sense, as something 
 in the nature of a defamatory statement ; secondly, it is 
 described as a small book. Its primary meaning is taken 
 from the Latin word libellus, and in that sense it is taken in 
 the Ecclesiastical Courts of Scotland. It is used here in its 
 primary sense, and it is not necessary, in framing an indict- 
 ment, to use the word libel at all ; and it is so understood 
 liy Archibald. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : They are charged with selling 
 .a libel. 
 
 Mr. Mead : It is used here merely in its primary 
 sense. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you mean by its 
 primary sense ? 
 
 Mr. Mead : That it is merely a small book. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is not the sense of libel 
 in English laAV. It may be a very big book. The bigger 
 the book, the bigger the libel. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Mead : It comes from the word libellus. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We all know that ; but in 
 English law a libel is not a little book. 
 
 Mr. Mead : In Archibald the word " published " is not 
 used, nor is the word " libel." 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Here it is used, and in our 
 Courts, and has always been treated so. 
 
 Mr. Mead : I contend that it is not a libel ; and in the 
 case of The King against Sedley, it is so put expressly, and 
 the argument that it is a libel is not applicable to the 
 present case. In the 14th and 15th Vic, cap. 100, sec. 29, 
 ■certain principles are made applicable, as in common law 
 misdemeanours ; and one of the words is that the book 
 should be obscene, and I contend that the word libel need 
 not be used. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh: I regret that the learned Solicitor- 
 General thought right to represent me as having omitted to 
 refer your lordships to the case of Christopher Layer, 
 
30O 
 
 because the decision was hostile to me. I thought that I 
 have stated precisely where it could be found, and that it 
 was a case of high treason. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : You refirred to it in general terms. , 
 ■Mr. Bradlaugh : I am afraid that the Solicitor-General " 
 and myself must have different reports both of the ' case of 
 Layer and that of Sacheverell, for it is impossible to imagine 
 that any one in his high position would misrepresent, and 
 it is almost as difficult to comprehend how a gentleman of 
 his ability can have misunderstood. The Solicitor-General 
 stated that the decisions of the judges upon which I relied 
 for a favourable answer to my motion had all been over- 
 ruled by the House of Lords. This is utterly the reverse 
 of the case. The trial of Sacheverell was an impeachment 
 by Parliament, and the decision of the Lords in no 
 sense over-ruled or even questioned the dicta of the 
 judges who were all agreed " that by the laws of England and 
 constant practice in all prosecutions by indictment or 
 information for crimes or misdemeanors in writing or 
 speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal 
 ought to be specified in the indictment or information;" after 
 hearing the judges the House of Lords resolved that the 
 practice in indictments did not apply to parliamentary pro- 
 cedure. The words are, 15 Howell, p. 467: " It is resolved 
 by the Lords, spiritual and temporal, in Parliament assem- 
 bled, that by the law and .usage of Parliament' in prosecu- 
 tions by impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanours, 
 by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be 
 criminal are not necessary to be expressly specified in such 
 impeachment." The words of the House of Lords' decision 
 are expressly limited to their own parliamentary practice, 
 and do not in the most remote degree overrule the solemn 
 opinions of the judges ; indeed the Lord Chancellor told 
 Sacheverell, p. 473, " the answer of the judges v,-hich 
 related only to the course used in indictments and informa- 
 tion does not in the least affect the case." In the case, too, 
 of Layer, my reading of it is very different from that of the 
 Solicitor- General. I have read the case with special care, 
 and, with the exception of the judgment of ISIr. Justice E5're, 
 I cannot find a single word to justify the \iew of the case 
 given by the learned Solicitor-General ; so far from all the 
 judges, agreeing to reverse the opinions in Sacheverell's 
 case, Mr. Justice Powys shows that there was a clear dis- 
 tinguishment in the case of treason. No doubt Justice 
 
301 
 
 Eyre is strong against me, but Layer was tried when party 
 feeling ran high as to the rights of the House of Hanover 
 as against the Stuarts, and he is only one judge against all the 
 others. I quite admit that the note in Sacheverell's case is 
 as represented by the Solicitor-General, but the note is 
 utterly incorrect, as notes very often are, if made by those 
 who have no special responsibility. The difficulty in 
 regard to the American cases is that I have not 
 had the advantage of reading them, and can hardly judge 
 whether the Solicitor-General has fairly gathered their 
 effect. I ask your lordships to dismiss from your minds 
 one of the American cases that has been quoted, because it 
 refers to a print, and not to a book. I do not and will 
 not contend that the same argument should be applied to 
 paintings or prints as I seek to apply here. I contend that 
 the decision and practice of the court is specific as to the 
 words spoken or written being set out. I ask your lordships 
 to dismiss from your minds one of the two cases which have 
 been referred to. In the first case my difficulty is that, 
 according to the learned Solicitor-General — and I have no 
 doubt that he has given the fullest information — there are two 
 counts — the first count for publishing prints and the second 
 count for publishing books. Well, without examination of 
 the case, I cannot tell how much of the decision related to 
 the print, how much to the book, or whether it may be 
 correctly apprehended by the learned Solicitor-General, or 
 with what correctnesshe has represented it,orv/hether he may 
 be as mistaken in this case as I have found he has been 
 mistaken in his views on the Sacheverell case. With reference 
 to the Queen against Dugdale, allow me to say that it has 
 nothing whatever to do with this case. There one count 
 was objected to that it was no offence to have obscene 
 works in defendant's possession with intent to utter. The 
 errors specially assigned do not raise the point I now make ; 
 surely it is not because the learned counsel for the 
 defendant in that case might have overlooked the point,; 
 that I am to be damnified by some decision which was not 
 given. This is really putting the case a little too much against 
 me. I assume the learned Solicitor-General only brought 
 in the case of the Queen against Dugdale because the 
 other English decisions were so much in my favour that it 
 was necessary to do something. Again, the learned Soli- 
 citor-General suggests that my motion is too late. Now, I 
 will quote to you the 14th and isth Victoria, chap. 100 
 
302 
 
 sec. 25, which says that every objection by demurrer to- 
 quash the indictment shall be taken before the jury shall 
 be sworn. Then the learned Solicitor-General comes to 
 the case of the Queen v. Goldsmith ; and here again I was. 
 utterly surprised that my apprehension of the case should 
 have been so entirely different from that of the learned Soli- 
 citor-General. I rely for making out the right to ask yoiL 
 to quash the conviction upon the decision of Lord Chief 
 Justice Bovill in that case, who, in deciding against the ap- 
 plication, says : " If the judge thought the objection clearly 
 a good one he might have quashed the indictment, and 
 that would have left the prisoner open to another indict- 
 ment. He was, however, not bound to quash the indict- 
 ment, bad as it might be ; and further, he might think the 
 point a doubtful one, and, if doubtful, he might leave the 
 party to his wsjt of error or reserve the point. In this 
 case the Deputy Recorder did not quash the indictment, 
 but reserved the point not as to whether he ought to quash, 
 but as to whether the count was a good one or not." I submit, 
 my lord, that the Queen w. Goldsmith is distinctly in my favour, 
 and I seek to have this point put before you as clearly as 
 possible. I avow that, probably, though from my utter un- - 
 acquaintance with the exigencies of special pleading, I 
 utterly failed to understand how Fox's Act could be any im- 
 pediment to me, and the 33rd George III., chapter 5o, does 
 not deprive me of any rights in this Court to ask whether 
 there is, in law, any libel. I understand that the express 
 wording of the statute is : "it shall be lawful for the defendant 
 to move in arrest of judgment :" and that there is no sort of 
 restriction put upon the defendant. It is an additional 
 privilege or right given to the defendants by statute, and not 
 in any sort of fashion a restriction of any rights they may 
 have had before. I submit, my lord, that we are in this 
 position. Instead of putting your lordships to a long trial 
 and a nisi prius • argument, as has been the case, if we had 
 got the reports in the record, we might have demurred. 
 There was a doubt in our minds as to whether there was 
 any offence in law. If we had had the material on the face 
 of the indictment, we should have taken the easiest and 
 quickest steps to setde the matter. In no sense have I 
 delayed the procedure, for the very moment I got the 
 writ of artiorari I proceeded at once to give notice and get 
 a day named. The practical effect of this would be that the 
 Solicitor-General says the Crown may shut out of the record 
 
