Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

A SHORT ANSWER TO MR. MORLEY'S SHORT LETTER.'

[ocr errors]

'Surely a day is coming when it will be known again what virtue is in purity and continence of life; how divine is the blush of young human cheeks; how high, beneficent, sternly irrevocable is the duty laid on every creature in regard to these particulars. Well, if such a day never come, then I perceive much else will never come! Magnanimity and depth of insight will never come; heroic purity of heart and of eye; noble pious valour to amend us and the age of bronze and lacquer, how can they ever come?"-THOMAS CARLYLE.

I HAVE read your letter with surprise, because I have not forgotten that at a meeting of the Woman's Suffrage Society last year, you were one of the most eloquent supporters of their movement; not on the narrow ground of the actual fitness of many intelligent women to exercise the right of citizenship, but on the broad ground of principle and justice.

You told us on that occasion (I believe I am quoting correctly the spirit, though not the letter of your address) that in a recent electoral contest you had been opposed, upon very illogical grounds, by the ignorant women of the place; but that such opposition could not blind you to the fact that it is unjust that laws equally affecting both halves of the human race, should be framed by one half only.

Is not the burden of that injustice increased when laws penally affecting one half of the human race only, are framed solely by the other half?

Another cause of surprise to me is, that, instead of devoting your wellknown powers of logic solely to the task of convincing us that we are mistaken in our aim, you concentrate much intellectual energy on the easier but less important task of pointing out to us that we have defended our aim weakly; instead of proving to us that we are in error in the special case, you reprove us for the manifold errors you believe we have committed in the past.

But, to spare your space and time, let us pass over-as immaterial to the point at issue the question whether the circulars which have so much disturbed you are well or ill written. I am willing even,-if it will lessen your annoyance, to admit that we have used precisely the arguments we ought not to have used, and avoided precisely the arguments we ought to have used.

I will also crave your permission to leave aside the question of our past misdeeds towards our servants and towards "women who have once gone wrong." If it can be shown that we are right in our belief that a great injury is done to our unhappy and degraded sisters by the Contagious Diseases Acts, that fact will be none the less true because we may have been habitually wrong in the government of our homes. The school-boy argument of "you're another" is neither very logical nor very impressive at any time, and it is altogether unsuited to a subject so sad and grave as the one we have to treat.2 The only really serious question between us is, whether the Contagious Diseases Acts are beneficial or injurious to the Nation.

(1) See Fortnightly Review for March.

(2) Since I wrote the above, it has been suggested to me that there is nothing in your letter to show that you intended to include the ladies of the committee in your reproof;

[blocks in formation]

You, in common with the rest of our opponents (doubtless on account of the 'weakness" and "windiness of our language), have entirely misconceived the meaning of our agitation for the repeal of these Acts.

You tell us that we seek "to resist a humane and expedient measure for lessening disease."

We answer that our opposition to the Acts is based upon the conviction that they are neither humane nor expedient.

You tell us that "the most competent persons are of opinion that the effect of such regulations is to check disease."

We answer that Dr. Balfour of the War Office; Mr. Simon, Medical Officer to the Privy Council; Dr. Burnays, Lecturer on Physiology at King's College; Dr. Stallard, of the Lancet; Dr. Druit, of the Medical Times and Gazette; Dr. Chapman, author of the exhaustive article on Prostitution in the Westminster Review; Dr. Drysdale, Dr. Bell Taylor, Dr. Webster, Mr. Holmes Coote of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, &c., &c., are all of them "competent persons."

We answer that the fifty medical men of Nottingham, whose "minute and erudite protest upon medical grounds extremely difficult to answer" is referred to in the forcible article against the Acts in the Daily Telegraph of the 15th March, are also "competent persons."

We answer that we have carefully studied the evidence of the first of the gentlemen I have named before the Parliamentary Committee, and the Official Report of the second, that we have heard and read the spoken and written protests of all the others; and that all these authorities confirm our view that the ulterior effect of such regulations is not to check disease, but to diffuse it over a wider area, and for reasons which they give in detail, to render it ultimately more difficult of extirpation.

The medical profession, so far as it has spoken at all, is, to say the least, divided in opinion on the subject; and of the five medical papers published in London, three are against the Acts, one is wavering, and only one is in favour of them.

You say, "It is somewhat of a paradox for the Ladies' Association out of compassion" (for prostitutes) "to suppress the tending of the sick."

