IherirsI" 
 
 i. 
 
 BIENNIAL PROCEEDINGS 
 
 
 LONDON. 
 W M REEVES. 185 FLEET STREET. 
 
 LEEDS 
 GEO.CORNWELL SUPPER MILL HILL 
 
 1895 
 
 : Eci i fed by 
 
 '(MAID DAM 

 
 [ 
 
 1 ?Y 
 
 U. i OF 
 
 :IA 
 
 SAN ulLGO
 
 \J . r ,-^
 
 EDITH LANCHESTER.
 
 THE 
 
 BAR SINISTER 
 
 AND LICIT LOVE. 
 
 THE FIRST BIENNIAL PROCEEDINGS 
 OF THE 
 
 LEGITIMATION LEAGUE, 
 
 WITH FOUR PORTRAITS. 
 EDITED BY 
 
 OSWALD DAWSON. 
 
 PRICE ONE SHILLING. 
 
 LONDON : WM. REEVES, 185, FLEET STREET. 
 LEEDS : GEO. CORNWELL, 4, UPPER MILT. HILL. 
 
 1895.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 FRONTISPIECE : EDITH LANCHESTER. 
 
 PORTRAITS OF 
 THE VICE-PRESIDENTS 
 
 BETWEEN PAGES 
 
 AND 
 
 OBJECTS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE. 
 6 
 
 ANNOUNCEMENT 9 
 
 WILLIAM F. DUNTON. 
 EMMA M. A. DUNTON. 
 MILLICENT DUNTON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. THE DIALECTICAL MEETING II 
 
 II. FIRST ANNUAL MEETING 21 
 
 III. A REPORT OF THE REPORTS ... .... 56 
 
 IV. A SOLICITOR ON MARRIAGE ... ... 69 
 
 v. THE LEAGUE'S SOLICITOR'S VIEWS ... 80 
 
 vi. A VICE-PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ... ... 87 
 
 ,, VII. THE CORRESPONDING SECRETARIES' VIEWS 99 
 
 VIII. LEGITIMATION AND LICIT LOVE ... 107 
 
 ,, ix. THE "NATIONAL REFORMER" CORRES- 
 PONDENCE ... ... ... ... 114 
 
 X. UNIVERSAL LEGITIMATION 122 
 
 XI. THE PRESIDENT ON THE BAR SINISTER 128
 
 CHAPTER XII. MARRIAGE AS SLAVERY... ... ... 141 
 
 XIII. LABOUR AND LEGITIMATION ... .. 143 
 
 XIV. WHAT IS LICIT LOVE? ... ,.. ... 145 
 
 ,, XV. THE NEW LEGITIMATION ACT ... ... 148 
 
 ,, XVI. HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE ... 150 
 
 ,, XVII. A WIFE'S SISTER DEBATE ... ... 153 
 
 ,, XVIII. THE WOMAN AND THE LAW ... ... 159 
 
 XIX. NATURAL CHILDREN IN FRANCE ... l68 
 
 XX. THE BAR SINISTER AND LICIT LOVE ... 174 
 
 ,, XXI. MR. MILLAR ON MARRIAGE ... ... 205 
 
 ,, XXII. STATISTICS OF ILLEGITIMACY ... ... 211 
 
 ,, XXIII. NATURAL CHILDREN AND PERSONAL 
 
 RIGHTS 2l8 
 
 ,, XXIV. AT THE BEDFORD AGAIN ... ... 225 
 
 XXV. THE SECOND ANNUAL MEETING ... 236 
 
 XXVI. THE ADVERTISING AGENT'S VIEWS ... 252 
 
 XXVII. THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE ... 258 
 
 XXVIII. THE FIRST LEAGUE MEETING ... ... 264 
 
 ,, xxix. DR. BLANDFORD'S BACKERS AND THE 
 
 LEAGUE'S ... ... ... ... 278 
 
 XXX. THE SECOND LEAGUE MEETING ... 289 
 
 XXXI. ASYLUM OR GAOL? ... ... ... 305 
 
 FINISPIECE : LILLIAN HARMAN.
 
 THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 
 WORDSWORTH DONISTHORPE, Inner Temple. 
 
 ) residents : 
 J GREEVZ FISHER, Chapel-Allerton, Leeds. 
 
 J. C. SPENCE, 2, Darnley Road, Royal Crescent. 
 London, W. 
 
 (korasponbino, Siwrtlaries for Bonbon: 
 
 JOHN BADCOCK, St. Brelades, Vicarage Road, Leyton, E. 
 TOLEMAN GARNER, 4, Westbury Place, Green Lanes, N. 
 
 Ipottorarg Jawxeiarg : 
 OSWALD DAWSON, Harman Villa, Seacroft, near Leeds. 
 
 GLADYS DAWSON, Harman Villa. Seacroft, near Leeds. 
 
 THE LONDON AND MIDLAND BANK, LIMITED, 
 Kirkgate, Leeds. 
 
 ^Solicitor : 
 BENJ. C. PULLEYNE, Albion Walk Chambers, Leeds. 
 
 gfrtifging 
 ARTHUR CORNWELL, Albion Walk Chambers. Leeds. 
 
 for 
 EVAN STREACHAN, 295, Strand.
 
 OBJECTS, RULES, &c. 
 
 To create a machinery for acknowledging off- 
 spring born out of wedlock, and to secure for them 
 equal rights with legitimate children. 
 
 Membership of the League is open to anyone 
 who signifies in writing agreement with its objects, 
 and who subscribes to its proceedings. 
 
 Members who are disposed to render material 
 support to the cause are invited to subscribe to the 
 funds of the League. 
 
 Membership, whether or not accompanied by a 
 donation (or subscription beyond the amount of the 
 published price of its proceedings), does not carry 
 with it any control of the funds of the League, or 
 power to alter its constitution.
 
 THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 
 NEITHER law nor custom gives its sanction to 
 the duel, and neither may be said to coun- 
 tenance pugilism even in its milder forms. 
 
 The day when married people will no longer be 
 left to fight it out is dawning with a momentum 
 unparalleled in any previous period since the mooting 
 of the first divorce bill. , 
 
 Much of prejudice, and that by no means 
 founded solely on what has been termed the Indeter- 
 minate Co-efficient of Supernaturalism, has allied 
 itself with what is either the show or the substance 
 of reason, in counteracting the forces which seek to 
 dispel the gloom. 
 
 The day of emancipation is doubtless distant, 
 and little hope of accelerating the dawn lies down 
 the devious path of legislative endeavour. 
 
 Whilst each for himself or herself must weigh 
 the personal damage the ostracism of society, the 
 detriment in business, and any other considerations 
 of like character -all must realise that the line to be 
 pursued is that which has led all other pioneers in 
 history to attain their ends, the line of active or 
 passive rebellion against the effete laws and customs 
 of the time. 
 
 No active defiance of law is involved in dis- 
 pensing with the seal of State sanction which is
 
 8 
 
 withheld from all who rebel against the slavery of 
 marriage. Though their alliances are illicit they are 
 not illegal, and their children, though illegitimate, 
 suffer injuries remediable by legislation which few 
 would rate as momentous save where the entail of 
 property is concerned. 
 
 The really grave difficulties are encountered in 
 the conflict with custom, and here, as ever, the 
 multiplication of offenders will soften the austerity of 
 the condemnation. 
 
 Those wishful to forward the cause, and willing 
 to live together without the bond of State wedlock, 
 are invited to register their alliances before the 
 Notifying Clerk of the Legitimation League, and to 
 acknowledge their children born out of wedlock. 
 
 It is not essential that consent be given for the 
 public advertising of these alliances, but as the 
 registers will be open for inspection by any member 
 of the League, or by any persons on payment of a 
 fee (whether or not such persons may be presumed 
 to have a direct interest in ascertaining the infor- 
 mation therein contained), the League covenants 
 with every registering party that the latter will not 
 seek to make it responsible for any injury arising 
 from unauthorised and indiscriminate publication. 
 
 Those who wish to advertise their alliances and 
 to publicly acknowledge their children through the 
 medium of the Legitimation League, must give con- 
 sent in writing to the Honorary Secretary : 
 
 OSWALD DAWSON, 
 
 Harman Villa, Seacroft, 
 
 nr. Leeds.
 
 THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 
 WE, William F. Dunton and Emma M. A- 
 Dunton. formerly Emma M. A. Briggs, of [^/ r 
 Neinington Crescent, London, S.E.\ having since 
 the 1 2th of November, 1892, lived together as Mr_ 
 and Mrs. Dunton, and being now so styled and 
 commonly known, hereby give formal notice of our 
 alliance. 
 
 We hereby also acknowledge the parentage of 
 Millicent Louisa Dunton, born the 4th of February, 
 1894, and announce our determination to similarly 
 regard as acknowledged children any future issue of 
 our union. 
 
 We consent to the publication of this notice in 
 such manner as the Honorary Secretary of the 
 Legitimation League shall see fit. 
 
 Read by us this igth day of July, 1895, and 
 signed before Arthur Cornwell, Notifying Clerk to- 
 the Legitimation League. 
 
 W. F. DUNTON. 
 
 EMMA M. A. DUNTON. 
 
 Witnessed by 
 
 OSWALD DAWSON, 
 
 Harman Villa, Seacroft, nr. Leeds- 
 
 ARTHUR CORNWELL, 
 
 Albion Walk Chambers, Leeds..
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 Any alterations in the registrations made before 
 the Notifying Clerk of the Legitimation League must 
 be made in writing, signed and dated. 
 
 Verbal intimations can be taken no cognisance 
 of under any circumstances.
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE DIALECTICAL MEETING. 
 
 HAVING been invited by the Dialectical Society 
 of London to address its members on the 
 subject of Legitimation, the date of the 
 eleventh of October, 1893, was fixed, and an address 
 was given by me in the rooms of the Pioneer Club. 
 Dr. C. R. Drysdale occupied the chair. The following 
 is the text of the paper : 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. 
 
 I daresay it is highly probable that there are 
 assembled here to-night apostles of the most diverse 
 schools of political thought. For anything I know 
 there may be present those who in their own persons 
 maintain the old-fashioned traditions of Liberals and 
 Conservatives. It is more likely, I imagine, there 
 are those who are to be classified as Socialists and 
 Individualists; whilst at the tip of the wings the 
 inevitable Communist and Anarchist is sure to turn 
 up. You will have inferred from the character of these 
 introductory observations, that the discourse . you 
 have so graciously invited me to deliver to your 
 society this evening, is to be a political one. In a
 
 12 
 
 measure this is the case; yet it is only so in a qualified 
 tashion. The movement for legitimation is, as appre- 
 hended by me, a movement for Freedom for the 
 abolition of one State function : the poking in of 
 the nose of State at nuptial proceedings, and the 
 pinioning of the hands of the parties, in a general 
 way, to all time, when those proceedings are over or 
 rather as soon as the parties have signed their names, 
 even if true marriage should never subsequently 
 ensue. The movement is accordingly much more of 
 a social than a political one, so far as any question 
 of practical politics is concerned, it is as far out of 
 the field as Snowdon is out of the sea. And it will 
 be well for it to preserve this relation for many a day 
 to come. When you make a question practical, it 
 frequently happens you have to adopt many vicious 
 practices. You have to chop it, to adjust it, to post- 
 pone it, to ally it with some other practical question, 
 and do divers other deeds quite familiar to practical 
 politicians. In the matter that we have in hand 
 there is nothing of this sort. Punch long ago dealt 
 with this question of marriage, and his advice is the 
 most succinct summary of our crusade that you could 
 possibly have. Punch's advice to those about to 
 marry was " Don't." We say the same, for if you 
 intend waiting till you can repeal the marriage laws, 
 the worms that have consumed the marrow of your 
 bones will have sunk a thousand times beneath the 
 mould of your graves. We will, therefore, take it 
 for granted that the feeling against marriage should 
 express itself in personal action rather than in legis- 
 lative endeavours, and then ask, Does it follow that 
 there should be no subordinate feature of that action 
 which may have a practical or even a legislative side ?
 
 Procreation is intimately connected with marriage, 
 and as involving- other persons than those who make 
 the contract, may surely be said to lend itself with 
 more fitness to the concern of outsiders. Any 
 register were such established or even proposed 
 of the unions of two persons, Edwin and Angelina, or 
 other parties would interest people far less than the 
 nature of the relations of these to any possible 
 children, their several duties, powers, and so forth. 
 It is even conceivable to me that some obtuse legis- 
 lator might recognise that he had nothing to do with 
 the dealings of adults, and yet that he had some 
 official word to say when it came to a question 
 of children. When a child is born it becomes a 
 citizen ; it has not to wait for registration or any 
 kind of inoculation even, and the first problem of 
 State which presents itself in the person of the 
 helpless infant is, who is to be responsible for its 
 keep? Many answers to this question have been 
 attempted, and the most elaborate one in the direction 
 of an improvement of the present laws is that framed 
 by the Committee of the Personal Rights Association, 
 and published in a leaflet entitled ''The Maintenance 
 of the Children of Unmarried Parents." Extended 
 responsibilities of a legal order are sought to be 
 imposed upon the father of natural children a sum 
 to be paid down for medical and other expenses 
 attending the birth of the child ; the periodical pay- 
 ments are to be made to some duly credited officials 
 and not to the mother direct, and various stringent 
 procedures are to be adopted to secure that the father 
 duly discharges his legal obligations. The proposed 
 legislation is of a sort that may most reasonably 
 commend itself to reformers, and if I ask to be
 
 excused from giving any opinion upon it myself, I do 
 so simply because the subject handled is one with 
 which the Legitimation League has nothing whatever 
 to do. The projected Bill does not, so far as I am 
 aware, propose that all affiliated children shall be 
 legitimated. If it did, I should then endeavour to 
 resist it to the utmost of my power. The failings, of 
 weakness or of wantonness, which have as their 
 result the birth of unwelcome babes, are surely 
 sufficiently punished by the weight of the saddle of 
 pecuniary responsibilities arising therefrom, and with 
 the disgrace which will mark the period of life when 
 these failings are to be found, without the addition of 
 a stigma, which shall last with the lifetime of the 
 child, by reason of the latter being the legitimate 
 offspring. It is, I presume, unquestionable that 
 many of the brightest stars of our political, our 
 social, I suppose I might also add, our philosophical, 
 if not even our clerical firmaments have in the 
 exuberance of youth, committed themselves in such 
 a way that there is room for a doubt as to whether 
 their first-born are really entitled to a primary place 
 from a chronological standpoint. Many, indeed, of 
 our exalted ones have probably at some period of 
 their prime, learnt the meaning of the word " bail " ; 
 yet no one proposes that because a man has once 
 incurred the displeasure of a proctor at his university, 
 or of a policeman on his midnight patrol in Piccadilly r 
 that he shall be saddled till his dying day with some 
 sort of an incubus. On the other hand, our laws 
 happen to be such that an action for libel would lie 
 if these misdeeds were irrelevently brought in during 
 the quondam culprit's electioneering campaign, or on 
 his appointment to directorates, or, and here to use a
 
 15 
 
 vulgarism, here's the rub, at his wedding-day When 
 a man enters the state which the Church call holy 
 matrimony, which the law endorses as holy, which 
 public opinion endorses as holy or any synonymous 
 term, he is supposed to leave his past behind, and the 
 just sentiment of our laws and of most of our people, 
 see the horror, the cruelty, the absurdity, of stamping 
 upon the earliest issue of his righteous alliance any 
 other seal than that of first-born ; and upon the next 
 issue of his righteous alliance that of next heir, the 
 brother or sister of the first-born, and so on. And 
 here it is, ladies and gentlemen, that we encounter 
 the most remarkable aspects of the little crusade 
 which you have so kindly asked me to expound to 
 you this evening. This almost universal sentiment, 
 which, as I have pointed out, has received the seal of 
 the law ; this doctrine that the children of holy 
 alliances and the authors of those children, the 
 parties to such alliances, are entitled to freedom from 
 the perpetual resucitation of libellous charges against 
 their priority of status from previous children of 
 origin less holy this idea has met with strenuous, 
 conscientious opposition from most of those who 
 have given this movement for legitimation the weight 
 of their support and the valued time of their con- 
 sideration. I cannot, even if I would, dismiss in any 
 flippant way the force of the hostile feeling feeling 
 which has found expression against the views which 
 a minority of us hold. It is considered that an 
 injustice is inflicted upon the children of these earlier, 
 these unholy, unions, these unions of vice and shame, 
 of ignorance or carelessness, if they are to be classed 
 as illegitimate. There are two answers to this 
 objection of course I do not say there are no more
 
 i6 
 
 than two. The first is this, the State must have some 
 method of dealing with the property of intestate 
 persons, and considerable awkwardness would arise 
 if the children of putative fathers could put in a claim 
 of next of kin in event of intestacy. The children of 
 putative fathers would be those who had been 
 affiliated, and as a great many children born out of 
 wedlock never are affiliated sometimes for very 
 obvious reasons it follows that an illegitimate or 
 unaffiliated class would still be retained ; either this 
 or at any time upon the death of an intestate, any 
 and every illegitimate child who had not been affiliated 
 could claim to be the "legitimate" heir of the 
 intestate. Those who disagree with the minority of 
 us contend that there would be no grievance or 
 absurdity about such a state of things. And so, as 
 the song might say it, that is just where we differ. 
 
 The second answer to the objection to this, the 
 removal of the bar sinister legally the establish- 
 ment of universal legitimation would not remove 
 the stigma of being born in what is now an 
 illegitimate manner. If, by legislative process, 
 illegitimacy ceased to be a legal disqualification to 
 inherit anything from someone, or a legal dis- 
 qualification of any kind, it would not then follow 
 that illegitimacy would be abolished ; and, indeed. 
 by no political manoeuvring can you remove that 
 stigma which attaches to those whose birth has been 
 improperly, unrighteously brought about. A bastard 
 is a bastard, and to make him a legitimate one, by 
 abolishing all illegitimacy, leaves him a bastard still. 
 If legitimation would in reality confer upon bastards 
 any benefits of other than an artificial kind, I should 
 be most delighted to set these advantages in one
 
 scale and the evils in the other the evils to the child 
 itself, which, as I have elsewhere endeavoured to 
 show, are of an appreciable character, and the evils 
 to its relations and rejoice in an open mind awaiting 
 the result of the process of weighing" the two. 
 Supposing, for instance, that it were the law that an 
 illegitimate child were ineligible for election to any 
 learned profession, or not allowed to deposit its 
 money in any Government Savings Bank not that I 
 approve of these institutions I should be very 
 anxious either to abolish the law which ordained 
 this, or, if this were not feasible, possibly to abolish 
 illegitimacy. A bastard should suffer no legal dis- 
 abilities whatsoever. The sufferings which it may 
 fall to his lot to receive at the hands of Society are 
 eternal, or, at any rate, they are quite independent 
 of the manoeuvres of those who set themselves to 
 promote bills or abolish laws. The constructing of 
 the politician or the destroying of the Anarchist will 
 leave the bastard where he stands to-day. 
 
 A very natural question which will now arise in 
 the minds of many is this : What do you propose to 
 do ? I have devoted by far the larger part of my 
 time to explaining what we are not going to do, and 
 why we are not going to do it ; now comes the 
 question, What do we want to do, and why do we 
 want to do it ? We aim at extending legitimation to 
 a li-mited class, the acknowledged children. It may 
 at the first sight be considered that this proposed 
 step is a mere piece of political dodgery, of attempted 
 utilisation of the Parliamentary machine for the 
 propagandism of one's own particular views. Well, 
 I think there are very good grounds for the proposal, 
 based upon abstract considerations, and superior to 
 
 B
 
 i8 
 
 many of the pretensions to necessity for legislation 
 set down in the preamble of the politician. The 
 acknowledgment of a child is an acceptance of 
 responsibility, and gives a claim to ownership. 
 Surely these titles should be rightfully held by the 
 parents of the children, and, we consider, wrongful 
 would it be to hold that the right of ownership 
 should be invalidated if the two parents of a child 
 decline to make another and totally different con- 
 tract, namely, that of living together for life. A 
 question which arises, which we must allow to arise 
 now, notwithstanding the difficulty of it, is whether 
 any contract between the parents is a necessity of the 
 case, with the subsidiary question whether, if not a 
 necessity of the case, it should nevertheless be open 
 to the State to take any cognisance of contracts 
 made between two adults of opposite sexes who wish 
 to form an alliance the result of which is or may be 
 parentage. It is, indeed, quite within the pale of 
 theoretical politics that a system of provision for the 
 mother of a man's child should be arranged, such 
 provision to comprise the support needful for her for 
 a period prior to the birth of the child, and during its- 
 early years ; and to be of no fixed amount, but 
 according to the arrangement which might be quite 
 indefinite as to amount of the parties concerned. 
 Any legislation on these principles need be nothing 
 more than an amendment of the Bastardy Laws, but 
 there is one reason why it should be differentiated, 
 and that is that the offspring would not be bastards. 
 We do not send a bailiff to collect taxes unless they 
 are considerably in arrears. The upshot would there- 
 fore appear to be the retention of " marriage " in so 
 far as State cognisance of a contract between two
 
 19 
 
 adults who are possible parents is concerned, and the 
 substitution for marriage of a contract which has 
 time limits determined by the incapacity of a woman 
 taking part in procreation to maintain an economic 
 Independence. It is not likely that women will be 
 able to provide out of savings, or dowries, or by any 
 plan of insurance, against the contingent expenses of 
 motherhood ; and these expenses being of an order 
 which men are by our present laws called upon to 
 pay or to part pay even when unwilling, there is 
 no reason why they should not contract to pay them 
 when willing. 
 
 As the law now stands, a man is not called upon 
 to pay for a stillborn child ; a wise woman would 
 contract with a man if her confidence in him had 
 any limit for provision in event of her maternity, 
 even if maternity with her shall be motherhood of the 
 stillborn. When should the wise woman make that 
 provision ? Obviously before she incurs the risk of 
 becoming a mother of children, stillborn or otherwise. 
 
 It is well known that it is not necessary to have 
 any contract at all in order to entitle an aggrieved 
 person in a love transaction to actual redress. In 
 other words, an action for breach of promise may lie 
 before anything has been signed. I know it to be 
 quite open to question whether this state of affairs is 
 right and proper. Assume that it is so, however, and 
 it will not be a very great development of the prin- 
 ciple involved to ask the State to recognise the 
 arrangements of persons who privately register them- 
 selves as parents of possible children. There can 
 hardly be a doubt that many registrations at private 
 offices would be frivolous and farcical, and to ask the 
 State to differentiate between such and serious
 
 alliances without laying down the lines upon which 
 such differentiation is to be made would be attempt- 
 ing too much. To ask the State to register, and to 
 differentiate before undertaking registration, would 
 be a far more dangerous procedure. As a piece of 
 practical politics, the recommendation we should 
 offer in the matter of action is that the State should 
 accept the registration of persons who agree to take 
 a name in common, and to give to the issue of their 
 union their own name, to be liable for such issue in 
 the same way, to the same extent, and for the same 
 length of time, that married people of the present day- 
 are now liable, and that the power to terminate the 
 contract should not be brought into force until one 
 year after the registration. 
 
 Mr. John Badcock opened the discussion, and 
 was followed by Dr. Alice Vickery, Miss Law 
 (Honorary Secretary of the Society), Mr. F. W. 
 Read, Mr. W. S. Crawshay (Editor of the Liberty 
 Annual], and others, including the Chairman.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 FIRST ANNUAL MEETING. 
 
 THIS Meeting, held on 3ist March, 1894, at the 
 Bedford Hotel, Covent Garden, was advertised 
 as a " Meeting" of Members and Friends. 
 Admission Free. Questions invited." An attend- 
 ance of about five-and-t\venty persons, many of 
 whom were ladies, filled the room. Mr. David 
 Oliver took a shorthand note. Mr. WORDSWORTH 
 DONISTHORPE, Barrister-at-Law, President, took the 
 chair, speaking as follows : 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen, This is the first annual 
 meeting of the Legitimation League. The inaugural 
 meeting was held about a year ago in Yorkshire at 
 Leeds. I think I will first call upon our honorary 
 secretary, Mr. Dawson, to give us a report not a 
 formal and written, but an oral report of the 
 progress of this League during the past year, and to 
 read any letters of interest which he may have in his 
 possession. After that I will call upon the Treasurer 
 to present the balance-sheet. 
 
 Mr. DAWSON : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men, I have apologies from the Vice-Presidents, who
 
 22 
 
 write stating that they are unable to be here to-day. 
 Mr. Fisher writes : 
 
 " CHAPEL ALLERTON, 
 
 Friday, yolk March, 1894. 
 
 " It is a great disappointment to me to find myself 
 unable to enjoy the pleasure and privilege of assisting 
 at your meeting to-morrow. 
 
 " To-morrow's conference will mark an import- 
 ant epoch in the movement, and will, I trust, be 
 marked by the adoption of resolutions conducive to 
 the progress of your efforts for the removal of 
 obstacles which prevent people from establishing any 
 one of their known natural children in exactly the 
 same position which such child would have occupied 
 if born within the bands and bonds of hallowed and 
 legalised wedlock. Possibly the best first steps to be 
 taken in the early future, if the income of the League 
 suffice for the necessary expenditure, will be to 
 formulate modes of declaration of parental acknow- 
 ledgment suitable for pre-natal and post-natal regis- 
 tration, and to arrange, if possible, for the accept- 
 ance and enrolment of these declarations at a scale 
 of fees designed to be or to become self supporting. 
 
 " The internal and external criticism which the 
 motives of the League have undergone ought to help 
 to clear the ground and point the way for further 
 action. 
 
 " Whatever be the extent to which, mainly owing, 
 as is pretty well-known, to your liberality, the cam- 
 paign may be pushed, it seems now to be growing 
 upon public conscience that liberty demands" that 
 parentage in the fullest sense of the term ought not to 
 be for ever made dependent upon the adoption of con- 
 formity to modes of sexual partnership blessed by
 
 2 3 
 
 theology, admired by fashion, and upheld by the 
 present law of this or other lands. 
 
 " Very faithfully yours, 
 
 U J. GREEVZ FISHER." 
 
 From Mr. Fisher's co-Vice-President I have also 
 a letter, a somewhat remarkable well, an admoni- 
 tory letter, from which I will now read portions : 
 
 " When you cease to hold the reins of conduct, 
 and calling others to your aid, embark on a public 
 voyage ; when you begin to discuss the step forward 
 of public action, in which you will only be one of the 
 crew .... it becomes me to vacate my orna- 
 mental position as one of the Vice-Presidents. 
 
 Let your life recommend your at present 
 outre views. Do everything quietly, pose as decent 
 and severely respectable, and in two years your 
 private example and demonstration would do more to 
 advance your cause than a dozen rowdy meeting's or 
 a hundred pounds spent in advertising-. Get over the 
 feverish desire to demonstrate, and I feel sure that, 
 domestically and socially, many happy and innocent 
 hours of enjoyment are before you and Mrs. Dawson. 
 " I am, believe me, 
 
 " Always yours sincerely, 
 
 " F. ARNOLD LEES." 
 
 The Solicitor to the League, who unfortunately 
 cannot be with us at the commencement of this 
 meeting, but who will join us later on, sends a paper 
 of practical suggestions, of which the following 
 paragraphs form the conclusion : 
 
 " Constitute of the governing body of the League 
 certain of them who assent thereto, Trustees. Let 
 parents desiring to make a settlement vest in such
 
 24 
 
 Trustees the real or personal estate with which they 
 wish to endow their offspring, and let such Trustees 
 hold the same upon the trusts and directions they, 
 the parents, shall give relative thereto, and let such 
 trusts and directions be recorded in a register signed 
 by the parties, the details to be worked out by sub- 
 sidiary rules framed by the Governing Body of the 
 League. 
 
 " It may, however, be necessary to remark that 
 under this head the Trusts might, according to the 
 existing law of England, be held to be bad as void 
 for immorality, and could not, it is thought, in any 
 event be applied in favour of a futuro in esse. 
 
 " In conclusion, if the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 and a few other distinguished divines could be induced 
 to become members of the governing body of the 
 League, it would greatly increase the number of its 
 admirers, and lead many wandering sheep into the 
 beneficent fold of the Legitimation League." 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. AUBERON HERBERT writes as follows : 
 " I am much obliged to you for your kind invita- 
 tion. I cannot accept it, both because I shall not be 
 in London, and because I have put off mastering up 
 to the present the principle of the Legitimation 
 League, so that I don't know how far I am or am not 
 in accord with you. Very truly, 
 
 " AUBERON HERBERT. 
 ' ' F ALM OUTH , Ma rch 2$th." 
 
 Mr. W. STEWART Ross, expressing his inability to 
 be present to-day, wrote also as follows : 
 
 "I have considerable, but not unqualified, sympathy 
 with your evangel If any subject be
 
 sacred it is the inherent affinity of the sexes, but no 
 subject that affects human happiness and well-being: 
 is too sacred to be decently and rationally envisaged 
 and discussed. I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, 
 'i y>th March, 1894." " W. STEWART Ross. 
 
 Mr. WHEELER wrote me thus : 
 
 " HOLLOWAY. N., 2yd March, 1894. 
 " I am sorry that a prior engagement at Hastings 
 will prevent me from attending the meeting of the 
 Legitimation League. This I the more regret as I 
 should much like to make the personal acquaintance 
 of Mrs. Dawson and yourself, who have shewn such 
 courage in this matter. Trusting I shall have that 
 pleasure some day, I am, yours truly, 
 
 "JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER." 
 
 Mr. R. L. PHILLIPS writes from Arts Club, Man- 
 chester, to be enrolled as a member, and furnishes an 
 account of his own experience for reading at this 
 meeting, at which he regrets he cannot be present. 
 
 " DEAR SIR, " 28th March, 1893. 
 
 " I went, in 1871, to the Coast of Africa, Congo 
 district, and have resided there almost continuously 
 until the year 1887. It was considered the correct 
 and respectable thing to engage a native mistress, 
 and I did like others, but holding that such unions 
 should not be a matter of mere animal convenience, 
 I formed the intention, and gave it expression, ta 
 consider myself as the husband of the woman who 
 lived with me. She was the daughter of a powerful 
 chief, and we were considered by all her family as 
 man and wife, though no ceremony of any kind was 
 performed.
 
 26 
 
 " I have had five children, three of whom are now 
 alive. I may say that these temporary unions are the 
 rule in the country of which I speak, and contrary to 
 the general presumption, they are usually as lasting 
 as circumstances permit. Middle aged men do not 
 send away their faithful partners through a desire for 
 novelty, as is generally supposed would be the case 
 in England, were the marriage laws relaxed. But if 
 a couple are really ill-suited, they generally find it out 
 in the course of a short time, and they go their ways 
 in order to find more suitable partners. This seldom 
 happens, and I should seriously assert that as a rule 
 African girls make more domesticated and useful 
 wives than do their educated and accomplished 
 sisters at home. 
 
 " As to the question which has been raised as to 
 status and rights of children if temporary unions 
 were allowed, I should like to say a few words. Are 
 we worse than savages not to love our children ? 
 When do men withhold affection from their offspring, 
 and deny them the reasonable chance of success in 
 life ? When do they disown them, turn them adrift 
 as outcasts ? Not when the youths are wild, not 
 when they are dishonest, unprincipled, expensive to 
 keep. Not necessarily then. No, the only case of a 
 father's affections becoming estranged is when he 
 is ashamed of his son, at least, this cause is, in 
 ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the true cause 
 of estrangement. 
 
 " If a man is ashamed of his boy, or shamed in his 
 boy, for they are one and the same feeling from birth, 
 he will shirk his responsibilities, not otherwise. 
 
 " It is the unfortunate children of clandestine 
 intrigues that suffer from birth, and I am very sure
 
 27 
 
 that I, that you, that anybody else who is bold 
 enough to do as we have done, will be able to give 
 object lessons on the subject to those around us, as 
 to the probability of our disregarding our duties in 
 these matters. 
 
 " I have perhaps written at tedious length on a 
 subject which has probably been more peculiarly your 
 study than mine, but I hope that a re-statement, by 
 an independent hand, of opinions which I believe you 
 share, may not be uninteresting nor uninstructive. 
 
 " I am, dear sir, yours truly, 
 41 Oswald Dawson, Esq." " R. L. PHILLIPS. 
 
 I regret I have not a communication from Mrs. 
 Victoria Woodhall Martin to read to you to-day. 
 However, I may say that at Mrs. Martin's request 
 Mrs. Dawson and I visited her, and derived much en- 
 couragement from the " God-speed" she wished for 
 the progress of the crusade. 
 
 Another veteran reformer, Mr. Thomas Squire 
 Barrett, who formerly edited a journal, The Present 
 Day, largely devoted to sex reform, is not with us ; 
 so from my letter collection I read you two received 
 from this pioneer. 
 
 " WISTERIA HOUSE, BERKHAMSTED, 
 " DEAR SIR, \^th October, 1893. 
 
 '* I have just bought the ' Verbatim Report ' of 
 the Legitimation League, and am deeply interested in 
 it. I am thoroughly with your views. The subject 
 has had my warmest sympathy nearly all my life, but 
 especially during the last thirteen years. 
 
 u I will gladly join your League. 
 
 " I am, dear sir, yours sincerely, 
 
 " THOMAS SQUIRE BARRETT. 
 " Oswald Dawson, Esq. ; '
 
 28 
 
 Under date " 24/7; October. 1893. 
 ' DEAR SIR, 
 
 " I send you herewith a small 
 
 cheque, one guinea, for the funds of the Legitimation 
 League. (Cheers.) . 
 
 " In practice it seems to me that the only real 
 benefit Legitimation would carry would be the inherit- 
 ance from intestate parents. Possibly it appears to 
 you, as it seems to me, that if children unacknowledged 
 by parents had power to claim a portion or all of 
 intestate estates, it would open the door to much 
 fraud. Whenever a rich man died without a will 
 there would surely be claimants saying they were 
 children of the deceased, and this would cause much 
 trouble and expense even when the claimants did not 
 succeed in their suits ; and there is also the possibility 
 that by means of perjury many claimants might suc- 
 ceed who were -not the children of deceased. 
 
 " I am, etc., T. S. BARRETT." 
 
 I may say that during the course of the past year 
 we have had several letters from people who have 
 been interested in our League, or I may say, involved, 
 and who have required legal advice upon matters 
 relating to illegitimate children, and this advice has- 
 always been sent at full length by Mr. Pulleyne r 
 Solicitor to the League, free of all charge. As to the 
 work which has been done in the course of the year, 
 personally I am quite satisfied with it, although we 
 have not yet got many members. A great many 
 people have written to us (as you see from the letters 
 I have just read, as well as from the letters read at 
 the inaugural meeting), to express sympathy with the 
 object of the League, but unless persons have actually 
 stated that they desired to become members, we have
 
 29 
 
 not so considered them. We have not asked anyone 
 to join the League. It has rested entirely with every 
 individual to say whether he cared to become a 
 member or not. I was told the other day that we 
 ought to have a form of application for membership. 
 Well, that may be good policy or not, but I am quite 
 satisfied that this League should be small in numbers 
 and, perhaps I may say, almost prefer it. 
 
 Most excellent work has been done by the Corres- 
 ponding Secretaries of the League, Mr. Badcock and 
 Mr. Dupont. It is quite impossible now to give you 
 an adequate conception of the value of their services. 
 
 As to the work done in the Society beyond 
 correspondence (we have had nearly 300 letters to 
 deal with during the year of one kind and another), 
 the work includes an address delivered by myself by 
 the invitation of the Dialectical Society and before 
 that Society on the i ith of October last. '1 hat address 
 will be reprinted in the Proceedings of the League, 
 the second volume of its proceedings. We have, 
 moreover, had a number of "drawing-room meetings," 
 .at which the Vice-Presidents, Mrs. Dawson and 
 myself, and at times other friends, have been present. 
 We have not held any public meetings between the 
 first or inaugural meeting and this present one. An 
 -account of what has taken place at most of these 
 drawing-room meetings has appeared in The York- 
 shire Evening Posf, and sometimes in other news- 
 papers. The gist of the papers and addresses has 
 always been reported in The Yorkshire Evening Post, 
 and a great many copies of that journal have been 
 sent to sympathizers with the League. 
 
 It is undoubtedly a fact that the League has not 
 been carried on for a year without there having been
 
 3 
 
 something partaking a little of the nature of acrimony 
 in the management of it. There has been a corres- 
 pondence in the National Reformer. Well, some 
 rather unkind things were said in the course of that 
 correspondence. The controversy arose through a 
 letter of my own, and the vice-presidents set to work 
 to argue the matter out amongst themselves. Well, 
 we have only two vice-presidents now instead of three* 
 but the Reformer correspondence is not responsible 
 for this fact, and I have great pleasure in saying that 
 that is the only change which has occurred in the year 
 in the personnel of the League. We have the same 
 president to-day as we had a year ago, and we have 
 the same treasurer and the same corresponding 
 secretaries, and the same vice-presidents, save that 
 circumstances circumstances of a private character, 
 and not divergences on matters of principle or policy 
 have led to one gentleman withdrawing. Although 
 there has been this storm in the National Reformer? 
 the two remaining vice-presidents are on perfectly 
 good terms, and the difficulties then raised have now 
 been settled. Another article (one, in fact, of 
 extreme importance, as bearing first of all on the 
 subject of the National Reformer correspondence, and 
 one that should be read by everybody at all interested 
 in the work of this League), is the article on 
 ' Bastardy," in the January number of the Free Review? 
 from the pen of our President. I would just take 
 this opportunity of reminding you that in The Modern 
 Review of this month I have been privileged to state 
 the case for this League in an article on " Legitima- 
 tion and Licit Love." A number of copies of this 
 magazine are on the table at the other end of the 
 room, and I hope everybody present interested in the 
 subject will take one away.
 
 With regard to the press generally, I am glad to 
 say, we are triumphing. At first The Leeds Mercury- - 
 one of the most respectable papers in the country 
 declined to insert our advertisement, but now there 
 is a full announcement in that journal of our meeting- 
 to-day and there is an advertisement of my article 
 in The Modern Revieiv, " Legitimation and Licit Love." 
 Then again, those of you who have read the report of 
 our inaugural proceedings will perhaps remember 
 how The Leeds Times violently attacked us in a leader 
 headed "Wife or Paramour." Well, when I was 
 going up to London to the Dialectical Society's 
 meeting, the gentleman at the head of The Leeds Times 
 came and asked me if I would send him a report of 
 the meeting in London, and I did so, and the sam 
 gentleman comes to the office of the Legitimation 
 League for all our publications. Hence, you see, we 
 are making progress, though slowly, for I think you 
 will agree that if those who exercise their power as 
 editors to prevent us obtaining a hearing at the very 
 inception of a new crusade, also those who are fiercest 
 in their denunciation, will give us space not merely for 
 advertisements containing terms like " Licit Love," but 
 for reports of our doings in cities other than Leeds, 
 we have some reason for encouragement and pride. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 Mrs. DAWSON, Honorary Treasurer, read the 
 Balance Sheet for the past year, which was as 
 follows :
 
 00 
 
 
 53 
 
 pq 
 
 q o 
 
 ll 
 
 i) "- 1 
 
 ^ g 
 
 'S 'H 
 
 IS 
 
 NO 
 
 o : vo 
 
 O - 
 
 W VO 
 
 O vo 
 
 CO 
 
 s? 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O) T3 -- 
 
 S *" 
 
 S rt 3C 
 
 .22 ba w UH 
 
 *-; G <u o 
 
 S "*3 *C ^_, 
 
 > G J^ C 
 
 < eu c/2 c^ 
 
 : 
 
 CQ CQ 
 
 ro 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 O. g .2 
 
 G O 
 
 rf ex
 
 33 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Has anyone any question to ask 
 with respect to the report and balance sheet ? 
 
 No question was put, and the balance sheet was 
 consequently adopted. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : Ladies and gentlemen, the 
 presidential address at the inaugural meeting was 
 chiefly occupied with the legal aspect of the question, 
 but to-day you will not expect from me anything 
 more than a few words of business. I propose to 
 inquire mainly into the reason for the very small 
 membership of an association which must, in the 
 nature of things, elicit a very considerable amount of 
 sympathy from all classes in the country. (Hear, 
 hear.) There must be some reason for this. As a 
 matter of fact, the number here to-day is consider- 
 ably larger than the number of persons who assembled 
 in an upper attic two thousand years ago, at the 
 inaugural meeting of an association which now 
 numbers, I believe, 300 millions or thereabouts. As 
 to the reason of the smallness of the number, I 
 think it is due to the fact that we unintentionally 
 leave ourselves open to misrepresentation. To a 
 certain extent we misrepresent ourselves. I was 
 asked by our honorary secretary to bring some ladies 
 here. I am glad to see that there are some present, 
 but I confess in my own circle they are alarmed 
 they are afraid. They say " We sympathise with 
 the main object, the alleged object of the associa- 
 tion, but we think it means something more, and 
 we do not care to mix our names up with an 
 association which may be of a somewhat different 
 complexion." The objects of this association are 
 misunderstood by the great bulk of the people, 
 who will not take the trouble to find out what our
 
 34 
 
 purpose is. Now what is the object of our League ? 
 It is a simple one, it is definite, it is clear. We aim 
 at reforming the law as to legitimation. That is our 
 whole object : nothing more, nothing less. The law 
 of legitimation, as everybody knows, is merely a 
 branch of the law of evidence. The State says, ''We 
 are compelled, whether we wish it or no, to distribute 
 the personal estate of an intestate. There is no way 
 out of this difficulty. We must do it, otherwise there 
 would be a scramble." The law observes what men 
 do as a rule when they make a will, and follows this 
 custom. What they do as a rule, the State does 
 in cases of intestacy. We observe if a man leaves a 
 widow and children, he leaves a certain amount of 
 property to his widow, and a certain amount of 
 property to his children. As a rule a man who has 
 no children leaves rather more to his wife : half, as a 
 rule, will go to the wife, and the rest to his father, if 
 his father survives, or, if not, the rest will be divided 
 between brothers and sisters, and so forth. We have 
 noticed these things, and based the law of intestacy 
 upon these observations. What can we do that is 
 fairer and better? So far there is no quarrel. It is 
 what any sane person would do. A certain part of 
 the estate is to be distributed amongst the children 
 of the deceased. The term used is " children," and 
 that term has to be defined. Disputes arise. Three or 
 four individuals rise up and say " we are children of 
 the deceased." Then, from some obscure quarter 
 emerges some one else who say, " I also claim to be 
 be one of the children of the deceased." Then it is 
 absolutely necessary for the State, or whoever under- 
 takes this function, to make a rule whereby it can 
 be ascertained who are really the children of the
 
 35 
 
 deceased, and who are not. In order to do this you 
 must make rules quite as clear, as precise, and as 
 comprehensible as those relating to agreements for 
 the transfer of land. We all know that, according to 
 the Statute of Frauds, an agreement for the transfer 
 of land has no effect, is not binding^ is not even 
 considered worth attention, unless it is in writing. 
 It is a simple matter to put it in writing, and thus 
 avoid endless litigation, confusion, and dispute. 
 Similarly in the case of children, there is no conceiv- 
 able difficulty in registering the fact that two certain 
 persons are the father and mother of a particular 
 child. There is no difficulty whatever in doing that, 
 but when it comes to the particular form which is 
 required by the State, here our quarrel begins. Up 
 to this point we have no quarrel. There is no 
 Government on the face of the earth, no State in 
 existence, where individualism had advanced so fast 
 and so far as it has in this country ; till to-day, in the 
 matter of property and testamentary powers, we 
 have absolute liberty without any qualification what- 
 ever. The last few limitatious have been swept away 
 in the present reign, at the commencement of which 
 a man could not absolutely cut off his wife and 
 children. In France he cannot do it now. All these 
 limitations of freedom of bequest have been swept 
 away, and now we in England have absolute liberty 
 on the lines of individualism in this matter. Only 
 when we come to the formality itself do we find our- 
 selves in opposition to the law. The State says : 
 " In order to claim sonship with any given person, 
 you must furnish evidence that the said person and 
 your mother were married at the time of your birth." 
 Very well, that would be a very salutary provision if
 
 36 
 
 the word marriage meant what it ought to mean, and 
 not a form with which certain incidents are bound up, 
 which can only be described as very serious, and to 
 some extent calculated to defeat the ends of the State 
 itself. The responsibilities attached to the formal 
 ceremony of marriage are so great, that many people 
 prefer to dispense with it altogether, rather than incur 
 such immense liabilities. To begin with, the contract 
 is a life long contract, and can. only be dissolved in 
 the way we. know. I need not go into that at all. 
 Our quarrel with the State begins when we come to 
 this question, -What should be the liabilities attach- 
 ing to marriage, what should be the duties of married 
 people, and what should be their liabilities ? If 
 marriage were, as it originally was, and as it will 
 eventually be, merely a contract to provide for any 
 offspring of the union within a given time, say twelve 
 months, a contract renewable from year to year, it 
 is doubtful whether any illegitimate children would be 
 born in this country at all. So long as this is not the 
 case, and so long as we cannot hope for the present 
 by legislation to abolish the extraordinary system 
 of permanent marriage, which is utterly out of 
 harmony with the development of the legal system 
 in every other department of human affairs ; so long 
 as it is impossible for us to abolish this system of 
 compulsory permanent marriages, it is for this 
 society to devise some other means by which children 
 born into the world without this safeguard, without 
 this formal recognition of legitimacy, may become in 
 some way legitimated. I have not come here to 
 propose any particular system, but let it be distinctly 
 understood that this association has been formed with 
 this object, and no other object whatever ; and when
 
 we are mixed up in published statements, as we have 
 been in some northern papers, with all kinds of 
 schemes, and of systems of social and moral philo- 
 sophy, let it be clearly understood that we have 
 nothing whatever to do with any of them. It is no 
 more honest to charge the members of this association 
 with the advocacy of free love, or promiscuous sexual 
 intercourse, than it is to charge the anti-teetotallers, 
 or the Liberty and Property Defence League, with 
 sympathy with drunkenness and debauchery, vice 
 and excess. I think the best course for us to pursue 
 would be to issue some form of manifesto or circular 
 making it fully, and clearly, and explicitly known 
 that we have nothing whatever to do with free love, 
 or with the rights of unacknowledged children, or 
 with affiliation orders, or anything of the kind ; and 
 and that our sole concern is reform of the law as to 
 the legitimation of offspring. (Applause.) 
 
 Has any lady or gentleman any question to ask 
 either of myself or of the secretary as to the objects 
 and principles of the movement ? 
 
 Dr. DRYSDALE : Am I right in saying that one of 
 the chief grievances of those who have so-called ille- 
 gitimate children, but who are really married, is that 
 in the event of the death of the father the death duty 
 to be paid on the property left is higher by 10 per cent, 
 than is the case when the children are legitimated ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : They have to pay a higher duty 
 than legitimate children. 
 
 Dr. DRYSDALE : Would it not be well to embody 
 that as one of the points considered to be unfair in 
 the present law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I am distinctly in favour of 
 equalising the death duties, and more particularly of
 
 38 
 
 equalising them in a very simple manner, namely, by 
 abolishing them altogether. 
 
 Mr. M. D. O'BRIEN : Are the questions asked 
 now the only questions you will allow to be asked ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Now is the time to ask any 
 question. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : I want to know if the League 
 acknowledges the legitimacy of the wedlock to which 
 its circular refers? I have a number of questions, 
 and I will give you them either separately and you 
 can answer as I put each one, or you can put them 
 down and answer them all at once. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Will you ask your first question ? 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Does the League acknowledge the 
 legitimacy of the wedlock to which its circular refers ? 
 I have the circular here. The word "wedlock "is 
 mentioned in your circular where you state the aims 
 of your League. You state your object to be " To 
 create a machinery for acknowledging offspring born 
 out of wedlock, and to secure for them equal rights 
 with legitimate children." I am referring to that 
 word "wedlock," and therefore, I say, does the 
 League acknowledge the legitimacy of the wedlock 
 to which its circular refers ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Most unquestionably yes. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : If the League does acknowledge 
 this wedlock to be legitimate, then how can anything 
 be legitimate that is not born in it, and of the persons 
 who are implied by the League to be locked in it? 
 How can things which are not equal to the same 
 thing be equal to one another? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I confess I find some difficulty in 
 understanding the question propounded. As far as 
 I can gather, it means this : if wedlock is recognised
 
 39 
 
 as legitimate by the League, nothing else can possibly 
 be recognised as legitimate by the League. That is 
 not at all my view. We regard the regular marriages 
 of the Church, or of Quaker meetings, or by the 
 State official at a Registration office, as perfectly 
 legitimate ; and we also regard Scotch marriages 
 and marriage by advertisement as perfectly legitimate. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN: If this "wedlock" itself be not 
 legitimate, then how can the legislative putting of 
 those who happen to be born out of it upon the same 
 level as those who happen to be born in it be warrant- 
 ably called " legitimation " ? 
 
 The HON. SECRETARY : Perhaps I may interpose 
 and answer you by quoting a passage from my article 
 in The Modern Review : " The Legitimation League 
 has nothing to do with the facilitation of divorce, or 
 with any other amendment of the Marriage Laws. 
 It seeks as few modifications of the English law as 
 possible ; and it is not pledged to sweep away any 
 existing institution. Persons who marry and approve 
 of marriage as a concern of State may join the 
 League, which is as elastic as the phraseology of the 
 ' objects ' will possibly permit. All we require of 
 members is the modicum of toleration needed for the 
 avowal of willingness to concede to such as prefer 
 that in their own individual case State marriage shall 
 be superseded by the ' living with' system, the rights 
 which lawful wedlock confers upon offspring." 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN: I have one or two more questions. 
 Is not the standard of legitimation the fact of being 
 born of parents who have agreed to and carried out 
 monogamy ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I fear not. I very much regret 
 to say there is very little monogamy in this country.
 
 4 o 
 
 I believe under our system there will be a great deal 
 more. There will be a great deal more monogamy 
 and less pretence. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : What is there at present to hinder 
 people from acknowledging offspring born out of 
 wedlock by making special provision for such in 
 wills, or by giving to such whatever they are able to 
 give out of their own private property ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : There is nothing whatever to 
 prevent that being done. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Does the League want a legisla- 
 tive machinery for providing that if a man seduce a 
 woman while she is living in what the League itself 
 calls "wedlock," the offspring of such seduction shall 
 be entitled to inherit the whole or some proportionate 
 share of the seducer's property, in case the seducer 
 should die intestate ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : That all depends on whether the 
 seducer acknowledges the child or not. If a man 
 has been such a blackguardly fellow as to seduce a 
 girl- 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : "Another man's wife,'' I said. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : That all depends upon whether 
 the child has been legitimated according to the form 
 proposed by the League. If the child were legiti- 
 mated by the father and mother and nothing can be 
 done without that consent the child would naturally 
 inherit as any other legitimate child would. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Suppose a wealthy man has 100 
 children by women whom he has seduced while living" 
 in what the League calls " wedlock," would the 
 League propose that, in case the man dies intestate, 
 every one of these 100 children of dishonour shall 
 inherit some share of his property?
 
 The CHAIRMAN : If they were legitimated they 
 would succeed. Whether all children born out of 
 wedlock are properly called " children of dishonour " 
 is a matter of opinion, and to a great extent perhaps 
 merely a matter of religious fanaticism. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : No, a matter of truth, sir. How- 
 ever, you will only allow me to put questions and not 
 make remarks. Is not the League an organisation 
 for putting the offspring of vice upon the same level, 
 in regard to inheritance, as the offspring of virtue ? 
 In other words, is it not a League which is conspir- 
 ing to hinder the continuous carrying on of truth as 
 it is in nature ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : It is a League the object of 
 which is to put the children of what you call " vice " 
 on the same footing with the children of " virtue." I 
 believe that is the expression you used. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Is not the League an organisation 
 for trying to achieve the hopeless task of circumvent- 
 ing that unalterable law of nature in accordance with 
 which all attempts on the part of parents to run more 
 than one family are necessarily followed by suffering 
 in the children of such attempts ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : No. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Is it reasonable to expect that a 
 supreme administrator of law will authorise the dis- 
 tribution of unwilled property amongst children 
 whose vicious parents have not carried out that clear 
 and natural duty of which monogamy is the only 
 complete expression ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I think the probability is that 
 the children to which you refer, the real bastards of 
 the people, will not be legitimated, and hence will 
 not participate in the advantages which legitimated
 
 42 
 
 children will enjoy. I cannot quite follow your ques- 
 tion as to the great administrator. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Don't you admit a supreme 
 administrator of the law ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I admit that at present there is 
 a State, and that there will probably continue to be a 
 State for some time. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Don't you admit a supreme 
 individual a supreme administrator of the law ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : No. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : All right. Then I will put my 
 other question Have either parents or children a 
 right to what is not reasonable ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Clearly they have not a reason- 
 able right to what is not reasonable. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Are any of the forms of polygamy 
 or polyandry reasonable ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Perfectly reasonable, but not 
 now expedient, I think. We have found by studying 
 the history of peoples that both polygamy and poly- 
 andry are failures. Monogamy has proved to be a 
 better system of sexual relation than any other, and 
 those nations which have adopted that system have 
 prospered better than other nations where it has not 
 been in vogue. Therefore we think that the mono- 
 gamous system is quite capable of standing by itself 
 without any artificial bolstering up by law and 
 police. . 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : If you believe that the system can 
 stand entirely by itself, what do you mean by using 
 these words in your pamphlet on " Love and Law " : 
 " The husband's liability for the children of the mar- 
 riage would continue for the space of say one year, 
 contingent on the wife's fidelity. And the wife would
 
 43 
 
 be unable to marry again during that period without 
 forfeiting the settlement on the child's behalf " ? If 
 you mean that the monogamous arrangement is to 
 stand by itself, why do you not say " We will have no 
 law " ? Then I could understand your position. But 
 you say you want law, and now you say you want no 
 bolstering-up by law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN ; No ; I want fulfilment of con- 
 tract. I want the State to see that when a contract 
 is voluntarily entered into, it shall be fulfilled. I 
 want the State' to enforce the fulfilment of contract 
 not to control the relation of monogamy. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Are not men and women so con- 
 stituted that they can only efficiently do their natural 
 duties in relation to one family, composed of persons 
 who are all the children of the same father and 
 mother ; and is it not a fact demonstrated by all 
 history that in proportion as men and women 
 depart from this individualistic oneness, they under- 
 take a task which is as impossible as the efficient and 
 harmonious service of two masters ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I quite agree with every word 
 of that. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : If you agree with every word of 
 that, and if as you said a few minutes ago 
 "wherever polygamy and polyandry have been tried 
 they have proved failures," what do you mean by 
 saying that polygamy and polyandry are reasonable ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Certainly reasonable. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : How reasonable, if they have 
 been proved by experience to be failures ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Everything is reasonable or not, 
 according to the circumstances of time and place. 
 Polygamy and polyandry were both perfectly reason-
 
 44 
 
 able, perfectly expedient and desirable, in certain 
 phases of human development. What was reason- 
 able then is probably not wise now. It is reasonable, 
 but it seems to be unwise. Most people agree with 
 me upon that point : but it is a matter of opinion. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : Does the President of ttie League 
 think it would be rank tyranny and bad policy for 
 him to forbid his own children, if he has any, from 
 sexual indulgence amongst themselves because they 
 cannot appreciate monogamy, just as he thinks it 
 would be tyranny to prohibit them from singing 1 
 "Little Bo-Peep" and " Sing- a Song of Sixpence," 
 because they cannot enjoy the superior music of // 
 Trovatore and Faust? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I think it would be an act of 
 tyranny on the part of the parent, and I approve 
 of it ; I think benevolent despotism very desirable in 
 the nursery. 
 