303 
 
 what is material for the Court to know, for I will not con- 
 descend to discuss whether your lordships would have the 
 right on a demurrer to say whether the indictment raised the 
 offence at all or not. I should not have thought that a gen- 
 tleman with so long an experience at the bar would have 
 been capable of maintaining a proposition so outrageous. 
 Surely the Court is the supreme judge as to whether the 
 record puts any difficulty in the way of the defence ; and if the 
 difficulty which he has raised with regard to the demurrer 
 be well-founded, my difficulty would be this, that in demurring- 
 to the indictment without knowing the point, I should 
 be laying myself open to a wild fight in the dark. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, that was not it. The 
 Solicitor-General suggests that you might have demurred on 
 this point — on the ground that the indictment did not set out 
 the words. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I suppose I still have a right to move 
 for the quashing of the indictment on the same ground ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, no. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Well, in that alternative I shall move 
 for an arrest of judgment. If I am not right in my motion 
 to quash the indictment I am right in a motion for an arrest 
 of judgment; if the argument on the one ground fails, that 
 on the other must go. I do not know that I need trouble 
 your lordship with the sort of appeal made to the feelings 
 of the Court as to whether or not good sense required 
 that the words of the indictment should be set out. I sub- 
 mit that it is admitted to be a distinct matter of law and 
 practice that we are entitled to have the offence with which 
 we are charged clearly brought to our knowledge. Really, 
 my lord, until entering this Court we did not know — and the 
 language of the learned counsel before the magistrates aggra- 
 vated the inconvenience — whether it was that the advocacy of 
 checks was unlawful, orwhether the language of the advocacy- 
 was obscene. And we were left in that difficulty until we came 
 into the Court here, and I submit that your lordships will 
 not put the defendants in that position. I submit, further, 
 that when the learned Solicitor-General pleads that on some 
 other indictment, in some other place of which I know 
 nothing, and of which I can have no knowledge, the 
 same blunder was made, that your lordships will not enter- 
 tain the argument for a moment to cover a similar blunder 
 here. In Folkard, where the form of indictment is given, 
 it states clearly that the passages are to be set out. I am 
 
304 
 
 told that in Archbold you will find an indictment for pub- 
 lishing a print, in which the exact reproduction of the print is 
 not set out. I do not pretend that in the case of a picture my 
 argument would hold good, but I do maintain that the words 
 complained of must be specifically set out, so that the de- 
 fendant may see what is the charge he has to meet. It is , 
 clearly put on page 803. I submit that, bearing in mind the 
 real verdict of the jury, this is a case in which your lord- 
 ships would be disposed to give me and my co-defendant the 
 fullest advantage of every objection that could be urged by 
 us, and which would keep us from the additional stigma 
 that would otherwise be cast upon us. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No more than in any other 
 case. If you can take objection to the procedure upon 
 which the verdict has been arrived at, you are entitled to 
 take it, but as far as I am concerned there is no difference 
 between one case and another. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I submit that the learned Solicitor- 
 General has said nothing which would induce your lord- 
 ships to say that the point has not been decided in my 
 favour by the whole of the authorities I have quoted. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I do not think I need trouble your lordships 
 with more than a word after the remarks of my co-defendant 
 The learned Solicitor-General seemed to be under some 
 difficulty in regard to the English cases, for he was obliged 
 to quote American. He was unable, apparently, to 
 find a single one which supported his contention in the 
 practice of our own courts to set against the number in our 
 favour, and he was therefore obliged to go to the practice of 
 the courts in foreign countries. I argue, on the contrar)', 
 that we are not bound by the decisions of the courts in 
 any other country, however friendly that country may be 
 to us. . 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : We do not say that we are bound 
 by such cases, but we say that we pay great respect to them, 
 because in America they administer to a large extent the 
 sa^ne law. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I have to state that I have studied the 
 law of Massachusetts, and that the common law of Massa- 
 chusetts is not on all fours with the common law of 
 England. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It is evident that the case ot the learned 
 Solicitor-General is so extremely weak that he could not 
 find a single English case to help his contention, but is 
 
305 
 
 obliged to fall back upon cases cited from a foreign 
 country. As to spoiling the records of the Court, if the 
 learned Solicitor-General will look through them, he will 
 find that the invariable practice of the Court has been to 
 set out the libels. I do not know why a sudden change 
 should be made simply to injure the present defendants. In 
 the case of the Queen v. Curll you will find that the libel 
 was set out, and that it is the invariable practice right 
 through. The effect on us of the contrary is most unfair. 
 We thought from the indictment that the whole book was 
 attacked, and we thought we had covered everything, and 
 it was not until after the verdict of the jury was given that 
 we discovered the crime alleged. Had we known that there 
 was an objection to the whole theory of preventive checks 
 we should have acted differently ; but we considered, I say, 
 that we had covered the whole of the book, and we were 
 not aware that one special point upon which we had no in- 
 formation was the point upon which a verdict was to be 
 given by the jury, 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am clearly of opinion that 
 there should be no new trial. In this case the question was 
 eminently one for the decision of a jury. There can be no 
 better tribunal than twelve men taken, as the Solicitor- 
 General, I thought, happily expressed it, from an average of 
 the intelligence of society, or one better competent to dis- 
 pose of a question of this kind, namely, whether this publi- 
 cation was calculated to be subversive of public morals or 
 not ; and lest any feelings of sentiment, prejudice, or pas- 
 sion might interfere with the deliberate judgment of the 
 jury, I thought it right — especially after the powerful 
 address of the learned Solicitor-General in reply, when 
 he appeared to me to address himself to the sentiment 
 as well as to the judgment of the jury — I thought 
 it ought to bring the case finally before them in all 
 the various aspects in which it has been presented for 
 discussion, and without the slightest desire in one way or the 
 other to bias or influence the judgment of the jury, who, I 
 thought, ought to proceed froih their own spontaneous sense 
 of what was right. All parties, at that time, seemed to 
 be agreed that the question was one for a jury, and exclu- 
 sively for a jury, and I left it to the jury. I presented to 
 them the case from all the different points of view, and, 
 finally, repeated to them what had been said, on one 
 side and on the other, and the various views of the case 
 
 u 
 
3o6 
 
 which had been advocated by the prosecution and by the 
 defendants. The jury were a most patient and attentive 
 jury, and Hstened. in uninterrupted attention and care 
 to all that was said. They took time to deliberate, 
 and they pronounced a verdict that this book is a 
 book which ought not to have been published, and that 
 it is a book calculated to deprave public morals. Now, 
 that being so, there is nothing brought before us that, 
 in my opinion, turns on the question of fact as to whether 
 this book was a proper or improper one, or that calls for a 
 review of the judgment and decision of the jur)'. But it is 
 said that it is open for the defendants to contend that the 
 verdict of the jury was not a verdict of guilty. Now I think 
 that the contention is wrong. The jury were evidently in 
 doubt as to the effect of the facts upon which their minds 
 were agreed. They were agreed that the tendency and effect 
 of the book \^•as to corrupt public morals ; but, on the other 
 hand, they were satisfied that, under the influence of a strong 
 belief that the evils of over-population were so great that k 
 ■was desirable to have recourse to means of preventive 
 -checks, and that, impelled by this opinion aiid desire, the 
 ■defendants had published this work, but not with the inten- 
 tion to corrupt the morals of young or old. The jury specially 
 found upon these facts, and it was my duty to tell the jury 
 and I believe so now, that where persons publish a word 
 which is contrary to the morals of mankind, and they do 
 that with their eyes open, it is not for them afterwards to 
 say, " I did that either with the view of doing something in 
 itself so good as to warrant the infraction of the law," or 
 to say, " I did it in ignorance of the law." Nobody can 
 ^allege either of these two things as an e.xcuse for a breach 
 of the law ; no one can put himself above the law, no one 
 can refuse obedience to the law. I think, therefore, that 
 upon the facts found by the jury I was right to tell the jury 
 that it amounted to a verdict of guilty. In that direction 
 they acquiesced, and returned a verdict of guilty, evidently 
 taking the view that I had done. The foreman turned 
 round and took the opinion of the ]\iry, and they acquiesced. 
 I think, therefore, there can be no question as to a new 
 trial, either upon the ground that the verdict was in the 
 first instance a special one, or that the verdict ^ras not in 
 accordance with the facts which were before them. It is 
 said that although there could be no new trial, as the \-erdict 
 of the jury was conclusive on the facts, nevertheless the 
 
