Part 16

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 same 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:

Acts, c. 15. v. 29. That ye abstain from Meats offered to Idols, and from Blood, and from Things strangled, and from Fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye do well. Fare ye well.

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 Wife Thy 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 vellet Uxorem gratis, Cæciliane, tuam Dum licuit: sed nunc, positis custodibus, ingens Turba 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.