“When the necessary revolution in the mind of the people is completed,
that in the institutions of the country will follow as the day follows
the night.”—W. LLOYD GARRISON, the leading abolitionist of negro
slavery.
A great extension of our work followed the Congress of Geneva. As the
cause was taken up in several countries of Europe and in British and
other Colonies, its history comes naturally to be less of a personal
record. My own reminiscences become more limited in proportion as our
principles were gradually extended by the force of their own vitality,
throughout the world. The originators of the movement could not be
everywhere at once. Many stirring scenes and events connected with our
work only came to our knowledge through correspondence or press notices,
while we continued to direct the work to some extent from our central
Committees in London and Geneva, with occasional journeys to and work
in, other countries.
It was at the Congress of Geneva that we first made the acquaintance of
M. Pierson, of Holland. I lately asked him to remind me of some of the
circumstances connected with his first entering into the work, to which
he has been so great a strength. (I have already said that M. Pierson
was the successor of the well-known Pastor Heldring.) He wrote, in reply
to my request, from Zetten, as follows:—
“I saw Heldring first in 1847, and went with him to spend some days in
his family. Heldring was forty-three years old, and I thirteen. He was
then building his Refuge of Steenbeck. On January 1st, 1848, he opened
this Refuge. A lady, Miss Petronella Voûte, of a well-known family in
Amsterdam, descendants of French refugees in the reign of Louis XIV.,
was placed at the head of the Refuge. She worked with Heldring till his
death in 1876, and died the following year under most remarkable
circumstances. There were various branches of Heldring’s great work.
Before his death he had founded institutions for the aid of women and
girls in different circumstances. I myself have added to these two
smaller homes for young girls, and the Magdalena House for unmarried
mothers, with a house for the children born there. For some time my
relations with Heldring had been somewhat less intimate, though we were
always friends. I had been first, for some years, a minister in a rural
district, among staunch Calvinists, and afterwards for seven years in
Bois-le-Duc, a town of 25,000 inhabitants, thoroughly Roman Catholic,
where Protestants were as one to ten against the Catholics. During this
time Heldring now and again expressed strong doubts as to the
regulations of vice, which had been silently and slowly introduced in
several of our towns in 1852 and after. He felt instinctively that there
was something rotten in the State which allowed the introduction of such
measures, and as soon as he heard of your first endeavours to attack the
system he took note of it, and expressed his hope that a new era was
approaching.
“He wrote to Van den Bergh (afterwards my son-in-law), in March, 1870,
some words which, as coming from an old man of seventy-one years, show a
little uncertainty, but which, taken in connection with his declarations
at former periods, prove that he had always seen the true bearing of the
question. He stood quite alone in Holland in this matter. He and a
friend together had published in 1852 an anonymous pamphlet, in which
every kind of regulation is condemned. That pamphlet was lying in a
bookseller’s garret. I bought the remaining copies, some hundreds, in
1858 for £2.
“In July, 1876, Heldring died, and in January, 1877, I came here in his
place. Miss Voûte, the Directress of Steenbeck, had been a friend of my
wife and myself from our childhood, and was very happy that we should
take Heldring’s work. But some five or six weeks after my arrival it
became evident that her physical forces were giving way. Once—it may
have been in March, 1877—speaking of Heldring and of me, she said to me,
‘I feel such strange forebodings, I don’t know why; but it seems as if
the whole work of Steenbeck will be changed and begun anew.’ ‘In what
sense?’ I asked. ‘In every respect,’ she replied; ‘but I don’t know
how.’ On the 14th April I went to see her, because we thought her end
was approaching. After having prayed and spoken some words I left her,
but I had not been gone an hour when some one came running to tell me
(what, in fact, I already saw) that the Refuge was in flames, and Miss
Voûte lying on her death-bed! I spare you the details. It is enough to
mention that we brought her to my house. At first it seemed as if the
shock had aroused her instead of doing her harm, but four days later she
died suddenly.
“Steenbeck was burned to the ground. I had much to do in the following
weeks, and when the invitation to the Geneva Congress came, I felt much
inclined to accept, simply because it would give me a few days of
leisure. But I honestly confess that I had some hesitation; I had always
disliked the sanitary measures of the regulations, and abhorred the
system of organised houses of shame; but I had the impression that the
Congress was not taking up the great and central question, and that it
took the humanitarian point of view rather than the Christian. I did not
require to be converted by the Congress, for I already agreed with the
principles proclaimed by it; but I came back from it persuaded that the
question _was much more important_ than I had imagined.
“I immediately felt two things: first, that we had been made dupes of by
a false and stupid medical science, so-called; and second, that our
question was the ‘tendon of the heel of Achilles’ of the whole matter of
moral reform. These two points fitted in precisely with my state of
mind; for I hate the humbug of false, would-be scientific men (I have
seen too much of it); and I enjoy dealing with a question which involves
a great many other questions, and which may be said to be a touchstone
to try the minds of men.
“So in 1878 our first appeal in Holland was made to the public.
“Steenbeck burnt down ten months after Heldring’s death, Miss Voûte
dying almost beneath the falling walls, had made a deep impression.
Money came in from every side. In five months a large building was
erected. Meanwhile the inmates had been lodged in the Church. The work
had not been dropped for a moment. On the day of the opening of the new
building friends came from every part of the country to assist at the
ceremony, and I used the occasion to draw the attention of the assembly
to the work of the Federation. There was some opposition. Some thought
that I was steering in another direction from Heldring; but as I have
said, having discovered that Heldring’s pamphlet of 1852 was lying at
the bookseller’s, I bought all the copies left, for which the good
shopkeeper was very glad. It was a strong weapon. I could show that I
was only taking up the thread where Heldring was obliged, for want of
sympathy, to let it drop.
“I drew up a circular letter, adding with each letter a copy of
Heldring’s pamphlet, and distributed these. In March, 1878, I invited
some four to five hundred persons to a meeting at Utrecht, in the centre
of our country. The assembly was numerous. The foundation of our work
was laid. A good report of this meeting may be found in the _Bulletin
Continental_ of June, 1878.