307 
 
 indictment . cannot be sustained and that we ought now 
 to arrest the .judgment upon the verdict by rea- 
 son of the legal insufificiency of the indictment. Well, 
 that is founded upon this proposition, that in an 
 indictment for libel where the lilsellous matter consists of 
 words, the words must be set out in order, so that the 
 defendant may know what it is that he is called upon to 
 answer, and that if he chooses to take the legal objections, 
 which he may do on demurrer, on the sufficiency of the 
 indictment, he may have the opportunity of doing so. We 
 agree with that proposition. It is said that it would be 
 highly inconvenient that obscene matters should be 
 set out upon the records of the court, and that the 
 same argument and the same rule would apply to the case of 
 an indecent print which applied to the case of indecent 
 words, and that it wouldbe impossible, or at all events in the 
 highest degree objectionable, to exhibit an indecent print 
 upon an indictment *hich would afterwards form part of 
 the records of this court. We have had pressed upon us 
 two decisions of the American courts in banco, which we 
 treat with the utmost respect. These decisions are not so 
 conclusive upon us as if they were decisions of courts having 
 €qual jurisdiction in this country, but we look to the 
 decisions of the American courts with very great respect, 
 and take advantage of them in the solution of questions of 
 law. Putting these decisions on one side, the question of 
 convenience presses upon us strongly. I agree that where 
 particular passages in the work, as contradistinguished from 
 the work itself, are made the subject-matter of an indictment, 
 it would be highly expedient that the attention of those 
 against whom the publication of such matters is made the 
 subject-matter of an indictment and a prosecution, should 
 have the opportunity of knowing what it is that they are to 
 direct their defence upon, and what the attention of the jury 
 will be afterwards directed to. I admit that ; but on the 
 other hand if not particular portions of the work, but the 
 work itself in its entirety and as a whole is made the subject- 
 matter of a prosecution, one cannot but see that it would 
 lead to the greatest inconvenience to have the whole of the 
 work, set out from beginning to end. We were told the other 
 day that a prosecution has recently been instituted, or Avas 
 about to be instituted, in respect of the publication of the 
 " Memoirs of the Comte de Grammont," on the ground that 
 that, was an indecent and obscene publication, because it 
 
 U 2 
 
3o8 
 
 describes with a great deal of particularity the licentious 
 habits of the court of Charles II. While I don't express 
 any opinion with reference to a prosecution founded upon 
 the publication of a work which has existed for a great 
 many years, and which has gone through many editions 
 and been translated into several languages, I merely 
 mention that as an instance of what would be the 
 monstrous inconvenience of setting out in extenso the 
 whole of the publication, which might consist of two or 
 three volumes. With regard to many other works which 
 could be mentioned which are more or less of an indecent 
 and indelicate character, and more or less inconsistent with 
 good morals, and which may therefore be made the subject 
 matter of an indictment, where the objection to the work 
 is not that it contains particular passages which are ob- 
 jectionable, but that it is objectionable //.' toto, it would lead 
 to a degree of inconvenience that we cannot help taking 
 notice of. At the same time there is a good deal to be said 
 on both sides, but I do not think it was competent that I 
 could proceed upon that to quash the indictment. The 
 Solicitor-General said the defendants should have appUed 
 earlier if they desired to have the indictment quashed. 
 For that reason it appears to me that I went too far, and 
 that I was not called upon to gi\e leave to move upon it. 
 I do not think I was competent to do it. I do not think the 
 defendants could have an advantage of that sort. With refer- 
 ence to this objection the difficulty I feel is that that objection 
 must have been taken by demurrer. If the omission be set out 
 in the indictment, thespecific matter upon which the offence is 
 alleged to rest — if that be the objection, and it be a valid 
 one, it is an objection that must have been taken by de- 
 murrer, and, therefore, not without some sense of the 
 exigencies of the case as put in the arguments used by the 
 defendants. I cannot help thinking that, upon the balance 
 of convenience of the authorities we shall do more wiselv 
 to say that the judgment pronounced upon this indictment 
 ought not to be set aside by making the motion absolute 
 to arrest the judgment ; but if there be any valid founda- 
 tion for the contention the defendants have raised upon the 
 indictment it should be talken by demurrer. As far as we 
 are concerned, it will not be necessary to act upon it, the 
 more so because the balance of convenience or incon- 
 venience, looking to the particular nature of this form of 
 libel — it is not specifically within the law of libel, but in 
 
309 
 
 saying that it does not come within .the category of a 
 libel, it, to a certain extent, arises out of the law of libel 
 generally, as it is commune documentwn — which renders .it not 
 a matter for the Crown on the one hand or a particular 
 individual on the other, but a matter complaint as to which 
 arises as to its being subversive of the public morals and 
 therefore a matter of public nuisance. Therefore, I cannot 
 feel that the authorities which have been cited for the pur- 
 pose of showing that in an indictment for libel the words 
 must be specially set fortfi, applies to this case. There are 
 the inconveniences under which the defendant may labour, 
 so that he may be put to the inconvenience and expense ol a 
 further trial, when judgment should be given in his favour 
 at once. You will find that advantage is not in this form 
 of indictment, and I think it is an advantage of which it is 
 very hard that the defendants should be deprived. There is 
 that inconvenience on the one side. We shall, therefore, 
 shelter ourselves under the decisions of the American courts, 
 but we leave this matter to be carefully gone into by the 
 Court of Error. I do not think that there should be any 
 new trial nor any rule for an arrest of judgment. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : I am of the same opinion ; I 
 quite think there is no ground urged for a new trial, and 
 that some of the points raised for a^ new trial are more pro- 
 perly points for an arrest of judgment. One point was 
 raised by Mrs. Besent, v/hich had considerable prima fade 
 ingenuity, that on the question as to the intention of the 
 parties to publish this book, the jury had found there was 
 no corrupt intention, and, therefore, the jury had not found 
 on an essential part of the indictment. I have already ex- 
 pressed the opinion in regard to that, that the jury have 
 found that the book was calculated to corrupt the morals, 
 <ind that was not denied, although the corrupt intention was 
 denied. It appears to me that, upon the finding of the jury, 
 and upon the facts of the case, there could be no objection to 
 the verdict upon that ground. I say if a person publishes a 
 book calculated to deprave, although his ov.'n intention may 
 not be malicious, wicked, or immoral, still the very fact of 
 the intention to publish a book which is calculated, and 
 •which the jury have found is calculated, to produce great 
 damage to the morals of the community, makes it, there- 
 fore, a book which comes within the rule which applies to 
 this prosecution in so far as the public is concerned ; and it 
 appears to me that no objection can be taken on that 
 
3IO 
 
 ground. I also think the course taken with regard to the 
 finding of the jury was rightly taken by the Lord Chief 
 Justice. If he had said just before the conclusion of his 
 summing-up : " If you find that so and so, if they did not do 
 so in meaning, yet did so in substance, you must find the 
 defendants guilty," there could be no possible form of 
 objection urged to it. But it is said that because the jury- 
 has found what Mrs. Besant calls a special verdict as to the 
 essential fact, coupled with the expression that they were 
 not guilty of the offence stated in the indictment, the 
 Lord Chief Justice ought to have directed the jury fa 
 return a verdict of not guilty. The Lord Chief Jus- 
 tice took the right course. The jury were asked if they 
 understood that they were finding a verdict of guilty and 
 they said they did. You cannot say, therefore, that any- 
 thing arises by way of error or arrest of judgment ; wth 
 regard to the other point, there is nothing which renders it 
 undesirable that an objection of this character should be 
 taken by demurrer upon the indictment. It is a point of de- 
 murrer. If it is taken on demurrer, judgment is at once 
 given for the defendant if the demurrer succeeds. It was 
 not taken upon demurrer, which I think would have been the 
 wisest, best, and easiest course when dealing with this case 
 to see that it contained the offence. There are the gravest 
 doubts whether the point would have been successful on 
 demurrer, but the jury ha^•e now interpreted and applied the 
 general description to the book in the indictment as obscene. 
 But if it be an essential and most material part of the in- 
 dictment to set forth the terms in which the libel was 
 published, that is still a question that may be taken 
 on error, but it cannot be made .ivailable for 
 arrest of judgment. We do not arrest judgment un- 
 less ^\■e are satisfied that there has been some error. 
 My contention is that there has been none ; whether 
 that be so or not I am clear now that the only remedy 
 whith is open to the defendants is by bringing error on the 
 indictment, so as to obtain the opinion of the highest tri- 
 bunal to see whether it is so essential a part of the pro- 
 cedure that it vitiates utterly and entirely the whole pro- 
 ceedings. Therefore I can see no ground for either setting 
 aside the verdict or for arrest of judgment. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Might I aslc your lordship to stay exe- 
 cution until the error is determined ? There are cases of 
 misdemeanour in which that has been done. 
 
