Chapter XLVI: 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. Campbell to add to the gaiety of nations by his subsequent protest that the _Marriage Service_ "contains expressions which are offensive to modern delicacy of feeling."

That protest is also a first-rate example of the anarchical state of the modern mind. The Rev. R.J. Campbell is a modern mind, so is Mr. George Bernard Shaw; but the latter refers to "the sober decency, earnestness, and authority" [119] of those very passages to which the former objects.

Lord Dawson's eulogy of sexual intercourse was but a prelude to his plea for the use of contraceptives:

"I will next consider Artificial Control. The forces in modern life
which make for birth control are so strong that only convincing reasons
will make people desist from it. It is said to be unnatural and
intrinsically immoral. This word 'unnatural' perplexes me. Why?
Civilisation involves the chaining of natural forces and their
conversion to man's will and uses. Much of medicine and surgery
consists of means to overcome nature."

That paragraph illustrates precisely the confused use of the word "natural," which I have already criticised (p. 124). Lord Dawson says he is perplexed, and I agree with him. Civilisation, he says, involves the conversion of natural forces to man's will. So does every crime. Is that any defence of crime? Even if physical nature be described as non-moral, that description cannot be applied to the inward nature of will and conscience. That I will an act may show it is in accordance with nature in a certain sense, but the fact of its being in accordance with physical nature does not justify my act. Does Lord Dawson agree? Or does he think that any action in accordance with the physical laws of nature, which means any action whatsoever, is justified; and does he approve therefore of mere moral anarchy? His confusion of thought concerning the use of the word "natural" is followed by the inevitable sequence of false analogies:

"When anaesthetics were first used at child-birth there was an outcry
on the part of many worthy and religious people that their use under
such circumstances was unnatural and wicked, because God meant woman to
suffer the struggles and pains of child-birth. Now we all admit it is
right to control the process of child-birth, and to save the mother as
much pain as possible. It is no more unnatural to control conception by
artificial means than to control child-birth by artificial means.
Surely the whole question turns on whether these artificial means are
for the good or harm of the individual and the community.

"Generally speaking, birth control before the first child is
inadvisable. On the other hand, the justifiable use of birth control
would seem to be to limit the number of children when such is
desirable, and to spread out their arrival in such a way as to serve
their true interests and those of their home.

"Once more, careful distinction needs to be made between the use and
the bad effects of the abuse of birth control. That its abuse produces
grave harm I fully agree--harm to parents, to families, and to the
nation. But abuse is not a just condemnation of legitimate use.
Over-eating, over-drinking, over-smoking, over-sleeping, over-work do
not carry condemnation of eating, drinking, smoking, sleeping, work."

These long extracts are here quoted because, as _The Spectator_ has remarked, "an attempt at a detailed summary might destroy the careful balance which is essential to Lord Dawson's purpose." It might indeed; and many a true word is written inadvertently and despite the wisdom of the serpent. As Lord Dawson believes that Malthusian practice is not of necessity sinful, and as he is urging the Church to remove a ban on that practice, it is necessary for him to prove in the first place that his opinion is right and that the teaching of the Church is wrong. Elsewhere in these pages I have stated _the reasons why_ Christian morality brands the _act_ of artificial birth control as intrinsically a sin, a _malum in se_, and those reasons have never been disproved by Lord Dawson or by anyone. His comparison between the use of contraceptives and eating or drinking is a false analogy. Eating is a natural act, not in itself sinful, whereas the use of contraceptives is an unnatural act, in itself a sin. The extent to which artificial birth control is practised neither increases nor diminishes the sinful nature of the act, but merely indicates the number of times the same sin is committed. Lord Dawson admits the danger of Neo-Malthusian methods being carried to excess, and counsels that these practices be used in moderation; but is it likely that those who have discarded the teaching of a Church and the dictates of the moral law will be seriously influenced by what he calls "an appeal to patriotism"?

Now there is one appeal to patriotism which Lord Dawson could have made but did not make. He might have pleaded that for the sake of the nation all attempts at unnatural birth control amongst the wealthier and more leisured citizens should be abandoned forthwith, and that the lawful form should be confined to those few cases where limitation of the family is justified on genuine medical grounds. But he refrained from making that appeal, and his plea for the use of contraceptives in moderation is more likely to be quoted with approval in the boudoirs of Mayfair than in humbler homes.

Lord Dawson's grave error in failing to anticipate the inevitable consequences of his deplorable speech is becoming more and more apparent. In the columns of _The Daily Herald_, cheek by jowl with advertisements concerning "Herbalists," "Safe and Sure Treatment for Anaemia, Irregularities, etc.," "Knowledge for Young Wives," and "Surgical Goods and Appliances," there appears the following notice:

"Lord Dawson, the King's Physician, says, 'Birth control has come to
stay.' Following up this honest and daring declaration, the Liberator
League have decided to distribute 10,000 copies of its publications
free to applicants sending stamped addressed envelopes to J.W. Gott,
Secretary ... London, N.W.5."