“In recalling those zealous days of our early entering upon the
struggle, I instinctively feel the first holy fire rekindling in my
heart and mind. God has been with us, and is still blessing his work by
his gracious presence. We have not done as much as we wished or could
have done; but we have not lived in vain. To him alone the glory, and
blessing to our posterity.”
M. Pierson adds some words in the same communication which are worthy to
be reproduced, inasmuch as they describe a state of mind which we have
met with and have had to combat in many countries, and which appears
again and again. He writes: “Here in Holland we often find ourselves in
enforced opposition to our well-intentioned friends, especially among
Christians. In one of our cities some years ago a Committee was formed
for promoting purer morals. They were in favour of attacking immorality,
but refused to express any opinion about the public regulation of vice.
It seems, at the date I am writing, that this Committee sleeps very
quietly. I once named them Nicodemites, which much scandalised them.
What Christians ought to realise—but seem very much to forget—is that in
Christian countries _they are responsible for the spirit in which the
laws are made_. Many of them seem to think that the Government, in its
very essence, is a worldly, ungodly institution, somewhat in the same
way as if they were living in a Pagan land, under the Roman Emperors.
The Church, in those circumstances, had nothing to do but to save as
many souls as could be brought into the fold of Christ. The Christians
were not responsible for the Pagan laws and their destructive influences
in those times. But with us it is quite a different thing. It will take
a long time to make our principles widely understood, but it is not lost
time.”
I have gladly hailed at all times, and in all countries, the entrance of
our question into its true and necessary political phase. The word
“political” terrifies many people, some of them being the best and most
earnest Christian people, because they do not, in fact, understand its
true meaning. They see the spectre of party feuds, of party political
interests in conflict. But there is no question of party in the politics
of this sacred cause of ours. It is a question which vitally concerns
our social life through all the classes, from the head of the Government
down to the poorest toiler for his daily bread. It is a moral question
which affects the moral and spiritual life of the peoples of the earth,
and through their spiritual individual life, the domestic, social, and
public life of the community. _But it must be fought out on the lines of
law and Government—on political lines._ Corrupt magistrates, rulers,
experts, and profligates of all grades will not look at the standard
which the spiritually-minded man or woman holds up to them—the standard
of Christian ethics. They pass it by with a smile. They confess no
allegiance to any such law. But these rulers, and these inventors and
upholders of State regulation of vice, must bow to the law of the land.
They may scoff at Christian teachers, but, sooner or later, they must
reckon with that which is at their door, the _Penal Code_, which, though
thrust aside, or violated for a time, still stands there, a rock against
which they will stumble and fall, or else it will fall on them and crush
them out of place and power. And how can we bring the law of the land to
bear against an illegal and criminal institution, except on the field of
politics, and by means of political action? For my part, I have never
been able to hail our salvation from this horrible system as _near_, in
any country, until the question has entered into the political stage.
While saying this I hold firmly the truth that “our weapons are
_spiritual_, to the pulling down of strongholds”; that it is by the
faith of the true servants of God, by their persistent prayers and their
confidence in Him, that we shall win the victory. But in all matters of
human action and conflict we use means. The hand of the warrior grasps
the sword, while his heart is stayed on God. We reach out for every
lawful means, on every side of us, for the destruction of this iniquity;
and a long experience, as well as the lessons of history, prove clearly
that the public, political means afforded us by the just laws and
Constitutions of our several countries are above all the most effectual
means for the destruction of legalised illegality, of the slavery,
oppression, greed, cheating, murder, and shames embraced in the
institution of State regulated vice.
A movement in favour of our cause had been energetically promoted in
1878 in Spain by M. Empeytaz and other upholders of our principles in
Spain. The “Voice in the Wilderness” was translated and distributed in
Barcelona and Madrid. Pastor Fritz Fliedner, the well-known German who
founded the deaconesses’ institution of Kaiserswerth, was at that time
travelling in Spain, and found that the Governor of Madrid had
suppressed the Spanish edition of the “Voice in the Wilderness.” He
called on the Governor, and also procured the intercession of the German
Ambassador on behalf of the work, and the prohibition was withdrawn.
In Spain we also found a brave champion of our principles in the
Countess de Precorbin (Spanish by birth), who had joined us a few years
before. This lady held meetings in several towns and districts of Spain,
giving addresses to soldiers, students and others, and was everywhere
graciously received. So great was her desire to gain the ear of the
working people, that in one district, where a large proportion of the
male population was engaged in working in mines during the day, she had
herself let down into a mine in a basket. It was a surprise to the
miners to see this gentle lady in the midst of them, and to hear her
message concerning justice, equality, purity, and the sacredness of home
life; they heard her gladly and reverently. A Spanish lady of high rank,
Donna Concepion Arenal, continued for some years to advocate our Cause
in a periodical edited by herself, _La Caridad_. This ceased at her
death. The movement in Spain languished after a few years, yet we
continue to hope that it may be revived in some manner in future. During
this year we received expressions of personal sympathy and adhesion from
several influential Jews. Zadok Kahn, the Grand Rabbin of Paris, wrote a
beautiful letter to the Federation, expressing his full sympathy and
that of the best men of his people. The Grand Rabbin Wertheimer, of
Geneva, gave his adhesion. I had called on the Grand Rabbin Astruc, of
Belgium, on my way through that country in the previous year. From that
time he became also a firm adherent. Ben Israel, Grand Rabbin of
Avignon, also wrote several letters full of sympathy with the work.
Dating from the Congress of Geneva, we began to store up an arsenal of
good weapons in the form of literature. Books innumerable had been
written by the defenders of regulation, and there was no lack of solid
literature on their side. The only Continental work of any consequence
which had been used to counteract their influence up to 1878 was the
modest little book entitled, “A Voice in the Wilderness;” this was a
collection of my first appeals made on the Continent of Europe, ably
edited by M. Aimé Humbert. This work never appeared in English. It was
translated gradually from the French into every other European language.