311 
 
 Here the Court adjourned for luncheon. On re-assem- 
 bling, 
 
 The Solicitor-General said : I now pray the judgment 
 of the Court, the record being now in Court. My lord, I 
 have two affidavits, and I have to say that no notice of 
 them has been given to the defendants as the persons who 
 have made the affidavits could only be found last night, and. 
 consequently they have only been made this morning. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Have you any affidavits ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : None at all, my lord. 
 
 Master Cockburn then read the following affidavit : — 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 QUEENS BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 The Queen against Charles Bradlaugh and Annie 
 Besant. 
 
 JOHN RIVETT makes oath and saith as follows :— 
 
 1. I reside at Number 15, Devonshire Street, Bishops- 
 
 gate, in the City of London, and am a news- 
 agent. 
 
 2. In the beginning of the month of May, 1877 (the^ 
 
 exact date I do not recollect), I saw the two 
 above-named defendants in their shop at Number 
 28, Stonecutter Street, in the City of London. 
 
 3. I then asked the defendant, Charles Bradlaugh, for 
 
 some copies of the book called " Fruits of Philo- 
 sophy," when he told me that they could not sell 
 any more copies there, as copies had been stopped, 
 going through the post 
 
 4. The said Charles Bradlaugh then gave me a card,. 
 
 which had printed thereon the name of Mr. 
 Ramsey, Number 10, Shacklewell Street, Bethnal 
 Green Road, but which said card I have since 
 destroyed. 
 
 5. The said Charles Bradlaugh told me at the time he 
 
 handed to me the said card that I could obtain 
 thousands of copies of the said book called 
 " Fruits of Philosophy " at the address indicated 
 on the said card. 
 
 6. I immediately went to the said address, and pur- 
 
 chased several copies of the said book, which were 
 
312 
 
 similar to that which is now shovm to me, and 
 marked "A." 
 
 7. At the end of the said month of May (the exact 
 
 date I do not recollect), the person who sold me 
 the said copies of the said book at the said 
 Number 10, Shacklewell Street aforesaid, and 
 who, to the best of my belief, is W. J. Ramsey, and 
 manager in the employment of the said defendants, 
 Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant, told me he 
 could in future supply me with copies of the said 
 book at Number 9 in Shacklewell Street afore- 
 said. 
 
 8. Since the day I received the said card I have from 
 
 tune to time on several occasions — that is to say, 
 twenty or thirty times — been to the said 9 and 10, 
 Shacklewell Street, and purchased large quantities 
 of copies of the said book. 
 
 9. On Saturday morning last, the 23rd day of June, 
 
 1877, I went to the said house, Number 9, 
 Shacklewell Street, and purchased of the said W. 
 J. Ramsey one dozen copies of the said book 
 called " Fruits of Philosophy," one copy of which 
 is the copy now shown to me and marked " A." 
 
 10. On the same day my partner, Frederick Fennell, 
 obtained, as he has informed me, and as I verily 
 belies'e, tv,-o dozen copies of the said book at the 
 same address. 
 
 11. I believe the said ?Jr. W. J- Ramsey referred to in 
 the said book now shown to me, and described 
 therein as the manager to the Freethought Pub- 
 lishing Company, to be the person who sold to me 
 the said copies of the said book. 
 
 Sworn at my Office, No. 10, Basing- 1 
 
 hall Street, in the City of London, ■ JOHN RIVETT. 
 this 27th day of June, 1S77. j 
 
 Before me, 
 
 M. Downing, 
 
 A Commissioner to administer oaths in the 
 
 Supreme Couit of Judicature. 
 
313 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, 
 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 The Queen against Charles Bradlaugh and Annie 
 Besant. 
 
 DANIEL THOMAS LYSAGHT, makes oath and 
 s:dth as follows : — 
 
 1. I am a reporter and shorthand writer, residing at 66, 
 
 Doddington Grove, Kennington Park. 
 
 2. On Sunday last, the 24th day of June, a.d. 1877, I 
 
 was present at a meetmg held at the Hall of 
 Science, Old Street. 
 
 3. The meeting was convened for the purpose of dis- 
 
 cussing the Population Question. 
 
 4. Both the defendants were present on the platform, 
 
 and addressed the meeting. The defendant, 
 Annie Besant, acted as President. 
 
 5. Numerous copies of the book, " The Fruits of Philo- 
 
 sophy," the subject of this indictment, were sold in 
 the room for the price of sixpence each, many of 
 the purchasers being young persons of both 
 sexes. 
 
 6. There were about 600 persons present at the meet- 
 
 ing, and there was a crowd outside of those who 
 were unable to obtain admission. The said book 
 was freely sold to many of the said persons out- 
 side. 
 ' 7. I purchased the book now shown to me, and marked 
 " A," at the said meeting. 
 8. The report in the newspaper, the Morning Adver- 
 tiser, now shown to me, and marked " B," was 
 written by me, and is a correct report of the said 
 meeting. 
 Sworn at the West- 
 minster Hall, in 
 
 the County of Mid- } DANIEL THOMAS LYSAGHT. 
 dlesex, the 28th 
 day of June, 1877. ' 
 Before me, 
 
 W. J. Cleave, 
 A Commissioner, &c. 
 
 Filed on the part of the Prosecution. 
 
314 
 
 A newspaper report was attached to Lysaght's affidavit, 
 and the Master asked if he should read it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The paper has been sent to 
 me, and, I must say, that a most unjustifiable use of my 
 name has been made — most unwarranted. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Allow me to say that the report in the 
 Morning Advertiser is totally incorrect. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : All I know is, that in my 
 summing-up, I endeavoured, and I feel satisfied that I did, 
 hold the scales of justice evenly. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : ^Ve never said what is imputed to us. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You say that I summed up 
 in your favour. I did nothing of the kind. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : The report is simply stupidly incorrect 
 from beginning to end. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I have not seen the report, and if it is to 
 be used against me, I must ask that it be read. I spoke 
 with the most extreme respect of your lordship. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I mean that to represent me 
 as stating \ievvs different from the jury is wholly incorrect. 
 All that I endeavoured to do, as I said before, was to take 
 care that the verdict should not be given in a storm, but 
 that it should be the result of mature deliberation of the 
 case in all its bearings. That is all I endeavoured to do, 
 and I am quite sure it is all I did. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : All I said in my speech was that the 
 summing-up was absolutely impartial. And I rejoiced that 
 there had gone forth from the Bench an endorsement of 
 J^Lalthusianism which it had ne\'er before received. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I have seen the report, which is ridi- 
 culously inaccurate. If anything is to turn upon it, I must 
 ask to be allowed to answer it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; The part of the report which 
 is most material is the part which represents you and Mrs. 
 Besant as saying that you would go on with the publication, 
 let what would happen. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : That is the only reason why I 
 use the report. 
 
 j\Irs. Besant : I ask as a matter of justice that the report 
 should be read. 
 
 The Clerk here read the paragraph in question from the 
 Morning Advertiser. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : \Vell, my lord, I have one or two points to 
 
315 
 
 put to your lordship, as to the accuracy of the report. Am I 
 permitted to say anything? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; Oh, certainly. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Only in answer to the report. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Strictly speaking, it should be 
 by affidavit. 
 
 The Solicitor-General . I have no objection. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I must remark, my lord, that the report is 
 utterly and grossly inaccurate. The meeting was not called 
 for the discussion of the Population Question, and no dis- 
 cussion of any kind took place. The value of the oath of 
 the reporter, as a matter of accuracy, may be judged by the 
 fact that he stated that there were 600 persons, whereas 1418- 
 paid for admission, as shown by the books. I do not put 
 that as a matter of importance, but merely to show that he 
 is not a man whose judgment should be brought here as 
 reliable on a matter of fact. Then he says that numerous 
 copies of the book were sold in the hall. If that is urged 
 against us, the sale must be proved, for neither I nor my co- 
 defendant have anything to do with selling on Sunday night. 
 That we have the hall for lecturing cannot make us respon- 
 sible criminally for what occurs there. When I said that 
 the jury did not all assent to the direction of the judge, I 
 alluded to a letter that I had received, in which it was stated 
 that he did not assent to the verdict, and that it was by the 
 action of the foreman, and not of the jury, that the verdict 
 of guilty was given. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : He should have objected at 
 the time. 
 
