A Collection of Chirurgical Tracts

I might here lavish out Encomiums, and take Occasion to dwell upon those many Advantages that will accrue to the Nation by this admirable Scheme; but shall only take Notice of this peculiar Excellence, which it has above all other Schemes, that it necessarily executes itself.

But since the Necessity of debauching a certain Number of young Women, is entirely owing to the Necessity of supplying the Public Stews; a Question may very reasonably arise, whether this Project might not be vastly improv’d, even to the total Extirpation of Private Whoring, by an Act for encouraging the Importation of foreign Women. This, I must confess, deserves a serious Debate: for, besides the Honour of our Females, which would be preserv’d by such an Act, it might bring this farther Advantage; That whereas most of our estated Youth spend a great Part of their Time and Fortunes in travelling Abroad, for no other End, as it seems by most of them, but to be inform’d in the French and Italian Gallantry; they would then have an Opportunity of satisfying their Curiosity in Foreign Amours, without stirring out of London. But I shall leave the Decision of this Matter to abler Pens, well knowing, that a Truth of this Nature, which carries so much the Air of Novelty, will require much better Authority than mine to warrant it.

Let it suffice for the present, that I have fully prov’d what I at first propos’d in this Treatise: That Public Whoring is neither so criminal in itself, nor so detrimental to the Society, as Private Whoring; and that the encouraging of Publick Whoring, by erecting Stews for that Purpose, will not only prevent most of the mischievous Consequences of this Vice, but even lessen the Quantity of Whoring in general, and reduce it to the narrowest Bounds which it can possibly be contain’d in.

After what has been said, it may, perhaps, appear somewhat odd to talk of Religious Objections, as if either Christianity or Morality could possibly object against a Scheme, which is entirely calculated for the Welfare and Happiness of Mankind. But since a great many Men amongst us have entertained such whimsical Notions of Religion, as to imagine, that in some Cases, a Law may be unjust and wicked, tho’ it evidently promotes the Publick Good: as if the right Enjoyment of this Life was inconsistent with our Happiness in the next: I say, since many Men of Understanding have suffer’d themselves to be possess’d with this mistaken Principle, I shall, as briefly as may be, answer such Objections as can, with any Colour of Reason, be offer’d.

First then, I expect to be attack’d with that old moral Precept, of Not doing Evil that Good may come of it. This may be answer’d with another old Saying, equally authentic, and more applicable to the present Purpose, that of two Evils we ought to chuse the least. The Case is this: A private Member of a Society, may, doubtless, commit a Crime with a Design to promote the Good of that Society, which was partly the Case of Felton against the Duke of Buckingham; and this evil Action may possibly answer the Goodness of the Intention, but is universally condemn’d as an unwarrantable Presumption; and falls justly under the Censure of doing a certain Evil, for the Prospect of an uncertain Good. But as to the Legislature, there is a wide Difference; for they, and they only, are intrusted with the Welfare of the Society: This Publick Welfare is, or ought to be, the whole End and Scope of their Actions; and they are fully impower’d to do whatever they judge conducive to that End. If their Intentions come up to this, they are certainly in their Consciences acquitted: But as to the World, their Actions, that is, their Laws, are judg’d good or bad, just or unjust, according as they actually prove beneficial or detrimental to the Society in general: And therefore it is the grossest Absurdity, and a perfect Contradiction in Terms, to assert, That a Government may not commit Evil that Good may come of it; for, if a Publick Act, taking in all its Consequences, really produces a greater Quantity of Good, it must, and ought to be term’d a good Act; altho’ the bare Act, consider’d in itself, without the consequent Good, should be in the highest Degree wicked and unjust.

As for Instance: A Ship performing Quarantine, and known to be infected, is sunk by a Storm; some of the Crew, half drown’d, recover the Shore; but the Moment they land, the Government orders them to be shot to Death. This Action, in itself, is no less than a downright unchristian and inhuman Murther; but since the Health and Safety of the Nation is secured by this severe Precaution, it is no Wonder, if we allow the Action to be not only justifiable, but in the strictest Sense of Morality Just.

Another Objection, or rather the same set in a stronger Light, is, That altho’ the Welfare and Happiness of the Community is, or ought to be, the only End of all Law and Government, yet since our spiritual Welfare is the Summum Bonum which all Christians should aim at, no Christian Government ought to authorize the Commission of the least known Sin, tho’ for the greatest temporal Advantage.