This little book was, as M. Humbert rightly said, merely a call to
battle, a challenge—and this assertion was reproachfully echoed by our
adversaries. “We want,” they said, “something scientific, statistical
and closely reasoned. We do not want merely the expression of a woman’s
revolted feelings against a system which we believe to be useful and
necessary.” They had not long to wait for the scientific arguments and
close reasoning which they professed to desire; for the two bulky
volumes published after our Congress of 1877, entitled _Les Actes du
Congrès de Genève_, furnished all that could be desired in that
direction, being a collection of the weighty utterances, prepared for
our Congress, of philosophers, statesmen, medical men, jurists, women of
experience in social work, and of thoughtful leaders among the working
classes, drawn from many different countries of the world. It may not be
uninteresting to my readers to see the relation of our first literary
effort to what followed, as expressed in a quotation here given from a
letter which I wrote to M. Humbert in reply to his proposal in 1875 to
publish in pamphlet form the principal portions of my appeals on the
Continent.
“I feel with you every day,” I wrote, “that some such _voice_ is needed
just now. It would, perhaps, have been better had we been able to bring
out a complete book as our first—a book which should contain all the
scientific and juridical arguments as well as a complete review of
historical facts relating to this subject. But such a complete book is
at this moment impossible; I therefore beg you to communicate what I now
say to Messieurs Sandoz and Fischbacher (publishers). We want statistics
and facts—yes,—but would English statistics and facts alone, drawn from
a limited experience, be much or generally valued in other countries? I
think not, if they stood alone. Facts from a larger area we must have
later, and we shall have them, for, thank God, they stand as
indestructible witnesses everywhere of the folly and futility of the
attempt to regulate vice. How much more powerful, how overwhelming, in
fact, would it be for our opponents, and how strengthening for our
Cause, if we could show facts and statistics gathered from every country
and over a larger period of time. This is precisely what we are now
aiming at. We have received all the most recent reports from Italy,
France, Germany and other countries. On every hand there is confession
of the failure of regulation. Mireur, Jeannell, Diday, Deprés,
Pallasciano, Huet, Crocq, all confess to hygienic failure. The proposals
of some of these men to insure future success (a success which they
confess they have never yet ensured) are of such a wild and ghastly
nature that one has only to read their books to see that the beginning
of the end is at hand.
“From out these statistics there appear here and there deeply pathetic
facts such as this: that four-fifths of the poor girls subjected to this
tyranny (according to one writer) are orphans; many are foreigners in
the country of their enslavement; many are young widows. Does not our
God, who is the God of the Fatherless, of the Widow, and of the
Stranger, take note of these things?
“You see that in a year or two we shall have a mass of evidence against
this system which will give the doctors and materialist legislators a
hard task to refute.
“I care little that men accuse me, as you say, of mere sentiment, and of
carrying away my hearers by feeling rather than by facts and logic. Even
while they are saying this, they read my words, and they are made
uncomfortable! they feel that there is a truth of some sort there, and
that sentiment itself is after all a _fact_ and a power when it
expresses the deepest intuitions of the human soul. They have had
opportunity for many years past of looking at the question in its
material phases, of appreciating its hygienic results, and of reading
numberless books on the subject, statistical, medical, and
administrative. _Now_, for the first time, they are asked to look upon
it as a question of human nature, of equal interest to man and woman, as
a question of the heart, the soul, the affections, the whole moral
being. As a simple assertion of one woman speaking for tens of thousands
of women, those two words ‘_we rebel_’ are very necessary and very
useful for them to hear. The cry of women crushed under the yoke of
legalised vice is not the cry of a statistician or a medical expert; it
is simply a cry of pain, a cry for justice and for a return to God’s
laws in place of these brutally impure laws invented and imposed by man.
It is imperfect, no doubt, as an utterance; but the cry of the revolted
woman against her oppressor and to her God is far more needful at this
moment than any reasoned-out argument. I think, therefore, and my
husband agrees with me, that it is better to publish the ‘Voice in the
Wilderness’ simply as the utterance of a woman, and to do it quickly. It
will rouse some consciences, no matter how imperfect men may find it. On
the eve of a war it may be said that the sound of the trumpet is
imperfect because it only calls to the battle, and that we want to see
the troops, their arms, and the strength of muscle on either side; yet
the call to battle is needed: the close grappling with the foe will
follow. It is only when the slave begins to move, to complain, to give
signs of life and resistance, either by his own voice or by the voice of
one like himself speaking for him, that the struggle for freedom truly
begins. The slave now speaks. The enslaved women have found a voice in
one of themselves who was raised up for no other end than to sound the
proclamation of an approaching deliverance. Never mind the imperfection
of the first voice. It is the voice of a woman who has suffered, a voice
calling to holy rebellion and to war. It will penetrate. Then by-and-by
we shall come down on our opponents with the heavy artillery of facts
and statistics and scientific arguments on every side. We will not spare
them. We will show them no mercy; we shall tear to pieces their ‘refuge
of lies’ and expose the ghastliness of their ‘covenant with death and
their agreement with hell’; we and our successors will continue to do
this year after year until they have no ground to stand upon.”
There was, and is, of course, this marked difference between the
character of the literature of the regulationists and our own—namely,
that the motive of all their arguments is that of expediency, based upon
the assumption of the necessity of vice; the moral and the higher
hygienic aspects of the question are ignored by them. This has been well
expressed by Sir James Stansfeld on several occasions. He wrote shortly
before the Geneva Congress to M. Aimé Humbert as follows:—“You and I
have a great work in hand. Speaking for my own country, I have neither
doubt nor fear of the issue of the conflict. There is no case in the
history of England of the failure of any movement based upon the moral
and religious sense and convictions of the community in which any
considerable number of men or of women have had the courage and the
faith to persist; and there are men and women enough prepared to spend
their lives in this holy cause thus to insure its success. We had the
weakness, we incurred the guilt, of borrowing and accepting this unholy
and indecent law from France. It stole its way on to our Statute Book
under a miserable hygienic pretence. Its contrivers seem to me as men
deprived of the consciousness of the unity of the law of God. They would
sacrifice morality to health, the soul to the body, the immortal to the
mortal part. They cannot look high enough or far enough to see that it
is a philosophic, a scientific, as well as a religious truth that there
cannot be dissonance between the laws of Nature and the laws of God, and
that it is, therefore, inconceivable that the immoral should be a truly
sanitary law. Even partially and temporarily applied as these laws are
here, they are already a proved sanitary failure, proved upon the
figures of the Government Returns.”
Besides the more solid works which began from this time to appear in
favour of our cause, each country interested in it, beginning to find
the necessity of some record of its own activity and that of other
nationalities, started a special organ of its own. Beginning with the
_Bulletin Continental_, published monthly at Geneva, there followed
special organs of the Abolitionist Societies in Holland, Belgium,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, and Italy.
Up to this time we had not obtained much support from the Roman Catholic
section of the community in different countries, except in individual
instances, such as that of Archbishop, afterwards Cardinal Manning, who
some years previously had expressed his strong disapproval of the
principles of the Regulationists at the Papal Court on the occasion of
several of his visits to Rome. Our friend Mme. de Morsier, of Paris, had
been prompted by some of the writings of Archbishop Dupanloup on the
subject of woman’s education to pay a visit to that prelate on behalf of
our cause shortly before the Congress of Geneva. I give the account of
her visit in her own words written to me at the time.
“We went to the house of Monseigneur Dupanloup. The residence of the
Archbishop is situated on the banks of the Loire, in the midst of
verdure; on one side there is the college which he superintends, a large
building standing close to the woods which descend to the river; on the
other side stands an ancient castellated mansion, covered with ivy,
climbing roses, and honeysuckle. It is in this house that the
Monseigneur himself lives. On the terrace, embosomed in woods, the table
was spread for the evening repast. The Monseigneur had just arrived from
Rheims, whence he had come expressly to receive me. In spite of his
fatigue and the suffering caused by an accident to his finger, he did
the honours of his house with graceful courtesy. When he appeared and
crossed the lawn, dressed in his purple robe, his white hair uncovered,
I must confess I felt surprised. I had only known him by Parisian
report, so that I had expected to see a proud and rather pompous old
man, receiving his guests amidst the luxury and ceremonial of the
cardinals of the Middle Ages. But I saw before me a gentle and holy
looking man, so simple in his manner and bearing, that in talking to him
I soon forgot his high position and great talent, and felt quite drawn
to speak to him freely as an equal. The table spread upon the lawn, and
among the flowers, the venerable old man invoking a blessing on the
repast, the nightingale which was singing the first notes of evening,
and the strains of the ‘Angelus’ which reached us from a distance, all
together formed a striking picture of peace and happiness. It was in the
midst of this scene that, summoning courage, I spoke to him of those
dark horrors and of that hard struggle in which I had come to claim the
support of his sympathy. The Monseigneur listened without remark, asking
from time to time some question. Several times he exclaimed, ‘Your
Congress delights me; that is the important point. It will require a
thunderbolt to awaken consciences.’ His secretary, an Abbé of great
talent, manifested his approbation of our cause. Monseigneur described
to me how much the conscience of their religiously educated youth
revolted when they learned that vice is actually legalised by the State.
He himself had had, he said, only very recently a complete revelation of
the state of things, from the work of Parent Duchâtelet which had fallen
into his hands. The evening passed in conversation. When I was leaving I
offered him my hand (which I afterwards found was contrary to etiquette)
and said to him, ‘Monseigneur, may I now feel assured of your sympathy
for our cause?’ ‘Yes, assuredly,’ he replied. ‘Do you authorise me,’ I
asked, ‘to make use of your name as a convinced adherent.’ ‘Yes,’ he
said; ‘I consent fully.’ Then he himself extended his hand to me, and
finally, in parting, I said: ‘Monseigneur, I recommend our cause to your
prayers.’ ‘You have them,’ he said. The carriage rolled away, and I felt
my heart full of gratitude to God, and I said to myself, ‘Ah! if all
Bishops were like this one, and all Abbés like those I have seen at
Orleans, the true friends of progress would have little excuse to make
war against the Catholic religion.’”
Up to the time of which I am writing very little progress had been made
in Germany in respect of State abstinence from compromise with public
immorality. In the year 1876, M. Humbert had some correspondence with
eminent members of the German Inner Mission, and from that time onward
we had several distinguished individual adherents in Germany, men and
women; but they were few.
A Petition had been presented in that year to the Reichstag, signed by
Dr. Dorner in the name of the Central Committee of the Inner Mission. It
was as follows:—
“BERLIN AND HAMBURG.
“The undersigned Central Committee takes the liberty of drawing the
attention of the Reichstag to the following:—
“Upon the occasion of the revision of the Penal Code by the German
Empire, upon the 15th May, 1871, there were proposed certain additions,
emanating from the Reichstag itself, Sections 180 and 361; additions
which would have for their effect to accord in Germany a legal existence
to houses of infamy, and to thereby introduce them within certain
portions of the limits of the Empire in which they do not at present
exist. It is not to be doubted that the motive which has dictated this
proposition is that of acting in the supposed interest of the public
health, but we are none the less convinced that its adoption would be
injurious to the public welfare, and that the moral foundations of our
social life, already menaced, would be thereby still more profoundly
shaken.
“The trade of the procurer, which hitherto has fallen under the ban of
severe penalties, would find itself, by virtue of the observance of
certain formalities, with which it would be easy to comply, placed
henceforth under the protection of the law. The number of women,
especially in the large towns, who practise vice under the supervision
of the police would also be materially augmented; once legalised, the
trade of the procurer would be given up to a depraved competition, and
all this would tend in the highest degree to the public demoralisation.