 Mr. O'BRIEN : My next point is about the agree- 
 ment : Does the person who calls herself Gladys 
 Dawson mean, when she gives "notice," she will 
 "not be known by any other name or signification 
 whatever," that she will not change her name directly 
 she sees a more charming man than the person 
 who calls himself Oswald Dawson only ? (Order, 
 order.) 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Order, order. 
 
 Mr. ASHDOWN JONES : I move that no further 
 questions from Mr. O'Brien be allowed. (Hear, 
 hear.) 
 
 Mr. TOLEMAN GARNER : I beg to second that. 
 
 The motion was carried. 
 
 Dr. DRYSDALE : If I may now be permitted to 
 make a few remarks, I wish to congratulate the
 
 45 
 
 1 
 
 society that is now making its way in this country 
 upon the admirable address we have had to-day from 
 the chairman. I am sure it must have been a great 
 privilege to any of us who take an interest in human 
 affairs to have heard such a logical address. It is 
 seldom that one has an opportunity of hearing 
 anything of the kind. What between conventionality 
 and stupidity one scarcely hears anything worth men- 
 tioning at the present time. I consider that this 
 Legitimation League is certain to succeed if only the 
 members have the courage to go on. Why do I think 
 so? I think it is evident that this League must ulti- 
 mately succeed, for have not France on the one 
 hand, and that most enlightened part of Great Britain 
 Scotland on the other hand, always allowed 
 persons to legitimate their children at any time they 
 like ? Any one of us living in this large city can at 
 any moment cross the borders into Scotland and 
 legitimate his children in the course of half-an-hour 
 at a magistrate's. When that is the case it is per- 
 fectly clear that it is absurd for us in this country to 
 go on adhering to obsolete and ill considered views 
 which we have inherited from our ancestors, 
 ancestors who, as Mr. Bentham always reminds us, 
 were simply barbarians. It has been too much the 
 custom to regard whatever our ancestors thought or 
 did as being clever. How could they be guily of 
 anything clever when most of their time was occu- 
 pied in murdering each other, and when they had 
 little or no time for reflection upon civilized affairs 
 at all? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) We have now 
 come to a. time when we have grown up a little, and 
 we ought to adapt our laws so as to make human 
 beings happy so far as law will conduce to that end.
 
 46 
 
 And I am convinced that a nation like Great England 
 will never consciously make unfortunate children 
 suffer for any purpose whatever. Unless the lawyers 
 can tell me, I cannot see what object the law serves 
 in treating unfortunate children as it now does. 
 Personally, I have an immense respect for the law, 
 because I really know nothing about it, and people 
 are apt to admire what they do not understand. 
 (Laughter.) I do not understand how a great 
 country like England, with so many eminent lawyers, 
 should allow this blot to remain on the Statute Book 
 of the realm namely, that even when parents be- 
 queath to their illegitimate offspring their property 
 by will, the State has the meanness to take from 
 those children 10 per cent, more duty than it exacts 
 from children born in wedlock. This is as much as 
 to say to the children, " we (the State) will teach you 
 the disadvantage of being born illegitimate." How 
 can you teach a child in that way ? I think all of 
 us, whether we are members of this League or not, 
 must condemn such mean conduct on the part of the 
 State. Many of us would, no doubt, be very glad to 
 join this League if we dare. Unfortunately, we are 
 not all in a position to afford to care not one straw 
 what the public thinks about this league. Many 
 people would join the League if it were not for the 
 fear of something more dreadful than anything I can 
 express, that is, of being forced to live in indigence. 
 
 Mr. TOLEMAN GARNER : Mr. Chairman, ladies, 
 and gentlemen, Perhaps I may be allowed in a 
 humble way to support the observations of Dr. Drys- 
 dale, cr rather to supplement what he has said with 
 regard to the existence of this league. I suppose, to 
 the vast majority of those present, I am little short of
 
 47 
 
 being- an absolute stranger, and personally I am only 
 too painfully aware that I am placed at considerable 
 disadvantage in speaking upon the subject in which 
 you are so deeply interested. I must say that the 
 principal object of the League is one which should 
 have the decided support and heartfelt sympathy of 
 everybody capable of thinking and arriving at a 
 practical conclusion for themselves. Womanhood or 
 manhood once attained, it seems to me that this 
 legitimation question becomes ot almost paramount 
 importance. We owe it as a duty to thousands of 
 little ones, as a duty in our own interests for self- 
 protection, and in order to afford justice to mothers, 
 as well as to bring innumerable callous parents to 
 their senses, to leave no stone unturned to bring 
 about an alteration of the present state of the law, 
 and to educate public opinion to this end. I take it 
 that, in expressing these views, I am simply echoing 
 the sentiment of every lady and gentleman present 
 with, I am afraid, one exception. (Mr. O'Brien : 
 " Hear, hear.") As a member of the Malthusian 
 League, the president of which, Dr. Drysdale, is 
 present here to-day, my wife and I have done what 
 we could to train numerous friends in the way in 
 which we think they should go. Without the least 
 desire to be egotistical, I think if hundreds of young 
 couples who get married would only join hands with 
 us in this matter, the cause which has brought us 
 here to-day would stand on a vastly different footing 
 from what it does at the present time. In conclusion, 
 may I say that I shall be delighted if I am allowed in 
 my humble and inadequate way to assist the cause 
 forward on every possible occasion with voice and 
 pen. (Applause.)
 
 4 8 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK : I am not much of a public speaker, 
 but I feel called upon to justify my existence as 
 the London corresponding secretary of this League. 
 I have corresponded during the past year rather con- 
 siderably on questions relating to the sexes and filial 
 relations, but most of my time has had to be spent 
 upon my own education in the matters with which 
 the League is concerned. My principal quarrel with 
 this League is that it has not gone any further than a 
 simple statement of its objects. We all belong to it 
 because we hold that the matter of wedlock should 
 have nothing to do with the status of the child. 
 Having got so far, what other steps should be taken 
 becomes a matter for discussion. The questions in 
 which we are interested are coming up now. As we 
 all know, present-day novelists are treating of the 
 relations between the sexes. As to my own opinions, 
 they are mobile at present, and I am always glad to 
 hear the expression of the views of others. I do not 
 feel inclined now to enter into the question as to 
 what should be the proper status of a child. The 
 great difficulty in this matter is with regard to intes- 
 tate property. That is the difficulty. What I object 
 to is the statute law itself. 
 
 Dr. ALICE VICKERY : With the permission of the 
 Chairman, I should like to mention that I have 
 received a copy of the weekly bulletin statistics pub- 
 lished in the city of Paris. The number of births for 
 the week is arranged in three columns. The first 
 column is, "The Legitimate,' 1 the second column, 
 "The Illegitimate, but Recognised," and the third 
 column is, "The Illegitimate." Now, my belief is 
 I am not quite certain my belief is with regard to 
 inheritance that the " illegitimate children but recog-
 
 49 
 
 nised" rank equally with legitimate children in 
 France. If that be so, I think it would meet the 
 position which the League wishes to take up at this 
 moment. If this were conceded, it would lead on 
 further, no doubt, in course of time. I am perfectly 
 in sympathy with the League as it stands. I 
 sympathise very much with its objects. It has 
 scarcely gone far enough to please me, but this is a 
 question in which, perhaps, you cannot go too slowly. 
 It is necessary to begin with something that will be 
 fairly, readily recognised, and as the question is 
 debated and discussed, no doubt the programme of 
 the League will be widened in order to allow others 
 to enter in who take a much wider view. 
 
 Mr. J. C. SPENCE : The object of the League is 
 said to be "To create a machinery for acknow- 
 ledging offspring born out of wedlock, and to secure 
 for them equal rights with legitimate children. " As 
 an engineer I have had considerable experience in 
 designing machinery, and one of the principal con- 
 clusions I have always come to is to trust to working 
 machines rather than machines that have not been 
 working. The statement of your object that you 
 desire to put children born out of wedlock on the 
 same basis as those born in wedlock, implies that 
 wedlock does secure the proper acknowledgment of 
 children. We want the acknowledgment of children 
 in some form. We do not want to confine it to 
 Roman Catholic marriages, or marriage in an 
 English church or a Registry Office. What we want 
 is to have marriage contracts which the parties them- 
 selves make up to suit themselves. I believe the 
 principal fault of wedlock is the "lock," and you 
 cannot get out of it without doing something very 
 
 D
 
 often humiliating. Marriage is now supported by the 
 great weight of sentiment, and, personally speaking, 
 it seems to me to be the right institution. We should 
 maintain it as far as we possibly can, and I would 
 suggest that this League should become a supreme 
 Marriage Reform Association, which will register 
 marriages that cannot be enforced by law at the 
 present time, marriages, however, that will ^be 
 accepted by Mrs. Grundy, whose recognition is a 
 very important item in the matter. These irregular 
 marriages like the marriages contracted by people 
 of the infidel religions will be acknowledged socially. 
 They will have the social sanction, and that is a great 
 point gained. I think a good practical way of getting 
 much truer ideas into general use would be the 
 adoption of a system of registering irregular 
 marriages, that is, contracts deliberately drawn up 
 between man and wife or man and woman arranging 
 for the children or offspring of such unions, and for 
 inheritance, but with no perpetual clause in them. 
 
 Miss EDITH VANCE : If it is not presumptuous for 
 a young member of the League, I should like to say a 
 word or two on the future working and welfare of it. 
 It seems to me you have worked in the best possible 
 way in the circumstances hitherto, because, as every- 
 one knows in connection with movements of this 
 kind, it is first necessary to convert individuals, then 
 groups, and then classes. I should like to suggest 
 that in future your form of membership should be 
 more widely circulated, and that the conditions of 
 membership, including your minimum subscription, 
 should be made known. Many persons would join 
 the League, and are entirely in sympathy with it, but 
 they are deterred from doing so because they think it
 
 5 1 
 
 is a much more " swell " affair than it really is, and 
 they are afraid they would not be able to pay the 
 subscription. That has been one of the things 
 mentioned to me by friends. They want to know 
 what is the subscription, and what they are to do in 
 order to become members. Then I think we might 
 easily get friends to deliver addresses at most of the 
 progressive societies. The National Secular Society, 
 I think, would only be too pleased to give you a 
 platform and a hearing. 
 
 The HONORARY SECRETARY : The subscription to 
 the League is the price of its publications. Every- 
 body who joins as a member is supposed to buy the 
 publications for himself. If he sends anything over 
 that, all right. The treasurer is glad to receive 
 anything that comes to her net. I am exceedingly 
 obliged to Miss Vance for her suggestions. 
 
 Mr. DAVEY : The last speaker, Miss Vance, has 
 cleared the path for me. When I first saw an 
 announcement of the formation of this League I was 
 really under the impression that it was a high-class 
 sort of institution, with a large fee to be paid. From 
 what I have now heard, however, you may put me 
 down as a member, providing its literature is not 
 sent out in five guineas' worth at a time. (Laughter.) 
 With the objects of the League I am fully in accord ; 
 and our friend in 'the corner, Mr. O'Brien, has cer- 
 tainly raised my opinion of the society. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. CRAWSHAY : I should be very anxious to 
 support the League if it gave a little more prominence 
 to the equalisation ot the duties in regard to in- 
 heritance if it went in for putting them on an equal 
 footing. I think it is a barbarous state of the law that 
 a person who happens to have been born out of wedlock
 
 52 
 
 should have to pay this extra duty of 10 per cent., 
 and sign his name to a form which says " he is a 
 stranger in blood to the deceased." That is a dis- 
 graceful state of things, to which, I think, more 
 prominence should be given. I do not think any 
 prominence is given to it in the statement of the 
 objects of this League. Mr. Donisthorpe is for doing 
 away with the duties altogether. That hardly meets 
 the difficulty. It would be easier to equalise the 
 duties than do away with them. The former would 
 be a step in the right direction towards their ultimate 
 abolition. Then several of the speakers said they 
 were not prepared to support the League because it 
 does not go far enough. Dr. Alice Vickery said, 
 however, that it was a good thing to go slowly at 
 a time. The League draws the line at unacknow- 
 ledged children, and that appears to many of us not 
 to be consistent and going the whole way as the 
 League should. J for one may say that I should bo 
 very anxious to support this League on account of 
 that barbarous distinction made between legitimate 
 and illegitimate children, if it would be a little more 
 explicit and satisfactory with regard to the question 
 of non-acknowledged children. 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK : There is a movement on foot 
 among the advanced Socialists for raising the duties 
 on legitimate children's inheritance. 
 
 Mr. ASHDOWN JONES : With regard to non- 
 acknowledged children, there is a certain amount of 
 difficulty in legitimating all of them, because it is 
 sometimes difficult to know from which father they 
 inherit. It is often a question of very great doubt. 
 I do not see how we are to legitimate them all in the 
 sense of inheritance, because manv of the fathers
 
 don't know their children, nor do the children know 
 their fathers. (Mr. O'Brien :" Hear, hear.") With 
 regard to acknowledged children, I think it is a 
 barbarous state of things that because two individuals 
 want to acknowledge children, the law should step 
 in and say " No." I want to see first this wrong- 
 righted. 
 
 Mr. J. C. SPENCE : I understand you are trying 
 to get up a system of registration ? 
 
 The HON. SECRETARY : I have offered a sum for 
 the purpose to be placed in the hands of trustees. It is 
 very essential indeed that the records of registration 
 should be permanently accessible, and accessible in 
 the usual business hours or during specially advertised 
 hours. Mr. Pulleyne, Solicitor to the League, agrees 
 to let us have one of his offices, subject to a two years' 
 notice to quit. He himself or his clerk would under- 
 take the registrations. We should have the use of the 
 office and a safe in which to keep the books. This 
 would be in consideration of Mr. Pulleyne receiving 
 the fees, or a share of them a substantial fraction of 
 each fee for trouble, and the interest on the sum of 
 money deposited with trustees for rent during such 
 period as the responsible officers of the League had 
 use of the room and access to the records in the safe. 
 
 A MEMBER of the LEAGUE : Why should Mr. 
 Pulleyne have all the fees ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I am afraid that scheme will 
 hardly work. I question whether Mr. Pulleyne or 
 anyone else would be allowed to take fees under the 
 circumstances. There would have to be some con- 
 sideration for the money, and the consideration would 
 not be lawful. I very much doubt whether there 
 could be anything more than a voluntary registration
 
 54 
 
 without any payment whatever. It is a very interest- 
 ing point, and I should like to see it decided. 
 
 Mr. YATES : Under the law as it stands at the 
 present time, whether a child be legitimate or not, 
 its father can have his name inserted on the certificate. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : There is no difficulty if a father 
 likes to put his name on a register, he can do so now. 
 And it is commonly done with the consent of the 
 mother. 
 
 Mr. CRAWSHAY : I beg to propose a vote of 
 thanks to the Chairman. 
 
 Mr. JONES : I heartily second that. 
 
 The motion having been passed nem. con. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : 1 thank you. It is more pleasant 
 to be received in this way than to be hustled out of 
 the hall as I nearly was at the meeting in Leeds a 
 year ago. There were twenty times the number then 
 present, but the Leeds meeting was not so un- 
 animously favourable as this. I think we have only 
 one dissentient, my friend Mr. O'Brien, with whose 
 writings we are all familiar and so much admire. I 
 am sorry we cannot agree upon this marriage reform 
 question. He holds peculiar views on this question 
 which do not seem to me to accord with the general 
 principles he has adopted. 
 
 Mr. DAVEY : I move that the best thanks of this 
 meeting be given to Mr. and Mrs. Dawson for the 
 extraordinary efforts they have made to advance the 
 interests of this League, a self-imposed task they 
 have worthily fulfilled. I am sure our hearty thanks 
 are due to them. 
 
 Miss VANCE : I have great pleasure in seconding 
 that, and before the next annual meeting of the 
 League, I hope to have the pleasure of hearing an
 
 address on the objects of the League somewhere in 
 London. I will do my best to secure a platform and 
 a welcome for any representative of the League who 
 may desire to deliver such address. 
 
 The motion having been adopted unanimously, 
 Mr. DAWSON said : 1 am sure I thank you very 
 much for your kindness in passing this vote, but it 
 was really not needed. 
 
 The proceedings then terminated.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 A REPORT OF THE REPORTS. 
 
 A HALF-COLUMN report of the meeting occupied 
 an excellent position in the pages of the Weekly 
 Times and Echo on the following morning. 
 Copies of the issue were posted to all members and 
 friends. 
 
 The fullest account was given by the Bedford 
 Mercury, which I partially reprint here. 
 
 "THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 "The first annual meeting of the members 
 of this new League was held at the Bedford 
 Hotel, Covent Garden, on Saturday last, Mr. 
 Wordsworth Donisthorpe, the well-known barris- 
 ter, president, in [the chair ; a representative of 
 this journal accepted an invitation to be present, 
 and went to town for the purpose, not that he 
 was in full accord with the meeting, but is always 
 interested in any crusade carried on in the name 
 of progress and liberty. The society is young 
 and is on somewhat new lines, its objects being to 
 ' create a machinery for acknowledging offspring
 
 born out of wedlock, and to secure for them equal 
 rights with legitimate children.' Though it is 
 new, it is likely to be heard much of before long, 
 for it aims to confer a status of respectability 
 upon the acknowledged children of unmarried 
 parents, by giving them legal recognition with 
 titles to succession. 
 
 "The President, a man of broad views as 
 well as of great courage, briefly opened the pro- 
 ceedings, and asked the Secretary, Mr. Oswald 
 Dawson, of Leeds, to make an abstract of the 
 letters received, and to give the annual report. 
 Mr. Dawson, who has been the moving spirit of 
 the League from the outset, was cordially wel- 
 comed. Letters had been received from Mr. 
 Greevz Fisher and Dr. Arnold Lees, the vice- 
 presidents, the former sending several suggestions 
 for a ' Declaration,' which he thought might be 
 used as a manifesto of the object of the League. 
 Their solicitor, Mr. Pulleyne, of Albion Walk, 
 Leeds, sent several sheets of similar suggestions, 
 believing that if the public knew more of the 
 League they would support it. What was re- 
 quired was a simple Code providing for the regis- 
 tration of non-State-tied marriages, and for the 
 filing of declarations of fatherhood and mother- 
 hood. Mr. Beaumont, solicitor, of Hull, and 
 others, also wrote, including some who were not 
 yet convinced of the advisability of supporting 
 the League. Mr. Phillips, writing from Manches- 
 ter, gave striking testimony gained by his resi- 
 dence in the Congo district of Africa, and bore 
 witness to the faithfulness of the women in that 
 land. Mr. Dawson then sketched the work of
 
 the year, instead of presenting a written report. 
 The Treasurer (Mrs. Gladys Dawson) 
 read the financial statement, showing receipts 
 ^317 8s. 6d., and expenses amounting to about 
 ^290, leaving a balance in hand of 2(3 is. zod. 
 
 " The President then gave an address, in the 
 course of which he enquired into the reasons for 
 the small membership of the League, the chief one 
 being the fact that they were misunderstood, and 
 were liable to misrepresentation. Ladies fought 
 shy of it, and he was glad to see so many ladies 
 present, ready to take their share in this unpopular 
 attempt to secure justice for the children. . . . 
 Their object was to reform the law as to the 
 legitimation of offspring, not to alter the law ol 
 bastardy. They had nothing to do with promis- 
 cuous or free love for liberty had no sympathy 
 with vice and he thought their best course would 
 be to issue a manifesto, as suggested in several 
 of the letters. Mr. Dawson remarked that he 
 hoped his article in the Modern Review would 
 answer the purpose of such. There was a copy 
 at the door for every visitor. 
 
 " Questions were invited, and Mr. M. D. 
 O'Brien asked several, and the President answered 
 them promptly and clearly ; but as they were 
 growing more and more intensely hostile to the 
 League, the audience agreed by resolution to 
 refuse permission to Mr. O'Brien to waste any 
 more time of the meeting. Sympathetic remarks 
 with the League were made by Dr. Drysdale, the 
 well-known physician, who regretted that the 
 public were still largely influenced by mere con- 
 ventionalities and stupid customs. France and
 
 59 
 
 Scotland both made legitimation very easy, so 
 that it was absurd for England to hold out as she 
 now did. The nation should adapt its laws to 
 make human beings happy, and not allow such 
 blots as those which make a man's natural 
 children pay 10 per cent, legacy duty, and gives 
 them only nine-tenths of the property their father 
 intended them to have. An interesting discussion 
 followed, among those who spoke being Mr. 
 Toleman Garner, Mr. Badcock, Dr. Alice Vickery 
 {who spoke on registration of births in France), 
 Mr. J. C. Spence, Miss Edith Vance, Mr. Craw- 
 shay, the Secretary, and others. 
 
 " In the evening Mr. and Mrs. Dawson enter- 
 tained a large party at the annual dinner of the 
 League, in the hotel, and a sumptuous affair it 
 was. The menu was excellent, flowers charmingly 
 arranged, and, wonder of wonders at a dinner 
 the speaking was both pointed and short. Mrs. 
 Dawson gave " The Queen," the company rising ; 
 and then the place of honour was given to " The 
 Press," proposed by Mr. Badcock and responded 
 to by Mr. Legge, of the Modern Review. Mr. 
 Spence, author of "The Dawn of Civilization/' 
 gave prosperity to the Legitimation League as one 
 of the efforts to get rid of many inherited and 
 slavish notions which came from mediaeval times. 
 They dated from the time when women were 
 practically slaves, and to clear them off was the 
 reform most needed to-day. Mr. Dawson replied 
 and spoke of the desirability of the proposed 
 Registration office, where the records should be 
 open to public inspection at all reasonable hours ; 
 and then referred to the social ostracism which he
 
 6o 
 
 and others encountered through this advocacy of 
 their views. Songs were given by Mr. Gordon 
 Heller and others, and a most pleasant evening 
 was spent by all present." 
 
 The other singer was Mr. John Banks, whilst 
 Mrs. Harding, in each instance, favoured us with 
 accompaniments on the piano, and Mr. Toleman 
 Garner with a recitation. 
 
 On the following Monday the Pall Mall Gazette 
 posters announced, in large letters, " Legitimation : 
 A Strange Feast." Here follows "Some Notes of a 
 Dinner Party/' extracted from that newspaper : 
 
 "THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 
 "SOME NOTES OK A DINNER PARTY. 
 
 " The card of invitation said that the organi- 
 zation which was going to celebrate its anniversary 
 was ' The Legitimation League,' with headquarters 
 at Albion-walk Chambers, Leeds ; that the annual 
 meeting would be held on Saturday afternoon, and 
 would be followed by dinner at the Bedford, in 
 Covent Garden, at six. ' I have always had much 
 admiration,' writes a Pall Mall contributor, ' for 
 the folly of those who would try to restore the 
 fortunes of the exiled Stuarts. It looks so 
 chivalric and essentially out of date. Therefore 
 I dressed and went to the Bedford. Cf course I 
 was late, for the Legitimationists had the absurd 
 idea that six really meant that hour, and not half- 
 past. The diners were just sitting down. It was 
 a mixed gathering ; there were ladies present, 
 and of the men some were in evening dress, some 
 were not. There were two or three striking 
 personalities in the room. One was the lady I
 
 6i 
 
 afterwards learned was Mrs. Oswald Dawson, 
 who is associated with the founder of the League, 
 Mr. Oswald Dawson, in its work. Another was 
 Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe, of the Inner 
 Temple, president of the League. What he did 
 there trying to restore exiled Stuarts puzzled me, 
 and while engaged trying to solve the puzzle 
 dinner was served. I had for neighbour a fair 
 Lorrainer, and judiciously questioning her as 
 to the League, found that she, like myself, 
 was a stranger and a pilgrim within its gates 
 The absence of any emblems of the banished 
 Royal family, the scraps of conversation which 
 came flitting towards me as dinner progressed, 
 suddenly brought with the baked meats a 
 realization that I had fallen into a happy error, 
 and with the sweets I felt as Carthew did in the 
 Currency Lass Public-house, ' a strange sense of 
 wading deeper in the tide of life.' I was in the 
 most sentimental of companies marvellous, too, 
 that it should come from hard-headed Yorkshire 
 for I began to learn that these were folks for 
 whom the marriage tie had no attractions, and 
 who were ready where the joint fancy struck 
 them to agree to be husbands and wives for times 
 and seasons only. I am a most respectable man, 
 but some of the ladies were pretty, the gentlemen 
 were quite unconventional, and there was a sense 
 of the sweetness of stolen waters over it all which 
 constrained me. Mrs. Dawson proposed 'The 
 Queen.' It was after that the ladies produced 
 their cigarettes. Mr. Gordon Heller, a singer of 
 worth, who like myself wa"s a mere guest, enter- 
 tained us, and at last Mr, Oswald Dawson rose
 
 to reply for the League, to my further enlighten- 
 ment. Mr. Dawson was, I may explain, the 
 founder of the feast, as well as the League. He 
 is a man of medium height, heavily bearded, with 
 kindly eyes gazing at, I mistrust me, an unsympa- 
 thetic world through gold-rimmed spectacles. He 
 was down on our present marriage customs, 
 those relics of days when the Catholic Church, as 
 the proposer of the toast had said, laid down its 
 stupid laws about the relations of the sexes. 
 What they aimed at in the League was to create 
 an organization which will agitate for reforms in 
 this particular, which will enable people who have 
 agreed to live together without accepting the civil 
 contract, to register their determination, with its 
 period of duration, and also secure the legitimiza- 
 tion of children born out of wedlock. Mr. 
 Dawson spoke of the social ostracism which he- 
 had suffered. ' As it happens,' he said, ' my wife 
 and I though you know I am not a husband in 
 the ordinary sense do not care much for company, 
 and it does not affect us,' but one judged that in 
 Leeds the new movement for the perfect equality 
 of the sexes has its opponents. What they were 
 eager to have was a machinery which would serve 
 to further their aims. It might be called the 
 Legitimation League, or the Licit Alliance Asso- 
 ciation any name they liked. He supposed he 
 could not use the words Free Love Alliance, 
 because it was liable to be misunderstood. At 
 any rate, he was glad to see them all, and hoped 
 to meet again when progress was more marked, 
 for some legal difficulty would compel them to 
 find a solution, a wcrk he commended to the
 
 63 
 
 president Mr. Donisthorpe and would the waiter 
 bring in some whisky, which the waiter did not 
 do, but continued the champagne, and I recol- 
 lected I had toasted the League and Mr. and Mrs. 
 Oswald Dawson, and was not over sorry. Though, 
 as I said, I am a most respectable man, but it is 
 an age of new views, and life is worthless unless 
 it is lived. Besides, the champagne was very 
 good." 
 
 Extracts from the above sketch appeared in the 
 Yorkshire Evening Post, whilst other Leeds papers 
 also took note of the event. Amongst these was the 
 Skyrack Courier, which, in addition to a report of the 
 meeting, gave a half-column also of comment. I 
 subjoin the following extract : 
 
 "THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. The recent 
 annual meeting in London of the Legitimation 
 League, which has its head quarters at Leeds, 
 asrain directs attention to this institution. Mr, 
 
 O 
 
 Oswald Dawson, of Seacroft, as is well known, is 
 Secretary to the League, and is certainly doing his 
 utmost by tongue and pen to make it and its 
 objects known throughout the country. 
 
 "... Such ecclesiastical ideas about 
 illegitimate children as prevail in other countries 
 abroad, and have more largely prevailed in this 
 than now, founded upon a barbarous Mosaic code, 
 as they are, ought not to be allowed to continue 
 in existence in Great Britain 
 
 " . . . The State is guilty of extra- 
 ordinary and most illogical inconsistency in this 
 matter. It permits of marriage being reduced ta 
 a mere civil compact by being celebrated at the 
 Register Office, and yet perpetuates by its legisla-
 
 6 4 
 
 tion the old spirit of proscription and prejudice 
 towards the hapless child born out of wedlock, 
 which originated out of the belief that civil 
 marriage, or marriage without a priest, was im- 
 moral. The .State itself sanctioned what, in the 
 eyes of the church, was illegitimacy ; and yet- 
 playing fast and loose with the ecclesiastical 
 sentiment while striking at the foundation of 
 that sentiment by establishing the Register Office, 
 pretended to conciliate it by maintaining the old 
 disabilities of illegitimate children. 
 
 " I might say that since there can be no true 
 marriage without love, the children resulting from 
 the many loveless mercenary matrimonial unions 
 of the day are, morally, quite as illegitimate as 
 those legally known as such, though, of course, 
 equally as innocent." 
 Waddington's " Guide to Leeds" devotes a page 
 
 of information to the League, from which I take the 
 
 following sympathetic note. 
 
 " Our marriage laws are an uncivilised, 
 barbarous congeries of mistakes which lead to 
 endless litigation and untold misery. Considering 
 that the sum of human happiness is increased or 
 diminished by the interest taken, it is rather 
 strange that people should be afraid almost to 
 think on matters which the profoundest jurists 
 and the most learned prelates of all the churches of 
 Christendom have always manifested interest in." 
 Waddington's " Guide to Scarborough " put the 
 
 case for the League lucidly. 
 
 "THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE OF LEEDS. 
 "According to the view of the President and 
 of the founder of the League, Mr. Oswald
 
 65 
 
 Dawson, of Leeds, the legitimacy of a child 
 should depend simply upon the fact that it has 
 been duly acknowledged, and should not be deter- 
 mined solely by the circumstance that its parents 
 were legally wedded at the time of its birth. The 
 most natural retort to this contention seems to us 
 to be the question why should people who so far 
 defy the laws of society as to dispense with the 
 marriage ceremony which the law prescribes, 
 wish to place themselves or their offspring under 
 shelter of the law by securing for the latter the 
 status of illegitimacy, especially as the principal 
 benefit attaching to legitimacy, the title to inherit 
 in event of the intestacy of parents, can be secured 
 by the simple process of making a will. To this 
 the reply of the League is that the illegitimate 
 child, even though entitled to money under a will, 
 has to pay a higher rate of duty than the legiti- 
 mate child, and that, were this not the case, it 
 would none the less remain an injustice that the 
 illegitimate child should suffer from the negligence 
 of the parents to make wills, whilst his brethren 
 born in wedlock do not so suffer. The League, 
 however, whilst duly recognising the legal dis- 
 abilities involved, is not slow to perceive and to 
 proclaim that the chief gain to be sought is ' the 
 investment with a respectability of those who 
 object to the prevalent custom of modern matri- 
 mony, and for their offspring for duly acknow- 
 ledged children.' Those, indeed, are the closing 
 words of Mr. Oswald Dawson's address at the 
 end of the first volume of the League's proceedings. 
 How he may develop the idea in the second 
 volume, The Bar Sinister and Licit Love, will, 
 
 E
 
 66 
 
 we presume, sufficiently show. The expression, 
 ' Licit Love,' makes us think he intends to show 
 the way, in theory, of obtaining some sort of legal 
 recognition for the sort of alliance which, before 
 the founding of the League, he had entered into 
 with a lady who by public advertisement in York- 
 shire and other papers declared that she had ' for 
 some time past used and adopted the surname of 
 the above-named Oswald Dawson,' the above- 
 named having at the same time made a slight 
 change in his name (merely dropping one of the 
 Christian names), seemingly for the purpose of 
 enabling the lady whose advertisement of change 
 of name followed his to refer to the ' above- 
 named.' Whether this is to be the system which 
 it is seriously proposed shall replace, among such 
 as prefer it, the practice of marriage, or whether 
 it is simply a part of such system, remains to be 
 seen. Those who, with ourselves, confess to a 
 curiosity to see how this startling project of legiti- 
 mation is to be developed, will await with interest 
 the advertised publications." 
 
 The Yorkshire Owl, in a full page review of our 
 inaugural publications, reproduced the frontispiece of 
 the " Proceedings," and described the President's 
 pamphlet, " Love and Law," as a very remarkable 
 production. Continuing, the Owl said 
 
 " His essay, as we have indicated, is a most 
 remarkable one, not only on account of its 
 candour and outspoken nature, but also by reason 
 of the amazing subtlety with which its barrister- 
 author deals with all the argumentative hosts of 
 the enemy. To those who look upon marriage 
 as a purely human adjustment of the sexual
 
 6 7 
 
 relations, Mr. Donisthorpe's logic will be con- 
 clusive. It was said of Shelley's union with Mary 
 Wollstonecraft, that the poet acted upon a social 
 theory with sincere conscientiousness which, if 
 generally adopted, would bring shipwreck upon 
 thousands of English homes. The learned author 
 of this essay goes a long way towards demon- 
 strating that Shelley's theory might become a 
 national practice without any such dire result. 
 The essay ought to be widely read : it opens up 
 more avenues of thought than perhaps even the 
 author intended." 
 
 Mr. J. Morrison Davidson, barrister-at-law, who 
 is a well-known journalist, devotes over a column to 
 the Legitimation League in The Weekly Times and 
 Echo of June 3, 1894. Mr. Davidson is compli- 
 mentary, and partially sympathetic. He looks to the 
 time when our ' well-intentioned efforts " will be but 
 " the mere memory of a barbarous past." The 
 barbarity, I fear, has not so much relation to the 
 compulsion involved in legal marriage as to the 
 possession of private property implied in the label- 
 ling of people as legitimate heirs. Whether or no 
 there would be legitimacy and illegitimacy under 
 Socialism I cannot tell. There would, I presume, be 
 no baronetcies or other titles to follow the family 
 line, and no acres or stocks to inherit. But it is 
 conceivable that certain privileges might be possessed 
 by parents, as of naming the vocations they wish 
 their children to be put to by the State, or by the 
 children themselves in view of special services 
 rendered by their parents to the State, as, e.g, , 
 exemption trom military service ; and if this be so it 
 will be needful to know who are the parents, and of
 
 68 
 
 what children they are parents. Indeed, I opine that 
 Socialism will have left its own advent far distant 
 in the barbarous past ere, say, the eldest or only son 
 of a great benefactor will be asked to regard himself 
 as other than a gentleman of leisure. Similarly with 
 respect to property. Is it proposed to nationalise 
 the trinkets, the family Bible, and the old arm chair ? 
 If not, there will probably be some one more legiti- 
 mately entitled to take possession of them than 
 others. Then what about the property in what we 
 may call the moral goodwill of the old home ? To 
 nationalise the site when you cannot nationalise 
 the associations of it would indeed be hard. Then 
 who is to have the choice of, dwelling there ? Will 
 not the wife, or the paramour who was recognised, 
 or the children who were acknowledged, have a prior 
 claim over the stranger, other things equal ? If so, 
 then the State must know who were these with prior 
 claim, and in this, as in all these instances, there will 
 be need for a Legitimation League if the acknow- 
 ledged children who are born out of wedlock if any 
 wedlock remains are not to be left out in the cold.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 A SOLICITOR ON MARRIAGE. 
 
 THE paper contributed by Mr. Charles M. Beau- 
 mont, of Hull, a paper too long to read at the 
 meeting", is printed below in extenso. Mr. 
 Beaumont wrote an accompanying letter which is also 
 here printed. 
 
 " DEAR SIR, 
 
 " I am obliged for the notice of the Legiti- 
 mation League meeting, but regret that I shall 
 not be able to leave Hull for that day. 
 
 " As promised, I enclose an article on the 
 marriage question, which please publish in any 
 way that will assist the objects of the League. 
 
 " With compliments to yourself and Mrs. 
 Dawson, and with best wishes for a successful 
 and useful meeting. 
 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " CHAS. M. BEAUMONT." 
 " Hull, zqth March, 1894."
 
 THE MARRIAGE LAWS WHAT THEY 
 REALLY ARE. 
 
 By the majority of English people the marriage 
 laws are accepted as an all-sufficient standard of 
 morality : conformity with them is held to be moral, 
 non-conformity immoral, and the suggestion of any 
 important alteration in them is usually hailed as 
 scandalous. 
 
 Whether we are concerned in upholding or up- 
 setting this view, it is essential to useful discussion 
 that we should know just what these marriage laws 
 are. They affect the most important and most sacred 
 relation of life, and no one has the slightest right to 
 lift a voice in favour of their enforcement or other- 
 wise who is not acquainted with, at any rate, the main 
 outlines of them. 
 
 In the first place, our marriage laws are not, as 
 they are generally supposed to be, a code for the pre- 
 vention of immorality. Let it be clearly understood 
 that in England we have no law against ordinary 
 sexual immorality. The man or woman who wishes 
 to be immoral need not hide his depravity from the 
 police, they may boast of it openly if they choose, 
 they are committing no offence against their country's 
 laws. 
 
 It is usual for staunch supporters of they know 
 not what, to hurl against advocates of marriage 
 reform the dreaded expression " Free Love." Let me 
 inform these that " Free Love," in its most oppro- 
 brious meaning of unrestrained license of sexual 
 intercourse, is permitted by our laws ; if " Free Love " 
 is to be made illegal our laws must be, not upheld, 
 but altered.
 
 Our marriage laws do not effect any but those 
 who voluntarily submit to their jurisdiction by under- 
 going the formality of a legal marriage ceremony. 
 This ceremony is not compulsory. A man may have 
 one wife or a dozen ; a woman one husband or a 
 dozen, without going through this ceremony, and to 
 such the law has nothing to say, either for or against. 
 But to those who perform the ceremony, what is the 
 effect of their so doing ? Most people seem to think 
 that the law undertakes to see to the performance of 
 the solemn marriage vows set forth in the Church 
 service, to sanction their fulfilment, and to punish 
 infidelity. 
 
 No so, however. " With all my worldly goods I 
 thee endow " is a promise of which the law takes no 
 notice whatever, but leaves the performance to the 
 conscience of the promissor. Vows to love and 
 cherish, honour and obey, English law is not so 
 foolish as to attempt to enforce, having no means of 
 controlling people's sentiments or affections. It used 
 to go so far as to compel, or try to compel, an 
 unwilling mate to reside with husband or wife under 
 pain of imprisonment, but has given up that task as 
 impossible. 
 
 As for punishing infidelity ; in the first place the 
 law knows but one narrow meaning for that word, 
 and that is adultery. Indifference, hatred, and con- 
 tempt may exist between husband and wife without 
 breach of the marriage contract as interpreted by law. 
 Only in case of adultery can the law perceive 
 infidelity And then, what is the punishment ? None. 
 Adultery, like other immorality, is no crime at law 
 and entails no legal punishment. The utmost that 
 the law will do in case of adultery is, to admit its
 
 72 
 
 powerlessness by formally professing to loose the 
 bond which has already been broken. Some people 
 seem to regard an order for alimony as a kind of fine 
 imposed as a punishment for misconduct. It is 
 nothing of the sort. It is merely a continuance of 
 the liability that the husband took upon himself at 
 marriage. If a punishment at all, it is a punishment 
 incurred, not by breaking the marriage contract, but 
 by entering into it. 
 
 We see, then, that, except to those who volun- 
 tarily accept their jurisdiction, our marriage laws are 
 a nullity. Even to those who submit to them they 
 are a nullity in so far as any control, or attempted 
 control, over affections or conjugal behaviour goes. 
 What, then, is their function? Simply this, to 
 regulate the financial relations of the legally married. 
 
 The law cannot control affection, but it can 
 control the purse. To this end, then, our marriage 
 code confines its attention. The moral liabilities 
 undertaken with marriage are beyond its power. 
 The pecuniary liabilities thereby incurred, it can, 
 however, enforce. 
 
 Let us see how far it succeeds in fulfilling this 
 humble function. 
 
 The liabilities implied in legal marriage are 
 shortly as follows : The husband becomes liable to 
 maintain the wife so long as they both live and she 
 continues to reside with him and fulfils the legal idea 
 of fidelity ; that is, refrains from adultery. At the 
 death of either, this liability ceases, so that if the 
 husband die first, and wealthy, he may leave his wife 
 penniless, no matter how much his wealth may have 
 been contributed to by her assistance. On the other 
 hand, his liability is not put an end to by any other
 
 73 
 
 misconduct of hers ; she may prove unkind as a wife, 
 useless as a helpmate, dangerous as a mother, alto- 
 gether a burden grevious to be borne, and still her 
 right to maintenance remains the same. If her 
 rights are not diminished by bad conduct, they are 
 not increased by good conduct. She may work at 
 keeping his house or educating his children, may 
 assist in his business, or manage it entirely, and, at 
 least in the absence of special agreement to the con- 
 trary, no part of the proceeds of her work becomes 
 hers. 
 
 As to the children, they belong, generally speak- 
 ing, solely to the husband, to the neglect of the 
 mother that bore, nursed, and perhaps trained them, 
 though she is liable for their maintenance in case of 
 his failure to maintain them, as she is also liable to 
 maintain him if she should be solvent and he destitute. 
 
 In case of separation with the sanction of the 
 law, that is, where the court finds that either of the 
 parties has been guilty of any of the few breaches of 
 conjugal duty which the law takes cognisance of, it 
 enforces the above liabilities. If the parties separate 
 without appeal to the law, it leaves them to fight out 
 their financial matters without its aid ; which means 
 practically this, that if one party to a marriage has 
 money and the other none, the monied one can inflict 
 a vast amount of misery on the other, to which that 
 other must either submit or run the risk of starvation. 
 Even where an offence has been committed which 
 the courts would recognise, the great expense of 
 proof often makes redress inaccessible to the money- 
 less one. 
 
 Now, without going so far as to say that this 
 financial arrangement is contrary to common sense,
 
 74 
 
 it is quiet conceivable that a couple might desire, 
 having special tastes or under special circumstances, 
 that their money matters should be regulated on a 
 different basis to the above. The husband and wife 
 may be willing to be answerable to one another for a 
 greater responsibility towards their children than the 
 meagre one which can be enforced through the 
 Guardians of the Poor. The wife may be desirous to 
 have some rights secured to her over her prospective 
 children, and the husband may be willing to agree to 
 this. The wife may desire that if she throws in her 
 lot with her husband, works with him, shares risk 
 and loss with him, she shall have a share in the 
 profits also, and the husband may think this just and 
 be willing to assent to it. 
 
 The law says nothing against such arrange- 
 ments, so long as they steer clear of what it calls 
 " immoral consideration," a thing not difficult to do. 
 The law offers a ready-made marriage contract, the 
 best, I suppose, that it has hitherto been able to 
 devise, but it does not enforce it upon couples. It 
 refuses, and rightly, to assist them to make, barter, 
 and sale of sexual favours under any other contract 
 but its own, but it permits them to arrange their 
 merely pecuniary matters as they please. 
 
 But though the law offers no opposition to the 
 application of common sense to a marriage contract, 
 social prejudice does. Society likes to have an easy, 
 hard and fast line drawn between right and wrong, 
 so as to save it all trouble in ascertaining facts when 
 it wants to pass judgment. It seizes the readiest 
 rule to hand, however unsuitable, and decrees that 
 the acceptance of the legal code of financial liabilities 
 .shall be taken as the dividing line between morality
 
 75 
 
 and immorality. The consequences of making- a 
 pecuniary contract the standard of morality are, of 
 course, ridiculous. Penniless beauty sells herself to 
 wealthy lust openly and candidly, but she secures the 
 maintenance by going- through the marriage service, 
 and that is moral ; though the children of such a 
 union may curse the morality that brought them into 
 the world debarred of physical, mental, or moral 
 health. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Dovecot may 
 love, honour, and cherish one another, share their 
 means honourably, and fulfil all their vast responsibili- 
 ties to their children marvellously, but they cannot go 
 through the marriage service, because Mr. D. was 
 tricked into a marriage when a boy with an adven- 
 turess, who then left him with all his valuables, and is 
 now nobody knows where. So the lives of Mr. and 
 Mrs. D. are immoral and shocking. 
 
 Mrs. Ingenue was married when a young girl, 
 not knowing what marriage meant, to a man whose 
 treatment of her was such that she was obliged to 
 leave him years ago, or suffer degradation and misery 
 herself and perhaps become the mother of children 
 whose lives would be a curse to them and all around 
 them. She meets a man with whom she could be 
 happy, and ventures to go through the marriage 
 service with him. A telegram arrives to say that her 
 first husband is dead. With immense relief she finds 
 that her act is no longer immoral, but moral. The 
 death of her husband in the nick of time, though at 
 the other side of the world, and though they would 
 never have met again, has made all the difference. 
 After a year comes a telegram from the first husband 
 himself, saying that he is alive, and wants money.
 
 7 6 
 
 Horrible ! all that year she has been living in 
 immorality without knowing it, for -the social code 
 makes possible the absurdity of unconscious 
 immorality. After a vast amount of expense and 
 trouble it is discovered that the first husband is really 
 dead, the last telegram having been a dodge by a 
 villain to extort money. Society, which had 
 righteously deserted Mrs. I., now comes back again, 
 though still fearful what Mrs. I.'s morals may turn 
 out to be until it has seen Mr. I.'s body held safely 
 down by a good heavy tombstone. If the second 
 husband has been too poor for the expense of 
 inquiry, Mrs. I.'s morals would have remained 
 shocking. 
 
 Mrs. Green was married for her money by a 
 villain who fortunately set her free by being smashed 
 in a railway accident. So she marries (profiting by 
 experience) a real good fellow, and has several 
 children and is happy. But Green turns up again ; 
 his railway accident was a ruse to get out of the 
 country, having robbed a bank. But he has been 
 caught, served his time, and now comes back to 
 claim his wife. She is a weak creature, prevents her 
 second husband from strangling Green, and goes 
 back with him, leaving her children motherless. 
 But then turns up an old pal of Green's, who con- 
 fesses that the marriage service with Green was a 
 trick, and invalid. So Mrs. Brown may now go 
 back to her husband if he will have her, he being 
 now entitled to a divorce, for she has offended 
 against Society's law even while seeking to obey it. 
 Brown will be vexed at her having left him for a 
 period of concubinage with Green, and if she pleads 
 that she was only obeying, to the best of her ability,
 
 77 
 
 the social law, he may well reply that if that is social 
 law the social law is an ass. 
 
 Such absurd instances of wives reduced to con- 
 cubines and children disinherited by technical flaws 
 in marriages may be multiplied infinitely. Do not 
 our novels abound with them ? People regard such 
 accidents as inevitable, but does not their possibility 
 show that there is something, say, just a trifle 
 artificial and arbitrary in our social code of morality ? 
 
 I suppose Society would ask plaintively, " If we 
 take away its present code of morality, what would 
 we put in its place?" Society must have something 
 to get into a state of holy horror about. Well, there 
 is plenty of that without discussing the question of 
 how Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so will divide their 
 property when they are tired of each other. If a man 
 endeavours to escape his natural responsibility to the 
 children he has begotten, leaving them to seek food, 
 clothing, and education in the gutter ; if a man tries 
 to retain possession of a woman by reason of her 
 pecuniary dependence upon him when he has no hold 
 on her affection ; when parents encourage a daughter 
 to sell herself to an old roue for money or rank, there 
 is plenty of work for Society's censorious faculty, 
 and work highly needed, too. As for my idea of 
 what the marriage laws should be, it involves simply 
 a practical application of the evident principle that 
 man or woman should be held responsible for the 
 natural consequence of their own acts. Every parent 
 should be held responsible for the maintenance and 
 education of his or her child, under whatever form of 
 marriage born, or if under none at all ; and those 
 who tried to avoid that natural responsibility should 
 be held despicable. The man who was naturally
 
 78 
 
 responsible for a woman's confinement should be held 
 liable to contribute towards her expenses, and the 
 man who tried to shirk that responsibility should be 
 regarded as a cur. If a man and woman lived 
 together as man and wife, they should be at liberty 
 to make their own contract as to pecuniary matters. 
 If they made no contract, and, separating, could not 
 agree upon a division, the implied contract should be 
 interpreted by the courts exactly as if between two 
 people of the same sex, that is, as a partnership, or 
 as an engagement by one of the other on salary, or 
 as a mere extension of hospitality by one to the other, 
 according to circumstances. Disputes as to custody 
 of children could be settled by the courts as now, but 
 with a better recognition of the rights of the mother. 
 
 But there should never be the scandal of a public 
 inquiry into the conjugal relations of the parties, their 
 fidelity or infidelity. These things should not be held 
 to affect the financial question one iota. Love pays 
 for love, fidelity for fidelity ; .these things cannot be 
 paid for in money. The remedy for infidelity is not a 
 money compensation, but to part. And no agree- 
 ment should be held enforceable in marriage any 
 more than it now is out of marriage, by which con- 
 jugal favours are made the consideration for a money 
 payment or money value. 
 
 I fancy I hear Mrs. Grundy cry in horror, 
 " Why, under such a law people could live together 
 and separate whenever they pleased !" Now, my very 
 dear and respected Mrs. Grundy, allow me to say 
 that that is entirely beside the question. If we had 
 any law at present to prevent people from living 
 together and separating when they please, I might 
 discuss the advisability of it, but seeing that the law
 
 79 
 
 at present allows perfect liberty in that respect at 
 any rate, to those who have or can earn a living - 
 and that the only people bound in marriage against 
 their will are bound not by law but by the accident of 
 pecuniary dependence an unfairness which I am sure 
 such an estimable lady as yourself does not wish to 
 continue I think we may put aside the question 
 whether we should force all married people to love 
 one another and be faithful and happy until we have 
 invented some workable scheme for doing so. 
 
 Till then let us leave them to sort themselves as 
 heretofore, only let us try to settle their financial 
 disputes, with which alone we have to do, a little bit 
 more justly.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE LEAGUE'S SOLICITOR'S VIEWS. 
 
 1 ASKED Mr. Pulleyne, whose paper of sugges- 
 tions, read at the annual meeting, evoked 
 considerable merriment, on account of its con- 
 cluding expression of hope that the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury would join the governing body of the 
 League, to write a further paper dealing with certain 
 legal aspects of marriage, for publication in these 
 Proceedings. He supplies me with the following 
 article, in which the legal aspect is not, however, 
 predominant. 
 
 AN APOLOGY FOR THE LEAGUE. 
 
 It is of necessity that the thinkers in any large 
 community must exhibit much divergence of thought 
 in any matter where the human intellect exercises the 
 limited intelligence permitted it. From this class 
 spring the originators who are the pioneers of man's 
 development. 
 
 If the idea be but original or can claim some 
 approximation to originality, then at least something 
 is gained. New thoughts are evolved in others,
 
 Si 
 
 perhaps, to induce some action of the brain power by 
 which to accomplish all that is subject to earthly 
 revelation. 
 
 One fatal impediment to civilization, to the 
 progress of thought, has been, not the mystic com- 
 pound of man's nature but the base use of it. Cunning 
 minds have seized upon that weakest of weak points 
 the inability to comprehend the mysteries of origin 
 and futurity while it is the commonest of plagiarisms 
 that the power creating the earth, known by all names 
 to all nations, and we call God, has circumscribed the 
 intelligenceof man andprevented their comprehension. 
 
 This mysterious region has always formed, will 
 always form, the happy hunting ground of the Bogie- 
 man, of those unscrupulous men who seek power, 
 fame, fortune, notoriety, by trading upon the- super- 
 stitious elements of their neighbour's composition. 
 To proclaim a simple and absolute faith in the Creator, 
 an illimitable belief that the founder of the wonderful 
 universe, of which man is the apex, is wisely 
 responsible for origin and futurity, would not suit 
 their purpose. They who throughout all time, in all 
 communities, have successfully diverted the human 
 mind and been the bane of man, they have enslaved 
 their credulous followers by rites unholy, some de- 
 moniacal, some brutal, some indecent, others hideous, 
 cruel, childish, and inane ; they have confused, by 
 creeds and rituals, creeds and rituals of all kinds 
 except simple, involved combinations of words, 
 paradoxical, illogical, incomprehensible, absurd; they 
 have captured the eye by gorgeous ceremonials, the 
 chief of which has been the gaudy and fantastic 
 decoration of its officiators. The underlying principle 
 has been, and will be, the preeminence of the priest, 
 
 F
 
 82 
 
 with power, fame, and wealth to follow ; this accom- 
 plished, what matters the rest ? 
 
 It is claimed for the Legitimation League that 
 its groundwork, if not wholly original, possesses an 
 element of originality which may commend itself to 
 some class of thinkers not pervaded by the glamour 
 of the mystery-man. 
 