 Mis. Besant : No doubt, my lord, he ought to have had 
 the manliness to object there and then. It was no good to 
 talk to his friend about it afterwards. I mentioned it in the 
 hall as a moral justification at the time, and I did not pre- 
 sume to mention it here until now, knowing that it had no 
 legal value. The report says that I said that one of the most 
 highly-trained brains in England had declared in favour of 
 our views. It is true that I spoke of one of the "most highly- 
 trained brains in England "; apd if that be any discourtesy to 
 the Court, I can only apologise for it. (Much laughter.) I 
 said what I believed, my lord, in simple honesty, but it is 
 what I should not have had the impertinence to say in this 
 presence if it had not been alluded to. I did not say that 
 that brain had declared in favour of the whole of our views, 
 
3i6 
 
 but I did say that it declared in favour of Malthusianism, as 
 a law which could not be disputed. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You must take it with refer- 
 ence to the only proposition I had in my mind, namely that 
 the tendency of population is to increase in a greater ratio 
 than the production of food, and that that was a law which 
 could not be disputed. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : Yes ; the law which is ordinarily spoken of 
 as the law of Malthus ; but unless people are trained in these 
 works they do not know what that refers to. I said that 
 from the Bench we had had a declaration in favour of 
 the law of Malthus, and this, whether we went to gaol 
 or not, was a sufficient recompense for having gone before 
 a jury. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You would have done much 
 better if you had left such propositions alone. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : I was only repeating what has been said 
 by the whole press of the country, that the trial had spread the 
 principles for which we pleaded. With regard to the question 
 of stopping the circulation, I can only say that if the law 
 desires to stop the circulation of the book it must be stopped 
 legally, and no amount of prejudice that is tried to be raised 
 can be allowed to govern. As to the man who swears that 
 Mr. Bradlaugh gave him a card with JNIr. Ramsey's address 
 on it and sent him there, I can only say that I am one of 
 the two partners of the "Freethought Pu Wishing Company," 
 and that no card has been printed by us with the name and 
 address of Mr. Ramsey upon it. Such a card has never 
 been printed, and it seems a pity to bring forward an 
 affidavit sworn to bya man whose statement is so utterly false 
 from beginning to end. "^Ve stopped the sale at Stonecutter 
 Street for a reason of our own, but never gave any kind of 
 card or direction as here stated. 
 
 ' The Lord Chief Justice : The man says he was sent 
 from Stonecutter Street to another address. 
 
 Mrs. Besaxt • He says so, and he swears falsely. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We must ha^•c this upon 
 affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : There is no doubt, and no pretence 
 on our part to the contrary, my lord, that we have circu- 
 lated, and are continuing to circulate, the book. The wit- 
 ness, for some reason or other, has been extremely stupid ; 
 but whether we gave a card or not is a matter of no im- 
 portance, although, as a matter of fact, \^■e did nothing of 
 
317 
 
 the kind. There is no doubt that up to this time we hav?- 
 circulated the book. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I gave you fair warning that 
 you ran a risk in so doing. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Your lordship did. I do not wish it 
 to be thought that I say this out of bravado, but simply as 
 a matter of fajt, so that we should not represent anything 
 incorrectly. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : It is not well to put too much stress upon 
 two affida\'its so utterly inaccurate on these small points. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The statement in that affi- 
 davit which is not denied is, that since the verdict of the 
 jury the circulation of the book is still going on. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : That is so, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : While I have no personal knowledge 
 of it, I have no doubt that that is so. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The matter assumes, then, a 
 very serious aspect, because I gather from that fact, as well 
 as from the language used at the meeting, taking it with the 
 qualification that Mrs. Besant has put upon it, that it does 
 imply a determination, notwithstanding the verdict of the 
 jury that this book is unfit for publication, that you will per- 
 sist in publishing it. The case, therefore, assumes a very 
 serious aspect indeed. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, I do not wish, in any way, to 
 take up the time of the Court unfairly. I have nothing 
 whatever to say, except that the ultimate decision of the 
 Court had not then been given ; we thought we had not got 
 that ultimate decision of the Court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The ultimate decision of the 
 Court has now been given, and the question is, what is to 
 be the future course of your conduct ? The jury have ac- 
 quitted you of any intention to deliberately violate the law ; 
 and that, although you did publish this book, which was a 
 book that ought not to have been published, you were not 
 conscious of the effect it might have, and had no intention 
 to violate the law. That would induce the Court, if it saw 
 . a ready submission on your part, to deal with the case in a 
 very lenient way. The jury having found that it was a vio- 
 lation of the law, but with a good motive or through 
 ignorance, the Court, in awarding punishment, upon such a 
 state of things, would, of course, be disposed to take a most 
 indulgent view of the matter. But if the law has been 
 openly set at defiance, the matter assumes a very different 
 
3i8 
 
 aspect, and it must be dealt with as a very grave and aggra- 
 vated case. 
 
 Mrs. Besant : If an extra charge is to be brought against 
 me, I ask that some kind of proof be offered. 
 
 Mr. iSRADLAUGH : If your lordships thought it right to 
 take into consideration the application I made to you before 
 the adjournment, both I and my co-defendant would in the 
 fullest manner undertake that during the pendency of the 
 appeal no sort of advantage will be taken of the indulgence 
 of the Court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I mean if you stayed proceedings until 
 the writ of error was argued. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think we must pass sentence. 
 Have you anything to say in mitigation? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I respectfully submit myself to the sen- 
 tence of the Court. 
 
 Mrs. Besant: I have nothing to say in mitigation of 
 punishment. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : The two persons before your 
 lordships are the publishers of the book. Their names are 
 to the preface, in which they state that they intend to pub- 
 lish this book. This shows the importance of the evidence 
 as to their intention of continuing the circulation. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, after having conferred for some 
 minutes with Mr. Justice Mellor, said : The case has now 
 assumed a character of very, very grave importance. We 
 were prepared, if the defendants had announced openly in 
 this Court that having acted in error as the jury found — of 
 which finding I think they are entitled to the benefit — but 
 still having been, after a fair and impartial trial, found by 
 the jury guilty of doing of that which was an offence 
 against the law, they were ready to submit to the law and 
 to do everything in their power to prevent the further 
 publication and circulation of a work which has been 
 declared by the jury to be a work calculated to deprave 
 public morals, we should have been prepared to discharge 
 them on their own recognisances to be of good behaviour in 
 the future. But we cannot help seeing in what has been 
 said and done pendingthis trial, and since the verdict of the 
 jury was pronounced, that the defendants instead of submit- 
 ting themselves to the law, have set it at defiance by continu- 
 ing to circulate this book. That being so I must say that 
 that which before was an offence of a comparatively slight 
 
319 
 
 character — looking to what the jury have found in reference 
 to the contention of the defendants — now assumes the form 
 •of a most grave and aggravated offence, and as such 
 we must deal with it. The sentence is that you, Charles 
 Bradlaugh, and you, Annie Besant, be imprisoned for the 
 term of six calendar months ; that you each pay a fine of 
 _;^2oo to the Queen ; and that you enter further into your 
 own recognizances in a sum of £s°° each to be of good 
 behaviour for the term of two years, and I tell you at the 
 same time that you will not be of " good behaviour " and 
 will be liable to forfeit that sum if you continue to publish 
 this book. No persuasion or conviction on ycur part that 
 you are doing that which is morally justifiable can possibly 
 warrant you in violating the law or excuse you in doing so. 
 No one is above the law ; all owe obedience to the law from 
 the highest to the lowest, and if you choose to set yourself 
 at defiance against the law — to break it and defy it — you 
 must expect to be dealt with accordingly. I am very sorry 
 indeed that such should be the result, but it is owing to 
 your being thus contumacious, notwithstanding that you 
 have had a fair trial, and the verdict of a competent jury, 
 which ought to have satisfied you that you ought to abstain 
 from doing what has been clearly demonstrated and shown 
 to be wrong. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Would your lordship entertain an ap- 
 plication to stay execution of the sentence ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Certainly not. On considera- 
 tion, if you will pledge yourselves unreservedly that there 
 shall be no repetition of the publication of the book,, at all 
 events, until the Court of Appeal shall have decided con- 
 trary to the verdict of the jury and our judgment ; if we 
 can have that positive pledge, and you will enter into your 
 recognizances that you will not avail yourselves of the liberty 
 we extend to continue the publication of this book, which it 
 is our bounden duty to suppress, or do our utmost to sup- 
 press, we may stay execution ; but we can show no indul- 
 gence without such a pledge. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : My lord, I meant to offer that pledge 
 in the fullest and most unreserved sense, because, although 
 I have my own view as to what is right, I also recognise 
 that the law having pronounced sentence, that is quite 
 another matter so far as I, as a citizen, am concerned. I 
 do not wish to ask your lordship for a favour without 
 