Further, confidence in the Imperial legislation, and consequently in the
Empire itself, which has need rather to be strengthened, would
experience a serious shock amongst very considerable and important
portions of the population; and the supreme authority, which, according
to the declaration of the Government and of the Chancellor of the
Empire, was to be augmented by the revision of the Penal Code, would
find itself instead materially weakened. As regards the sanitary reasons
which are put forward in support of the proposition, we believe
ourselves authorised in saying that their value has not yet been
sufficiently established from the experimental and scientific point of
view, and that, on the contrary, in this respect also, the proposition
is open to serious objections.
“We will add, lastly, that this proposition is put forward precisely at
the moment when we are witnessing, in England and in Switzerland, a
movement as profound as it is earnest, which has for its aim, with ever
increasing prospects of success, the abrogation of all legalisation of
vice, whether on the part of the Legislature or of the Administrative
function.
“In virtue of these considerations, we address to the Reichstag the
following prayer:—
“‘That the Reichstag be pleased to reject every proposition tending to
alter the provisions already enacted by the law against the trade of the
procurer, or to authorise in any manner whatever the exercise of that
trade by placing it under official protection.
“‘In the name of the Central Committee of the Inner Mission of the
Evangelical Church in Germany, for the President, Dr. Dorner, Member of
the Superior Consistory.’”
This petition, it will be observed, was directed, not against the then
existing system of legalised vice in Germany, but only against a fuller
development of it which was threatened. Then, and up to the present
time, in most cities in Germany, a permission to follow their calling
was and is given by the police to unfortunate women living in their own
lodgings, on condition of their conforming to certain prescribed police
and sanitary rules. This is in itself an open, official sanction. A
people, having become accustomed to this amount of official license, is
easily, and, indeed, logically, carried on to acquiesce in the more
complete form of Governmental sanction of vice, namely, the licensed and
protected house of shame. There is, therefore, to the convinced
Abolitionist, a fatal omission in this otherwise excellent petition, in
the absence of an additional protest against the license which was
_already accorded_ in Germany.
The light which is now falling so fully and steadily upon this question
will surely in time reveal clearly to reformers in Germany, as
elsewhere, the necessity of attacking any and every compromise with
vice, in whatever form. In official compromise with sin there is no
standing still; there is a perpetual advance towards more shameless and
elaborate organisation of profligacy. The house of ill-fame _never
existed_ in England as an openly recognised and State-protected
institution, but it came by degrees, under the regulations now
abolished, to be tacitly permitted, and the English Abolitionists knew
well that, unless a blow were struck at the root principle of the whole
system, the open recognition of organised houses of debauchery would
follow in their own, as in all other countries, where the system of
regulation has once obtained a footing. This matter is clearly stated in
the Berlin Regulations instituted in 1850. The following words are
translated from the German of the _Resolution of the Royal Presidency of
Police of Berlin, December 11th, 1850_, which precedes the Regulations:—
“The method of tolerance may be twofold: permission may be given to the
women to have each a domicile of her own, upon submitting to a stringent
regulation; or, on the other hand, they may be confined in special
houses, under a responsible householder.
“This last method offers more guarantees and greater security to
police-regulation, and facilitates supervision. No doubt the moral
sentiment revolts at the idea that the public authority should tolerate
and protect houses set apart for purposes of vice, _but experience has
proved that this mode is, for Berlin, the least objectionable_.”
In March, 1878, a visit was paid to the district of Torre Pellice, in
North Italy, the cradle of the Waldensian Church. The pastors and people
of that country were quickly and securely gained to our cause, as is
usual with persons who have suffered for a truth for which they have
been called to contend.
In 1879 I visited the Ban de la Roche in Alsace, with my husband; here
Pastor Dietz and others were won to be warm adherents of our cause. We
passed through Colmar and Muhlhausen, but it was not until some years
later that we made the acquaintance of M. Schlumberger, Mayor of Colmar,
and heard of the unique part which he had taken in the cause of justice
and morality.
The principal event on the Continent of the year 1879 was the Annual
Conference of the Federation, held at Liége, in Belgium. The following
account of that event was written by Mme. de Morsier, of Paris.
“There is an advantage in choosing middle-sized towns for these annual
meetings. In large centres like Paris and London our action is partly
lost on account of the vastness of the place. No doubt the active
members of the Federation feel the benefit of them, but very little
impression can be made on the public, whilst in smaller towns, like
Liége, we may, as we have seen, produce a great impression, even at an
unfavourable season, when the higher class people are away.
“Our public meetings in Liége, Verviers, and Seraing, were attended by a
numerous public, chiefly men. The earnest attention with which we were
heard convinced us that the good seed did not fall on barren soil. Even
the press did us the honour of discussing our question, and some papers
published very good articles. However, we had the opportunity of
noticing that Belgian editors, like those of other countries, are
extremely full of solicitude for us, and eager to caution us against
many and various dangers. ‘Beware the perilous paths;’ they seem to say,
‘if you take the right one we will follow you; but what is wanted are
works of rescue; leave the police alone and create _Refuges_.’
“Well, the Conference of Liége answered in a very categorical manner to
this, the constantly repeated suggestion of the over-prudent and timidly
charitable.
“The one thing that struck us was how much the question has developed,
how much enlarged is the view taken of the subject—the really essential
aspect of it, _i.e._ the defence of individual liberty and right. And
this is the result of the _logic of facts_. The strength of a principle
lies in this, that it gradually imposes itself upon all true and serious
minds, and leads them to accept its logical and necessary consequences.
I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, the main fact of the
Conference in Liége has been this unity of feeling among the Delegates
present on the great question of the sacredness of personal liberty and
individual right.
