It will be seen that the work of this section is of a special and scientific character. The names of the officers and members (given in the appendix) will show that the advocacy of prudential checks to population is sanctioned by a body of physicians of unquestioned eminence.
Having given an outline of the permanent organisation of Malthusian propaganda which grew out of the events of 1877, we proceed to trace briefly the history of the movement from that period. It is in the main a story of petty persecutions on the one side, and, upon the other, of steady persistence in the work of informing the public mind. The principal obstacle to the progress of the movement, and one which it is slowly but surely surmounting, is the prejudice born of ignorance and bigotry. Journalists, statesmen and other leaders of opinion do not hesitate to avow their adhesion to the principle formulated by Malthus; but they are, almost without exception, dominated by the fear of Mrs. Grundy, and shrink from incurring the odium which, they imagine, would result from a frank recognition of the only logical outcome of that principle. They join loudly in the chorus on the evils of over-population; but, as a rule, they will lend no public countenance to the distinct advocacy of prudential checks. Hence the task of the pioneers of the movement is rendered excessively difficult; but from the very inception of the Malthusian League, the work of propaganda has been carried forward with unfailing devotion and singleness of purpose.
In its earliest days, the League was called upon to support one of its most respected members under stress of persecution. In February, 1878, Mr. Edward Truelove was prosecuted and tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn for publishing the Hon. Robert Dale Owen’s pamphlet entitled Moral Physiology, and an essay on Individual, Family, and National Poverty, by an anonymous author. Mr. W. A. Hunter, in defending the case, made a most powerful speech in support of the Malthusian position. The jury were unable to agree upon a verdict, and the proceedings came to an abortive termination. Three months later, however, Mr. Truelove was a second time placed upon his trial, the venue meanwhile being changed from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Old Bailey. A common jury found no difficulty in returning a verdict of guilty, and Mr. Truelove (then in his sixty-eighth year) was sentenced to pay a fine of £50 and to be imprisoned for four months. A great public meeting was held at St. James’s Hall on June 6th, when Mr. Bradlaugh, Mrs. Besant, Dr. Drysdale and other friends of the movement protested against the action of the authorities in thus interfering with the right of free discussion, and expressed their admiration of Mr. Truelove’s courage and consistency.
Mr. Truelove endured the privations of imprisonment with fortitude and dignity, sustained by the knowledge that his cause was righteous. He was taken to Coldbath Fields in a prison-van, handcuffed like a dangerous criminal; compelled to lie on the “plank-bed,” and subjected to all the rigors of gaol discipline. During the first three months he was allowed no meat; after that time he was permitted to have six ounces of Australian tinned meat per week. Happily the confinement and hardships did not prejudicially affect his health.
On September 12th he was welcomed back to liberty by a large and enthusiastic gathering of friends at the Hall of Science, London. The leading members of the Malthusian League were present, and Mr. Moncure D. Conway, and the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam attended to do honor to one who had suffered for conscience sake. A purse containing £200 was presented to Mr. Truelove, together with the following testimonial:
To Edward Truelove, on his release from four months’ imprisonment in Coldbath Fields Prison—suffered in defence of the Liberty of the Press.
The undersigned, on behalf of the National Secular Society and of the Malthusian League, desire to welcome you on your return to liberty, and to offer you their heartiest thanks for the courage and endurance you have displayed, in defending the right of free publication of opinion.
The battle for the liberty of the press has been steadily waged ever since the invention of printing, and a long muster-roll of names might be given of those who, first at the stake, and since in prison, have in turn paid their share of the penalty-purchase for the victories already achieved. You have worthily entitled yourself to an honorable place in this muster-roll, the more so that you have stood firm in a day when too many temporise and flinch. From almost every part of England, and from remote districts, as well as from the great centres of Scotland, many thousands of your fellow countrymen and countrywomen have pleaded for your release, and from all parts of the civilised world expressions have been received, of sympathy with you, and of indignation against your persecutors.
As some slight mark of our gratitude and affectionate esteem, and in recognition of the honor with which you have crowned a long life of unwavering courage, we present you this address, and the accompanying purse of gold, begging you to accept with them our sincerest wishes for your future welfare. Signed on behalf of
The National Secular Society.
Chas. Bradlaugh, President.
Robert Forder, Secretary.The Malthusian League.
C. Drysdale, M.D., President.
Annie Besant, Hon. Sec.Hall of Science, 12th September, 1878.
The case of Mr. Truelove was the last prosecution of importance in this country for the publication of works dealing with the population question. The proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, after being quashed in the Court of Appeal upon a writ of error, were never renewed. Dr. Knowlton’s pamphlet, The Fruits of Philosophy, was withdrawn from circulation, and Mrs. Besant wrote a small book, The Law of Population: its consequences and its bearing upon human conduct and morals, to take its place. Of this work nearly 200,000 copies were circulated in Great Britain; many pirated editions were published in America and Australia; and it was translated into several European languages. It formed the basis of a remarkable judgment by Mr. Justice Windeyer (delivered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales), to which further reference will presently be made.
In June, 1887, Dr. H. A. Allbutt, of Leeds, published a sixpenny pamphlet entitled The Wife’s Handbook. The following paragraph, taken from the introduction to the book, will explain its object: “To save the lives and preserve the health of thousands of women, to rescue from death and disease children who may be born, to teach the young wife how to order her health during the most important period of her life, to remove from her mind the popular ignorance in which she may have been reared, and to enable her to learn truths concerning her duties as wife and mother, I have thought fit to write this little work.” Shortly after its appearance, the spirit of persecution was again manifested, this time in an obscure and technical aspect. As a member of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Dr. Allbutt was professionally amenable to the Council of that body; and he was summoned to appear and show cause why he should not be removed from the rolls for the offence of writing and publishing The Wife’s Handbook. The matter was warmly taken up by the Malthusian League, and protests were addressed to the College from all parts of Great Britain and from France, Germany, Holland, Italy, India and Jamaica. Nothing more was heard of the affair until November, when Dr. Allbutt received a notice to appear before the General Medical Council, in London, to show cause why his name should not be struck off the register.
On November 23rd the complaint against Dr. Allbutt was considered by the General Medical Council, a body composed of twenty-seven physicians. Dr. Allbutt was represented by Mr. Wallace (barrister), and the “prosecution” was conducted by Mr. Muir Mackenzie, the legal adviser of the Council. The following were the points which the Council proceeded to consider: “(1) Was The Wife’s Handbook a fair medical treatise, or was it an indecent advertisement? (2) Was it practically an injury to the public and an insult to the profession?” Mr. Wallace, in a very able speech, traversed the suggestions made by the Council’s solicitor, and challenged the right of an irresponsible body to determine whether any line of advocacy was “subversive of public morality.” If Dr. Allbutt had violated the law, he was amenable to legal proceedings, and it was not for the Medical Council to sit in judgment upon him. Mr. Wallace justified the course that Dr. Allbutt had taken in publishing his work at a low price in order that it might be placed within the reach of the poorest classes. He called the attention of the members to a list of the petitions which had been presented to the Council on the subject from all parts of Europe. They amounted to over seventy; many of them came from medical, scientific, and political societies. He assured the Council that the members of the medical profession were by no means unanimous in condemning Mr. Allbutt, and it would run against the feelings of a very considerable minority if they decided adversely to his client. The book was written with the express object of saving poor people from the misery, poverty, and starvation which resulted from the over-production of children; and he asked the Council, in conclusion, to arrive at a decision which would relieve his client from the imputation which had been cast upon him, and which would restore him to his proper position.