To this Objection, I answer, That it is universally allow’d as one of the greatest Perfections of the Christian Religion, that its Precepts are calculated to promote the Happiness of Mankind in this World as well as the next; if so, then it is a direct Arraignment of the Lawgiver’s infinite Wisdom, i. e. a Contradiction to assert, that, in Matters of Law and Government, the Publick Breach of any Gospel Precept can possibly be for the temporal Good of any Society whatever: And therefore we may with Confidence affirm, that no sinful Laws can be beneficial, and vice versa, that no beneficial Laws can be sinful. Now we have already given sufficient Proof of the Benefit the Public would receive by licensing the Stews, and therefore ought to conclude such Licence lawful; but lest the apparent Wickedness of the Stews, should be objected against this general Reasoning, it is fit that we examine this Matter a little nearer.

Fornication is, no doubt, a direct Breach of a Gospel-Precept, and is therefore a Sin; but this Sin, barely as such, concerns the Government no more than the Eating of Black-puddings, equally prohibited in the same8 Text. The Reason is this: The Sin consists in a full Intention to gratify a Lustful Desire; which Intention the Legislature cannot possibly prevent: Penalties indeed may deter Men from gratifying their Desires, at the Expence of the Public, but will rather increase than lessen the Desires themselves. If it is argu’d, that the Sin of the Intention is aggravated by being put in Execution, so much the better for our Purpose; for then the Argument stands thus:

Since the Sin of the Intention is entirely out of the Legislature’s Power, the utmost they can do, with regard to this Sin, is, to prevent its being aggravated by actual Commission.

But the Public Stews, as we have already prov’d, will prevent as much as possible this actual Commission.

Therefore the Publick Stews will prevent as much as possible this Sin.

Another Branch of this Objection, without which the Objection itself would be of no Force, is, that the authorizing of Public Stews is a Public Encouragement for People to Whore.

If by People are meant those in the Stews, I hope it will be thought no Crime to encourage such People, rather to confine themselves to the Practice of one Vice, than live by committing a Thousand; especially when that one Vice is what they would really practise, whether they were encourag’d or not.

But if any imagine that this particular Licence would be a general Encouragement to the whole Nation, they are certainly mistaken. For, as to the Men, they are already as bad as they can be; if any Thing cures them, it must be Satiety: Let them have full and free Leave to take a Surfeit of unlawful Love, and they will soon learn to prefer the Chaste Embraces of Innocence before the bought Smile of Harlots loveless, joyless, unindear’d casual Fruition.

It is a right Observation, that Restraint does but whet a Man’s Passions instead of curing them.

Exuperat magis, ægrescitque medendo. Æn. 12. And a late ingenious Author, who study’d Mankind, speaking on this Subject, has these Words: To put down Publick Stews, is not only to disperse Fornication into all Parts, but, by the Difficulty, to excite wild and wanton People to this Vice.

It was observ’d at Rome, that in the full Liberty of Divorces, there was not a single Instance of one in fifty Years: And that Cato long’d for his Wife again as soon as she was in another’s Possession.

The Master of Love says positively,Quod licet ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit.

And Martial speaking to a married Rake, B. 3. Ep. 68. says,

Cur aliena placet tibi, quæ tua non placet uxor? Nunquid Securus non potes arrigere?

I pr’ythee tell me why a WifeThy am’rous Fancy never warms?What! without Danger o’thy Life,Cannot thy Cod-pice stand to Arms?

And again, B. 1. Ep. 74.

Nullus in urbe fuit tota, qui tangere velletUxorem gratis, Cæciliane, tuamDum licuit: sed nunc, positis custodibus, ingensTurba fututorum est. Ingeniosus Homo es.There’s no Man, Cæcil, in the Town,Would, gratis, have enjoy’d thy Spouse;But how thou art so jealous grown,Lord! what a Croud about the House!You’ve lock’d her up, t’increase her Value;In short, you are a cunning Fellow.