 The League claims to base its attractions on no 
 Utopian principles. It simply applies itself to 
 remedy a social evil, winked at by society, wicked 
 only on discovery, and which is freely indulged in by 
 every class, from the highest in the State to the lowest. 
 
 Expediency shows that for State purposes, for 
 good government, there must be laws regulating the 
 intercourse of the sexes, but if these laws avoid the 
 Greek conception, and are drawn upon lines emanat- 
 ing from the particular ideas of the persons then 
 engaged upon framing them, they may be evolved in 
 such a spirit of arrogance, extravagance, and bigotry, 
 as to create a worse state of things, and to conflict 
 with the immutable natural laws, and' in this respect 
 the League ventures to have an opinion, rightly or 
 wrongly, that this exists, when critically examined 
 with reference to the objects of the League. 
 
 A hard and fast line can never be safely drawn. 
 " Actions and interests involved in action are not 
 uniform nor invariable any more than are the momen- 
 tary conditions of health. In regard to health, at 
 one time one thing is beneficial, at another time the 
 entire reverse. The case is precisely similar in regard 
 to moral action. A line of conduct, which at one 
 time has been pernicious, at another time has brought 
 great benefit often to the same individual. It is 
 the duty of those who have to meet any difficulty, to
 
 83 
 
 decide for themselves on each occasion upon the cir- 
 cumstances before them, and from the consideration 
 thereof to seek for a principle to regulate their 
 conduct at such a crisis. Men will know whether 
 their conduct be right or wrong, if they survey the 
 whole circumstances in this spirit. Such is the course 
 which the physician and helmsman take, judging of 
 the course which is most consistent with their art, 
 from the nature of each crisis as it arises." 
 
 Words of infinite wisdom indeed, of true charity. 
 Let this be the flag of the League, let it flutter forth 
 and brave the battle and the breeze for ever, so long 
 as humanity lasts ; of the widest catholicity, it 
 embraces closely the lowly and despised object of 
 the League. 
 
 It is impossible to bring clearly to the rnind the 
 good the League seeks to effect, without adverting 
 to the Marriage and Divorce Laws ot England. 
 They form an argument from which the League 
 draws its deduction. It must be admitted that all 
 laws of the State are not equal, it is impossible they 
 should be ; they press more hardly on some than 
 others. Englishmen are apt to say that their laws- 
 are alike for poor and rich. A celebrated judge in 
 delivering sentence upon a prisoner convicted of 
 bigamy, demonstrated so far as the Laws of Divorce 
 were concerned, how utterly idle this maxim was, and 
 though great modifications have taken place since 
 that time, the same observations in. a minor degree 
 will still apply. 
 
 Take a poor man whose wife offends every law 
 of the marriage tie he has his remedy to get free, 
 but only if his pockets are well filled. The poor man 
 or woman can no more procure a divorce than he or
 
 84 
 
 she can fly, without money. An expensive procedure 
 has to be instituted, nor husband nor wife is allowed 
 to confess his or her delinquencies, and set the victim 
 free. The legal proceedings must proceed to the 
 bitter end, and in London alone must he or she face 
 the final tribunal, and then prove to the hilt that 
 which entitles him or her to freedom. 
 
 What a mockery to a man with a family, whose 
 wages average \ a week, or to a woman who scarce 
 can earn her daily bread. Deserted and outraged, 
 without remedy, he or she is barred by the legal and 
 moral laws of the country from seeking the com- 
 panionship of the opposite sex. 
 
 A man without the companionship of an honest 
 woman becomes demoralized, depraved, a rogue 
 elephant. The influence of a good female on the 
 male is incalculable, but this is denied by our laws to 
 an impecunious husband. 
 
 The rich man greases the legal machinery with 
 gold, comes out of court a spotless character, and 
 can always find lovely arms to console him for the 
 past, duly consecrated by some rite of the marriage 
 laws. 
 
 Vir bom's cst quis ? qui consulta patrum gut leges 
 juraque servat. So the poor man must abnegate the 
 natural laws of his Creator and be a good citizen, as 
 he cannot be unless he obeys the laws of the country. 
 An inherent right dwells in an Englishman to 
 alter the constitution and laws of his country, if he 
 can effect that object by all lawful means. That is 
 the poor man's remedy, and during the process of 
 hatching the remedy, he must retreat like Galatea to 
 her pedestal, frozen to a block of marble, forgetting 
 that he is of living flesh and blood.
 
 Who is the worst citizen ? The poor man 
 precluded by unequal laws, who obeys the natural 
 laws, or the bigoted followers of the hunters in the 
 happy hunting ground ? But the consequences of 
 marriage imposed by the laws are too unequal in 
 operation. Marriage may be accomplished with the 
 greatest ease and at small expense, but the knot once 
 tied is a double reefer only to be disentangled by gold. 
 What difference is there between marriage and 
 divorce that they should not be placed upon equal 
 terms, if the contract be a civil one ? What grave 
 complaint often arises from one side or the other, 
 rendering the marriage tie hateful without remedy ! 
 In what consists the justice of compelling married 
 persons to live together who find themselves utterly 
 unsuited to each other, who learn to hate each other 
 bitterly, whose diverse composition cannot stand the 
 strain of familiarity ? 
 
 The League does not decry marriage. All 
 suitable persons should marry in some form, but it 
 contends that the laws should place the poor man on 
 a level with the rich, that divorce should be obtained 
 as easily as marriage is effected, so that an earthly 
 hell might be often avoided. 
 
 It seeks to place on record, by means of regis- 
 tration, those children born of a union as solemn to 
 the persons interested as if fortified by rites of 
 church, when man and woman conscientiously 
 dissenting from the laws of England regarding 
 marriage and divorce, ally themselves together to 
 live in all rectitude and faithfulness, selecting, as they 
 are compelled to do, their own form of rite. For the 
 issue of such as these, branded with illegitimacy, the 
 League seeks to establish a system by which, should
 
 86 
 
 the time ever arise when concensus of opinion 
 recognises the justice of the claim, rights of 
 legitimacy will be accorded to such. Its registers 
 would not be open to the results of profligacy. To 
 those who degrade their bodies in the pursuit of mere 
 soulless lust, who degenerate into animals, the 
 League holds out neither encouragement nor assis- 
 tance. Animated solely by views of pure morality, 
 from the League's mode of thinking, they give their 
 very best by seeking to originate a scheme which, 
 whatever may militate against it logically, or the 
 converse, possesses, it is believed, at least some 
 trace of originality. 
 
 " Honour, we say, or honest fame, 
 We mean the substance, not the name 
 Not that light heap of tawdry wares, 
 Of ermine, coronets, or stars, 
 Which often is by merit sought, 
 By gold and flat'ry oft'ner bought, 
 But the true glory which proceeds 
 Reflected bright from honest deeds, 
 Which we in our own breasts perceive, 
 And kings can neither take nor give." 
 
 PRIOR.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A VICE-PRESIDENT'S VIEWS. 
 
 " THE LEGITIMATION LEAGUE. 
 
 A DRAWING-ROOM Meeting of the above 
 league was held at The Lang-holme, Harro- 
 gate, the residence of Dr. Arnold Lees, a 
 Vice-President, on Thursday, 23rd November, 
 1893. The Treasurer (Mrs. Gladys Dawson) 
 reported the receipt of Mr. J. C. Spence's new 
 work, ' The Dawn of Civilization,' accompanied 
 by a letter calling attention to the chapter on mar- 
 riage as bearing on the objects of the League. 
 A letter was also read from Mr. John 
 Badcock, Junr. (Corresponding Secretary for 
 London), dealing with certain points raised by the 
 Hon. Secretary in the course of recent addresses 
 in London. Mr. Dawson then read an epitome of 
 these speeches, which had been made before the 
 members of the Dialectical Society." Harrogate 
 Herald, November 2Qth, 1893. 
 
 I had the pleasure, at the first annual meeting 
 of the League, of bringing to the notice of a large
 
 88 
 
 audience the new work of Mr. J. C. Spence, entitled 
 " The Dawn of Civilization," and of making especial 
 note of the author's proposals relative to marriage. 
 Mr. Spence was not at this period connected with the 
 League, and it is interesting to remark that as 
 an entirely free lance he came to practical conclusions, 
 and printed them, whilst others were meditating and 
 lecturing. Whence he drew his inspiration, and how 
 long before publication, I do not know. I wrote to 
 my friend, of whose whereabouts I had not known for 
 some two or three years, and drew his attention to 
 my address to the Dialectical Society, and our work 
 generally, receiving from him the following letter : 
 
 "yd December, 1893. 
 "DEAR MR. DAWSON, 
 
 " I am greatly obliged for yours of 27th, and 
 for the criticism thereon. As to question of priority 
 between you and me, I believe priority of publication 
 is accepted generally as the only standard, not 
 priority of origination, and you are undoubtedly first 
 there. My MS. had been sent to the publishers 
 by June, and had been written much before that, 
 so I did not borrow from you, and probably you had 
 thought of the scheme months before you proposed 
 it, and could not have seen my proposal till a month 
 atter you proposed it. Whoever was first to think of 
 the proposal, you were the first to propose it in 
 public. Yours, however, is the more sweeping 
 measure. Until I read your letter, I had not thought 
 of the question of polygamous marriages. I did not 
 
 evade the question, I overlooked it I 
 
 believe a large and influential body of men and 
 women would now give their support to a moderate 
 reform which was based on the monogamic principle
 
 9 
 
 the husband to the wife at the time, but was free 
 from the element of perpetual bondage ; and that by 
 uniting together in a league they would support each 
 other and give courage to many weaker brethren and 
 sisters. If such a league is desirable, both for itself 
 and for its indirect influence, I think it would be more 
 likely to succeed under the title of 'Marriage Reform ' 
 than under ' Free-Love Alliance.' .... I quite 
 agree with you that no jury, voluntary or compulsory, 
 can adjust the little differences between couples, but 
 still I think it wise to provide in advance a method of 
 adjusting serious differences which may arise in the 
 event of a dissolution of partnership or in case of 
 death. Still, I should think it a mistake if the league 
 insisted upon this condition in the marriages they 
 register ; in fact, the fewer conditions that were 
 insisted upon, the better ; and the greater varieties 
 of terms of partnership the better. With regard to 
 time charters, I am inclined to agree with you as to 
 the action being repugnant. I borrowed the notion 
 from Donisthorpe's article on Marriage, and intro- 
 duced it not that I think time contracts good, but I 
 imagine the forces which make, and will for a long 
 time tend to make marriages perpetual, are so strong 
 that the tendency will be too great in favour of people 
 putting up with unsuitable partners, just because they 
 are the partners. To prevent this, a short partner- 
 ship, with option of renewal, seemed a better con- 
 trivance than a perpetual marriage with option of 
 dissolution. Still I think, should a second edition 
 ever be required, I would omit the clauses referring 
 to time bargains, and stick to my own rather than to 
 borrowed notions. Yours,. 
 
 " J. C. SPENCE."
 
 90 
 
 I refrain from giving any abstract here of this 
 author's theories and schemes of marriage, as ex- 
 pounded in "The Dawn of Civilization," for the League, 
 in place of reproducing the "Indenture" or matri- 
 monial contract therein contained, and the other 
 more important parts of the chapter on marriage in 
 this work, is able to offer the reader a cheap edition 
 of the entire work, with portrait of the author. 
 
 The thanks of all interested in the propaganda 
 of the Legitimation League are due to Mr. J. C. 
 Spence for writing, and to Mr. Frederick Millar, the 
 editor of the Liberty Review, for publishing an 
 article entitled " Law and Marriage," appearing in 
 that journal for December ist and 8th. Mr. Spence 
 leads off with a criticism of the suggestion made by 
 Mr. J. Henniker Heaton, that "in the British 
 empire at least there should be a uniform code of 
 marriage and divorce laws for Christians." Mr. 
 Spence is against the " establishment " of any system 
 of marriage, on the same principle that he is against 
 church, chapel, or sectarian establishments, and 
 makes out his case with characteristic clearness. He 
 dwells at length on the subject of legitimation, re- 
 marking that "for many reasons it is almost a 
 necessity to limit kinship to such children as are 
 openly and publicly acknowledged by their parents. 
 There is, therefore, no violation of liberty in laying 
 down a law that, if parents wish their children to be 
 recognised as their lawful successors, they must 
 comply with certain legal conditions. So long as 
 these conditions are merely such as experience shows 
 to be necessary to supply proof of identity and 
 definite parenthood, there seems no reasonable objec- 
 tion to such a law. But if the prescribed conditions
 
 are designed to enforce some disputed theological 
 dogma, then the law becomes an iniquitous and 
 offensive form of religious persecution. If, for 
 instance, no marriages except those celebrated ac- 
 cording to the rights of the Established Church were 
 legal, and the children of all persons married in any 
 other way were treated as illegitimate, the conse- 
 quence would be that all conscientious dissenters 
 from the Church would be subject to a cruel system 
 of persecution/' 
 
 I have told the reader where he will find Mr. 
 Spence's article Liberty Review, December i and 8, 
 1894 and whilst I should have liked to have sought 
 permission to reproduce it in extenso, I doubt not I 
 shall gratify the reader the more by printing here 
 an article specially written by Mr. Spence for these 
 proceedings. 
 
 THE INEQUALITY OF THE SEXES. 
 
 I do not here propose to enter into the vexed 
 question of the claims of women to political equality 
 with men, nor to discuss whether they are superior, 
 equal, or inferior to men in mental capacity, moral 
 worth, or aesthetic taste ; but to treat only of some of 
 the consequences that follow from the physiological 
 inequalities which constitute the difference between 
 the sexes. The parts performed by men and women 
 in the reproduction of children are manifestly unequal : 
 from the time of conception to that of birth children 
 form an integral part of the bodies of their mothers, 
 and after birth they still depend for their natural food 
 upon their mother's milk. The mother has therefore 
 direct evidence that every child born of her is her very 
 own : while the father of a child has no such direct
 
 Q2 
 
 evidence, but must accept the fact on trust from the 
 mother, and the only guarantee he can have is that 
 no other man had intercourse with the mother at or 
 about the time when the child was conceived. 
 
 Among races of mankind living in a state of 
 primitive savagery, depending from day to day on the 
 chance supplies of nature, the children receive but 
 little more care or protection than the young of wild 
 animals, and what care they do receive is from their 
 mothers : so that the paternal relationship is com- 
 paratively unimportant. Under such conditions the 
 relations between the sexes may be, and in many cases 
 are, but little removed from promiscuity ; kinship and 
 inheritance are only traceable through the mothers. 
 
 Among more advanced races, depending less on 
 the spontaneous gifts of nature than on the results of 
 skill and foresight, the relations of the sexes are 
 more definite, the fathers and the mothers of children 
 are recognised, and both parents co-operate in sup- 
 porting their children. Amongst the highest races, 
 depending least on unassisted nature, and most on the 
 products of art and science, where wealth has been 
 accumulated and inherited from generation to genera- 
 tion, the people are so far removed from abject want 
 that the care and education of their children receives 
 much more attention. The work of the father is 
 generally sufficient to support not only his children 
 but, to a great extent, the mother also. Under such 
 conditions the relation of the sexes is very definite, 
 the parental instinct is developed to the highest 
 degree, men and women toiling harder and sacrificing 
 more for their families than they would for themselves. 
 Where men are expected to support their children and 
 wives they require strong assurance that the children
 
 93 
 
 whom they support and who inherit their property 
 should be in fact theirs and no others, and that the 
 wives who share their earnings or property should be 
 strictly faithful to them. 
 
 The very different degrees of blame which are 
 meted out to men and to women for unchastity is often 
 quoted as an instance of the tyranny of men over 
 women, but it springs from a very different, and 
 perhaps, natural source the inequality of the sexes. 
 The ethical sentiment attaching blame to unchastity 
 on the part of women is not imposed by men on 
 women, it is not only approved by women, but almost 
 universally women are far less tolerant than men of 
 aberrations from the conventional standard. All the 
 wonderful and incongruous variety of marriage 
 customs that have prevailed throughout the world at 
 different times and places have their origin in the fact 
 that the mother cannot be deceived as to her share 
 in her own children, while the father can only be sure 
 thas he is the father of any child when he knows that 
 he and he alone has had intercourse with the mother 
 for a considerable time. 
 
 However irrational, grotesque, or even disgust- 
 ing the customs and laws governing the relation of 
 the sexes may be at any time or place, still it is 
 evident that they are founded on the central truth 
 that definite relations between the sexes is a necessary 
 condition of any high form of civilisation. The 
 iconoclastic spirit that would destroy every ancient 
 institution merely because it is imperfect, is at least 
 as dangerous and irrational as the worship of forms 
 and ceremonies merely because they are ancient, 
 without any reference to the way they now subserve 
 the purpose for which they were designed. There is
 
 94 
 
 no doubt that the customs and laws of marriage and 
 divorce now in force in this country, contain distinct 
 traces of ancient prehistoric times when women were 
 practically slaves, and still more distinct traces of 
 the influence of the theological creed that taught that 
 the " lusts of the flesh " were essentially sinful, and 
 tolerated marriage only as a concession to human 
 weakness. There are many other ways in which the 
 relationship of the sexes is unsatisfactory. The 
 opinion that "marriage is a failure" seems to be 
 rapidly gaining ground. And to judge from the 
 present tendency of current literature, there might 
 seem to be some danger of the institution of 
 marriage being abolished. But the institution, as 
 distinguished from the laws of marriage, is founded 
 on instincts and feelings much too deeply rooted in 
 human nature to be easily overthrown. And it 
 seems to me that the only thing that forms a real 
 danger to marriage is the inflexible and arbitrary 
 system of laws which, although designed to support 
 it, are almost the only cause of its weakness. There 
 can be no doubt that custom preceded law in 
 marriage as in everything else. And so long as 
 fathers and mothers retain the parental instincts now 
 inherent among the higher races of manhood, there 
 will be definite relations between the sexes, and the 
 custom of marriage would survive even if all 
 marriage laws were abolished. 
 
 From the legal point of view only those relation- 
 ships which are contracted in accordance with the 
 laws of the land are classed as marriages. Although 
 conformity to some formal ceremony may be necessary 
 for a regular or legal marriage, it is not of the essence 
 of a definite matrimonial relationship, but merely an
 
 95 
 
 accessory. The ceremonial, formal, and legal con- 
 ditions of marriage are variable and arbitrary to the 
 widest extent, the essential conditions are practically 
 uniform and universal, and these are open acknow- 
 ledgment of children, and the fidelity of the wives. 
 Where women remain faithful to their husbands, and 
 fathers and mothers acknowledge and support their 
 children, there are the essential conditions of mar- 
 riage, all laws and customs notwithstanding. When 
 either of these conditions are broken, there may be 
 the form, but there is not the substance of a true 
 marriage. 
 
 The natural inequality of the sexes has in many 
 countries led to a great number of artificial and 
 unnecessary inequalities being added to that which 
 is natural, the women are absolutely secluded 
 from all men except their husbands ; to be seen or 
 spoken to by any other man is an outrage on their 
 modesty ; girls and unmarried women are indoc- 
 trinated, and accept as natural and proper this absurd 
 and unnecessary code of morals. But in more 
 enlightened countries, women and men mix together 
 freely in all relations of life, business, and pleasure, 
 except that which is connected with the reproductive 
 function. And the only guarantees men have of the 
 fidelity of their wives is their own vigilance and the 
 sense of honour common among women ; and these 
 guarantees are in a great majority of cases more to 
 be relied upon than a guard of eunuchs or duennas. 
 The open acknowledgment of the relationship 
 between husband, wife, and children, the close 
 intimacy between men and women living together 
 and sharing their homes and fortunes, is the best 
 possible means of securing mutual fidelity. A woman
 
 9 6 
 
 living with her husband and children is protected 
 from a thousand temptations and evils ; a man happily 
 married is too well off lightly to imperil the happiness 
 of his home by any course of conduct which would 
 tend to wreck that happiness. 
 
 But what about the innumerable cases of unhappy 
 marriages ? To this question there seems to be but 
 one reply they ought to be dissolved, and the sooner 
 the better. If law or custom forbid this dissolution, 
 it is a virtuous act to break the law and disregard the 
 custom. Laws and customs are the outcome of the 
 opinion of some people, and to submit to these when 
 we disapprove of the opinion is an act of servility 
 unworthy a free man. A man may submit to the 
 dictation of other men when the force at their dis- 
 posal and the penalties which they can inflict are 
 greatly out of proportion to the evils of submission, 
 but he can never so submit in the smallest detail 
 without some little loss of self-respect, and every act 
 of resistance to unjust laws is a service to the cause 
 of liberty. 
 
 In matters matrimonial the terrors of the law 
 are too feeble to be worth serious consideration. 
 The breach of etiquette or custom is a much more 
 serious matter, at any rate for women. A woman, 
 if she acts discreetly and does not openly disregard 
 the conventionalities, may be known to be an un- 
 chaste woman, or even a treacherous wife, without 
 incurring much social censure ; but if she disregards 
 the conventional standard, however chaste and pure 
 her life may be, she will be ostracised by the rest of 
 her sex. Some of the noblest among women have 
 have had the courage openly to defy law and custom 
 in these matters, and thousands do so secretly. But
 
 97 
 
 only those who have the courage to do openly that 
 which they think proper render service to the cause 
 of freedom, or tend to raise the level of sexual 
 morality. Clandestine relations between the sexes 
 are always open to suspicion. People are in general 
 only ashamed of such relations as are, in fact, dis- 
 creditable. It is self-evident that those who openly 
 acknowledge their relationship must think that rela- 
 tionship right and honourable ; and if men and 
 women never do anything in secret which they would 
 be ashamed to acknowledge publicly, they will do 
 very little wrong. The one unpardonable sin against 
 the natural law of marriage is for a wife to have 
 secret intercourse with other men than her husband. 
 Such acts, if common, would undermine the founda- 
 tions on which marriage is based. Deceit in such 
 matters is essentially immoral, but where there is no 
 deceit there is not necessarily any immorality. 
 Where the bonds of marriage are found to be intoler- 
 able, and the law will give no relief, then those who 
 would be free themselves must strike the blow. Let 
 them deliberately and openly separate themselves from 
 their wives or husbands, and having done so, there 
 will be no deceit, no fraud, no immorality in marry- 
 ing again. They may be debarred from contract- 
 ing legal marriage, but they are morally justified 'in 
 evading the law by any means at their disposal. 
 
 In a free country men and women should be at 
 liberty to contract or dissolve any partnership they 
 please, on such terms as they may deem suitable. 
 At present the law does not permit this, or rather it 
 does not give a legal sanction to any matrimonial 
 partnership except such as are based on unlimited 
 liability of the partners. The principle of limited
 
 9 8 
 
 liability, only comparatively recently allowed in law 
 for commercial partnerships, is still disallowed in 
 marriage. 
 
 Recognising the advantage, almost the necessity, 
 of some form of public registration of marriages, and 
 public acknowledgment of paternity, and the de- 
 ficiences and arbitrary limitations of the law in this 
 respect, the Legitimation League was originated to 
 supply these defects. 
 
 Those who wish to contract regular and definite 
 matrimonial alliances, and to acknowledge and sup- 
 port their children, and to do so openly in the face of 
 the world, but who will not submit to any form of 
 perpetual bondage, can, by registering their alliances 
 with the League, prove that there is nothing clandes- 
 tine, nothing that they are ashamed of, in their 
 alliance, and at the same time safeguard their 
 liberty. Parents who have children not born in 
 lawful wedlock, but whom they wish to be openly 
 acknowledged as theirs, can register the fact. And 
 although this deliberate acknowledgment of paternity 
 is not recognised at law as conferring the status of 
 legitimacy on children, yet it is the best possible 
 grounds on which legitimacy can be based. 
 
 When it is recognised that matrimonial partner- 
 ships are not all necessarily of one uniform type, and 
 that we have no more right to enforce on each other 
 uniformity in marriage than in religion, the law 
 will very soon be altered so as to give the legal 
 sanction to any marriage contract people choose to 
 agree upon, and to make the status of legitimacy 
 depend on the deliberate acknowledgment of the 
 parents.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CORRESPONDING SECRETARIES' 
 VIEWS. 
 
 1 ADVERTED, in the first annual report, to the 
 excellent work done by Mr. Badcock and Mr. 
 Dupont. I here reproduce a specimen letter of 
 each. That of Mr. Badcock was addressed to us, 
 and follows after an extract from Liberty, which 
 Mr. Badcock was at the pains to copy and forward : 
 
 TO ANY NATURAL CHILD. 
 
 Sweet babe, when the ignoble scorn and blame 
 Thee for thy birth, and cry : ' Thou hast no name ; 
 Thou art the child of passion and of shame," 
 
 Ignore them, walking on the world's highway 
 Full of great purpose ; or, if thou shouldst stay 
 To answer such poor custom's hirelings, say : 
 
 ' ' A name is but a sound to mark a thing 
 Conveniently for thought ; can it make sing 
 The silent snake, or give the worm a wing ? 
 
 "The only name of worth is that I make 
 By my own kindly deeds for my soul's sake ; 
 Illustrious men have walked the path I take.
 
 100 
 
 " Who reads the verses of Boccaccio 
 And then reviles him as a babe of woe, 
 Or taunts him as a bastard base and low ? 
 
 " Who looks on Fillipino Lippi's saint, 
 With grateful heart forgets that it is paint 
 Wrought by a hand men say had a birth taint. 
 
 " And who are these, children of sires unwed. 
 Born of delirious Love the world wished dead, 
 About whose foreheads Fame her light has shed? 
 
 " Catherine the First, De Castro, and Cardan, 
 James Berwick and John Burgoyne. Athclstan, 
 And Archelaus the Macedonian, 
 
 " Almagro, and too many men of fire 
 And force for me to name, since I desire 
 Neither your foolish favour nor mad ire." 
 
 MIRIAM DANIEU.. 
 
 " LONDON, \<^th September, 1893. 
 *' DEAR MR DAWSON AND MRS. DAWSON, 
 
 " I've just finished reading your book or 
 4 Legitimation League Proceedings.' The only point 
 I wish to dwell upon now is the matter of caste, 
 which I am sorry to see you uphold so much. I 
 seek to break it down. 
 
 " On page 37 : the mere recognition of the 
 Queen's position by the proposal of a ' Royal ' toast 
 is in itself so ^^//-libertarian that it will excite the ire 
 of all extreme liberty people who see it. Anyway, to 
 me, ' Royalty ' is synonymous with tomfoolery and 
 toadyism and tyranny. 
 
 " Turning' now to page 85 (your address) : You 
 say, ' a child born of a mother in no sense qualified 
 to traverse the same social stratum as the father, 
 should not be legitimated.' And, although you add 
 4 the child should be affiliated,' you have brought
 
 in caste as a reason for denying what you would 
 otherwise grant. 
 
 " I think that in a true love union caste is neces- 
 sarily ignored. Education, dress, title, money, all go 
 for nothing, as they should in this relation. If a 
 man cohabits with a woman whom he is ashamed to 
 acknowledge, and has children whom he is also 
 ashamed to acknowledge, it is the man who requires 
 shaming out. And although I don't uphold laws 
 that give wives and children any rigid claims upon 
 husbands and fathers (except in an intermediate 
 stage while women and children are arbitrarily dis- 
 advantaged otherwise), yet it seems to me that if any 
 women have a just claim upon the men they have 
 mated with, it is the poorest women say the 
 degraded prostitutes, if you like. Ignoring the 
 marriage laws altogether, it is seen that those 
 women have more just claims upon the men they 
 mate with who are least in need of such privileges. 
 Perhaps it is as Queensberry says, that married 
 women * monopolise property and position, and so, 
 more or less, increase the poverty of the unmarried 
 females. Anyway, if it comes to a choice of two 
 evils, viz., either to give property and legitimation 
 rights to only the respectable (i.e., married or 
 publicly acknowledged), or to give all equal property 
 and legitimation rights, then I am overwhelmingly in 
 favour of the latter course. I would much rather 
 abolish all rights altogether, merely (by way of 
 expediency, and in cases where no sufficient counter- 
 proposition was thought more desirable) giving all 
 children whose descent could be proved, a first claim 
 on all property left by their parents WHEN THE LATTER 
 DIED, if the children were minors, and giving them
 
 IO2 
 
 TOTAL ownership of all property left by their parents 
 when no will was made, and this whether the kids 
 had been legitimated or not. 
 
 " I see you are afraid some noble Duke or other 
 aristocrat might have a claim put in by a gutter child 
 or its mother. WHAT OF IT ? As far as natural 
 rights go, such poor people have quite as much right 
 as the Duke's wedded wife and ' acknowledged ' 
 children. If there is to be a difference made at all, I 
 think it should be in favour of the despised and 
 neglected women and children. 
 
 "By a limited legitimation, as you seek, you 
 create and bolster up artificial rights. The fact that 
 a man ' yielded to a temptation ' in being seduced by 
 the charms of a prostitute, is no reason for legally 
 excusing him from supporting that prostitute and her 
 child, WHILE holding him to such support when the 
 woman and child have been registered by the State 
 as his ALWAYS. When a man cohabits, he yields 
 to a temptation, whether it is in wedlock or out of it. 
 And what of it ? 
 
 "The Duke of Normandy had a son by a poor 
 washerwoman, and the son became 'The Conqueror.' 
 
 " I admire Goethe for the care he took of a poor 
 girl whom he had a son by, and for the fact that only 
 after the said girl had lived with Goethe many years, 
 and had given way to drink, did he legally marry her, 
 thus giving her a claim upon him in the law's eye, 
 which she otherwise would not have. Yours, 
 
 "JoHjsr BADCOCK, Junr." 
 
 Mr. DUPONT'S letter one of a stock of interesting 
 ones from which to select was written by him in 
 reply to an Edinburgh correspondent, who had 
 remarked that :
 
 103 
 
 " Mr. Dawson, in fact, limits the scope of his 
 sympathies to the issue of Free Love unions. You 
 extend yours to all natural children. To use a 
 popular phrase, I think he puts the cart before the 
 horse. If he could obtain legal recognition of Free 
 Love " marriage," that of the issue would follow in 
 logical sequence. But to use the wrongs of the 
 children as a lever for the legalising of the legally 
 irregular union of the parents is simply to court 
 failure from the outset." 
 
 To this Mr. DUPONT replied : 
 
 " yd August, 1893. 
 
 " I duly received your esteemed favour of the 
 25th inst., copy of which I have forwarded to our 
 headquarters, so that your various suggestions might 
 receive full consideration. 
 
 " From the expressions contained in your letter 
 I gather the impression that you agree with me in 
 extending our sympathies not only to the issue of Free 
 Love marriages but to all natural children, and this, 
 1 may say, is the desire of all our active or sympathetic 
 supporters in Scotland. I shall make strong repre- 
 sentations in that direction to our headquarters. I 
 shall also strongly recommend your suggestion of 
 launching a journal as the organ of the League, 
 for I agree with you that such would be the best 
 medium for the purpose of awaking the public 
 conscience and voice to the egregious wrongs which 
 make Pariahs of a portion of our fellow-men. 
 
 " Now coming to another portion of your letter. 
 I admit that the removal of legal hardships and 
 wrongs will eventually lead to a gradual improvement 
 in the social standing of the class immediately affected,
 
 104 
 
 but I venture to assert that the social stigma which is 
 so deeply rooted in the public mind will still remain 
 practically unaffected until educational measures -are 
 resorted to by means of an active propaganda in the 
 press or public meetings. We all know how little 
 legal enactments succeed in uprooting the germs of 
 prejudice and superstition implanted by the popular 
 customs and teachings of former ages, the shadows 
 of which will still hang upon us like a threatening 
 monster, until courageous reformers forcibly break 
 the fetters which have hitherto imprisoned their mind, 
 and boldly proclaim the naked truth to the world. 
 
 "With regard to Free Love, I am glad to see 
 that you do not fall into the same error as most 
 people, in that you do not attribute motives of lewd- 
 ness to the advocates of such a regime. Personally 
 it is far from my desire to destroy or in the slightest 
 manner disturb the sacredness, or rather purity, of 
 marriage. But the so-called sanctity of marriage 
 to-day appears to my mind very much like the practice 
 which is common in some parts of Asia when the 
 woman marries for the purpose of being freer in 
 lavishing her love indiscriminately of course, in that 
 case it is done openly, while here it only transpires 
 through the courts of justice. No, I firmly believe 
 that free unions between the sexes, so far from de- 
 grading the chastity of women or lowering the 
 standard of sexual purity, would, on the contrary,, 
 stimulate individuals to a stronger sense of modesty, 
 for the sexual desires, like any other desires, are 
 never so strong when free from restraint as when 
 subjected to outward, artificial, and forceful bonds, 
 when the satisfaction of the slightest craving becomes 
 imperative.
 
 " I now come to he last part of your letter, and 
 I must confess that I still cannot agree with your 
 ideas that persons of illegitimate origin or having- 
 illegitimate offspring should be excluded from our 
 movement. In the first instance I consider that they 
 have a prior right to voice their grievances, and they 
 simply stand (in my opinion) like an oppressed caste 
 of outlaws, fighting for their rights. In the second 
 instance, i.e., in case of persons who have illegitimate 
 children, their desire to secure for such offspring- 
 certain rights and privileges, so far from being con- 
 sidered selfish, they should be held to the highest 
 esteem, for their desire is most honourable. Besides, 
 such action on our part would look too much like 
 pandering or truckling to public prejudice. On the 
 contrary, we should make no concession, but pluck 
 the weed from the very root, for compromises are a 
 proof of weakness and impotency, the exhibition of 
 which would eventually lead to failure. 
 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " J. DUPONT." 
 
 I also reproduce the text of Mr. Dupont's letter 
 to me on this subject, dated Sth August, 1893. 
 
 " Enclosed you will find copy of correspondence 
 with Mr. Wallace, of Edinburgh, which I hope will 
 prove of interest to you, as it will show you the 
 feeling which animates our sympathisers in Scotland. 
 " His suggestion as to methods represents the 
 general desire of our adherents here, and personally 
 I think if it could be at all possible, a journal to 
 advocate our ideas and lay our views before the 
 public would be a most important factor for venti- 
 lating the grievances and wrongs of the class we 
 wish to assist.
 
 io6 
 
 " On the other hand, limiting' the scope of our 
 efforts to legitimise merely the offspring- of F.ree 
 Love's unions will have a most damaging 1 effect on 
 our movement, and will be most detrimental to our 
 success. From conversations I have had with our 
 supporters in Scotland, I can assure you that, like 
 Mr. Wallace, the general feeling is that our sympathy 
 should be extended to all natural children, otherwise 
 our intended supporters would withdraw their help. 
 
 " I trust you will lay these views before the 
 office bearers and give them full consideration. 
 " Yours very truly. 
 
 "J. DUPONT." 
 
 To Mr. Toleman Garner, a joint corresponding 
 secretary of the League for London, credit is due for 
 the effective way in which he has brought the work 
 of the League before the notice of the readers of 
 divers newspapers. Mr. Garner has not yet elabo- 
 rated his views with any fulness calling for detailed 
 examination here, but has promised a paper for a 
 subsequent issue of the '' proceedings" of the League.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 LEGITIMATION AND LICIT LOVE. 
 
 E approach of the first anniversary of the 
 Legitimation League will be regarded with 
 calm by the most zealous of conventional 
 puritans. If it has survived a wonderfully prophesied 
 nine days, it has yet little progress to show in 
 relation to its expressed "objects." These are to 
 create a machinery for acknowledging offspring born 
 out of wedlock, and to secure for them equal rights 
 with legitimate children. The latter aim is entirely 
 legislative in scope ; and it is but the nineteenth 
 century besides which it has taken us a year to 
 ascertain whether legitimate children have any rights 
 at all, or whether that in which they do rejoice is not 
 merely a mixture of privileges and wrongs. Then 
 again, it is going to take us more than a year to 
 settle whether the grammatical construction of the 
 "objects" allows of the securing of equal rights 
 with legitimate children by all offspring born out of 
 wedlock, or only by such as have been " acknow- 
 ledged." The question here involved has been 
 almost the only one which we have discussed, out of
 
 io8 
 
 conclave, since the inaugural meeting-. I append a 
 Bibliography.* In conclave we have discussed the 
 first part of the "objects," and have not seen our 
 way to institute any system of acknowledgment of 
 illegitimate children. For one thing, to specify an 
 initial, though I do not think insuperable difficulty, 
 we have conceived no plan which, if taken notice of 
 at all, would not be liable to such grave abuse by the 
 frivolous (or the serious artfully resorting to frivolity 
 in their antagonism) as to render it more than 
 useless. In relation to this branch of our objects, I 
 have therefore simply to repeat what I said at the 
 inaugural meeting : " We want people to go to the 
 office of some solicitor or solicitors to the League, 
 and draw up such deeds in favour of their illegitimate 
 children as they shall be advised by those solicitors 
 will hold good in law. A register of such deeds will 
 be kept at the offices of the League, and will be open 
 to public inspection." Howsoever elaborately created, 
 any machinery would be woefully incomplete unless 
 it provided for the recognition of offspring yet 
 unborn, upon whom our law allows no settlement. 
 A settlement upon the mother of a man's possible 
 children can be made, but a condition that if one of 
 the parties should discontinue cohabitation the 
 
 * " The Legitimation of Acknowledged Children," an Address 
 by Oswald Dawson, in " The Rights of Natural Children," Verbatim 
 Report of the Inaugural Proceedings of the Legitimation League," 
 pp. 80 85. " Legitimation Rights," by John Bad cock, junr., and 
 others in National Reformer, August and September, 1893. 
 " Illegitimate Children : A Plea," etc., by J. Greevz Fisher 
 (London: Reeves; Leeds: Cornwell ; 1893). "Bastardy," by 
 Wordsworth Donisthorpe, in the Free Review, Jan., 1894. The 
 last-named article should be read by all interested.
 
 , I0 9 
 
 pecuniary interest should revert to the other, would 
 have no legal value, or would prejudice the settle- 
 ment altogether in the eye of the law. 
 
 Our law requires that marriage shall precede the 
 birth of a child that is, if it is to be legitimate. 
 Our ethics decree, with very certain sound, that the 
 formal union of the parents shall precede the con- 
 ception of the child, and no one, that I know of, is 
 prepared to question the righteousness of this tenet. 
 If Legitimation were the subject-matter of a Bill, 
 provision for the process prior to conception should 
 be made, for the people who marry have this right or 
 privilege ; whilst, as a piece of practical politics 
 though there is no danger of any of us of this century 
 being mixed up in anything of the sort I should be 
 willing to limit its availability to cases where formal 
 union had preceded birth, recognising that any exten- 
 sion of the period of acknowledgments of parentage 
 after this would involve a further modification of 
 English law ; a laudable, perhaps, but a respectable 
 propaganda, and one, moreover, already having its 
 champion in Mr. Walter McLaren and his co-adjutors, 
 who have brought in a Bill to assimilate the English 
 with the Scotch law, which admits of the legitimation 
 of offspring by subsequent marriage. The concern of 
 the League with legitimation of this sort is of a 
 subordinate character, theoretically ; whilst practically 
 all it can at present undertake is to register settle- 
 ments upon born children. 
 
 With the affiliation of children under the 
 bastardy laws, the League has nothing whatever to 
 do. It has no voice respecting the question whether 
 pauper parents should receive compulsory support 
 from their children ; but if legitimation should
 
 110 
 
 become a " practical politics " matter, enforcement 
 of these duties upon the legitimated would follow, for 
 (as in a previous instance) the withdrawal of the 
 obligations as an attribute of legitimacy would 
 involve a further modification of English law, laud- 
 able perhaps respectable even but distinct in 
 character. Similarly, where under wills a surviving 
 partner has a life-interest, conditional upon not 
 re-marrying, Courts would probably rule, if Parlia- 
 ment did not expressly provide, that that interest 
 should cease if the beneficiary proceeded to legitimate 
 offspring by a person other than the deceased. 
 
 These provisions might be made without 
 violating the cardinal principle of legitimation. A 
 prohibition w r hich would clash with the vital element 
 of that idea the element differentiating it from 
 marriage is the prohibition of legitimation by per- 
 sons who have already performed that process in 
 conjunction with a previous partner ; and, as that is 
 just the very prohibition which modern society -would 
 insist upon, as with that prohibition the whole pro- 
 ceeding would be a work of superogation would be 
 practically a re-enactment of the law of marriage 
 we arrive at the conclusion that the work of the 
 League does not primarily lie in the political arena. 
 It has not taken a year to find this out. " We don't 
 expect to be popular in this generation," I said to the 
 Yorkshire Evening Post interviewer in April last ; 
 " nor do we expect Parliament to recognise us in this 
 generation. We are not so much attempting to alter 
 the law, at present, as to ripen public opinion in the 
 matter until it is time to move." Public opinion has 
 long been ripening. Our coterie is not isolated in 
 disapproving marriage as a bond enforceable for all
 
 1 1 1 
 
 time, dissoluble only by cruelty, collusion, sin, shame, 
 or death. Others are also convinced that Divorce 
 Court records are a national scandal, that the releases 
 should be possible without the revelations, and that 
 any supposed amendment in the shape of "facilita- 
 tion " of divorce would only aggravate the evils by 
 provoking more readily the lesser degrees of badness 
 requisite to secure the release ; and also " facilitate " 
 deceit by extending the area of collusion. 
 
 Many, again, know, from experience bitter 
 indeed, that the cruelties of wedded life are too oft of 
 a character insusceptible of revelation, at times from 
 their carnal but legal enormity, at times from their 
 petty, but sempiternal, triviality. You can no more 
 bring a "scold" into the Divorce Court than you 
 can take her to a ducking-chair ; whilst the mere 
 "tippler" could no more be got there than into a 
 retreat under the Inebriates Act. As to the carnal 
 cruelties of connubialism, I refer my readers to the 
 writings of Ezra Hey wood and Moses Harman.* 
 Then what shall we say of adultery ? adultery of 
 the heart ; a full measure of sin, according to Christ ? 
 If scolding, tippling, and the minor, but recurrent 
 vexations of married life ; if excess and the bestial 
 doings of the nuptial couch ; if these are unadapted 
 for dealing with by the Divorce Court, how shall we 
 expect that division to handle the delicate points of a 
 suit where the petitioner complains of the full measure 
 of sin ? 
 
 Furthermore, the Legitimation League has 
 nothing to do with the facilitation of divorce, or 
 
 * Lucifer, one dollar per annum. Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. 
 Ileywood's "Cupid's Yokes," 15 cents. See also Greer's " Horrors 
 of Modern Matrimony," same price; etc., etc.
 
 112 
 
 with any other amendment of the Marriage Laws, tor 
 a certain healthy reason, aforestated. It seeks as 
 few modifications of English law as possible ; and it 
 is not pledged to sweep away any existing institution. 
 Persons who marry and approve of marriage as a 
 concern of State may join the League, which is as 
 elastic as the phraseology of the "objects" will 
 possibly permit. All we require of members is the 
 modicum of toleration needed for the avowal of 
 willingness to concede, to such as prefer that in their 
 own individual case State marriage shall be super- 
 seded by the " living with" system, the rights which 
 lawful wedlock confers upon offspring. The main 
 right is the privilege of inheriting in the event of 
 intestacy ; the minor right is the privilege of inherit- 
 ing at a lower rate of duty. Some of us do not 
 consider that an intestate's possessions should go to 
 his next-of-kin. Others (including myself) disapprove 
 a varying duty, regulated according to the destiny of 
 those possessions. But the barest consideration of 
 policy dictates that the law should be subscribed to 
 as it stands, adopting its blemishes and its benefits, 
 and leaving amendments thereof to other bodies. 
 
 There is a corollary to the legitimation crusade. 
 If acknowledged children are to have certain rights 
 of inheritance, what about the parents ? Wedded 
 people inherit when their partners die intestate, and 
 pay a lower rate of duty than strangers. Is the 
 mother of an acknowledged child to be branded as a 
 stranger? Are those whose mutual confidence does 
 not transcend the limbs denoted by the iron cuffs of 
 the law, not simply by the golden ring, alone to 
 enjoy licit love? As a practical politics question, 
 assuredly : yes, by all means, and thanks for every
 
 "3 
 
 instalment of mercy. But we are further still from 
 that delectable region now, and it becomes ludicrous 
 to mould our reform on the lines of the possibilities 
 of this pursuit. Yet theoretically the answer seems 
 clear enough. Only unacknowledged love will be 
 illicit love ; the unions of those who are responsible 
 for little accidents in mills and the like, to repeat the 
 phrase which started the storms of the past year/ 1 ' 
 will be illicit still. The unions of those who are 
 responsible for the " little accidents" whose laughter 
 rings in our nurseries ; who are trained, in Scriptural 
 or other tones, to honour their fathers and mothers ; 
 who share the name and inherit the possessions of 
 those whom they honour, will be the unions of licit 
 love, whether their arrangements have been registered 
 before the Moloch of Modern Marriage or the Protho- 
 notary of a Licit Alliance League. 
 
 * Even Mr. Donisthorpe, who, I am proud to believe, is in 
 complete unity with me on the vital principles of the League, styles 
 it "somewhat flippant !" See his article in the Free Review for 
 January, treating of " Bastardy " with a master-hand. 
 
 In the same issue the reader will find the question "Is Marriage 
 Immoral ? '" answered in the affirmative by Mrs. George Corbett. 
 Some extracts from her article are to be found in Chapter XVIII. 
 
 H
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE "NATIONAL REFORMER" 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 position taken by Mr. Greevz Fisher in the 
 National Reformer of August 2yth and Septem- 
 ber loth, 1893, and subsequently elaborated in 
 his pamphlet "Illegitimate Children: a Plea," etc., 
 drew forth from the President of the League articles 
 appearing in the Free Review for January, 1894, and 
 in Liberty, May 6th, 1894, in criticism thereof. The 
 substance of these articles has been given in handy 
 form in Mr Donisthorpe's " Law in a Free State," 
 recently published by Macmillan. My own comments 
 have not previously seen the light. They took the 
 shape of a speech at a drawing room meeting of the 
 League. The text of that address is reproduced in 
 this chapter : 
 
 Dr. Lees : When we last met here we listened to 
 a paper by your esteemed co-Vice-President upon 
 illegitimate children a plea for their unrestricted 
 legitimation, and at the conclusion of the paper I 
 expressed to you my sense of its high value as a 
 critical enquiry into the subject of legitimation from
 
 "5 
 
 a broad standpoint, whilst at the same time I drew 
 attention to one or two of the flaws in the argument 
 which impressed me most, and at the instant that I 
 heard his paper read. The manuscript of Mr. 
 Fisher's paper was handed to me after its delivery 
 and sent to press immediately, in time for its produc- 
 tion in pamphlet form by the time that I had arranged 
 to address the Dialectical Society of London upon 
 this subject. I did not feel it would be fair to make 
 my paper to the Dialectical an answer, in any right 
 sense of the word, to Mr. Fisher's, as it was not to 
 be expected that the latter's pamphlet, having been 
 published that very day, would be a matter about 
 which my listeners might be presumed to have any 
 knowledge ; at the same time there can be no doubt 
 about it that I felt that the point argued for by Mr. 
 Fisher, the legitimation of all children, was the point 
 of all others then in the air, and that my remarks at 
 the Dialectical meeting had better have relation to it. 
 I did not follow Mr. Fisher's pamphlet closely, but I 
 propose to do so more or less closely now. The 
 author starts out to show that children are " measur- 
 ably injured" by being " stigmatised by opprobrious 
 designations as bastards, illegitimate, and the like." 
 I am afraid we cannot help this ; and what is more, 
 the proposed " abolition of illegitimacy " will not get 
 over the difficulty. You will have to abolish the term 
 bastardy as well ; and I am not aware that the 
 abolition of a term will help us very materially in the 
 long run. You may abolish illegitimacy and bastardy, 
 " and the like," as much as you like from our vocab- 
 ularies, but the condition of orphanage from other 
 cause than the death of parents will remain just about 
 where it was before. Mr. Fisher next denounces
 
 n6 
 
 " the imposition of degrading titles " upon those born 
 after this fashion. I am sure it is not my wish to call 
 anyone by any artificially degrading title. I care not 
 what you call them, so long as we know what we 
 mean. If they are to be known by any name at all, 
 that name is likely to have a signification which is of 
 a degrading character. 
 
 Mr. Fisher next proceeds to attempt to set forth 
 some truism which I cannot at all agree to regard in 
 that light in spite of his confidence respecting it. He 
 writes, " It would naturally be expected that a 
 wealthy person's natural love and affection would 
 extend to his natural kindred, in degrees proportionate 
 to their propinquity in blood, but the defenders of 
 conventionality in relationships, setting utterly at 
 defiance the threadbare adage that blood is thicker 
 than water, assume that inheritance must (in the 
 absence of formal documentary settlement by will) 
 follow only the course of the conventional, or, as they 
 impudently call it, legitimate kinship." I take this to 
 mean that Mr. Fisher believes that an intestate man 
 is likely to desire, or may be presumed as having 
 been likely to desire, that any children he may have 
 had who happen to be of the order which I have 
 called "chance children," the "result of little 
 accidents in mills or the like," phrases which have 
 got me into such hot water in connection with the 
 legitimation controversy that these children should 
 inherit their share of his wealth. I do not think so. 
 
 It will be a matter for grave censure upon me if 
 I mispresent Mr. Fisher in the course of this reply. 
 It will similarly be a cause for censure if Mr. Fisher 
 has misrepresented me, and this I do think he has 
 undoubtedly done. He writes : " Mr. Oswald Daw-
 
 son has put forward the theory, that in allowing the 
 legitimate child to succeed to property at a smaller 
 percentage of duty, the State is ' rendering a service 
 for which it has received tangible coin.' This is a 
 very extraordinary contention." 
 
 I am not aware of having done anything of the 
 kind. I say that when the State receives tangible 
 coin it undertakes to regard the children who are 
 legitimate as heirs to say that they shall rank in the 
 succession of the property. And this, I conceive, is 
 a far more important service than the excusing them 
 of a portion of the duty payable where the children, 
 who have money left to them by will, are illegiti- 
 mate. 
 
 Then, again, it is said that I appear '* to believe 
 that 
 
 " i. Every person be provided with admitted 
 parents. 
 
 " 2. Every such person be placed, as far as 
 inheritance from kindred is concerned, 
 upon an exact level with avowed and 
 acknowledged heirs." 
 
 Neither the firstly nor the secondly of these is 
 true. Where a child's parents are unknown, as in 
 the case, elsewhere brought up by Mr. Fisher, of a 
 child washed ashore after a shipwreck in which its 
 parents are presumed to have been drowned, we 
 should give the law gives the child the benefit of 
 the doubt, and regards it as legitimate. Then as to 
 the " exact level " legitimated children under a new 
 law and children under marriage are supposed to 
 occupy, this will not hold, for as a simple matter of 
 fact the wife comes in for one-third of the personalty 
 under marriage, and I have not yet seen my way to
 
 n8 
 
 allow the same privilege for a paramour. So under 
 legitimation the children really get more than they 
 would were the level exact. If it is hinted that they 
 should be allowed less, I must certainly say I know 
 nothing of such proposal ; if this is what we are 
 going in for, then we had, perhaps, better form our- 
 selves into a semi-Legitimation League. To such a 
 scheme I might agree, or might not. 
 
 I am sorry that in criticism of Mr. Fisher's 
 pamphlet I should have to call attention to what I 
 must say would strike me as a mere burking of the 
 issue, were this production by anyone less conspicu- 
 ously honest than Mr. Fisher. He writes : " Two 
 of the Vice-Presidents of the Legitimation League 
 have contributed the dictum, ' Parliamentary statute 
 can alone legitimate, as any child knows,' but 
 this is a mere display of ignorance. Courts have 
 held that persons were the legitimate children of 
 their reputed parents, and their lawful heirs, in one 
 or more cases, where there was no statutory mar- 
 riage, nor statutory enactment applicable to the 
 case." 
 
 I know I trespass on delicate ground in dealing 
 with any aspect of the National Reformer correspond- 
 ence, in which the quoted passage occurs ; but I feel 
 I must venture the explanation that when the two 
 Vice-Presidents used the words " Parliamentary 
 statute," they meant to endow them with at least 
 that slight amount of elasticity or comprehensiveness 
 which might be needed to include the ruling of our 
 courts of law. The rule holds good to an almost 
 universal degree that your child is not legitimate 
 unless you are married to its mother, and this is the 
 state of things we have set out to alter.
 
 n 9 
 
 Mr. Fisher is impressed by the fact that it 
 " might be hardly fair in some conceivable cases" 
 that the legitimation of a child might " involve the 
 establishment of a boy as the nephew of his adopter's 
 brothers and sisters." Quite so ; but the modern 
 institution of marriage labours under a similar 
 incubus, and the injustice is not felt to be of sufficient 
 gravity to warrant a vote for its abolition at least I 
 have not heard that this is the case. I am supposed 
 to " have, been frightened," and to be "timid" a 
 very absurd thing to say, surely, when we consider 
 that I tell the first interviewer who visits me that 
 there is nothing in my scheme to prevent a man from 
 legitimating offspring by more women than one ; 
 and a charge which I feel sure you who are present 
 will regard as very unlikely. Besides, it does seem 
 to me to be such a piece of simplicity to say that the 
 advocacy of the legitimation of all children is a bolder 
 step to take than the proposed legitimation of the 
 acknowledged ones only. The latter proposal is 
 certainly a more transparent attack upon the insti- 
 tution of modern marriage, for it seeks to place the 
 offspring of alliances unsanctified by State upon a 
 special and distinctive footing from the " chance 
 children," who would be legitimated equally with 
 them under Mr. Fisher's system. 
 
 It is said that "if Mr. Dawson were consistent 
 he ought to object to the retention of marriage of 
 parents as a condition of the legitimacy of an indi- 
 vidual." Well, this is certainly going a long way. 
 It means that I am to propose to declare all the now 
 legitimate children the offspring of marital unions 
 bastards! Perhaps I am a bit timid ! It certainly
 
 I2O 
 
 did not occur to me to come forward with a proposal 
 of this character. 
 
