CHAPTER III.
The Malthusian Movement in England.
For many years after the publication of Mr. Malthus’s great essay, the principle which he had formulated did not pass beyond the region of more or less academic controversy. The “theory of population” was denounced from countless pulpits and assailed by the pens of ready writers; but, being based upon a patient and accurate observation of the facts of nature, it remained unshaken when the preachers and critics were forgotten.
It would be absurd to doubt that so important a contribution to social science influenced the minds and helped to shape the conduct of thoughtful men; but it is beyond question that no organised attempt to popularise and propagate the teachings of Malthus, and to make known the nature of preventive checks amongst the people of this country, was undertaken until the year 1877. In the first quarter of the century, Richard Carlile published a small pamphlet on the subject; but there is no reason to suppose that its effect was appreciable. Mr. Francis Place and Mr. Robert Dale Owen in later years wrote essays embodying practically the modern Malthusian view.
In 1833, Dr. Charles Knowlton, of Boston (U.S.A.), issued a small work on the subject of population, entitled The Fruits of Philosophy. For over forty years the book was sold in England, but its sale was so small that very few people were even acquainted with its title, and it remained in its native obscurity until it was dragged into the light of day by the fortunate folly of persons who imagined that it was possible to check the spread of moral enlightenment by means of legal “repression.”
In 1876 a police prosecution was instituted against a man in Bristol for selling The Fruits of Philosophy, and a conviction was obtained. In the following year the publisher of the pamphlet was also indicted and committed for trial; but he was liberated on promising that he would no longer issue the work. Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs. Annie Besant thereupon undertook the task of defending the right of publication. They reprinted and published the pamphlet, formally inviting the authorities to prosecute them. “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.”[1]
The police authorities accepted the challenge, and a prosecution was immediately commenced. The trial, which lasted four days, took place in the Court of Queen’s Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury. Sir Hardinge Gifford (then Solicitor-General), Mr. Douglas Straight and Mr. Mead appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant appeared in person.
The indictment charged the defendants with having published and sold an obscene book, with intent to contaminate and corrupt public morals. The author of The Fruits of Philosophy advocated early marriage with limitation of families, and referred in the course of his work to such preventive checks as were known at that time. The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, sought to persuade the jury that Dr. Knowlton speciously used that line of argument as a disguise and pretext for suggesting illicit intercourse without risk of pregnancy ensuing. An indignant rebuke from Sir Alexander Cockburn caused the Solicitor-General to abandon that line of false suggestion, and to fall back upon the contention that it was illegal to issue a work containing “a chapter on restriction, not written in any learned language, but in plain English, in a facile form, and sold … at sixpence.” He therefore asked the jury to declare that the book was an “obscene publication.”
The speech of the Solicitor-General and his general conduct of the case are matters of trivial importance; the notable features of the trial were the addresses of the two defendants and the summing-up by the Lord Chief Justice. Mrs. Besant’s speech to the jury was a remarkable and memorable effort. She examined and discussed the population question in every aspect, contending that, in view of the evils arising from excessive increase, the advocacy of prudential methods was a sacred duty to humanity. In the opening passages of her speech she pointed out, in the most impressive manner, that she pleaded for the welfare of others: