To this
argument an advocate of birth control has made answer:
"We interfere with nature at every point--we shave, cut our hair, cook
our food, fill cavities in our teeth (or wear artificial teeth), clothe
ourselves, wear boots, hats, and wash our faces, so why should birth
alone be sacred from the touch and play of human moulding?
argument an advocate of birth control has made answer:
"We interfere with nature at every point--we shave, cut our hair, cook
our food, fill cavities in our teeth (or wear artificial teeth), clothe
ourselves, wear boots, hats, and wash our faces, so why should birth
alone be sacred from the touch and play of human moulding?
Sutherland - Birth Control- A Statement of Christian Doctrine against the Neo-Malthusians
I
notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are
spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy
these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their
large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their
group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no
instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by
others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;
prudence and selfishness are not identical.
"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed
the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two
girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,
married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the
parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no
foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her
worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not
marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and
its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful
choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had
had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to
themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her
confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his
work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an
added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest
men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in
his house for stray boys he thought he should help.
"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required
management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra
qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there
to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial
usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation
to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost
forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "
Dr. W. E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover,
he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight
and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack
these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this
game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer,
no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann
concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to
see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this
game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence
of children.
_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_
In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:
"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual
poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a
week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,
because very few of the children of small families die or grow up
weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much
happier. " [94]
The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high
birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II),
and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the
English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very
poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control.
Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type
of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst
the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as
stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than
about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual
extinction.
"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly
favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a
given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to
inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this
important point the records of the University of London Eugenics
Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate
thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the
small family, that gives the best children_.
"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less
intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far
from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.
"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the
development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.
"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health
is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health
of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.
"6. A study of history does not show that nations with low birth-rates
have been able to attain to a higher level of civilisation. Such
nations have been thrust into the background by their hardier
neighbours. " [95]
Moreover, M. Leroy-Beaulieu, in _La Question de la Population_ [96] states
that those districts of France which show an exceptionally low birthrate
are distinguished by a peculiar atmosphere of materialism, and that their
inhabitants exhibit, in a high degree, an attitude of mind well named
_l'esprit arriviste_--the desire to concentrate on outward success, to push
on, to be climbers, to advance themselves and their children in fashionable
society. This spirit means the willing sacrifice of all ideals of ethics
or of patriotism to family egoism. To this mental attitude, and to the
corresponding absence of religion, he attributes the decline of population.
In conclusion the following evidence is quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"The _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for July 1911 contains a valuable account,
by a doctor resident in Gascony, of the state of things in that part of
France (where, it will be remembered, the birth-rate is especially
low). He expresses with the utmost emphasis the conviction that the
Gascons are deteriorating, physically and mentally, and points out, at
the same time, that the decline of population has had an injurious
effect upon the economic condition of the country. 'L'hyponatalité est
une cause précise et directe de la dégénérescence de la race,' he
writes. And, dealing with the belief that a low birthrate will result
in the development of a superior type of child, he says: 'C'est une
illusion qui ne résiste pas à la lumière des faits tels que les montre
l'étude démographique de nos villages gascons. Depuis que beaucoup de
bancs restent vides à la petite école, les écoliers ne sont ni mieux
doués, ni plus travailleurs, et ils sont certainement moins vigoureux. '
And again, 'La quantité est en général la condition première et
souveraine de la qualité. '" [97]
Section 8. THE PLOT AGAINST CHRISTENDOM
All purposive actions are ultimately based on philosophy of one sort or
another. If, for example, we find a rich man founding hospitals for the
poor, we may assume that he believes in the principle of Charity. It
is, therefore, of prime importance to determine what kind of philosophy
underlies Neo-Malthusian propaganda. The birth controllers profess to
be actuated solely by feelings of compassion and of benevolence towards
suffering humanity; and it is on these grounds that they are appealing to
the Church of England to bless their work, or at least to lend to
their propaganda a cloak of respectability. Now, the very fact that
Neo-Malthusians are sincere in their mistaken and dangerous convictions
makes it all the more necessary that we should discover the doctrines
on which their propaganda was originally based; because, although their
economic fallacies were borrowed from Malthus, their philosophy came from a
different source.
This philosophy is to be found, naked and unashamed, in a book entitled
_The Elements of Social Science_. I have already referred to this work
as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and its teaching has been endorsed as
recently as 1905 by the official journal of the Malthusian League, as
witness the following eulogy, whose last lines recall the happy days of
Bret Harte in the Far West, and the eloquent periods of our old and valued
friend Colonel Starbottle:
"This work should be read by all followers of J. S. Mill, Garnier, and
the Neo-Malthusian school of economists. We could give a long criticism
of the many important chapters in this book; but, as we might be
considered as prejudiced in its favour because of our agreement with
its aims, we prefer to cite the opinion given by the editor of that
widely circulated and most enlightened paper _The Weekly Times and
Echo_, which appears in its issue of October 8. " [98]
Before quoting from the book an explanation is due to my readers. I do not
suggest that all of those who are to-day supporting the propaganda for
artificial birth control would agree with its foolish blasphemies and
drivelling imbecilities; but it is nevertheless necessary to quote these
things, because our birth controllers are too wise in their day and
generation to reveal to the public, still less to the Church of England,
_the philosophy on which Neo-Malthusianism was originally based, and from
which it has grown_. Moreover, the Malthusians claim that it was the author
of the _Elements of Social Science_ "who interested Mr. Charles Bradlaugh
and Mrs. Annie Besant in the question. " [99] Four quotations from the last
edition of the book will suffice:
"But this is a certain truth, that any human being, any one of us,
no matter how fallen and degraded, is an infinitely more glorious
and adorable being than any God that ever was or will be
conceived" (p. 413).
In justice to the memory of John Stuart Mill, whom Malthusians are ever
quoting, it should be noted that the foregoing blasphemy is nothing more
nor less than a burlesque of Positivism or of Agnosticism. The teaching of
Mill, Bain, and of Herbert Spencer was that the knowledge of God and of
His nature is impossible, because our senses are the _only_ source of
knowledge. Their reasoning was wrong--because a primary condition of all
knowledge is memory, in itself an intuition, because primary mathematical
axioms are intellectual intuitions, and because mind has the power of
abstraction; but, even so, not one of these men was capable of having
written the above-quoted passage. The next quotation refers to marriage.
"Marriage is based upon the idea that constant and unvarying love is
the only one which is pure and honourable, and which should be
recognised as morally good. But there could not be a greater error than
this. Love is, like all other human passions and appetites, subject to
change, deriving a great part of its force and continuance from variety
in its objects; and to attempt to fix it to an invariable channel is to
try to alter the laws of its nature"(p. 353).
That quotation is an example of how evil ideas may arise from muddled
thinking: because if the word "lust" be substituted for the word "love" in
the third sentence, the remaining forty-five words would merely convey a
simple truth, expressed by Kipling in two lines:
"For the more you 'ave known o' the others
The less will you settle to one. "
Very few people, I suppose, are so foolish as to believe that man is by
nature either a chaste or a constant animal, and indeed in this respect he
appears to his disadvantage when compared with certain varieties of birds,
which are _by nature_ constant to each other. On the other hand, millions
of people believe that man is able to overcome his animal nature; and for
the past two thousand years the civilised races of the world have held
that this is a goal towards which mankind should strive. In the opinion of
Christendom chastity and marriage are both morally good, but, according to
the philosophy of our Neo-Malthusian author, they are morally evil.
"Chastity, or complete sexual abstinence, so far from being a virtue,
is invariably a great natural sin" (p. 162).
Is it not obvious that to the writers of such passages love is synonymous
with animalism, with lust? It is by no means necessary to go to saints or
to moralists for a refutation of this Neo-Malthusian philosophy. Does any
decent ordinary man or woman agree with it? Ask the man in the street. Turn
the pages of our literature. Refer to Chaucer or Spenser, to Shakespeare or
Milton, refer to Fielding or Burns or Scott or Tennyson. Some of these men
were very imperfect; but they all knew the difference between lust and
love; and it is because they can tell us at least something of that which
is precious, enduring, ethereal, and divine in love that we read their
pages and honour their names. Not one of these men could have written the
following sentence:
"Marriage distracts our attention from the real sexual
duties, and this is one of its worst effects" (p. 366).
Now it is certain that if "the real sexual duties" are represented by
promiscuous fornication, then both marriage and chastity are evil things.
That philosophy is very old. From time immemorial--it has been advocated by
one of the most powerful intelligences in the universe. Such is the soil
on which the Neo-Malthusian fungus has grown--a soil that would rot the
foundations of Europe.
[Footnote 66: _The Lancet_, May 14, 1921, p. 1024]
[Footnote 67: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 93. ]
[Footnote 68: _The Small Family System_, 2nd edit. , p. 2. ]
[Footnote 69: _Supplement to The British Medical Journal_, March 18, 1905,
p. 110. ]
[Footnote 70: _Common Sense on the Population Question_, by Teresa
Billington-Greig, p. 4. Published by the Malthusian League. ]
[Footnote 71: _Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921. ]
[Footnote 72: _Suppl. Qu_. 49, Art. 6: "_Voluptates meretricias vir in
uxore quoerit quando nihil aliud in ea attendit quam quod in meretrice
attenderet_" (A husband seeks from his wife harlot pleasures when he asks
from her only what he might ask from a harlot). Quoted by the Rev. Vincent
McNabb, O. P. , _The Catholic Gazette_, September 1921, p. 195. ]
[Footnote 73: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 169. ]
[Footnote 74: Reproduced in fourth edition, 1861. ]
[Footnote 75: _Essays in Medical Sociology_, 1899. Revised and printed
for private circulation, p. 95, (Copy in Library of Royal Society of
Medicine). ]
[Footnote 76: _British Medical Journal_, August 20, 1921, p. 302. ]
[Footnote 77: St. Matt. xviii. 6. ]
[Footnote 78: _Proceedings of the Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921]
[Footnote 79: "That arrangement of society in which so considerable a
number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to
labour for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp
the whole community with the mark of such labour we call The Servile
State. "--Hilaire Belloc, _The Servile State_, 1912, p. 16. ]
[Footnote 80: The Secretary of the Malthusian League. Vide _The Declining
Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 89. ]
[Footnote 81: _The Declining Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 37. ]
[Footnote 82: Dominions Royal Commission, Memorandum and Tables relating to
the Food and Raw Material Requirements of the United Kingdom: prepared by
the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of
Certain Portions of His Majesty's Dominions. November, 1915, pp. 1 and 2.
My italics--H. G. S. ]
[Footnote 83: i. e. grain, wheatmeal, and flour]
[Footnote 84: For particulars of this increase see Canada Year Book 1913,
p. 144. ]
[Footnote 85: See pp. 387-8 of [Cd. 6588]. ]
[Footnote 86: Average for period 1907-1910 and excluding British Columbia,
where the yield per acre in 1911, the only year for which figures are
available, averaged 29-37 bushels. ]
[Footnote 87: Including British Columbia. ]
[Footnote 88: Below the average. The yield per acre in 1912 was 12. 53
bushels, and in 1913 11. 18. ]
[Footnote 89: The Observer, Nov. 11, 1921. ]
[Footnote 90: _Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_, by Norman Macleod,
D. D. , 1876, p. 27. ]
[Footnote 91: Ibid. , p. 34. ]
[Footnote 92: Ibid. , p. 91. ]
[Footnote 93: British Medical Journal, August 13, 1921, p. 261. ]
[Footnote 94: Leaflet of the Malthusian League. ]
[Footnote 95: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914, p. 153. My
italics. --H. G. S. ]
[Footnote 96: Quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth, _The Hibbert Journal_,
October 1914, p. 153. ]
[Footnote 97: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914. ]
[Footnote 98: _The Malthusian_, November 1905, p. 84]
[Footnote 99: C. V. Drysdale, O. B. E. , D. Sc. , _The Small Family System_,
1918, p. 150. ]
CHAPTER VIII
THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL
Section 1. AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAW OF NATURE
Birth control is against the law of nature, which Christians believe to be
the reflection of the divine law in human affairs, and any violation of
this law was held to be vicious even by the ancient pagan world.
To this
argument an advocate of birth control has made answer:
"We interfere with nature at every point--we shave, cut our hair, cook
our food, fill cavities in our teeth (or wear artificial teeth), clothe
ourselves, wear boots, hats, and wash our faces, so why should birth
alone be sacred from the touch and play of human moulding? " [100]
Why? For a very simple reason. Birth control belongs to the moral sphere;
it essentially affects man's progress in good, whereas all the other things
that he mentions have no more moral significance than has the practice of
agriculture. Regarded in the light of the law of nature they are neutral
actions, neither good nor bad in themselves, raising no question of right
or wrong, and having no real bearing on the accomplishment of human
destiny. To make no distinction between the merely physical law of nature
(expressed in the invariable tendency of everything to act according to
its kind) and the natural moral law which governs human conduct, is to
pronounce oneself a materialist. Yet even a materialist ought to denounce
the practice of birth control, as it violates the laws of nature which
regulate physical well-being. "But," says the materialist, "it is not
possible for anyone to act against nature, because all actions take place
_in_ nature, and therefore every act is a natural act. " Quite so: in that
sense murder is a natural act; even unnatural vice is a natural act. Will
any one defend them? There is a natural law in the physical world, and
there is a natural law in conscience--a law of right conduct. Certain
actions are under the control of the human will, which is able to rebel
against the moral law of nature, and the pagan poet Aeschylus traces all
human sorrow to "the perverse human will omnipresent. "
As birth control means the deliberate frustration of a natural act
which might have issued in a new life, it is an unnatural crime, and is
stigmatised by theologians as a sin akin to murder. To this charge birth
controllers further reply that millions of the elements of procreation are
destroyed by Nature herself, and that "to add one more to these millions
sacrificed by Nature is surely no crime. " This attempt at argument is
pathetic. If these people knew even the A. B. C. of biology, they would know
that millions of those elements are allowed to perish by Nature for a
definite purpose--namely, _to make procreation more certain_. It is in
order that the one may achieve the desired end that it is reinforced by
millions of others. Moreover, although millions of deaths in the world
occur every year from natural causes, it would nevertheless, I fear, be a
crime if I were to cause one more death by murdering a birth controller.
Section 2. REFLECTED IN THE NORMAL CONSCIENCE
In common with irrational animals we have instincts, appetites, and
passions; but, unlike the animals, we have the power to reflect whether an
action is right or wrong in itself apart from its consequences. This power
of moral judgment is called conscience; and it is conscience which reflects
the natural law (the Divine Nature expressed in creation). As conscience,
when violated, can and does give rise to an unpleasant feeling of shame in
the mind, we have good reason to believe that it exists for the purpose of
preventing us from doing shameful actions, just as our eyes are intended,
amongst other things, to prevent us from walking over precipices. Moreover,
if the conscience is active, instructed, and unbiassed, it will invariably
give the correct answer to any question of right or wrong.
It is possible to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no ordinary
decent man or woman approaches or begins the practice of artificial birth
control without experiencing at first unpleasant feelings of uneasiness,
hesitation, repugnance, shame, and remorse. Later on these feelings may be
overcome by habit, for the voice of conscience will cease when it has been
frequently ignored. This does not alter the fact that at first the natural
moral instincts of both men and women do revolt against these practices. To
the conscience of mankind birth control is a shameful action.
Section 3. EXPRESSED IN THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS
The dictates of conscience go to form the science of ethics. According to
ethics, the practice of birth control means the doing of an act whilst at
the same time frustrating the object for which the act is intended. It is
like using language to conceal the truth, or using appetite so as to injure
rather than to promote health. During the decline of the Roman Empire men
gorged themselves with food, took an emetic, vomited, and then sat down to
eat again. They satiated their appetite and frustrated the object for which
appetite is intended. The practice of birth control is parallel to this
piggishness. No one can deny that the sexual impulse has for aim the
procreation of children. The birth controllers seek to gratify the impulse,
yet to defeat the aim; and they are so honest in their mistaken convictions
that, when faced with this argument, they boldly adopt an attitude which
spells intellectual and moral anarchy. They say that it is simply a waste
of time to discuss the moral aspect of this practice. Without being able
to dispute the truth that birth control is against nature, conscience, and
ethics, they attempt to prove that at any rate the results of this practice
are beneficial, or in other words that a good end justifies the use of evil
means. This is a doctrine that has been universally repudiated by mankind.
[101] Nevertheless, if birth control, in spite of its being an offence
against moral and natural law, was really beneficial to humanity, then
birth controllers would be able to claim pragmatic justification for the
practices, and to argue that what actually and universally tends to the
good of mankind cannot be bad in itself. Birth control, as I have already
shown, does not conform to these conditions; therefore that argument also
fails.
Section 4. BIRTH CONTROL CONDEMNED BY PROTESTANT CHURCHES
The Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, retained and even
exaggerated certain beliefs of the undivided Catholic Church. None of them
doubted, for instance, that the Bible was the Word of God and therefore
a guide to moral conduct. They knew that artificial birth control is
forbidden by the Bible, and that in the Old Testament the punishment for
that sin was death. [102] In 1876, when Charles Bradlaugh advocated in a
notorious pamphlet the practice of birth control, his views were denounced
from every Protestant pulpit in the land, and were widely repudiated by
the upper and middle classes of England. But it would seem that Protestant
morality is now disappearing with the spread of indifferentism, and the
Protestant Churches have no longer the same influence on the public and
private life of the nation. Protestantism has lasted for 400 years, but
though it has lasted longer than any other form of belief which took rise
in the sixteenth century, it is now also dying.
In 1919 the number of people over seven years of age in England who
professed belief in _any_ church was 10,833,795 (out of 40,000,000), and
the church attendance equalled 7,000,000, or about 1 out of every 5 people.
[103]
Again, a Commission appointed by the Protestant Churches to inquire into
the religious beliefs held in the British armies of the Great War has
endorsed the following statements:
"Everyone must be struck with the appalling ignorance of the simplest
religious truths. Probably 80 per cent, of these men from the Midlands
had never heard of the sacraments. . . . It is not only that the men do
not know the meaning of 'Church of England'; they are ignorant of the
historical facts of the life of our Lord. Nor must it be assumed that
this ignorance is confined to men who have passed through the
elementary schools. The same verdict is recorded upon those who have
been educated in our public schools. . . . The men are hopelessly
perplexed by the lack of Christian unity. " [104]
In my opinion these statements are exaggerations, but that was not the view
of the Commission. As regards Scotland, it has recently been stated at the
Lothian Synod of the United Free Church that in 1911 at least 37 per cent.
of the men and women of Scotland were without church connection. [105]
In 1870, of every 1,000 marriages, 760 were according to the rites of the
Established Church, but in 1919 the proportion had fallen to 597. During
the same period civil marriages without religious ceremonial increased from
98 to 231 per 1,000. [106] These figures are an index of the religious
complexion of the country. The Protestant Churches are being strangled by
the development of a germ that was inherent in them from the beginning, and
that growth is Rationalism. The majority of the upper, professional, and
artisan class can no longer be claimed as staunch Protestants, but as
vague theists; and amongst these educated people, misled by false ideas of
pleasure and by pernicious nonsense written about self-realisation, the
practice of birth control has spread most alarmingly. This is an evil
against which all religious bodies who retain a belief in the fundamental
facts of Christianity might surely unite in action.
In a Catholic country there would be no need, in the furtherance of public
welfare, to write on the evils of birth control. The teaching of the
Catholic Church would be generally accepted, and a moral law generally
accepted by the inhabitants of a country gives strength to the State. But
Great Britain, no longer Catholic, is now in some danger of ceasing to
be even a Christian country. In 1885 it was asserted, "England alone is
reported to contain some seven hundred sects, each of whom proves a whole
system of theology and morals from the Bible. " [107] Each of these that now
survives gives its own particular explanation of the law of God, which it
honestly tries to follow, but at one point or another each and every sect
differs from its neighbours. On account of these differences of opinion
many people say: "The Churches cannot agree amongst themselves as to what
is truth; they cannot all be right; it is, therefore, impossible for me to
know with certainty what to believe; and, to be quite honest, it may save
me a lot of bother just at present to have no very firm belief at all. "
This means that in Great Britain _there is no uniform moral law covering
all human conduct and generally accepted by the mass of the people_. As the
practice of artificial birth-rate control is not only contrary to Christian
morality, but is also a menace to the prosperity and well-being of the
nation, the absence of a uniform moral law, common to all the people and
forbidding this practice, is a source of grave weakness in the State.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII
A NEO-MALTHUSIAN ATTACK ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
As was proved in a previous chapter (p. 120) artificial birth control was
originally based on Atheism, and on a philosophy of moral anarchy. Further
proof of this fact is to be found in the course of a most edifying dispute
between two rival Neo-Malthusians. This quarrel is between Dr. Marie C.
Stopes, President of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial
Progress, who is not a Doctor of Medicine but of Philosophy, and Dr. Binnie
Dunlop, who is a Bachelor of Medicine: and when birth controllers fall
out we may humbly hope that truth will prevail. Dr. Stopes maintains that
artificial birth control was not an atheistic movement, whereas Dr. Binnie
Dunlop contends that the pioneers of the movement were Atheists. The
beginning of the trouble was a letter written by Dr. Stopes to the _British
Medical Journal_, in which she made the following statement:
"Dr. Martindale is reported in your pages to have given an address to
medical women in which she pointed out that the birth control movement
in England dated from the Bradlaugh trial in 1877. Had she attended the
presidential address of the Society for Constructive Birth Control she
would have learned that there was a very flourishing movement, centring
round Dr. Trall in 1866, years before Bradlaugh touched the subject,
and also a considerable movement earlier than that. This point is
important, as 'birth control' has hitherto (erroneously) been much
prejudiced in popular opinion by being supposed to be an atheistical
movement originated by Bradlaugh. " [108]
Dr. Stopes, who has been working overtime in the attempt to obtain some
religious sanction for her propaganda, is ready not only to throw the
Atheists overboard, but also to assert that a flourishing movement for
artificial birth control centred round the late Dr. Trall, who was a
Christian. Her letter was answered by Dr. Binnie Dunlop as follows:
"Dr. Marie C. Stopes, whose valuable books I constantly recommend,
protests (page 872) against the statement that the birth control
movement in England dated from the trial of Charles Bradlaugh in
1877--for re-publishing Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet, _The Fruits of
Philosophy_ because the Government had interdicted it. She must admit,
however, that there was no _organised_ movement anywhere until
Bradlaugh and the Doctors Drysdale, immediately after the trial,
founded the Malthusian League, and that the decline of Europe's
birthrate began in that year. It may now seem unfortunate that the
pioneers of the contraceptives idea, from 1818 onwards (James Mill,
Francis Place, Richard Carlile, Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Dr.
Knowlton, Dr. George Drysdale, Dr. C. R. Drysdale, and Charles
Bradlaugh), were all Free-thinkers; and Dr. Stopes harps on the
religious and praiseworthy Dr. Trall, an American, who published
_Sexual Physiology_ in 1866. But Dr. Trall was not at all a strong
advocate of contraceptive methods. After a brief but helpful reference
to the idea of placing a mechanical obstruction, such as a sponge,
against the _os uteri_, he said:
"Let it be distinctly understood that I do not approve any method for
preventing pregnancy except that of abstinence, nor any means for
producing abortion, on the ground that it is or can be in any sense
physiological. It is only the least of two evils. When people will live
physiologically there will be no need of preventive measures, nor will
there be any need for works of this kind. " [109]
That is a most informative letter. In simple language Dr. Binnie Dunlop
tells the remarkable story of how in 1876 three Atheists, merely by forming
a little Society in London, were able to cause an immediate fall in the
birth-rate of Europe. When you come to think of it, that was a stupendous
thing for any three men to have achieved. I am very glad that Dr. Binnie
Dunlop has defended the Atheists and has painted the late Dr. Trail,
despite that "brief but helpful reference," in his true colours as a
Christian. Nevertheless, Dr. Stopes had the last word:
"As regards Dr. Dunlop, he now shifts the Atheists' position by adding
the word 'organised. ' The Atheists never tire of repeating certain
definite misstatements, examples of which are: 'If it were not for the
fact that the despised Atheists, Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant,
faced imprisonment, misrepresentation, insult, and ostracism for this
cause forty-four years ago, she [Dr. Stopes] would not be able to
conduct her campaign to-day' (_Literary Guide_, November, 1921); and
'Before the Knowlton trial, neither rich nor poor knew anything worth
counting about contraceptive devices' (_Malthusian_, November 15,
1921). Variations of these statements have been incessantly made, and I
dealt with their contentions in the presidential address for the C. B. C.
Meanwhile to them I reply that: 'There has never been in this country
any law against the dissemination of properly presented birth control
information, and _before, during, and after_ the Bradlaugh trial
properly presented information on birth control was extending its range
with full liberty. ' My address is now in the press, and when published
will make public not only new matter from manuscript letters of very
early date in my possession, but other overlooked historical facts. I
have already told Dr. Dunlop I refuse to be drawn into a discussion on
facts an account of which is still in the press. " [110]
The lady, by her dissertation on the Laws of England, makes a clumsy effort
to evade the point at issue, which is quite simple, namely, whether it was
Atheists or Christians who initiated the Neo-Malthusian movement, organised
or unorganised. Dr. Binnie Dunlop has here proved his case. I also do
maintain that in this matter all credit must be given to the Atheists; and
that it would be truly contemptible to deny this fact merely in order to
pander to a popular prejudice against Atheism. Nor am I shaken in this
opinion when Dr. Stopes points out that there was a Neo-Malthusian movement
prior to 1876. Of course there was a movement, but it was always an
atheistic movement. In the past no Christian doctor, and indeed no
Christian man or woman, advocated artificial birth control. Let us give the
Neo-Malthusian his due.
Until recently both the Church of England and the medical profession
presented practically a united front against Neo-Malthusian teaching; and,
as late as 1914, the Malthusian League did not hesitate to make use of the
following calumnies, very mean, very spiteful, very imbecile:
"Take the clergy. They are the officers of a Church that has made
marriage a source of revenue and of social control; they preach from a
sacred book that bids the chosen people of God 'multiply and replenish
the earth'; they know that large families generally tend to preserve
clerical influence and authority; and they claim that every baby is a
new soul presented to God and, therefore, for His honour and glory, the
greatest possible number of souls should be produced. " [111]
That feeble attempt to poison the atmosphere was naturally ignored by
intelligent people; and more than once Lambeth has ruled that artificial
birth control is sin. Unfortunately, within the Church of England, in spite
of the Lambeth ruling, there is still discussion as to whether artificial
birth control is or is not sin, the Bishops, as a whole, making a loyal
effort to uphold Christian teaching against a campaign waged by Malthusians
in order to obtain religious sanction for their evil propaganda. Although
many Malthusians are rationalists, they are well aware that without some
religious sanction their policy could never emerge from the dim underworld
of unmentioned and unrespected things, and could never be advocated
openly in the light of day. To this end birth control is camouflaged by
pseudo-poetic and pseudo-religious phraseology, and the Anglican Church is
asked to alter her teaching. Birth controllers realise that it is useless
to ask this of the Catholic Church, a Rock in their path, but "as regards
the Church of England, which makes no claim to infallibility, the case is
different, and discussion is possible. " [112]
Let us consider, firstly, the teaching of the Church of England on this
matter. At the Lambeth Conference of 1908 the Bishops affirmed "that
deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality. "
In 1914 a Committee of Bishops issued a Memorandum [113] in which
artificial birth control is condemned as "dangerous, demoralising, and
sinful. " The memorandum was approved by a large majority of the Diocesan
Bishops, although in the opinion of Dean Inge "this is emphatically a
matter in which every man and woman must judge for themselves, and must
refrain from judging others. " [114] The Bishops also held that in some
marriages it may be desirable, on grounds of prudence or of health, to
limit the number of children. In these circumstances they advised the
practice of self-restraint; and, as regards a limited use of marriage, they
added the following statement:
"It seems to most of us only a legitimate application of such
self-restraint that in certain cases (which only the parties' own
judgment and conscience can settle) intercourse should be restricted by
consent to certain times at which it is less likely to lead to
conception. This is only to use natural conditions; it is approved by
good medical authority; it means self-denial and not self-indulgence.
And we believe it to be quite legitimate, or at least not to be
condemned. "
A _small_ minority of Bishops held that prolonged or even perpetual
abstinence from intercourse is the only legitimate method of limiting a
family. Finally, in Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference in 1920, the
Bishops stated that:
"We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for
the avoidance of conception, together with the grave
dangers--physical, moral, and religious--thereby incurred, and against
the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In
opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and
religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of
sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must
always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian
marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage
exists--namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and
heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married
life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. " [115]
And the Committee on "Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality" felt called
upon "to utter an earnest warning against the use of any unnatural means by
which conception is frustrated. " [116]
If Resolution 68 be read in conjunction with the Memorandum of 1914, the
teaching of the Church of England is plain to any sane man or woman; it is
one with the teaching of the Church Catholic. Artificial birth control is
condemned as sin, but, under certain circumstances, the limitation of a
family by continence or by _restricted intercourse_ is permitted. As this
teaching forbids Neo-Malthusian practices, birth controllers have tried to
make the Church alter her teaching to suit their opinions. Although their
methods in controversy against the Church must be condemned by everyone who
values intellectual honesty, the reader, of his charity, should remember
that Malthusians are unable to defend their policy, either on logical or on
moral grounds. Without attempting to prove that the teaching of the
Church is wrong, birth controllers began the attack by _a complete
misrepresentation_ of what that teaching actually is. This unenviable task
was undertaken by Lord Dawson of Penn, at the Birmingham Church Congress of
1921.
After quoting Resolution 68, Lord Dawson said:
"Now the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should
take place for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as
_an_ end in itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all
agree), but sexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned.
"That means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_
for the purpose of procreation.
"Quite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual
unions. For the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not
having procreation as its intention is 'sexual union as an end in
itself,' and therefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth
Conference.
"Think of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage,
our honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the
physical expression of our love without thought or intention of
procreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks
that vital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the
gulf between her and the people?
"The love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate,
joyless thing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to
the real thing as practised by clergy and laity.
"Fancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is
not ardent? )--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile,
ambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard.
Fancy putting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys
before them--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain
their confidence? " [117]
That sort of appeal is not very effective, even as rhetoric; but it is very
easy to give an exact parallel. Fancy a fond father (and what respect have
you for a father who is not fond? ) being told by his daughter's suitor that
he, his prospective son-in-law, looked forward to the physical joys of
marriage, but intended to insist on his wife using contraceptives. Would
any father regard such a one as the type he would like his daughter to
marry?
There is, unfortunately, another answer to Lord Dawson, and I put it in the
form of a question. Can any intelligent man or woman, Catholic, Protestant,
or rationalist, maintain that Lord Dawson has given a fair, a true, or an
honest statement of the teaching of the Church of England? Moreover, it
is past all understanding how a gross libel on Anglican doctrine has been
overlooked by those most concerned. The address is actually hailed
as "wise, bold, and humane in the highest sense of the word" by _The
Spectator_, [118] and that amazing journal, "expert as ever in making the
worse appear the better cause in a way that appeals to clergymen," goes on
to say: "Lord Dawson fearlessly and plainly opposed the teachings of the
Roman Church and the alleged teachings of the Anglican. "
Having by a travesty of truth created a false theological bogey, bearing
little resemblance either to Catholic or to Anglican teaching, Lord Dawson
proceeds to demolish his own creation by a somewhat boisterous eulogy of
sex-love. Now sex-love is an instinct and involves no question of good
or evil apart from the circumstances in which it is either gratified or
denied; but, in view of the freedom with which Lord Dawson discussed this
topic, it is only right to note that it was left to the Rev. R. J.
notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are
spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy
these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their
large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their
group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no
instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by
others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;
prudence and selfishness are not identical.
"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed
the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two
girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,
married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the
parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no
foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her
worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not
marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and
its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful
choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had
had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to
themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her
confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his
work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an
added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest
men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in
his house for stray boys he thought he should help.
"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required
management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra
qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there
to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial
usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation
to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost
forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "
Dr. W. E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover,
he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight
and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack
these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this
game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer,
no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann
concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to
see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this
game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence
of children.
_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_
In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:
"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual
poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a
week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,
because very few of the children of small families die or grow up
weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much
happier. " [94]
The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high
birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II),
and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the
English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very
poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control.
Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type
of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst
the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as
stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than
about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual
extinction.
"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly
favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a
given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to
inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this
important point the records of the University of London Eugenics
Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate
thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the
small family, that gives the best children_.
"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less
intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far
from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.
"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the
development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.
"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health
is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health
of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.
"6. A study of history does not show that nations with low birth-rates
have been able to attain to a higher level of civilisation. Such
nations have been thrust into the background by their hardier
neighbours. " [95]
Moreover, M. Leroy-Beaulieu, in _La Question de la Population_ [96] states
that those districts of France which show an exceptionally low birthrate
are distinguished by a peculiar atmosphere of materialism, and that their
inhabitants exhibit, in a high degree, an attitude of mind well named
_l'esprit arriviste_--the desire to concentrate on outward success, to push
on, to be climbers, to advance themselves and their children in fashionable
society. This spirit means the willing sacrifice of all ideals of ethics
or of patriotism to family egoism. To this mental attitude, and to the
corresponding absence of religion, he attributes the decline of population.
In conclusion the following evidence is quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"The _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for July 1911 contains a valuable account,
by a doctor resident in Gascony, of the state of things in that part of
France (where, it will be remembered, the birth-rate is especially
low). He expresses with the utmost emphasis the conviction that the
Gascons are deteriorating, physically and mentally, and points out, at
the same time, that the decline of population has had an injurious
effect upon the economic condition of the country. 'L'hyponatalité est
une cause précise et directe de la dégénérescence de la race,' he
writes. And, dealing with the belief that a low birthrate will result
in the development of a superior type of child, he says: 'C'est une
illusion qui ne résiste pas à la lumière des faits tels que les montre
l'étude démographique de nos villages gascons. Depuis que beaucoup de
bancs restent vides à la petite école, les écoliers ne sont ni mieux
doués, ni plus travailleurs, et ils sont certainement moins vigoureux. '
And again, 'La quantité est en général la condition première et
souveraine de la qualité. '" [97]
Section 8. THE PLOT AGAINST CHRISTENDOM
All purposive actions are ultimately based on philosophy of one sort or
another. If, for example, we find a rich man founding hospitals for the
poor, we may assume that he believes in the principle of Charity. It
is, therefore, of prime importance to determine what kind of philosophy
underlies Neo-Malthusian propaganda. The birth controllers profess to
be actuated solely by feelings of compassion and of benevolence towards
suffering humanity; and it is on these grounds that they are appealing to
the Church of England to bless their work, or at least to lend to
their propaganda a cloak of respectability. Now, the very fact that
Neo-Malthusians are sincere in their mistaken and dangerous convictions
makes it all the more necessary that we should discover the doctrines
on which their propaganda was originally based; because, although their
economic fallacies were borrowed from Malthus, their philosophy came from a
different source.
This philosophy is to be found, naked and unashamed, in a book entitled
_The Elements of Social Science_. I have already referred to this work
as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and its teaching has been endorsed as
recently as 1905 by the official journal of the Malthusian League, as
witness the following eulogy, whose last lines recall the happy days of
Bret Harte in the Far West, and the eloquent periods of our old and valued
friend Colonel Starbottle:
"This work should be read by all followers of J. S. Mill, Garnier, and
the Neo-Malthusian school of economists. We could give a long criticism
of the many important chapters in this book; but, as we might be
considered as prejudiced in its favour because of our agreement with
its aims, we prefer to cite the opinion given by the editor of that
widely circulated and most enlightened paper _The Weekly Times and
Echo_, which appears in its issue of October 8. " [98]
Before quoting from the book an explanation is due to my readers. I do not
suggest that all of those who are to-day supporting the propaganda for
artificial birth control would agree with its foolish blasphemies and
drivelling imbecilities; but it is nevertheless necessary to quote these
things, because our birth controllers are too wise in their day and
generation to reveal to the public, still less to the Church of England,
_the philosophy on which Neo-Malthusianism was originally based, and from
which it has grown_. Moreover, the Malthusians claim that it was the author
of the _Elements of Social Science_ "who interested Mr. Charles Bradlaugh
and Mrs. Annie Besant in the question. " [99] Four quotations from the last
edition of the book will suffice:
"But this is a certain truth, that any human being, any one of us,
no matter how fallen and degraded, is an infinitely more glorious
and adorable being than any God that ever was or will be
conceived" (p. 413).
In justice to the memory of John Stuart Mill, whom Malthusians are ever
quoting, it should be noted that the foregoing blasphemy is nothing more
nor less than a burlesque of Positivism or of Agnosticism. The teaching of
Mill, Bain, and of Herbert Spencer was that the knowledge of God and of
His nature is impossible, because our senses are the _only_ source of
knowledge. Their reasoning was wrong--because a primary condition of all
knowledge is memory, in itself an intuition, because primary mathematical
axioms are intellectual intuitions, and because mind has the power of
abstraction; but, even so, not one of these men was capable of having
written the above-quoted passage. The next quotation refers to marriage.
"Marriage is based upon the idea that constant and unvarying love is
the only one which is pure and honourable, and which should be
recognised as morally good. But there could not be a greater error than
this. Love is, like all other human passions and appetites, subject to
change, deriving a great part of its force and continuance from variety
in its objects; and to attempt to fix it to an invariable channel is to
try to alter the laws of its nature"(p. 353).
That quotation is an example of how evil ideas may arise from muddled
thinking: because if the word "lust" be substituted for the word "love" in
the third sentence, the remaining forty-five words would merely convey a
simple truth, expressed by Kipling in two lines:
"For the more you 'ave known o' the others
The less will you settle to one. "
Very few people, I suppose, are so foolish as to believe that man is by
nature either a chaste or a constant animal, and indeed in this respect he
appears to his disadvantage when compared with certain varieties of birds,
which are _by nature_ constant to each other. On the other hand, millions
of people believe that man is able to overcome his animal nature; and for
the past two thousand years the civilised races of the world have held
that this is a goal towards which mankind should strive. In the opinion of
Christendom chastity and marriage are both morally good, but, according to
the philosophy of our Neo-Malthusian author, they are morally evil.
"Chastity, or complete sexual abstinence, so far from being a virtue,
is invariably a great natural sin" (p. 162).
Is it not obvious that to the writers of such passages love is synonymous
with animalism, with lust? It is by no means necessary to go to saints or
to moralists for a refutation of this Neo-Malthusian philosophy. Does any
decent ordinary man or woman agree with it? Ask the man in the street. Turn
the pages of our literature. Refer to Chaucer or Spenser, to Shakespeare or
Milton, refer to Fielding or Burns or Scott or Tennyson. Some of these men
were very imperfect; but they all knew the difference between lust and
love; and it is because they can tell us at least something of that which
is precious, enduring, ethereal, and divine in love that we read their
pages and honour their names. Not one of these men could have written the
following sentence:
"Marriage distracts our attention from the real sexual
duties, and this is one of its worst effects" (p. 366).
Now it is certain that if "the real sexual duties" are represented by
promiscuous fornication, then both marriage and chastity are evil things.
That philosophy is very old. From time immemorial--it has been advocated by
one of the most powerful intelligences in the universe. Such is the soil
on which the Neo-Malthusian fungus has grown--a soil that would rot the
foundations of Europe.
[Footnote 66: _The Lancet_, May 14, 1921, p. 1024]
[Footnote 67: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 93. ]
[Footnote 68: _The Small Family System_, 2nd edit. , p. 2. ]
[Footnote 69: _Supplement to The British Medical Journal_, March 18, 1905,
p. 110. ]
[Footnote 70: _Common Sense on the Population Question_, by Teresa
Billington-Greig, p. 4. Published by the Malthusian League. ]
[Footnote 71: _Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921. ]
[Footnote 72: _Suppl. Qu_. 49, Art. 6: "_Voluptates meretricias vir in
uxore quoerit quando nihil aliud in ea attendit quam quod in meretrice
attenderet_" (A husband seeks from his wife harlot pleasures when he asks
from her only what he might ask from a harlot). Quoted by the Rev. Vincent
McNabb, O. P. , _The Catholic Gazette_, September 1921, p. 195. ]
[Footnote 73: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 169. ]
[Footnote 74: Reproduced in fourth edition, 1861. ]
[Footnote 75: _Essays in Medical Sociology_, 1899. Revised and printed
for private circulation, p. 95, (Copy in Library of Royal Society of
Medicine). ]
[Footnote 76: _British Medical Journal_, August 20, 1921, p. 302. ]
[Footnote 77: St. Matt. xviii. 6. ]
[Footnote 78: _Proceedings of the Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921]
[Footnote 79: "That arrangement of society in which so considerable a
number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to
labour for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp
the whole community with the mark of such labour we call The Servile
State. "--Hilaire Belloc, _The Servile State_, 1912, p. 16. ]
[Footnote 80: The Secretary of the Malthusian League. Vide _The Declining
Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 89. ]
[Footnote 81: _The Declining Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 37. ]
[Footnote 82: Dominions Royal Commission, Memorandum and Tables relating to
the Food and Raw Material Requirements of the United Kingdom: prepared by
the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of
Certain Portions of His Majesty's Dominions. November, 1915, pp. 1 and 2.
My italics--H. G. S. ]
[Footnote 83: i. e. grain, wheatmeal, and flour]
[Footnote 84: For particulars of this increase see Canada Year Book 1913,
p. 144. ]
[Footnote 85: See pp. 387-8 of [Cd. 6588]. ]
[Footnote 86: Average for period 1907-1910 and excluding British Columbia,
where the yield per acre in 1911, the only year for which figures are
available, averaged 29-37 bushels. ]
[Footnote 87: Including British Columbia. ]
[Footnote 88: Below the average. The yield per acre in 1912 was 12. 53
bushels, and in 1913 11. 18. ]
[Footnote 89: The Observer, Nov. 11, 1921. ]
[Footnote 90: _Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_, by Norman Macleod,
D. D. , 1876, p. 27. ]
[Footnote 91: Ibid. , p. 34. ]
[Footnote 92: Ibid. , p. 91. ]
[Footnote 93: British Medical Journal, August 13, 1921, p. 261. ]
[Footnote 94: Leaflet of the Malthusian League. ]
[Footnote 95: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914, p. 153. My
italics. --H. G. S. ]
[Footnote 96: Quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth, _The Hibbert Journal_,
October 1914, p. 153. ]
[Footnote 97: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914. ]
[Footnote 98: _The Malthusian_, November 1905, p. 84]
[Footnote 99: C. V. Drysdale, O. B. E. , D. Sc. , _The Small Family System_,
1918, p. 150. ]
CHAPTER VIII
THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL
Section 1. AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAW OF NATURE
Birth control is against the law of nature, which Christians believe to be
the reflection of the divine law in human affairs, and any violation of
this law was held to be vicious even by the ancient pagan world.
To this
argument an advocate of birth control has made answer:
"We interfere with nature at every point--we shave, cut our hair, cook
our food, fill cavities in our teeth (or wear artificial teeth), clothe
ourselves, wear boots, hats, and wash our faces, so why should birth
alone be sacred from the touch and play of human moulding? " [100]
Why? For a very simple reason. Birth control belongs to the moral sphere;
it essentially affects man's progress in good, whereas all the other things
that he mentions have no more moral significance than has the practice of
agriculture. Regarded in the light of the law of nature they are neutral
actions, neither good nor bad in themselves, raising no question of right
or wrong, and having no real bearing on the accomplishment of human
destiny. To make no distinction between the merely physical law of nature
(expressed in the invariable tendency of everything to act according to
its kind) and the natural moral law which governs human conduct, is to
pronounce oneself a materialist. Yet even a materialist ought to denounce
the practice of birth control, as it violates the laws of nature which
regulate physical well-being. "But," says the materialist, "it is not
possible for anyone to act against nature, because all actions take place
_in_ nature, and therefore every act is a natural act. " Quite so: in that
sense murder is a natural act; even unnatural vice is a natural act. Will
any one defend them? There is a natural law in the physical world, and
there is a natural law in conscience--a law of right conduct. Certain
actions are under the control of the human will, which is able to rebel
against the moral law of nature, and the pagan poet Aeschylus traces all
human sorrow to "the perverse human will omnipresent. "
As birth control means the deliberate frustration of a natural act
which might have issued in a new life, it is an unnatural crime, and is
stigmatised by theologians as a sin akin to murder. To this charge birth
controllers further reply that millions of the elements of procreation are
destroyed by Nature herself, and that "to add one more to these millions
sacrificed by Nature is surely no crime. " This attempt at argument is
pathetic. If these people knew even the A. B. C. of biology, they would know
that millions of those elements are allowed to perish by Nature for a
definite purpose--namely, _to make procreation more certain_. It is in
order that the one may achieve the desired end that it is reinforced by
millions of others. Moreover, although millions of deaths in the world
occur every year from natural causes, it would nevertheless, I fear, be a
crime if I were to cause one more death by murdering a birth controller.
Section 2. REFLECTED IN THE NORMAL CONSCIENCE
In common with irrational animals we have instincts, appetites, and
passions; but, unlike the animals, we have the power to reflect whether an
action is right or wrong in itself apart from its consequences. This power
of moral judgment is called conscience; and it is conscience which reflects
the natural law (the Divine Nature expressed in creation). As conscience,
when violated, can and does give rise to an unpleasant feeling of shame in
the mind, we have good reason to believe that it exists for the purpose of
preventing us from doing shameful actions, just as our eyes are intended,
amongst other things, to prevent us from walking over precipices. Moreover,
if the conscience is active, instructed, and unbiassed, it will invariably
give the correct answer to any question of right or wrong.
It is possible to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no ordinary
decent man or woman approaches or begins the practice of artificial birth
control without experiencing at first unpleasant feelings of uneasiness,
hesitation, repugnance, shame, and remorse. Later on these feelings may be
overcome by habit, for the voice of conscience will cease when it has been
frequently ignored. This does not alter the fact that at first the natural
moral instincts of both men and women do revolt against these practices. To
the conscience of mankind birth control is a shameful action.
Section 3. EXPRESSED IN THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS
The dictates of conscience go to form the science of ethics. According to
ethics, the practice of birth control means the doing of an act whilst at
the same time frustrating the object for which the act is intended. It is
like using language to conceal the truth, or using appetite so as to injure
rather than to promote health. During the decline of the Roman Empire men
gorged themselves with food, took an emetic, vomited, and then sat down to
eat again. They satiated their appetite and frustrated the object for which
appetite is intended. The practice of birth control is parallel to this
piggishness. No one can deny that the sexual impulse has for aim the
procreation of children. The birth controllers seek to gratify the impulse,
yet to defeat the aim; and they are so honest in their mistaken convictions
that, when faced with this argument, they boldly adopt an attitude which
spells intellectual and moral anarchy. They say that it is simply a waste
of time to discuss the moral aspect of this practice. Without being able
to dispute the truth that birth control is against nature, conscience, and
ethics, they attempt to prove that at any rate the results of this practice
are beneficial, or in other words that a good end justifies the use of evil
means. This is a doctrine that has been universally repudiated by mankind.
[101] Nevertheless, if birth control, in spite of its being an offence
against moral and natural law, was really beneficial to humanity, then
birth controllers would be able to claim pragmatic justification for the
practices, and to argue that what actually and universally tends to the
good of mankind cannot be bad in itself. Birth control, as I have already
shown, does not conform to these conditions; therefore that argument also
fails.
Section 4. BIRTH CONTROL CONDEMNED BY PROTESTANT CHURCHES
The Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, retained and even
exaggerated certain beliefs of the undivided Catholic Church. None of them
doubted, for instance, that the Bible was the Word of God and therefore
a guide to moral conduct. They knew that artificial birth control is
forbidden by the Bible, and that in the Old Testament the punishment for
that sin was death. [102] In 1876, when Charles Bradlaugh advocated in a
notorious pamphlet the practice of birth control, his views were denounced
from every Protestant pulpit in the land, and were widely repudiated by
the upper and middle classes of England. But it would seem that Protestant
morality is now disappearing with the spread of indifferentism, and the
Protestant Churches have no longer the same influence on the public and
private life of the nation. Protestantism has lasted for 400 years, but
though it has lasted longer than any other form of belief which took rise
in the sixteenth century, it is now also dying.
In 1919 the number of people over seven years of age in England who
professed belief in _any_ church was 10,833,795 (out of 40,000,000), and
the church attendance equalled 7,000,000, or about 1 out of every 5 people.
[103]
Again, a Commission appointed by the Protestant Churches to inquire into
the religious beliefs held in the British armies of the Great War has
endorsed the following statements:
"Everyone must be struck with the appalling ignorance of the simplest
religious truths. Probably 80 per cent, of these men from the Midlands
had never heard of the sacraments. . . . It is not only that the men do
not know the meaning of 'Church of England'; they are ignorant of the
historical facts of the life of our Lord. Nor must it be assumed that
this ignorance is confined to men who have passed through the
elementary schools. The same verdict is recorded upon those who have
been educated in our public schools. . . . The men are hopelessly
perplexed by the lack of Christian unity. " [104]
In my opinion these statements are exaggerations, but that was not the view
of the Commission. As regards Scotland, it has recently been stated at the
Lothian Synod of the United Free Church that in 1911 at least 37 per cent.
of the men and women of Scotland were without church connection. [105]
In 1870, of every 1,000 marriages, 760 were according to the rites of the
Established Church, but in 1919 the proportion had fallen to 597. During
the same period civil marriages without religious ceremonial increased from
98 to 231 per 1,000. [106] These figures are an index of the religious
complexion of the country. The Protestant Churches are being strangled by
the development of a germ that was inherent in them from the beginning, and
that growth is Rationalism. The majority of the upper, professional, and
artisan class can no longer be claimed as staunch Protestants, but as
vague theists; and amongst these educated people, misled by false ideas of
pleasure and by pernicious nonsense written about self-realisation, the
practice of birth control has spread most alarmingly. This is an evil
against which all religious bodies who retain a belief in the fundamental
facts of Christianity might surely unite in action.
In a Catholic country there would be no need, in the furtherance of public
welfare, to write on the evils of birth control. The teaching of the
Catholic Church would be generally accepted, and a moral law generally
accepted by the inhabitants of a country gives strength to the State. But
Great Britain, no longer Catholic, is now in some danger of ceasing to
be even a Christian country. In 1885 it was asserted, "England alone is
reported to contain some seven hundred sects, each of whom proves a whole
system of theology and morals from the Bible. " [107] Each of these that now
survives gives its own particular explanation of the law of God, which it
honestly tries to follow, but at one point or another each and every sect
differs from its neighbours. On account of these differences of opinion
many people say: "The Churches cannot agree amongst themselves as to what
is truth; they cannot all be right; it is, therefore, impossible for me to
know with certainty what to believe; and, to be quite honest, it may save
me a lot of bother just at present to have no very firm belief at all. "
This means that in Great Britain _there is no uniform moral law covering
all human conduct and generally accepted by the mass of the people_. As the
practice of artificial birth-rate control is not only contrary to Christian
morality, but is also a menace to the prosperity and well-being of the
nation, the absence of a uniform moral law, common to all the people and
forbidding this practice, is a source of grave weakness in the State.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII
A NEO-MALTHUSIAN ATTACK ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
As was proved in a previous chapter (p. 120) artificial birth control was
originally based on Atheism, and on a philosophy of moral anarchy. Further
proof of this fact is to be found in the course of a most edifying dispute
between two rival Neo-Malthusians. This quarrel is between Dr. Marie C.
Stopes, President of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial
Progress, who is not a Doctor of Medicine but of Philosophy, and Dr. Binnie
Dunlop, who is a Bachelor of Medicine: and when birth controllers fall
out we may humbly hope that truth will prevail. Dr. Stopes maintains that
artificial birth control was not an atheistic movement, whereas Dr. Binnie
Dunlop contends that the pioneers of the movement were Atheists. The
beginning of the trouble was a letter written by Dr. Stopes to the _British
Medical Journal_, in which she made the following statement:
"Dr. Martindale is reported in your pages to have given an address to
medical women in which she pointed out that the birth control movement
in England dated from the Bradlaugh trial in 1877. Had she attended the
presidential address of the Society for Constructive Birth Control she
would have learned that there was a very flourishing movement, centring
round Dr. Trall in 1866, years before Bradlaugh touched the subject,
and also a considerable movement earlier than that. This point is
important, as 'birth control' has hitherto (erroneously) been much
prejudiced in popular opinion by being supposed to be an atheistical
movement originated by Bradlaugh. " [108]
Dr. Stopes, who has been working overtime in the attempt to obtain some
religious sanction for her propaganda, is ready not only to throw the
Atheists overboard, but also to assert that a flourishing movement for
artificial birth control centred round the late Dr. Trall, who was a
Christian. Her letter was answered by Dr. Binnie Dunlop as follows:
"Dr. Marie C. Stopes, whose valuable books I constantly recommend,
protests (page 872) against the statement that the birth control
movement in England dated from the trial of Charles Bradlaugh in
1877--for re-publishing Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet, _The Fruits of
Philosophy_ because the Government had interdicted it. She must admit,
however, that there was no _organised_ movement anywhere until
Bradlaugh and the Doctors Drysdale, immediately after the trial,
founded the Malthusian League, and that the decline of Europe's
birthrate began in that year. It may now seem unfortunate that the
pioneers of the contraceptives idea, from 1818 onwards (James Mill,
Francis Place, Richard Carlile, Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Dr.
Knowlton, Dr. George Drysdale, Dr. C. R. Drysdale, and Charles
Bradlaugh), were all Free-thinkers; and Dr. Stopes harps on the
religious and praiseworthy Dr. Trall, an American, who published
_Sexual Physiology_ in 1866. But Dr. Trall was not at all a strong
advocate of contraceptive methods. After a brief but helpful reference
to the idea of placing a mechanical obstruction, such as a sponge,
against the _os uteri_, he said:
"Let it be distinctly understood that I do not approve any method for
preventing pregnancy except that of abstinence, nor any means for
producing abortion, on the ground that it is or can be in any sense
physiological. It is only the least of two evils. When people will live
physiologically there will be no need of preventive measures, nor will
there be any need for works of this kind. " [109]
That is a most informative letter. In simple language Dr. Binnie Dunlop
tells the remarkable story of how in 1876 three Atheists, merely by forming
a little Society in London, were able to cause an immediate fall in the
birth-rate of Europe. When you come to think of it, that was a stupendous
thing for any three men to have achieved. I am very glad that Dr. Binnie
Dunlop has defended the Atheists and has painted the late Dr. Trail,
despite that "brief but helpful reference," in his true colours as a
Christian. Nevertheless, Dr. Stopes had the last word:
"As regards Dr. Dunlop, he now shifts the Atheists' position by adding
the word 'organised. ' The Atheists never tire of repeating certain
definite misstatements, examples of which are: 'If it were not for the
fact that the despised Atheists, Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant,
faced imprisonment, misrepresentation, insult, and ostracism for this
cause forty-four years ago, she [Dr. Stopes] would not be able to
conduct her campaign to-day' (_Literary Guide_, November, 1921); and
'Before the Knowlton trial, neither rich nor poor knew anything worth
counting about contraceptive devices' (_Malthusian_, November 15,
1921). Variations of these statements have been incessantly made, and I
dealt with their contentions in the presidential address for the C. B. C.
