“The violation of one law may sometimes be the fulfilment of a higher;
and there are laws, which to obey is infamy.”—_Words of Lacordaire
when tried for contempt of the law._
Notwithstanding the apparent diminution of the agitation in favour of
Repeal in England, which somewhat discouraged our supporters during the
early part of the year 1877, a careful retrospect of the progress made
proved that year to have been one of the most auspicious since the
movement began. The year in which the first International Congress took
place upon a question involving neither territorial aggrandisement,
dynastic ambition, nor commercial development, but something higher and
greater than all these—national morality—was a year destined to remain
memorable in the history, not merely of our movement, but of the world.
It will never be forgotten that in the year 1877 the equal rights and
responsibilities of the weaker half of humanity, whose voice had
hitherto been unheard in the councils of nations, were solemnly and
publicly acknowledged in an assembly of over 500 male and female
delegates representing the most advanced minds of Europe and the United
States. “This public recognition of the equal rights of all human souls
was the logical outcome of the grand truth proclaimed by Christianity—of
the worship of God, not as the Deity of a single people or race, but as
the Father of humanity. For the first time since the days of the early
Christians the children of the Heavenly Father stood side by side,
without distinction of sex or race, to preach God’s law of purity, and
many of the women there present, and many of their sisters, who, with
beating hearts, watched their action from afar, recognised that that
Congress was for them the first step towards the realization of the
magnificent promise—‘the Truth shall make you free.’ The first timid,
imperfect recognition by mankind of a portion of the heavenly law
decreed the extinction of the slavery of colour; a fuller, higher
comprehension of its divine justice has decreed the extinction of the
slavery of sex.”[12]
In the early part of this year, as if to prepare the moral atmosphere of
Switzerland for the great Congress to be held at Geneva, a bitter
conflict arose in the Canton of Neuchâtel between the supporters of the
opposing principles on this question. The story of it is briefly this.
Several infamous houses had been established at la Chaux-de-Fonds, a
great industrial centre in the Jura, and had been authorised, or
licensed, not by the Government of the Canton of Neuchâtel, but in some
irresponsible manner by the Magistrates of the town. M. Humbert and his
friends made an attack upon this system, and a request was formulated by
himself and other persons of weight in the town of Neuchâtel that these
houses should be closed. Thereupon the municipality of Chaux-de-Fonds,
who appear to have been largely in favour of the system, in order to
secure its continued existence, held a meeting with closed doors, in
which they voted by a considerable majority not only to maintain the
houses, but to use their authority to license them after the manner of
Paris. Thus the municipality of Chaux-de-Fonds, in the Canton of
Neuchâtel, took upon themselves the responsibility of more firmly
establishing this evil system in that canton, which had hitherto been
free from any such public recognition of vice. The conflict was made the
more painful to M. Humbert because a number of the members of that
municipality had been his former friends and school and college
companions. M. Humbert wrote to me, “I hope we shall succeed in making
the people understand that we are threatened with a dreadful innovation,
and that unless we resist it with all our power, official profligacy
will become an accomplished fact in the Canton of Neuchâtel. Locle, a
town of between 10,000 and 11,000 inhabitants, distant one league from
La Chaux-de-Fonds, is the most directly interested. I was invited to
hold two meetings there. I held the first of these on the 5th March, at
the German Temple, where I was the sole speaker for over an hour to a
numerous and attentive audience. The second meeting was equally well
attended. I have been told that the people of Locle are very strongly
impressed, and have decided in favour of supporting us. I spent the
morning of Wednesday at La Chaux-de-Fonds, returning in a sledge. There
were two feet of snow, and I was reminded of your campaign of February,
1875, in our watch-making Siberia.”
The Neuchâtel Committee of the Federation met soon after, and drew up a
full declaration and protest to the municipality of Chaux-de-Fonds. On
the 22nd March, a mass meeting was held at this town. The large Temple
was completely filled; the political atmosphere of the town was very
stormy. “We were assured,” wrote M. Humbert, “that there would be great
excitement at the meetings, and some of us received threatening letters.
The President’s speech was made amid considerable noise. As soon,
however, as M. Sautter de Blonay began to speak there was silence. He
treated the subject in a most masterly manner, and although it is not
the custom to applaud in a church he was loudly applauded at the end of
his speech. Other speakers having followed, it was now nine o’clock, and
there still remained to me the difficult and delicate task of treating
the question in its local character, and of speaking of the vote of the
Municipal Council and the results which were sure to follow.”
Scarcely had M. Humbert commenced his address, exposing what had taken
place in the Municipality, than a cry arose from a chorus of voices in
the gallery, where a number of upholders of the regulation system were
seated, among whom were three Municipal Councillors. At the moment when
M. Humbert uttered the words “with regard to the Municipal vote,” this
group cried out, “The Municipal Council did well, they did well!” M.
Humbert replied, “You are free to express your opinions; as for me, I
will finish my speech.” He then drew a striking picture of the
difference between the present state of morality in the town and its
ancient state. He himself had been a member of the Council in 1849, when
the first house of ill-fame was secretly established there without any
official recognition at all. He then in his address attacked the
institution itself, giving a number of facts, and demolishing, stroke
after stroke, the arguments of his opponents.