A stamped addressed envelope brought in return sample copies of two undated newsprints, entitled _The Rib Tickler_ and _The Liberator_, and, to the honour of newsvendors, we learn that these papers are "not supplied by newsagents." The first print is devoted to Blasphemy, and the second to Birth Control. Both papers are edited by J.W. Gott, "of London, Leeds, Liverpool, and other prisons," who, when he is not in jail for selling blasphemous or obscene literature, earns a livelihood by a propaganda of "Secularism, Socialism, and Neo-Malthusianism," combined with the sale of contraceptives. At Birmingham in 1921 this individual, according to his own statement, was charged, on eleven summonses, with having sent "an obscene book" and "obscene literature" through the post, and with "publishing a blasphemous libel of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion." "The Malthusian League (at their own expense, for which I here wish to thank them) sent their Hon. Secretary, Dr. Binnie Dunlop, who gave evidence" ... that the Council of the Malthusian League ... "most strongly protests against the description of G. Hardy's book, _How to prevent Pregnancy_, as obscene, for that book gives in a perfectly refined and scientific way this urgently needed information." This opinion was not shared by the jury, who brought in a verdict of guilty, and Gott was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. From the _Liberator_ we learn that the Treasurer of the Liberator League was fined £20, having been found guilty on the following summons--"for that you on the eleventh day of September 1920, at the Parish of Consett, in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and scandalously did sell to divers persons, whose names are unknown, in a public street, there situate, a certain lewd, wicked, scandalous, and obscene print entitled 'Large or Small Families,' against the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, His Crown and Dignity."

Lord Dawson's advice was indeed perilous because "the British Empire and all its traditions will decline and fall if the Motherland is faithless to motherhood"; [120] and the nation would do better to pay heed to the following words of His Majesty the King: "The foundations of national glory are in the homes of the people. They will only remain unshaken while the family life of our race and nation is strong, simple, and pure."

All Lord Dawson's arguments are hoary fallacies. "Once more, careful distinction needs to be made between"--anaesthetics and contraceptives. Anaesthetics assist the birth of a child, whereas contraceptives frustrate the act of procreation. The old explanation that man's progress has been achieved by harnessing and not by opposing the forces of nature is dismissed with ignominy. The age-long teaching of Hippocrates that the healing art was based on the _Vis Medicatrix Naturae_ is overthrown by Lord Dawson of Penn, in a single sentence; and in place of the Father of Medicine as a guide to health of body and mind, there comes the King's Physician:

"To pestle a poison'd poison behind his crimson lights."

When a great leader announces the birth of a new epoch, it is meet that the rank and file remain silent; and at this Congress of the Church of England no jarring interruptions marred the solemnity of the moment. No old-fashioned doctor was there to utter a futile protest, and there was no simple-minded clergyman to rise in the name of Christ and give Lord Dawson the lie. Without dissent, on a public platform of the Established Church, presided over by a Bishop, and in full view of the nation, "the moth-eaten mantle of Malthus, the godless robe of Bradlaugh, and the discarded garments of Mrs. Besant," [121] were donned--by the successor of Lister. It was a proud moment for the birth controllers, but for that national institution called "Ecclesia Anglicana" a moment full of shame.

[Footnote 100: _British Medical Journal_, August 6, 1921, p. 219.]

[Footnote 101: There is, or perhaps we should say there was, a legacy of 1,000 Rhenish guilders awaiting anyone who, in the judgment of the faculty of law in the University of Heidelberg or of Bonn, is able to establish the fact that any Jesuit ever taught this doctrine or anything equivalent to it. Vide _The Antidote_, vol. iii, p. 125, C.T.S., London.]

[Footnote 102: Gen. xxxviii. 9-10]

[Footnote 103: Vide _Catholic Times_, August 27, 1921, p. 7.]

[Footnote 104: _The Army and Religion_, 1919, p. 448.]

[Footnote 105: _Universe_, November 4, 1921, p. 3.]

[Footnote 106: _Eighty-second Annual Report of the Registrar-General of England and Wales_, 1919, p. xiv.]

[Footnote 107: _The Times_, January 13, 1885.]

[Footnote 108: _British Medical Journal_, November 19, 1921, p. 872.]

[Footnote 109: _British Medical Journal_, November 26, 1921, p. 924]

[Footnote 110: _British Medical Journal_, December 10, 1921, p. 1016.]

[Footnote 111: _Common Sense on the Population Question_, p. 4]

[Footnote 112: Dr. C.K. Millard, in _The Modern Churchman_, May 1919.]

[Footnote 113: Reproduced in _The Declining Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 386.]

[Footnote 114: _Outspoken Essays_, 1919, p. 75.]

[Footnote 115: _Report_, p. 44.]

[Footnote 116: Ibid., p. 112.]

[Footnote 117: _Evening Standard_, October 12, 1921.]

[Footnote 118: October 15, 1921.]

[Footnote 119: _Man and Superman_, Act III, p. 125.]

[Footnote 120: _Sunday Express_, October 16, 1921.]

[Footnote 121: On becoming a Theosophist, Mrs. Besant retracted her approval of Neo-Malthusianism.]