“This is the firmest basis upon which to act, our best security against
inconsistency. If we deny to the police the right of sitting in judgment
upon the morality of women, we must be ready to refuse this right also
to every form of arbitrary rule, whether it be the arbitrary rule of an
Assembly of well-intentioned people, or the arbitrary rule of corrupt
agents or officials. Our experience during our struggle for this cause
has opened our eyes to the fact that all the great struggles of the
present day, whether political, social, economic or religious, may be
summed up as one great war between the two principles, Compulsion and
Liberty, and if the first principle is still so powerful in countries
boasting of liberal institutions, is it not to some extent because the
partisans of the second principle have thought it prudent to temporise
with the first; being led astray by the beautiful modern
invention—_opportunism_? It was, therefore, with double satisfaction
that I saw the Federation fortifying itself more and more by relying
upon absolute principles. I will quote as an example the energetic
speech of Mr. Benjamin Scott, Chamberlain of the City of London, at the
public meeting of the 22nd August in Liége. Mr. Benjamin Scott regarded
the subject from an extremely elevated point of view, and showed himself
as daring as truth itself.
“‘You are not free,’ said he to the citizens of Liége. ‘Liége is not
free; Brussels is not free; and Paris is not free, though she has
battered down the Bastille, and placed the statue of Liberty on the
column of July.... It could never be said that the United States were
free so long as they held four millions of negroes enslaved. Paris,
Brussels, and your fine city of Liége are not free so long as any woman
may be deprived of her civil rights at the caprice or tyranny of a
police agent, or through the denunciation of a scoundrel.’
“You may be sure that M. Yves Guyot did not fail to fling many keen
shafts at the Police des Mœurs, on the ground of its illegality and
violation of individual liberty, enforcing his powerful arguments by
quotations from the Belgian Code, which fell like battering-rams on the
hypocrisies of the system. M. Humbert traced in broad outlines the
history of the Federation in all countries. With the readiness of mind
and tact of a man accustomed to act as chairman, he took the opportunity
of a rather violent speech from M. O—— B——, of Liége, to re-affirm the
large and independent point of view maintained by our Association. ‘We
are not here to enter into any political or religious polemics,’ he
said, ‘we seek to recall your minds to those humanitarian truths and
principles in which all those who desire justice and respect the rights
of human beings can unite.’
“M. Pierson, Director of the Asiles of Zetten, Holland, gave some
interesting details of his special work, and declared that his
experience in such practical endeavours had convinced him of the truth
of the principles maintained by the Federation.
“Let the editors of papers be at rest; we also approve and encourage
works of rescue and reformation, and especially when their founders
understand the duty of thus publicly proclaiming the lessons they have
learned through such private experience.
“The public meeting of Liége will take its place among the brilliant
successes of our cause. Seven hundred people expressed their adherence
to our principles by their enthusiastic cheers. M. Nicolet, President of
the Committee of Liége, must have been well satisfied with his
countrymen.
“On the Thursday evening we held a women’s meeting. The schoolroom
placed at our disposal was full, and, notwithstanding the warnings as to
the necessity of _prudence_ which had been given us, we stated the
question plainly and frankly. The expression of mingled curiosity and
amazement, which we first observed on the faces of the listeners, was
soon succeeded by an expression of attentive sympathy.
“The Baroness de Stampe spoke of Denmark, the Countess Schack of
Germany, and Mme. de Morsier related some facts which she had witnessed
in Paris. A hearty vote of sympathy was granted to us, and on our
leaving the room, many hands pressed ours, and heartfelt words of
encouragement were spoken.
“We had also the great satisfaction of seeing many young men of Liége,
students, etc., at our business Conference, where we invited them to a
private meeting at the Hotel de Suède. A great many came, students, and
some workmen also. That evening’s reunion will remain one of the best
souvenirs of Liége. Nothing moves me more deeply than to see on the
faces of young men the expression of noble impulses and generous
enthusiasm. Whatever the struggles, the failures, or the wreck of
illusions which life may bring, a spark of the true fire will always
linger in the soul of the man who sincerely believed in justice and in
true love when he was twenty.
“M. Humbert’s words found ready response when, in a splendid
improvisation, he drew for them the picture of a truly noble, active,
and useful life, and spoke to them of the march of humanity on the path
of progress, guided by the light of the two beacons of science and
faith.
“M. Testuz and M. Durand of Liége, spoke also some heart-stirring words
to this youthful assembly.
“On Sunday 21st, the delegates of the Federation were invited to a
friendly tea-party, in the _Presbytère de la Chênée_, by M. Nicolet,
which was rendered delightful by the feeling of true fraternity which
united us through sharing the same moral aspirations and hopes, in spite
of our many differences of opinion upon other points. We may construct
systems, found religious sects, or analyse scientific facts, but the
focus of true life, the lever elevating humanity to noble aims, will
always be the spirit of _Love_ and _Justice_.
“On Sunday we were awakened by the sound of the funeral bell, which
announced the death of the Archbishop of Liége. We were invited at four
o’clock to visit the Pastor Nicolet, at Chênée. About the same hour M.
Yves Guyot gave a conference in his own name, personally, to the
Associations of _Libre Penseurs_, and the Countess Schack accompanied
him. Some of us took the route to Chênée in a carriage. The presbytère
(pastor’s house) is situated in the middle of the village—a pretty
little house, the ground floor of which is the chapel. Above is the
drawing-room, which opens upon a wooden balcony with a charming view.
Next to the house is a garden extending to the bank of the Canal de
l’Aurte; beyond, to the right, a little village with its bell-tower and
church. On the left the great furnaces of the Vieille Montagne;[14]
further down, and all round, wooded hills.
“Nature here is as amiable and peaceful as the charming hosts who
received us. M. Nicolet offered to have a service in the chapel in
English for the English workman delegates. Those of us who remained on
the little balcony enjoyed the sound of the manly voices singing their
beautiful hymns. The setting sun was covering the west with gold, and a
light mist slowly rose from the valley. In the drawing-room there was
conversation, grave and gay. Mr. Stuart was compelled to pay a fine in
aid of the Maison Hospitalière. He had made a bet that the English
working men delegates would not find their way to Chênée; but they,
setting off on foot at the moment that we entered our carriage, had
arrived at the door of the presbytery before us. Mme. Nicolet proposed
that we should all visit the Chapel. It is charming, this little chapel
in its great simplicity, with its iron pillars and its Gothic windows,
which open upon the garden, the river, and the hills.