320 
 
 yielding to the Court during the time that I take advantage 
 of its indulgence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I wish you had taken this 
 position sooner. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : If the sentence goes against us, it is 
 another matter ; but if you should consent to give us time 
 for the argument of this writ of error, we would bind our- 
 selves during that time. I should not like your lordship to 
 be induced to grant this request on the understanding that 
 in the event of the ultimate decision being against me I 
 should feel bound by that pledge. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I must do )'ou the justice to 
 say that throughout the whole of this battle your conduct 
 has been straightforward since you took it up. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I would not like your lordship to think 
 that, in the event of the ultimate decision being against us, 
 there was any sort of pledge. I simply meant that the law 
 having pronounced against us, if your lordship gives us the 
 indulgence of fighting it in the higher Court, no sort of 
 direct or indirect advantage shall be taken of the indul- 
 gence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You will not continue the 
 publication ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Not only will I stop the circulation of 
 the book myself, but I will do all in my power to prevent 
 other people circulating it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then you can be discharged 
 on your own recognisances for ;£ioo, " to be of good 
 behaviour," which you will understand to mean, that you 
 will desist from the publication of this work until your appeal 
 shall have been heard, and will engage to pirosecute the 
 appeal without delay. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Certainly ; until the present, I have un- 
 doubtedly circulated the book. Although there is a blunder in 
 the affidavits I do not disguise the matter of fact. I shall im- 
 mediately put the thing under my own control, and I will 
 at once lock up every copy in existence, and will not circu- 
 late another copy until the appeal is decided. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : It must be that you will really, 
 to the best of your ability, prevent the circulation of this 
 book until this matter has been determined. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And what Mr. Bradlaugh 
 says, I understand that you, Mrs. Besant, also assent to ? 
 
 Mrs. Bes.int : Yes ; that is my pledge until the writ of 
 
321 
 
 error has been decided. I do not want to give a pledge 
 which you may think was not given honestly until the 
 appeal i§ decided. I will give my pledge, but it must be 
 understood that the promise goes no further than that. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mellor : You will abstain yourself from 
 circulating the book, and, so far as you can, suppress its 
 circulation, ? 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Every copy that is unsold shall be at 
 once put under lock and key until the decision of the 
 case. 
 
 The Solicitor-General : My lord, I think there should 
 be no misunderstanding upon this ; I understand that the 
 defendants have undertaken that during the pendency of 
 the appeal this book shall not be circulated at all. But 
 if the decision should be against them they are under no 
 pledge not to publish. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : I hope your lordship will not ask us 
 what we shall do in future. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We have meted out the 
 amount of punishment upon the assumption — there being 
 no assertion to the contrary, but rather an admission — that 
 they do intend to set the law at defiance. If we had under- 
 stood that they were prepared to submit themselves to the 
 law, we should have been disposed to deal with them in the 
 most indulgent manner ; but as we understood that they did 
 not intend this, we have meted out to them such a punish- 
 ment as we hope, when undergone, will have a deterrent 
 effect upon them, and may prevent other people offending 
 in like manner. We have nothing to do with what may 
 happen after the defendants obtain a judgment in their 
 favour, if they do so, or after the sentence is carried out, if 
 they do not. Our sentence is passed, and it will stand, sub- 
 ject only to this, that we stay execution until a writ of error 
 may be disposed of, the defendants giving the most unqua- 
 lified and unreserved pledge that they will not allow another 
 copy of the book to be sold. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh : Quite so, my lord ; quite so. 
 
 The defendants were then taken into the judges' clerks' 
 room, in custody of the tipstaff, and were thence taken to 
 the Crown Office, to get the form for the required recogni- 
 zance drafted and engrossed. They were then brought back 
 to Westminster, where they remained for an hour and a-half, 
 until the Court was at leisure, and they were delivered over 
 to it by the tipstaff. The recognisance was then read over 
 
 X 
 
322 
 
 to them by Master Mellor, and formally taken by Mr. 
 Justice Mellor, and the defendants were once more set at 
 liberty. 
 
 THE INDICTMENT. 
 
 Central Criminal Court. — To wit. 
 
 The Jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath 
 present that Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant unlaw- 
 fully and wickedly devising and contriving and intending, 
 as much as in them lay, to vitiate and corrupt the morals 
 as well of youth as of divers other liege subjects of our said 
 Lady the Queen, and to incite and encourage the said liege 
 subjects to indecent, obscene, unnatural, and immoral 
 practices, and bring them to a state of wickedness, lewd- 
 ness, and debauchery, therefore, to wit, on the 24th day of 
 March, a.d. 1877, in the City of London, and within the 
 jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, unlawfully, wick- 
 edly, knowingly, wilfully, and designedly did print, publish, 
 sell, and utter a certain indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene 
 libel, to wit, a certain indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy, and 
 obscene book, called " Fruits of Philosophy," thereby con- 
 taminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals as well of 
 youth as of other liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, 
 and bringing the said liege subjects to a state of wickedness, 
 lewdness, debauchery, and immorality, in contempt of our 
 said Lady the Queen and her laws, to the evil and per- 
 nicious example of all others in the like case offending, and 
 against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown, 
 and dignity. 
 
 Second Count: — And the Jurors aforesaid, upon their 
 oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Charles Brad- 
 laugh and Annie Besant unlawfully and wickedly devising, 
 contriving, and intending as much as in them lay, to vitiate 
 and corrupt the morals as well of youth as of divers other 
 liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to incite 
 and encourage the said liege subjects to indecent, obscene, 
 unnatural, and immoral practices, and bring them to a state 
 of wickedness, lewdness, and debauchery, heretofore, to wit, 
 on the 29th day of March, a.d. 1877, in the City of London, 
 and within the jurisdiction of the said Central Criminal 
 Court, unlawfully, wickedly, and knowingly, wilfully, and 
 
323 
 
 designedly did print, publish, sell, and utter a certain inde- 
 ■cent, lewd, filthy, bawdy, and obscene libel, to wit, a certain 
 indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy, and obscene book, called 
 " Fruits of Philosophy," thereby contaminating, vitiating, 
 ■SLud corrupting the morals as well of youth as of other liege 
 subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and bringing the said 
 liege subjects to a state of wickedness, lewdness, debauchery, 
 and immorality, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen, 
 -and the laws, to the evil and pernicious example of all others 
 in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said 
 Lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity. 
 
 THE SENTENCE AS OFFICIALLY RECORDED. 
 
 Thursday, the Twenty-eighth Day of June, in the Forty- 
 first Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria, 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, 
 Queen's Bench Division. 
 
 Central Criminal Court, \ The Defendants, Charles 
 
 Middlesex. ( Bradlaugh and Annie Besant, 
 
 The Queen v. Charles Brad- J being present here in Court, 
 
 laugh and Annie Besant. / and being, by a jury of the 
 country, convicted of certain misdemeanours, whereof they 
 are indicted in this prosecution : Upon reading the several 
 affidavits of John Rivett and the exhibit therein referred to, 
 and Thomas Lysaght and the exhibit therein referred to : 
 And upon hearing the said Defendants in person and Mr. 
 Solicitor-General of Counsel for the Crown : It is con- 
 sidered and adjudged and ordered by the Court here upon 
 each of the said counts of the said indictment severally 
 and respectively that for the offence and offences charged 
 upon the said Defendants in and by each and every of the 
 said counts of the said indictment severally and respectively 
 whereof they are so convicted as aforesaid, they, the said 
 Defendants, be severally imprisoned in Her Majesty's gaol 
 at Holloway for the space of six calendar months each, to 
 commence and be computed from the day on which they 
 shall severally be first taken to the said gaol in execution of 
 this sentence, and severally pay a fine to our Sovereign 
 Lady the Queen of ;£^20o each of lawful money of Great 
 Britain : And that they, the said Defendants, do severally 
 
324 
 
 give security by their own recognisances in the sum of ;^5oo 
 each, with two sufficient sureties in the sum of ;^2oo each, 
 for their good behaviour for the space of two years, to be 
 computed from and after the end and expiration of the said 
 six calendar months : 
 
 And it is further ordered that execution be stayed until 
 after judgment shall have been delivered upon any Writ of 
 Error which may hereafter be issued to reverse this judg- 
 ment or the proceedings upon such Writ shall have failed 
 for want of prosecution or otherwise, upon the said Defen- 
 dants giving security by their own recognisances in the sum 
 of j^ioo each to prosecute such Writ of Error, and to be 
 of good behaviour in the meantime. 
 
