be indulged, to maintain the health of the creature, in fulfilling the requirements of Nature, at all hazards—with or without wedlock, per fas aut nefas. Sexual indulgence, you say, irrespective of marriage, is needful, by the stern demand of a physiological law. But God, who makes and upholds all physiological laws, says that this is fornication, a flagrant violation of his moral law; that the soul who so sinneth shall die; and that fornicators by express command, are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. According to you, there fore, the matter would stand thus; the great and good God-allmerciful as all-wise and almighty-has made man with a certain bodily appetite and function, which in obedience to God's physical laws, which regulate its workinge, requires occasional indulgence, even irrespective of that special limitation which God in his moral law has appointed; and yet, such infringement of his moral law, though necessarily arising out of his own physical law, God punishes with the highest penalty. Or, in brief, according to this popular and pernicious fallacy, God turns men into hell, for yielding to a physical necessity which he had himself ordained. This, we need not say, implies a moral impossibility."

In these remarks, Professor Miller speaks of the law of exercise and the duty founded on it, as a "popular delusion" and a "physiological heresy;" but, as the reader has seen, the necessity of sexual intercourse to the health and happiness of both man and woman is recognised, more or less clearly, not only by the common sense of mankind in general, but by a large number of the most eminent medical men in this and other countries.

With regard to Professor Miller's objections, it may be observed, in the first place, that they do not really apply to the law and duty of exercise, (against which he is ostensibly arguing), but merely to the indulgence in unmarried connections. These two questions are totally distinct from one another, and should never be confounded together. Whether sexual intercourse be necessary to the health is one question; how it should be indulged in is a totally different one. Indeed, properly speaking, there are three distinct questions involved; namely, first, Is the law of exercise true, or, in other words, is health dependent on the exercise of the sexual functions? Secondly, granting the law to be true, ought it to be observed? Thirdly, if it ought to be observed, in what manner is this to be effected--by early marriages, or in what other way? The first is a question of science or of a matter of fact: the two others are questions of art or of practical morality; and all three are quite distinct from each other. A man who rigidly adheres to the present marriage code, and condemns all unmarried connections, both may, and ought, if he attend to physiology, to admit that sexual intercourse is necessary to health; and he may hold the opinion that it ought to be indulged in, by means of early marriages, with or without the use of preventive measures. I am myself personally acquainted with one medical man who takes this view of the question, and doubtless there are many others who do so.

1

But in the second place, even if Professor Miller's objections did really apply to the law of exercise, objections of such a character are never admissible. Even among those who accept the Bible as their standard of morality, it is quite inadmissible to oppose its doctrines, or what a writer supposes to be its doctrines, to the evidence of physical facts. Physical facts can be met only by physical factsthat is to say, they can only be controverted by showing that they have been erroneously observed or interpreted; and not by assertions of what is, or is not, consistent with divine justice or benevolence, or with any statement contained in the Bible. This is the very same objection which was made to Galileo's theory of the earth's movement, and which has been so constantly repeated with regard to the principle of population, the geological theories, and so many other great scientific truths. In fact, at almost every step in its progress, science has had to struggle against similar theological objections. These objections are examples of the class of fallacies called by logicians.à priori fallacies, or fallacies of simple inspection. "To this class" says Mr. Mill in his Logic, "belong Descartes' speculations, and those of so many others after him, tending to infer the order of the universe, not from observation, but by à priori reasonings from supposed qualities of the Godhead. Writers have not yet ceased to oppose the theory of divine benevolence to the evidence of physical facts, to the principle of population for instance. And people seem in general to think that they have used a very powerful argument when they have said, that to suppose some proposition true, would be a reflection on the wisdom or goodness of the Deity. Put into the simplest possible terms, their argument is, if it had depended on me, I would not have made the proposition true, therefore it is not true.' Put into other words it stands thus; 'God is perfect, therefore (what I think) perfection, must obtain in nature.' But since in reality every one feels that nature is very far from perfect, the doctrine is never applied consistently." Among those who, like myself, recognise no other standard either of scientific truth or of moral duties, than Nature, Professor Miller's objections can of course carry no weight.

I beg the reader to remark the above two fallacies-namely first, the fallacy of mixing up the question of the truth of the law of exercise with the question of prostitution, while ostensibly arguing against the former, and secondly, the theological objections-for they are the very ones which will probably be most frequently brought forward by the opponents of this great law of nature. The first is one of the prevailing errors in a series of articles on the sexual questions by Professor Francis W. Newman, published in the Reasoner in 1855, and partly, though not expressly, directed against the present work. However widely I differ from Professor Newman and Professor Miller on the subject of Prostitution (both as regards their views on the cause and cure of this evil, and their general tone of feeling respecting it) as well as on the truth of the law of exercise, the two questions are quite distinct, and ought never to be confounded together. "One other consideration," says Professor Miller, "before leaving

