CHAPTER VI

“Thy will was in the builder’s thought; Thy hand unseen amidst us wrought; Through mortal motive, scheme and plan, Thy wise eternal purpose ran.”

Before I go further with the recital of the events in connection with our crusade which stand out most prominently in my memory, I must pause to speak briefly of some of the persons with whom I was most closely allied in the early years of our work.

They rise before me now—those faces and those groups of faces of dear friends and companions in labour, of all classes and conditions, and of different lands and races. Many have passed away; but their memory lives in the hearts of those with whom they were associated for a time in work and prayer and hope.

First among the many groups comes that of the earliest and most active leaders in the Ladies’ National Association. One of these, the Bristol group, still continues to be full of life and energy. I refer especially to the sisters Priestman and Margaret Tanner, with Miss Estlin and others closely associated with them, who have been to me, personally, through this long struggle, from the first years till now, a kind of body guard, a _corps d’élite_ on whose prompt aid, singleness of purpose, prudence, and unwearying industry I could and can rely at all times, and the knowledge of whose existence and loyalty alone, even when parted from them for long periods, is a continued source of comfort and strength. The utter absence in them of any desire for recognition, of any vestige of egotism in any form, is worthy of remark. In the purity of their motives they shine out “clear as crystal.”

The mere mention of their names, and those of a host of others, is but a cold and poor tribute. Nevertheless, I cannot pass on without a brief allusion to others. Mrs. Kenway, of Birmingham, was another of my strongest friends; her house was always my home in passing through and working in that busy centre, a home in which I was always lovingly received by herself, her husband, and all her family. I must mention her sister also, Mrs. Henry Richardson, of York. Other names which crowd upon me are those of Mrs. Edward Walker, of Leeds, of Mr. and Mrs. Clark, of Newcastle, Mr. and Mrs. Spence Watson and the Richardson family, of the same town; of Mrs. Pease Nichol, Miss Wigham, and Mrs. Bright McLaren, of Edinburgh; of Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Maclaren and other ladies of Glasgow, and Miss Isabella Tod, of Belfast, one of the ablest, and certainly the most eloquent, of our women workers of those times. Miss Lucy Wilson, whose loss to our cause through death some years ago was a serious one, might be numbered as one of the legal helpers of our cause. She had a remarkably keen intelligence and extraordinary capacity for sifting evidence, unravelling tortuous argument, and dividing the true from the false. She was often employed by our Parliamentary friends to examine and pronounce upon doubtful proposals, emanating from the Government or elsewhere. Her verdict was generally found to be just. Her character and feelings as a woman, at the same time, were true and tender.

There are many more names revered and honourable which I might bring in, but I do not know how to enumerate them. I am forced, like the Apostle who gives us the record of the heroes of faith, to sum up with the words, “And what shall I say more? for the time would fail me to tell” of this and that standard-bearer of righteousness. Their record is in heaven; they do not need my poor homage; they never coveted earthly praise.

The lofty and perilous position to which the first women workers in this cause were called, was indicated by Dr. Guthrie, one of the venerable leaders of the Scottish Free Church, in a letter which was published in 1872, as follows:—

“There is a picture in the old Dutch town of Leyden which I have looked on with the deepest emotions. Its object is the brave, and, by God’s blessing, successful defence of that city when besieged by the forces of those two fierce persecutors, Philip II. and the Duke of Alva. And what there most moved my heart was the sight of women, in whom the fear of outrage from the brutal soldiery had swallowed up the fear of death, standing beside their fathers, brothers, and husbands on the crests of the crowded ramparts. No place for women, that, it may be said. But turn the light of history on the scene; read in Motley’s pages the unutterable horrors to which both maidens and mothers were exposed, and you will look through tears of sympathy on the beautiful woman, pale with loss of blood, whom they are bearing off to die in a quiet chamber, and on those of her sex who, undaunted by her fall, stand boldly by the guns and, with hands used to gentler work, point the muzzle and fire on the assailant. Circumstances, as they say, alter cases. They did so there; they did so when, in lack of men, Grace Darling hastened to the rescue, put her own young life in peril, and pulled for the sinking wreck. They did so in Jerusalem also, when women, casting aside the ordinary restraints of their age, openly followed our Lord to Calvary, and, in the face of His raging enemies, bewailed and lamented Him.

“Such honour as I give to these I give to those ladies who have stepped out of their ordinary sphere to publicly expose the vice-regulating laws, and to become leaders of men,—to inspire the hesitating with firmness and cowards with courage. A good while ago different persons urged me to take pen in hand and address the mothers of our country, the guardians of its homes and household virtues, on the jeopardy into which both were brought by the authors and advocates of these foul laws. Fear of being thought presumptuous made me, while I acknowledged the honour, decline—at least delay—the task. But when these ladies, braving in this crisis the scoffs of profligates, rising above all fear of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by their public appearance on such a subject, offered up a sacrifice on the altar of virtue that only the delicate and pure and high-minded can fully appreciate, I were a coward to hang back. They have thrown themselves into the breach, and I cannot but follow.”