 Mr. Fisher, recurring to his contention that 
 chance children should inherit, claims that their so 
 doing- " would not be any violation of the abstract 
 rights of justice." Abstract or not, I think there 
 would be gross violation of the sound principle upon 
 which our laws as to inheritance are framed, which 
 principle is to distribute an intestate's wealth in such 
 manner as we may presume an intestate, in the 
 average of cases, w r ould wish it to be distributed. 
 
 Much fun is made in the pamphlet about my 
 proposal to "remove the stigma of illegitimacy on 
 the maternal side only/ Mr. Fisher wondering 
 whether it is to be the right or left side, or the front 
 or back. It is, however, quite evident that the idea 
 has been misunderstood, notwithstanding its sim- 
 plicity. For, writes Mr. Fisher, " supposing in the 
 case of highly-placed persons, such presumably as 
 the female heiress to a dukedom in her own right, or 
 any other fanciful high-placement, there were to be a 
 youthful seduction or rape by a groom or a tramp, 
 and that a son were to be born, the father might be 
 very willing to own to paternity, and in fact would 
 quite probably be eager to claim to be the father of 
 one who would, in the course of nature, succeed to a 
 dukedom if conventionally and legally legitimate." 
 The simple answer to this supposition is that if the 
 mother preferred not to acknowledge the child, it 
 would not be legitimate, and it would not "succeed 
 to a dukedom." 
 
 Whether the Legitimation League " ought to 
 propose a mode of dealing with the inheritance of
 
 121 
 
 paramours," as alleged, is a moot point. It is a 
 difficult one to deal with. When this critical paper 
 was read in this room I pointed out that the subject 
 was one which had long occupied my attention. It 
 can hardly be meant that we ought to lie quiet till 
 we have got the solution of this knotty little point, 
 and are fully prepared with a definite scheme of 
 propagandism in connection with it. We must move 
 a little at a time, and the farthest point which we 
 have yet reached is the adoption of the dogma that 
 only acknowledged children should be legitimated.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 UNIVERSAL LEGITIMATION. 
 
 A LARGE proportion of the correspondence of the 
 year has had relation to this question of 
 Universal Legitimation. Several writers in 
 the press have defended the position taken up by 
 Mr. Fisher. Mr. H. R. G. Gogay wrote as follows 
 in comment of Mrs. Victoria Woodhull Martin's 
 articles on " Marriage and Maternity," in the Weekly 
 Times and Echo : 
 
 "Do you not think, sir, the efforts of Mrs. 
 Woodhull Martin towards improving the race 
 mentally, physically, and morally, would be some- 
 what aided if that glorious sham known and 
 described as the People's House was to destroy, 
 by legal enactment, the arbitrary distinction it 
 can be nothing more now drawn between legiti- 
 mate and illegitimate offspring? Why should 
 there be" any difference made by the law of the 
 land ? Holy Mother Church makes no difference. 
 It will baptise, marry, and bury (for a fee) illegiti- 
 mate and legitimate people, and eve,n ask no 
 questions ! Those who made this
 
 123 
 
 unnatural law could unmake it, but they will not, 
 for the very simple reason that if every child born 
 to a man claimed by law the same privileges with 
 his ' legitimate ' offspring, such a man would 
 think twice, nay thrice, before he did that which 
 would probably bring into the world a being for 
 whom he would have neither regard, love, nor 
 responsibility. The descendants of the cowards 
 who passed this precious law are in Parliament 
 now." 
 
 By a further letter it would seem that Mr. 
 H. R. G. Gogay is willing to wield legitimation as an 
 instrument of punishment. In answer to a letter ad- 
 dressed to the same paper by Mr. Fisher, he writes : 
 
 "Were all men like the men forming the 
 Legitimation League, Mr. Greevz Fisher and his 
 friends might live in hopes of obtaining by volun- 
 tary methods that which I contend can only be 
 obtained by Parliamentary enactment, viz., the 
 abolition of the bastardy laws, thus making no 
 distinction between children born without or 
 within wedlock, and making the man and 
 not the woman legally and morally respon- 
 sible for the child or children. This would 
 not only discourage libertinism, the forced pros- 
 titution of thousands of helpless servant girls, 
 shopgirls, and factory "hands," by their scoun- 
 drelly employers and overlookers, but should 
 encourage marriage, for it is clear beyond a doubt 
 that no man would care to be saddled legally with 
 the responsibility of offspring by more than one 
 woman ; whereas now any scoundrel can bring 
 into the world any number of so-called illegiti-
 
 124 
 
 mate children at five shillings per child per week 
 for sixteen years. It is farcical, sir, when one 
 comes to think of it ! " 
 
 Mr Evacustes A. Phipson wrote on " Children's 
 and Women's Rights " in these terms : 
 
 " Undoubtedly, so long as illegitimate children 
 are subject to disabilities, it is most important that 
 parents should have the right to legitimatise them by 
 subsequent marriage. But the great thing is to 
 abolish every law distinguishing legitimate from 
 those ill-naturedly termed " bastard " children, and to 
 give all absolutely equal rights, both as towards their 
 parents and the community." 
 
 Lucinda B. Chandler, reviewing the " Rights of 
 Natural Children" in Lucifer, April i3th, 1894, 
 proclaims that the claim of the objects of the League 
 is " far out of the way in its implied breadth and scope 
 of justice. . . . The child is still the ostracised 
 party. . . . That the State has no right to 
 stamp any child with the odious title of bastard, or 
 to discriminate in favour of the child born in wedlock, 
 as to inheritance when the father acknowledges his 
 paternity, so that it is necessary that he should make 
 a will in order to deal justly with offspring they fail 
 to see. . . . The rights of natural children will 
 be secured by a much more radical rectification of 
 wrong and unjust statutes than Mr. Oswald Dawson 
 proposes." 
 
 " Spes," a lady writer with whom I have since 
 been in correspondence, addresses a plea for universal 
 legitimation to the Weekly Sun, March 23rd, 1895, 
 beginning thus :
 
 I2 5 
 
 " I have just read that powerful book of 
 Grant Allen's, ' The Woman who did,' which 
 appears to me to emphasise more than ever the 
 necessity of recognising all children as legal 
 offspring." 
 
 With some thinkers, at any rate, belief in 
 universal legitimation is a consequence of their 
 adhesion to the principles of Anarchy. I give in illus- 
 tration the following letters received from Mr. H. 
 Davis : 
 
 "August Qth, 1893. 
 " DEAR SIR, 
 
 " I have only just become acquainted with the 
 fact that you have started ' The Legitimation 
 League,' a notice of which appeared in the columns 
 of Liberty, a New York Anarchist advocate, edited 
 by Ben R. Tucker, which I have only just now had 
 the opportunity of reading. I am fully in agreement 
 with the object for which the League is formed, and 
 I am therefore anxious to be of service to the cause. 
 I am also anxious to obtain further particulars 
 respecting the work of the League. I think it right 
 to tell you at once that I am an Anarchist of the 
 Tucker type, and it is because your endeavour is in a 
 line with Anarchism, that I am anxious to be of 
 service. I think there is a good field for work here, 
 and believe that there is a large amount of latent 
 feeling in favour of such a movement, which only 
 requires to be brought out and developed. Awaiting 
 further particulars. 
 
 " I remain, yours, 
 
 " H. DAVIS." 
 " Oswald Dawson, Esq."
 
 126 
 
 I sent Mr. Davis further particulars and also 
 referred him to my letter in the National Reformer. 
 I give here his answer thereto : 
 
 "August \Afth, 1893. 
 " SIR, 
 
 " Your letter to hand this morning. I have noted 
 your letter in the National Reformer referred to, and I 
 must express myself disappointed on learning your 
 attitude on the question of illegitimacy. When I first 
 became acquainted with the fact that the League had 
 been formed, I was under the impression that the scope 
 of its aim was much wider than appears from your let- 
 ter in the National Reformer, and I was the easier led to 
 that conclusion from the fact, or supposed fact, of the 
 uncompromising attitude of yourself and your wife 
 on the question of marriage. Nay, more, even in 
 your letter to the National Reformer you quote 
 Mr. Greevz Fisher one of the officers of the Legiti- 
 mation League as claiming for the same the en- 
 deavour to abolish the evil of illegitimacy by self- 
 reliant methods, without the aid of Parliament. On 
 further perusal of your letter, however, I find there is 
 no warranty for such a statement, much as I could 
 welcome it. When you have gained all for which you 
 are striving, legal disabilities are not at an end, as 
 one might suppose from the statement of Mr. Fisher. 
 The most that could be claimed for the League's 
 programme when attained would be that a step had 
 been taken in the direction indicated, the ultimate 
 result of which appears very doubtful, to say the 
 least. Surely it is easily conceivable that there are 
 many ' good ' men and women whose children would 
 fall under legal disabilities, simply through non-com- 
 pliance with the new act on the part of their parents,
 
 I2 7 
 
 and thus would they suffer from no fault of their own. 
 There are statements in your letter which seem funda- 
 mental from your point of view, which might easily 
 be controverted and, I think, disproved, were it 
 necessary to do so, such as the importance of a name 
 for the child, etc. Suffice it to say, that from my 
 standpoint the total abolition of all legal disabilities 
 in connection with sex relationships is the one thing 
 that is necessary and the only freedom worth working 
 for. 
 
 " I could better understand the position of the 
 League if it sought the cloak of respectability, and 
 desired to coquet with Mother Grundy ; but I do not 
 believe this of either yourself or your good lady. I 
 am only surprised, and somewhat pained, by the 
 inconsistency of your position. 
 
 ' Wishing you more light and a wider range 
 of view. 
 
 " I remain, yours respectfully, 
 
 "H. DAVIS." 
 "Oswald Dawson, Esq."
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT ON THE BAR SINISTER. 
 
 MR. FISHER is usually clear and intelligible, but 
 I confess I am utterly at a loss to understand 
 his short treatise, entitled, " Illegitimate 
 Children," or to make out the drift of his "plea for 
 the abolition of illegitimacy." He seems for once to 
 have completely confounded law and custom. In the 
 belief that he is riding a tilt against the law, he is in 
 reality merely condemning the popular use of unbe- 
 coming language. He complains that certain per- 
 sons are "stigmatised by opprobrious designations, 
 such as bastard, illegitimate, and the like." So they 
 are : similarly, other persons are stigmatized as 
 " mashers," " negroes," " lunatics," and even 
 "females." ... I know many women who 
 wish they had been born men : they regard " woman'' 
 as a term of reproach. Will Mr. Fisher get up a 
 crusade for the abolition of femininity ? 
 Now, Mr. Fisher is no Don Quixote, and there must 
 be some reasonable explanation of his attitude. And 
 I think I have found it. He actually believes that 
 illegitimate persons are saddled with legal and
 
 J2Q 
 
 political disabilities. There are several passages in 
 his pamphlet which confirm this conjecture. He 
 proposes (p. 12) "to repeal all laws defining illegiti- 
 macy." There are no such laws to repeal. A 
 bastard has all the rights of an ordinary citizen. 
 He exercises the franchise, he can hold land, he can 
 inherit land from his own issue (that is to say, his 
 only possible relations), and he is in all respects on 
 the same political level as his legitimate fellows.* 
 All the State does is to say to him (and to everybody 
 else), "if you wish to rank as the son of any par- 
 ticular man, you must show that your mother and he 
 were already married at the time of your birth." 
 When Mr. Fisher says this is a foolish regulation, 
 and too narrow a condition, I agree with him. If it 
 is based on morals, it is too loose, because it ought 
 to require the claimant to show that his parents were 
 already married when he was begotten. And if it is 
 
 * There is only one slight exception to this law, and it tells in 
 favour of the bastard. And this is termed the case of bastard 
 eigne and mtilier puisne. Here the bastard, though unable to furnish 
 the required proofs of sonship (for the State will not accept even the 
 testimony of the father as sufficient to justify it in foisting the child 
 upon the family), is brought up in his supposed father's house as one 
 of his own children. A legitimate child, that is, one able to furnish 
 the required evidence of sonship, is born. If then the father dies, 
 and the bastard eigne enters upon his'land, and enjoys it to his death, 
 and dies seised of it, then the eldest legitimate son and all other 
 heirs are totally barred of their right. Blackstone regards this as a 
 sort of punishment on the mulier puisne for his negligence in not 
 entering during the bastard's life, and evicting him. But this does 
 not explain why all other heirs should likewise be barred. It should 
 be added that this rule applies only when the two sons are by the 
 same mother, who was unmarried at the time of the first son's birth 
 but married at the time of the second son's birth.
 
 130 
 
 based on other considerations, it can be shown to be 
 unnecessarily exacting". Here we are all agreed. 
 But when it is proposed to abolish all conditions, 1 
 stare in blank amazement. What is to prevent the 
 first boy in the street from claiming- Mr. Fisher as 
 his father, in making- use of his credit, and in suc- 
 ceeding to his property among the next of kin at his 
 death, supposing- him to die intestate ? Surely this 
 is not the intention of the writer. Then what can it 
 be? Is it this ? That each child is to be allowed to 
 say, " I am the acknowledged son of somebody, but 
 I decline to say of whom." But any child can say 
 that now, and the State will not interfere with him. 
 It is only when he claims to be the son or daughter 
 of A B, that, in the interest of A B, the State says, 
 " Prove it." Surely this is rig-ht and necessary. It 
 is a very serious thing-, not only for A B, but for all 
 his kith and kin, to have a new relative foisted upon 
 them. For purposes of kinship and succession the 
 proofs must be convincing 1 and conclusive. We may 
 differ as to what they should be, but surely we shall 
 all agree that they should be of a vigorous and 
 thorough character. 
 
 "The conventional connection between so-called 
 legitimate kinship and heirship is to some minds 
 indissoluble, and the extraordinary phenomenon is 
 actually witnessed of certain fearless thinkers incap- 
 able of performing such a simple analysis as suppos- 
 ing them to exist apart." (p. 9.) 
 
 I am then singled out as one of these un- 
 fortunates ; and I am charged with having discussed 
 the question of inheritance and succession to the 
 almost total exclusion of all others, in my presidential 
 address to the Legitimation League.
 
 I did so ; but I had not then a glimmer of 
 suspicion that any one present actually believed in a 
 status of illegitimacy above and beyond the mere 
 denial of a special kinship. I should as soon have 
 thought of condoling with Mr. Fisher on his being 
 stigmatized as the non-brother of the Czar of Russia. 
 So he is ; but does that constitute what Mr. Fisher 
 calls "an individual status/' as distinguished from 
 " a relative or reciprocal one " ? 
 
 I fear I must admit having used language in my 
 presidential address which almost justifies the inter- 
 pretation put upon it by Mr. Fisher, unless carefully 
 construed in the light of the context. I said, "It 
 seems hard that innocent children should be branded 
 with a life-long brand of bastardy, as the result of 
 folly or impatience, or it may be weakness, over 
 which they had no control." What, in order to be 
 more explicit, I ought to have said, is this : "It 
 seems hard that the State should insist on branding as 
 bastards those whose parents are willing and ready to 
 remove the stain." This is what I understand to be 
 the object of the League ; and had it been more than 
 this, I for one could not have taken any part in its 
 establishment. 
 
 Bastards are as likely to be brave, and have 
 shown themselves as brave, as others. True ; but it 
 is probable they will inherit the moral flabbiness, the 
 uncontrollable impulse, the selfishness, and the lack 
 of self-respect which usually characterise one or both 
 of the parents of illegitimate children. This is a 
 stubborn fact, which is not only antecedently probable, 
 but actually observed. A man, for example, who is 
 disowned by his father on account of the inferior 
 social position of his mother, or because of the
 
 132 
 
 ephemeral and unholy tie which bound them such a 
 man is very likely to inherit his mother's incivic 
 weakness and folly. And the children of immora 
 parents are no less to be shunned and suspected than 
 the children of diseased, deranged, drunken, or low- 
 caste parents. 
 
 No name-giving" can mend or mar them. Under 
 any system, until human nature rises to a higher 
 plane, these ill equipped citizens will be born to excite 
 our pity, but they must ever remain the bastards of 
 the people. You cannot wring happiness out of 
 vice. 
 
 It is not necessary to blame the bastard, any 
 more than the mongrel, in order to admit that he is 
 or was less entitled to respect, on the average, 
 than his legitimate fellow-citizens. One attaches no 
 blame to the ugly woman in correct Victorian 
 English, the plain woman from whom one is con- 
 strained to withhold admiration, nor to the poor idiot, 
 whose imbecility we pity but despise. 
 
 I have a couple of thorough-bred Irish terriers : 
 one of them is, in Victorian English, a lady-dog ; 
 the other is not. Now, I can sell the offspring of 
 this union in advance for a long price. But if the 
 gentleman takes a walk, and, inspired by original sin, 
 becomes the father of what Mr. Oswald Dawson 
 styles a "chance pup" by a mother who is a half-bred 
 pug, then that pup would not fetch a shilling in the 
 market. He might grow up to be an affectionate, 
 plucky, and clever little dog, but the chances are 
 against him. And in any case, without attaching 
 any blame to him personally, we should call him a 
 mongrel and a cur, and he would be shunned by all 
 dog-fanciers.
 
 J 33 
 
 To sum up, the State is not really concerned with 
 the kinship of citizens except for what may be called 
 work-house purposes. That is to say, if a child is 
 found, the State endeavours to find the mother, and 
 having" done so, helps her, if necessary, to indicate the 
 father. The decision of the court on this point is 
 based on probability, and very often in face of the 
 denial of the person accused. It is an absurdly unjust 
 and antiquated proceeding", and should be utterly 
 abolished. In the meantime the State does not 
 pretend that such a decision establishes any kinship 
 whatever. It does not even make the child the son 
 of the putative father. The child still remains nullius 
 filius in the eye of the law, although the law has just 
 asserted its knowledge of the father. The total effect 
 of the decision is to render the most probable father 
 of the child liable for its maintenance for the first 
 thirteen years of its life, at a cost not exceeding a 
 sum of about ^150, and this only in case of the 
 mother's inability to contribute to the child's support. 
 Otherwise the State makes the mother wholly respon- 
 sible for the child's support for the first sixteen years 
 of its life. 
 
 Some persons (including Mr. Fisher among the 
 number) seem to think that affiliation and legitimation 
 have something in common, which they have not. It 
 would, indeed, be a strange " reform " to rest the title 
 to thirty thousand acres and an ancient name upon 
 the bare opinion of a couple of justices in petty 
 session, with no better safeguard against their 
 stupidity or bias than an appeal to quarter sessions. 
 And yet this is what Mr. Fisher must mean by making 
 all children legitimate : though even this does not 
 make clear what he would do in the case of children,
 
 '34 
 
 alas ! no inconsiderable number, of whose paternity 
 not even the mother can hazard a guess. 
 
 Finally, as to the liability of the child for the 
 maintenance of its parents in old age and infirmity, 
 it is enough to say that the present position would 
 remain unchanged. Let A. B. register a certain child 
 as his own ; let him bring him up, maintain and 
 educate him, and then suppose proof to be forth- 
 coming that the child is not his son ; in such case, 
 it may be urged, the child would be in a position to 
 repudiate all liability, and the father would come upon 
 the rates. True, such a case might arise ; but so it 
 might now. The birth of a child in wedlock is only 
 a prima facie presumption of its legitimacy. The 
 law permits the point to be brought into controversy. 
 
 The next question we have to answer is this : 
 Does the present-day law of England, relating to 
 parent and child, succeed in excluding from the ranks 
 of legitimacy only or mainly the children of dissolute 
 and inferior persons ? Does it not rather exclude 
 many of the worthy, and include many of the un- 
 worthy ? If we find that this is so, we shall have 
 good ground for altering the law relating to legiti- 
 macy. Take a few instances. Is the man who, 
 years after his wife's death, asks the hand of the 
 loving sister, who has ever since watched over his 
 children and presided over his household, rightly 
 dscribed as a victim of sudden and selfish passion ? 
 Or is she more likely than other women to be actuated 
 by sordid motives ? Again, here is a man whose 
 wife has for years been confined in a lunatic asylum. 
 He meets with a woman in his own station of life, 
 who is willing, in spite of society's reproach, to share 
 his lot for better or for worse, and to hand down his
 
 name and his blood to posterity. Is there any reason 
 to suspect inferior moral qualities in either of these 
 two ? Moreover, there may be many, there are 
 many, who entertain the strongest conscientious 
 objections to perpetual vows. They will not promise 
 what they may be unable to perform. With every 
 reason to hope that they may be suited each to each 
 through life, they dare not swear as to the remote 
 future. Does this self-possession and" scrupulous- 
 ness indicate a low moral tone ? Precisely the 
 reverse. Believers in monogamy, they are not be- 
 lievers in the ability of youth to forecast the tastes 
 and yearnings of maturity. Yet they have sufficient 
 mutual faith to trust one another, and to await with 
 hope the unseen developments of time. Surely none 
 will be found to pretend that the offspring of such 
 unions are likely to inherit unsocial and immoral 
 qualities. Perhaps I should be venturing upon thin 
 ice were I to plead for the youth and maiden who, in 
 the summer madness of love, so far forget themselves 
 as to yield to impatience. It is unnecessary for me 
 to do so. Here, as it happens, they have the support 
 and sympathy of the law of England of the very 
 State itself. " For if a child be begotten while the 
 parents are single, and they will endeavour to 
 make an early reparation for the offence by marry- 
 ing within a few months after, our law is so 
 indulgent as not to bastardize the child, if it 
 be born though not begotten in lawful wedlock." 
 Such are the mild words in which the severe Black- 
 stone essays to whitewash the somewhat lax morality 
 of this Christian State. And the English law permits 
 of divorce and remarriage, which is a distinct viola- 
 tion of the monogamic principle. And Scotch law is
 
 136 
 
 even more unprincipled than either. Then why beat 
 about the bush, and make believe ? Let us face the 
 truth boldly. The State has given up all hope of 
 upholding the monogamic principle by force. It 
 recognises the folly of trying to make men moral by 
 law. Then away with all this cant and coercion. 
 The monogamic principle will take care of itself. It 
 is a natural tendency, and not an artificial creation of 
 the State. And what, after all, are these vaunted 
 virtues which the State professes itself so anxious to 
 uphold ? And these vices it is so anxious to suppress ? 
 What virtues do our present marriage-laws preserve ? 
 Patience, self-control, prudence, constancy. Yes ; 
 and what compensating vices do they encourage and 
 engender? Sordidness, life-long prostitution, decep- 
 tion, and secret faithlessness. To what else is due 
 that cesspool of abominations, the marriage-market ? 
 Then let the law leave morality to take care of itself, 
 and restrict its energies to the redress of injuries, and 
 to the doing of justice. In the particular matter 
 of legitimation, let it fall back on the father's acknow- 
 ledgment of paternity supported by sufficient evidence, 
 as the one test of legitimacy ; and leave the rest to 
 the advancing good sense of sane men and women. 
 
 Mr. Fisher's fear lest a couple of tramps should 
 call at the register office and register themselves the 
 parents of the Duke of Bayswater's first-born, is not 
 a well-grounded fear : for, as I have pointed out, 
 registration constitutes a presumption only, which 
 would be very easily disproved. 
 
 Says Mr. Fisher: "A claimant father not only 
 appoints the claimed son his heir, but appoints him- 
 self the son's heir." And this brings me to the 
 State's fourth reason for busying itself with the kin-
 
 137 
 
 ship of citizens. I postponed the discussion of this 
 fourth reason, because it belongs to another class of 
 legal questions. It is an outgrowth of the old law of 
 status, and is quite out of harmony with our extended 
 system of free contract. Time was when a man 
 could devise no part of his property as he thought fit. 
 Certain definite persons had claims upon it which he 
 could not resist. Such persons were related to him 
 by blood, and their rights formed a most intricate and 
 complex web. How carefully these tables of con- 
 sanguinity were chronicled and preserved among the 
 titled and propertied classes, is evidenced by the fact 
 that Henry IV. of France succeeded to the throne 
 through the sixth son of a predecessor who died 
 about three centuries earlier, during the whole of 
 which time his blood-rights had, so to speak, 
 smouldered in the form of parchment. Now this 
 system, though scotched, is not yet killed. Mr. 
 Fisher is right, therefore, when he points out that a 
 man, by registering himself the father of a child, by 
 that very act " appoints brothers, uncles, and their 
 female counterparts, as well as cousins and other 
 relatives." In short, a man could by this simple 
 process create and manufacture an heir out of a 
 stranger in blood to the detriment of the lawful heir. 
 But here again this is frequently done under cover of 
 marriage, and in both cases it merely creates a pre- 
 sumption, which can be rebutted by the production of 
 sufficient evidence. 
 
 It is an old maxim of English law that God, not 
 man, makes the heir. In other words, the tenant for 
 life cannot supplant the heir apparent, except by the 
 dangerous process of killing him. He cannot adopt 
 an older child, and so put a stranger over his head.
 
 138 
 
 But he can and does supplant the heir presumptive by 
 the simple process of marrying his washerwoman, 
 whereby the plans of the Deity may be somewhat 
 modified, and the purity of the family blood con- 
 siderably tarnished. 
 
 Any man can disinherit his children, or any of 
 them, by will. He is not even compelled to leave 
 them a reasonable subsistence. The child's ancient 
 right to the pars rationabilis has been taken away 
 in every case. By an Act passed in the reign of 
 William III., if a Roman Catholic refused to allow 
 his Protestant child a fitting maintenance, with a 
 view to compel him to change his religion, the Court 
 of Chancery might compel him to do what was "just 
 and reasonable/' And in the reign of Anne, a similar 
 remedy was provided to force Jews to provide a 
 suitable maintenance for their Christian children. 
 But both these Acts were very properly repealed in 
 the present reign. And now every man's property is 
 absolutely at his own disposal. He can pass over 
 all his legitimate children, and leave everything he 
 possesses to his natural child or to his mistress, 
 or to anyone else. 
 
 The next question we have to answer is this : 
 Does the present-day law of England, relating to 
 parent and child, succeed in excluding from the ranks 
 of legitimacy only or mainly the children of dissolute 
 and inferior persons ? Does it not rather exclude 
 many of the worthy, and include many of the 
 unworthy ? If we find that this is so, we shall have 
 good ground for altering the law relating- to legiti- 
 macy. Take a few instances. Is the man who, years 
 after his wife's death, asks the hand of the loving 
 sister, who has ever since watched over his children
 
 '39 
 
 and presided over his household, rightly described as 
 a victim of sudden and selfish passion ? Or is she 
 more likely than other women to be actuated by 
 sordid motives ? Again, here is a man whose wife 
 has for years been confined in a lunatic asylum. He 
 meets with a woman in his own station of life, who 
 is willing, in spite of Society's reproach, to share his 
 lot for better or for worse, and to hand down his 
 name and his blood to posterity. Is there any 
 reason to suspect inferior moral qualities in either of 
 these two ? Moreover there may be many, there are 
 many, who entertain the strongest conscientious 
 objections to perpetual vows. They will not promise 
 what they may be unable to perform. With every 
 reason to hope that they may be suited each to each 
 through life, they dare not swear as to the remote 
 future. Does this self-possession and scrupulousness 
 indicate a low moral tone ? Precisely the reverse. 
 Believers in monogamy, they are not believers in thq 
 ability of youth to forecast the tastes and yearnings 
 of maturity. Yet they have sufficient mutual faith 
 to trust one another, and to await with hope the 
 unseen developments of time. Surely none will be 
 found to pretend that the offspring of such unions are 
 likely to inherit unsocial and immoral qualities. 
 Perhaps I should be venturing upon thin ice were I 
 to plead for the youth and maiden who, in the- 
 summer madness of love, so far forget themselves as 
 to yield to impatience. It is unnecessary for me to 
 do so. Here, as it happens, they have the support 
 and sympathy of the Law of England of the very 
 State itself. " For if a child be begotten while the 
 parents are single, and they will, endeavour to make 
 an early reparation for the offence by marrying
 
 140 
 
 within a few months after, our law is so indulgent as- 
 not to bastardize the child, if it be born though not 
 begotten in lawful wedlock." Such are the mild 
 words in which the severe Blackstone essays to 
 whitewash the somewhat lax morality of this Christian 
 State. 
 
 And the English law permits of divorce and 
 remarriage, which is a distinct violation of the mono- 
 gamic principle. Arid Scotch law is even more 
 unprincipled than either. Then why beat about the 
 bush, and make believe? Let us face the truth 
 boldly. The State has given up all hope of upholding 
 the monogamic principle by force. It recognises the 
 folly ot trying to make men moral by law. Then 
 away with all this cant and coercion. The mono- 
 gamic principle will take care of itself. It is a 
 natural tendency, and not an artificial creation of the 
 State. And what, after all, are these vaunted virtues 
 which the State professes itself so anxious to uphold? 
 And these vices it is so anxious to suppress ? What 
 virtues do our present marriage-laws preserve ? 
 Patience, self-control, prudence, constancy. Yes ; 
 and what compensating vices do they encourage and 
 engender ? Sordidness, life-long prostitution, decep- 
 tion, and secret faithlessness. To what else is due 
 that cesspool of abominations, the marriage-market. 
 Then let the Law leave morality to take care of itself, 
 and restrict its energies to the redress of injuries, 
 and to the doing of justice. In the particular matter 
 of legitimation, let it fall back on the father's 
 acknowledgment of paternity, supported by sufficient 
 evidence, as the one test of legitimacy ; and leave the 
 rest to the advancing 1 good sense of sane men and 
 women.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 MARRIAGE AS SLAVERY 
 
 MR. JOHN BADCOCK, JUN., our Corresponding 
 Secretary for London, has published during 
 the year a lecture, entitled " Slaves to Duty," 
 delivered before the South Place Junior Ethical 
 Society. Amongst the duties, the imperiousness of 
 which Mr. Badcock seeks to minimise, are those 
 involved in our system of State marriage. Those 
 duties are, it is true, classed with others which to 
 many readers will doubtless appear to rest upon a 
 different footing. Mr. Badcock writes : " If I choose 
 to fulfil a promise of lifelong marriage, I can do so. 
 If I choose to pay usurious debts to a Shylock, I can 
 do so. But neither the woman nor the Jew should in 
 these cases have any help from the courts of justice, 
 any more than betting creditors have now in this 
 country." Mr. Badcock proceeds to emphasise his 
 objection to the marriage contract, which, as he says, 
 is not free. He writes : "The powers only acknow- 
 ledge one form of it, and put disabilities upon the 
 offspring from those who have not obeyed the marriage 
 regulations. Therefore the parrot-like, repeated-after-
 
 the-official, marriage vows can no more be considered 
 as the voluntary expression of the free desires of both 
 contracting parties than can any other promises that 
 are dictated by public usage and law. Therefore, we 
 are not justified in condemning off-hand those who are 
 nonconformists to marriage. When the law threatens, 
 society ostracises, and education produces its bias 
 against those who participate in free natural unions, 
 and against j ' natural ' children, those who are too 
 weak to openly face the tempest need not be restrained 
 by duties from seeking in secret those satisfactions 
 denied them openly/' Mr. Badcock indicates the way 
 of salvation, according to his idea, in the following 
 paragraph : "I do not doubt that the liberation of 
 the means of subsistence from the usurious control 
 of Government will eventually increase the indepen- 
 dence of women along with the independence of men. 
 When that comes to pass you may find the duties of 
 a man to support his wife, and of a wife to obey her 
 husband, and 'of both to remain bound together till 
 death, to have lapsed and gone out of fashion, because 
 superfluous."
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 LABOUR AND LEGITIMATION. 
 
 THE following matter, under above title, was 
 contributed by the Editor of these Proceedings 
 to the Labour Annual, 1895 : 
 
 The demand for the economic independence 
 of women implies the slavishness of the stipu- 
 lation : keep in perpetuity in compensation for 
 the risk of maternity. With evolved and exalted 
 ideas of a Fair Bargain, the woman of an advanced 
 ethic will scorn eternal payment, compulsorily 
 levied, for transitory service. I doubt if advocates 
 of State-endowed motherhood propose perpetual 
 pensions for every woman who conceives, 
 including vigorous ladies who have children earn- 
 ing back ten years' cost of education in as many 
 months. I presume allowances would lapse with 
 time according to the precedent of the Bastardy 
 Laws, with possible exceptions where prolificacy 
 has resulted in a more or less complete special- 
 ization of women as mothers. 
 
 The Legitimation League, amongst other 
 aims, making, I hope, for fairness, seeks to provide 
 women who revolt against the slavery of marriage
 
 i 4 4 
 
 with the means of securing an economic inde- 
 pendence which they do not feel is theirs when 
 they are tied for life to an inebriate, a thief, a 
 foul-mouth, a gambler, a drone, an adulterer, a 
 man given to cruelty, or any combination of these 
 except the two last. 
 
 The process of provision may be effected 
 by the registration of alliances, fitly accompanied 
 by an assimilation of surnames, and having for 
 meaning on its legal side, primarily the acknow- 
 ledgment of parentage in event of issue with all 
 its responsibilities as under marriage, and the 
 placing of offspring in the line of succession ; 
 and, secondarily (or reverse the order of im- 
 portance if you will), the establishment of 
 reciprocal duties as between the contracting 
 parties, entailing financial liabilities, and regu- 
 lated in respect of the determination of the 
 contract partly upon a physiological basis. 
 
 Whilst a woman runs the risk of conceiv- 
 ing, it should be in her power to contract for the 
 wherewithal to save her from wage-earning, and 
 whilst rearing offspring she may surely stipulate 
 for a competence without sacrificing her economic 
 independence. Beyond this, though she has 
 everything to expect from Love, her demands, 
 if embodied in the law of the State as a com- 
 pulsion-wielding power, are by Favour, are 
 gains without service. Under such conditions, 
 and under such conditions alone, may woman 
 deem herself a slave. 
 LEEDS, October, 1894.
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 WHAT IS LICIT LOVE ? 
 
 1WAS asked by a questioner at the Hall of Science 
 "What is licit love?" Supplementing 1 the 
 brief answer then made, I give the text of an 
 article written for a local periodical, which ceased to 
 exist between the sending of my communication and 
 the time for the publication of the next issue. 
 
 Is there anything direly disreputable in licit love, 
 as a phrase, or a propaganda, or in any way ? We 
 must first know its meaning. Licit love is love 
 sanctioned by law, all love for which it is sought to 
 obtain legal sanction. But, bar love not brought 
 apparently info the pale of criminality by reason of 
 the commission of seduction and adultery, all love 
 with a residuum of exceptional cases needless to 
 cite is licit. I say ' apparently,' because in reality 
 the legal action in the case of these exceptions is 
 civil and not criminal. There is no punishment for 
 seduction or adultery unless an aggrieved party sets 
 out to seek damages. Fornication is not illegal, and, 
 indeed, prostitution itself only comes into conflict 
 
 K
 
 146 
 
 with law indirectly. The principal characters are 
 untouched, those who provide the facilities are liable 
 to suffer. 
 
 The inference may seem to be that licit lovers, as 
 a school, desire to see all these practices in some way 
 recognised by law. That is not so. Nor do we aim 
 to obtain for them the sanction of custom. All we 
 aim for is to render holy and right a phrase I will 
 presently explain all such alliances as the con- 
 cerned parties are willing to publicly declare, and 
 also perform a further process. This further process 
 is the paying of a fee to the State in registering the 
 name, abode, perhaps also age and occupation, or 
 other needful details concerning the two parties, so 
 that should one die before the other without making 
 a will and the alliance be not terminated, the survivor 
 shall be entitled to rank in the distribution of the 
 intestate's estate. It would have the further effect of 
 allowing the parties to look to each other for financial 
 support whilst allied and during the period for which 
 the notice to part ran. Whether the law should fix 
 or limit that period is another question. At present 
 it fixes it by making it eternal. Possibly the eternal 
 is a fit subject for State cognizance, possibly it is not. 
 Officially, so to speak, I do not assail it. What I 
 ask is that others, who for any reason prefer a 
 temporary contract periodically renewed, or (and the 
 alternative is vastly preferable in every way) a con- 
 tract indefinite in time and determinable by notice, 
 shall have the privileges which the law grants to the 
 wedded. 
 
 Now, to revert to our initial query and to answer 
 it. This may be a direly disreputable idea. I dare 
 say it would be generally voted so. ' Licit Love '
 
 147 
 
 may be as heinously horrifying as ' Free Love,' if by 
 the latter term we meant promiscuity and the break- 
 ing up of the system which gives to children more 
 parents than one, or as absolutely abhorrent as 
 seduction or other social delinquencies which men 
 and women commit away from the glare of day in 
 shame and fear. The same adjectives justified by the 
 same adverbs may be applied to all these deeds, but 
 let us not thereby confound or suppose a generic 
 resemblance between two or more widely differing 
 things. Licit love is not legalised liaison. It is 
 open as marriage or the registration of a limited 
 liability company. Weddings are daylight cere- 
 monials. It is usual to publish banns before and 
 advertisements afterwards, and the lady wears a ring. 
 I find no fault with these customs.
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE NEW LEGITIMATION ACT. 
 
 following communication reached me per 
 book post. It is anonymous, and I have had 
 no subsequent information as to its authorship. 
 It ran to four or five times the length of the extract 
 given below, which forms merely the commencement 
 of the article, which in its developments assumed 
 phases and phrases too obscene for reproduction : 
 
 THE NEW LEGITIMATION ACT. 
 From the Skunktown Growler, in the year 2,000. 
 
 A number of cases under the new Legitimation 
 Act came before the Bastardy Commissioner to-day. 
 In some of these the testimony for it can scarcely 
 be called evidence was so conflicting, that the judge 
 and jury were totally unable to arrive at a verdict. 
 
 The first was the case of Mary Jane Slugs, who 
 claims to be entitled to a share of the large estate 
 left by the eccentric John Slugs, who died a few 
 weeks ago. In proof of her claim, Miss Slugs 
 brought forward her alleged mother, a very stout
 
 149 
 
 elderly lady, who acted very much like one under the 
 influence of liquor, but Miss Slugs assured the court 
 that her mother suffered from chronic hiccoughs,, 
 brought on by over indulgence in snuff. The lady 
 burst into tears in describing her intimacy with the 
 deceased millionaire, whom she swore was the father 
 of her child, the aforesaid Mary Jane. She was 
 vigorously cross-examined by the judge, who failed 
 to shake her statement that the deceased had met her 
 twenty years previously, etc., etc., etc.
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE. 
 
 44 TRENE," by Sada Bailey Fowler, is an American 
 work of fiction, and has been introduced to 
 the British public through the agency of Mr. 
 Crawford, Larkhall, Bath. The following memor- 
 andum appears therein : 
 
 " HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE. 
 
 " The Ante-nuptial Contract on page 362, was 
 copied from that of Damon Y. Kilgore and Carrie 
 S. Burnham, recorded in the Office for Recording 
 Deeds in and for the City and County of Phila- 
 delphia, in Deed Book D.H.L., No. 8, page 516. 
 
 Here is the contract referred to : 
 
 " ' Whereas, Edgar Clayton, of the Township 
 of Monroe, County of Mercer and State of West 
 Virginia, and Irene Belham, of the Township of 
 Waverley, County of Essex and State of New 
 Jersey, contemplate entering into the marriage 
 relation with each other, and
 
 " ' Whereas, by the laws of West Virginia 
 certain disabilities are imposed upon every woman 
 who enters into this most sacred of all civil con- 
 tracts, thereby inflicting a great injustice upon 
 women, and manifold evils upon society as the 
 direct and inevitable result of this legal inequality 
 between the husband and wife, therefore 
 
 "'This Agreement Witnesseth, that in case 
 the said contemplated marriage between the 
 parties to this contract shall take place, the said 
 Irene Belham shall not be subject to any of the 
 legal disabilities imposed upon married women by 
 the laws of this State, or of any State or Territory 
 of the United States, as between the said parties to 
 this contract ; but that after the said contemplated 
 marriage shall have taken place she shall have 
 ownership, possession, and control of her person, 
 property, and earnings; together with such pro- 
 perty as she may hereafter acquire by gift, inheri- 
 tance, or otherwise, during the continuance of said 
 marriage, as fully and completely as if she were 
 a femme sole. And as to third parties, the said 
 Irene Belham shall be as exempt from all legal 
 disabilities as possible under the laws of the land. 
 
 "And it is further agreed, that should such 
 marriage result in the birth of any child or children, 
 such child or children shall belong equally to both 
 parents, neither having superior rights to the other 
 in the maintenance and education of their said off- 
 spring, all provisions of the Common or Statute 
 Laws to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 "In witness whereof we, the undersigned 
 parties to this contract, have hereunto subscribed 
 our names and affixed our seals, this first day of
 
 April, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
 
 and seventy-one. 
 
 "EDGAR CLAYTON [Seal.J 
 "IRENE BELHAM [Seal.] 
 
 " Signed and Sealed in presence of 
 
 " LEANDER POLLOCK. 
 ''JAMES RUSH. 
 
 " Personally appeared before me, Peter 
 Randolph, a Notary Public in and for the County 
 of Mercer, State of West Virginia, Edgar Clayton 
 and Irene Belham, parties to the above contract, 
 and acknowledged that the foregoing agreement 
 was their free and voluntary act, and that they 
 desired the same to be recorded as such. 
 
 "Witness my hand and official seal this ist 
 day of April, A.D. 1871. 
 
 "PETER RANDOLPH, 
 
 ' ' Notary Public.. 
 [Notarial Seal.] 
 
 " Recorded in the office for Recording Deeds 
 in and for the County of Mercer, State of West 
 Virginia, in Deed Book I. O. U., No. 9, page 366, 
 &c. 
 
 " Witness my hand and Seal of Office this 
 First day of April, Anno Domini 1871. 
 
 "JOHN GRISCOMBE, 
 
 "Recorder," 
 [Official Seal.]
 
 J. GREEVZ FISHER, 
 
 -l'irsiitfiit of the Lc^itimnticn I.c
 
 J. C SPENCE, 
 
 Vice-President of ihe Legitimation League.
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 A WIFE'S SISTER DEBATE. 
 
 A DEBATE was held in the Leeds Law Institute- 
 by the Leeds Law Students' Society on Monday 
 evening, the igth November, 1894. Mr. 
 Edward Fletcher, Solicitor, of Leeds, occupied the 
 chair. The moot point under discussion was as 
 follows : 
 
 "A. and B., British subjects residing" in London, 
 went through a form of marriage which, according 
 to the law of this country, did not constitute a legal 
 marriage, since B. was sister to A's. former wife, 
 deceased. Prior to the ceremony, and in consider- 
 ation thereof, a sum of ^20,000 was vested by A. 
 and B. in trustees upon trust (subject to life interests 
 in favour of A. and B. and the survivor) for the 
 children of the marriage. As A. and B. should by 
 deed jointly appoint, and failing such joint appoint- 
 ment, as the survivor should by deed so will, appoint, 
 and failing any such appointment, and as far as any 
 such appointment, if made, should not extend, upon 
 trust for all the children of the marriage, who, being 
 males, should attain twenty-one, or, being females,
 
 should attain that age or marry, equally, and if there 
 should be only one child, then the whole to be upon 
 trust for such one child, with an ultimate trust in case 
 there should be no children of the marriage in favour 
 of X. A. and B. have three children and wish to 
 extend their power of appointment, and they are 
 advised that any appointment they might make would 
 be inoperative as soon as there was no marriage 
 between them. The children born to them are not 
 objects of the power, and that the property subject to 
 the life interests of them (A. and B. ) belongs to X. 
 But is this advice sound ? If so, is there any method 
 whereby A. and B. can prevent the property, the 
 subject of the settlement, passing to X. under the 
 ultimate trust, and secure it for the benefit of their 
 children ? " 
 
 Mr. A. T. WILLIAMSON opened the debate, and 
 submitted that the children of the marriage were 
 undoubtedly illegitimate, and that the advice given 
 to A. and B., that any settlement made by them 
 would be inoperative, was sound, since there would 
 be no children of the marriage as there was no legal 
 marriage solemnized, and that the ceremony gone 
 through between A. and B. was not such a consider- 
 ation as would support the marriage settlement as it 
 tended to immorality, but this did not affect the 
 interest of X., since the instrument under which X. 
 benefitted was completed at the time the settlement 
 was made. Mr. Williamson read an extract from 
 Lewin on Trusts, page 1 18, to show that where a trust 
 is created for an unlawful purpose, the Court will 
 neither enforce the trusts in favour of the parties 
 intended to be benefitted, and will assist the settler to 
 recover the estate. The trust created bv A. and B.
 
 tending to immorality, the law would not assist the 
 settlers in recovering- the estate, which would there- 
 fore pass to X. He also read an extract from 
 Furweller Ruvers, p. 489, and submitted that as both 
 parties must have known that the ceremony was not 
 lawful, the settlement must be construed as a 
 voluntary deed, and that a voluntary deed might be 
 partially valid, and cited the case of the Countess of 
 Strathmore v. Bowes, Heselridge v. , 22 Law 
 Journal, 342. He submitted that there was no method 
 whereby the property, the subject of the settlement, 
 would be secured by A. and B. for the benefit of the 
 children of the marriage, as a voluntary deed could 
 not be rectified as X. already had a vested interest, 
 and he quoted an extract from Vaisley on Settlements, 
 vol. ii., p. 1,568, and also cited Platt v. Matthews, 22 
 Ueavan, 328. 
 
 Mr. WILSON', leading- on the other side, urged 
 that the consideration for the settlement was bad, as 
 it tended to immorality, and therefore the settlement 
 was void ; and not only the children of the marriage, 
 but also X. was defeated, and in support of his con- 
 tention quoted Robinson v. Macaulay, Law Times 
 Reports, September, ^94. The consideration for 
 the whole settlement was void, and therefore the 
 trusts were inoperative (Ayerst v. Jenkins, L. R. 16, 
 Equity 275), and he distinguished Kiddler v. Kiddler. 
 Mr. Wilson contended that as there was no marriage, 
 the trusts intended to come into operation in the 
 marriage could not arise, and cited Occleston v. 
 Fullalove, 9 L. R., Ch. App. 147. There was a way 
 by which the settlement might be substantially dealt 
 with, and that was by taking proceedings in 
 Chancery could motion a fresh settlement thereof by
 
 '56 
 
 which they could carry out their intention of 
 benefitting the children of the marriage to the 
 exclusion of X. 
 
 Mr. WHITING followed, and argued that although 
 the marriage was illegal, the settlement must be 
 construed according to its intention, which plainly 
 was that the children of the marriage should be 
 benefitted before X. He quoted the case of Ayerst v. 
 Jenkins, to show that the settlement was a voluntary 
 deed, which, he urged, could be rectified, as both the 
 settlers had equally made a mistake ; and he read an 
 extract from Vaisey on Settlements, vol. ii., 
 p. 1,573, to show that in such a case the deed could 
 be rectified. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON argued that Ayerst v. Jenkins might 
 well be quoted on both sides, but the deed in that 
 case was intended by the parties to be a deed of gift, 
 but the solicitor inadvertently drew it up as a settle- 
 ment ; but it must be regarded as a deed of gift, and 
 there it was hardly analogous to the present case- 
 that the money was held in trust until the marriage 
 for the settlement, and no marriage taking place, the 
 money resulted back to the settlers, and did not go 
 to X. He further urged that the two cases which 
 were almost identical with the present one, and 
 governed it, were Chapman and Bradley v. Dawson 
 and Brown. In the latter Vice-Chancellor Malins 
 distinguished Ayerst v. Jenkins. 
 
 Mr. W. E. FARR urged that if the consideration 
 tended to immorality the contract was void, but only 
 so far as related to the " children of the marriage " ; 
 the immorality of the consideration did not affect X. 
 In support of this he quoted Vaisley on Settle- 
 ments, page 69, and Ayerst v. Jenkins, L. R. 16,,
 
 157 
 
 Eq. 273. He urged that the settlement was in V. P. 
 Platt v. Matthews, and that a V.P. could not be 
 rectified in general, and quoted 22 Beavan, 328, and 
 Vaisey on Settlements, vol. ii., page 1,565, and 
 Sayer v. Home, i r Beavan, 236. A deed was 
 undoubtedly construed according to the intention of 
 the parties, but in this case the parties must have 
 known that the consideration was immoral, as there 
 could be no legal marriage between a man and his 
 deceased wife's sister, and they had the opportunity 
 of proof. It was not a mistake of fact, which could 
 be relieved against, but a mistake of law, which 
 could not be rectified. 
 
 Mr. MILNER argued that the settlement could not 
 appoint, as there were no children of the marriage, 
 and that the settlement being entirely void, X. was 
 defeated. He also quoted Ayhurst v, Jenkins, and 
 also discussed Crook v. Hill, and he submitted that a 
 fresh appointment could be made in favour of the 
 children if the mother applied to the court. 
 
 Mr. MATTHEWMAN urged that the marriage was 
 void, and the settlement and all the trusts created 
 thereby were invalid. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, in reply, relied on Bevan v. Pawson 
 and Clapham v. Bradley to show that the children 
 of the marriage might obtain the property. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON, in his reply, urged that the 
 deed was a valid document, and therefore binding on 
 the settlers, and he read an extract in support thereo. 
 from V. V., page 87, and urged that Ayerst v. 
 Jenkins supported his contention. 
 
 After the CHAIRMAN had summed up a vote was 
 taken, when twelve voted that the advice was 
 unsound, and that there was a method whereby A
 
 and B. could secure the property, the subject of the 
 settlement, and thus preventing it passing to X., in 
 favour of the children ; and three voted that the 
 advice was sound, and that X.'s right could not be 
 defeated.
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE WOMAN AND THE LAW. 
 
 A paper by Mr. C. H. Pickstone, of Radcliffe 
 Bridge, Lancashire, was read at the 2ist annual 
 meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, held 
 at Bristol, in October, 1894. The writer's aim is to 
 show that woman has, notwithstanding her rebellion 
 against it, the best of the bargain in marriage. 
 
 "It is as easy to realise one's just demand 
 against the assets of the ordinary man as it is to get 
 on the Poor Rate book ; it is as difficult to realise a 
 like demand against a married woman as it is to get 
 on to the Parliamentary Register. Thanks to the 
 law's anxious care she is well-nigh invulnerable. 
 Even if we successfully dodge the pitfalls which the 
 indulgent law places in the path of the pursuing 
 creditor and obtain judgment, the serious trouble has 
 only commenced. For after you have with infinite 
 pains traced into her possession separate estate you 
 will in all probability find it incased in that execution- 
 proof armour, the restraint on anticipation, which in 
 the case of a man is ruthlessly condemned as against
 
 i6o 
 
 public policy, but which in the case of a married 
 woman is permitted and encouraged as a protection 
 against herself ; in other words, against the persua- 
 sive kick or the seductive kiss of her all-devouring 
 spouse. Under the impervious shelter of this doctrine 
 she can clothe herself in " purple and fine linen, and 
 fare sumptuously every day," however dire may be 
 the straits of poverty into which her conduct may 
 drive her wretched creditors, for the law in its 
 jealous regard for its darling not only refuses to 
 impound the capital, but even denies you the con- 
 solation of receiving the income, as our friend 
 Mr. Hood-Barrs has just so dearly learned (Hood- 
 Barrs v. Cathcart, 70 L.T. 862). Nay, further, the 
 law in its solicitude for her material comfort with- 
 holds that most potent of all levers for bringing to 
 his knees the recalcitrant debtor the commitment 
 warrant (Scott v. Morley), and denies even that 
 forlorn hope, the Bankruptcy Notice (re Hannah 
 Lynes, 68 L.T. 739). No, neither Receiver, Bank- 
 ruptcy Notice, or gaol can reach her. Nor is 
 that all." 
 
 Mr. Pickstone then citing Seroka v. Kattenburg, 
 17 Q.B.D. 177, points out how the husband is liable 
 in damage to the uttermost farthing to the party 
 whom his wife defames. Continuing the subject of 
 slander, the writer reminds us how 54 and 55 Vic., 
 cap. 51, pounces "with hungry alacrity" on the 
 person who shall whisper a charge against the virtue 
 of a lady, whilst, on the other hand, "all the 
 illegitimate children in a street may be laid to the 
 charge of a luckless man, and, though never so 
 innocent, he must cheerfully "grin and bear it/' 
 since, unless the slanderer chance to "touch him in
 
 his business," as the law quaintly has it "she lends 
 a deaf ear." 
 
 The Jackson case leads Mr. Pickstone to some 
 amusing reflections. He questions thus : Had the 
 position of the parties been reversed, and Mr. Jackson 
 " imprisoned," with his wife as the relentless warder, 
 what relief would the Law have given him ? Why, 
 in Smith v. Smith, 59 L.J. (P.) 13, when a wife was 
 brought up for molesting her husband in defiance of 
 .the Court's order, the learned Judge declined to 
 convict. Then again, "if husband and wife together 
 concoct a diabolical felony short of murder and 
 manslaughter nay, even though the crime be the 
 .sole creation of the wife's fecund brain," the law 
 forgives her, and sentences the husband to ten years 
 penal servitude. 
 
 " But the catalogue is not yet full." The last 
 grievance related by Mr. Pickstone is a formidable 
 one, and occupies the half of his pamphlet. Wives 
 who have cruel husbands can obtain a separation 
 from them by going to a court in London. At the 
 same time they obtain maintenance. The Act of 
 1886 gave the local justices power to grant main- 
 tenance in case of Desertion not in case of any other 
 form of cruelty. The reason for this w r as very clear : 
 the Justices merely possess the power the Guardians 
 had previous to the passing of the Act, only that the 
 Guardians had to wait till the desertion had lasted for 
 two years, whilst the action of the Justices under the 
 Act is more summary. No corresponding legislation 
 designed to benefit man has been devised as a set-off; 
 but this is not Mr. Pickstone's point. He complains 
 that the Act omits to say for what length of time the 
 order is to hold good ; and that Justices construe the 
 
 I.
 