this part of the subject. In medical ethics, let it be clearly understood, that the practitioner who prescribes fornication to any patient, under any circumstances whatever, commits a heinous offence, not only against morals, but also against both the science and the character of his profession. His advice is not more flagrantly immoral, than it is disgracefully unscientific and unsound." Fortunately for medicine, and for the interests of suffering humanity, there are already many eminent practitioners in this country and still more on the continent, who take a very different view of medical duty on this subject from Professor Miller. But here too it is necessary to make a careful distinction; for Professor Miller has again confused the question by mixing up the recommendation of sexual intercourse with the recommendation of prostitution. It appears to me to be the undeniable duty of a medical man, when he sees a patient, whether man or woman, suffering from the effects of sexual abstinence, to tell them candidly that this is, in his opinion, the cause of their disease, and that sexual intercourse is necessary for their cure. However frequently this duty may be evaded by medical men (especially when the patient is a female), and however difficult and unpleasant it may often be in the present state of society, yet surely it cannot be denied. It is surely the duty of the physician in all cases to inform a patient candidly of what he considers to be the true cause and cure of his disease. If he does not, what is the real value of his advice? But, in the case before us, to recommend sexual intercourse, is not to recommend prostitution. All that the practitioner is, properly speaking, called upon to do, is to inform the patient that he considers sexual intercourse necessary to his recovery; in what manner this intercourse is to be obtained, is a question mainly for the patient to consider. It is for him to consider whether he will marry, or form an unmarried connection with some one, or indulge in prostitution (that is, intercourse with women of the town), or remain continent. It is indeed true that in the present state of society, where sexual intercourse is in very many cases attainable only by an indissoluble marriage, or by prostitution-the first of which is so often impracticable, especially to an invalid, while the second is in many respects degrading the patient will frequently adopt the latter alternative; but the practitioner is not responsible for this, nor is so miserable a dilemma inherent in the nature of things. As I have already endeavoured to show, the present system of prostitution and indissoluble marriage (which are closely connected together), might be, and ought to be, superseded by preventive intercourse and by a relaxation of the marriage code; when the diseases of abstinence and abuse might not only be satisfactorily treated, but effectually prevented. As long however as prostitution continues to be in many cases the only attainable intercourse, although I deeply deplore its existence, it seems to me a far smaller evil that a man should indulge in it, than that he should waste away under the miseries of spermatorrhoea or other evils of abstinence or abuse; and I admire from my heart the eminent men, including M. M. Lallemand, Ricord, Roubaud,

and inany others in this and other countries, who have both felt and acted upon this truth, whatever obloquy they incurred thereby. Had they cared more for their personal convenience, and less for the interests of their patients and of science, it would have been easy to have evaded the obnoxious question altogether.

66

With respect to Professor Newman's strictures, I shall only remark that in one place he makes the assertion that I have denied chastity to be a virtue. But this depends upon the definition given to the word. In the popular sense of the word, chastity is usually understood to mean Complete sexual abstinence, for however prolonged a period, except during the married state." Benjamin Franklin however defined chastity to mean "the regulated and strictly temperate satisfaction, without injury to others, of those desires which are natural to all healthy adult beings." The late Mr. Robert Owen defined it in a similar manner, as "sexual intercourse with affection." If the word be understood according to the definition of Franklin and Mr. Owen, then I consider chastity to be a very great virtue; but chastity, in the sense of prolonged sexual abstinence, I cannot but regard as an infringement of the laws of health, and therefore a natural sin either in man or woman; though doubtless in the actual state of society there are certain cases in which it is unavoidable.

By the word prostitution I have meant here, and generally throughout this work, "indiscriminate and mercenary intercourse;' " in other words, I have used it with special reference to the public women of the town. It is necessary to state this, for several writers have included under the word all kinds of unmarried intercourse, making little or no distinction between the moral character of any connections, which are not sanctioned by the marriage tie; or, at least, regarding all such connections as highly reprehensible. From this view, I need scarcely repeat that I entirely differ. On the contrary, the noblest sexual conduct, in the present state of society, appears to me to be that of those who, while endeavouring to fulfil the real sexual duties, enumerated in a former essay, live together openly and without disguise, but refuse to enter into an indissoluble contract of which they conscientiously disapprove.]

OPINIONS

OF

ENGLISH AND FOREIGN WRITERS ON THE LAW OF POPULATION.

The four laws which have just been considered, namely, the laws of exercise, fecundity, and agricultural industry, with the derivative law of population, are, in my opinion, incomparably the most important truths with which man has to do. They form the true explanation of the chief phenomena of society, and hold the same relation to all other social theories, that the doctrine of gravitation does to the various theories of the planetary motions, which existed up to the time of Newton. I am unwilling to quit this great subject, without adding to what has already been said, the testimony of several distinguished writers, English and foreign, whose opinions are of far greater weight and value than my own. The following quotations will show the reader how general and complete is the acceptance of the Malthusian theory among those who have carefully studied, and rightly apprehended the question. In fact, the modern science of political economy is in the main based on this great theory, in the same manner as astronomy and mechanics are based on the laws of motion and gravitation. As Mr. Senior and Mr. Mill have shown, political economy as a science consists almost entirely of a series of deductions from the laws of fecundity and agricultural industry, and from the familiar law of human nature that "man tends to prefer a greater gain to a smaller." It is mainly by reasoning from these premises, that Malthus, Ricardo, and their successors have given to the science its present highly developed form. "Political Economy, properly so called," says Mr. Mill, has grown up almost from infancy since the time of Adam Smith." To deny the Malthusian theory is therefore in reality equivalent to a rejection of the whole modern science of political economy, just in the same way as to deny the laws of motion and gravitation would be to reject the astronomical and mechanical sciences. It may be imagined with what extreme