When M. Humbert had finished his masterly speech and come down from the
tribune, and the President had risen to close the meeting, it seemed as
if a victory had been gained for us, and the crowd was beginning to move
towards the doors, when M. Robert, Municipal Councillor, got up, and in
the midst of great excitement in the meeting, cried out that if this
institution were closed they would be taking the bread out of the mouths
of women! At these words there arose such a tumult of indignant protests
that the President was obliged to beg in a loud voice that they would
allow M. Robert to speak. Nevertheless M. Robert was unable to say
anything more, except that he protested against the morality of the town
being supposed to be worse than it had been. This was in allusion to a
portion of M. Humbert’s speech in which he quoted the beautiful
description which Jean Jacques Rousseau gives of the moral life of the
Neuchâtel mountaineers in his letter to d’Alembert, in connection with
which M. Humbert had recalled many honourable names of mechanicians,
engravers, painters, etc., speaking of them as the moral nobility of the
Jura, whose memory ought to be an inspiration to us in the great work we
have now to accomplish. The partisans of legalized vice had now gone
down from the gallery, and were yelling around M. Robert, while M.
Humbert’s adherents were shouting in their turn. It was thought better
not to prolong the meeting. The Municipal Councillors could not fail to
see that M. Humbert had used the utmost possible delicacy in speaking of
them; indeed, they confessed this, while they saw also that the
impression on the people was most unfavourable to them. One of them said
to M. Humbert, “You ought to have attacked the Council of State, who
have caused us to fall into this wolf-trap.” The majority of the people
of Chaux-de-Fonds were gained, though our adversaries were very bitter.
The women worked well.
The next event of importance that followed was a very bitter personal
attack made on M. Humbert, who was selected as the scape-goat of the
angry and defeated Municipal Councillors. This attack was printed and
largely circulated before the date fixed for the meeting of the Grand
Council of Neuchâtel. All the journals of the Canton began to be
occupied with the subject, and our opponents, in fact, aided our cause
by themselves obtaining for us the thing they most fear—complete
publicity.
To this public accusation M. Humbert wrote a most dignified reply. I do
not give it here, as it is lengthy. It is pathetic in its dignity. About
the same time M. Humbert wrote me, “You will only receive this on the
last day of your mission week on behalf of the cause. But you do not
require it as an assurance that our hearts have been with our
fellow-workers in England during that time. The past two or three weeks
number among the most sorrowful and painful of my life. You can
understand what I have gone through. It is necessary to have grappled
face to face with the powers of darkness, in order to learn what there
may be of sadness even in a victory gained, even in the congratulations
one receives.”
_The Shield_, remarked, “M. Humbert has fought the good fight in so
uncompromising and resolute a manner, that one is apt to forget the
great personal sacrifice involved in a struggle maintained, as his
struggle with the Municipal Council of La Chaux-de-Fonds has been,
against fellow-citizens and former friends. How dearly the moral victory
has been won can only be appreciated by those who have themselves
undergone this species of social martyrdom, and their sympathy,
admiration and gratitude is for ever assured, to M. Humbert.”
On April 25th I wrote as follows to M. Humbert:—
“DEAR FRIEND,—
“Your letter concerning the storm of feeling raging in your Canton
reached me to-day. My first impulse was to kneel down and give thanks,
so plainly do I see the footsteps of Jehovah in the storm. Did I not
tell you long ago that you in Switzerland would have to go through the
same fires that we went through five and six years ago? This persecution
is the divine seal set upon your mission; let us rejoice and be glad,
for it shows that the battle of the Lord is set in array against those
principalities and powers which are leagued with the spirit of darkness.
You ought not to regret that this struggle in your own country occupies
so much of your time. Your country is to be the scene of our first great
International Congress, and it is well that the country in which that
event is to take place should be well prepared. If it were not so,
Switzerland would not be so fitted to be the central battlefield of our
International conflict. We will do our best to keep up correspondence
with France and other countries, in order to leave you more free.
“I see in the conflict around you the same features which we have
observed elsewhere—the same secrecy of procedure on the part of our
adversaries, the same tactics when forced to act publicly, the same
weakness in their own camp. If you yourself have to bear the brunt of
the opposition, you will win adherents far more rapidly on account of
this. If those in authority, if the Federal Government itself, were to
pronounce against your principles, and its agents were to calumniate
you, it will not do you any real harm, and will only be temporary.
Wherefore let us ‘stand fast in the Lord.’ We have had already for seven
years the whole authority of our Imperial Government against us, and our
names have been blackened in public and in Parliamentary debate. In some
cases incomes have been lessened and times made very hard for us, but
the cause gains daily in strength and is consecrated by the sufferings
of its advocates.
“Tell dear Madame Humbert that now is the time for _women_ to be strong:
women have never shrunk from martyrdom; they must not do so now.
“We have had a week of prayer for our cause, beginning on the 17th. We
were glad to think that you and your family were with us in spirit. I
told the tale of your Swiss conflict and we prayed for you all. The
women who promoted this union for prayer are brave, instructed women who
are not afraid of the reproach of being ‘political women,’ who have, in
fact, made the ‘last sacrifice,’ by giving their names to public scorn
for the Lord’s sake who gave Himself to public scorn for their sakes. I
trust that the dear Swiss ladies will be ready even to become
politicians in order to deliver their sisters from slavery!