 162 
 
 Act so that it is made to serve as a substitute for 
 proceeding's in London. They are " too ready to 
 assume that because the wife might, in their opinion, 
 have reasonable grounds for refusing to return home,'' 
 her husband is guilty of neglect to maintain. It is, 
 says Mr. Pickstone, "unpardonable weakness for 
 the Bench to listen to or regard the wife's complaint 
 that she is ' afraid to return. ' Do any of us doubt 
 that upon facts," which fail to prove desertion and 
 merely prove cruelty, the Bench, in the absence of a 
 strong clerk, stretches the law in the woman's favour, 
 or rather indeed rules in direct conflict with the spirit 
 and the letter of the law of 1886. 
 
 Mr. Pickstone disapproves of this: "The 
 Magisterial Bench is tor obvious reasons not the 
 right tribunal to exercise the grave and serious 
 responsibility involved in the relaxation of the fetters 
 of the marital obligation." He is impatient of the 
 new woman and her rebellion against marriage, and 
 his recital of the "pulls" of the married woman* as 
 against her partner, is in a tone calculated to reconcile 
 her to the institution. Free the married woman from 
 the importunities of creditors, excuse her from 
 bankruptcy, and from doing time for debt ; give her 
 special protection against those of evil tongue; leave 
 her free from the necessity of residing under the roof 
 of an objectionable husband ; allow her to plan 
 crime in conjunction with her better half, without fear 
 of sharing the punishment these things excite in 
 Mr. Pickstone a natural humour, and in no place 
 draw forth his explicit disapproval but the added 
 
 * Some of these married woman's advantages are shared by 
 maiden ladies. As to " desertion " and "cruelty," see latter part of 
 footnote to p. 167.
 
 163 
 
 advantage, illegally obtained, of procuring separation 
 without the expense and trouble of taking a case to 
 London, calls forth a distinct note of remonstrance. 
 
 Looking to the future- to a transition stage 
 between the present state of the law in relation to 
 woman, and the good time coming when law will 
 leave the woman free one may picture with the 
 modified satisfaction that appertains to any transition 
 stage, a time when the local magistracy will be em- 
 powered to grant separation orders, and every police 
 court be a Divorce Division. The crop of enormities 
 in the way of alimony will work towards further 
 freedom. 
 
 Mrs. George Corbett, in an article already refer- 
 red to (Free Review, Jan., 1894), writes thus plainly : 
 "Of the difficulties which cramp and thwart the 
 business capacities of an energetic married woman 
 everybody knows. Those who contend that wives 
 do not labour under injustice or special difficulty by 
 reason of their matrimonial relations will perhaps 
 explain how it is that a single woman, although she 
 may be known to be what is termed immoral, is given 
 the credit and commercial facilities which are denied 
 to an honorably married woman. The old-world 
 tenets of Church and State still hamper a wife's 
 success, and prove veritable millstones round her 
 neck. Theoretically, she is emancipated from many 
 of her legal disabilities. Practically, her power to 
 succeed in her business enterprises is so cramped by 
 reason of her marriage that my contention is again 
 proved to be undeniable. Both Church and State 
 condemn marriage as immoral, since they deny to a 
 married woman those opportunities which they would 
 at once restore to her if death, or divorce, as a result
 
 164 
 
 of her own deliberate action, were to place her once 
 more within the ranks of single women. 
 
 " If marriage is to be upheld as a moral institution, 
 implying no loss of caste or position on the part of 
 the woman, then the marriage vows must be made 
 precisely similar for both contracting parties, and the 
 term ' married woman,' having reference to a pre- 
 sumed necessity for the enactment of different legal 
 resolutions as to married and single women, must be 
 wiped from our statute books." 
 
 An examination of the wife's position before the 
 law is included in the series of historico-legal papers 
 on " The State and the Family in England," appear- 
 ing in the Weekly Times and Echo last year, from the 
 pen of M. J. Farrelly, LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. 
 Amongst the conclusions reached by this learned 
 writer is that the present position of the marriage 
 law is not one of stable equilibrium, and for this 
 amongst other reasons : While the older statutes 
 vied with the Ecclesiastical Courts in enforcing 
 wifely obedience, modern English legislation has set 
 aside all pretence at compelling this fair return .for 
 the right of maintenance. Innovation, insists 
 Dr. Farrelly, is ardently required to redress the 
 balance of justice ; and he does not conceal indi- 
 cations as to the lines upon which the innovations 
 should proceed. He would put back the clock a few 
 centuries. There is scarcely an enactment securing 
 the liberty of the English subject which has his 
 approval ; the laws of other times and other countries 
 limiting liberty are universally lauded. The Roman 
 laws of Interdictio Prodigi and Querula Inofficiosi 
 Testamenti the plaint of the unduteous will, retained 
 in the law of Scotland both meet his views, though
 
 it is true he admits in the Dower Act of 1833 (which 
 abolished the widow's compulsory share of her 
 husband's freehold land), and like laws, the compen- 
 sation, a minor compensation it is styled, that a man 
 can provide for his illegitimate children and for their 
 unmarried mother. It will hardly need to be pointed 
 out that from the Legitimation standpoint, the several 
 enactments which have had the result of diminishing 
 the State premium on marriage, by reducing the fine 
 payable by illegitimate children, and by paramours 
 to a certain varying fraction of ten or twelve per 
 cent, on the value of the property left them, are to 
 be regarded as of maximum importance. 
 
 Dr. Farrelly's abhorrence of the liberty legislation 
 which, by permitting mortgages on land, the hypothe- 
 cating of chattels for the obtaining of credit, etc., 
 may be regarded as one of the main causes of our 
 growth as an industrial nation of fortune-makers, 
 may be noted. This historical recital serves to 
 illustrate the truth of Mr. Donisthorpe's remark that 
 "the law of England has marched forward on the 
 lines of individualism with a thoroughness unex- 
 ampled in the history of nations," and therefore to 
 encourage the hope that along the same lines will 
 proceed future legislation affecting the relations of 
 the sexes. 
 
 The growth of dissatisfaction with the one-sided 
 character of the marriage contract is not entirely 
 confined to its legal aspect. A citation from a recent 
 article by Mr. W. F. Dunton in the Free Review 
 may perhaps illustrate the tendency of a coming 
 time, when wives, seeing their paramours have 
 a better claim to constancy than they themselves, 
 will envy them, and envying, imitate. This passage
 
 1 66 
 
 needs no further comment. '' The rights are on the 
 husband's side, the permanent and exclusive right to 
 sexual intercourse with the wife, and the right to the 
 control of her children ; and on the wife's side, the 
 right to maintenance for herself and her children at 
 the husband's expense. She has not the exclusive 
 right to sexual intercourse with her husband, the 
 reason probably being that this would leave a pre- 
 ponderance of rights on her side, and would raise 
 the question, ' What does the woman do that she 
 should be maintained by the man ? ' ' 
 
 Replying to a critic, Mr. Dunton puts forward 
 the forcible argument that "whatever advantage a 
 child now derives from having its parents forcibly 
 kept under the same roof, is, in my opinion, far more 
 than counterbalanced by the risk it runs of eventually 
 being itself compelled to" pass the greater part of its 
 life in cohabitation with a mate it is unable to love." 
 
 With equal force Mr. Dunton, replying to an 
 argument of his fair critic, Mrs. H. D. Web, in the 
 same Review, puts it that disapproval of our present 
 State marriage does not imply rejection of all regu- 
 lation, which remark he illustrates with the following 
 reference to the Legitimation League : " Even the 
 staunchest advocate for free love would not maintain 
 that rape should be legalised. Nor would he say 
 that one should be free from social obligation re- 
 garding one's offspring ; indeed, most of us would 
 add considerably to a man's present responsibility in 
 this respect. Within the past two or three years a 
 society has sprung into existence to maintain the 
 rights of natural children, the members of which 
 include a good proportion of free love adherents, 
 though free love is not one of its principles. The
 
 1 67 
 
 object of the Legitimation League, as it is called, is 
 to place acknowledged illegitimate children upon the 
 same footing as children born in wedlock, thus giving 
 legal recognition to the obligations of unmarried 
 parents. Readers interested in this question should 
 communicate with Mr. Oswald Dawson, etc." Free 
 fieview, November, 1895. I notice with last issue of 
 this valued magazine a change of proprietorship 
 and editorship, Mr. John M. Robertson having 
 given place to Mr. George A. Singer. I take this 
 first early opportunity of thanking Mr. Singer for 
 consecrating a portion of his pages to the defence of 
 that form of freedom which engages the attention 
 of this League, and which cannot always obtain a 
 hearing and fair field.* 
 
 * An article still more advanced than Mr. Dunton's appears in the same 
 issue and is also in answer to Mrs. Web. Mr. Frederictc Rockell, though declaring 
 " Whetner under free love monogamy or changing unions would preponderate it 
 were discreet not to prophesy." before he concludes does prophesy as follows : 
 " We are thus led to the conclus : on that the future form of the family will be 
 the matriarchal. The mother would be free to conduct her family on her own 
 lines, but would have the advantage of male advice and help from her lover of 
 the time," a phrase suggestive of changing unions Mr. Frederick Rockell is 
 very prophetic from the start, as " No one in his senses would dream of advocating 
 free love unaccompanied by that broader economical freedom which will make jt 
 easy for all workers, of both sexes, to earn a comfortable livelihood." but he is 
 not prophetic to the finish, for he fails to prophesy that women would have 
 simultaneous lovers, as well as successive ones, which is what I should expect 
 under Socialism. 
 
 The December number contains an article by a bdy, E. I. Champness, in 
 which is advocated that women should be free to procreate without apparently 
 being concerned to secure them against desertion by their fathers. 
 
 Deserti.m is held to mean active withdrawal from an existing cohabitation. 
 (See Keg. v. Leresche and Pape -v. Pape, in both of which cases it was held that 
 discontinuance of week Inpayments under a separation agreement did not consti- 
 tute desertion under Section 4 of the Actof 1886.) The Act of 58 and 59 Victoria. 
 1895, Cap. 39, Section 4, provides that any married woman whose husband shall 
 have been guilty of persistent cruelty to her. or wilful neglect to provide reason- 
 able maintenance for her or her infant children whom he is legally liable to main- 
 tain, and shall by such cruelty or neglect have caused her to leave and live 
 separately and apart from him, may apply to any Court of Summary Jurisdiction 
 within the district in which the cause of complaint shall have wholly or partially 
 arisen. (Lely's Statutes of Practical Utility, 1895.) What might result from 
 such an application I cannot say. It has been ruled that -'Mere austerity of 
 temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention 
 and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten 
 bodily harm, do not amount to legal cruelty " ''The denial of little indulgences 
 and particular accommodations which the delicacy of the world is apt to number 
 among its necessaries is not cruelty." (Napoleon Argles : How to obtain a 
 Divorce, 1895.)
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 NATURAL CHILDREN IN FRANCE. 
 From The Weekly Times and Echo, March 3oth, 1895. 
 
 NATURAL CHILDREN AND THEIR RIGHTS 
 UNDER FRENCH LAW. 
 
 BY HALLIDAY SPARLING. 
 
 JUST now there is a good deal of discussion going" 
 on in France over the position of children born 
 out of wedlock. A number of Socialist Deputies, 
 including MM. Baudin, Clovis Hugues, Jaure"s, and 
 Millerand, have introduced a bill dealing with the 
 subject in drastic fashion. They propose to modify 
 the civil code to the extent of conferring the same 
 rights upon " natural " as are now enjoyed by " legi- 
 timate" children, and of allowing inquiry into 
 paternity. 
 
 At present, it will be remembered, " illegiti- 
 mates," though much better off in practice, in law
 
 169 
 
 are almost as badly off in France as in England. In- 
 one way, indeed, they are much worse off, inas- 
 much -as French law carefully guards the man from 
 all responsibility. His name, even, must not be 
 mentioned, nor can any legal claim be made upon 
 him. Of course, there is something to be set against 
 this, and the position of a pregnant girl or woman is 
 much better in Paris than in London, despite the lack 
 of the " affiliation order." She can claim the care of 
 the State on the mere ground of needing it, and she 
 and her infant will be cared for so long as the 
 necessity exists. And, if she will, the child may be 
 adopted by the municipality, to be fed and educated 
 incomparably better than an English "charity child." 
 But, all the same, the frightful injustice remains of 
 placing the whole responsibility on the woman's 
 shoulders, and leaving the man free as air. Curiously 
 enough, this injustice dates from the Revolution 
 which removed so many others ! The old law knew 
 nothing of such a provision. Indeed, it was practically 
 upon all fours with that obtaining in England, sum- 
 med up by Plowden in the celebrated dictum which 
 the delicate fastidiousness of modern ears forbids 
 me to quote. It may be paraphrased by, " Who gets 
 the child must keep it." In many ways the French 
 law was even more favourable to the woman than the 
 English. Her oath before a justice w~as enough to 
 secure a provisional order upon the putative father 
 for maintenance while the cause was pending. Nor 
 was she only allowed to follow up the father ; along 
 with the declaration of pregnancy necessary to secure 
 relief, she was compelled to give the father's name : 
 this in order that by terrorising her he might not 
 manage to go free.
 
 170 
 
 But, as I have said, the Revolution changed all 
 that. In justice to the revolutionists it must be 
 admitted that the wrong- inflicted upon the woman 
 was a blunder committed in trying to do justice to 
 the child. By the law of the izth Brumaire, year II. 
 (November 3, 1793). natural children were accorded 
 the same rights of succession, etc., as children 
 born alter marriage. But in order to preserve some 
 incentive to marriage, a clause was inserted forbidding 
 all enquiry into paternity ; so that the only children 
 benefited by the law were those recognised by the 
 father. 
 
 The blunder was soon recognised as such, but 
 not before the reaction had set in, and remedy was 
 hopeless. Still a remedy was many times attempted. 
 During one of these attempts it was that Duveyrier 
 made his celebrated onslaught upon the privileged 
 impunity of men : " If," said he, " all enquiry into 
 paternity is abolished outside marriage ; if the mother 
 of a natural child has not even the right to ask for a 
 public sign I will not say of tenderness or humanity 
 I will say of the decency of the man who has 
 rendered her a mother, what check do you leave upon 
 human passions, upon disorder, upon debauch ? 
 Men, guaranteed by the law itself against social 
 responsibility, encouraged by the law itself in public 
 indecency . . will seek, as licentious despots, their 
 pleasures, sometimes shared by, but more often wrung 
 from, the weak and unwary." 
 
 That was in 1801. Three years later the clause 
 of 1793 was solemnly confirmed and ratified, and 
 apart from public charity, the un-legitimized natural 
 -child has had no rights in France, with the natural, 
 though horrible, consequence that infanticide, before
 
 and after birth, has flourished even more than in moral 
 England if that be possible. Note that, while forty- 
 two per thousand legitimates are returned as born 
 dead, the number among illegitimates is seventy-three 
 per thousand. On the other hand, the proportion of 
 natural births rises steadily. While in 1878 it was 
 seventy-three per thousand, in 1888 it was eighty-four 
 per thousand. 
 
 These are the figures for the whole of France 
 given by the latest returns published, those for 
 
 1892 : 
 
 Legitimate. Illegitimate. 
 
 Males ... ... 400,260 37>54O 
 
 Females 381,802 36,245 
 
 Total 855,847 
 
 For the department of the Seine that is to say, 
 for Paris and her suburbs the figures are still more 
 
 striking : 
 
 Legitimate. Illegitimate. 
 
 Males 3> 02 4 9>5 6 5 
 
 Females 28,459 9,354 
 
 Total ... 77>4 02 
 
 Since writing the above I have received the 
 returns for Paris alone, for 1893, from which I 
 
 take the following : 
 
 Legitimate. Illegitimate. 
 
 Males .., ... 22,4.18 8,629 
 
 Females 21,379 8 >599 
 
 61,025 
 
 Upon these Paris figures I hope to have a word at 
 another time. Meanwhile, I will only say, that they 
 point to the rise in favour of the "free union" so-
 
 172 
 
 called, and hardly at all to any increase in promis- 
 cuity. 
 
 Anyway, whatever may lie at the root of the 
 increase of "illegitimate" births, that increase is 
 incontestible, and has long called for recognition by 
 the legislature. All the more that the population of 
 France is a falling one, and that it has long been 
 established that " free " families are the more prolific. 
 But this side of the matter requires more extended 
 treatment. So long ago as 1883, M. Gustave Rivet 
 proposed to repeal the obnoxious clause barring 
 research into paternity. Again, in 1890, he repeated 
 the attempt, but on neither occasion could he even 
 secure a discussion upon the subject. Last year 
 M. Alfred Naquet made a similar proposition, again 
 without success, though this time a great and 
 favourable change in public opinion was evidenced. 
 
 The present proposition, as befits its origin, is 
 the most far-reaching that has been made ; and, if 
 carried, would place all children upon a footing of 
 absolute equality before the law, whatever the cir- 
 cumstances of their birth. As the preamble of the 
 bill says: "The situation in which natural children 
 are placed by the Civil Code certainly forms one of the 
 most shocking inequalities to be met with in the 
 whole of our legislation ; an inequality all the more 
 unjustifiable, in that it is inadmissible that a human 
 being should be penalised by the law for being in a 
 position which it has not created and has no power 
 to modify." 
 
 There is little hope that the bill as a whole will 
 be passed. It practically legalizes the "free union," 
 and removes the last bulwark of hard and-fast 
 marriage, outside the Church. And public opinion
 
 is not yet ripe for that, even in France. But it is 
 almost certain that "Article 340'' will disappear from 
 the Civil Code, whereby the country of the Revolution 
 will wipe off one of the blackest reproaches that have 
 ever stained her legislation.
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 "THE BAR SINISTER AND LICIT LOVE." 
 
 A LECTURE. 
 Reported by MR. D. OLIVER. 
 
 ON Sunday Morning-, the 24th February, 1895, 
 Mr. OSWALD DAWSON, Honorary Secretary of 
 the Legitimation League, lectured before a 
 large audience at the Hall of Science, Old Street, 
 City Road, London, on "The Bar Sinister and Licit 
 Love" 
 
 Miss EDITH VANCE, who presided, said at the 
 outset : Friends, before calling upon Mr. Dawson to 
 address you, I should like to make a confession, 
 namely, that I am just about the worst chairwoman 
 that Mr. Dawson could have found anywhere. To 
 those who know me that explanation is scarcely 
 necessary. Generally I regard taking the chair as an 
 unpleasant duty, but this morning it is somewhat 
 pleasing to find myself in this position. That is, 
 perhaps, owing to the fact that I am a lover of
 
 reedom, that I love and cherish freedom. When I 
 occupy this seat, as a rule, I do so in my official 
 position. This morning", however, I preside un- 
 officially, and that is perhaps why I do not mind it so 
 much. Now, we pride ourselves on the occasion of 
 our Sunday morning lectures upon our freedom of" 
 thought and opinions of all shades. As freethinkers, 
 we claim the right of liberty of thought and expression, 
 and we always welcome and accord a patient hearing 
 to any defence of the cause of freedom of thought 
 and of action. This morning I am here because the 
 views which Mr. Dawson holds and is about to 
 express to you this morning are also my views ; and 
 if this were not so, I should still admire as we must 
 all do the courage with which Mr. Dawson and his 
 wife have tackled this question. He and those who 
 are intimate with him alone can know what it has 
 cost him to advocate and uphold the views he 
 entertains, and the amount of social ostracism to 
 which he and Mrs. Dawson have been subjected on 
 account of the views they honestly hold. There is 
 something else I should like to say. Those who have 
 seen the Weekly Despatch this morning will no doubt 
 have noticed that this lecture is announced in its 
 lecture list as "The Bar Sinister." I have noticed 
 lately that this paper, or the editor of this paper, has, 
 in announcing lectures or addresses on anti-theological 
 subjects, carefully eliminated any reference to Christ 
 or God. I now find that any reference to true or 
 licit love is likely to be similarly suppressed, for the 
 second part of the title of Mr. Dawson's lecture, 
 " Licit Love," does not appear. The lecture is simply 
 announced as "The Bar Sinister." I wonder why 
 we should be so treated as to suffer the deletion of
 
 i 7 6 
 
 the words " Licit Love." Perhaps the editor knows 
 what we mean by that phrase better than we do. I 
 should like to call your attention to some of the 
 literature on our bookstall this morning-. There is a 
 verbatim report of the Proceeding's of the Legitima- 
 tion League, containing a good portrait of Mr. and 
 Mrs. Dawson and of the President of the League. 
 Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe ; also a book by Mr. 
 Donisthorpe, entitled " Love and Law," and our usual 
 freethought literature. The lecture this morning" is 
 by Mr. Dawson and not by yours truly ; and, there- 
 fore, I will not occupy your time any longer. I 
 call upon Mr. Dawson to now address you on this 
 subject of "The Bar Sinister and Licit Love."- 
 {Applause.) 
 
 Mr. OSWALD DAWSON (who was received with 
 applause) said : Miss Vance, and ladies and gentle- 
 men, I believe it is usual at lectures for the vote of 
 thanks to come at the close, but in this case it does 
 not so much matter, because the vote of thanks has 
 not to be made to me on the present occasion, but it 
 has to come from me. I have to thank the National 
 Secular Society in general, but Miss Vance in par- 
 ticular, as being the lady who tendered the invitation 
 to me to lecture before you. I have to thank her for 
 giving- me this opportunity of presenting before the 
 secular party some of the views which the Legitima- 
 tion League sets out to teach. I have long been in 
 correspondence with Miss Vance, and one of the 
 earliest communications of encouragement that I 
 received from anybody w r as from her, in which she 
 said : " Having read a report of the meeting of the 
 Legitimation League, I am pleased to declare myself 
 in sympathy with the objects of the League. The
 
 '77 
 
 reception it has met with at the hands of idiots and 
 bigots might have been expected , but this, I am sure, 
 will in no wise deter you from carrying on the good 
 work." That post card gave me great encouragement, 
 and it was followed by an invitation to lecture at 
 some hall of the Secular Society. Subsequently I 
 received a sympathetic letter from Mr. J. M. Wheeler, 
 asking for a few of the prospectuses and publications 
 of the League I presume for distribution. 
 
 The subject of legitimation is by no means a new 
 one. I have brought several books with me, dealing 
 with the subject either wholly or in part. One of our 
 forerunners in this matter is a book which created 
 a sensation some time ago, containing a collection 
 of letters from The Daily Telegraph on "Is Marriage 
 a Failure?" In this book, on pages 254, 260, and 
 261, you will find letters signed by a " Solicitor," 
 writing from Clifford's Inn, and from a ' Reformer," 
 and from a lady signing herself " Inward Grief," 
 suggesting various forms of legitimation. Another 
 proposal for legitimation is to be found in a book by 
 " Philanthropus, J.A., LL.D.," in which the author, 
 whose real name does not appear, recommends the 
 adoption of a certain kind of legitimation that pre- 
 vailed in ancient Rome (I quote from page 126 of this 
 volume), " when by the death of one of the parents or 
 by any other cause the marriage cannot be contracted, 
 and consequently the legitimation of the unlawful issue 
 cannot be effected, then, in the absence of lawful 
 children, Justinian established another sort of legiti- 
 mation called per resc>iptum principis, or by grant of 
 the Sovereign, after express acknowledgment of the 
 child in the will or in some other solemn document. 
 Something of the same kind should be adopted to 
 
 M
 
 T 7 8 
 
 complete the principle of legitimation." In making 
 acknowledgments to those who have been bold 
 enough to face the sexual question, one must not 
 omit mention of the work that has been done by 
 Mrs. Victoria Woodhull Martin and by Lady Cook. 
 The latter has comparatively recently written a paper 
 on " Illegitimacy,'' which was printed in several 
 newspapers With regard to Mrs. Victoria Woodhull 
 Martin, some people imagine that that lady is now 
 less bold than she used to be. This, I think, is an 
 entire mistake, for in the current number of The. 
 Humanitarian, of which she is the editor, we find a 
 very bold declaration indeed, one which I will venture 
 to read in full. She says : " Marriage laws that 
 would be consistent with the theory of individual 
 rights would regulate these relations, just as they 
 regulate all other associations of people. People 
 should only be obliged to file marriage articles, 
 containing whatever provisions may be agreed upon, 
 as to their personal rights, rights of property, of 
 children, or whatever else they may deem proper. 
 And whatever these articles might be, they should in 
 all cases be equally entitled to public respect and 
 protection. Should separation afterwards come, 
 nothing more should be required than the simple 
 filing of counter articles." 
 
 I could give other illustrations of the daring of 
 Mrs. Woodhull Martin did time permit. For statisti- 
 cal information on the subject of Illegitimacy I refer 
 you to Dr. Albert Leffingwell's book of that title in 
 Swan Sonnenschein's " Social Science Series," and 
 also to an article here in the Agnostic Journal, which I 
 have permission to reprint in the League's " Proceed- 
 ings." There is another book I should like to name
 
 179 
 
 that by Mrs. H. Ellis entitled " A Novitiate for 
 Marriage." I am extremely pleased to find that 
 ladies are so much to the fore in this matter. 
 Numerous novels, and, perhaps I might say still 
 more numerous plays, dealing- with sexual matters, 
 have been published during the past year or two, 
 culminating in a recent publication that seems to 
 outvie all others with respect to the audacity of its 
 propositions I mean Mr. Grant Allen's "Woman 
 who did." His portrait, an illustration of his house 
 at Hindhead, a review of the book with a full 
 page illustration of the Virgin and Child thrown 
 in as a pictorial antidote- you can see here in 
 the Re-view of Reviews. But I should be neglecting 
 what I consider to be a great duty were I to confine 
 my attention to English writers on these subjects. 
 At the risk of causing a thrill of horror to run 
 through this audience, I shall make bold on this 
 platform to mention aloud the names of Ezra Hey- 
 wood, now deceased, late editor of The Word, and 
 Moses Harman, the still Hying editor of Lucifer, the 
 Lightbearer, and Mrs. Lois Waisbrooker, editor of 
 Foundation Principles and author of numerous novels 
 and pamphlets. It has been the privilege of the two 
 first named of these writers to spend time in the 
 same sort of habitation as that in which the President 
 of the National Secular Society passed a year that 
 is to say, they have been in gaol and a warrant now 
 hangs over the head of Mrs. Waisbrooker also for 
 the publication of articles that I should certainly not 
 have the slightest hesitation in reading aloud to you 
 to-day did time permit. I have here the photographs 
 of Ezra Heywood, of Moses Harman, and Mrs. Lois 
 Waisbrooker, and those who would like to see them
 
 i8o 
 
 after the lecture will be able to do so. There is 
 another proof of an indirect sort that sex questions 
 are coming- to the front. I should take it that free- 
 thought was making headway if more churches were 
 built opposite this hall. If that were so, I should 
 consider that probably secularism was growing, and 
 that it was felt that there was a greater necessity of 
 meeting it. So, when we see what the orthodox are 
 doing in marriage matters, we find an instructive 
 lesson. Down in the county whence I come we have 
 what is called "The Convocation of York." I do 
 not go to those convocations. (Laughter.) I see 
 nothing at all of them save when I happen to be in 
 York. I have observed on those occasions numerous 
 clergymen dining very well and so forth. (Laughter.) 
 We find, according to the newspapers, that they are 
 very anxious to amend certain of the laws relating to 
 marriage, but they want to amend them in an entirely 
 opposite direction to that which we desire. What 
 they want to do or some of them is to make it 
 impossible for divorced people to marry again ; not 
 only those who have been guilty of the causes which 
 led to the divorce, but the innocent parties as well. 
 They were meeting only the other day. I have an 
 extract here to which you can refer, and these propo- 
 sitions were boldly brought forward by the Rev. 
 C. N. Gray: (i) "That the bishops be respectfully 
 requested to consider the propriety of taking common 
 action, so that licences to enable divorced persons to 
 enter into fresh unions may no longerbe issued from the 
 diocesan registries." (2) "That this Convocation of 
 York desires to see some legislative enactment which 
 would relieve the clergy of the Church of England 
 from the obligation of solemnising, publishing banns
 
 for, or lending the church of which they are the 
 incumbents for the solemnization of the marriages of 
 any divorced persons whatsoever." 
 
 The Legitimation League when founded in Leeds 
 in 1893 made some little bit of a local stir. The 
 first stir that it made outside of Leeds was made in 
 The National Reformer. The editor of that journal 
 allowed me to answer an article which was con- 
 tributed to The National Reformer over the initial 
 "L." " L.", I may say, is a lady with whom I have 
 been in correspondence subsequently. I mention 
 that because I do want you to realise, almost above 
 all things, that the ladies are to the fore in this 
 matter. Well, my letter to The National Reformer 
 dealing with this article, which appeared on August 
 1 3th, 1893, l 6 ^ to a somewhat vigorous correspon- 
 dence. An excellent letter on "Legitimation Rights" 
 appeared from the pen of Mr. John Badcock, Junior, 
 one of the League's corresponding secretaries for 
 London. Another letter which appeared on August 
 27th, 1893, was from Mr. J. Greevz Fisher, a 
 Vice-President of the League, well known to the 
 secularist as well as to the individualist party. This 
 letter took exception to something that I had said in 
 my communication to The National Reformer, namely, 
 that " The League was pledged to legitimate only 
 acknowledged children." The other Vice-Presidents 
 of the League joined in the fray ; and you will find 
 their letters in the further issues of The National 
 Reformer of September 3rd and September loth. I 
 wonder if these letters and this discussion had not 
 appeared in The National Reformer in what paper they 
 would have appeared. In that case it is not a lady I 
 have to thank, but Mr. J. M. Robertson. (Applause. 'V
 
 182 
 
 The storm grew, and Mr. Fisher published a 
 pamphlet entitled " Illegitimate Children: an In- 
 quiry into their Native Rights and a Plea for the 
 Abolition of Illegitimacy." This was issued by the 
 publishers to the League, and it was very widely 
 advertised by me. I thought it very desirable that 
 everybody interested in the question of legiti- 
 mation should hear what was to be said on the 
 other side. I dealt with Mr. Fisher's paper at a 
 drawing-room meeting held at the house of one of 
 the other Vice-Presidents at Harrogate, and a short 
 report appeared in the local paper ; but the real and 
 effectual reply to Mr. Fisher came from our President, 
 Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe. (Applause.) Once 
 again we have Mr. J. M. Robertson to thank for an 
 article which appeared in The Free Review for January, 
 1894, on "Bastardy." Secondly, I have to thank 
 Mr. Benj. Tucker fora further paper by our President, 
 which appeared on the 5th May, 1894, in Liberty, a 
 journal published at Boston, U.S.A. in the interests 
 of anarchy. It would be presumptuous on my part- 
 it would be a sort of impertinence to say that the 
 articles from the pen of. Mr. Donisthorpe are well 
 worth reading. I should, however, say this : If 
 any one is desirous of grasping and mastering the 
 primary questions involved in a study of the "Bar 
 Sinister," it is positively essential that he should study 
 the writings of Mr. Donisthorpe I may add, he need 
 not dig up The Free Review for January, '94, although 
 1 hope you all have it handy on your shelves, or refer 
 to Liberty of May, '94, because Mr. Donisthorpe has 
 re-expressed his views in a recent publication entitled 
 "Law in a Free State," published by Macmillan. 
 Well, the point of the quarrel (of course, I use the
 
 '83 
 
 word "quarrel " in a perfectly amiable sense) finally 
 hinged upon a question of grammatical construction, 
 and with your permission I will read an extract from 
 one of Mr. Donisthorpe's articles, and afterwards 
 comment upon it. " Nor can 1 accept Mr. Fisher's 
 amendment of the League's own statement as to its 
 aims. ' The League,' says he, ' has been established 
 with this object To create a machinery for acknow- 
 ledging offspring born out of wedlock, and to secure 
 for them equal rights with legitimate children.' He 
 continues : ' These objects would possibly have been 
 better stated in the reverse order, thus : To secure 
 for offspring born out of wedlock equal rights with 
 legitimate children and to create a machinery for 
 acknowledging them.' Now this would amount, not 
 to stating better the objects of the League but to 
 .stating quite other objects, objects quite foreign to 
 the intentions of the League. The true aim is to 
 create a machinery enabling parents to acknowledge 
 offspring born out of wedlock, and to secure for them 
 (that is, such acknowledged children) equal rights 
 with children born in wedlock. This is a very different 
 thing from that which Mr. Fisher proposes, namely, 
 that the law shall secure for all bastards equal rights 
 with legitimate children. But they already have equal 
 rights in all respects save one ; hence if he means 
 anything, he must mean that the law shall thrust the 
 bastard by force upon the family of the putative 
 father, with or without the consent of such putative 
 father or his kinsfolk. After this, what is the use of 
 creating a machinery for acknowledging them ? 
 Surely, such a machinery would be a laughing stock. 
 What need would it supply ? In other words, Mr. 
 Fisher proposes a compulsory law, and supplements
 
 1*4 
 
 it by an enabling one.'' Well, the final issue is that I 
 am permitted to state that, although Mr. Fisher has 
 not withdrawn his pamphlet from circulation, he is 
 convinced by the arguments of Mr. Donisthorpe and 
 retracts from the position he formerly held with regard 
 to the legitimacy of unacknowledged children. Still 
 I was in a peculiar predicament. Here was the object 
 of the League stated very briefly and yet apparently 
 not stated quite clearly, for it was open to two gram- 
 matical constructions. We have had an enormous 
 correspondence in relation to this subject, and I have 
 always held out that the League's objects were capable 
 of either construction ; that anybody joining the 
 League was not committed to any interpretation of 
 its objects which the President or anyone else had 
 put upon them as to its grammatical meaning. How- 
 ever, it finally became necessary to arbitrarily decide 
 this grammatical point. At a recent date, Mr. 
 Auberon Herbert wrote and asked me to 'answer 
 in two or three lines this question : " Do the League 
 propose to put illegitimate children on the same level 
 as legitimate children, as regards property, whether 
 the offspring have been recognised or not by the 
 public act of the father?" I was here in a corner 
 and could not enter into a long correspondence as to 
 the grammatical construction of the objects of the 
 League, and I replied: "The offspring of parents 
 failing to take the necessary steps of registration 
 would be illegitimate, and not entitled to inherit in 
 the event of either the father's or the mother's 
 intestacy." That concludes what I have to say about 
 the Bar Sinister, and the attitude of the League 
 towards illegitimate children. 
 
 The question of Licit Love arose very early after
 
 the formation of the League, and was treated by me 
 at a meeting" of the Dialectical Society, held in London 
 in the latter part of 1893. I amplified the matter very 
 considerably in an article in The Modern Review for 
 April, 1894, and as I have brought some copies of this, 
 anyone who is interested in the matter can procure 
 one to-day. I concluded that article by hinting" the 
 desirability of calling into existence a functionary wha 
 should rejoice in the post of " Prothonotary of a Licit 
 Alliance League." I had borrowed the word Protho- 
 notary from an article by C. G. Garrison, appearing 
 in the Coniem/>ora>~v Review, on " The Limits of 
 Divorce." The idea of a Licit Alliance League naturally 
 suggested itself ; but whilst at first blush it appeared 
 a promising undertaking to attempt, the reflection 
 that it meant a fresh League was one to dismay a 
 mortal of ordinary courage, and the feasibility of 
 grafting the apparatus needful for carrying on its 
 function on the Legitimation League was an idea not 
 long in recommending itself. I soon came to think 
 it was the duty of this League to appoint a " Protho- 
 notary," or person to take records of illegitimate 
 children whom the parents desired to acknowledge, 
 and also of the unions of adults. However, we have 
 not been able to determine the exact meaning or 
 suitability of the word " prothonotary " for our 
 purpose, and so for the present we have not appointed 
 anyone with that title. What we have done is this 
 and it is a practical step we have appointed Mr. 
 Arthur Cornwell (who is present, on this platform), and 
 we have called him a notifying clerk. With regard 
 to the duties of a notifying clerk, I cannot do better 
 than quote a letter I wrote in reply to a recent inquiry. 
 A gentleman wrote from Purley, in Surrey, and asked
 
 1 86 
 
 me to furnish him with particulars as to the Legitima- 
 tion League ; I wrote this reply yesterday : 
 
 " In endeavouring to create 
 
 a machinery for acknowledging offspring, it has been 
 seen to be imperative to take cognizance of the 
 alliances formed between parents or intending 
 parents, and it will at once strike you that if any 
 legislative enactments are to be made, or are to 'be 
 -contemplated, there must be considerable force in the 
 motion that whilst the offspring of a union are to be 
 made legitimate, the alliance of the parents concerned 
 in the union should be made licit that whatever may 
 be the obligations before, the law of legally married 
 couples should likewise descend upon the parties to 
 those alliances. 
 
 "The League has now appointed a clerk, who 
 will make a register in the first place of any illegiti- 
 mate children born whom their parents wish to 
 .acknowledge, and, in the second place, of alliances of 
 prospective parents. He will undertake the advertis- 
 ing in the newspapers of all those where the parties 
 are willing. He will charge a fee, which fee has not 
 yet been fixed. He will keep a register of the officers 
 of the League, which may be inspected by anybody 
 on the payment of a fee, which latter fee is also not 
 fixed. He will file all newspaper advertisements 
 referred to, and send copies to all the officers of the 
 League, and all such other clerks as may from time 
 to time be appointed. 
 
 " He will register intentions of alliances, will 
 advertise the same when wished, and will show the 
 record of the same to anyone applying for informa- 
 tion. He will be entitled to ask the following 
 questions : Name ? Address ? Previous name where
 
 i8 7 
 
 there has been a change ? Occupation ? Whether the 
 contracting parties are either or both of them already 
 married ? Whether either or both have any illegiti- 
 mate children whom they acknowledge ? 
 
 " He will not be entitled to ask if either or both 
 have been divorced, or if either or both have any 
 illegitimate children whom they do not acknowledge. 
 
 "The remaining function of the clerk will be to 
 receive and record notices for the determination of 
 the alliances. 
 
 "It is not for one moment pretended that the 
 above outlined scheme is anything but crude and 
 tentative. It is by no means anticipated that it will 
 meet with any popular response. It is sufficient for 
 us if it supplies, in howsoever an imperfect form at 
 the commencement, the need of a few lovers of 
 liberty. 
 
 " I shall be glad to answer any further questions. 
 " Very faithfully yours, 
 
 " OSWALD DAWSON." 
 
 The contents of that letter represent the deliber- 
 ations of those connected with the League during the 
 past year. I should like to have devoted a whole 
 lecture to amplifying and explaining the details and 
 difficulties of any scheme of registration. I may say 
 that those details and difficulties are positively enor- 
 mous. For instance, at present our office is at Albion 
 Walk Chambers, Leeds, and I live near that city ; but 
 I am by no means so permanent a person as the 
 State is which registers marriages ; I do not live in a 
 Somerset House, or occupy such a place as an office. 
 Suppose we have registration at Albion Walk, Leeds, 
 what a diminished value it must have if, amidst the 
 vicissitudes of life, the registers are removed from
 
 1 88 
 
 town to town if the notifying clerk to the League 
 has a constantly shifting address. The objections, in 
 fact, to Licit Love and systems of registration are so 
 numerous that I can quite understand a great many 
 people preferring to be entirely anarchical in regard 
 to love relations. By "anarchical" I do not mean 
 promiscuous, or anything of that kind : I mean that a 
 great many of those who go with us would prefer, 
 when forming their alliances, and even when having 
 children, not to care whether those alliances were 
 licit or not, or whether the children were legitimate 
 or not. And there is much to be said for the position 
 of these people. As soon as their children are regis- 
 tered, in walks the vaccination officer. That is one 
 drawback of any system of registration. There are 
 other difficulties. One would suppose that a notifying 
 clerk would arrange his entries on the supposition 
 that the contracting parties were henceforth to bear 
 a name in common. Usually the lady changes her 
 name. Now, it appears from time to time that the 
 point discussed is whether there is any necessity for 
 the lady to change her name ; nay, more than this, 
 we are even confronted with propositions that ladies 
 should persist in being regarded as "Miss" still, 
 although they were married. And, to crown all, we 
 are told the ideal marriage will be entirely inde- 
 pendent ot cohabitation, that is to say, of a residence 
 common to the two contracting parties. I merely 
 mentioned these matters in passing, in the way of 
 pleasantry, to show some of the difficulties that face 
 us. They take us even further, nay, much further, 
 than the remonstrance against the usage which gives 
 women the style of Mrs. Charles so-and-so, Lady 
 Henry so-and-so, and a vast deal further than the
 
 189 
 
 proposition one sometimes meets with, that married 
 partners should occupy separate apartments in the 
 same house. Now let me read to you a short extract 
 from a powerful article in Liberty, by Lillian Harman : 
 "All depends on other factors than the 
 license granted or withheld by the State, on the 
 formula repeated or not repeated by priest or 
 magistrate. The essential verities do not depend 
 for their validity on any such ephemeral things as 
 States and Churches. There is no reason why 
 liberty should degrade love, and no reason why a 
 political or religious machine should legitimatize 
 or sanctify prostitution or invasion, but there are 
 many reasons why liberty should make sane and 
 responsible the relations of the sexes, and why 
 legal and ecclesiastical tyranny should do the very- 
 opposite." 
 
 The League has been in existence two years now. 
 Its aim has been to make a machine to legitimatize ; 
 yet assuredly some of us are apt to despise all these 
 seals of State approval equally with those of the 
 ecclesiastical type. The second volume of our pro- 
 ceedings, called "The First Biennial," will be pub- 
 lished in due course. There has been such a demand 
 that we should take some practical step, that I felt it 
 was really necessary we should start keeping a 
 register, even if it comes to be simply a mere matter 
 to be laughed at. 
 
 As a few minutes remain of the hour allotted to 
 me, I will briefly allude to or rather I will illustrate 
 certain remarks of Miss Vance in opening the pro- 
 ceedings to-day. She referred to what people have 
 to suffer who indulge in these principles of Licit Love 
 and that sort of thing. Well, \ could give you
 
 i go 
 
 sundry illustrations of this, and I certainly think that 
 it is wise for me to illustrate to you some of the 
 difficulties which do beset the paths of those who seek 
 after righteousness of this particular kind. It is, 
 indeed, very rarely that chapter and verse can be 
 given and the scientific character of the evidence 
 placed on a sure foundation. Here, however, we 
 have a specific matter. 
 
 The Leeds papers have recently had reports of a 
 County Court case Naylor v. Dawson of which I 
 have here a full shorthand report. The plaintiff in 
 this case said in open court that he had tried to get 
 me out of one of his houses which I had taken from 
 a certain tenant of his. He further stated the cause 
 of this or rather his solicitor did. Hear these 
 extracts, the Plaintiff's Solicitor is addressing his 
 Honour "When Mr. Dawson purchased the property 
 from Mr. Gomersall these gates were then there, and 
 Mr. Dawson used them for some time, until that 
 arose which caused dissension between these two 
 neighbours, which I shall call your Honour's atten- 
 tion to. Mr. Dawson was in the habit of visiting 
 Mr. Naylor's house, and was received there as a 
 guest and a friend, and in consequence of a statement 
 made by Mr. Dawson, in regard to a certain League, 
 called the Legitimation League, and having regard 
 to his connection with a certain person, whom I shall 
 not name, Mr. Dawson was asked to leave the house 
 and not to annoy Mr. Naylor with his presence or 
 any member of Mr. Naylor's family. After that had 
 happened, Mr. Dawson seems to have proceeded in a 
 most extraordinary manner, and one which I wish I 
 could excuse, as no man in his right mind would have 
 acted in the way Mr. Dawson did. He broke down
 
 these gates personally. ... I submit to your 
 honour, to have these gates is only a reasonable 
 thing, and especially is it reasonable when this man 
 knew of it -did not complain of it until that dis- 
 sension took place which I have already reverted to." 
 My Counsel, on the other hand, said: "I take it, 
 your Honour, it is sufficiently clear this is merely a 
 case of right. This suggestion of spite ." His 
 Honour : " I think so. If it was a case of spite. It 
 is a right of property." Counsel : " I think it is a 
 mistake, your Honour." His Honour: "I take no 
 notice of it myself." Then in due time came my 
 turn. I addressed his Honour, commencing: "With 
 
 regard to the Legitimation League ." His 
 
 Honour: "If you want to explain anything to me 
 with regard to the Legitimation League, take my 
 advice and leave that alone treat it as if there was 
 nothing in it ; if we discuss it ." You see, 
 ladies and gentlemen, I stand charged with doing 
 acts in consequence of a dissension arising out of a 
 "statement with regard to a certain League." What 
 I wished to point out to his Honour was, that the 
 date of Mr. Naylor's letter to me was the 28th of 
 April, 1893. That letter brought the defendant's 
 acquaintanceship and his visits at plaintiffs house to 
 "a very abrupt end" a very abrupt end. Well, 
 now, it was not until the Qth of September that I 
 complained of the gates, as a letter of that date 
 already read in the Court had made clear ; the latter 
 date being, as the letter itself showed, the day after 
 I obtained the deeds. You will agree, I think, with 
 his Honour, in taking no notice of this absurd 
 charge ; you will agree, I think, with me in con- 
 demning this allegation of vindictive action on my
 
 192 
 
 part, some months after the occasion which was 
 supposed to inspire the action, to be most prepos 
 terous. But you will, I am sure, agree with me that 
 we have in it an instructive illustration of the way a 
 thing" like the League may be used against anyone 
 concerned with it, or be sought to be so used, to pre- 
 judice a case in a manner wholly gratuitous, having 
 regard to the circumstances.* 
 
 * These are given in " Notes of an Interview," 
 in Waddington's Guide to Ilkley, 1895, in these 
 words : 
 
 ' Calling upon Mr. Davvson the other clay, we enquired how he 
 came to locate himself in a spot where there was promise of such a 
 harvest of litigation. It appeared that driving from Ilkley after the 
 conclave when the League was first formed, the question of a residence 
 at some convenient distance from the city arose, and the proprietor of 
 the conveyance in which the party were driving offered to let a cottage 
 at Seacroft for some months. A lease was taken almost on the spot. 
 To make a long story short, Mr. Davvson bought and built there. In 
 the deed of conveyance a right of way for carriages was granted with 
 the land, and in the plan endorsed on the deed the road measured to 
 scale some 16 to 18 feet wide. The actual carriage road, however, 
 was but 10 to 12 feet, and was encumbered with gates not provided 
 for in the deed. The vendor having received i$o an acre, and 
 having imposed upon the purchaser an obligation to keep in repair 
 nnother road on the estate (some hundred y.irds long and a continu 
 ation of the road in dispute), 18 feet wide indications that the 
 property was of a distinct category from mere farm land -Mr. 
 Dawson, acting under advice, repeatedly unhinged the gates obstruct- 
 ing this so-called road for carriages, and finally smashed one. At the 
 hearing it was urged that these and other acts were done out of spite, 
 visiting terms between plaintiff and defendant having ceased, at the 
 request of the former, owing to the formation of the Legitimation 
 League. The defendant lost the day on points of law, no notice 
 being taken by the County Court Judge of these allegations of 
 vindictiveness. '' 
 
 It affords me great pleasure to append the following letter.
 
 Mr. Naylor, I must tell you, is a County Councillor 
 
 written by the plaintiff at my house on the 2nd May, 1895, and here 
 published with his authority : 
 
 " I hereby state that I have this evening- visited 
 Mr. Dawson on some private business, and I wish to 
 state that although I had thought he took the above 
 house, called Harman Villa, or built the same out of 
 spite to me, I believe, after his explanation to me this 
 evening, that I have misjudged him, and that his 
 building this house was in no way connected with 
 me. I am, yours, 
 
 "B. NAYLOR." 
 
 In case some may think that the spile was on the other side, I have 
 pleasure in stating that I believe an action would have arisen even 
 had there been no dissension arising out of the Legitimation League, 
 or any personal matter between us. I shall be glad at any time to 
 hear from those who are interested in the question of obstructions 
 (other than impassable ones, where the right of road is a disputed 
 matter), placed where there is a right of way It seems to me. as it did 
 to my solicitor, perfectly absurd to suppose that a right of way for 
 carriages should not be an unobstructed way ; whilst other persons, 
 on the other hand, would argue that if a stile may exist on a footpath, 
 a gate may exist on a carriage-road. In my opinion there is an 
 obvious difference, and I think a bill should be passed giving the 
 holders of rights of carriage-roads power to ''enfranchise,'' that is, to 
 do away with gates upon payment to the owner of the land through 
 which the road runs a sum of money sufficient to fence off the road, 
 with a percentage added for loss to the owner of the land of the road- 
 side waste. Of course I consider this proposal to be entirely in 
 accordance with the policy of individualism ; and I trust the reader will 
 kindly forgive my introduction of an idea quite foreign to the general 
 objects of this book at this point. 
 
 N
 
 194 
 
 and Justice of the Peace. I had taken a short lease 
 of a cottage next door but one to his house, and let 
 by him to a tenant a short lease from February to 
 the end of June and for the same period the hire of 
 a conveyance from the said tenant, who was the 
 keeper of a livery stable in the City of Leeds. 
 
 Our occupancy here was objectionable, though 
 not in consequence of any particular (: statement " in 
 regard to the League ; nor was I ever asked to leave 
 Mr. Naylor's house. I will read you that gentleman's 
 letter to me, to make these points clear. 
 
 #******# 
 
 I may mention that I lost the day and that an 
 appeal is now pending.* I have explained to you 
 that the superior landlord tried to get us out of the 
 house by requesting his tenant to get rid of us. This 
 is how the tenant went about his duty. He wrote me 
 this letter : 
 
 " z'fth May, 1893. Sir, I write to inform you 
 that from the strained relations between you and Mr. 
 Naylor, and the unpleasantness that exists on all sides 
 partly arising from your principles and mode of life, 
 and partly from the dissatisfaction that exists in the 
 treatment of the pair of horses, which are badly 
 treated in their being driven so fast while they have 
 banged their front shin bones, and are very much 
 swollen in consequence and in all probability may 
 soon go lame ; now from all these causes I feel it to 
 be my duty to write to you and let you know my 
 
 * "That appeal case decided last week, adversely to Mr. Oswald 
 Dawson, is just the sort which is far more interesting to those ' in 
 the know' than to people who only hear what is stated in court." 
 Armley and Wortley News.
 
 '95 
 
 opinion on this matter/' And he hopes that I will 
 " give up possession of the cottage as soon as possible, 
 for the welfare of Mr. Navlor and his family, and the 
 comfort of his home and its surroundings." (Laugh- 
 ter.) My answer was " In reply to yours of to-day's 
 date, I decline to terminate the contract. As to the 
 horses not being properly treated, this is the first 
 complaint I have had ; and it is very curious it should 
 come just at the time you have another reason, of a 
 sentimental kind, for wishing to terminate the con- 
 tract, which I decline to do." 
 
 Later on my landlord wrote : " To inform you 
 that I have sent for my veterinary surgeon to-day, 
 and he certifies the mares unfit for work and advises 
 me to give them a six weeks grass run at once. There- 
 fore I cannot comply with your request to send them 
 down, and I have none others to knock up." I 
 merely replied to that by stating that the matter would 
 be placed in the hands of my solicitor, and that there 
 would be a claim for expenses. Well, the upshot 
 was that we did not go out of the cottage, no, nor 
 even out of the stables. We stayed in the cottage 
 until the termination of the contract on the 3oth of 
 June, and we were supplied with a fresh pair of horses 
 in place of those which "in all probability may soon 
 go lame." 
 
 Another illustration of the persecution to which 
 we are subjected is afforded in relation to our 
 occupancy of rooms at Albion Walk Chambers, 
 Leeds. They put on pressure there too. I have 
 here a letter addressed to the landlord protesting 
 against '' the Company for ' legitimatising illegitimate 
 children ' " continuing as his tenants, and " more 
 particularly now after seeing the placard in the
 
 196 
 
 window," this was an advertisement of The Rights 
 of Natural Children and Love and Law and winding 
 up with the protestation that "when we signed the 
 lease for these offices we, at all events I, expected to 
 have some respectable neighbours," etc. I do not 
 need to give any name, as this particular matter has 
 not been made the subject of a lawsuit, or got into 
 the papers. 
 
 Our announcements have been the cause of other 
 troubles besides this petty one. A few of you are 
 aware that some of our difficulties in obtaining a 
 hearing, even by advertisement, are already matters 
 of history. They are dealt with in the early part of 
 the " Rights of Natural Children." I shall not allude 
 to them now, not even by name. I will give you 
 another illustration, which I think you will consider 
 rather amusing. I received this letter from the 
 Liberty Review : 
 
 " October y>th, 1893. 
 
 " Dear Sir, As your subscription to the Liberty 
 Review has expired, we shall be glad if you will 
 kindly fill up and return to us the enclosed form with 
 a remittance for one year's subscription. 
 
 " We beg to call your attention to the enclosed 
 scale for advertisements, and we shall be happy to 
 provide a good place for the publications of the 
 Legitimation League, a review of which will be given 
 in an early number of the paper. 
 
 " Awaiting your early instructions, we are, yours 
 obediently, WATTS & Co., Publishers." 
 
 I replied, and sent them this document. It is 
 several advertisements : one of the League's officers 
 and objects, one of the " Rights of Natural Children," 
 Mr. Donisthorpe's " Love and Law," and Mr.
 