We answer that, in the very circular which has so grievously troubled you, we declare our conviction that "comprehensive remedial2 mseasures are urgently called for, to which it will be necessary to direct public attention, so soon as the existing Acts are repealed;" and, indeed, one of the practical grounds upon which we seek the repeal of the existing Acts is, our belief that they stand in the way of all largely "humane and expedient measures" for the permanent 'lessening of disease."

66

But what appears most to disturb your equanimity is our declaration that even if these Acts were proved capable of stopping the ravages of disease, we should still declare them worthy of our strongest reprobation."

but I think I am right in supposing that we are included in the blame; for to tell us that although we are serious-minded and benevolent in our daily lives, some other ladies are frivolous and ungentle, would, obviously, have no bearing on the subject in question. (1) At the recent meetings on the subject held in the rooms of the Social Science Association.

(2) Some of the remedial measures suggested by our able and distinguished opponent, Mr. Acton, in his work on Prostitution, appear to us admirable. We hope to profit by them in our efforts "for the lessening of disease" so soon as these Acts are repealed.

I could hardly understand the indignation to which you are moved by this sentence, did I not recognise its source in a foregone conclusion in your own mind, derived from the language of our opponents; who invariably beg the whole question by assuming that their method of "stopping the ravages of disease" is the sole method; and also invariably assume that, because we oppose their method, we do not desire to stop the ravages of disease.

I think I am justified in believing you to be influenced by this foregone conclusion, because you add, further on, that "to sacrifice the health and vigour of unborn creatures to the rights of harlotry to spread disease without interference, is a doubtful contribution to the progress of the race." Surely, without the bias produced by some such foregone conclusion, one so logically-minded as yourself would hardly assume that because we deprecate this method of interference-being convinced by the evidence of the "competent persons" I have quoted that the apparent immediate sanatory benefit produced by the Acts is illusory, and that their ulterior effect would be injurious-we are therefore opposed to all interference whatsoever.

[ocr errors]

Suppose two surgeons to be called in to consult upon the method of curing a diseased limb. The first declares amputation to be necessary; the second declares that judicious medical treatment will cure the sore and save the limb:Would the first surgeon be justified in accusing the second of "resisting a humane and expedient measure for lessening disease ?"

Suppose the second surgeon were to say that, "even though it were proved" that amputation "would stop the ravages of disease," he should still declare the method" worthy of his strongest reprobation;" basing that reprobation on his conviction that the ravages of disease might be stopped without condemning the patient to lose his limb:-Would the first surgeon be justified in accusing the second of "refusing to mitigate the sufferings of the poor wretch?"

Suppose the friends of the patient should desire to try the curative method suggested by the second surgeon; being convinced by his arguments that amputation was not the sole method of stopping the ravages of disease: Would the first surgeon be justified in accusing them of "sacrificing the health and vigour" of the patient "without interference," simply because their method of interference differed from his own? or in telling them that it was "something of a paradox for them, out of compassion " for a diseased limb "to suppress the tending of the sick," because they desired to tend the sick on a plan that differed from his own?

Now as to what you say of punishment. You tell us that "people insist on shutting their eyes to the existence among us of masses of men and women who are virtually in the condition of barbarians, and whose practices can only be repressed by the same wisely coercive methods which have always been essential to raise a barbarous community into a civilised state."

I doubt the expediency of such methods in the present case; but surely if any are deserving of punishment for sexual license or depravity, it is not the wretched prostitutes whose position deprives them of all power of choice among the companions of their "practices;" but the married frequenters of brothels, who are the immediate and active agents in spreading disease to their innocent wives and children. Who has given them the "right of spreading disease without interference ?"

Miss Garrett1 tells us that the injustice of applying these measures to women only, is merely apparent; because there is "no parallel class" of male sinners. Dr. Webster, at the late meeting of the Social Science Association, answered this objection in part, by reminding us that in the military and naval stations, there is a scarcely-to-be-mentioned class of men, far more degraded than the prostitutes upon whose degradation they live-" barbarians, whose practices" it has not been thought necessary "wisely to repress by coercion."

Are not brothel-keepers a class? Yet, so far from wisely coercing them into civilisation, our opponents are quite eloquent upon the improved cleanliness and decency (!) of these barbarians.

No class of criminals was ever yet known to classify itself, in order to facilitate penal legislation; but, if desirable, nothing could be easier than for the Government to employ the same detectives in plain clothes, who now watch over and entrap the women, to watch over and entrap the male frequenters of brothels (who are well known to them), and to classify them at once. God forbid that I should advocate such a system; but those who consider it just and wise to apply it to the weak, should be the first to recommend its extension to the strong.