“My only regret concerning that splendid meeting which was held at La
Chaux-de-Fonds is that there was no woman strong enough in the strength
of the Lord to enter that meeting alone and uninvited, and cry aloud to
the men there, the good and the bad alike, ‘You men have no right to
discuss the question, shall you or shall you _not_ maintain female
slavery in the interests of vice; the question is already judged, the
verdict is already given, for I tell you in the name of all women that
you shall not maintain female slavery in the interests of vice; and it
is the voice of God which now declares that you shall not.’ Such a
proclamation, coming from the woman’s side, strikes a kind of terror
into the hearts of our adversaries, such as even the noblest man’s voice
does not inspire. Why? Because it is the voice of the slave herself; and
the oppressor, with the abettor of oppression, fears, saying to himself,
like Herod, ‘It is John the Baptist whom I beheaded; he is risen from
the dead!’ The only thing yet wanting, dear friends, in your noble
campaign is the resurrection of the slave in the person of some devoted
woman or women who will tell the tyrant in the woman’s voice, gently but
terribly, ‘You shall not do this thing.’ Perhaps your ladies will be
moved by the guidance of the Holy Spirit to put forth a united protest
of this kind—gentle, solemn, but firm and powerful. Now is the moment to
do it. It will shake the adversary in his inmost soul and will
strengthen our noble masculine champions.”
In quoting these words, written so long ago, I cannot help taking a
brief mental retrospect, and tracing the wonderful and steady progress
of the women of Switzerland in this matter. The fear of “meddling with
politics” oppressed them at first. An important group of them now
interest themselves actively in every social and political question
which bears directly or indirectly on the interests of women; they have
brought strong personal influence to bear on their Cantonal and Federal
Governments, an influence which the late M. Ruchonnet, as President of
the Federal Council, acknowledged to have been of the most salutary
kind. Their labours are taken account of in the new Project for the
Reform and Unification of the Penal Code; and under the skilful guidance
of Professor Louis Bridel, they have already witnessed the achievement
in certain cantons of a reform in the Civil Code, similar to our
“Married Woman’s Property Act,” by which a woman’s earnings and property
are secured to herself. They are proceeding to follow this up by further
reforms.
On the very day—the 22nd of March—when those men of the two Councils,
the Municipal Council and Council of State, of Chaux-de-Fonds, the
friends of M. Humbert’s youth, furious with him, were recording their
accusation against him of calumniating his native city, the corpses of
two young working women of Chaux-de-Fonds were being dragged out of the
River Doubs at Brenets, on the Jura. One was a young widow of
twenty-three, and the other a girl of eighteen. They had fled from one
of the strongholds of debauchery at Chaux-de-Fonds, had run as far as
Locle, and then to Brenets. Friendless and poor, and fearing to return
to the town or to say whence they had fled, having been enticed only
lately into this slavery, and horrified at their lives therein, they saw
no way of escape, they knew not of any human deliverance, and so they
tied themselves together by an arm of each with their shawls and plunged
into the water together. The corpses were dragged out after three days,
silent witnesses of the justice of M. Humbert’s denunciation of this
vile slave system, for which he was now suffering bitter wounds even in
the house of his friends.
About the same time another of those incidents occurred in Geneva which
are the natural fruits of a system of organised vice. A young girl
contrived to make her escape from one of the regulated houses there, and
fled through the streets. She was pursued by the keepers of the house.
One of the Police des Mœurs came to the aid, not of the victim, but of
the pursuers, and by the strong hand of an authority which has no legal
existence, the girl was forced back into the den from whence she had
escaped, in spite of her agonised cries in the open streets. A gentleman
of Geneva, a jurist, who had studied this question of modern slavery,
observed, _apropos_ of this event, that “we have, in fact, returned to
the permitted practices of the slave-holders of America, and logically
we might now also set up the practice of keeping bloodhounds to trace
and hunt down the fugitives.”
The conflict in the Canton of Neuchâtel was successfully concluded in
September, about the time of the Geneva Congress, by a declaration on
the part of the Prefect of La Chaux-de-Fonds that the municipality had
withdrawn its official protection of the houses of evil repute, and that
this withdrawal had been confirmed by the Prefect himself.
To return to events in France. During this time fresh fuel was added to
the rising indignation of the people of Paris against the Police of
Morals by the arrest of Mlle. Marie Ligeron, a gentle girl of
irreproachable character, who was insulted and arrested by one of
Lecour’s hunters while walking with her fiancé, to whom she was shortly
to be married. The police discovered their mistake only after she had
gone through all the misery and shame of being taken to the Depôt and
questioned, and detained in the prison of St. Lazare until sufficient
influence was brought to bear to secure her release. Her case was taken
up by our friends on the Municipal Council, and at their instigation a
prosecution of the Prefect was instituted by the fiancé of the girl,
whose sufferings were scarcely less than her own. That one of the people
should have dared to prosecute the man who had hitherto been a
practically irresponsible tyrant over all the poor women of Paris was a
proof of the growth of public opinion there.
