sitions contained in this work, when you come
to weigh carefully the views of this undoubted physician and would-be
philosopher, I think you will agree with me that to say that he meant to
depreciate marriage for the sake of prostitution, and that all he says
about marriage is only a disguise, and intended to impress upon the mind
sentiments of an entirely different character for the gratification of
passion, otherwise than by marriage, is a most unjust accusation.
(Applause in court.) I must say that I believe that every word he says
about marriage being a desirable institution, and every word he says with
reference to the enjoyments and happiness it engenders, is said as
honestly and truly as anything probably ever uttered by any man. I can
only believe that when the Solicitor-General made that statement he had
not half studied the book. But I pass that by. I come to the plain issue
before you. Knowlton goes into physiological details connected with the
functions of the generation and procreation of children. The principles
of this pamphlet, with its details, are to be found in greater abundance
and distinctness in numerous works to which your attention has been
directed, and, having these details before you, you must judge for
yourselves whether there is anything in them which is calculated to
excite the passions of man and debase the public morals. If so, every
medical work is open to the same imputation."

The Lord Chief Justice then dealt with the question whether conjugal
prudence was in itself immoral, and pointed out to the jury that the
decision of this very serious question was in their hands:

"A man and woman may say, 'We have more children than we can supply with
the common necessaries of life: what are we to do? Let us have recourse
to this contrivance.' Then, gentlemen, you should consider whether that
particular course of proceeding is inconsistent with morality, whether it
would have a tendency to degrade and deprave the man or woman. The
Solicitor-General, while doubtless admitting the evils and mischiefs of
excessive population, argues that the checks proposed are demoralising in
their effects, and that it is better to bear the ills we have than have
recourse to remedies having such demoralising results. These are
questions for you, twelve thinking men, probably husbands and fathers of
families, to consider and determine. That the defendants honestly believe
that the evils that this work would remedy