Chapter IX

“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 180Amsterdam, 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 181childhood, 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 182hate 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.”

183M. 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 184through 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 185of 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.

186Dating 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 187at 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 188sentiment 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. 189Then 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 190these 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 191had 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 192were 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 193would 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 194only 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 195hand, 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 196earnest 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 197the 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.’

198“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 199true 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 200hosts 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 201station. 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!

202“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 203our 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 204interested 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 205of 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 206Minister 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 207the 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.

208