But Marie Ligeron was only released from the St. Lazare by death. That
cruelly injured woman never recovered from the shock of the mental and
physical horrors she was forced to endure in that depôt of shame, and
sank under the illness to which it gave rise. She died. She was twenty
years of age. Her death made a deep impression in France. It afterwards
transpired that her cowardly medical inquisitors themselves had
pronounced her to be a pure virgin, and that they had detained her in
that horrible place, the St. Lazare, after this verdict as a kind of
“curiosity.” Some of the newspapers asked, “Could even the Turks have
devised a more cruel method of slow murder?” The _Marseillaise_
concluded a long and pathetic article on her fate with the words, “We
will no longer endure this Police Inquisition which slaughters women.
Every human being has a right to Law. If this is your civilisation, know
that it is the civilisation of assassins! Sleep, poor dead girl! _you_
have pardoned them, perhaps. We will not pardon them.”
During the preparations for the Geneva Congress, a controversy arose in
Switzerland concerning the part to be taken by women in the Congress.
Certain gentlemen there, though friends of our cause, insisted that
ladies should be excluded from special sections. Some of the ladies were
inclined to yield on this point, and it was hoped that our English
Parliamentary leaders would give the word as to the advisability of
ladies absenting themselves from certain meetings, and that this word
would be authoritative. Mme. Humbert having fully explained the
situation to me, I replied in the following letter, which I am induced
to reproduce here, seeing that the same question, in one form or
another, still occasionally arises, and that it may be useful to the
coming generation to know the reasons for the firm stand which the
pioneer women took in the matter.
“DEAR FRIEND,—
“I cannot disguise from you that the subject of your letter has been a
cause of anxiety to me and my friends. We are to hold a private
conference on the subject. Meanwhile, I give you my personal answer to
the ladies of Switzerland. Here it is.
“Ladies! you have appealed to me to use my influence to cause to be
authoritatively closed against women a portion of the sections and
public meetings of the Congress. It is not I who rule the Congress. I
have some influence, but if I were to make use of that influence with
our men of England, who are allied with M. Humbert in the organisation
of the Congress, in order to obtain this exclusion of women, they would
not grant my request, and would be amazed at such a request coming from
me. In fact, I believe there is not a man among them who would attend
the Congress if a public announcement should be made of the exclusion of
women from any part of the deliberations. Our gentlemen here would look
upon such a public act as an abandonment of principle. It is precisely
this peremptory exclusion of women by statesmen and others from all
participation in council and in debate on such vital questions which has
led to the present terrible wrong to Society by the passing of these
oppressive and God-defying laws. Eight years of conflict and experience
have convinced a portion of the Christian manhood of England that this
has been at the root of many of the most fatal errors of legislators. I
have sent your letter on to the gentlemen members of our Committee. I
know their feeling will be on reading it, ‘We have laboured hard all
these years in the cause of womanhood, and, in doing so, we have learned
the absolute necessity of the co-operation and the advice of women; and
here there are women themselves who, bowing to the authority of certain
men, ask us to bid them stand apart!’
“Do not imagine, dear friend, that I do not feel much sympathy with your
ladies on the subject of being present in the Hygienic Section. Tell
them I understand their feeling, and that so far as their having a tacit
understanding in any group of themselves that they will not attend the
Hygienic meetings, I have no objection to make. This can be quietly
done. No one can find fault with any of the Swiss ladies for absenting
themselves individually. None of us could wish any woman to attend who
feels that the sacrifice is more than she could bear. It is perfectly
legitimate for you to adopt your own plans in this respect, and this
involves no abandonment of principle. You see the immense difference
between such action and the public announcement on the part of men that
no women are to be admitted.
“It is utterly useless for you to ask Mr. Stansfeld to promote such a
public act of exclusion. He will not do it. You might as well ask him to
strike you or thrust you out of the room. I think you hardly know what
our best Englishmen are. They will be true to women now, even in spite
of those women themselves.
“I hope, dear friends, I have made the matter clear. I would not do
anything to shock public opinion so as to do harm. On the other hand, I
will never, God helping me, bow down to public opinion when that public
opinion is so far from being just and pure as it is now. Did our Lord
ever bow down before public opinion? Would this Crusade ever have been
begun at all if some English women had not openly defied public opinion?
Believe me, when this Congress is over, you will be astonished to find
how easy and useful it is for men and women to work and consult
together, and how wonderfully the cynics have been silenced. Yes, I know
very well some of the cynical and indelicate medical men you speak of.
There will be few of such among us; but granted that there will be some,
I do not fear their influence. They will be overpowered by the dignity,
gravity, and determination of our abolitionist medical men.
“I believe, dear ladies, you will act for the best under the guidance of
God, who will not fail us, and who will silence the enemy.”
I take from a number of my own letters to M. Humbert, written at this
time, which he returned to me, the following, which recalls some of the
circumstances of the year of our first Congress:—
To M. HUMBERT.