The Public Stews will not encourage Men to be lewd, but they will encourage them to exercise their Lewdness in a proper Place, without disturbing the Peace of the Society, and with as little Detriment to themselves as possible. And, as to the Women, there’s not the least Shadow of Encouragement: For no modest Woman ever lost her Maiden-head with the dismal Prospect of becoming a Public Courtezan: And if a Woman is not modest, the licensing of the Public Stews is no more an Encouragement for her to practise, than the allowing a certain Number of Hackney-Coaches every Sunday is an Encouragement for the rest to ply; when the very Licence, to some, expresly implies a Prohibition of the rest.

Having now sufficiently proved the Institution of the Public Stews to be a Political Good, and answer’d all the religious Objections against it; I shall conclude with observing, That I have the Authority of Italy, the most Politic Nation in the World, to back me in the first Part of my Argument; and the Opinion of Holland, one of the strictest Reformed Churches, to vindicate me in the second; and that we ourselves enjoy’d the Benefit of this Institution till we were depriv’d of it by the over-hasty Zeal of our first Reformers in the sixteenth Century.

The Public Stews were antiently kept in Southwark, by an express Licence from the Government, and open Permission both Civil and Ecclesiastical, for they paid regular Taxes to the Lord-Mayor of the City, and to the Bishop of the See.

We do not find that they were ever molested ’till the 25th of Edward the Third, when, in the Parliament at Westminster, at the Request of the Londoners, says Daniel, an Act passed, obliging all Common Whores to distinguish themselves, by wearing Hoods striped with divers Colours, or Furs, and their Gowns turn’d inside out.

This, indeed, was but a Trifle to what they suffer’d thirty Years after by Wat Tyler’s Rebellion.

In the fifth of Richard the Second, Wat marched up from Dartworth, with a true Spirit of Reformation, fully resolv’d to burn and destroy every thing that oppos’d him: If the Archbishop’s Palace at Lambeth could not escape, there was little Mercy to be expected for the Stews9; besides, Whoring was not the least of Wat’s Grievances: He began his Rebellion by killing a Collector of the Poll-Tax for being a little too brisk upon his Daughter; and his Antipathy to the Stews was still increased, by the Lord-Mayor’s shutting the City-Gates, and denying him Entrance; for he could not revenge the Affront more effectually, than by cutting off so large a Branch of his Lordship’s Revenue.

In short, every thing concurred to the Destruction of the Stews, and demolish’d they were.

This Action, however, lost Tyler his Life; for William Walworth, then Lord-Mayor, was the very Man who struck him first off his Horse in Smithfield: For which the King knighted him, gave him 100 l. Pension, and added the Dagger to the City-Arms.

Whilst Whoring was in this unsettled Condition, the Bishop thought it a good Opportunity to ingross the whole Profit of licensing Courtezans, which occasion’d them fresh Trouble; for John Northampton, who succeeded Walworth, either piqued at the Bishop’s invading his Right, or out of a real Reforming Principle, for he was a Follower of Wickliff, commenced a severe Persecution. He had his Spies and Constables in every Street, to apprehend Strollers; and such Women as were neither handsome nor rich enough to bribe his Officers, were carried through the Streets in great Pomp, with their Hair shorn, and Trumpets and Pipes playing before them. All this he did contrary to the express Commands of the Bishop, who had several Bickerings with him upon that Head.

This great Reformer John Northampton was, from his troublesome Temper, nick-nam’d Cumber-Town; and as he succeeded Tyler in the Work of Reformation, so he had like to have met with as bad a Fate: For two Years after he was found guilty of High Treason, without making the least Defence; had his Goods confiscated, and was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment 100 Miles from London: Accordingly he was sent to Tentagil-Castle in Cornwall.

This dreadful Cumber-Town being removed, the Stews had Leisure to re-settle themselves under the Protection of the Church; and enjoyed an almost uninterrupted Tranquillity for 150 Years.

We find, indeed, an Act passed at Westminster, in the 11th of Hen. VI. that no Keepers of Stews, or Whore-Houses in Southwark, should be impannelled upon any Jury, or keep a Tavern in any other Place.

But the most sensible Blow they ever felt, was the Invasion of the French-Pox. The Spaniards had brought it from the Islands of Florida to Naples, and the Army of Charles VIII. when he conquer’d that Kingdom in the Year 1495, transmitted it into France, from whence it had a very quick Passage into England; for there was an Act passed in the latter end of Henry VII’s Reign, for expelling out of the Stews all such Women as had the Faculty of Burning Men.