“There was a harmonium; why, we said, should we not sing? M. Nicolet
brought his violin, and took the shoulder of M. Pierson as a _chevalet_,
young Gustave took the harmonium, and the singers grouped themselves
round the window. The sweet melody rose and fell like a wave, and our
souls were quieted and elevated by this flood of harmony. The last rays
of the sun, broken by the lattice work, bathed the group of singers in
their golden light, playing round the white hair of the venerable
violinist. At the same moment M. Yves Guyot and the Countess Schack
silently entered the Chapel, and took a seat on one of the benches.
“We shall not soon forget the peaceful presbytery of Chênée, the balcony
garlanded with flowers, the group in the chapel, lighted by the setting
sun; and above all, the kind pastor and his wife, whose loving Christian
friendship gained every heart. Whenever I may hear again Luther’s hymn,
the Hallelujah of Beethoven, or the sorrowful melodies of Calvary, I
shall see again, in thought, the chapel of Chênée, and the friends who
were assembled there that Sunday evening, the 24th of August, 1879.
“Gustave and Clement accompanied us to the railway station. The pale
crescent moon rose above the horizon, and the furnaces of the Vieille
Montagne flung their flames into the cool evening air.
“On Monday, at 3 o’clock, the Federation was under arms; it was time to
go to Verviers, where a conference had been prepared. Verviers is a
pretty little industrial town; the houses have a comfortable look, which
is somewhat reflected in the faces of the citizens. At 7 o’clock we were
at our places in the Hall of Emulation; the public alone was late. This,
however, allowed us to enjoy upon the balcony a magnificent spectacle.
The town had just been inundated by a storm of rain, the western sky was
on fire, here and there clouds torn asunder revealed calm expanses of
the heavens, of a pale blue or green, which harmonised with the purple
tints of the evening. The wet pavement reflected the burning sky, and
the whole place seemed illuminated. Some of us admired in silence, while
others analysed every changing effect.
“The meeting began coldly. We were told that the hour fixed was too
early, and that the workmen had not yet left the foundries. By degrees,
however, the hall filled; there were a great number of men, and some
women—a very attentive audience, though less enthusiastic than that of
Liége.
“M. Yves Guyot, Mrs. Butler and M. Pierson spoke. Mr. Lucraft, a
delegate of the London workmen, improvised a speech full of fire; the
ardour of his manner and voice captivated those even who did not
understand what he was saying. Mme. de Morsier translated for him. Mr.
Bonjean, a citizen of Verviers, in a brief speech, thanked the
Federation.
“The hurry to reach the train at night was not very favourable to the
orators; nevertheless, the meeting was good. As we entered the railway
carriage, M. Humbert complained bitterly of the blows which he had
received in the back from ladies’ fans, which they thus made use of to
remind the speaker that the time was getting late! He demanded that at
Seraing fans should be prohibited!
“On Tuesday our partings began. The representatives of the North
disappeared from amongst us, with the Baroness de Stampe and Dr.
Giersing, of Denmark. M. Testuz (from Sweden) disappeared like a
shooting star. Those who had exchanged thoughts with him at the dinner
table of the Hotel de Suède, would gladly have once more shaken hands
with him before his departure. Why did M. Testuz disappear like a
shooting star?
“M. and Mme. Pierson next took their departure, and the Parisian
deputation also began to be dismembered. Nature seemed to wish to soften
our regrets, for the weather was beautiful, the heavens blue, and the
bright rays of the sun tempered by an autumnal breeze.
“It was pleasant to linger in the Botanical Gardens where underneath the
canopy of pines, the gentle breeze carried to us the scent of the
heliotrope, roses, white campanula and giant daisies flowering together
in the beds in that beautiful disorder which is more agreeable to the
eye than the mosaic horticulture which is now the fashion.”
But it was time to start for Seraing. We went by the river, the whole
party—at least, all who still remained. The wind had risen, it fluttered
the ladies’ veils, and it seemed that the classical hat of the Cambridge
Professor had a design to make acquaintance with the waves of the Meuse.
Madame de Morsier, depositary of the precious Belgian Code, carried the
volume with a respectful awe, which caused her to be charged with
fetichism. The Belgian Code! It is the Krupp cannon of our artillery!
Madame de Morsier asked what certain orators would do that evening if,
putting out their hands to take it for quotations, they should find it
had disappeared.
“The boat flew quickly through the water. We glided past wooded hills,
at the foot of which the furnaces, with their blackened walls and tall
chimneys, launched out columns of smoke mixed with flames. Here and
there were workmen’s villages nestling in the woods. Nature and industry
were united in a powerful harmony; it seemed like a key-note of our age.
Those who despise the romance of the Rhine might enjoy themselves here.
At every moment the scene changed; it was a succession of little
pictures of varied style: here a slope of dark woods, against which
rises a great furnace; there an island in the middle of the river, in
which one caught glimpses of mysterious paths; further on, a meadow of
brilliant green, meeting at its horizon line the western sky all decked
in gold; here, a boat, whose brown sail stood out against the sky, while
lower down on the horizon, clouds of capricious form, lighted up by the
departing rays of the sun, presented the most varied tints, or, tearing
themselves asunder, revealed to our sight the transparency of a
boundless horizon. Occasionally the boat stopped to take in passengers.
We saw on the shore a friend waving his hat in our direction, the wind
blowing back his silvery hair. It was the good pastor of Chênée and his
excellent wife, standing on the little pier, ready to join us.