_April 30, 1877._
“We have much correspondence just now concerning the visit of members of
the Paris Municipal Council to London. M. Yves Guyot was to have been
one of the number; he was to come as representing the Commission on the
Police des Mœurs, while the other visitors represented other
Commissions. The Lord Mayor of London sent them an invitation to a
banquet at the Mansion House, and we were making preparations for a
Conference with M. Guyot and the other Paris Councillors who are in
sympathy with us in the interests of abolition all over the world. But
the Prefect of Paris was unwilling to allow Guyot to come to England,
and has insisted on his taking his imprisonment now at once. The
Minister of Justice refused a formal request from the President of the
Paris Municipal Council to give Guyot a week’s reprieve in order that he
might fulfil his important mission to London. M. Desmoulins writes that
M. Guyot went to the prison of Ste. Pelagie last Friday evening, the
27th, regretting much to bid farewell to the spring and summer.
“Our earnest fellow-worker, Mr. Collingwood, of Sunderland, is now in
Paris doing good service for our cause. He is a man of great faith, and
is endeavouring to persuade our Protestant friends in France that they
ought to take political action at once, and not merely pray and make
speeches. He tells me that they have begun to petition the Chambers, as
M. Caise’s group has been doing.
“I thank you for your _compte-rendu_ of the Conference of the presidents
of the five sections of our approaching Congress. In return I send you a
little news from England. Our position is peculiar; for we have no
Repeal Bill before Parliament this Session. Our chief Parliamentary
leaders believe it would be quite useless to bring the question before
the present Parliament. The news that there is to be no debate on
abolition this year has been received throughout the country with deep
regret. There never was a period in which so much activity and life was
manifested in our work as now throughout the country. The Working Men’s
League and all the other Associations throughout Scotland and Ireland as
well as England are in an attitude of suspense waiting for the word of
command in order to renew the conflict with more determination than
ever. But as it is, memorializing, petitioning, and deputations to the
Government would be unfruitful. The question with us now is, to what
point shall we direct the energies of our Abolitionist population? An
international object does not afford an immediate scope for the
activities of our working class abolitionists, though it has their
earnest sympathy. We have thought of promoting formal delegations to the
Congress from our working men’s societies, and I should be glad if you
could send me addresses of some working men’s societies in Switzerland
who might be put into communication with our working men’s Abolitionist
Committees in Edinburgh, Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.
“We have lately had some exciting Parliamentary elections, resulting in
victories for our cause. At Oldham there was a hard-fought contest,
which resulted in the election of Mr. Hibbert by a majority of 2,000
votes. Mr. Hibbert has been for many years a strong adherent of our
cause. It is thus that in England we win slowly, step by step, our
Parliamentary victories.
“Poor Yves Guyot has just written to me from the prison of Ste. Pelagie,
in dread lest his colleagues of the Municipal Council should fall into
the hands of our adversaries in London rather than of abolitionists in
seeking information. Mr. Benjamin Scott, who holds a high civic office,
that of Chamberlain of the City of London, has presented an address from
his own Committee to the Paris Councillors, which I think will have some
weight. Mr. Martineau, town councillor of Birmingham, has done the same
for his Midland Counties Committee.
“Your daughter Amélie asks for some account of our women’s activity
during the time of our severest conflict here. I doubt whether such an
account might not be a little appalling to your ladies at present,
because in England, necessarily, our activities are very strongly
directed towards public meetings and election work. Our ladies worked at
a number of elections, beginning each conflict with devotional meetings.
It was on these occasions that we suffered most annoyance; but we gained
great triumphs in convincing Parliament of the power and vitality of our
principles. Amélie knows how truly gentle and womanly are the women who
take part in this active political work. What you tell me of the women
of Switzerland and their increased zeal is most encouraging. If women
had votes, there would be less need for them to ‘agitate.’ Your letters
and report of the proceedings of your Grand Council were read at our
Federation Council Meeting on Monday. We follow with profound interest
every step of your conflict. The ‘powers that be’ are terribly committed
to false principles on this question throughout the world. It is a happy
thing when they speak out plainly. When they proclaim themselves aloud
in favour of corrupt and immoral institutions, then, and not till then,
do slumbering Christians and patriots wake up to perceive that we are
indeed in the midst of war, and that our battle is the battle of the
Lord against the mighty. We shall be anxious to know how your elections
end.”
As the date of the Congress drew near, the discussions among the members
of the different sections became more eager and anxious. Several
complications having arisen in regard to the relative importance and
position of the different questions to be considered, the Committee in
London accepted the offer of Mr. Stansfeld to go in advance to
Switzerland in order to meet and confer with all the different
Presidents of the Sections, with Mr. Humbert and others. This visit of
Mr. Stansfeld had very happy results, in contributing to the harmony
which eventually prevailed.
It is not my intention to give any complete account of the great
Congress at Geneva. The proceedings were published in two large volumes
entitled “Les Actes du Congrès de Genève” (to be had from M. Henri
Minod, 6, Rue Saint Leger, Geneva). These volumes contain also all the
most important papers and addresses given on the occasion. There were
present at the Congress five hundred and ten delegates, representing
fifteen different nations. It should be understood that these delegates
were all convinced of the necessity of the abolition of all regulations
of vice. This was the only condition that was required of them in order
to become members.