However, we find they still continued in good Repute in the Reign of Henry VIII.10 and yielded a considerable Revenue to the Bishop of London; for Bucer, in one of his Books against Gardiner, taxes him with it as an heinous Crime, that he should receive most of his Rents out of the Public Stews.

After this terrible Accusation, we may easily guess what Quarter our Stews met with at the Reformation. But now Bucer has got his Ends; the Stews are destroy’d; those public Nusances are demolish’d; Whoring is attack’d on all hands without Mercy; and what then? Why, truly, by mere Dint of Reforming, we have reduced Lewdness to that pass, that hardly one Bachelor in the Kingdom will lie with a Woman, if he is sure that she’s not found; and very few modest Women will suffer a Man to get them with Child, unless he makes a Promise to marry.

In short, the Truth is, we are at this present Writing as bad as we can be; and I hope I have fairly shown how we may be better.

APPENDIX

NUMBER I

RICHARD RAWLINSON, L. L. D. and R. S. S. in his Account of Southwark,11 informs us, that next to the Bear-Garden on the Bank-Side was formerly the Bordello, or Stewes, so called from several Licensed Houses for the Entertainment of Lewd Persons, in which were Women prepared for all Comers. They were subject to several Laws and Regulations, and their Manner of Life and Privileged Places, received several Confirmations from the Crown.

In 1162, King Henry II, in a Parliament held at Westminster, passed an Act, confirming several Ordinances, Statutes, and old Customs observed in that Place, amongst which the following are remarkable:

That no Stew-Holder or his Wife, should lett or stay any single Woman to go and come freely at all Times when she listed.

No Stewholder to keep any Woman to board, but she to board abroad at her Pleasure.

To take no more for the Woman’s Chamber than fourteen Pence.

Not to keep open his Doors upon the Holy-days.

Not to keep any single Woman in his House on the Holy-days, but the Bailiff to see them voided out of the Lordship.

No single Woman to be kept against her Will, that would leave her Sin.

No Stew-Holder to receive any Woman of Religion, or any Mans Wife.

No single Woman to take Money to lie with any Man, except she lye with him all Night, till the Morrow.

No Man to be drawn or enticed into any Stew-House.

The Constables, Bailiffs, and others, were every Week to search every Stew-House.

No Stew-Holder to keep any Woman that hath the perillous Infirmity of Burning, nor to sell Bread, Ale, Flesh, Fish, Wood, Coal, or any sort of Victuals.

Anno 1345, Stews were licenced by King Edward III. Anno 1381, these Stew-Houses belonged to William Walworth, Lord-Mayor of London, who let them out to some Flemish Women, and soon after they were plundered by Walter Tyler, and the rebellious Kentishmen, when probably they were put down, and again suffered, and afterwards confirmed by Henry VI. In 1506, King Henry VII. for some Time shut up these Houses, which were in Number Eighteen, and not long after renewed their Licence, and reduced them to Twelve; at which Number they continued till their final Suppression by Sound of Trumpet, in 1546, by King Henry VIII, whose tender Conscience startled at such scandalous and open Lewdness. The single Women who were Retainers to, or Inmates in, these Houses, were excommunicated, not suffered to enter the Church while alive, or if not reconciled before their Death, prohibited Christian Burial, and were interred in a Piece of Ground called the Single-Women’s Church-Yard, set a-part for their Use only. These Houses were distinguished by several Signs painted on their Fronts, as, a Boar’s-Head, the Crane, the Cardinal’s Hat, the Swan, the Bell, the Castle, the Cross-Keys, and the Gun.

NUMBER II An Attempt to prove the Antiquity of the Venereal Disease, long before the Discovery of the West-Indies; in a Letter to Dr. James Douglass, M. D