 The Defendants to be placed in the First ) t> ^i. <-. 
 
 Class of Misdemeanants. \ ^y ^^^ ^ourt. 
 
 London : Printed by C. Eradlaugh & Annie B-esant, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C- 
 
CATALOGUE 
 
 OF 
 SOLD ET THE 
 
 28, STONECUTTER STREET, 
 
 All Orders should be addressed to the Manager, 
 Me. W. J. EAMSEY, and should be accompanied with 
 Post Office Order or Cheque. 
 
 Cheques should be crossed " Londmi If South Western Bank." 
 
 The Freethinker's Text-Book. — Part I. B7 0. Bbadlaugh. 
 
 Section I., Noa. 1 & 2. — " The Story of the Origin of Man, as told 
 by the Bible and by Science." 
 
 Section It, Nos. 3 & 4.— "What is Religion?" "How has it 
 Grown ? " " God and Soul." 
 
 Each Section complete in itself, with copious Index. Each 
 Number, 6d. Part I., containing the whole four Nos., bound in 
 cloth, price 23. 6d. 
 
Pan II., »y Aknie Besant. — " On Christianity.'' Nos. 5, 6, 7, 
 8, 9, & 10, price 6d. each. Section L — " Christianity ; its Evidences 
 Unreliable." Section II. — "Its Origin Pagan." Section m. — 
 " Its Morality Fallible." Section IV. — " Condemned by its History." 
 Part n., containing the whole 6 Nos., bound in cloth, price 3s. 6d. 
 
 History of the Great Frenclx Bevolution. — ^A Course of Six 
 Lectures. By Ankie Besant. Cloth, lettered, 2s. 6d. Also in 
 six Parts — Parts 1 to 5, 3d. each ; Part 6, 4d. 
 
 Impeachment of tlie Souse of Brunswick. — By Chakles 
 BKADLAnoH. Price Is. 
 
 The boldest indictment of the present reigning family ever pub- 
 lished, with an Appendix on the Civil List and the cost of wars 
 since the accession of George I. 
 
 Can Miracles be proved Possible? — A verbatim report (approved 
 by both Disputants) of the two nights' Public Debate at Leeds 
 between C. Beadlaugh and W. B. Beowsb, M.A. (the official 
 representative of the Christian Evidence Society). Price 6d. 
 
 God, Man, and the Bible. — A verbatim report of a three nights' 
 Discussion at Livei-pool between the Rev. Dr. Batlee and C. 
 BbaDlacoh. 
 
 This is the only debate extant on the purely Sooratic method. 
 Price 6d. 
 
 Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and 
 Faith, — Being the verbatim report of three special Discourses to 
 Infidels, by the Bishop of Peterborotigh, and also of three special 
 Replies, by Charles Bradlaogh. Price Is. 
 
 Heresy : its Morality and Utility. A Plea and a Justification. 
 By Charles Bradlaugh. Price 9d. 
 
 On the Being; of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor 
 of the Universe. — ^A verbatim report of a two nights' Discussion 
 between Thomas Cooper and Mr. C. Bradlahoh. Price 6d. 
 
 When were our Gospels Written ?— A Reply to Dr. Tisohendorf 
 and the Religions Tract Society. By Charles Bradlauob. 
 Price 6d. 
 
 The jEiZLstence of God. — A verbatim report of two nights' Debate 
 at Edinburgh, between A. Robertson and C. Bradladoh. With 
 a Preface by the late Austin Holyoake. Price 6d. 
 
 Cromwell and Washington : a Contrast. — By Charles 
 Bbaslaugh. Price 6d. 
 
 This is a Lecture which was delivered by Charles Bradlaugh to 
 large audiences throughout the United States. 
 
Five Dead Men. whom I knew when Living.— By Charles 
 Bkadladgh. Sketches of Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John 
 Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner, and Ledru Rollin. Price 4d. 
 
 National Secular Society's Tracts.— 1. Address to Christians. 
 2. Who was Jesus? 3. Secular Morality. 4. The Bible and 
 WBman. 5. Secular Teachings. 6. Secular Work. 7. What is 
 Secularism ? 8. Who are the Secularists ? 9. Secular Responsi- 
 bility. Is. 2d. per 100, post free. 
 
 My Path to Atheism. — Collected Essays of Annie Besant. — The 
 Deity of Jesus — Inspiration — Atonement — Eternal Punishment — 
 Prayer — Revealed Religion — and the Existence of God, all examined 
 and rejected ; together with some Essays on the Book of Common 
 Prayer. Cloth, lettered, price 4s. Just out. 
 
 Secular Song and Hymn Book. — A Republican and Atheistic 
 Collection for the use of Secular Societies and Secular Homes. 
 Edited by Abmb Besant. Cloth, gilt. Is. 
 
 PAMPHLETS BY ANNIE BESANT. 
 
 The True Basis of Morality. — A Plea for Utility as the Standard 
 of Morality. Price 2d. 
 
 Auguste Comte. — Biography of the great French Thinker, with 
 Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his Sociology. Being 
 a short and convenient r€sum€ of Positivism for the general reader. 
 Price 6d. 
 
 Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth 
 Century. His Life and Works. A Tract for popular distribu- 
 tion. Price Id. 
 
 The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women's Rights. 
 Price 2d. 
 
 Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hints taken from the 
 French Revolution. Price 3d. 
 
 The Gospel of Atheism. Price 2d. 
 Liberty, Equality, and Pra'temity, Id. 
 Landlords, Tenant Farmers, and Laboxirers. Id. 
 The God Idea in the Revolution. Id. 
 
 The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Free- 
 thought. 2d. 
 English Marseillaise, with Music. Id. 
 
 Large Photograph of Mrs. Besant, fit for Framins, 
 price Half-a-Crown. 
 
PAMPHLETS BY C. BRADLAUGH. 
 
 JesuB, Shelley and Malthus, an Essay on the Population Question 
 
 American Politics 
 
 Life of George, Prince of Wales, with Recent Contrasts and 
 
 Coincidences 
 Letter to Albert Edward, Prince of Wales ... 
 The Land Question, a two-paged tract for general distribution 
 Eefonn or Revolution? ... 
 Why do Men Starve ? 
 Poverty, and its Effect on the People 
 Laboui-'s Prayer 
 
 Real Representation of the People 
 The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle 
 Plea for Atheism 
 Has Man a Soul? 
 Is There a God? 
 Who was Jesus? 
 What did Jesus Teach? ... 
 The Twelve Apostles 
 The Atonemont 
 Life of David (New Edition) 
 Life of Jacob ... 
 Life of Abraham 
 Life of Moses ... 
 A Few Words about the Devil 
 Were Adam and Eve our Fu-st Parents? 
 Large Photograph of Mr. Bradlaugh for framing 
 
 t. d. 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L> 
 
 1 
 
 Tlie Education of Girls. — By Henkt R. S. Dalton, B.A., Oxon. 
 Disabilities of women and their moral enslavement the cause of all 
 social evils, as depriving mankind of the efficient assistance of its 
 better half. Female children from the day of their birth subject to 
 more or less adverse influences. False relation created for young 
 girls and boys towards each other. Pernicious training of girls 
 in then" teens. Conclusion. Price 6d. 
 
 Tlie XJpas : a Vision of the Past, Present, and Future. — This 
 
 volume contains sketches of many well-known Freethinkers, among 
 others of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant. It traces the rise, reign, 
 and decay of Superstition. Bound in cloth, 10s. 6d. 
 
THE 
 
 NATIONAL REFORMER, 
 
 EDITED BY C. BRADLAUGH. 
 
 THIS Journal, established 1860, which has successfully defeated a 
 proseoution commenced by the Derby Government, and carried on 
 by the Gladstone Ministry, and which is now rapidly increasing in cir- 
 culation, can be obtained on order from most Booksellers, and from the 
 Freethought Publishing Company ; or will be sent by post, if required 
 — one copy 23. SJd. per quarter, three copies or upwards post free. 
 