“At last we reached Seraing, coquettishly seated upon the two shores of
the Meuse, bound together by a bridge of iron which is not wanting in
elegance. Opposite the place of debarkation, in the middle of a little
parterre, stands the statue of Cockerill, the founder of these vast
ironworks. Around the pedestal are grouped figures representing the
workers in the foundries with their various implements of toil; their
countenances and their marked features have something noble and proud
about them; one reads in them the character of men who feel themselves
masters of their art. We walked through the streets of the village,
women and children gazing at us with curiosity from the door steps.
“On this occasion we had no time to lose, only just time to take a cup
of coffee at the little Inn, before going to the hall placed at our
service by the Society of Seraing. We found all the seats already
occupied, but there was no gas lit; it was not the custom to light up
before a quarter past seven. We took our places upon the platform whilst
attempts were made to light up. The patient audience interested itself
much in this operation, and gave advice. At last a few burners consented
to be lighted, and the meeting began. There was a crowd of workmen and
women who listened attentively. We found here a more complete sympathy
than at Verviers. The enthusiasm was not so loudly expressed as at
Liége, but there was something convinced and quiet in the audience;
whenever the smallest noise occurred, the meeting demanded silence.
These people we saw had not come to be amused, but to be instructed. The
speakers were MM. Minod, Humbert, Guyot, and Mrs. Butler. Mr. Stuart
concluded a brief speech with the words, ‘The police of morals is the
greatest mystification of our age. It is a servant which has never
fulfilled its task. Dismiss it.’
“We had this time leisure to go quietly to the station through the
beautiful air; the moon and Jupiter were shining brightly in a deep blue
sky. We passed along the side of the great foundries; immense jets of
fire were flung out from the chimneys; we heard the dull heavy blows of
the steam hammers, and then a roaring sound like the breaking of a great
wave. It was the flowing out of the boiling fountain of metal into the
mould, accompanied by the shouts of the workmen announcing the success
of an operation. A mighty spectacle, but one which has its melancholy
side, when one thinks of those men compelled to such hard nocturnal
labour, exposed to the heat of that burning lava, condemned to a life
apart from other citizens, and only coming out from the foundries in
order to go to rest, when others are awaking up. The eternal problem of
social industry—will it ever be solved?
“But here was the train, and the last joyous return to our hotel. Once
more a repast together: to-morrow the great adieu.
“Wednesday morning, the 27th August, the friends who remained
re-assembled once more for conversation in the drawing-room of the Hotel
de Suède. The conversation took that tender and serious tone which often
precedes the hour of parting. Each one traced back the thread of his or
her memories, and recounted the events or circumstances which brought
them first in contact with the great idea which unites us. Strange
coincidences some of them appeared to be. ‘The chances of life’ one
said. ‘Perhaps something more than that,’ said another. Yes! there is
something here more than chance.
“That same day the trains for Paris, for Antwerp, for Cologne, and for
Calais carried away the last of our band. A farewell grasp of the hand,
a parting smile, a bouquet of flowers presented, and then all is said.
“Each one drove away towards his destination, and to the encounter with
new duties.
“And now, little town of Belgium, sitting on the banks of the Meuse,
surrounded with green hills, let me take one parting look at you! We
have only known you a few days and now you live in our memories a
luminous point in the past. Many of us arrived within your walls
strangers to each other, and have parted friends; some arrived
sorrowful, discouraged, asking what will be the end of all this? They
return peaceful, and fortified with the conviction that work is
happiness, and conflict a duty.
“_Manet alta mente repostum._”
M. Lecour, the well-known chief of the Morals’ Police in Paris, had been
advised in 1878 to retire from his post, and was appointed chief
_marguillier_ (bell-ringer) of Notre Dame.
On the 23rd and 24th January, 1879, the editor of the _Lanterne_ was
prosecuted by the Government for a series of letters published in that
paper containing charges against the administration of the police,
including the Police des Mœurs. The editor was condemned to three
months’ imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 francs.
The disclosures made at the trial of the _Lanterne_ induced M. Gigot,
the Prefect of Police, to beg M. Marcère, the Minister of the Interior,
to appoint a Commission of Inquiry.
M. Naudin, M. Lecour’s successor, was heard before this Commission on
the 7th April. Nothing could be more shallow than his deposition; a
_rechauffé_ of administrative phrases, uttered with an air of
conviction, as if they were novel truths. His evidence was to the effect
that “all the officials hitherto employed at the Prefecture had but one
idea—to maintain appearances; avoid mistakes in arrests; exercise the
greatest prudence in the most delicate functions; and, above all,
prevent public scandal, and maintain the secrecy of their operations.”
The Commission had arranged with the new Prefect of Police, M. Andrieux,
to hear his deposition. They met and waited some hours, to be told
afterwards that he had forgotten his appointment. A fresh appointment
was made, when the Prefect again insulted the Commission in the same
manner.
Soon after the celebrated articles published by the _Lanterne_ (M. Yves
Guyot), under the signature of a “Vieux Petit Employé,” were resumed,
and they pointed out that the greater number of the officials who were
implicated in the atrocities brought to light at the trial of the
_Lanterne_ were still in office, while those of their subordinates who
had dared to speak the truth had been summarily dismissed the service
without compensation.
The Appeal which had been made in the case of the _Lanterne_ was
decided, and that courageous journal was again condemned by French law,
and victoriously absolved and applauded by French public opinion.
The damning evidence brought against the Prefecture of Police had caused
the retirement of M. Gigot, the chief members of his staff, and later,
of the Minister of the Interior, M. Marcère. In more than one country,
the light which our crusade threw upon men and deeds caused many a man
in office to disappear, to melt away out of sight. The new Prefect
continued to countenance the same abuses, and the _Lanterne_ continued
its public censure of them. M. Andrieux then calumniated that journal in
his place in the Assembly, declaring it to be the centre of a
Bonapartist plot, of which the “Ex-Agent des Mœurs,” “The Vieux Petit
Employé,” and the “Médécin,” were the leaders.