About 120 papers and reports were presented to the various sections of
the Congress, after the reading and full discussion of which,
resolutions were formulated and submitted to the different sections for
renewed discussion, amendment and final adoption. International
Committees had been established several months previously, in which the
different sections met periodically for the study and discussion of the
subjects to be brought before the Congress. Finally the resolutions
adopted by each section were placed before the whole Congress for
approval and acceptance. Rarely has there been recorded such a unanimous
expression of international opinion, emanating from representatives of
so many different countries; nor an expression of opinion, founded upon
investigations so extensive and so conscientious. The following are the
resolutions of the five sections:—
On the 17th of September, the first day of the Session, immediately
after the nomination and election of the Bureaux by the General Assembly
of the Congress, the Five Sections in combined Session passed the
following resolution:—
“The Congress recognises the many-sided character of the question which
it has assembled to discuss.
“It acknowledges that its solution is only to be sought in the collation
of the results arrived at by the labours of each of the Five Sections,
in such manner that the conclusions of each particular Section may
finally be accepted from the point of view of all the Sections; and it
is with this understanding that it proposes to contribute, by its
decisions, to the general conclusions at which the Congress desires to
arrive.”
Towards the close of the Congress the Section of Hygiene affirmed—
I.
That self-control in the relations between the sexes is one of the
indispensable bases of the health of individuals and communities.
II.
That prostitution is a fundamental violation of the laws of health.
III.
Being convinced that the province of Public Hygiene should not be
restricted to the surveillance and prevention of specific maladies
which affect populations, we declare that its true function is to
develop all the conditions which conduce to Public Health, whose
highest form is necessarily included in Public Morality.
IV.
The Section of Hygiene condemns, in view of their complete failure,
all systems of Police des Mœurs whose object is to regulate
prostitution. The Section bases its condemnation on the following
amongst other grounds, namely: that the obligatory examination of
women is revolting to human nature; that it can only be carried out in
the case of a certain proportion of women; that it is impossible to
rely upon this examination to discover the most serious constitutional
form of venereal maladies, or to hinder its progress; and that,
consequently, it gives a false guarantee of the health of the women
who are subjected to it.
V.
The Section of Hygiene desires especially to see removed all obstacles
which at present prevent venereal maladies from being as extensively
treated as every other form of disease in the hospitals which are
controlled by municipalities and other public bodies, as well as in
those which are supported by private liberality.
VI.
The Section of Hygiene also expresses the hope that the ordinary
police will strictly maintain order and decency in public streets, and
repress every public scandal, whether caused by men or women.
The Section of Morality affirmed—
I.
That impurity in men is as reprehensible as it is in women.
II.
That the regulation of prostitution tends to destroy the idea of the
unity of the moral law for the two sexes, and to lower the tone of
public opinion in this respect.
III.
That every system of organised prostitution encourages profligacy,
increases the number of illegitimate births, develops clandestine
prostitution, and lowers the standard of public and private morality.
IV.
That the compulsory medical examination of women, the basis of every
system of regulation, is an outrage on woman, and tends to destroy,
even in the most degraded, the last remnant of modesty which she may
retain.
V.
That the registration of prostitutes is contrary to common law, and to
the principle of liberty.
VI.
That in regulating vice the State forgets its duty of affording equal
protection to both sexes, and in reality degrades the female sex and
corrupts both.
VII.
That the State, whose duty it is to protect minors and to assist them
in every good effort, on the contrary, incites them to debauchery, in
so far as it facilitates it by regulation.
VIII.
That in authorising immoral houses, and in raising a reprehensible
trade to the rank of a regular profession, the State sanctions the
immoral doctrine that debauchery is a necessity for men.
IX.
That it is desirable to address an appeal to all authors, editors,
printsellers, and booksellers in Europe and America, urging them to
lend no encouragement to the sale or circulation of pictures or works
of a corrupting tendency.
Questions proposed by the President and answered by the Section of
Social Economy.
I.
Are the economic interests, rights, and independence of women
sufficiently respected and guaranteed at the present day by the law,
by opinion, and by the customs of society?
_Answer_ (unanimous).—No.
II.
Is the continuous exercise by a woman of a profession involving manual
labour consistent with the proper performance of her domestic and
maternal duties.
_Answer._—That depends upon the profession and the individual
circumstances of the woman.
III.
Is the pay accorded to the manual labour of women sufficient to
satisfy their legitimate wants?
_Answer_ (by majority).—No.
IV.
1. What are the principal causes of the insufficiency of women’s wages
in industrial occupations?
_Answer_ (by majority).—The inequality established between men and
women by the law, the customs of society, general ignorance, and the
regulation of prostitution.
2. Is it possible to remedy this inferiority in women’s wages?
_Answer._—Yes, by equal laws, by the improvement of morals, by the
abolition of regulated prostitution, and by the spread of general and
professional education for women.
V.
What are, or will be, the consequences in regard to the economic and
moral condition of women of their employment in manufactories?
_Answer._—The consequences will vary according to circumstances. The
Section considers that no industrial employment should be closed to
women which may enable them by their own labour to protect themselves
from want and prostitution.
VI.
Should Government interfere to prevent the labour of women in
factories?