 Fisher's " Illegitimate Children," while there are also 
 advertisements announcing" the publications by our 
 corresponding secretaries, Mr. Badcock and Mr. 
 Dupont respectively, entitled " When Love is Liberty 
 and Nature Law," and " The Evolution of Marriage." 
 In addition to these I sent the personal advertise- 
 ments of Mrs. Dawson and myself when that lady 
 announced that she would take my name. These 
 advertisements were to occupy respectively half a 
 page, an inch, and the eighth of a page, -cost 
 ^4 I2S. 6d. I got this answer : ''November ist, 1893 
 Dear Sir, We acknowledge with thanks receipt of 
 advertisements for forthcoming Liberty Review, and 
 also a quarter's subscription to paper. As to the 
 position of advertisements, we guarantee that they 
 shall face matter, or be on outside page at top. 
 When sending proof we hope to be able to enclose 
 ' dummy.' We thank you for your offer to adver- 
 tise further with us. Faithfully yours, WATTS & Co." 
 So far so good. Then came a letter to say that 
 they were very sorry, but the advertisements of the 
 Legitimation League did not suit them, and they 
 could not accept them. So I wrote to Mr. Millar for 
 an explanation of this, understanding that he was the 
 proprietor-editor of The Liberty Review. Mr. Millar 
 is also assistant secretary to the Liberty and Property 
 Defence League, and I may also mention that he is 
 well known on the secular platform. This is my 
 letter : " ist December, 1893. Dear Mr. Millar, 
 Having promised you to advertise in your new 
 weekly, I ought to let you know that I drafted three 
 advertisements of /^-page, ^-page, and inch respec- 
 tively, and sent them to Messrs. Watts & Co., with 
 their own order form duly signed by the Treasurer
 
 agreeing to pay ^4 izs. 6d. for their insertion in 
 your first issue. I have this morning- received from 
 that firm a letter saying ' We regret that we are 
 unable to insert your advertisements, which we 
 accordingly return.' I think it not merely friendly, 
 but fair, that you should have immediate notice of 
 this procedure, so that you may be in a position to 
 take steps, as early as possible, as proprietor of The 
 Liberty Review, to rectify the matter. I enclose the 
 advertisements, the order for which may hold good 
 for your second issue if you care to persuade Messrs. 
 Watts to reconsider their decision. Believe me, very 
 faithfully yours, OSWALD DAWSON." 
 
 Mr. Millar wrote to me saying that Messrs. 
 Watts were joint proprietors with him of the paper, 
 and that they had absolute control over the publishing- 
 and advertisement department ; and that he had 
 forwarded my letter to Messrs. Watts with a request 
 that they would communicate with me. Mr. Millar 
 added that he had written a short notice of the 
 League's publications, which would appear in an 
 early issue of The Liberty Review. There was a 
 notice of the publications in the Review, and a repre- 
 sentative of the paper was sent to the annual 
 meeting in London. An article appeared in The 
 Liberty Review, further particulars of which you will 
 find in the forthcoming volume detailing the pro- 
 ceedings of the League. Messrs. Watts wrote to 
 say "The advertisements which you were gx>od 
 enough to offer us would not be consistent with our 
 interests in the paper, and we therefore decline 
 same." Well, anyone taking- up legitimation, or licit 
 love, or the like, must be prepared for things of this 
 sort. Although we may win in the long run we have
 
 i 9 9 
 
 to put up with little annoyances in the interim. If I 
 may be permitted to give what I may call advice, I 
 should advise anyone taking" up this cause to be 
 extremely circumspect in his mode of life. I will 
 illustrate this remark. At the place where I have 
 built my house, the man who lived in the lodge did a 
 little horse dealing, and he put up a number of stalls 
 more stalls than were necessary for my purpose. 
 That has for some time past led to my keeping a 
 horse or two on sale ; you can all realise how easy 
 and innocent a thing it is for one to drift into enter- 
 prise of that kind. Well, would you believe it, 
 people who would have thought little and said less 
 about the pursuit of this " fad " found ready occasion 
 to manufacture double-barrelled insults and mix up 
 the two things together horse dealing and legiti- 
 mation. But, mind you, I do not hear these things. 
 As is the custom of society at large, the man is let 
 alone (I am speaking now of vulgarities such as the 
 passing of remarks which it is intended you shall 
 overhear), and all the insults and innuendos fall upon 
 the lady. (Shame.) You, Miss Vance, have been 
 kind and bold enough to preside over this meeting 
 this morning, and have expressed your sympathy 
 with the objects of the League ; but Mrs. Dawson 
 will tell you that of the social obloquy which attaches 
 to legitimation and licit love there are phases which 
 affect or fall only, and fall heavily, on the woman. 
 (Shame.) That is my last note, and I find I have 
 occupied the hour allotted to me for my lecture. 
 I sincerely thank you for your kindly attention. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 THE CHAIRWOMAN : Now is the usual opportunity 
 for questions and discussion. I am sure that Mr.
 
 Dawson will be very pleased to answer any questions 
 that may be addressed to him. I should like to tell 
 him before I sit down that I am prepared to take the 
 consequences of the fearful crime I have committed in 
 taking the chair this morning'. I am already used to 
 working for causes that do not pay, and if this 
 Legitimation League pays no better than Secularism, 
 the rewards are not enticing. Secularism does not 
 pay, as we know to our cost. " I should like to correct 
 one little error into which Mr. Dawson fell. He told 
 us that Mr. Millar was well known on secular plat- 
 forms. I am not quite sure whether that is so. I am 
 quite sure that Mr. Millar is not now a member of the 
 National Secular Society. I do not know whether he 
 ever was a member, he has certainly not been a 
 member in my time. (A voice : " Years ago.") I do 
 not think he is quite so well known on the secular 
 platform as Mr. Dawson seems to think. Let me 
 again remind you of the publications of the Legiti- 
 mation League, which are to be had at the bookstall 
 at the other end of the room. Our National Secular 
 Society friends will be glad to know that the Benevo- 
 lent Fund will, through the generosity of Mr. Dawson, 
 benefit by the purchase of these pamphlets. Are there 
 any questions ? I will take the questions first if there 
 be any. 
 
 Various questions were then put to Mr. Dawson 
 by different persons in the Hall, and answered by him 
 as under : 
 
 Q. Does Mr. Dawson seek to render illegitimate 
 children legitimate so that they may inherit the 
 property of their forefathers? 
 
 A. Yes, legitimated children would inherit the 
 property of intestate parents, or any collateral rela-
 
 201 
 
 lions, just in the same way as children born in wedlock 
 would. 
 
 Q. What is the definition of licit love and 
 illicit love ? 
 
 A. Licit love is the union of two people under 
 these terms : That if one dies without making a will 
 the survivor shall have the same title to the deceased's 
 estate, or part thereof, as husband and wife have, and, 
 similarly, that all the other attributes of husband and 
 wife should be transferred to the parties concerned in 
 the licit alliance, such as mutual support, respon- 
 sibility for debts, and so forth. 
 
 Q. Did I understand the answer to the first 
 question to be that illegitimate children would come 
 into the property of their parents in the same way as 
 children born in wedlock ? 
 
 A. If they are acknowledged by some process 
 of registration. 
 
 Q. Would it not be better to have some process 
 or method of acknowledgment by swearing or by 
 affirmation ? Would not that be a sufficient acknow- 
 ledgment without leaving the father to take steps to 
 get his natural child registered ? In the plan proposed 
 by the Legitimation League, the majority of children 
 born out of wedlock would have no acknowledgment 
 until the economic condition of society which is at 
 the root of the whole thing is changed, there is a 
 very poor chance of getting illegitimate children 
 acknowledged. 
 
 A. I do not agree that there would be few or 
 no acknowledgments at all. I should think that most 
 of those present men as well as women would be 
 prepared to acknowledge their children. Married 
 people usually acknowledge theirs, in a social sense*
 
 and I take it that decent people living together un- 
 married would do the same, even if they did not 
 formally register them. 
 
 Q. Is it not a fact that many people do 
 not, and would not, acknowledge their illegitimate 
 offspring ? 
 
 A. Well, if they don't I am sorry for them, and 
 I am sorry for the children. Indeed, I am sorry for 
 lots of things. I am sorry for the present economic 
 conditions of society, though I do not happen to have 
 any particular remedy. I accept individualism as a 
 system, but that may be merely a pious opinion. 
 
 Q. Does not the present economic condition of 
 society bear so hardly upon the average man, who 
 has responsibilities in relation to children, that he is 
 often constrained to shirk his obligation through 
 insufficiency of means ? Does not the robbing 
 system in vogue involve these other evils to a very 
 great extent ? 
 
 A. I think you will have to show, as I have no 
 doubt you are perfectly prepared to do, that you can 
 remedy the present economic system, and bring about 
 .a system under which people would be able to support 
 their children, or all the children they might have. I 
 do not doubt that an attempt might be made in this 
 direction, but I do not know of any system under 
 which so many children could be supported as under 
 the individualistic regime. 
 
 Q. Is not Malthusianism a remedy ? Prevent 
 the children coming into a world which has no need 
 of them under present conditions. 
 
 A. But I say we want the children, and we 
 want to acknowledge them. (Hear, hear.) I love 
 children. We want them, sir.
 
 203 
 
 The CHAIRWOMAN : I am afraid our friend's ques- 
 tion is not in order, but I am reluctant to interpose, 
 as I do not wish to appear desirous of burking 
 discussion. 
 
 Q. Does Mr. Dawson's system of licit love 
 apply to people already married ? 
 
 A. The answer to that is very decided indeed. 
 It is no matter to me whether a person is married. 
 If I wish to form an alliance with a lady it is no matter 
 to me whether she is married or not by law. But I 
 should expect and wish that she privately divorced 
 herself, gave notice to her husband that she was not 
 gx>ing to live with him any longer, just as I should 
 expect private notice being given to me of any similar 
 change. We certainly do not wish to shut out all the 
 unhappily married people from the benefit of our 
 scheme of licit love, far from it. In fact it is intended 
 as much for them as anybody else. 
 
 Q. I would ask Mr. Dawson how his scheme 
 would work where a woman had lived with several 
 different men ? Where would the property considera- 
 tion come in? 
 
 A. I don't see where the difficulty comes in. 
 We will suppose a given lady over forty years old 
 who has, during the last three decades of her life, 
 spent them with three different men, entering into a 
 licit alliance at the commencement of a decade, and 
 terminating it at the end of that period. About the 
 man's property. If the man dies in the ten years 
 without making a will, she benefits. If he dies after 
 the alliance is broken off, and the woman forms a 
 fresh alliance, there would be no benefit. While the 
 contract is on if either party dies, provision would 
 be made for the lady if she were the survivor, and
 
 204 
 
 also for the children of the union. I do not' recom- 
 mend a change every ten years. As a mere matter 
 of law, however, I should say that people would be 
 entitled to change every five years or less. 
 
 Q. Suppose children to result from the three 
 alliances the hypothetical lady might enter into, I 
 presume that those children if legitimated would be 
 entitled to inherit from their several fathers, even 
 though the alliances might be broken off? 
 
 A. Yes, that is so. The fathers would be 
 compelled to support their legitimated children until 
 they had reached the age of self support ; so, similarly, 
 if dying intestate, a share would descend to each 
 child, even though the contract with their respective 
 mothers had been determined ; while, on the other 
 hand, if a man form a licit alliance with a woman who 
 already had legitimate children, and he died intestate, 
 such offspring would rank as to inheritance in pre- 
 cisely the same position as a step-child now occupies. 
 In a word, legitimation seeks to incorporate the 
 claims, the responsibilities perhaps even some of 
 the abuses of wedlock- with the qualifying proviso 
 that it will recognise no limit to the number of 
 alliances any person may form, and that the limit in 
 point of duration of any contract shall not be 
 eternal. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the idea of 
 the Legitimation League as I understand it. (Cheers.) 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : I thank you very much for your 
 attendance, and declare the meeting closed. 
 
 The proceedings then terminated.
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 MR. MILLAR ON MARRIAGE. 
 
 MR. FREDERICK MILLAR is editor and pro- 
 prietor of The Liberty Review. An unsigned 
 article on "The Limits of Divorce" (Feb. 
 24th, 1894) effectively criticises Mr. C. G. Garrison's 
 article of the same title in the Contemporary Review, 
 and then proceeds to administer a mild rebuke to 
 Individualists, charging that it has not met with the 
 reprobation at their hands which it seems to deserve, 
 and contending that they ought not to allow that a 
 bargain which, expressly, is speculative, and may 
 turn out for the worse, is not within the contractual 
 capacity of adults. I took exception to these opinions 
 in a letter sent to the paper, and to which "The 
 Reviewer " replied in courteous terms. The corres- 
 pondence, besides any inherent value it may have, was 
 useful as indicating that Mr. Millar did not regard 
 the topics discussed as outside the province of his 
 columns. Nor must we omit to note that shortly 
 before (Tan. 6th, 1894) "The Rights of Natural 
 Children " was briefly noticed in Mr. Millar's paper,
 
 206 
 
 and the opinion expressed that " in agitating for the 
 amendment of the law which is responsible for much 
 grave injustice with regard to natural children, the 
 Legitimation League will be doing a good work. 
 Beyond this it would, in our opinion, be unwise to 
 
 go-" 
 
 Lapse of time brought about change in the tone 
 of comment the Review assumed toward the League. 
 A representative attended the first annual meeting 
 and furnished a report thereof under title "Among 
 Free Lovers, Neo Malthusians, Bastard Legitimisers, 
 etc." The questions which Mr. M. D. O'Brien asked 
 at the meeting are here repeated, together with some 
 preliminary abuse and a final forecast of "imperial 
 downfall and racial extinction " should our principles 
 prevail. The report, however, is not without argu- 
 ment, and, therefore, apart from the fact that Mr. 
 Frederick Millar is responsible for the insertion of 
 the article, and that it appeared in an Individualist 
 journal, it claims notice here. I therefore try to 
 present the argument. The living man has power 
 to will his property as he wishes. On the State 
 devolves the duty of distributing an intestate's 
 wealth. As the deceased could have used his own 
 judgment in the matter, but failed to exercise it, and 
 as the State now stands in his stead, it follows that 
 the latter should not be " bound down by a league of 
 bastard manufacturers," whose wants are not the 
 measure of the infinite, as the probate laws are, 
 inferentially, represented to be by this Individual- 
 ist. This critic, by the way, calls the State a 
 funny abstraction, and hence styles the third party 
 who arranges property matters between a deceased 
 man and his relations, Caesar, " for the sake of
 
 207 
 
 clearness." This Caesar is a supreme individual 
 administrator of law, and it is asked, " shall freedom 
 be denied to him who acts in the father's place ? "" 
 The existence of this Caesar is said to be " a very 
 awkward truth for those who dislike autocracy." I 
 do not see that. Paternal administration is less 
 hopeless when you have to get one supreme man to 
 change his views as to what is fair than when you 
 have to pass a bill through a democratic Parliament 
 to rectify wrong. If there were such a person as this 
 Caesar, it might be worth while to debate amongst 
 ourselves whether the League propaganda should 
 any longer be complacently regarded as outside the 
 pale of practical politics ; or whether, on the other 
 hand, it might not be desirable to press upon him 
 the claims of offspring who have been acknowledged 
 by the League machinery as suitable recipients of the 
 wealth of intestate kindred. 
 
 In an unsigned review of Mr. Badcock's " Slaves 
 to Duty" it is remarked "No one is obliged to 
 marry, or is taxed if he does not marry. The State 
 simply says that, if parents desire to have children 
 legally recognised, these children must be born in 
 wedlock " ; and the fairness of this is then dwelt 
 upon. I take it that if the State simply said that it 
 would adopt the principle of primogeniture in all 
 inheritance of real and personal property, it would be 
 fair. If not, why not? 
 
 I have extreme pleasure in noting that the issue 
 of The Liberty Review enunciating this doctrine con- 
 tains the second and concluding portion of Mr. 
 Spence's article on " Law and Marriage," which 
 forms as complete a refutation of the preceding 
 pronouncement as can be conceived. (Dec. 8, 1894.)
 
 208 
 
 On March 23 there appeared what at first sight 
 seemed to be a review of Mr. Donisthorpe's " Law in 
 a Free State," but which was in reality an indepen- 
 dent article bearing these words as sub title. It 
 forms one of a series of " Insoluble Problems," since 
 reprinted in book form. In its first paragraph we 
 read : "I should never have dreamed of giving the 
 Marriage question, or that of the Status of Children, 
 the position they occupy in this book ; not that, as a 
 whole, I dissent from his views, but because they 
 seem to me inopportune in the present state of the 
 public mind. So long as the overwhelming majority 
 of women continue to regard marriage in no other 
 light than that of a status supernaturally enjoined, the 
 question has not yet become a question of freedom. 
 It can wait until the principle of freedom has been 
 accepted in cases where the Indeterminate Co-efficient 
 of supernaturalism does not affect -the problem. It 
 will be time enough to raise the cry of Free Marriage 
 when we have got rid, for example, of ' free, com- 
 pulsory education.' " I submit that this Indeterminate 
 Co efficient is a factor which may rightly be ignored 
 by Individualists. Indeed, its recognition appears to 
 be highly dangerous for any purpose other than 
 Parliamentary ones. Our teaching is to fearlessly 
 speak the highest truths, and expound them regard- 
 less of their poor prospect of favourable reception. 
 Besides, if the overwhelming majority of women do 
 regard marriage as supernaturally enjoined, it is still 
 a question which is the better way to combat the 
 idea : to attack supernaturalism wholesale and direct. 
 or to insist that this particular subject should be 
 regarded supernaturally by those so disposed, other- 
 wise by those otherwise inclined, and decidedly
 
 2CKJ 
 
 otherwise by the State as having no rightful official 
 cognisance of supernatural affairs. Moreover, if an 
 overwhelming majority of women do so regard 
 marriage, and if in consequence they are to be left 
 alone, there are still two other classes of persons to 
 be reckoned with the men and the new women. 
 The position taken seems to presuppose the inadap- 
 tability of theology to changing social needs, which 
 is by no means absolute. Let us, after citing the 
 argument of a great theologian of a past time, John 
 Milton, who writes in these words : " For all sense 
 and equity reclaim that any law or covenant, how 
 solemn or straight soever, either between God and 
 Man, or Man and Man, though of God's joining, 
 should bind against a prime and principal scope of 
 its own institution, and of both or either party 
 covenanting," take for example the analysis of 
 the expression: "Till Death us do part," by Mr. 
 F. H. Rochester, in a pamphlet on " Marriage : is it 
 -an ecclesiastical function or a divine ordinance ? " 
 He deems it to be morally on a par with the salute, 
 How glad I am to see you ; the former expression 
 being in reality " put into the mouth of, and not 
 invented by, the couple who present themselves to be 
 married," and, therefore, presumably even more 
 empty of meaning. Yet Mr. Rochester writes from 
 the orthodox standpoint, and as a subscriber to the 
 Church Times since 1871. He further writes : "To 
 object to ' divorce ' on the ground that ' what God 
 hath joined together no man may put asunder,' is 
 really an argument that tells in its favour, unless 
 we are guilty of profanity, and deny God's omnis- 
 cience. In the case of a justly-opposed or ill-assorted 
 match, it is nothing less than infamous to say the 
 
 o
 
 210 
 
 man and woman are joined together by God." In 
 capital letters Mr. Rochester adds the declaration : 
 " It is a scandalous profanity and a barbarism to 
 allege that a life of married misery and wretchedness 
 is of necessity more pleasing to Almighty God than 
 the severance of a bond contracted without his 
 
 .sanction or approval" 
 
 The authorship of " Insoluble Problems " is not 
 traceable to Mr. Millar himself. A recent anonymous 
 pamphlet issued from the Liberty Review office, and 
 entitled " Socialism and Marriage.'' may or may not 
 be his composition. In vigour of language it excels, 
 and is open to be regarded as reflecting little credit 
 on the critical accomplishments of the Individualist 
 camp. A treatise on ' ' God's England or the Devil's ? " 
 by George Brooks, in attacking the position taken 
 up by Socialists on sexual questions, acknowledges 
 indebtedness to the Liberty Re-view as rendering 
 yeoman's service in this connection. Having there- 
 fore hinted at a doubt concerning the desirability 
 of indulgence in railery and vehemence in sexual 
 criticisms by Individualist leaders, I take the oppor- 
 tunity of showing that this doubt is not shared by 
 every writer who is opposed to Socialism. Whether 
 that cause loses or gains by it I leave as an open 
 question. A signed vindication of the existing order 
 of things appeared in Mr. Millar's notice of the 
 Inaugural Proceedings of the League in the Agnostic 
 
 Journal, 28th October, 1893, where the inviolability 
 of the tie is insisted upon on the ground that it is 
 woman's "only safeguard against aggression.' and 
 that " the one and only duty of the State is to pre- 
 vent aggression."
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 STATISTICS OF ILLEGITIMACY. 
 
 I have referred the student of this subject to Dr. 
 Leffingwell's admirable little treatise. I am here able 
 to reproduce a brief statement by " Agnosco," from 
 The Agnostic Journal, December ist, 1894, by kind 
 permission of " Saladin." 
 
 occupations of 10,010 unwed mothers in 
 Scotland during the year 1883 are thus tabu- 
 lated by the Registrar-General : 
 Domestic Servants ... ... ... ... 4,706 
 
 Factory Girls ... ... ... ... ... 2^442 
 
 Farm Girls ... 985 
 
 Seamstresses ... ... ... .. ... 607 
 
 No occupation (chiefly daughters of working men) 831 
 Daughters of professional me ... ... ... 54 
 
 No information (chiefly widows*... ... ... 385 
 
 IO,OIO 
 
 From which it is seen that domestic servants are 
 responsible for about 47 per cent. nearly one-half 
 the total number of illegitimate births, and girls
 
 212 
 
 employed in factories for 24 per cent. nearly one- 
 fourth these two classes alone being responsible for 
 more than 70 per cent, of the entire number. Much 
 the same report has been given independently and 
 more recently in England in the metropolis itself, in 
 fact ; for at a meeting of the Hackney Board of 
 Guardians (reported in London, August 2nd, 1894) it 
 was stated that during the year ending June, 1894, 
 80 per cent, of the admissions into the Infirmary 
 of unmarried women in confinement were domestic 
 servants, 15 per cent, factory hands, while the remain- 
 ing 5 per cent, are said to have lived at home. The 
 two classes to which attention is here drawn may be 
 set down as pre-eminently urban, and that notwith- 
 standing the indictment brought against country life 
 by Richard Jefferies and by Emile Zola in " La 
 Terre." Still, we must remember that many pros- 
 pective mothers leave their rural homes and enter 
 town life, taking up situations as domestic servants, 
 or finding employment in factories. The country 
 exclusively has 10 per cent, laid to its charge in the 
 case of farm hands. The number of births attributed 
 to the daughters of professional men is remarkably 
 small only about half per cent. It would be inter- 
 esting to know how far this is obtained by successful 
 concealment of birth, and how far by false registration 
 as legitimate births. Indeed, the present writer has 
 known more than one case in which the " the wife of 
 ," as the announcement read in the local news- 
 papers, was an unmarried woman. In one case both 
 the young woman and her "husband" belonged to 
 the "unco' guid " ; their parents were leading lights 
 at a certain church in a well-to do suburb of a 
 northern city ; they themselves were Sunday-school
 
 213 
 
 teachers, communicants, and examples of what 
 Christian believers should be ; while the notice in the 
 newspaper was inserted by the father of the unwed 
 " bride " a prominent local preacher and class 
 leader ! In other cases the parties have been un- 
 married at the birth of the child, but have subse- 
 quently been privately united in a distant town or 
 village. Such a child is illegitimate in England, 
 although quite legitimate in Scotland, the Isle of 
 Man, and many Continental countries. Truly, in this 
 respect the English law is far from synonymous with 
 justice. Here, indeed, the custom of bastard aine et 
 midier puisne borrowed, it is said, from mediaeval 
 canon law, and having nothing in common with old 
 English common law might entitle the child to rank 
 (but only after making formal claim to that effect) 
 with his legitimate brothers and sisters by the same 
 parents. Otherwise he would be filius nullius, no- 
 body's child -a being having no existence in law. 
 
 But, be the cause what it may, the wide disparity 
 in numbers between unwed mothers among the 
 daughters of professional men and those of working 
 men is most strikingly significant. 
 
 Illegitimate births are thus locally distributed in 
 Ireland per 1,000 births of both descriptions : 
 Connaught 7, Munster 17, Leinster 22, Ulster 40. 
 The disparity between Connaught poor, wild, miser- 
 able, and Roman Catholic and Ulster wealthy, 
 arrogant, prosperous, and Protestant is remarkable. 
 Some explanation seems necessary why the counties 
 which are ultra-Protestant and ultra-Presbyterian, 
 and which include that most godly of cities, Belfast, 
 should have the proud heritage of eleven times as 
 many illegitimate children per annum as ignorant and
 
 21 4 
 
 degraded Mayo ! Pious Ulster has almost as many bas- 
 tards as the whole of the rest of Ireland put together. 
 
 In certain cities in Great Britain the percentage 
 of illegitimate births is as follows : London 38, 
 Birmingham 45, Liverpool 58, Glasgow 83, Edinburgh 
 85, Dundee 104, Aberdeen 106. The lowest rates in 
 England are 34 in Essex, 35 in Middlesex, 38 in 
 London, and 40 in Surrey, the highest being 58 in 
 Lincolnshire, 59 in Nottinghamshire, 60 in the North 
 Riding of Yorkshire, 62 in Cornwall, 70 in West- 
 moreland, 74 in Norfolk, 76 in Hereford and 
 Cumberland, and 82 in Shropshire. The following 
 rough classification shows the distribution of the rate 
 in relation to geographical position: n Southern 
 Counties (English Channel), 45 ; 10 Midland, 48 ; 
 8 North Eastern (east of Pennines), 53 ; 7 East 
 Anglian and East Midland, 55 ; 3 North Western 
 (west of Pennines), 63 ; 4 Welsh Marches, 63. 
 Average for England, 51*74. 
 
 Monmouth approaches most nearly the South 
 Wales rate, whereas Hereford and Shropshire exceed 
 that of North Wales. Cheshire nearly approaches 
 the English average. These rates are : Monmouth 
 42, South Wales 45, Cheshire 52, North Wales 69, 
 Hereford 76, Shropshire 82. In the essay above 
 referred to it will be remembered that I described 
 border-lands as productive of genius and crime ; it is 
 here seen that they are likewise prolific in illegitimacy. 
 On the Scottish border Westmoreland and Cumber- 
 land have a rate of 70 and 76 per 1,000; while 
 Northumberland is slightly above the average ; 
 Berwick has 103, Roxburgh 108, Kirkcudbright 146, 
 and Dumfriesshire 147 per 1,000, nearly 15 per cent, 
 of its births being illegitimate.
 
 215 
 
 Scotland is divided into 8 registration districts :- 
 North Western, 64 ; West Midland, 65 ; South 
 Western, 68 ; Northern, 77 ; South Eastern, 78 ; 
 East Midland, 89; Southern, 139; North Eastern, 
 141. Only 3 Scottish counties have rates below the 
 English average to wit, Shetland (48), Ross and 
 Cromartyand Dumbarton (50). The highest rates in 
 the British Isles are, in addition to those already 
 mentioned as border counties, Caithness (115), 
 Aberdeen (132), Elgin (152), Banff (168), and 
 Wigtown (182). Surely there is a vast distance 
 between Mayo with 5 and Wigtown with 182 illegiti- 
 mate births per 1,000. In the latter, one person in 
 every five is a bastard ! 
 
 It is noteworthy that in London the highest 
 illegitimacy rate should be found, not in the 'savage' 
 East-end, but in the civilised North-west, in the 
 land of peers and painters. In the registration sub- 
 district of St. Mary's, in the parish of St. Marylebone, 
 more than two-thirds of all the births are illegitimate, 
 the astounding rate of 406 per 1,000 being reached. In 
 the Rectory sub-district of the same parish nearly 
 one-fourth (247 in 1,000) of the children born are 
 nobody's bairns. In the entire parish of St. Maryle- 
 bone the rate is 168, whereas in Whitechapel it is only 
 27 ! Curiously enough there is a similar peculiarity 
 in the distribution of lunatics in these two parishes. 
 
 The illegitimacy rates in 1889 of a number of 
 European countries were as follows : Russia, 27 ; 
 Ireland, 28 ; Holland, 33 ; England and Wales, 46 ; 
 Switzerland, 47; Spain (1870), 55; Italy, 73 ; Norway, 
 74; Prussia (1870), 79; Scotland, 79 ; France, 84; 
 Hungary, 85; Belgium, 88; Denmark, 93; Sweden, 101; 
 Saxony, 125 ; Bavaria, 141 ; Austria, 147. (In the case
 
 2l6 
 
 of Switzerland, Prussia, and Bavaria still-births are 
 included in the totals given.) Most of these nations- 
 showed a distinct decrease ; but in Austria and Hun- 
 gary an almost uninterrupted rise has gone on since 
 1870 in the latter country to the extent of 5, in the 
 former 17 per cent. The most noteworthy falls have 
 been in Norway of 22 per cent., in Scotland of 24 
 per cent., and in Bavaria of 27 per cent. 
 
 The poetic description of spring as the season of 
 love has, as was remarked in the original text, a 
 physiological justification. The number of concep- 
 tions among mankind, both legitimate and illegitimate, 
 is greatest during the warm months of the year, at 
 which season the breeding period of other animals 
 usually occurs, while at the same time the vegetal 
 world orders itself towards the same end. 
 
 These conceptions have been thus classified in 
 France, Holland, Norway, and Sweden, according to- 
 the season of the year : 
 
 Legitimate. Illegitimate. 
 
 December-February ... 24.25 23.81 
 
 March-May ... ... .. 27.11 23.65 
 
 June-August .. ... '... 25.36 2661 
 
 September-November .. 22.59 25-3 1 
 
 99-3' 99- 3 8 
 
 From which it is evident that legitimate unions are 
 most numerous in spring, fewer but still numerous in 
 summer, and rarest in autumn ; while illegitimate 
 unions are commonest in summer and fewest in 
 winter, the second place being taken by autumn. 
 
 The influence of the seasons upon conduct is thus 
 very evident ; yet there still remain people who deny 
 the rational physical theory of morality, and who are 
 now. as ever, willing to absolutely ignore all the facts
 
 2I 7 
 
 of the case, and to pretend that morality has had a 
 divine and heaven-inspired origin, and that it is 
 directed towards the well-being of humanity not in 
 this world, which is most concerned in it, but in a 
 land beyond the skies.
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 NATURAL CHILDREN AND PERSONAL 
 RIGHTS. 
 
 A MONGST the further services rendered by the 
 J~\ President during- the past two years was the 
 starting of a series of articles on "Natural 
 Children" in Personal Rights (July, 1893). Mr. 
 Donisthorpe contends against the granting of affilia- 
 tion orders, an interesting question, but aside of our 
 purpose here. In the following month the editor 
 follows with an article arguing against that con- 
 tention, stating the position which the Association 
 and the journal have taken up, and ticketing it the 
 Individualistic standpoint from which "neither is 
 likely to swerve by a hair's breadth." This enter- 
 tertaining reading is, however, also quite foreign to 
 our subject. What is germane, however, is Mr. 
 Donisthorpe's explicit declaration in Personal Rights 
 that acknowledged children should be legitimated, 
 and that " no exception should be made so as to 
 exclude the offspring of adulterous and incestuous 
 unions." Here was the gauntlet flung down with a
 
 219 
 
 vengeance ! Would this be ticketed anarchy by the 
 Editor of Personal Rights? or was it not so much 
 <is a hair's breadth from the Individualist position ? 
 The two-columned reply contained no word about 
 the matter. The doctrine that NO EXCEPTION SHOULD 
 
 BE MADE SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE OFFSPRING OF 
 
 ADULTEROUS OR INCESTUOUS UNIONS was passed 
 unchallenged by the Editor of Personal Rights. Was 
 it so obviously Individualistic that he felt it would be 
 a superfluity to express his acquiescence ? 
 
 October brought the third instalment of articles 
 on Natural Children, running to four and a half 
 columns, with contributions by Mr. E. Sellon, Mr. 
 J. C. Spence, Mr. F. Evershed, and the Editor. 
 Mr. Sellon advocates the "irresponsible private 
 ownership " of children a thesis unconnected with 
 legitimation ; Mr. Evershed asks, could not the gains 
 of legitimation be secured by bequest? They could 
 not. Children born out of wedlock pay ten per cent, 
 on legacies not exceeding ^100, and twelve on sums 
 over that amount, whilst legitimate children, in cases 
 of the largest fortunes, under the new Death Duties 
 pay no higher than seven and a half or eight 
 Besides that, whilst it is so easy to bequeathe (though 
 from the faults of their neglect and procrastination, 
 inherent in frail humanity, people often fail to do so), 
 it is so easy also to make a vitiated will, or to lose it 
 by carelessness, misadventure, or fraud. 
 
 " Mr. Spence's arguments need but few com- 
 ments," writes the Editor in his general reply ; and 
 he volunteered none on the righteous declaration 
 which Mr. Spence makes in these words: "The 
 laws which enforce perpetual marriages, or none at 
 a.11, that ignore all matrimonial settlements, except
 
 220 
 
 those of the regulation type, are certainly barbarous, 
 and should receive the unqualified opposition of alK 
 those who value liberty." 
 
 Allusion to " the proposals of certain quasi- 
 Individualists in England" occurs in a leaderette in 
 Personal Rights of March, 1895. A bill to be laid 
 before the French Chamber, "giving illegitimate 
 children the same rights as those born in wedlock," 
 but re-affirming the famous maxim La recherche de la 
 paternite est defendu, is declared to bear a striking 
 resemblance to the proposals in question, and to be 
 appropriately introduced by a Socialist. In the issue 
 for April, Mr. Greevz Fisher wrote a letter, printed 
 by the Editor " with some hesitation and much 
 regret," stating a doctrine of parentage editorially 
 declared to be "not the Individualistic but the 
 Anarchistic one," the compulsory maintenance of 
 children being the question on which there is sup- 
 posed to be a divergence corresponding with this- 
 classification of thinkers. The topic is, of course, 
 distinct from that of legitimation and the relations of 
 adults, and Mr. Fisher kept it so, not only in the 
 letter quoted, but in a further one appearing in May 
 Personal Rights. Nevertheless, Mr. Levy, after 
 closing the correspondence in the words, "and here 
 the matter must rest for the present," adds : " We 
 decline to discuss the Free Love doctrine, which is 
 altogether beyond the purview of our paper ; but it 
 may not be uninstructive to our readers to have a 
 glimpse of that theory of 'free parentage ' which is 
 one of the most important corollaries." Mr. Fisher 
 replied disclaiming having introduced the subject of 
 Free Love, but in the editorial dissection of his letter, 
 which occupied the greater part of a column in June
 
 221 
 
 Personal Rights, this remonstrance was entirely 
 suppressed. I caution the reader against accepting 
 as corollaries doctrines entirely dissociated. 
 
 At the annual meeting of the Personal Rights 
 Association this year, Mr. Henry Wilson "asserted 
 that that Association, being founded on Individualist 
 principles, was bound to take the course it had 
 taken " on a certain matter involving" the Legiti- 
 mation League. Further, "he always liked to meet 
 opponents on principle." (P. R., March, '95.) This 
 challenge led to a correspondence between Mr. Wil- 
 son and myself, which will be published at length in 
 my brochure, " Personal Rights and Sexual Wrongs." 
 As Mr. Wilson upholds State marriage with argu- 
 ment, and was met by argument, this would be a 
 proper place to reproduce the letters. Seeing, 
 however, that what is deemed by some to be a 
 personal question is involved and treated of therein, 
 I ignore the discussion altogether in this volume. 
 
 In the following month (April) Sir Roland K. 
 Wilson, reviewing Mr. Donisthorpe's "Law in a 
 Free State," dwelt at length upon our President's 
 chapters on Marriage and the Status of Children, 
 expressing himself as follows: "We are at one 
 with the writer as to the anomaly and hardship of 
 enforcing a contract of life-long partnership," adding, 
 " In point of fact, since the Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1884, and the Jackson case, 1891, only the negative 
 part of the contract can be said to be enforced 
 specifically." I take this to mean that State inter 
 ference with married persons is confined to the 
 punishment of bigamy. Yet surely magisterial 
 orders for maintenance have little of the negative 
 character about them ; whilst suits for the restitution
 
 of conjugal rights have not been unheard of since 
 1891. Sir Roland Wilson then proceeds to give 
 reasons which "the wiser apologists of the existing 
 system " adduce for the support of marital coercion 
 the consideration of the children, of the woman 
 cast off after losing her charms, and a third reason, 
 ' the danger to domestic peace from the fact of each 
 partner being able innocently to contemplate a future 
 change of partners, and to make personal compari- 
 sons from that point of view." This presupposes a 
 domestic peace to be endangered by some change, 
 whereas there is much testimony for a wide 
 prevalence of domestic warfare which would give 
 place to peace if the State would act on Individualist 
 lines and no more concern itself with domestic peace 
 in this matter than it does in other domestic affairs 
 where the law of liberty is not invaded, as, for 
 instance, where a tyrannical mistress rings a curfew 
 bell, prohibits all kitchen visitors, and shows a 
 supreme contempt for the eight hours movement 
 alike in matters of work and sleep. 
 
 The difficulties as to children, and the other 
 difficulty, are just the ones the League seeks to meet 
 by the devices of legitimation and licit love, and I am 
 happy to note that Sir Roland Wilson is "quite open 
 to conviction as to the possibility of adequate safe- 
 guards being devised against the dangers already 
 hinted at." 
 
 Treating of the status of children, Sir Roland 
 Wilson remarks : " No man need die intestate, and 
 anyone can provide by will for his illegitimate child, 
 even to the exclusion of his legitimate children, if 
 such be his pleasure." That is so, but men do die 
 intestate, and some wills are invalid and some are
 
 223 
 
 lost, and the illegitimate child, when he does benefit 
 under a will, has to pay a higher rate of duty. 
 Besides which, in the case of entailed estates, he 
 cannot reap the advantage of the paternity to which, 
 as the acknowledged son of a father, he might be 
 entitled. Herein is a vital difference between legiti- 
 mation and adoption, which Sir Roland Wilson 
 regards as having equal logical claims for embodi- 
 ment in any proposed change of law. Whatever 
 may be the historical explanation of our probate laws 
 (and laws, said Mr. Justice Stephen, ought to be 
 adjusted to the habits of society and not to aim at 
 remoulding them), howsoever far from true it may 
 be that they "are based upon observation of what is 
 usually done by persons who make wills" it never- 
 theless will not be doubted that the possessors of 
 fortunes have' evidenced earnest desires to transmit 
 their wealth to their blood-relations, frequently from 
 generation to generation, in perpetuity ; and that the 
 State, when it has not enforced this method of 
 bequest, has acquiesced in it. Sir Roland Wilson 
 says of adoption that "at most it would involve a 
 slight change in the terminology of wills and settle- 
 ments " ; but it is conceivable to me it might also 
 involve "danger to domestic peace" in a form 
 aggravated in comparison with that prophesied as 
 likely to ensue from the legitimation of offspring. 
 Sir Roland Wilson pronounces on Mr. Donisthorpe's 
 argument that it proves a good deal more than \vas 
 intended, inasmuch as it proves the justice of adop 
 tion. At this rate it may prove that his own argu- 
 ment also proves too much. " No man need die 
 intestate, and anyone can provide by will for his 
 illegitimate child." Quite so ; then what becomes of
 
 224 
 
 the Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage Bill espoused 
 by the Personal Rights Association ? Must it not 
 be dismissed as a superfluous measure ? If it be 
 answered : No, its design is not so much to affect 
 succession as to establish parental relationships, and 
 to give status to the offspring, then, very good, for 
 that too is our primary aim. In fine, adoption, 
 legitimation, and affiliation, may be left to severally 
 stand or fall on their own merits.
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 AT THE BEDFORD AGAIN. 
 
 Reported by D. OLIVER, 22. Theberton Street. Lrndon, N. 
 
 ON Monday evening, the 25th February, 1895, 
 Mr. and Mrs. Oswald Dawson entertained at 
 dinner at the Bedford Hotel, Covent Garden, 
 W.C., the friends and supporters of the Legitimation 
 League, and personal friends of the host and hostess. 
 Mr. Oswald Dawson, the Honorary Secretary of the 
 League, presided, and Mr. J. G. Fisher occupied the 
 vice-chair. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN said : Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 I give you all a very cordial welcome here as my 
 personal friends. At the same time it is a circum- 
 stance that we are now holding two informal 
 meetings. It may be rather out of order to hold 
 two meetings at the same table. However, accord- 
 ing to the terms of your invitation here, that is what 
 we are doing. On the one hand and at the lower 
 end of the table, you are dealing with a very disgust- 
 ing problem (at least that is the way I view it, and I 
 
 p
 
 226 
 
 may be allowed to give expression to such adjectives 
 as suit my views), of my expulsion from the 
 Personal Rights Association. You are all members 
 of that association at the lower end of the table. 
 (A voice: "Minus myself.") You are invited to 
 attend to-morrow the annual meeting of that body. 
 The second meeting the one that is being held at 
 this, the top end, of the table, is a meeting of the 
 officers of the Legitimation League. Of that body I 
 happen to be the honorary secretary. I have nothing 
 very particular to say to you, except that I want you 
 to confirm the remarks and statements I made in a 
 lecture which I delivered yesterday morning at the 
 Hall of Science. I may say in case anyone present 
 does not know that hall - that it is the building in 
 which the National Secular Society hold their usual 
 weekly and other meetings. The circumstance of 
 my lecturing there does not in the slightest degree 
 commit either the National Secular party, or any 
 individual member of that party, to the views of my- 
 self or the Legitimation League ; but as I said 
 yesterday morning, our thanks are certainly due to 
 the Secular party for allowing the Legitimation 
 League to send a representative to lecture there 
 (hear, hear) and especially to Miss Edith Vance for 
 taking the initiative in inviting a representative of the 
 Legitimation League to lecture there. Well, what I 
 have to ask to-night is your support, in a general 
 way, and in a general way only, of the remarks I 
 made yesterday at the Hall of Science. The leading 
 feature of those remarks, in my opinion, is this : 
 the Legitimation League was formed to create a 
 machinery for doing a certain thing. That was two 
 years ago. Now, at the end of the two years, I
 
 227 
 
 announce that we have created that machinery. We 
 have appointed Mr. Arthur Cornwell to register the 
 alliances of the parents of illegitimate children, born, 
 or possibly to be born ; and I introduced Mr. Arthur 
 Cornwell to the audience at the Hall of Science 
 yesterday morning. I have pleasure in doing the 
 same at the present moment 
 
 I believe he is quite prepared, while in my 
 service, to carry out any instructions in relation to 
 those questions of legitimation that are given to him, 
 and to carry those instructions out in a perfectly 
 scrupulous manner. I make these remarks in his 
 presence, and if this is not so, he will be open to 
 resign his post to-night if he should think fit. We 
 have appointed Mr. J. C. Spence a Vice-President of 
 the Legitimation League (hear, hear) in place of 
 Dr. F. A. Lees, who has resigned for reasons which I 
 do not think it needful to enter upon now. 
 
 I have just received by messenger a note from 
 Mr. Evan Streachan, advertising contractor, 295, 
 Strand, established 1855, that he will be pleased to 
 be appointed an advertising agent to the Legitimation 
 League. I met Mr. Evan Streachan this morning, 
 and explained to him exactly what he might be called 
 upon to do, namely, to advertise unions of persons 
 who might possibly be the parents of illegitimate 
 children, but who desire to acknowledge them. This 
 sort of advertising, you will readily agree with me, 
 could not be so well conducted without a London 
 agent. We want to get a foothold among the births, 
 marriages, and deaths, and not to belong to the 
 Agony colum. (Laughter.) I call upon Mr. Cornwell 
 to say a word or two now. 
 
 Mr. ARTHUR CORNWELL : I am not very good at
 
 228 
 
 making a speech. Indeed, this is my first attempt at 
 it. As regards my being notifying clerk to the 
 Legitimation League, I have to say that I am willing 
 to do my best in that office, and to help in any way 
 required. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Miss EDITH VANCE : I claim that I have the 
 toast of the evening, for it is my intention to propose 
 the Legitimation League. I shall leave the aims and 
 objects of the League to be spoken of by more 
 capable speakers than myself. My desire is to speak 
 of the League in relation to one important point, or 
 rather one important person. To me (if Mrs Dawson 
 will forgive me for saying so), the League is Mrs. 
 Dawson She has been fighting for the League for 
 you and all its members the whole time, and only 
 reasonable, thinking men and women can understand 
 and realise what a deal she has been doing for you 
 and for it. The moral of the song to which you have 
 just listened [a comic song by Mr. Banks, illustra- 
 tive of the contempt of the higher-priced dolls ot 
 Lowther Arcade for the lower], has some bearing on 
 my theme. Respectable marriage is 2/3, and the 
 League is decidedly 1/9 (Laughter.) I was rather 
 amused that Mr. Dawson, in the course of his lecture 
 at the Hall of Science, should have thought it necessary 
 to apologise to me for what I might have to endure 
 because I took the chair on the occasion. As I said 
 then, I can bear it. I have borne worse. I did not 
 know until I had a talk with Mrs. Dawson afterwards, 
 what a very great deal she has to endure. It is very 
 easy perhaps it is fun to you gentlemen to be 
 twitted with your connection with the Legitimation 
 League. You can bear it with fortitude, and perhaps 
 rather like it than otherwise, and if the conversation
 
 22Q 
 
 get too bad, you can knock the man down, or threaten 
 to do so, but Mrs. Dawson is not in a position to thus 
 deal with her slanderers, men or women, and in most 
 cases the women are the worst. 
 
 However, we are coming into the daylight and, 
 perhaps, this time next year we shall be better 
 understood. The meeting yesterday at the Hall of 
 Science was more pleasant and favourable than the 
 meeting here last year. i think Mr. Dawson felt 
 yesterday that he had a very good audience, and a 
 very patient hearing. People are already beginning 
 to think over and talk about the aims of the Legitim- 
 ation League, and there is, I am sure, more tolerance 
 in store for it. I think it only wants advocating and 
 knowing to be better appreciated. The public need 
 to be shown that we are not the disreputable beings 
 they imagine we are. I ask you to drink to the 
 success of the Legitimation League, and with it I 
 couple the health of Mrs. Dawson. (Applause.) 
 
 The toast was heartily received. 
 
 Mr. WORDSWORTH DONISTHORPE: Mr. Chairman, 
 Miss Vance, ladies and gentlemen, I have myself to 
 tolerate a good deal of chaff. I will not say more 
 because, as Miss Vance pointed out, what is cruel to 
 a woman is mere chaff to a man I have been told 
 that this League is, if not exactly a criminal 
 association, at all events a despicable and improper 
 association, formed for the purpose (as an Athenceum 
 reviewer said one or my books was written for the 
 purpose) of promoting and excusing butterfly relation- 
 ships. The fact is, I loath .butterfly relationships, 
 believing them to be in all respects unsatisfactory, 
 and I do my best to advocate monogamy. I believe 
 in monogamous unions really and truly so called
 
 230 
 
 unions that are really and essentially unions of 
 hearts and not merely of hands. But the belief 
 prevalent among our enemies is that we favour butter- 
 fly relationships. We do not favour these relations, 
 and it is our own fault that we allow this view to 
 become prevalent. 
 
 Mr. JOHN BADCOCK : I should like to say a word 
 or two, if I am not out of order. Mr. Donisthorpe's 
 remarks appear to me to draw the line rather hard 
 and fast at butterfly relationship. Now the principal 
 thing I like about the Legitimation League is that it 
 is on the side of toleration, and that it seeks to make 
 respectable relationships that are outside ordinary 
 conventional relations. Why should we, in trying to 
 extend the respectability to unorthodox opinions, 
 draw the line at butterfly relationship ? I am not 
 certain that butterfly relationships are ideal relation- 
 ships between the sexes, but in any case I look with 
 equal respect upon butterfly as upon any other sexual 
 relationship. We should not draw a line between 
 those relationships butterfly relationships and any 
 other sexual relations. As long as the two parties to 
 the relationship agreed, and no force was used, I 
 would maintain butterfly relationships as equally-- 
 in my eyes at all events, and I can only speak for 
 myself as equally respectable with other sexual 
 relations, and as deserving to be upheld and tolerated 
 and not despised. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : By the rules of procedure I 
 would advise that Mr. Donisthorpe has the right of 
 reply if he choses to say anything in answer to 
 Mr. Badcock. 
 
 Mr. DONISTHORPE : Well, Mr. Chairman, ladies 
 and gentlemen, I am not sure that I have any right
 
 231 
 
 of reply in an after-dinner meeting- like this, but I 
 should like to say that I, personally, have no objection 
 whatever to butterfly relationships, provided they are 
 confined to those for whom butterfly relationships are 
 sufficient. I have no objection to the arrangements 
 made by the cats on the wall (laughter), but I think 
 in the scale of civilized humanity we have risen a few 
 rungs above that ideal. I honestly believe that the 
 tendency of mankind is towards something in the 
 nature of a monogamous union as long- as it is a 
 tolerable one. When that union is found to be a 
 mistake, when it is productive of nothing- but dis- 
 agreement, discord, and misery, then I think the time 
 is ripe for dissolving that particular union, and bring- 
 ing the relationship to a close. I am sure, however, 
 that Mr. Badcock will not pretend that the arrange- 
 ment by which parties enter into a monogamous 
 union is or should be made of short duration. Those 
 arrangements are intended to be permanent, and in 
 the case of the most highly civilized nations those 
 unions tend to become more and more permanent. 
 I can only say that we, as members of the League, 
 favour monogamous unions, which are the tendency 
 of the age, and desire to remove the fetters that 
 prevent the true union of the sexes. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : I have now to call upon Mr. 
 Fisher, who is, and has been from the commencement, 
 the vice-president of the Legitimation League, who 
 has been mixed up with what we may call its 
 squabbles perhaps what we may call its petty 
 squabbles, but who, throughout all these, has not 
 only perceived but boldly declared that, underlying 
 these, there was a great principle of liberty, which 
 was not to be overshadowed by them. ("By what?")
 
 232 
 
 By those petty squabbles. He has stuck to us faith- 
 fully throughout. He has opposed us. As I explained 
 yesterday morning, he has issued a pamphlet in 
 opposition to our principles. But Mr. Fisher has 
 since adopted our principles principles that are in 
 diametrical contradiction to the views that Mr. Fisher 
 then held. He has recanted, but has not in any way 
 publicly acknowledged his recantation. I do not ask 
 him to do so to-night, but he is here to-night, and I 
 shall ask him to speak, and leave it to him as to what 
 he shall say. 
 
 Mr. GREEVZ FISHER : Mr. Dawson, ladies and 
 gentlemen, my natural modesty has been subjected 
 to a fearful strain by the observations that Mr. 
 Dawson has chosen to make in introducing me. I 
 wish, in the first place, to state that I have no 
 objection to any publicity being given to my acqui- 
 escence in the statement that I wrote the pamphlet 
 on "Illegitimate Children" under a misconception, 
 which I attribute to my want of knowledge of the 
 law. And I believe that Mr. Donisthorpe will excuse 
 my saying that he owns that the remarks which 
 he made at the inaugural meeting of the League at 
 Leeds were somewhat misleading. Speaking as a 
 barrister and member of the Inner Temple, he uttered 
 certain observations that were calculated to lead a 
 mere layman like myself into the supposition that 
 an illegitimate child was saddled with serious legal 
 disability. The real position, as I now understand 
 it, is that the illegitimate child is not altogether 
 an illegitimate person ; that although the illegiti- 
 mate person cannot be the son or brother to 
 anybody, because the law does not take any 
 cognizance of his coming into the world in regard
 
 2 33 
 
 to inheritance, yet he may be a legitimate father, 
 and in all the other functions of life a legitimate 
 person. Having set off with a mistaken idea, I 
 elaborated it in a pamphlet, which has been in every 
 respect a mistake. With regard to the position of 
 this League, let me say that I am sorry that Mr. 
 Donisthorpe was so much hurt by the phrase 
 "butterfly relationship," because, on the whole, I 
 think butterflies are rather pretty things. (Laughter.) 
 I do not think we ought to protest against butterflies 
 and their doings, but at the same time I thought that 
 Mr. Badcock's exposition in reply to Mr. Donisthorpe 
 was absolutely uncalled for. on this ground : that it is 
 inconceivable to us that butterflies could acknowledge 
 their children, legitimate or otherwise, and seek to 
 have conferred upon them the status of legitimacy, 
 or that they could record their arrangements to pro- 
 vide for the maintenance of offspring yet unborn; and 
 these are amongst the things which the Legitimation 
 League proposes to do. I am very glad we have had 
 a notifying clerk appointed. I am, unfortunately, 
 lawfully married (laughter) and have got four 
 children, but I do not see why I should not acknow- 
 ledge them in the manner prescribed by the 
 Legitimation League ; and when it has a form of 
 acknowledgment drawn up, it is my intention to 
 acknowledge these children whom I know about and 
 believe to be mine. I am only waiting until Mr. 
 Dawson gets the forms prepared, and my children 
 shall be i, 2, 3, and 4. Then we have to consider 
 whether the League should require that those who 
 acknowledge their children or register their unions, 
 should consent to the publication of the unions. 
 With respect to this, I think that having regard to
 
 234 
 
 the relationship that would be entered into, it would 
 be beneficial on the whole to have them made public, 
 but at the same time I do not think that it would be 
 wise for this League to dogmatise. Some of my 
 children are not registered in the Government books. 
 Some of them are, but others are not, and I prefer to 
 rely upon private individuals registering than upon 
 Government registration registration being, as I 
 consider, a function with which Government has 
 nothing whatever to do. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. CRAWSHAY : I wish to say a word or two 
 about the Legitimation League. I think the scope 
 of the legitimation proposed is too narrow. Although 
 two individuals have a right to enter into any rela- 
 tionship they choose, yet in the present state of 
 public opinion the consequences of their union entail 
 hardship. The nature of their alliance throws a 
 certain amount of obloquy upon, and an obstacle in 
 the way of, the offspring they bring into the world ; 
 and the League, I think, seems to be mistaken in not 
 trying to do away with the social ostracism that 
 attaches to illegitimacy, so far, I mean, as the 
 children themselves are concerned. The very word 
 " illegitimate " is objectionable in many ways, that is 
 to say, any one called "illegitimate," or " bastard," 
 is looked down upon not so much, perhaps, now as 
 formerly. It appears to me that the League pro- 
 poses to retain the word " illegitimate " as a descrip- 
 tion of all children not acknowledged in the way 
 the League prescribes, which happen to be born out 
 of wedlock. (The Chairman : Hear, hear.) I think 
 it would be helpful to the children of such unions if 
 we that is, the League tried to introduce some 
 other words, and dispensed with the objectionable 
 terms "illegitimate child" and " bastard."
 
