Prostitution in Paris : Dr. Chapman's replies to the remarks of M. le Fort and Mr. Berkeley Hill, on certain passages in the articles on prostitution published in The Westminster Review.
- John Chapman
- Date:
- 1870
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Prostitution in Paris : Dr. Chapman's replies to the remarks of M. le Fort and Mr. Berkeley Hill, on certain passages in the articles on prostitution published in The Westminster Review. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
9/24 (page 9)
![M. Le Fort next says :—“ Dr. Chapman wishes to show that the system [of enforced sanitary surveillance] is condemned in France—at least in its application, if not in its principle, and he debits me with having given utterance to opinions which I never entertained.” Further on in his letter he says :—“ The principal ideas that I profess with regard to prostitution have been briefly detailed in the English Medical Times for the 8th January.” I am very glad to learn from himself that his “ principal ideas ” are authoritatively stated in that paper. Now in that paper, when referring to the measures adopted in Paris against syphilis, he says : “ The insufficient results obtained would appear to annul the utility of the measures taken against prostitution by the ad- ministration.” Again he says : “The results of these measures are altogether insufficient.” And again he says : “ It can easily be understood,” giving his reasons why, “ that these measures produce but little effect, and that the result, therefore, of the means employed against syphilis in Paris amount to nothing.” After reading these authenticated extracts, your readers must judge whether or not the system of surveillance as now practised in France is not condemned by M. Le Fort at all events. The fact is, the exposition of his views in the Medical Times is the exposition of the views of a man who, profoundly dissatisfied with the existing system, comes forward as a reformer and lays his proposals before the public; and, like most other reformers, he preludes his proposals with a vigorous denunciation of the system he is anxious to reorganize. And after carefully reading over and over again that exposition of his views, and my repre- sentation of them, I fail altogether to discover in what respect I have misrepresented them ; however, if he will distinctly point out that I have in any respect done so, although unconsciously, I shall gladly acknowledge my mistake ; and meanwhile I beg to assure him that I strove both to apprehend and to express Jiis views and proposals as correctly as I could. Unable to accuse myself of misinterpreting in any degree what he has said, I am forced to the conclusion that it is, in fact, my critical comments on his proposals which have prompted him to write the letter Mr. Acton has sent to you. But I believe I have throughout my remarks had scrupulous regard not only to truth, but to that courtesy which every man criticizing the views of another from whom he differs ought to observe; and I cannot help thinking that when M. Le Fort calmly reconsiders the matter, he will him- self give me credit for having done so. But this personal ques- tion is infinitely less important than the public one to which our discussion mainly refers. And I wish in a concluding paragraph to bring into prominence the chief points on which we differ. Now, why does M. Le Fort condemn the system of sanitary A 3 '](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22349819_0011.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