_Answer_ (with two dissentients).—No.
VII.
What advantages can women gain from the principles of union and
co-operation among themselves?
_Answer_ (unanimous).—The same advantages as are gained by men.
VIII.
How can women’s education be organised so as to contribute most
effectually to the amelioration of their social and economic
condition?
_Answer._—By throwing entirely open to women every branch of
education, and by assuring an equal expenditure by the State and by
society on the education of the two sexes.
The Section of Preventive and Reformatory Work affirms—
I.
That the ideas which are involved in the system of the regulation of
vice are entirely incompatible with the work of rescue.
II.
That it is proved that the Regulation of prostitution is a great
hindrance to the success of works of Rescue and Reformation, inasmuch
as registration and medical examination are opposed to all sentiments
of feminine modesty, which are never absolutely extinguished in any
woman, and inasmuch as they render more difficult the moral
restoration which we can and ought to hope for in the case of every
fallen woman, however abandoned she may be.
III.
It is desirable to have widely established homes, in which the system
should be as little as possible of a penitential character, inasmuch
as sympathy and Christian love are the only efficacious means of
rescuing and reforming young women.
IV.
It is desirable to establish a system of intercommunication between
all countries in order to prevent the trading in women and girls for
immoral purposes, and in order to protect friendless women who are
seeking employment in various countries.
The Section of Legislation declared—
I.
That the State has not the right to regulate prostitution, for it
ought never to make a compromise with evil, nor to sacrifice
constitutional guarantees to questionable interests.
II.
Every system of official regulation of prostitution involves the
arbitrary action of the police and violation of the legal guarantees
against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment which are assured to every
individual, not even excluding the greatest criminals. The compulsory
examination of women is equally contrary to the law. Inasmuch as this
violation of the law is solely to the disadvantage of woman, there is
made between her and man an excessively unjust distinction; the woman
is lowered to the rank of a mere chattel, and is placed beyond the
pale of the law. Moreover, by the regulation of vice the State
directly violates its own penal law, which forbids incitement to
debauchery, by making itself the accomplice of such incitement, in so
far as it is offered by the houses and the women sanctioned by its own
authority. The State herein also violates its duty of affording
protection to minors.
III.
The system of regulation does not attain the object desired, for
regulation fosters and develops prostitution instead of diminishing
it. The increase of clandestine prostitution in the towns where the
system exists suffices to show that the regulations are eluded with
increasing frequency. The development of venereal maladies and the
number of indecent assaults in these same towns prove also that
regulation does not accomplish the desired results.
IV.
It results from the preceding that the State should renounce the
project of pursuing the hygienic aim, the more so that in this case
there is no question of an external danger such as an epidemic
menacing the general public health, but of a danger to which those who
expose themselves do so knowingly and of their own free will. The
State ought, therefore, to abandon this arbitrary administrative
procedure, and to recur to law alone. It should confine itself to the
protection of minors and to repressing by legal and judicial means all
that is contrary to public order.
V.
The State should continue to punish incitement to debauchery when
directed towards minors of either sex, and should treat procurers with
special severity. It should punish the decoying of minors for immoral
purposes. It should prohibit every collective organisation of
prostitution by punishing the offence of keeping an immoral house open
to the public, and that of letting apartments for such uses. An
analogous case is that of gambling houses, which are prohibited by
penal enactment in almost all countries.
We would retain unchanged the penal enactments concerning outrages on
public morality, and particularly _public_ solicitation and indecent
assaults, and the illegal confinement and detention of women and the
decoying of those who are under age.
VI.
As to the causes of prostitution, from a legal point of view, the
State might punish the seduction of a minor, when that seduction has
been effected by means of false pretences.
A question which merits consideration is whether the State should not
re-establish the right of affiliation in those countries where it has
been abolished, in order to equalise the position of the man and the
woman in relation to their illegitimate children.[13]
The following is a personal reminiscence in the form of a letter
addressed by myself to a relative, towards the close of the Congress:—
“I can only give you a brief sketch of the past week; full reports will
be published. The anxiety which we could not but feel went on augmenting
up to Friday. On Friday we began to see daylight, and all has ended
well. Many of us are tired and stupefied for want of sleep, but at the
same time inwardly giving thanks to God. This Congress has been a
wonderful event. There were 510 inscribed members, besides the numerous
public which attended the meetings. It is, they say, the largest
Congress that has ever been held in Geneva. On the first days people
continued flocking in from all nations. There were Greeks who came from
Athens; and Russians from St. Petersburg and Moscow. There were
Americans, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Germans, Pomeranians, Italians,
French, and Spaniards. Senor Zorilla, the late President of the Spanish
Cortes, spoke on Wednesday, and was nominated as one of a Committee to
consider what action could be taken in Spain. On Sunday, in the
Cathedral, Pastor Rörich preached a powerful sermon to a very large
congregation on the question before the Congress, and in all the
churches we and our work have been prayed for.