SIR,

THE Undertaking I am at present engaged in, is to prove that the Venereal Disease was known among us, much earlier than the Æra, which has been generally assign’d for its Rise by modern Authors; for it is believed it was not known, at least in Europe, till about the Year 1494. Notwithstanding which, I determine to make it evident, that it was frequent among us some Hundreds of Years before that Date. I could mention several Physicians and Surgeons of Eminence, who have been of the same Sentiments, particularly, the Learned Dr. Charles Patin, who has written a curious Dissertation to prove the Antiquity of this Disease, which is sufficient to excuse me from the Imputation of having started a Novelty, or being at the trouble of quoting antient Authorities before taken notice of, from the most ancient Writers of Medicine; as Hippocrates, Galen, Avicen, Celsus, &c. and even the Holy Scriptures. I shall therefore lay aside all those foreign Aids and Assistances, and trace out the Symptoms of the Disease, as they naturally arise, from the first Infection to the last destructive Period, and shew that, by searching into our own Antiquities, we may be furnished with Instances of the Frequency of the Distemper among us, in all its respective Stages, before ever our Modern Authors dream it had its Appearance in Europe,

I shall begin with the first Degree of this Disease, and prove from authentic Evidences, it was anciently call’d the Brenning or Burning; and that this Word has been successively continu’d for many Hundreds of Years, to signify the same Disease we now call a Clap; and that it was not discontinu’d till that Appellation first began to have its Rise. The most likely Method to accomplish my Design, will be first to examine those Records that relate to the Stews, which were by Authority allowed to be kept on the Bank-Side in Southwark, under the Jurisdiction of the Bp. of Winchester, and which were suppressed the 37th of Hen. VIII. For it is impossible but, if there were any such Distemper in being at that Time, it must be pretty common among those lewd Women who had a Licence for entertaining their Paramours, notwithstanding any Rules or Orders which might be establish’d to prevent its Increase: But if we shall find that there were Orders establish’d to prevent the Spreading of such a Disease, that Persons might be secure from any contagious Malady after their Entertainment at those Houses (which were anciently 18 in Number, but in the Reign of Hen. VII. reduced to 12) we may then securely depend upon it, that it was the Frequency of the Disease that put those who had the Authority, under a necessity of making such Rules and Orders. For the same Powers, who granted a Liberty for keeping open such lewd Houses, must find it their Interest to secure, as much as possible, all Persons from receiving any Injury there; lest the Frequency of such Misfortunes should deter others from frequenting them, and so the original Design of their Institution cease; from the entire sinking of the Revenues. Now I find that, as early as the Year 1162, divers Constitutions relating to the Lordship of Winchester, (being also confirmed by the King) were to be kept for ever, according to the old Customs that had been Time out of Mind. Among which these were some, viz. 1. No Stew-holder to take more for a Woman’s Chamber in the Week than 14 d. 2. Not to keep open his Doors upon Holy Days. 3. No single Woman to be kept against her Will, that would leave her Sin. 4. No single Woman to take Money to be with any Man, except she lie with him all Night till the Morning. 5. No Stew-holder to keep any Woman that hath the perilous Infirmity of Burning. These and many more Orders were to be strictly observed, or the Offenders to be severely punished. Now we are assured, there is no other Disease that can be communicated by Carnal-Conversation with Women, but that which is Venereal, by reason that only is contagious; and its evident the Burning was certainly so: For, had it been nothing else but some simple Ulceration, Heat, or Inflammation, there would have been no Contagion; and that affecting only the Woman, could not be communicated by any Venereal Congress, and so not infer a Necessity of her being comprehended under the restraining Article. These Orders likewise prove the Disease was much more ancient than the Date above-mentioned; because they were only a Renewal of such as had been before established Time out of Mind.

But to confirm this farther, I find that in the Custody of the Bp. of Winchester, whose Palace was situate on the Bank-side, near the Stews, was a Book written upon Vellum, the Title of which runs thus: Here begynne the Ordinances, Rules, and Customs, as well for the Salvation of Mannes Life, as for to aschew many Mischiefs and Inconvenients that daily be lik there for to fall out, to be rightfully kept, and due Execution of them to be done unto any Person within the same. One of the Articles begins thus: De his qui custodiunt Mulieres habentes Nephandam infirmitatem. It goes on, Item, That no Stew-holder keep noo Woman wythin his House, that hath any Sickness of BRENNING, but that she be put out upon the peyne of makeit a fine unto the Lord of a hundred Shillings. This is taken from the Original Manuscript, which was preserv’d in the Bishop’s Court, suppos’d to be written about the Year 1430. From these Orders we may observe the Frequency of the Distemper at that Time; which, with other Inconveniences, was dayly like there for to fall out: and the Greatness of the Penalty, as the Value of Money then was, that is laid on it, proves it was no trifling or insignificant thing.