I have dwelt thus far on the tragic aspect of this matter. It has also its grimly comic side. Our opponents tell us that provision is made by these measures for the reformation of the women, "as far as is consistent with the spirit and intentions of the Acts," and they quote with satisfaction the evidence of certain chaplains, and amongst others the chaplain to the hospital at Chatham, who, when asked "whether any other way would be so effectual with a view to the reformation of the women, as the mode under this Act, of committing them to to the hospital," answers, "No; I cannot see that any other plan could be devised;" and goes on to explain this by saying, “because we have no other means of coming in contact with the women than by meeting them at the hospital!"

If the subject were not too sad and serious for laughter, there would be something irresistibly farcical in the spectacle of these Christian shepherds, who cannot devise any other method of coming in contact with the erring sheep among their flocks than their imprisonment in Lock hospitals by the police! One could fancy one's self listening to Mephistophiles, performing the part of Tartuffe, with embellishments of his own invention.

Another painfully ludicrous aspect of the matter is the declaration repeatedly made by the framers and supporters of the measure, that "it is popular with the women;" they come "willingly" (why then enforce their compliance by penal laws?) to enjoy the benefits of this "humane and expedient measure." Yet all our opponents with one voice declare that this beneficent measure cannot be applied to men, because “ they would not submit to it."

Strange and unique instance of masculine abnegation!

Suppose a case; I admit it to be a quasi-impossible one; but let us, for the sake of illustration, suppose a Board of Guardians to introduce a really humane

(1) If you had not spoken approvingly of Miss Garrett's letter, I should willingly have abstained from all allusion to a lady who can publicly advocate these Acts on the ground that they prevent her sister women from returning to the trade of prostitution "long before they are in a fit condition to do so." I am glad to believe the opinion unique, that any condition of bodily health can render women fit for prostitution.

and expedient measure for lessening disease and suffering in the workhouse of their parish, and to try the effect of plentiful and wholesome food, clean beds, excellent ventilation, and, above all, first-rate medical attendance, with tender and gentle nursing:-Can you conceive that they would find it impossible to carry out the measure on any but female paupers, because the manly pride of the males would not submit to it? Can you conceive that the female paupers would require to be alternately driven or entrapped into these ideal workhouses by the police? To my poor mind it seems likely that there would be such a rush of males to enter them, that if the police were required at all, it would be to allow some few poor women a chance.

[ocr errors]

Prostitution is, you say, a fact of which we are bound to take cognizance." Granted; but that cognizance must be wise, just, and consistent. What should we say of a father who helplessly declared to us: "My son has acquired such a vile habit of drunkenness, that I am obliged to go to an enormous expense in order to provide him with specially chosen and medicated wines, so that his constitution (and, consequently, that of his innocent offspring) may suffer as little as is compatible with that habit ?" Should we not advise him first to put every obstacle in the way of such excess, and then seriously and earnestly to endeavour to teach his son the duty of temperance and self-control; assuring him that when the young man had once acquired the self-respect and true dignity of manhood, it would no longer be necessary to watch over him like a greedy child.

We have been accustomed to cherish the "weak and windy" notion that it is the first duty of a constitutional Government to represent the moral force of the nation, and to instruct as well as restrain the people, by giving them good and sufficient moral reasons for every penal law.

Now if as many of the supporters of these Acts affirm-prostitution is a necessity, in order to avert the greater suffering and evil that would arise from continence, then it cannot be a sin; and it would be well for us all that our rulers should make up their minds which they believe it to be, and give the weak and illogical of the ruled a reason for the license allowed or the coercion enforced. They might be mistaken in their decision, for even our legislators are human; but if they were to state their belief openly, and act up to it consistently, they would not be absurd.

If they believe prostitution to be a necessity, it is their duty to afford the tenderest care, encouragement and shelter, as well as the best medical aid, to the victims sacrificed to the cause of national health; so as to render their loathsome duties (!) less painful and less dangerous.

If they believe prostitution to be a sin, it is their duty seriously to exert the moral and physical force at their command to restrain the "barbarians" of both sexes, "whose practices can only be repressed by the same wisely coercive methods which have always been essential to raise a barbarous community to a civilised state."

There is no rational or moral middle course.

Our rulers have attempted to rush into health, precisely as the nation has rushed into disease-lightly, inconsiderately, and brutally: influenced by alarm at the physical misery resulting from the actual condition of things; but with no distinct decisive aim in view, and no thought of the future result upon the morality of the nation, which can never safely be forgotten in legislation.

« ZurückWeiter »