“We always anticipated that when the final resolutions should come to be
voted upon, then would be the real war, and so it was. On Thursday
morning the voting began. Our faithful bands of ladies worked and
watched in their different sections quite splendidly. First we had a
considerable conflict in the Social Economy Section. Then came the
voting in the Legislative Section, in the smaller Hall of the
Reformation, which was densely crowded. Professor Hornung presided. The
discussion lasted three hours. Some lawyers were present who are now
busy in the prospect of the revision of some parts of the penal code of
Switzerland, notably a young Jurist, an able man, who spoke well, but as
a downright opponent. There followed a stormy scene, which the President
with difficulty controlled. People of many different languages stood up
at the same moment, each with a finger stretched out, demanding to
speak. “Je demande la parole,” sounded from all sides of the room. Mr.
A——, the young Jurist, made the President indignant by asserting that a
resolution drawn up by him was not _juridique_. Seeing that M. Hornung
is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Geneva University, and possesses
the very highest reputation, this was rather strong, and I do not wonder
it irritated him. But it did good, for it stimulated him to come out on
the last day of the Congress with a splendid judicial speech, by far the
best and clearest utterance of the kind I have ever heard in any
country. We shall translate and circulate it. Hornung is a delightful
man. He has that good gift of God, an enlightened intellect, as well as
a pure heart, together with great refinement and gentleness of manner.
“At one o’clock, when we were all feeling the need of food, and our
throats were dry with the dust of the room, an Italian Advocate got up
and declared there had not yet been enough discussion of each point. The
Chairman was aghast. He had expected the voting to be got over just at
that moment. A kind of barking, House of Commons cry arose of ‘Vote,
vote!’ while the President stood open-mouthed, attempting to read the
resolutions so as to be heard. A sort of stampede seized some of the
German and Swiss members, and they made for the door. Half the meeting
would have gone out, and so damaged the worth of the voting. So I
ventured to shut the door and set my back against it, declaring that no
one should have any food until he had voted! This half startled and half
amused the assembly, and they all sat down again obediently. After
another half-hour of discussion, it was agreed that we should meet again
for a final voting at half-past six the next morning.
“On the same day the resolutions of the Moral Section were passed very
satisfactorily. Then came the Hygienic Section. The discussion here was
so long that it was also adjourned until an evening hour.
“At eight o’clock that evening we all went to the Hall of the Hygienic
Section, and there sat crowded together, or stood, amidst a scene of
intense interest, till midnight. Dr. Bertani, of Rome, took a leading
part. Our ladies all went to the meeting; but they had been up so early,
and had worked so hard all day, that by eleven p.m. this is the scene
which one of my sons described as having observed at the back of the
hall: ‘A long row of ladies _all sound asleep_’; but they had appointed
a watcher, Mrs. Bright Lucas, who sat at the end of the row, and whom
they had charged to keep awake, and to give them the signal whenever
voting began on each clause of the resolution. Mrs. Lucas was wide
awake, with eyes shining like live coals!
“We had prayed that God would direct this meeting, and it was wonderful
and beautiful to see how the truth prevailed.
“Dr. de la Harpe, the President, acted well throughout. At the end I
shook hands with him and Dr. Ladame, thanking them for their excellent
words. Dr. de la Harpe replied, ‘You owe us nothing; it is you and your
friends who must be thanked, who have brought us so much light.’
“At the end of the Congress all the Resolutions came out satisfactorily.
We owe a good deal of this result to Professor Stuart’s tact and
patience in talking to the different presidents individually. We think
our resolutions are, on the whole, excellent as a statement of
principles—clear and uncompromising; and shall we not thank God for
this? His hand has been over us for good all this time, convincing men’s
hearts and consciences, and controlling their words and actions. The
earnest daily prayers offered up have not been in vain.
“These resolutions will be sent to every Government, and to every
Municipal Council throughout Europe. They have been telegraphed to the
English press _in extenso_. My son George was charged with the work of
telegraphing, and had necessarily to exercise much alertness and
activity; M. Humbert is impressed with the excellence of whatever work
he undertakes.
“In the Legislative Section we had an energetic discussion over the
seduction laws of different countries, and the _réchérche de la
paternité_, subjects not immediately in our programme, but closely
touching it. The discussion became so hot that it seemed difficult for
some of the members to remain calm at all. Signora Mozzoni, a delegate
from Milan, burst into tears over it, and one or two of our good
gentlemen lost their tempers a little. One cannot wonder, for this is
one of the important questions upon which people of different nations
and creeds hold very different views. Miss Isabella Tod and Mrs. Sheldon
Amos took a line on the point of the age to which protection should be
given, in which I could not quite follow them, and I felt obliged for
once to oppose my own countrywomen. Professor Hornung was pleased with
what I said, as it seems it accorded with the views of most Continental
Jurists. The young advocate who had opposed us called yesterday to say
that he had come round to our views, chiefly influenced by that
desperate little impromptu legal discussion among the ladies. He had
imagined, he said, that we were a number of ‘fanatical and sentimental
women,’ but ‘when he heard women arguing like jurists, and even taking
part against each other, and yet with perfect good temper _like men_
(!), he began to see that we were grave, educated, and even scientific
people!’ He came afterwards to every meeting, and, as he said, weighed
all our words.
“I think I have not mentioned the resolutions at the Section of
Bienfaisance, under good Pastor Borel’s presidency. Those also were very
satisfactory.”