 2 35 
 
 Mr. ASHDOWN JONES : So far as I can see, the 
 League does not wish to cast any stigma upon 
 children because they happen to be born out of 
 wedlock. It is rather the other way : the League 
 wants to acknowledge them and legitimatise them. 
 If you ask a Frenchwoman who has a child "Are 
 you married?" or "Is that child born in wedlock?" 
 she will go for you like a tigress. She will indig- 
 nantly reply " No, but he is acknowledged ! " She 
 regards that as enough, and considers her child 
 legitimate. She does not look upon her child as 
 under any social stigma whatever. Since my atten- 
 tion has been more forcibly directed to this subject 
 by the writings of Mr. Donisthorpe, 1 feel myself 
 bound to admit that in the present state of public 
 opinion many people more especially the feminine 
 part of the community have a great objection to 
 risking their reputation by embarking in a sort of 
 connection that they regard as an uncertain union. 
 But that objection could be got over if, before a lady 
 formed a licit alliance, she had a contract drawn up 
 recognising her union, and providing for any possible 
 or probable offspring according to the terms decided 
 upon. If you had the unions under contract the 
 people would know what they had to expect, and 
 what they would have to face, and these contracts, 
 like any other contracts, would be liable to be 
 rescinded by mutual agreement. 
 
 After several conversational speeches dealing 
 with the topics discussed during the evening, the 
 company dispersed.
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 THE SECOND ANNUAL MEETING. 
 
 A Shorthand Note was taken by Mr. HARRY TOOTHILL, of the 
 Leeds School of Shorthand. 
 
 THE Second Annual Meeting of the Legitimation 
 League was held at the offices, Albion Walk 
 Chambers, Leeds, on Saturday afternoon, 3oth 
 March, 1895, Mr. J. GREEVZ FISHER, Vice-President, in 
 the chair. The Hon. Secretary read the letter con- 
 vening the meeting, and apologies for absence from 
 the President and others, including one from Mr. 
 Badcock having intimate bearing on the aims of the 
 League. Mr. BADCOCK expressed himself as follows : 
 " I have just read Grant Allen's The Woman Who 
 Did. It is the finest thing I've read on the subject. 
 I fall in absolutely with Herminia Barton's ideas. No 
 legitimating, no registering, nor anything of that 
 kind. It is a matter of privacy, with which the 
 outside world has nothing at all to do. The cere- 
 monising, even the advertising in the papers (the 
 latter a great advance upon bowing down to com- 
 pulsory regulations, but nevertheless a kind of 
 voluntary binding, from which, having been made 
 public, a withdrawal is mortifying and perhaps 
 impossible), is an affront upon the purity, the sacred-
 
 237 
 
 ness of the bond of affection. Hence it appears to 
 me that mating should be absolutely severed from 
 all officialism, and children should all be 'illegitimate' 
 (in the sense in which that word is used now)." 
 
 Mr. J. C. SPENCE, whose visit to Leeds was 
 unavoidably postponed until a later date, wrote in a 
 counter strain of the work in question. He said 
 
 " For my part the lofty sentiments 
 
 of Grant Allen are simply loathsome. The idea that 
 we are to share the woman we love with other men 
 is repulsive. If children are to be dropped into a 
 foundling hospital for the parish to look after, as per 
 Bellamy, or looked after by the mother, as per Grant 
 Allen, then promiscuity is the only rational conse- 
 quence, but I can see nothing lofty in it. It is a 
 reversion to an inferior and beastly type. If parents 
 are to share responsibility in children, as I think they 
 ought, then definite relations must be formed between 
 the parents. I believe there are only two possible or 
 practical methods for this privacy in a harem, or 
 publicly acknowledged relationship." 
 
 Mr. FISHER : I am certainly at variance with 
 Mr. Badcock. The whole object of the Legitimation 
 League is to try to arrange for acknowledgment of the 
 family ties without being subject to the life-long bond 
 which, in a great many instances, produces injury, 
 both to parents and also to the children ; instead of 
 realising the blessing of family life, it really converts 
 family life into one of the greatest possible curses'. 
 We do not in our objects express that as one of the 
 things which we aim at, but it undoubtedly would 
 imply that in any attempt to acknowledge children 
 that there shall be some relationship of constancy 
 between the parties, therefore to accept Mr. Badcock's
 
 238 
 
 suggestion would be tantamount to disbanding the 
 League. It would have no purpose whatever in 
 existence. 
 
 The HON. SEC. explained that copies of these 
 letters had been sent to each member of the League, 
 and from several of these and from strangers he had 
 been asked to give his opinion of The Woman 
 Who Did, and therefore, after the report had been 
 presented and the balance sheet read by the Trea- 
 surer, he would attempt a criticism of that book 
 
 The report showed that the membership had 
 doubled since 1893. No canvass for adherents had 
 been attemped. Mr. Arthur Cornwell had been 
 appointed Notifying Clerk, and the announcement 
 already made to every member, that the League was 
 now open to register alliances with or without the 
 publicity of newspaper advertising, would shortly be 
 made public. A cheap edition of Mr. J. C. Spence's 
 book on the Dawn of Civilisation, containing a 
 chapter on Marriage, would be issued simultaneously 
 with the First Biennial Proceedings of the League, and 
 sent to all members who paid their subscriptions of 
 1/6 and upwards for the year then past. In relation 
 to the income of the League, a large sum had been 
 spent in advertising. The proposal to form a fund, 
 with a nucleus of ^200, offered by the Honorary 
 Secretary, had been abandoned, having been found 
 to involve insuperable difficulties, and the money 
 paid had been devoted to the general purposes of 
 the League, which forthwith would pay a nominal 
 salary annually to its notifying clerk. The Report 
 was adopted, and it was agreed that a copy of the 
 report be sent to every member of the League. 
 
 Mrs. OSWALD DAWSON, Treasurer, then presented 
 the balance sheet, which was as follows :
 
 2 39 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 o o 
 
 M 
 
 vO vO '-i 
 
 vo 
 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 t^ 
 
 O f3 O 
 
 00 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 V, 
 
 
 v^jT r^ i^ co *o Ti~ 
 
 O O 00 
 
 10 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 n 
 
 vo 
 
 -< 
 
 l-l > 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 VO 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i O ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en .^ 
 
 ^ *-* 
 
 
 
 
 r. 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD ^ 
 
 4 
 
 ^ r/i 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 If) 
 
 ON 
 
 00 
 
 DITURE. 
 
 b .5 tn _X 
 
 : Ji U -^ a- : 'o "o : : 
 
 OSMVQ 
 
 vT 
 
 CO 
 
 <^ 
 
 EXPEN 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1] 
 
 us \j 
 
 J 0) 
 
 5 XJ 
 J C/} 
 
 
 LADYS 
 
 | 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ^^ 
 
 5^11 
 
 1 <u ii o 
 ' ^ c 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .23 
 
 ^ 
 
 aj 
 
 -,-c o^ 
 
 \ Cy r -, C^ 
 
 <1> v^/ *t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . " 
 
 j< 
 
 ' p"~. 1 
 
 ^ cd 
 
 
 
 *S* 
 
 
 
 
 4-1 
 
 t: -^ 
 
 ^ ^-^ ^^ 
 
 " r*^ CO 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 > .5 o o -g & c^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 T 
 
 UH 
 
 
 J (C i_ 
 
 ) P-) W 
 
 
 
 sr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-H 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 vD 
 
 
 
 ! |S 
 
 
 M 
 
 ^ 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 "Sa 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 vO 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 *T 
 
 - 
 
 0< 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 vO 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 'C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 cu 
 
 <!^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 H 
 
 !. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |V\ 
 
 
 
 tj ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 w 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 04 
 
 ^5 
 
 "2 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _G 
 
 ed 
 
 .9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 _"o, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 'C 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 M 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 g 
 
 JD 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 Uoo 
 
 "S 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 N
 
 240 
 
 MR. OSWALD DAWSON then spoke as follows : 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen, The Woman Who Did bore 
 in title so striking" a resemblance to The Woman Who 
 Dans, by Ursula Gestefeld, that when I first saw it I, 
 as it were, automatically anticipated a novel which 
 would delight our transatlantic comrades, and such a 
 book we indeed have in The Woman Who DU. Its 
 terrific meaning was soon perceived by the English 
 critics. Mr. W. T. Stead met it with a full-page illustra- 
 tion of Botticelli's " Virgin and Child." Of these two 
 the child gave up his life as a sacrifice not specially 
 for the mother's sake. In The Woman Who Did the 
 woman immolated herself solely for the child's sake. 
 
 Mr. G. W. Foote, who is known not to favour the 
 theological training of children in order to spare them 
 social trouble, is quite sympathetic with Herminia's 
 daughter when she protests against her illegitimate 
 origin, and he considers Herminia's answers ineffect- 
 ive, though word for word with what he would 
 commend to a free-thought mother. " How could I 
 foresee you would turn aside from your mother's 
 creed?" I apologise Mr. Foote would not have 
 commended any such question in reply. He would 
 advise a mother to teach a child the truth, whatever 
 she foresaw. 
 
 There is another leading comment of the critics 
 which does not appeal to me. Grant Allen is blamed 
 for the suicide of the heroine. I regret this in so far 
 as it associates felo-de-se and " free love " in people's 
 minds ; but, having regard to the motive of the act, 
 it identifies disbelief in marriage with self-sacrifice for 
 children. Above all it shows that reformers are 
 human, even when they are women. 
 
 Herminia Barton was guilty of one gross remiss-
 
 241 
 
 ness. Herminia Barton, I say not Grant Allen, for 
 he has given us a picture of humanity with its inevi- 
 table fallibility, and this book would have appealed far 
 less keenly to us had the heroine been ideally logical, 
 ideally strong", and ideally right in every way, and 
 therefore infinitely less like ourselves and that re- 
 missness was in keeping secret, from her daughter, 
 the mystery of the latter's origin. One day Dolly 
 asked her mother, "Did you marry your cousin?" 
 She had noticed the identity of her mother's and 
 grandfather's names. Herminia's reply was : "Your 
 dear father was not related to me in any way," given in 
 a tone that closed the discussion. Then we read, " In 
 time Herminia sent her child to a day-school," and 
 here the enquiries as to her antecedents became to 
 her a source of anxiety. Still she dares not question. 
 How painful, how probable, how pitiful, how true; 
 the moment for disclosure never to come, though the 
 days came and seasons changed, and years rolled on. 
 Not until her lover had exhibited some slight change 
 of demeanour, having learned something "about her 
 family," does Dolly appear to raise the question 
 again then to learn of her illegitimacy. Dolly's 
 intense horror and distraction, on solving the problem, 
 and her resolution not to marry whilst Herminia lives, 
 because " she could not think of burdening an honest 
 man with such a mother-in-law," with the resultant 
 suicide of Herminia, may partake of the licence of 
 fiction. Licence there may be, but it is the licence of 
 exaggeration only, not psychological distortion. In 
 their frailty mother and child are alike human. 
 
 If we recognise this we shall see what eminent 
 service the book renders in serving to shew the kind 
 of persecution we of the Legitimation League may 
 
 Q
 
 242 
 
 expect to meet. It is not simply a question of ranking 
 at a disadvantage with regard to inheritance, nor even 
 of occupying some invidious position in the classifi- 
 cation of parish registers of the Poor Law Authorities, 
 if you come to want their services. It is not merely 
 that one's friends and relations will not cultivate your 
 company. The boycott ramifies. 
 
 Herminia's father was Dean of Dunwich, and 
 "people said he might have risen to be a Bishop in 
 his time if it hadn't been for that unfortunate episode 
 about his daughter and young Merrick." Young 
 Merrick died, and in ten years' time Herminia fell in 
 love with Harvey Kynaston. He wished to marry, 
 she declined. She would be to him all that she had 
 been to Alan Merrick, but not his wife. Well, what 
 does Harvey say ? He loves her, and " in theory " he 
 "accepts her points of view," but he "couldn't con- 
 sent to take her her own way. His faith was too 
 weak, his ambitions were too earthly." " He was a 
 brilliant economist, with a future before him. He 
 aimed at the Cabinet." Now this young man certainly 
 had a head larger than his heart ; he realised that to 
 climb into the Cabinet required the practice of respect- 
 able connubiality, and they who wish to get within 
 sight of a See will find the same thing. 
 
 And this brings me to a consideration of con- 
 siderable importance as affecting the "characters " of 
 persons who eschew the legal ceremony. I have 
 been assured by the solicitor to the League that the 
 applicant for a licence under the liquor laws of this 
 land would stand no chance of success if the " free " 
 character of the alliance he or she had formed were 
 not strictly concealed. Howsoever entirely compe- 
 tent, sober, and otherwise respectable a man or woman
 
 2 43 
 
 might be, however dependent upon hotel management 
 as upon the one business to which he or she had been 
 brought up, however much the needs of the neigh- 
 bourhood call for an hotel, however old the licensed 
 premises might be, and choose what the applicant 
 might have paid for the goodwill or the freehold, the 
 bar to earning a living as an hotel-keeper is erected 
 against him or her. One can appreciate the fact of 
 the State refusing to elect as master and matron, at 
 any of its institutions where this dual, control is 
 needed, persons living out of wedlock. There is at 
 least the pretence that the servants advertised for 
 thus in double harness will be wanted to work 
 together in perpetuity, and that if unmarried there 
 is greater likelihood of the dual service discon- 
 tinuing, and so occasioning the inconvenience of 
 a change of employes. But this line of argument 
 will scarcely apply to landlords and landladies 
 of the only licensed house within a radius of 
 ten or two miles. This disability is the more unfor- 
 tunate from another point of view. Mine host and 
 hostess at an hotel, with their visitor's book, might 
 be eminently fit persons as a class to assist in the 
 notification of alliances. This I merely throw out as 
 a suggestion, to any development of which there at 
 once arise conceivable objections from the business 
 point of view. 
 
 When the hero and heroine of The Woman 
 Who Did journeyed to Italy, ' ; Alan entered their 
 names at all the hotels where they stopped as 
 'Mr. and Mrs. Alan Merrick, of London.' That 
 deception, as Herminia held it, cost her many qualms 
 of conscience ; but Alan, with masculine common 
 sense, was firm upon the point that no other descrip-
 
 244 
 
 tion was practically possible." At a Milan hotel, when 
 a clergyman, turning to Alan, remarked, "Your wife 
 is a very advanced lady," " Herminia longed to blurt 
 out the whole simple truth, ' I am not his wife/ etc., 
 but a warning glance from Alan made her hold her 
 peace." For hotel purposes it has always seemed to 
 me right and proper that couples should pass as man 
 and wife. That false representation is involved only 
 a stickler for verbal truth would contend. Neither 
 the hotel proprietor nor one's fellow guests would 
 thank you for going out of the way to explain any- 
 thing about legitimation or licit love, or anything of 
 the kind, and in common conversation the use of the 
 terms husband and wife will be found a convenience 
 about which few will share the scruples of Herminia 
 Barton ; though the enthusiast will not unwisely 
 renounce them, except in parlance with entire 
 strangers, where the promulgation of heresies might 
 be deemed unpolite aggression, as having legal 
 connotations which he hates, and insist as far as 
 possible on those with whom he comes in contact 
 using the expression paramour, or other word, partly 
 by request that they will oblige by so doing, but 
 principally by the force of example in employing that 
 or other agreed upon term whenever reference is to be 
 made to the reputed husband or wife. The objection is 
 intelligible enough for these terms have a meaning 
 at law, and it is no secret that I myself systematically 
 eschew them, " except for hotel purposes " ; but the 
 like does not apply to the use of the term " Mrs." 
 That is a courtesy title not occurring in statutes, and it 
 is one for which there is no synonym. Its convenience 
 arises from the fact that in a general way, that is to 
 say, except in the case of widows, it indicates that a
 
 245 
 
 woman is not open to advances. Men cease to be 
 " Masters " and become " Misters " without regard to 
 their marital relations, but whether they gain by so 
 doing I know not. So long as men hold purse, so 
 long will they do the wooing, and so in their case there 
 is less need to have a warning-off " handle" to their 
 names. This is the best reason I can give why a 
 master is transformed into a mister by the simple 
 process of attaining maturity, and the mere fact that 
 it happens to be the custom, seems no sufficient 
 reason why a miss should become transformed into a 
 mistress without better cause. On the other hand, if, 
 as often happens, an unmarried lady, for purpose of 
 dignity or other reason, elects to be styled by the 
 maturer term, the worst that can be said about her 
 is that she is probably trying to deceive people into 
 thinking that she has not been left behind in the 
 matrimonial race. 
 
 After Alan's death, " Herminia was known to 
 the friends, who by and bye gathered round her, as 
 Mrs. Barton." No one, so far as I know, contends 
 that a man ought to take the woman's name, so the 
 issue is not which partner shall surrender, but 
 whether there shall be identity or no. It is a 
 fortunate occurrence that in the novel there is a 
 child, Dolores Barton, who took her mother's name. 
 Now if there be anything in a name to indicate 
 ascendancy, the conferring of the mother's name 
 on the child surely points to a form of matriarchal 
 regime which may or may not be commendable to 
 feminine or to masculine feeling or reason, but which 
 is certainly not contemplated in the objects of the 
 Legitimation League. No one can be more thoroughly 
 conscious than myself that those objects do not repre-
 
 246 
 
 sent the length and breadth of needed sexual reforms, 
 but that by the way. I suppose what my correspon- 
 dents wish to know is in what respect the alliance of 
 Alan Merrick and Herminia Barton falls short of my 
 ideal. Personally I dissent from the retention of 
 either the maiden name or the maiden prefix for a 
 " paramour," or " reputed wife." Yet in relation to 
 other innovations advocated in this book, this matter 
 of nomenclature has a comparative unimportance. 
 Alan and Herminia do not reside together. To do so 
 would be to encourage a " simple ancestral notion 
 derived from man's lordship in his own house. ' 
 Unfortunately Alan dies before Dolly is born, so 
 whether Herminia would have found it necessary to 
 surrender her liberty to live apart as she had yielded 
 in the matter of her name whilst on a continental 
 journey, when there was a child, who was to be 
 " half hers, half his, ' or whether the child would 
 have divided her time at the two residences, one 
 cannot tell. 
 
 If couples are not to live together if the wife is 
 to cease to do the house-keeper's work it is obvious 
 that some portion of her husband's money will be di- 
 verted from her. She may be earning as cook or com- 
 panion, or otherwise, at home, but if she is to receive 
 from him aseries of presents given by usage and equiva- 
 lent to an income or allowance, in the average of cases 
 the parental supply will tend to cease. If she is not to 
 receive such presents constituting an allowance, what 
 is to become of the sum which the average man 
 ceases to contribute or partially ceases to contri- 
 bute to the maintenance of another class of women 
 when he takes a wife ? Herminia continued to teach 
 at school till her condition made it necessary for her
 
 247 
 
 place to be vacated, her future intention being to turn 
 to literature for a living. Now this may have been 
 Herminia Barton's fancy with a dash of principle 
 thrown in but it was not by any means her full 
 philosophy. We are clearly told that the indepen- 
 dence of women is to be brought about, not by tuition 
 or literature, nor needlework, nor nursing, but by 
 collective support of woman, " by the whole body of 
 men who do the hard work of the world." So that 
 the surplus income I have referred to will be wanted 
 for taxes. The question will then arise : What 
 option of occupation will be afforded to woman ? 
 and parenthetically I should like to enquire how 
 the problem of prostitution is to be dealt with when 
 woman has been nationalised. Has not our economic 
 excursion brought us back to the point whether the 
 monogamic marriage with a residence in common is 
 not the highest form even though the man pays the 
 tax-gatherer and the tax-gatherer pays the woman ? 
 It is in answer to this important question that Mr. 
 Grant Allen is not perfectly clear. In denunciation of 
 legal marriage The Woman Who Did is magnificent. 
 That comes in chapter 3. In chapter 17 come fierce 
 denunciations of monopolies, including "the monopoly 
 of the human heart, which is known as marriage." 
 ' Not by levelling down, but by levelling up," is the 
 moral equality of the sexes to be brought about. 
 The level of men obviously needs to be defined. 
 Pre-marital lapses we may assume to be normal and 
 excusable. Are women to indulge likewise? The 
 new woman, w r hose ideal of a life work is not the 
 enforcement by legal process or moral suasion of an 
 equal standard, will know that she has to reckon with 
 the developments of Neo-malthusianism for other
 
 248 
 
 cause than that they are possibly subversive of pre- 
 vailing ethical principles. The creator of Herminia 
 Barton doubtless realises this, though The Woman 
 Who Did 'is destitute of allusion to this transcendentally 
 important factor in the fermenting ethical code. 
 
 In what way, then, one has to ask, does Herminia 
 Barton's alliance differ from the conventional one ? 
 Her whole recorded life shows her chaste and without 
 suspicion. We are assured that she and Harvey 
 Kynaston, for all the years of their acquaintanceship, 
 were " loyal friends no more." Even in her relation 
 with Alan she was as precise as any Quaker: "We 
 must say to one another in so many words, I am 
 yours, you are mine," she said, and she was alarmed 
 lest in the absence of such contract they should ' slip 
 by degrees into some vague arrangement they hardly 
 contemplated definitely." Though for six months 
 she resided in Chelsea, and he in Lincoln's Inn, 
 subsequently she lived with him by sheer force of the 
 circumstance that they were together on the Continent 
 till his death. She took his name and the title of 
 " Mrs." She probably would have retained these on 
 their return. The journey to Italy was not a honey- 
 moon. It was undertaken as a discretionary measure 
 conceived by Alan for the avoidance of scandal at 
 home, and one which by no means commended itself 
 to Herminia, who, however, gave in. 
 
 It is not recorded that Herminia objected to the 
 institution of the honeymoon, but she did object to 
 any social functions answering to a wedding; indeed, 
 " publicity of any sort was most odious and horrible," 
 and so the alliance was not advertised or otherwise 
 recorded. Had the Legitimation League effected its 
 objects in a Parliamentary sense, doubtless Alan
 
 249 
 
 would have persuaded Herminia to register their 
 alliance, if only for the gain to their children ; and 
 seeing that the former died without signing his will, 
 the wisdom of this step would have been fully 
 demonstrated. But I, for one, cannot admit the 
 alleged privacy of marital unions, though agreeing 
 that it should not be compulsory to advertise them 
 which is not quite the same thing as recording them. 
 Residuary legatees and others entitled to benefit 
 under wills may have a direct interest and title to 
 enquire as to the descendants of any person. But 
 pending the Parliamentary progress of the principle 
 of legitimation an idea altogether too chimerical to 
 be entertained in this generation the desirability of 
 recording alliances is a point upon which stress should 
 be laid. The way to effect a change in the law, in 
 the sentiment which leads to change in the law, is to 
 shew that there is a public need for such a register. 
 Again, the possibility that the Act might be retro- 
 spective in character may be mentioned if it be pro- 
 fitable to dwell any further on the legislative side of 
 the question. Apart from that aspect, the following 
 claims in favour of the registration, and even the 
 advertising of alliances, may be put forward. If it 
 makes the snapping of the tie more difficult, if 
 it mortifies, this surely must be set down as a gain if 
 we have still trust in monogamy. Most people, again, 
 regard the entering upon conjugal relations as a 
 matter for congratulation, and therefore desire the 
 fact to be more or less widely known. Is it not well 
 for this pride to be encouraged ? Whilst illicit love 
 is common must not registration serve a useful pur- 
 pose in distinguishing those who have bared their 
 heads to the image of the goddess of Constancy from
 
 those who are serving convenience without risk of 
 " mortification " from an act of change ? Or is every 
 man to pass everywhere with whatever woman he 
 happens to be living with or have " in keeping'' away 
 from his own home ? How useful, again, is a record 
 in enabling those who are approached to ascertain 
 what other ties may bind the candidate for the favours 
 of love. Or are we to say that this is best left to 
 personal enquiry, based on high trust in human 
 veracity for expectation of a true reply? or upon 
 trust in an effectual working of a law dealing with 
 those who have coupled their bigamies with fraud ? 
 Without advertising, or at least recording, how is the 
 light of the Women Who Do to shine, are their 
 brave deeds to leak out by vague report, and become 
 differentiated from fragments of scandal only by in- 
 vestigation of their motives ? I apprehend that we 
 are rather more likely to move in a contrary direction, 
 and perhaps express our faith in monogamy, qualified 
 by freedom, by some symbol, which may at one and the 
 same time indicate the fetters and the freedom. What 
 this should be, without being fanciful or misleading, it 
 would be difficult to say; but as a fancy which might, 
 however, mislead, I have often thought a splinter-bar 
 an emblem worth a vote. It instantly conjures up 
 the matrimonial state of being in ''double harness," 
 and it may be taken as also pointing to the fact or 
 condition of being separable with ease. How im- 
 portant is registration for statistical purposes ! Or 
 shall we contend that the number of alliances formed, 
 and their duration, are matters of no concern to the 
 sociologist. 
 
 The extra-legal advantages, direct and incidental, 
 of registration are many and great, and the draw-
 
 25 1 
 
 backs what ? The constraint that is placed on ill- 
 assorted couples in the speedy dissolution of their 
 bonds in reality a gain ; and an offence against 
 decency in proclaiming to the world a change of 
 habit involving matters of delicacy. One most 
 respected officer of this League, in a letter read to- 
 day, has characterised this objection as cant. I con- 
 sider it a hyper-sensitive objection to which no 
 recrudescence of Puritanism is likely to give counten- 
 ance. Announcements of births might be similarly 
 objected to, whilst the custom of reporting celebrities 
 enciente would vanish, and the practice of making 
 known engagements be ruled indecorous. If the moral- 
 ity of the future is to develop on the lines foreshadowed 
 with appalling bareness of detail in The Woman Who 
 Did, and women are to " henceforth be the equals of 
 men, not by levelling down, but by levelling up ; not 
 by fettering the man, but by elevating, emancipating, 
 unshackling the woman " ; then I apprehend that 
 the publication of alliances will become more popular 
 than ever, and more extensive in scope, affecting 
 those also who are merely " engaged." But, after all, 
 let it be recognised that with "unshackling" of the 
 character indicated, this League is unconcerned, 
 though any review of The Woman Who Did, from 
 the reformer's standpoint, would be woefully incom- 
 plete which ignored it altogether.
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 THE ADVERTISING AGENT'S VIEWS. 
 
 AN intention to advertise is one thing ; to advertise 
 an intention is another, and quite a different 
 affair. On page nine of this volume, an an- 
 nouncement appears to which I sought to give 
 newspaper publicity. 
 
 On the 28th September, 1894, Mr. Evan 
 Streachan, Advertising Contractor, 295, Strand, 
 established 1855, wrote me, having noticed that the 
 League had spent ^220 145. 6d. in advertising, 
 pointing out certain advantages of transacting such 
 business through an agent, and asking to receive our 
 orders in the future. 
 
 On the 25th February, 1895, Mr. Streachan 
 wrote as follows : 
 
 " I shall be pleased to be appointed Advertising 
 Agent to the Legitimation League, and will at all 
 times do my best for same." 
 
 Mr. Streachan made very good use of the money 
 I entrusted to him to advertise my lecture in the Hall 
 of Science, and I was proud to place his name in an 
 official way on the League. I announced Mr.
 
 2 53 
 
 Streachan's willingness to undertake the office at the 
 last Bedford dinner, and added " I met Mr. Evan 
 Streachan this morning", and explained to him exactly 
 what he might be called upon to do, viz., to advertise 
 the alliances of persons who might possibly be the 
 parents of illegitimate children, but who desired to 
 acknowledge them." (See page 227). 
 
 On the 26th August, 1895, I wrote instructing 
 Mr. Streachan to insert the Dunton advertisement, 
 and the Prelude to it, in four London papers, viz., 
 The Times, Pall Mall Gazette, Weekly Times and 
 Echo, and the Freethinker.* Mr. Streachan replied 
 with thanks, and regretted that not one of the papers 
 mentioned would accept the advertisement. Think- 
 ing that there might have been some hitch in 
 consequence of the restrictions placed upon the price 
 and space, I re-wrote to Mr. Streachan respecting 
 these points. On the 2gth of August, 1895, I 
 received the following letter. " Dear Sir, The 
 Papers will not insert either of your advertisements 
 at any price. I therefore again return your matter." 
 (The two advertisements referred to relate to the 
 Dunton announcement and the prelude thereto). 
 Considering this rather curious, Mr. and Mrs. 
 Dunton, who were staying with us, wrote to each of 
 the papers named, and from each received a reply 
 that the advertisements had never been submitted. 
 On the 6th of September, I wrote to Mr. Streachan 
 thus, " Dear Sir, I enclose copies of the following 
 letters (i) Letter of Mr. and Mrs. Dunton to each of 
 the four papers alleged by you to have refused the 
 advertisement I sent you ; (2), (3), (4). (5) copies of 
 
 * Certain restrictions were laid down as to space and price, but they are 
 immaterial to the question at issue.
 
 254 
 
 the replies from these papers. I have now to ask you 
 whether you can give me any explanation." The 
 following explanation duly came to hand. " Dear 
 Sir, In reply to yours of 6th inst. As one of the 
 oldest Advertising Agents in Great Britain, I exercised 
 my discretion on behalf of the papers named, and 
 replied to you that they would not accept your adver- 
 tisement for insertion. I admit I did not try, but 
 acting on long experience, I was confident the order 
 would be refused, and I did not desire to give 
 unnecessary trouble. It was to my interest to have 
 the advertisements inserted, as by their non-appear- 
 ance I lost my commission. Yours faithfully, Chas. 
 Evan Streachan." 
 
 I then submitted the advertisements direct to the 
 papers. The Weekly Times and Echo, and the 
 Freethinker accepted them without curtailment or 
 any modification. The Times and Pall Mall Gazt-tte 
 refused them ; so when next in London I called at 
 their respective offices and discussed the matter. 
 Both agreed to re-consider. Mr. Dunton sent the 
 following advertisement to the two papers. " Births. 
 Dunton, on the 4th February, 1894, the reputed wife 
 of W. F. Dunton, of London, of a daughter. 
 Millicent Louisa, acknowledged before the Notifying 
 Clerk of the Legitimation League, Albion Walk 
 Chambers, Leeds, on the igth July, 1895." Both 
 again declined. The announcement was then sub- 
 mitted in the following form as being probably 
 slightly milder than the preceding notice of birth. 
 In an accompanying letter I said," It aims to be as 
 mild as possible, consistent with the serving of any 
 useful purpose whatever from our standpoint." 
 "Marriage. Dunton-Briggs, 12 November, 1893.
 
 William F. Dunton to Emma M. A. Briggs, both of 
 London, without legal ceremony. Recorded before 
 the Notifying Clerk of the Legitimation League, 
 Albion Walk Chambers, Leeds, igth July, 1895." 
 The Pall Ma/l Gazette accepted it ; the Times refused 
 it. The Prelude and the original announcement 
 appeared in the Leeds Express and Leeds Daily News, 
 of the evening papers, and in the weekly Leeds Times 
 and Skyrack Courier ; whilst the Prelude appeared as 
 news in the Owl. It was refused by the Leeds Mercury 
 and Yorkshire Post, and by the Yorkshire Evening 
 Post. The copy sent to the last-named paper was 
 headed " Declined by the Yorkshire Post! ! (Morning)" 
 which may in some way have accounted for its non- 
 appearance. It was declined by the Evening Post 
 for the same reasons as the Yorkshire Post, as con- 
 tained in the latter's reply. Those reasons were that 
 the proprietors were advised by the Directors to 
 decline insertion. As this seemed, perhaps, a 
 reasonable answer, but hardly an answer giving 
 reasons, I quoted it to the Evening Post, and enquired : 
 " Have I to understand that the fact of the Directors 
 having advised, in a given manner, itself constitutes 
 the reasons referred to, or are there reasons of a less 
 general kind with which your letter presumes that 
 I am already acquainted, but of which I know 
 nothing ? " I received no reply to this enquiry. The 
 Mercury declined for the reason that the proprietors 
 " do not consider the advertisements suitable for 
 insertion." 
 
 The Weekly Times and Echo, as I have said, in- 
 serted the announcements, which were duly ordered 
 on Sept. 8th, a quotation for price having been 
 obtained. Intimation was sent that prepayment
 
 256 
 
 must be made, the note-paper bearing a printed 
 notice that " the first edition is published Thursday 
 afternoon." A cheque for something over five guineas 
 was posted on the Wednesday, in time for first London 
 delivery. The advertisements did not appear in the 
 first edition, which, I understand, has a large sale in 
 the country, and is, in fact, the only edition of the 
 paper seen by many thousands. I called at the office 
 and expressed my opinion of the unfairness of this 
 method of conducting business, and was assured by 
 a gentleman in charge of the advertising department, 
 that it was all in order, and that I should gain 
 nothing by appealing to those above him. 
 
 The shorter advertisement of Marriage without 
 legal ceremony, which was accepted by the Pall Mall 
 Gazette, for some reason or other did not appear in 
 the early editions of the issue of the first day for 
 which it was ordered (Saturday). I wrote, bringing 
 the fact before the notice of the Advertising Manager, 
 who responded that the announcement would appear 
 in all editions of the day following the expiration of 
 the order to make up for the omission. Thus do the 
 ethical notions of business differ amongst London 
 journals. 
 
 The precise lesson of the latter part of this 
 chapter it is difficult to draw. The most promi- 
 nent truth seems to me to be that we must not 
 be impatient of the methods of the Press, having 
 regard to the fact that the Fourth Estate is worth all 
 the other three put together to those with a mission 
 for reform. We must remember by what network of 
 difficulties, too, all, or almost all, newspapers are 
 surrounded their multiple proprietary, their sensitive 
 readers, their advertising custom, the appalling
 
 257 
 
 rapidity of their processes, rendering' decisions ordi- 
 narily instantaneous, etc., etc. and, bearing 1 these 
 in mind, must be thankful for net gains, which are 
 no small mercies, without enquiring too closely 
 whether any particular paper has been faithless with- 
 out clear cause, or whether its business methods are 
 in precise accord with our own notions of scrupulous 
 fairness.* 
 
 As to the position of an advertising agent, I pre- 
 fer to leave the correspondence given above without 
 comment. Let him excuse who can. 
 
 * I should like to add another illustration of the peculiar nature 
 of the newspaper trade. In the evening papers, which come out 
 sometimes befre noon, and continuously up to six or later, it is nothing 
 unusual for news to appear in one edition and not in another. But 
 one would hardly expect this in a morning paper. Yet the first 
 edition of the Leeds Mercury of November iSth, 1895, contained an 
 excellent report of a League meeting held in London on the i6th ; 
 yet this report I was unable to trace in the later editions circulating 
 in the City itself. Whether the people of Leeds, and roundabout, 
 have an expurgated edition of the Mercury, or whether the report 
 was cut out to make room for more important and later news, I do 
 not presume to say.
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE. 
 
 E Dunton advertisement, as printed in the Pall 
 Mall Gazette, was soon to be repeated. It 
 came about in this wise. Miss Edith Lan- 
 chester, a lady of 24 summers, and daughter of a 
 Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 
 a candidate at a recent School Board Election, a 
 winner of honors in the science studies of the schools, 
 and who had matriculated at the London University, 
 an ex-teacher in a training college (from where she 
 removed, or was removed, owing to her advanced 
 opinions), a clerk in a Gold Mining Co., and earning 
 her own living, a well-known leader of the Socialist 
 group in Battersea, had come, as the result of her 
 reflections, to regard the married woman as the 
 chattel of her husband. Her doubts about the 
 wisdom of wedlock had crossed her mind, so she 
 assures me, before she had adopted the Socialist 
 creed, and she had debated the matter with her 
 family at home for a prolonged period. In Mr. James 
 Sullivan she had found a partner of her own way of 
 thinking, and they had mutually arranged to live
 
 259 
 
 together. She acquainted her family of their inten- 
 tion. Their alliance was to commence on Saturday, 
 a6th, 1895. At breakfast time on the preceding- 
 day, Miss Lanchester was seen by George Fielding 
 Blandford, M.A. and M D. (Oxon.), F.R.C.P., a 
 specialist in mental diseases, and the author of books 
 and articles on this subject. After a conversation 
 with Miss Lanchester, which Dr. Blandford says 
 lasted half-an-hour, at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Gray, 
 72, Este Road, Battersea, where Miss Lanchester 
 lodged, Dr. Blandford gave a signal. That signal meant 
 that Edith Lanchester was to be removed to a lunatic 
 asylum. By force exercised by Mr. Lanchester, her 
 father, and two of her brothers, she was dragged 
 from the room, one of her brothers pinioning Mrs. 
 Gray at the foot of the stairs in the meanwhile, and 
 thrust into a brougham, her hands tied ; she resisted, 
 but ineffectually. A window was broken. For some 
 time she felt the effects of the rough handling. She 
 was conveyed to the Priory, Roehampton, near 
 Barnes, a house licensed for the reception of the 
 insane. 
 
 On the following morning, Mr. James Sullivan 
 applied to Mr. Cluer, the Magistrate sitting at the 
 South-Western Police Court, London, and stated the 
 circumstances, informing him that they did not 
 intend to conform to the present marriage laws. 
 Mr. Cluer said " What ! do you mean to go to a 
 Registry Office?" The applicant answered, "No, 
 sir, we do not believe in the marriage laws at all as 
 at present constituted." Mr. Cluer replied, " The 
 parents would naturally raise an objection." He said 
 further, " It's no use coming to me, you had better 
 go to the High Court of Justice." The applicant :
 
 260 
 
 " Would it be any use consulting a solicitor? " Mr. 
 Cluer : "Certainly, if you can afford it." The appli- 
 cant : " I shall get the amount, if it cost me my life ! " 
 Inferring from the last remark of Mr. James 
 Sullivan that probably an introduction to a solicitor 
 would be of service, and thinking we might be 
 of other possible use as* well, Mrs. Dawson and I 
 went to London on the Monday, and called at 72, 
 Este Road. Awaiting the return of Mr. and Mrs. 
 Gray till the small hours of the morning, and meeting 
 them at their door, we learned that the whereabouts 
 of Miss Lanchester had been ascertained from an 
 anonymous letter, and that they had missed their last 
 train home from Barnes, having been to the outside 
 of the Priory with a cornet player, who had rendered 
 "The Marseillaise," "The Roll Call," and ' All for 
 the Cause," in the hope that Miss Lanchester would 
 know that her comrades had found out her where- 
 abouts, and were on the watch. By appointment 
 next morning, we met Mrs. Gray and Mr. James 
 Sullivan, and went with them to see Messrs. R ad ford 
 and Frankland, Solicitors, 40, Chancery Lane, to 
 whom Mr. Sullivan had been introduced before our 
 arrival. It appeared that the Lunacy Commissioners 
 had visited Roehampton about 5 p.m. the previous 
 evening, and had ordered the patient's discharge. 
 At 2 p.m., the Lanchester family medical man, Dr. 
 VV. E. St. Lawrence Finney, had visited Edith, and 
 had an hour's interview with her, and he found it to 
 be his duty to sign a second certificate the purpose 
 of which could have been no other than to render 
 possible the patient's permanent detention in place of 
 the week's detention following an urgency order. 
 At 3 p.m Mr. Lanchester called and took the two
 
 26l 
 
 4 
 
 certificates to a Magistrate, who, however, was not 
 at home. An impression prevailed that Miss Lan- 
 chester was liable for detention until the first of 
 November, but whether she could have been legally 
 detained till then or not is not very material, as, 
 apparently, the asylum authorities did not wish to 
 keep her. On the contrary, on the Monday night 
 she was removed from the wards of the asylum to 
 the private apartments of the proprietor. 
 
 Mr. John Burns, M. P., who had, it appears, for 
 some time been an adversary of Miss Lanchester over 
 questions of local socialistic organisation, or similar 
 detail, had exerted himself to secure her release. He 
 had written to the Home Secretary and the Chief 
 Commissioner of Police. He had then called upon 
 the Home Secretary, and then made his way to the 
 Lunacy Commissioners who informed him that they 
 had made an order for Miss Lanchester's release. He 
 then witnessed her release at Roehampton, accom- 
 panying her to Mrs. Gray's house in company with 
 Mr. Sullivan. Shortly after reaching there, Mrs. 
 Dawson and I made her acquaintance and heard her 
 story. Whilst we were there, the Marquess of 
 Queensberry called. The Star of the same evening 
 gave the following : 
 
 "Two new figures appeared on the scene this 
 morning which effectually remove the fight from 
 the region of Socialism into that of women's 
 politics, and the social and personal liberty of the 
 citizen. The sensational news from Battersea 
 only reached Mr. Dawson, the secretary of the 
 Legitimation League, at his country home, near 
 Leeds, yesterday afternoon, and Mr. and Mrs. 
 Dawson hurried to London last night to take part
 
 262 
 
 in the contest. 4 We are prepared,' he told the 
 Star man in Chancery Lane, ' to finance the move- 
 ment up to a certain extent, and to go anywhere 
 and do anything that may be required of us in 
 this battle. It is not a case of Socialism. The 
 fact is that we are individualists of almost the most 
 extreme type. We don't go so far as Mr. Auberon 
 Herbert, but we object to taxation for anything 
 beyond national defences, police, and highways. 
 Now we have arrived at precisely the same con- 
 clusion as Miss Lanchester, though starting from 
 precisely the opposite pole. We do not look at her 
 Socialism ; that is nothing to do with us. We find 
 a young lady carried off and treated as a lunatic, 
 merely, to all appearances, because she holds one 
 of our principles, and we are going to fight it for 
 all we are worth.' The Legitimation League, by the 
 way, is the body of which Mr. Wordsworth Donis- 
 thorpe is President. The Star man suggested that 
 the present case was absolutely unique. Unique Mr. 
 Dawson admitted, in that no such case had come 
 before the Courts, but not in respect of the 
 character of the marriage. By a curious co-incid- 
 ence, precisely such a marriage was advertised in 
 the Pall Mall Gazette of 19, 21, and 22 October. 
 Thus. runs the announcement : Marriage Dunton- 
 Briggs, 1 2th November, 1892. William F. Dunton 
 to Emma M. A. Briggs, both of London, without 
 legal ceremony. Recorded before the Notifying 
 Clerk of the Legitimation League, Albion Walk 
 Chambers, Leeds, igth July, 1895. ' We sent the 
 announcement to the Pall Mall and the Times' 
 said Mr. Dawson, ' but the Times, good, respect- 
 able, old Times, wouldn't have it at any price/
 
 263 
 
 4 In this case,' he added, ' the parties had been 
 living together for some years, and there was a 
 child which they fully recognised.' ' And you want 
 a law to legitimise such offspring without further 
 legal ceremony ? ' * Well,' Mr. Dawson answered, 
 ' we don't look so much to laws, we want to 
 influence public opinion.'" 
 
 The Sun said the League had ' ' taken occasion 
 by the hand and bravely coming out." The Globe 
 styled it an "egregious body," and Miss Lanchester it 
 also pronounced " egregious." 
 
 The Leicester Daily Post wanted to learn the 
 " thrilling career " of the Notifying Clerk, whether he 
 was an identical person with myself, and whether I 
 was " a prophet hiding his light under a bushel in 
 his own town." It surmised that when the Lunacy 
 Commissioners " heard that Mr. and Mrs. Dawson 
 were on the war-path, they perceived the neces- 
 sity for prompt action." The Yorkshire Evening 
 Post considered that " it must be a sincere sorrow to 
 Mr. Oswald Dawson that he entered the lists as Miss 
 Lanchester's champion, just as the foe showed the 
 white flag." 
 
 An appointment \vas made for the following 
 morning, for a further interview with the Solicitors. 
 This having taken place, a conversation between Miss 
 Lanchester and Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. Gray, and our- 
 selves, led to the decision to convene a meeting of 
 friends and sympathisers, under the auspices of the 
 Legitimation League on Thursday. This was duly 
 held at the Great Eastern Hotel, Liverpool Street, at 
 8 p.m. A report of the proceedings follows in the 
 next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE (Contd.}. 
 
 THE FIRST LEAGUE MEETING. 
 
 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 
 
 AS I have convened this meeting, it will perhaps 
 be fitting if I explain, in the first instance, how 
 I come to be connected with the Lanchester 
 case. For the benefit of any person who may not 
 know anything about the Legitimation League, I may ' 
 explain that the organization aims to secure equal 
 rights for acknowledged offspring born out of 
 wedlock, equal rights, that is, with legitimate 
 children. Of course, if it can be ruled that you are 
 a lunatic at law when you form an alliance that the 
 law calls illicit, it is a matter of serious consequence 
 to the Legitimation League in general, and to certain 
 members in particular. Our main idea in coming to 
 the rescue is two-fold. In the first place, having 
 read from the reports in the newspapers that Mr. 
 Sullivan would consult a solicitor " if it costs his life," 
 we thought that probably he was a poor man, and a 
 prompt offering of money and introduction to a
 
 London solicitor and having 1 had recent litigation 
 here, I happen to know of a firm in London might 
 be useful to him. I saw that Mr. Sullivan was a 
 socialist, but I was unaware to what extent the local 
 branch of the Social Democratic Federation was either 
 able to assist or willing to be mixed up in the case. 
 
 Our second object was to see if the solicitor, 
 when consulted, thought that.it would be well to set 
 about marshalling of witnesses to come forward and 
 testify that adoption of such practices, as that for 
 which Miss Lanchester was sent to an asylum, was 
 sufficient indication of insanity. 
 
 I am thoroughly alive to the fact that the issues 
 involved in the Lanchester case are not in any way- 
 confined to the interests of the Legitimation League, 
 and I am sure you will agree that anyone who has the 
 liberty of the subject at heart, would be doing" right to 
 call a meeting to consider what action should be 
 taken even if they only viewed the case from the point 
 of view of the rights of the citizen, or the standpoint 
 of the Lunacy Law Reformer. 
 
 I may mention that I myself was for many years 
 a member of the Personal Rights Association, and 
 that until expelled from that association on account 
 of certain circumstances arising out of the formation 
 of the Legitimation League, I was on the Lunacy 
 Law Committee of that body. 
 
 We reached London on Monday evening, and 
 driving to Battersea, we saw Mr. and Mrs. Gray, and 
 talked to them until two in the morning. They had 
 received an anonymous letter in which was conveyed 
 the information that Miss Lanchester was at an 
 asylum at Roehampton. Next morning we went 
 with Mr. Sullivan to the solicitors in Chancery Lane,
 
 266 
 
 but without being privileged to take any part in 
 effecting release, this became an accomplished fact. 
 We were advised Miss Lanchester would be re- 
 leased as to-morrow, the first of November. Mr. 
 Radford was about to visit the Lunacy Com- 
 missioners. We were to call again on his return. 
 The order for Miss Lanchester's immediate release 
 had been given, and that afternoon I had the honour 
 of making her acquaintance a free woman again. 
 
 Now, many of you may think that our work was 
 <lone, but that is not the view I took of the case, and, 
 acting in conjunction with Mrs. Dawson, Miss Lan- 
 chester, Mr. Sullivan, and Mrs. Gray, we arranged 
 yesterday morning to hold a meeting under the 
 auspices of the Legitimation League in this room. 
 I then went down to Leeds and consulted the 
 solicitor to the League, Mr. B. C. Pulleyne. I will 
 summarise the conversation we had. The probabili- 
 ties are that in any action for damages which may be 
 taken against the father and brothers of Miss Lan- 
 chester and Dr. Blandford, we should win the day. 
 An action against the proprietor of the asylum would 
 in all probability fail, if the documents upon which he 
 received Miss Lanchester were all in due form. If the 
 doctor did not use reasonable care and professional 
 skill, and if he did not act in every way bona-fide and 
 honestly, the latter being also characteristic of the 
 action of the relatives, the jury, to protect the general 
 public, will think it their duty to give exemplary 
 damages ; but there would have to be reckoned with 
 a possibility of a jury whose sympathies with the 
 father, whose daughter was going to live in an 
 immoral relation, getting the better of their judgment 
 as to the bona-fides of the action, and giving vent to
 
 their prejudices by awarding- a farthing, or it might 
 b e js< damages. There is another legal point 
 involved as to committal to an asylum. It is necessary 
 to obtain the signature of two qualified medical 
 practitioners, unless there is reason to apprehend 
 immediate danger to the patient or others. Now, it 
 is not suggested that Miss Lanchester has exhibited 
 any homicidal tendencies ; she has not, for instance, 
 been known to rush at Mr. Sullivan with the bread 
 knife in hand, and, therefore, the point arises as to 
 whether, even if her action in proposing to go and 
 live with him was a symptom of insanity, it was also 
 a symptom of insanity about which there was immedi- 
 ate danger. And I understand it to have been known 
 to Miss Lanchester's relations for some time before 
 that she contemplated marriage of the character in 
 question, and, therefore, seeing- the practicability of" 
 g-etting two medical men to examine her only leads 
 one to suspect there may have been a gross il- 
 legality in getting only one prior to her removal to 
 the asylum. 
 
 With regard to Miss Lanchester's father, my 
 own inclination is to advise that we resolve to recom- 
 mend her to take no action against him. We of the 
 Legitimation League set out to teach that the family 
 virtues conjugal and filial love can be fostered 
 without the use of force, as exercised by the State in 
 its meddling with matrimony, and, therefore, it is 
 hardly to be expected that we should advise a girl to 
 prosecute her own father if the same gain can be 
 obtained by other means. In this instance we shall 
 gain quite enough if we can successfully prosecute 
 the medical man You will agree with the view that 
 much depends upon the bona-fides, and you will also.
 
 2 68 
 
 perhaps, agree to give credit for bons fides to the 
 father and brothers ; but with Dr. Blandford the case 
 is different. I am not aware that he is related to 
 Miss Lanchester, or that he has any special interest 
 in her welfare. He was merely a professional man 
 doing- a job for a fee, and I tell you I am a little 
 suspicious of doctors when it comes to a question of 
 fees they are too fond of fees. They want fees to 
 vaccinate you, and then you knowthey wantto vaccinate 
 you twice. Then there is that Notification of Infectious 
 Diseases Act ; they want fees for notifying- your 
 illnesses as well as for curing them. Still Dr. Blandford 
 may not be one of these ; but whatever his position 
 may be, I am sure that he does not appear to me to 
 make much of a case for himself in his statement as 
 it appears in the newspaper. Here we have some 
 very ridiculous talk about ' Social Suicide," and the 
 Doctor probably would lead one to think that Miss 
 Lanchester was the first lady who objected to ieg-al 
 marriage. Now to my mind it is utterly impossible 
 that such views as he found Miss Lanchester held are 
 new to any medical man. I cannot conceive that he 
 has never heard of " The Woman who Did," and the 
 doctrines advanced in it, even though he may have 
 the misfortune to be unfamiliar with the Legitimation 
 League. If Dr. Blandford is at all acquainted with 
 Socialism he must have been aware of the prevalence 
 of dissent from the conventional views amongst per- 
 sons professing that political system. Certainly, if his 
 knowledg-e of Socialism is derived from the Rev. 
 George Brooks, who has recently been made the 
 recipient of a bounty of 200 for his services to 
 literary politics, he will know that many Socialists 
 are heterodox on the marriage question, for Mr.
 
 269 
 
 Brooks is not sparing- in the use of vigorous lan- 
 guage applied to this heterodoxy. By no possibility 
 can I persuade myself that Dr. Blandford really 
 entertained the idea that he was sending an insane 
 person, dangerous or otherwise, to an asylum. I 
 think he was acting to suit the convenience of the 
 father. 
 
 The next point is as to whether an action would 
 lie against the brother who pinioned Mrs. Gray at 
 the foot of the stairs, whilst Miss Lanchester was 
 dragged out of the house. This was an assault upon 
 a woman in her own house, and unless she was doing' 
 something- corresponding to interfering- with the 
 police in the execution of their duty, it seems to me 
 that an action must lie. But here again we are con- 
 fronted with the difficulty of the jury. Would an 
 English jury, either fathers or others, decide that the 
 brother exceeding the law had acted as no respectable 
 brother could refrain from acting, and award nominal 
 damages ? 
 
 Before inviting discussion I beg to offer a couple 
 of suggestions firstly, that if damages are offered 
 without going to law, I should say accept them ; but 
 let them be substantial damages, and let there be no 
 secrecy about the arrangement. Looked at from the 
 advertising point of view, by this means we shall 
 obtain a sufficient amount of publicity to satisfy us 
 with complete satisfaction, by obtaining tangible ad- 
 mission in writing on the part of the aggressors. Next, 
 ;is to the Marquess of Queensberry's offer of a wedding 
 present of ^100, on condition that Mr. Sullivan and 
 Miss Lanchester will go through the marriage cere- 
 mony and then protest and repudiate it. Well, this is 
 really an affair of the parties concerned, but looking
 
 270 
 
 at the matter from an advertising point of view once 
 more, and venturing to treat on a delicate matter, I 
 advise that this offer be accepted, and that Mr. 
 Sullivan and Miss Lanchester give me permission in 
 writing to frame a repudiation and publish it in such 
 way as I think fit, as an advertisement of the Legiti- 
 mation League. 
 
 I will now read the resolution which I wish to- 
 put before this meeting : 
 
 "That this meeting expresses its sympathy 
 with Miss Edith Lanchester, with Mr. James 
 Sullivan, and with Mrs. Gray, and admiration for 
 the pluck they have shown in this matter, and 
 urges Miss Lanchester to take legal advice as to 
 the advisability of proceeding against Dr. Bland- 
 ford, as having acted in a manner obviously not 
 bona-fide ; and also urges Mrs. Gray to take 
 advice as to proceeding against the brother who 
 forcibly interfered. The meeting further resolves 
 that a fund be started to defray the costs of a 
 prosecution, if such course be decided upon, and 
 that in any case a fund be started to defray the 
 cost of obtaining legal advice, and to recoup Miss 
 Lanchester, Mr. Sullivan, and Mrs. Gray, their 
 out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection 
 with the case." 
 