Meanwhile to them I reply that: 'There has never been in this country
any law against the dissemination of properly presented birth control
information, and _before, during, and after_ the Bradlaugh trial
properly presented information on birth control was extending its range
with full liberty. ' My address is now in the press, and when published
will make public not only new matter from manuscript letters of very
early date in my possession, but other overlooked historical facts. I
have already told Dr. Dunlop I refuse to be drawn into a discussion on
facts an account of which is still in the press. " [110]
The lady, by her dissertation on the Laws of England, makes a clumsy effort
to evade the point at issue, which is quite simple, namely, whether it was
Atheists or Christians who initiated the Neo-Malthusian movement, organised
or unorganised. Dr. Binnie Dunlop has here proved his case. I also do
maintain that in this matter all credit must be given to the Atheists; and
that it would be truly contemptible to deny this fact merely in order to
pander to a popular prejudice against Atheism. Nor am I shaken in this
opinion when Dr. Stopes points out that there was a Neo-Malthusian movement
prior to 1876. Of course there was a movement, but it was always an
atheistic movement. In the past no Christian doctor, and indeed no
Christian man or woman, advocated artificial birth control. Let us give the
Neo-Malthusian his due.
Until recently both the Church of England and the medical profession
presented practically a united front against Neo-Malthusian teaching; and,
as late as 1914, the Malthusian League did not hesitate to make use of the
following calumnies, very mean, very spiteful, very imbecile:
"Take the clergy. They are the officers of a Church that has made
marriage a source of revenue and of social control; they preach from a
sacred book that bids the chosen people of God 'multiply and replenish
the earth'; they know that large families generally tend to preserve
clerical influence and authority; and they claim that every baby is a
new soul presented to God and, therefore, for His honour and glory, the
greatest possible number of souls should be produced. " [111]
That feeble attempt to poison the atmosphere was naturally ignored by
intelligent people; and more than once Lambeth has ruled that artificial
birth control is sin. Unfortunately, within the Church of England, in spite
of the Lambeth ruling, there is still discussion as to whether artificial
birth control is or is not sin, the Bishops, as a whole, making a loyal
effort to uphold Christian teaching against a campaign waged by Malthusians
in order to obtain religious sanction for their evil propaganda. Although
many Malthusians are rationalists, they are well aware that without some
religious sanction their policy could never emerge from the dim underworld
of unmentioned and unrespected things, and could never be advocated
openly in the light of day. To this end birth control is camouflaged by
pseudo-poetic and pseudo-religious phraseology, and the Anglican Church is
asked to alter her teaching. Birth controllers realise that it is useless
to ask this of the Catholic Church, a Rock in their path, but "as regards
the Church of England, which makes no claim to infallibility, the case is
different, and discussion is possible. " [112]
Let us consider, firstly, the teaching of the Church of England on this
matter. At the Lambeth Conference of 1908 the Bishops affirmed "that
deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality. "
In 1914 a Committee of Bishops issued a Memorandum [113] in which
artificial birth control is condemned as "dangerous, demoralising, and
sinful. " The memorandum was approved by a large majority of the Diocesan
Bishops, although in the opinion of Dean Inge "this is emphatically a
matter in which every man and woman must judge for themselves, and must
refrain from judging others. " [114] The Bishops also held that in some
marriages it may be desirable, on grounds of prudence or of health, to
limit the number of children. In these circumstances they advised the
practice of self-restraint; and, as regards a limited use of marriage, they
added the following statement:
"It seems to most of us only a legitimate application of such
self-restraint that in certain cases (which only the parties' own
judgment and conscience can settle) intercourse should be restricted by
consent to certain times at which it is less likely to lead to
conception. This is only to use natural conditions; it is approved by
good medical authority; it means self-denial and not self-indulgence.
And we believe it to be quite legitimate, or at least not to be
condemned. "
A _small_ minority of Bishops held that prolonged or even perpetual
abstinence from intercourse is the only legitimate method of limiting a
family. Finally, in Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference in 1920, the
Bishops stated that:
"We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for
the avoidance of conception, together with the grave
dangers--physical, moral, and religious--thereby incurred, and against
the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In
opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and
religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of
sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must
always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian
marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage
exists--namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and
heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married
life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. " [115]
And the Committee on "Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality" felt called
upon "to utter an earnest warning against the use of any unnatural means by
which conception is frustrated. " [116]
If Resolution 68 be read in conjunction with the Memorandum of 1914, the
teaching of the Church of England is plain to any sane man or woman; it is
one with the teaching of the Church Catholic. Artificial birth control is
condemned as sin, but, under certain circumstances, the limitation of a
family by continence or by _restricted intercourse_ is permitted. As this
teaching forbids Neo-Malthusian practices, birth controllers have tried to
make the Church alter her teaching to suit their opinions. Although their
methods in controversy against the Church must be condemned by everyone who
values intellectual honesty, the reader, of his charity, should remember
that Malthusians are unable to defend their policy, either on logical or on
moral grounds. Without attempting to prove that the teaching of the
Church is wrong, birth controllers began the attack by _a complete
misrepresentation_ of what that teaching actually is. This unenviable task
was undertaken by Lord Dawson of Penn, at the Birmingham Church Congress of
1921.
After quoting Resolution 68, Lord Dawson said:
"Now the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should
take place for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as
_an_ end in itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all
agree), but sexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned.
"That means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_
for the purpose of procreation.
"Quite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual
unions. For the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not
having procreation as its intention is 'sexual union as an end in
itself,' and therefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth
Conference.
"Think of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage,
our honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the
physical expression of our love without thought or intention of
procreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks
that vital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the
gulf between her and the people?
"The love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate,
joyless thing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to
the real thing as practised by clergy and laity.
"Fancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is
not ardent? )--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile,
ambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard.
Fancy putting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys
before them--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain
their confidence? " [117]
That sort of appeal is not very effective, even as rhetoric; but it is very
easy to give an exact parallel. Fancy a fond father (and what respect have
you for a father who is not fond? ) being told by his daughter's suitor that
he, his prospective son-in-law, looked forward to the physical joys of
marriage, but intended to insist on his wife using contraceptives. Would
any father regard such a one as the type he would like his daughter to
marry?
There is, unfortunately, another answer to Lord Dawson, and I put it in the
form of a question. Can any intelligent man or woman, Catholic, Protestant,
or rationalist, maintain that Lord Dawson has given a fair, a true, or an
honest statement of the teaching of the Church of England? Moreover, it
is past all understanding how a gross libel on Anglican doctrine has been
overlooked by those most concerned. The address is actually hailed
as "wise, bold, and humane in the highest sense of the word" by _The
Spectator_, [118] and that amazing journal, "expert as ever in making the
worse appear the better cause in a way that appeals to clergymen," goes on
to say: "Lord Dawson fearlessly and plainly opposed the teachings of the
Roman Church and the alleged teachings of the Anglican. "
Having by a travesty of truth created a false theological bogey, bearing
little resemblance either to Catholic or to Anglican teaching, Lord Dawson
proceeds to demolish his own creation by a somewhat boisterous eulogy of
sex-love. Now sex-love is an instinct and involves no question of good
or evil apart from the circumstances in which it is either gratified or
denied; but, in view of the freedom with which Lord Dawson discussed this
topic, it is only right to note that it was left to the Rev. R. J.
