with the fifth edition.  It seems a strange thing that a man of eminence, presumably a man of honor, should disavow all responsibility for a book which bears his name as author on the title-page.  Clearly, if the ’Human Physiology’ is not Dr. Carpenter’s, the public is grossly deceived by the pretence that it is, and if, as Dr. Carpenter says, the whole responsibility rests on Dr. Power, then that gentleman should have the whole credit of that very useful book.  It is not right that Dr. Carpenter should have all the glory and Dr. Power all the annoyance resulting from the work.”

Among all the men we came into contact with during the trial, Dr. Carpenter and Professor Fawcett were the only two who shrank from endorsing their own written statements.

The presiding magistrate, Mr. Alderman Figgins, devoted himself gallantly to the unwonted task of wading through physiological text books, the poor old gentleman’s hair sometimes standing nearly on end, and his composure being sadly ruffled when he found that Dr. Carpenter’s florid treatise, with numerous illustrations of a, to him, startling character, was given to young boys and girls as a prize in Government examinations.  He compared Knowlton with the work of Dr. Acton’s submitted to him, and said despondingly that one was just the same as the other.  At the end of the day the effect made on him by the defence was shown by his letting us go free without bail.  Mr. Bradlaugh finished his defence at the next hearing of the case on April 19th, and his concluding remarks, showing the position we took, may well find their place here: 

“The object of this book is to circulate amongst the masses of the poor and wretched (as far as my power will circulate it), and to seek to produce in their minds such prudential views on the subject of population as shall at least hinder some of the horrors to be witnessed amongst the starving.  I have not put you to the trouble of hearing proof—­even if I were, in this court, permitted to do so—­of facts on the Population Question, because the learned counsel for the prosecution, with the frankness which characterises this prosecution, admitted there was the tendency on the part of animated nature to increase until checked by the absence or deficiency of the means of subsistence.  This being so, some checks must step in; these checks must be either positive or preventive and prudential.  What are positive checks?  The learned counsel has told you what they are.  They are war, disease, misery, starvation.  They are in China—­to take a striking instance—­accompanied by habits so revolting that I cannot now allude to them.  See the numbers of miserable starving children in the great cities and centres of population.  Is it right to go to these people and say, ‘bring into the world children who cannot live’, who all their lives are prevented by the poverty-smitten frames of their parents, and by their own squalid surroundings, from enjoying almost every benefit of