 The National Eeeormee is the largest and most popular organ of 
 the English Freethought Party, and contains Reports of Lectures and 
 Meetings in London and throughout the Provinces. In Theology its 
 editorial policy is Atheistic ; in Politics, Republican ; in Political 
 Economy it maintains the views of the late J. S. MiU. 
 
 The National Refokmek is, nevertheless, a free platform, where 
 every antagonist is welcome to be heard so long as he writes clearly, 
 and with reasonable courtesy. 
 
 WEEKLY-PRICE TWOPENCE. 
 
 With its large and constantly-increasing circulation the National 
 Refoemer is an admirable Advertising Medium. 
 
 Scale of Charges for Advertisements: 
 
 Three Lines or under ..... jq i e 
 
 Per liinu afterwards ---..- 004 
 
 Half a Column --. ... 100 
 
 Column --.--.-.- 114 
 
 Page ....---.. 300 
 
In cloth, reduced to Is. 6d. 
 EDITED B5 ICONOCLAST AND J. WATTS. 
 
 TmETT Ndmbees. 
 Containing Sketches of the Lives and Philosophy of 
 
 Eev. Baden Powell 
 
 Socrates 
 
 George Jacob Holyoake 
 
 Chevalier Bunsen 
 
 Sir Charles LyeU 
 
 Lord Herbert of Cherbivry 
 
 Bishop Oolenso 
 
 Dr. D. P. Strauss 
 
 Harriet Martineau 
 
 Thomas Henry Buckle 
 
 i^eorge Combe 
 
 ^_»arles Darwin 
 
 G. H. Lewes 
 
 Thomas Oarlyle 
 
 Frederick the Great 
 
 W. J. Fox, M.P. 
 
 Humboldt 
 
 Heine 
 
 Robert Owen 
 
 Emma Martin 
 
 Charles Southwell 
 
 Des Cartes 
 
 Volney 
 
 Lord Bolingbroke 
 
 SheUey 
 
 Voltaire 
 
 Anthony Collins 
 
 Spinoza 
 
 Paine 
 
 Shaftesbury 
 
 Any sixteen of the undermentioned 
 
 '^)K\i-'^amB Mllj llj^ Jfratljinhers, 
 
 At choice of the Purchaser, for 6d. 
 
 Containing Sketches of the Lives and Philosophy of 
 
 Chevalier Bunsen 
 
 Des Cartes 
 
 Volney 
 
 Lord Bolingbroke 
 
 Shelley 
 
 Voltaire 
 
 Anthony CoULna 
 
 Spinoza 
 
 Paine 
 
 Rev. Baden Powell 
 
 Sir Charles Lyell 
 
 Lord Herbert of Cherbury 
 
 Shaftesbury 
 
 Bishop Colouso 
 
 Dr. D. F. Strauss 
 Harriet Martineau 
 Thomas Henry Bnckia 
 George Combe 
 Charles Darwin 
 6. H. Lewes 
 Thomas Carlyle 
 Frederick the Great 
 W. J. Fox, M.P. 
 Humboldt 
 Heine 
 
 Robert Owen 
 Emma Mai'tin 
 Charles Southwell 
 
 If sent by post. Id, extra for postage. 
 
(REDUCED TO ONE SHILLING. 
 Packet of thirty-six numbers of 
 
 Containing Sketches of the Lives and Philosophy of 
 
 Des Cartes 
 Vokiey 
 
 Lord Bolingbroke 
 .Shelley 
 Voltaire 
 
 Anthony Collins 
 Spinoza 
 Paine 
 
 Sir William Hamilton 
 Lucretius 
 Rev. Baden Powell 
 George Jacob Holy- 
 oake 
 
 Chevalier Bujisen 
 Sir Charles Lyell 
 Lord Herbert of Cher- 
 bury 
 Shaftesbury 
 Mirabeau 
 Bishop Colenso 
 Dr. D. F. Strauss 
 Harriet Martineau 
 Thomas Henry Buckle 
 George Combe 
 Charles Darwin 
 G. H. Lewes 
 
 F. W. d'Arusmont 
 
 Toland 
 
 Blount 
 
 Burnet 
 
 Thomas Carlyle 
 
 Frederick the Great 
 
 W. J. Fox, M.P. 
 
 Humboldt 
 
 Hsine 
 
 Robert Owen 
 
 Emma Martin 
 
 Charles Southwell 
 
 If sent by post, 2Jd. extra for postage. 
 
 The Cause of Woman. From the Italian of Luisa To-Sko. By 
 Best W. Elmt. Price 6d. 
 
 Heterodox Loudon. By Dr. Matieicb Davies. 2 vols., cloth, 
 new, uncut, 7s. 6d. (published at 258.) A Church of England 
 Clergyman's View of Mr. Bradlaugh and the Secular Movement. 
 
 In censequence of the demand for this valuable work, the Com- 
 pany have purehased all the remaining copies. 
 
 Hans Breitman's Christmas, with other Ballads, reduced to 6d. 
 
 Hans Breitman as a Politician, with other Ballads, reduced to 6d. 
 
 Byron's Poems, complete edition, with critical Memoir, by W. JI 
 RosETTi, reduced to 4s. 
 
 Why did Gladstone Fall from Power, and How may ho 
 Begaiu It ? An Appeal to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, 
 M.P., on the Eastern Question, and the Disorganisation of the 
 Liberal Party. By Anuib Bbbant. Price 6d. 
 
 Clericalism in France. Speech by Prince Napoleon Bonaparte 
 (Jerome) to the Chamber of Deputies, Nov. 24, 1876. Translated 
 by Annie Besant. Price 6d. This is the speech that caused so 
 much excitement in France. 
 
 Eastern Life, Present and Past. — By Habriet Martinbau. A 
 new edition with illustrations, containing an account of Miss 
 Martineau's Eastern Travels. Strongly bound in cloth, pp. 494 
 Reduced to 3s. 6d. 
 
8 
 
 The Life and Struggles ofWilliam Lovett, in his pTirsuit of 
 Bread, EJiowledg|e, and Treedom. — An^.yj^biop'aphy. Thia 
 intereating volume gives an accotint of the siriiggles for freedom 
 during the first half of the present century, and tells of the great 
 victory of the unstamped press under Watson, Hetherington, and 
 Cleave. Bound in cloth. Price Sa. 
 
 The First liOve Again. By Moncuke D. Conwat. 2d. 
 
 The Dyer's Hand. By Albxandeb J. Ellis. A Discourae at South 
 Place Chapol. ^d. 
 
 Our Cause and its Accusers. By Moncube D. Cohwat. 2d. 
 
 The Iiife of Leo X. Handsomely bound, reduced to Is. 
 
 Cabinet Photographs of TSx. Bradlaugh and Urs. Besant. 
 
 2s. each. Two positions, at choice, sitting or standing. Taken by 
 the Stereoecopic Company, Regent Street. 
 
 Cartes de Visite, taken from the above, each, Is. 
 
 Diversions of the Echo Club. By Oltveb Wendell Holmes, 
 
 the great American writer. Author of " Autocrat of the BreakfaSt- 
 table," etc., reduced to la. 
 
 Thomas Weutworth, Earl of Strafford, and Lord Lieutenant 
 of Ireland, The Life of. By Elizabeth Coopee. 2 vols. 8vo, 
 cloth, uncut, new (published at 30s.), 5s. 
 
 Bartlett (Greorge C. T.), The Schools for the People. 
 
 Containing the History, Development, and present Working of each 
 description of English School for the Industrial and Poorer Classes, 
 with 12 engravings, thick royal 8vo, cloth, new, pp. 582 (published 
 at 21a.), 4s. 
 
 Castelar (Emilio) Life of Lord Byron, and other Sketches, 
 
 translated by Mrs. Arthur Amold, 8vo, cloth, new, uncut (pub. at 
 12b.), 3s. 6d. 
 
 The other Sketches are Victor Hugo, Alexander Dumas, Emile 
 Sirardin, Daniel Manin, Adolphe Thiers. 
 
 The Freethought Publishing Company are prepared to Tender 
 for Printing all kinds of Pamphlets and Books, and to take charge 
 of and correct Author's MSS. for publication. Applications should 
 he addressed to the Manager, Mr. W. J. RAMSEY, 28, Stone- 
 cutter Street, E.G., London. London friends desiring Stationery 
 aro requested to call at the Company's ofSce, as a stock of Ststioneiy 
 has been laid in, and all articles not in Stock will be readily 
 obtained. 
 
 Primed by the Freethodght Publishins Oompant. 28, Stonecutter Street, 
 London, E.O.