 Mr. J. C. SPENCE (Vice-President of the Legiti- 
 mation League) seconded the resolution. 
 
 Mr. JOHN BADCOCK, Junr. (Corresponding Secre- 
 tary of the Legitimation League for London), coincided 
 with the Chairman's view that if any party was to be 
 selected for attack that party should be the Doctor. 
 He had no right to take any interest in the case save 
 a professional one, and it was not the province of the
 
 physician to save people from social suicide. As to 
 Lord* Queensberry's advice, he was unable to agree 
 with the Chairman's recommendation. If they went 
 through the form of marriage they would be married 
 before the Law, no matter how much they repudiated 
 it afterwards. To follow his Lordship's advice would 
 be giving up the game. 
 
 Mr. BARNIVELT, who said he had come as a 
 listener and a learner, said that Miss Lanchester was 
 quite compos and conscientious, and that any violence 
 towards her should be resented. As to the principles 
 advocated by her, however, he thought that the nation 
 was not ripe for them, that the people were not 
 educated up to the required point. He advocated the 
 marriage of the parties for the sake of the family. 
 
 Mr. HERBERT BURROWS reminded the meeting 
 that their business that night was not to give a 
 definite decision as to the course of action to be 
 taken. All that they were summoned there tor, as he 
 understood, was to decide what course to recommend 
 Miss Lanchester to adopt. With regard to the 
 remarks of the previous speaker, he would say it 
 would be quite impossible to progress at all at that 
 meeting, if they allowed themselves to drift into 
 discussion of the moral question involved in Miss 
 Lanchester's mode of living. 
 
 Mr. W. F. DUNTON said he could not in any way 
 agree to regard the offence of the father and brothers 
 as a light one. Miss Lanchester was not a minor, 
 nor was she in the custody of her parents, nor 
 dependent upon them, but was living in lodgings and 
 earning her own living. 
 
 Mr. H. SEYMOUR was the next speaker. He held 
 that this was a case for the Treasury to take up, that
 
 272 
 
 a grievous offence had been committed under the 
 Lunacy Law, and the prosecution of the Doctor 
 and other offenders should be conducted without 
 regard to cost by the Treasury. 
 
 Mrs. GRAY spoke of the noble character of Miss 
 Lanchester. She felt sure that Miss Lanchester was 
 quite unwilling that proceedings should be taken out 
 of vindictiveness, but she and Miss Lanchester alike 
 saw that the matter had been raised above the level 
 of a family row, and become one of public interest. 
 Miss Lanchester's nobility of character had been put 
 to the test, and she had agreed to leave the country 
 with Mr. Sullivan, purely out of regard to the feelings 
 of her family. As to Mr. Lanchester, she must speak 
 of him frankly. He and his sons had tried to worry 
 his daughter into madness for about a week. They 
 had been pestering her persuading her not to form 
 this alliance, but she was resolute, and they thought 
 to silence her by force and strategy. Their plans had 
 failed, and she (Mrs. Gray) would stick to Miss 
 Lanchester to the last, and would fight for her to the 
 last. There was the question of money ; she herself 
 was a working woman. In her opinion the only 
 honest people were working people, so they would 
 have to have assistance in the fight, but that was 
 forthcoming and there was no reason to fear. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE BEDBOROUGH pointed out the 
 necessity for moving cautiously, inasmuch as it would 
 be damaging to the League which had organised this 
 meeting, if an action were to fail, or if the successful 
 result was merely the reward of a farthing or ^5 
 damages. It was possible that Mrs. Gray, a lady 
 who had been assaulted and forcibly held in her own 
 house, might have a better ground for action than
 
 273 
 
 Miss Lanchester would have against those who 
 dragged her from the house. On the other hand, it 
 might be argued that Mrs. Gray was interfering to 
 prevent the performance of a perfectly legal act, and 
 in which she would have no valid ground for redress. 
 If it had been the case of the murder and the arrest 
 of a murderess under warrant, Mrs. Gray would have 
 had no right to interfere with the police in the 
 performance of their duties. The speaker urged 
 the necessity for convening a larger meeting in 
 London. 
 
 Miss M GRANT denounced the tyranny of the 
 Lunacy Laws. The main point about the present 
 case; was the administrative ease with which anybody 
 who is offensive to relations may be dragged off to 
 a lunatic asylum, and it would not always happen 
 that there was a furore about the case, and conse- 
 quently persons of perfectly sound mind were left to 
 linger there sometimes for very long periods. 
 
 After some remarks from another speaker Mr. 
 Anderson the CHAIRMAN said as follows : 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen Passing over the observa- 
 tions of my friends Mr. Spence and Mr. Badcock, who 
 are officers of the Legitimation League, I must assure 
 Mr. Barnivelt that I am in entire accordance with him 
 as to the debatability of the ethical aspect of the 
 contemplated alliance ot Miss Lanchester and Mr. 
 Sullivan, but at the same time, interesting as a debate 
 of that question might be, there is really no time to 
 enter into it to-night, as Mr. Herbert Burrows has 
 remarked. The latter gentleman is quite right in 
 saying that the business of this meeting is not to give 
 -a definite decision, but merely to advise Miss 
 Lanchester as to the course to pursue. My friend
 
 274 
 
 Mr. Dunton is in disagreement with me as to the 
 relative culpability of the father and the doctor. I 
 thoroughly see the force of what he had to say as to 
 Miss Lanchester being of age, and not even in the 
 custody of her parents. At the same time, if it was 
 sufficient for our purpose to go for only one of the 
 two, I suggest the doctor, for he could have no family 
 feeling in the matter. He was simply called upon to 
 give professional that is, or should be, true and 
 sound advice. Mr. Seymour is anxious the Treasury 
 should take this matter up, but for my part, I don't 
 think I should hand the management of an affair of 
 this sort to any Government Department. I have no 
 great faith in Government Departments, and I don't 
 think Mr. Seymour has. I am glad we have Mrs. 
 Gray with us this evening, and I have no reason 
 whatever to doubt that her testimony to the nobility 
 of character of Miss Lanchester is correct. I can 
 assure Mr. George Bedborough that if he can get up 
 a larger meeting than this in London, he will be 
 doing a great service to the cause. I cannot agree 
 with Miss Morant that the Tyranny of the Lunacy 
 Laws is the chief point involved in the Lanchester 
 case. I consider the fact that you can find a 
 medical man and an expert in his own line willing 
 to use the machinery of the Lunacy Laws for the 
 suppression of heresy, and that heresy an offence 
 against sexual freedom, is the greatest scandal and 
 wrong of the present case. I will now re-read 
 the resolution which I wish to put before this 
 meeting. 
 
 It was unanimously adopted. 
 
 Mr. HERBERT BURROWS moved that a Consulta- 
 tive Committee be formed.
 
 275 
 
 Mr. DUNTON seconded. 
 
 This resolution was also unanimously carried. 
 
 This Meeting- was widely reported in the press 
 throughout the country. The Consultative Committee 
 met on the following- Thursday, at the Great Eastern 
 Hotel, when Mr. Herbert Burrows was elected Hon. 
 Sec., and Mrs. Dawson, Provisional Treasurer. 
 
 Mr. Herbert Burrows read the minutes of the 
 previous meeting, and reported that he, with Mr. and 
 Mrs. Dawson, had called upon the Solicitors, and had 
 read copies of the certificates upon which Miss 
 Lanchester had been seized and taken to the asylum. 
 He testified to the apparently false character of many 
 statements contained in these certificates. It had been 
 decided to take the opinion of Mr. Asquith, the ex- 
 Home Secretary, and the facts of the case had already 
 been put before him in conjunction with Mr. Corrie 
 Grant. Unfortunately, that opinion had not yet come 
 to hand. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Oswald Dawson) said he 
 could support what Mr. Burrows had said as to the 
 false character of the certificates, one of the most 
 farcical points about which was the evidence of the 
 family Doctor. He might be the Doctor of the 
 Lanchester family at Kingston, but he was not in 
 consequence family Doctor to Miss Lanchester, who 
 for some time had been living away from Kingston. 
 It was unfortunate Counsel's opinion was not before 
 them that evening. They were beginning to have 
 experience of the Law's delay, but whilst delayed 
 there was plenty to do in the shape of collecting: 
 money. There were two funds, one for the out-of- 
 pocket expenses of Miss Lanchester, Mr. Sullivan,
 
 276 
 
 and Mrs. Gray, and the other to carry on the pro- 
 secution if that was decided upon. 
 
 Miss LANCHESTEK then addressed the meeting'. 
 She expressed strong objection to prosecute her own 
 family, but was quite willing the Doctor should be 
 prosecuted if the funds were sufficient, if they were 
 advised there was a case. In this respect she quite 
 endorsed the resolution passed at the previous meeting 
 holding that it was advisable, conditions being favour- 
 able, to prosecute Dr. Blandford. With regard to the 
 Law's delays, Mr. Radford had told her that proceed- 
 ings would probably last till February or March, and 
 the prospect of this was not altogether agreeable, but 
 she was prepared to act as stated if Counsel advised 
 that they had a case against the Doctor, and if the 
 money was forthcoming. 
 
 Mr. BURROWS then proposed that an Executive 
 Committee be formed, and Mr. BEDBOROUGH seconded. 
 The CHAIRMAN proposed Mr. Burrows as Honor- 
 ary Secretary. 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK seconded, and he was unanimously 
 elected. 
 
 Counsel's opinion not having come to hand, the 
 Committee met again on the following Thursday 
 at the same hotel, under the same chairmanship. 
 Counsel's opinion, the nature of which had already 
 unfortunately become known, was then considered. 
 By a majority of twelve against three (the Chair- 
 man not voting), it was decided to refer the 
 opinion back for consideration on certain points. 
 Press representatives were present at both these 
 meetings, and reports appeared in the news papers. 
 The second meeting of the members and friends 
 of the Legitimation League was convened for
 
 277 
 
 2.30 p.m. on Saturday, the i6th November. A report 
 of the proceedings appears in the course of an 
 ensuing" chapter.
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE (Contd.). 
 
 DR. BLANDFORD'S BACKERS-AND THE 
 LEAGUE'S. 
 
 IN the meantime the sensation had grown. Mr. 
 Lanchester and Dr. Blandford each appeared in 
 print. Mr. Lanchester played the trick of the 
 card up the sleeve. He expressed the belief that had 
 the Commissioners "put themselves in possession of 
 all the facts known to the family, the result would 
 have been different," and " that a more prudent course 
 for the Commissioners would have been to have 
 allowed a certain time to elapse for further evidence 
 to be taken/' which opinions may be all very well in 
 their way, but why was not the further evidence given 
 in the original document, and why was it not given 
 now? There was talk of Mr. Lanchester pursuing 
 his case against the Commissioners, but this appears 
 to have dropped. Dr. Blandford, in his recital, ex- 
 pounded the now famous doctrine of social suicide. 
 Had Miss Lanchester, he argued, contemplated sui- 
 cide, a certificate might have been signed without 
 question ; and he considered he was equally justified 
 in signing one when she expressed her determination 
 to commit social suicide. The Lancet perceived a
 
 279 
 
 difference, pointing out that whilst the attempt at 
 suicide was a penal offence, the "living together" 
 unmarried was not of the category of crimes. Dr. 
 Blandford was interviewed by the Westminster Gazette, 
 and when asked was there anything curious in her 
 manner he replied, " No ; she was merely a self- 
 possessed young woman, evidently used to speaking." 
 
 But as a matter of fact the Doctor had something 
 against Miss Lanchester besides heresy on marriage 
 matters. He had asked her how she would regard 
 his annexing some apples which were lying on the 
 table. She told him that in his case she would hold 
 it to be theft, but she would not so regard the act if 
 committed by a starving man. The Fulham News 
 remarks hereon : " She actually believes that a starving 
 person is morally entitled to steal apples ! Dr. Blandford 
 may be surprised to learn that this is one of the 
 fundamental social doctrines of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. Is the Pope a madman ? Ought Cardinal 
 Manning to have been sent to an asylum for expound- 
 ing this very opinion ? " Mrs. Lanchester was seen, but 
 said nothing new about Miss Lanchester's lunacy. 
 One of her brothers was also interviewed, and he has 
 placed on record that his sister is '' highly intellectual, 
 but extremely impressionable." 
 
 Numerous letters in defence of the father's course 
 of action appeared, but the one embodying the great- 
 est argument appeared in the Daily News of Nov- 
 ember 5th, signed " A Father." An answer thereto 
 was sent signed "A Mother," but, I believe, never 
 saw the light. The latter pointed out the "fallacy 
 involved in assimilating sacrifice in sustaining the 
 marriage tie, in spite of trials with sacrifice in going 
 to war for one's country in spite of risks," pointing
 
 280 
 
 out that " the resemblance is really to conscription/ 
 "The Father, "having apparently admitted a consider- 
 able amount of personal trial and injustice as resulting 
 from the marriage laws, lays it down that early marr- 
 iage is responsible for the wrongs which, he says, 
 cannot be righted by any weakening of the marriage 
 laws. Upon this '' A Mother'' asked " If marriage in- 
 volves personal trial and injustice in these days when 
 late marriages prevail, how, by extending in time the 
 matrimonial life of married people, are we likely to re- 
 duce the amount of personal trial?" "A Father" begins 
 his letter by asking if a young lady insists on jump- 
 ing out of a third-floor window to please her lover,, 
 are not her parents justified in taking certain steps? 
 whereupon " A Mother " pointed out that " either ' A 
 Father ' was inadequately acquainted with the facts of 
 the Lanchester case, or was indifferent about giving 
 a wrong impression," it being well known that Miss 
 Lanchester did not act as she did to please her lover. 
 ' A Father " having appealed to history : the history of 
 millions of fallen women which fate he prophesied 
 as certain for everyone who refuses the protection of 
 marriage, was asked to back up his historical appeal 
 by a case where the girl had notified her relations of 
 her contemplated change of status when she had been 
 going to live with a man, and argued the pros and 
 cons of the move with them at leisure. He was also 
 asked, Dees he wish to represent as history that every 
 woman who goes to live with a man ends up as a 
 fallen woman, in a technical sense, in which he uses 
 that word ? and does he think the children of all un- 
 married women are "friendless" ? ' A Father'' was 
 then asked to apply his arguments in the following 
 terms : " Even if every woman who goes to live
 
 28l 
 
 with a man as assuredly becomes a fallen woman as 
 the one who jumps from a third-floor window is past 
 physical redemption, it behoves ' A Father" to state 
 whether he would be willing- to bring the Lunacy 
 Law to bear upon the girl who gave out her determin- 
 ation to join the ranks of the fallen at one fell swoop. 
 If not it seems rather odd that he should acquiesce in 
 the application of that law to experiments which 
 merely lead to the fallen condition." 
 
 The Birkdale Association for the Care and Pro- 
 tection of Young Girls saw its opportunity to bring 
 about a rescue. Kate Ryley and Helen H. Rimmer, 
 on behalf of the association, wrote to the Southpott 
 Visitor. It was not often they came to the rescue of 
 girls of the educated or higher circles of society, 
 they said, but in the present case they would do so. 
 They were trying to heighten the responsibilities of 
 fathers who were indifferent to them. So, said they, 
 may we ask Miss Lanchester : "whether she has 
 considered the trouble and expense that are now 
 constantly 'gone to in order to recoup to innocent 
 children that status in society which the absence of a 
 legal father has deprived them of? " 
 
 A comrade gave an opinion of Miss Lanchester. 
 He thought she had a whole hive of bees in her 
 bonnet. She wore her hair short, and walked with 
 her hands in her jacket pockets. Justice objected to 
 the question being raised publicly in an acute form by 
 an official member of the Social Democratic Federa- 
 tion, without any conference whatever with any other 
 comrades an instructive example of Socialist subor- 
 dination of liberty to solidarity. But the Individualist 
 Liberty Review eclipsed all contemporaries. Here is 
 its humour : " In the actual prosaic Lavender Hill
 
 282 
 
 case the hero is an Esquimo gentleman called Sulli- 
 van, a reputed capitalist, and a well-known zoophilist. 
 When the O'Sullivan perambulates Lavender Hill with 
 his stock-in-trade, numbers of cats follow him, mewing 
 and looking up in his face. That is because he is a 
 Problem." 
 
 A " British Woman," writing to the Woman's Sz'g- 
 nal, urged that " If Miss Lanchester cannot conscienti- 
 ously marry according to law, then let her sacrifice 
 herself to her convictions, and altogether abstain from 
 the union she desires, and so proclaim to the world 
 her opinions and utter her protest ! " 
 
 Some papers took exception to the characteriza- 
 tion of wives as chattels by Miss Lanchester, and to 
 my phrase of the chattel slavery of wives. They con- 
 tended that, inasmuch as a wife is not the absolute 
 property of her husband, she is not his chattel. This 
 will not hold. A man's bull is not a man's absolute 
 property, inasmuch as he may not practice bull-baiting 
 with it. And, etymologically, chattel is derived from 
 cattle, which formerly was a more comprehensive term 
 than it now is, and as chattel is now a more compre- 
 hensive term than cattle. Will the Leeds Mercury and 
 other papers objecting to the application of the term, 
 tell us whether a man may administer chastisement to 
 his wife. Can he compel her to stay indoors, or pro- 
 hibit her having any visitors ? Can he compel her to 
 emigrate with him against her will ? Has a married 
 woman an absolute right over her own property, or 
 are there some important qualifications not only as 
 to her property in general, but also as to her 
 "separate" property? Has she freedom to vote at 
 municipal elections, or does she lose it on marriage? 
 Can she exercise an equal power of will with her
 
 2 8 3 
 
 husband, and can she give away articles given to her 
 by him if he says he wants them back himself? Can 
 she call her body her own, or is she at the mercy of 
 the carnal appetite of the man she has chosen at all 
 times and without regard to the state of her health, 
 or any other considerations. This slavery of compul- 
 sory cohabitation is surely chattel-like, or nothing 
 will deserve that name, and until a woman who is a 
 wife can say, at least at certain times, either " I wish 
 to sleep alone;" or make a proposition which will 
 -answer the same purpose, she can never consider 
 herself free. If for intrinsic reasons peculiar to such 
 a case the law cannot be adapted to enforce her right, 
 she should be free to go. That is all. I am aware 
 that precise answers to all these questions cannot be 
 readily given. In many cases one has to reckon with 
 the element of contradictory magisterial decisions, 
 but I say that when all allowances for such, and for 
 ambiguities in the law, have been made, the net result 
 is to justify the application of the figurative term 
 chattel to wives ; whilst looking at the position of the 
 wife from another standpoint, namely, her privileges, 
 some of these are of a type which reduce her to a 
 lower level than that of a chattel. Married women 
 have to obtain the leave of a judge and to give 
 security for costs, before they can defend an action 
 for the enforcement of contract alone, without their 
 husbands, even though they are carrying on a separate 
 business with their own money. If guilty of atrocious 
 crimes in conjunction with her husband, providing it 
 is not a crime of violence, she can claim an acquittal. 
 In case of fraud or libel committed by a wife the 
 husband may be made a co-defendant, even though 
 the parties may be permanently separated. The pre-
 
 284 
 
 else legal import of the Jackson case may not be fully 
 determined, but if it gives the wife the power of 
 remaining with her husband or not, according to her 
 fancy, it cannot be held to be a privilege which will 
 comport with the ethical notions of the day. Women 
 will not be satisfied to be even winged chattels, who 
 can fly from the consequences of their deliberate acts, 
 or escape the vengeance of justice when they have 
 committed crimes. 
 
 Mr. Dunton took up the cudgels in the Star. He 
 pointed out : " Mr. Sullivan and I could be legally 
 compelled to do quite as much towards bringing up 
 our illegitimate offspring, as we should were we to 
 marry in the usual way/' "With regard to the 
 position of the woman," continues Mr. Dunton, 
 "here there is a considerable difference between 
 marriages and free unions, but it is surely in favour 
 of freedom. The woman is bound, in return for her 
 keep, to live with the man, and be true to him, whilst 
 he is free to have as many other women as he pleases, 
 so long as he takes the precaution not to combine 
 this conduct with cruelty. Some women might 
 feel no hardship in such a life, but to any woman 
 worth considering, there could be nothing more 
 intolerable." 
 
 Mr. George Bedborough also wrote to the Star, 
 urging persons interested to communicate with me. 
 His letter was copied by the Birmingham Daily 
 Post, and brought numerous enquiries from that place. 
 
 Mr. Larner Sugden, of Leek, wrote, fearing that 
 the Personal Rights Association would be slow to 
 take the case up, and urging Mr. Grant Allen to form 
 a rescue committee. Miss M. E. H. Colson, 
 Secretary of the Personal Rights Association, wrote
 
 283 
 
 in reply to that, saying, " I do not know what right 
 persons have to call upon us to do work, who con- 
 tribute nothing to the means by which that work is 
 to be done, and who indirectly cause the evil which 
 they call upon us to abate, by their advocacy of the 
 doctrine of force." She states, however, " that the 
 committee would not be influenced by the fact that 
 Miss Lanchester was a Socialist, in endeavouring 
 to secure her personal rights." So we are led to 
 wonder whether the said committee would be 
 influenced by the fact that Miss Lanchester is a dis- 
 believer in marriage. The notice taken of the 
 Lanchester case in the November issue of Personal 
 Rights was confined to the foregoing correspondence, 
 and to an allusion to the Socialistic awakening to 
 Personal Rights, embodied in a dozen lines, and 
 expressing the greater satisfaction the editor would 
 have felt " if the rights to whose defence they have 
 been roused were not their own. Even the Czar 
 would go so far as this." 
 
 The South-Western Personal Rights and Anti- 
 Compulsory Vaccination League was not slow to set 
 its namesake an example. Prior even to Miss 
 Lanchester's liberation it held an open-air meeting, 
 Mr. F. Longman, Hon. Sec., in the chair, and 
 unanimously carried the following resolution : " That 
 this meeting views, with great indignation and 
 abhorrence, the harsh, brutal, cruel, and inhuman 
 treatment that Miss Lanchester was subject to, and 
 calls for immediate reform of the Lunacy Laws." At 
 .a subsequent meeting, Mr. Longman promised ^5 
 towards the prosecution. 
 
 Messrs. Alfred Slade and C. \V. Jones Harper, 
 agents in England of the Grand Order of Emorians,
 
 2 S6 
 
 U.S.A., wrote to Reynolds Newspaper. They proposed 
 that " a certain part of each morning- might be set 
 apart in our police courts for the public proclamation 
 of unions. A form would be filled, a fee paid, the 
 union registered, and by virtue of this the future 
 offspring legitimised." Mr. Allan A. Durward 
 suggested to the Star \ " Should not the public 
 acknowledgment of a child by its father render it 
 legitimate? I am prompted to write this as an 
 individualist." 
 
 Mr. Gerald Massey contributed the following 
 
 lines : 
 
 " In every battle some must bravely fall, 
 
 'Tis only thus great victories are won ! 
 The dash of blood and brains upon the wall 
 A woman's, too may make the conq'ring call 
 
 That leads the sappers and the miners on ! " 
 
 Another poet wrote these lines to the Star : 
 
 ' ' The woman who isn't insane 
 
 Doesn't reason, but does as she's bid ; 
 
 She who thinks for herself must be mad, 
 As is proved by ' The Woman Who Did.' " 
 
 The London Illustrated Standard not only blos- 
 somed into rhyme and an inclination to kick Mr. 
 Sullivan and duck him in a horse-pond but into 
 pictures, one representing a lady, who as " a member 
 of the Legitimation Society," bade a gentleman keep 
 his distance, " spare her shame," and "' not brand her, 
 in the eyes of the world, as a married woman." 
 
 One of the most important letters appearing was 
 that of Mr. F. Dever-Summers : " Sir, As the 
 employer of Miss Lanchester, I can say without 
 the slightest hesitation that if ever a person were 
 sane, no one could be more so than she. In her work 
 I have always found her most methodical and exact,
 
 2 8 7 
 
 and any doctor certifying her insane would furnish 
 unmistakable evidence of his own aberration. My 
 experience of Miss Lanchester extends over a period 
 of four years, and I feel so strongly the injustice that 
 has been done her, that I am willing to subscribe 
 liberally to any fund for the purpose of taking legal 
 proceedings. I should have written on this subject 
 earlier, but I only returned from Paris yesterday." 
 
 The Principal of the Maria Grey Training Col- 
 lege, Brondesbury, wrote : " I have never had the 
 slightest reason to suppose her to be insane, or likely 
 to become insane. Members of the staff have always 
 spoken of her as a remarkably intelligent student, 
 and of her high moral character." 
 
 The Marquess of Queensberry offered a wedding 
 present of 100 if the parties would marry and then 
 protest. An esteemed correspondent of mine was at 
 the pains to draft such a protest. Mrs. Elizabeth 
 Blackwell wrote to the Chronicle, and reproduced a 
 protest signed by her late husband and his former 
 wife, Lucy Stone, and issued at the time of their 
 marriage. 
 
 A correspondent of the same paper contributed 
 some extracts from Dr. Blandford's work on " In- 
 sanity and its Treatment," which, as the editor re- 
 marked, " could hardly have a more pointed bearing if 
 Dr. Blandford had been invited to condemn the pro- 
 cedure " he took part in at Battersea. He guarded 
 students against the necessity of making allowance 
 for prejudices in persons giving information about 
 alleged lunatics, he dwelt on the unconcern of the 
 alienist with things immoral, and his concern merely 
 with things irrational. He cautioned his readers that 
 extraordinary political or religious views were not 
 signs of insanity, etc.
 
 -88 
 
 Mr. Herbert Burrows, writing to the same paper, 
 suggested the formation of a committee of men and 
 women apart from any special organization ; and this, 
 as we have seen, was formed at the close of the 
 meeting reported in the last chapter. Other Socialists 
 also took an active part in the rescue and other work, 
 whilst a lengthy correspondence arose in Justice, an 
 organ of that political school. Mr. Burrows was duly 
 interviewed by the Star. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. Gray were also interviewed, 
 and were the recipients of funds. The representative 
 of the Evening News and Post sought out Mrs. Dawson, 
 who, as provisional treasurer, opened an account at 
 the London and Midland Bank, Cornhill, and deposited 
 therein over ^50 collected from members of the 
 Legitimation League, the Social Democratic Fed- 
 eration, and others.
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE (Contd.). 
 
 THE SECOND LEAGUE MEETING, 
 NOVEMBER i6xH, 1895. 
 
 ON the motion of Mr. J. C. Spence (Vice-Presi- 
 dent), seconded by Mr. John Badcock, Junior 
 (corresponding secretary), Mr. Toleman Garner 
 (joint corresponding- secretary) was elected Chairman. 
 The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the present 
 meeting was a meeting of the Legitimation League. 
 His first duty was to report that he had had handed 
 to him a telegram from Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe, 
 the President of the League, expressing his inability 
 to be present being indisposed, and away from 
 London. A meeting of the Executive had been held 
 that morning, but he had nothing to report as to the 
 course that was likely to be pursued by Miss Lan- 
 chester and her friends. He supposed some reform 
 of the Lunacy laws would be a necessary outcome of 
 this case, for it would appear that it was within the 
 power of anyone to incarcerate a relation in an 
 asylum at five minutes' notice, on the strength of 
 being able to demonstrate to themselves and to a 
 learned and kindlv doctor that the ideas of the
 
 2 go 
 
 patient were irrational, and that he or she could not 
 be made to see their irrationality. The business of 
 the meeting was to give a resume of the Lanchester 
 case and to pass a resolution, and he called upon the 
 Hon. Sec. of the Legitimation League to address it. 
 
 Mr. OSWALD DAWSON said : 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen : I am in entire accord 
 with my friend the Chairman that there is evidently 
 need for some reform of the Lunacy Law. At the 
 same time I can but reiterate what I said at the 
 previous meeting convened by the Legitimation 
 League, and held at this hotel, that the issues 
 involved in the great Lanchester case altogether and 
 entirely transcend the province of Lunacy Law Re- 
 form ; and reflection has shown me an initial difficulty 
 in this connection. It seems to me that the urgency 
 order is a needful form of order, and though it may 
 not be safeguarded in an absolutely efficient manner, 
 I am bound to say for one that I cannot lay my 
 finger upon the precise spot where the Lunacy Law 
 is wanting and say " See here, it is this that requires 
 reform." Be that as it may, I submit that from 
 among the various issues which are focussed in the 
 great Lanchester case, there is one that has a pre- 
 dominance over and above any question of Lunacy 
 Law Reform the issue to which 1 allude is that of 
 marital freedom. It is highly important that we 
 should remove every obstacle it is still more highly 
 important that we should remove every legal obstacle 
 erected against the ability of persons forming their 
 marital relationships as they think wisest and best. 
 In some states of America the "living together" 
 without the legal tie is a penal offence. In England 
 here you are liable to be thrust, not into gaol, but
 
 291 
 
 into an asylum. We intend that that shall not be so. 
 But I ask you to bear in mind that this consideration 
 as to the penalties or dangers of " living together '' 
 unmarried does not cover the whole ground of pos- 
 sible difficulties which beset us. You will know that 
 in that immortal book the work from which Edith 
 Lanchester has popularly, but erroneously, been sup- 
 posed to derive her notions Herminia Barton lived 
 in Chelsea, whilst " her husband " lived within easy 
 reach of the Law Courts. Now what is there to 
 show that at some future time, should the system 
 foreshadowed by Mr. Grant Allen prevail, the ladies 
 who, owing to their notions of independence, elect to 
 live away from their reputed husbands instead of 
 "living with" them, what is there to show that 
 they will escape the penalties attaching to the fre- 
 quenting or keeping .of disorderly houses, as the law 
 defines that term ? But this does not complete our 
 list of difficulties. 
 
 It is an interesting circumstance that in this 
 morning's papers there appears a report of a meeting 
 of the Vigilance Committee of Soho, a meeting in 
 which I notice a clergyman took a prominent part. 
 At this meeting an interesting point was raised, and 
 that was as to the liability of hotel keepers and a 
 special point is made of the fact that the keepers of 
 large hotels, as well as the keepers of small hotels, 
 are to be brought under notice, being held res- 
 ponsible to the police authorities that their guests, 
 when coming in couples, should possess, if not pro- 
 duce, their marriage lines. Now, ladies and gentle- 
 men, I submit that it would be a very inconvenient 
 thing if Miss Lanchester and Mr. Sullivan, when they 
 start their honeymoon, or at any time on their travels
 
 if they should alight from their cab at the door of 
 an hotel, and entering with their luggage find that, 
 not being able to produce any marriage lines, they 
 were bound to hail back the cabby and tip the porter 
 to reinstate their luggage on the cab, and drive else- 
 where where they might not happen to be known. 
 I say this would be a positive inconvenience, and yet 
 it is one which is not so absolutely extravagant to 
 anticipate, having regard to the agitations which are 
 taking place around us, and to which I have referred 
 in detail. Moreover, it would be very awkward for 
 an hotel proprietor if, without it being incumbent 
 upon him to ask for marriage lines, it were his duty 
 to refuse his hospitality to all couples whom he might 
 have, from any cause, reason to know were pursuing 
 the line of action favoured by Edith Lanchester and 
 James Sullivan. At present the difficulties which beset 
 the path of reformers in this direction have not reached 
 this stage ; but even now I am assured by the Solicitor 
 to the League it would be quite impossible for a 
 couple whose aversion to the legal ceremony was 
 practical, and a matter of common knowledge, to 
 obtain a license to carry on the business of hotel 
 proprietors. A test case, so far as I know, has not yet 
 arisen, but I hope the matter may be tested some day. 
 I have here a new book. It is a work by Mr. 
 Grant Allen, and in the same series as "The Woman 
 Who Did." It is entitled "The British Barbarians." 
 Now, in the opening chapter of this book you are 
 introduced to an English gentleman in a village who 
 comes in contact with an alien, and the alien proves 
 himself a little bit puzzled with the English system of 
 coinage. He cannot see why twelve pence instead of 
 ten pence should make a shilling, and he cannot see
 
 293 
 
 why twenty shilling's should make a pound, and is 
 even still more bewildered as to what a guinea can be. 
 Whereupon our English gentleman comes to the con- 
 clusion that the alien must be a madman. Any body 
 who was convinced that the metric system of money 
 reckoning was the best, must, according to this 
 English gentleman's idea, be a madman ; and that 
 was simply because the English gentleman knew 
 nothing about the metric system of money. Now, to 
 Grant Allen the English gentleman was a British 
 Barbarian. Applying the language of the book, 
 George Fielding Blandford is a British Barbarian. 
 He could not understand Miss Edith Lanchester's 
 system of marriage. He was wedded to the conven- 
 tional ideas of her country, which are no more sane 
 than our system of currency, and so he pronounced 
 Miss Lanchester insane ; only the unfortunate part of 
 the business was that it lay in his power to do more 
 than merely express a pious opinion he was able, m 
 conjunction with the father, to consign her to an 
 asylum. 
 
 But the calling of Dr. Blandford a Barbarian will 
 not gain us as much as we desire. We want on this 
 occasion to do something practical, and what I pro- 
 pose is that after having examined the certificates 
 upon which Miss Lanchester was committed to Roe- 
 hampton, we should pass a resolution bringing the 
 Doctor's conduct before the notice of the President 
 and Council of the Royal College of Physicians. 
 
 Now, as to the certificates. Before considering 
 them and Dr. Blandford, it will be profitable to notice 
 a statement signed by Mr. Henry Jones Lanchester, 
 Architect and Surveyor, Salvadore, Kingston Hill, her 
 father. He gives his daughter's age as 24 years. Her
 
 294 
 
 age at first attack was about 22, and the duration of 
 existing attack about two years. It was ' : the first 
 attack," and her residence at or immediately preceding 
 the date hereof is given as Salvadore, Kingston Hill. 
 At the same time, during this protracted period of 
 illness, and when his daughter, according to his 
 account, was residing with him, the name and address 
 of the usual medical attendant of the patient was 
 " none," which, is at least a little singular. Though 
 residence at or immediately preceding the date hereof 
 is set down as Salvadore, Mr. Lanchester's certificate 
 sets forth that he last saw his daughter at 72, Este 
 Road, Battersea. Now I am assured that in every 
 sense of the word as used in common speech, Edith 
 Lanchester "resided" at and immediately preceding 
 the 25th of October at Battersea, and that her con- 
 nection with Salvadore was strictly in the character 
 of visits there, in every sense in which that word is 
 used in common speech. I am informed that Miss 
 Lanchester had never removed all her books and 
 sundry belongings from Salvadore to Battersea, but 
 that is neither here nor there. She lived in lodgings 
 in Battersea that was her commonly known postal 
 address, and on the occasion of her visits to Salvadore, 
 she had not removed her belongings from Battersea, 
 or in any manner or form changed her address from 
 Este Road to Kingston Hill. Miss Lanchester is 
 present, and will correct me if any of these statements 
 are not absolutely accurate. One particular in the 
 certificate to fill in is " Religious Persuasion," and Mr. 
 Lanchester, whose daughter resided at Salvadore so 
 recently, and about whose mental state he had known 
 for so long a time, answered that question by writing 
 opposite the words " religious persuasion " the word
 
 2 95 . 
 
 ''unknown." That also seems a little singular, does 
 it not ? Then he is asked the supposed cause of in- 
 sanity, and the answer is " over-education." Whether 
 subject to epilepsy; "No." Whether suicidal; 
 " Doubtful." I do not know in what sense this is 
 doubtful, and I do say it is most strange that Mr. 
 Lanchester, who has appeared in print in defence of 
 his conduct, has had nothing to say in elaboration of 
 this doubtful answer. We do indeed know many of 
 us know how an editor is liable to pare down our 
 contributions, but I cannot believe of any single 
 journal in London that it has on its staff any respon- 
 sible person who would take upon himself to curtail 
 any document signed H. J. Lanchester in such a way 
 that any statement that gentleman might have to 
 make as to the indications of suicidal tendencies in 
 Edith Lanchester, should not appear. Now comes 
 the question whether any near relative has been 
 afflicted with insanity. It was so the particulars are 
 filled in: " Grandmother imbecile in old age." Now, 
 ladies and gentlemen. I have given these details of 
 Mr. Lanchester's certificates, not with any view of 
 urging that the question of proceeding against him 
 be reconsidered. These answers interest us in this 
 wise that upon them Dr. Blandford may be pre- 
 sumed to have acted in conjunction with his diagnosis, 
 made at the request of the author of these answers. 
 In Dr. Blandford's certificate one of the headings is 
 '* Facts communicated by others," and the " others " 
 who supplied Dr. Blandford with facts, include, and, 
 in fact comprise Mr. H. J. Lanchester, and he alone ; 
 and in Dr. Blandford's famous letter no other inform- 
 ants than Mr. Lanchester and two of his sons are 
 dragged on to the scene, and from them, apparently, the
 
 2g6 
 
 Doctor had learned that there was an insane uncle in the 
 family besides the grandmother, and possibly insane 
 in the same way, " imbecile in old age." Dr. Blandford 
 examined Miss Lanchester at 72, Este Road, Batter- 
 sea, the same address as where her father last saw 
 her, and he came to the conclusion that she was a 
 person of unsound mind on the following grounds : 
 (a) Facts indicating insanity observed by myself at 
 the time of examination, viz., She says she is 
 going to live with a man below her in station 
 because marriage is immoral. This she argued 
 in a wholly irrational manner. She thinks it 
 more independent to live like this, but she fails 
 to see that if she has a family and is deserted, 
 she will not be independent at all. She persists 
 that she will go and live with this man, and go 
 to Australia. 
 
 (ft) Facts communicated by others, viz., Her father, 
 Mr. H. J. Lanchester, tells me that his daughter 
 cannot be persuaded of the irrationality of all 
 she proposes to do. 
 
 Now let us examine seriatim, Dr. Blandford's grounds. 
 The sentence " She is going to live with a man below 
 her in station because marriage is immoral," is not 
 entirely clear as to meaning. Is it because marriage 
 is immoral that she is going to live with a man, and 
 is it for the same reason that she is selecting a man 
 below her own -station, and did she say that the 
 man she was going to live with was below her 
 own station ? " This she argued in a wholly irrational 
 manner." That of course is the Doctor's pious opinion. 
 The irrationality of a course does not necessarily 
 prove the insanity of it, but the conduct contemplated 
 in this case was " wholly irrational.'' " She says it is
 
 297 
 
 more independent to live like this, but she fails to see 
 that if she has a family and is deserted, she will not 
 be independent at all." The word independent 
 is here used in two independent senses, and the 
 sentence is perhaps designed to approach the level of 
 a pun. Dr. Blandford interviewed Miss Lanchester 
 for the space of half an hour so he assures us in his 
 letter. I do not know in what wholly irrational way 
 Miss Lanchester argued with him, but it does not 
 seem to me to be wholly an irrational supposition that 
 a woman can be as independent without marriage to 
 a man as if she had wedded him. If Miss Lanchester 
 is deserted in the course of years, and should have, 
 say, a family of five children, she can obtain affiliation 
 orders for their support if Mr. Sullivan can be found ; 
 and if Mr. Sullivan cannot be found, then, married or 
 otherwise, she cannot obtain maintenance for herself 
 and family. As to her position under marriage 
 providing" always her husband allows her shelter 
 under his roof and a bare subsistence of food she 
 will enjoy an independence of a sort, but it is wholly 
 irrational to contend that it will be an independence 
 worthy of the name. " She persists that she will go 
 and live with this man, and go to Australia." Here 
 is some more superb grammar. Did the insanity 
 consist in persisting in the idea of living unmarried, 
 or was some part of the alleged insanity assignable 
 to the fact -that she would go to Australia ? Now 
 most of us know how this intended journey to 
 Australia came about. Miss Lanchester was a girl 
 to whom the highest feelings of filial love and sacri- 
 fice appear to come naturally. There was no induce- 
 ment to go to Australia, so far as is known, no 
 special prospect of worldly gain, no hidden motive,
 
 298 
 
 nothing save and except a desire to show the utmost 
 consideration for the "respectable" susceptibilities 
 of her family, and to make her actions fit in with that 
 wish. 
 
 But even if the Doctor were victorious in the 
 argument as to the relative independence of wives 
 and women who are not wives, he has to establish 
 another proposition besides the rationality of his own 
 views, before bringing to bear upon an opponent the 
 force argument of a lunatic asylum. The State has 
 .not, so far as I am aware, ever expressed an intention 
 of taking charge of those who take steps which may 
 lead to a loss of their independence. If Dr. Bland- 
 ford's methods are justified, then every woman who, 
 for any reason, refuses a settlement at the time of 
 marriage should be consigned to an asylum, for is 
 she not failing to take a precaution against possible 
 loss of independence? Nay, indeed, is not every 
 woman who does not press for a settlement in all 
 cases where such is attainable by pressure, guilty 
 of insanity, and in need of care and treatment ? I 
 say it is not the aim of the Lunacy Law to keep 
 people independent, and still less, if anything, is it the 
 aim of the Lunacy Law to suppress heresies, whether 
 of a religious or a sociological order. At the pre- 
 vious meeting of this League I dwelt at some length 
 on the extraordinary unlikelihood of Dr. Blandford 
 being ignorant of the fact that the course which Miss 
 Lanchester proposed to adopt was no original course 
 no very remarkable course but a course which 
 found expression in contemporary fiction, particularly 
 in Grant Allen's "The Woman who Did," of the 
 nature of which work I presumed it to be impossible 
 for Dr. Blandford to be unacquainted. I also sub-
 
 299 
 
 mitted to that meeting my opinion of the unlikelihood 
 of Dr. Blandford being ignorant of the charges fre- 
 quently brought against Socialism, that it sought to 
 abolish our system of marriage, even if he should 
 have the misfortune to have heard nothing of the 
 attack on marriage from the Individualist side ; 
 but whatever may or may not have been the 
 extent of Dr. Blandford's knowledge, I submit 
 that it must have been impossible for any man 
 who was " wholly rational " himself, to have talked 
 with Miss Edith Lanchester for half an hour, and 
 not to arrive at the conclusion that in consigning 
 her to a lunatic asylum, howsoever irrational the 
 way she talked, he was not assuming the function of 
 a suppressor of sociological heresy. At the meeting 
 referred to, a resolution was unanimously passed 
 urging Miss Lanchester " to take legal advice as to 
 the advisability of proceeding against Dr. Blandford, 
 as having acted in a manner obviously not bona fide'' 
 Some forty to fifty persons voted for that resolution. 
 Now you know that advice was taken, and what it 
 was. Counsel considered that " In the case of Dr. 
 Blandford, his certificate itself frankly setting forth 
 facts which are not irreconcilable with sanity, is some 
 evidence of good faith ; his enquiries elicited the 
 facts to which he certifies, and those facts are ad- 
 mittedly true. It may be that he was wrong in his 
 deductions from those facts ; if so, he committed an 
 error of judgment ; but an error of judgment is not 
 actionable, unless it proceeds from a want of reason- 
 able care and skill, of which we see no sufficient 
 evidence. In an action f<>r libel against Dr. Bland- 
 ford, Miss Lanchester would have to prove that the 
 certificate, which is clearly a privileged document,
 
 300 
 
 was false, in fact, an allegation in which she would 
 fail." Now it may be presumptuous for me to say so, 
 but I cannot concur in all these remarks. But our 
 discussion this afternoon is not whether Miss Lan- 
 chester should proceed or not. A meeting of the 
 Executive was held this morning, and I read then 
 some extracts from the Act of Parliament, which 
 appear to take the matter very much out of Miss 
 Lanchester's hands. I will re-read the sections of 
 the Act now. 
 
 "55 Viet., Ch. 5. 
 
 Sec. 317. (i) Any person who makes a wilful mis- 
 statement of any material fact in any petition, 
 statement of particulars, or reception order under 
 this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. 
 
 (2) Any person who makes a wilful misstate- 
 ment of any material fact in any medical or other 
 certificate, or in any statement or report of 
 bodily or mental condition under this Act, shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanour. 
 
 (3) A prosecution for a misdemeanour under 
 this Section shall not take place except by 
 order of the Commissioners, or by the Attorney- 
 General, or the Director of Public Prosecutions. 
 
 Sec. 328. A Secretary of State, on the Report of the 
 Commissioners or Visitors of any Institution 
 for Lunatics, may direct the Attorney-General 
 to prosecute on the part of the Crown any 
 person alleged to have committed a misde- 
 meanour under this Act." 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that the best thing 
 that can be done would be to bring Dr. Blandford's 
 conduct before the Commissioners, possibly with a 
 request that they will report to the Secretary of State.
 
 301 
 
 On the point of wilful misstatement I have myself 
 nothing to say, I merely press what is contained in the 
 resolution, which is the disbelief of myself and of those 
 who vote for the resolution, that Dr. Blandford can 
 have supposed that in Miss Lanchester he had a patient 
 merely subject to morbid idiosyncrasy or monomania, 
 inasmuch as it is quite impossible for me to believe, 
 unless we have his express assertion to the contrary, 
 that he thought that this lady was unique in disbelief 
 in marriage. And I further think that the Doctor has 
 lent his services to the suppression of a sociological 
 heresy, in a manner not contemplated by the Lunacy 
 Act, for, I take it, the Lunacy Act does not contem- 
 plate such suppression at all ; and I and those who 
 vote with me further express the opinion, after most 
 careful analysis, that Dr. Blandford's certificate was 
 not compiled with the requisite care due from a 
 medical man whilst exercising power to sign away 
 the liberty of a subject. I now read and move the 
 following resolution : 
 
 " That this meeting express to the President and 
 Council of the Royal College of Physicians, its 
 sense of the utter impossibility of believing that 
 Dr. Blandford acted with bona-fides in signing 
 the Urgency Order for the committal of Edith 
 Lanchester to a Lunatic Asylum ; deeming it, in 
 the absence of any express admission from Dr. 
 Blandford to the contrary, most unlikely that he 
 was unacquainted with that phase of the- woman's 
 movement which exemplifies itself in stern protest 
 against the Marriage Law of this country, and 
 fixed determination to dispense with the legal 
 ceremony ; and that being probably acquainted 
 with such ideas he cannot have believed that
 
 302 
 
 Edith Lanchester was merely a subject of morbid 
 idiosyncrasy, or of monomania ; nor can he have 
 believed that the scope of the Lunacy Law in- 
 cluded the suppression of heresies, whether of a 
 religious or sociological character. 
 
 "This meeting therefore resolves to represent to 
 
 the President and the Council of the Royal College 
 
 of Physicians, that Doctor Blandford's certificate 
 
 was signed without the exercise of reasonable care." 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK seconded the resolution. He- said 
 
 the ostensible aim of the resolution was no doubt to 
 
 take away Dr. Blandford's diploma, but though there 
 
 might be little chance of success in that respect, the 
 
 resolution would have sufficient effect to satisfy most 
 
 people who hated medical tyranny, or sought to gain 
 
 freedom in sexual matters. They might simply bring 
 
 about the passing of a rebuke on the doctor's 
 
 conduct, and this would probably answer their 
 
 purpose. He added that while Dr. Blandford was at 
 
 large the public were in danger. 
 
 Miss MORANT supported the resolution. She 
 said such conduct as Dr. Blandford's was simply a 
 disgrace to the profession. Whatever else might be 
 gained by condemning him, the condemnation would 
 have the effect of making others more careful. In 
 her opinion there was more harm done by specialist 
 doctors than by ordinary medical men. 
 
 Mrs. G. C. E. LAW supported the resolution, 
 expressing the opinion that any condemnation of Dr. 
 Blandford would be of great value, whether or no it 
 was endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE BEDBOROUGH also supported the 
 resolution. He entirely agreed that the remonstrance 
 would be a gain, even though help from the Council
 
 303 
 
 of a College of Physicians was not given. Having 
 regard to the lamentable wording of the Doctor's 
 certificate, he felt that the evidence pointed rather to 
 incompetence, than to absence of bona-fides. 
 
 Miss EDITH LANCHESTER next addressed the 
 meeting. She said her confidence had been greatly 
 strengthened on finding that there were so many 
 people ready to rally round her. When she took up with 
 the new woman's movement she had lost friends, but 
 looking back, and looking to the support she now 
 received, she was constrained to feel that the friend- 
 ship of the lost friends was not of so much value. 
 
 Mr. JAMES SULLIVAN supported the remarks of 
 Miss Lanchester, and said that though what had been 
 done by those who had come to the rescue was not 
 done out of personal friendship, he still felt called 
 upon to personally thank everyone concerned for 
 their timely efforts. 
 
 Mrs. GRAY denounced the Doctor's action in 
 unmeasured terms, and sincerely hoped that the 
 profession would censure him. 
 
 In answer to some questions of Mr. F. Evershed. 
 Mr. J. C. Spence rose and said what was required in 
 the interests of the rights of the lunatic was that 
 which was already granted to the criminal, and that 
 was fair trial in open court. As to urgency orders 
 wherever danger was apprehended, the nearest 
 policeman could assist without being armed with an 
 order signed by one or two medical men. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said it was per- 
 fectly clear that the meeting agreed that the issues 
 at stake were not merely those involved in the reform 
 of the Lunacy Laws, nor on the other hand was it 
 altogether a question of Personal Rights, even with
 
 34 
 
 the capital P and the capital R. Their invasion was, 
 as any suppression of sociological heresy indeed was 
 an invasion of Personal Rights, and the ordinary 
 Lunacy Laws had been wrongfully appljed towards 
 such suppression. He asked those who supported 
 the resolution to signify their support by holding up 
 one hand. 
 
 Twenty-one, including the Chairman and the 
 proposer of the resolution held up a hand. On the 
 contrary being put, no hand was raised. Three or 
 four persons abstained from voting. 
 
 A copy of this Resolution, and of the report 
 of the meeting as given above, was sent by me to the 
 Secretary of the Royal College of Physicians. 
 
 A meeting of the Consultative Committee was 
 held at the Great Eastern Hotel, on Saturday evening 
 the 3Oth of December, 1895, when ^ was unanimously 
 resolved to send a deputation to the Lunacy Com- 
 missioners. It was further resolved to hold a public 
 meeting, and the hall at St. Martin's Town Hall, 
 Charing Cross, was engaged for the igth of Decem- 
 ber.
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 THE GREAT LANCHESTER CASE (Contd.). 
 
 ASYLUM OR GAOL? 
 
 E following" was contributed by me to the 
 
 Labour Annual, 1896 : 
 
 LANCHESTER AND LIBERTY. 
 
 The echo of the glorious blow struck in America 
 by Lillian Harman and E. C. Walker has been heard 
 in England. The chattel slavery of wives is doomed 
 in this " land of the brave and the free." Never again 
 will lunatic asylum doors be thrown open to receive 
 the women who rebel against the tyranny of marriage. 
 That is a foregone conclusion. We have tried to 
 teach our transatlantic cousins a lesson, and we have 
 failed. They, nine years ago. clumsily arraigned Lil- 
 lian Harman and E. C. Walker before a court of law, 
 and duly lodged them in Oskaloosa jail, thus directing 
 public attention to their crime of unlawful cohabita- 
 tion. We, cleverer, incarcerated Edith Lanchester in 
 an asylum without trial, save a half-hour's private 
 conversation with Dr. George Fielding Blandford, but 
 we omitted the precaution of putting James Sullivan 
 under " care and treatment " at the same time, and 
 
 u
 
 306 
 
 left him free to go and blazon the matter forth in 
 a police court before a magistrate and a 
 pressman. To this last all praise. I crave 
 space also to praise Mary Gray. I shall never 
 forget her fervid utterance at the second " Lanchester 
 meeting " of the Legitimation League, declaring that 
 she forgot that Edith was her lodger, declaring that 
 she was her " comrade," and that she would stick to 
 a comrade to the bitter end. It is strange (of course 
 I speak merely from my own point of view, and not 
 dogmatically) through what channels the great 
 making-for-righteousness power that humanity poss- 
 esses works. To my mind Socialism means the 
 accentuation of woman's slavery ; yet here the Power 
 {I dignify it) is working through Social Democratic 
 women whilst some of the leaders of Liberty look on, 
 say little or nothing, or vilify. Edith Lanchester 
 has had greatness thrust upon her at four-and-twenty 
 years of age by an incident, but only her reason and 
 her bravery to act according to her lights made that 
 incident possible. Dr. Blandford would have gone to 
 his grave without doing one tithe of the good the In- 
 scrutable has allotted to his life-task had he not encoun- 
 tered the woman to whom he has given an immortal 
 wreath of fame. But let us remember that Edith 
 Lanchester has not been a mere dummy in the hands 
 of the Power ; a satellite borrowing light entirely 
 from something in the universe outside herself : she 
 has shone. Her filial devotion was the first virtue in 
 evidence ; she was willing to emigrate simply to 
 spare the feelings of her family. When her family 
 thought her migration should be no further than the 
 lunatic asylum, she was anxious to overlook and 
 excuse all who were near to her ; she was weary of
 
 37 
 
 the gaze, and criticism, and interference with occu- 
 pation which sudden celebrity brings in its train but 
 as a matter of public duty she was prepared to take 
 the necessary trouble to bring Dr. Blandford to book 
 if the Lanchester Consultative Committee advised 
 her that such course would be feasible and wise. 
 What her after work as a soldier of Liberty may be 
 Time will show ; suffice it that she now ranks with 
 her forerunner, Lillian Harman, with the advance 
 guard, to whose lot falls the burden in the battles of 
 Sexual Freedom. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 GOODALL AND SuoDiCK, Printers, Oookridge Street, Leeds.
 
 LILLIAN HARMAN. 
 
 Interim Editor of Lucifer, 
 
 114, E., 4th St., Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hllgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 757 458 5