17 FEBRUARY 1923, Page 13

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The order made in

the West London Court recently for the destruction of some two thousand copies of Mrs. Margaret Sanger's pamphlet on Family Limitation (written

and published especially for the benefit of the working classes) was upheld at the London Sessions on February 9th, with an added ruling that those who published the book had " acted honestly and innocently, and with the best intentions." Sir Arbuthnot Lane gave the following evidence :—

" The pamphlet Family Limitation, in his opinion, set out decently and properly and in a clear manner the methods to be applied. It did not go further than was necessary, and he could not understand any sane people objecting. In his opinion limitation of families was not subversive of the morals of society. His life had been spent among the poor, and the misery of these multiple pregnancy cases was untold and terrible."

Sir Bryan Donkin and Sir Archdall Reid sent in a written statement approving of the pamphlet and saying :- " We are unanimously of opinion that the charge of obscenity is without any foundation."

Evidence was tendered by Mr. H. G. Wells, as ex-school• master and author, regarding the necessity of sex knowledge ; by Mr. St. Loe Strachey (editor of the Spectator) ; Mr. Harold Cox (publicist and ex-M.P.) ; Dr. C. V. Drysdale, DSc. (President of the Malthusian League) ; by myself as a married woman, a social welfare worker and author of Safe Marriage (a similar book on Birth Control published recently by Messrs Wm. Heinemann (Medical Books), Ltd., with similar illustra• tions), and by my nurse—a trained hospital sister and regis- tered midwife. All this evidence was refused by the tour as irrelevant. They would hear nothing about our experience • that precise and graphic conveyance of Birth Control know- ledge was particularly necessary for poor and ignorant women. If in time the Public Prosecutor should decide to indic$

rather than to summon the publishers and sellers of Birth Control books, and the cases go before a Jury of Married Women, I am advised that a verdict reversing the present ruling would easily be obtained. As this would not only create confusion in the public mind, but would actually bring the law into disrepute as well, I am asking the unheard witnesses named above to form a small Committee to raise sufficient funds to get these very grave questions settled in an authoritative and dignified manner in the courts and in Parliament. In this matter Mr. John Lort-Williams, K.C., M.P., has promised his advice and assistance.

But I wish to emphasize that this is essentially a woman's question, and cannot be decided by men alone. And above all, as Sir Arbuthnot Lane stated emphatically in his evidence, poor women must not be deprived of the knowledge which richer women certainly possess.

Contributions towards this Right to Knowledge (Defence Fund) should be sent to Mr. Wells (Easton Glebe, Dunmow, Essex), and they will be acknowledged in due course.—I am,

[We cannot publish any more letters on this subject. We remain convinced that in the interests of children, women, and of human society as a whole, it is essential that the increase of population should be regulated.—En. Spectator.]