The position which the women took was also well described by our venerable Christian statesman, the Right Honourable J. W. Henley, when from his seat in Parliament he uttered these words: “It is objected that this agitation is the work of women; but it is impossible not to see that it is women who are above all others affected by this law. We men do not know what they suffer. These women have set their feet upon the Rock of Ages, and nothing will drive them from that position. They have taken up the cross, despising the shame, and they will not shrink or turn back.”

These words were uttered in the House of Commons, in which were many cynics, in the midst of an awed and reverential silence. The character and age of the speaker himself contributed to this feeling of respect.

If in the course of my imperfect narrative I have omitted to mention some of those who are worthy of mention and honour, I ask that I may be pardoned for that omission. We were many. As the years went on, we gathered adherents from all parts of the civilised world; we came to be a host which it would be difficult to number. There were in the front many distinguished men,—men of European and world-wide reputation, economists, philosophers, statesmen, writers, patriots, leaders of men; and at the same time there were countless helpers whose contribution to the great awakening and onward movement was a hidden one, resembling the vitalising influence of a stream or fountain flowing underneath the soil, whose presence is only known by the verdure and freshness of the pastures around. How many victories have been won for us by the silent prayers of these, while we were in the midst of the battle, will only be known when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed.

Among the men who stood foremost in those early years, I have already spoken of some. Emeritus Professor Francis Newman, brother of the late Cardinal Newman, gave us strong help by his powerful pen and unflinching rebukes of those in authority who had conspired to bring this trouble upon our country. An anonymous friend won the gratitude of the Ladies’ National Association in its infancy, when its resources were meagre, by a gift of £100. This friend proved to be the father of Mr. John Thomasson, of Bolton. His son, in the same spirit, has never failed to stand our friend up to the present day; his gentleness of character and manner, combined with great firmness of principle, has made him to be beloved by us all. Mr. R. F. Martineau, of Birmingham, was ever a firm and clear-headed upholder of our principles, and was the inspirer of the work, during many years, of his own creation,—the Midland Electoral Union. He had strong supporters in Mr. Morgan, the Rev. J. G. Brown and others at Birmingham. Mr. Joseph Edmondson, of Halifax, aided us powerfully by his pen as well as by active labours. The tortuous methods, arguments and subterfuges of our opponents, when they began to take refuge from approaching defeat in manifold “substitutes,” were exposed by him in a masterly manner in his pamphlet “The Regulationists and their Policy.”

Mr. Henry J. Wilson was from the first, and is now, one of our strongest champions.

I have already mentioned Mr. Edward Backhouse, who supported us munificently year by year by his generous donations as well as by his commanding presence on many public occasions. When his death was announced it was said with truth, “A prince has fallen this day in Israel.” His name again recalls those of many other pillars of the Society of Friends, two of Birmingham, Mr. Albright and Mr. J. E. Wilson, and more especially of those two pure and saintly men George Gillett and Frederick Wheeler.

A year or two after our first attack on the vice-regulating laws, there appeared, equipped for the battle, and powerful, though young, another member of that Society, Alfred Dyer, whose action and influence in India, and their important results, are well known to my readers.

For legal advice and help all through, we were greatly indebted to Mr. William Shaen and Professor Sheldon Amos. Mr. Shaen held a prominent position for many years as President of the National Association. I first became acquainted with him in 1870, and retained his friendship till his death. He was a man of great firmness of character, who on first acquaintance appeared cold; yet his nature was one of great gentleness, and his counsel was always kind. One could go to him for advice in the most tragic and criminal cases, sure of his sympathy. Some allusion was once made at a Conference to persons who might be called the _refuse of society_. Mr. Shaen remarked: “For me, there is no refuse of society.” Very valuable work was done by him for the British and Continental Federation. He drew up several weighty documents on the legal side of our question, which stated clearly the lines upon which the legislation of the future, connected with the subject of our work, should be based.

Of the National Committee which sat at Westminster, and worked especially with a view to influencing Members of Parliament, the two Mr. Mallesons were pillars of strength, Mrs. W. Malleson contributing by her refined and able pen to our literature. Mr. Banks was from first to last the able and laborious secretary of that Committee. As members of the same Committee I must not fail to mention Mrs. Venturi, a friend of Mazzini, and Mrs. Steward. To the latter was assigned an arduous task in visiting Belgium in aid of the inquiry into the criminal “white slave trade,” which was carried on between that country and our own. This mission was promoted by the Abolitionist Committee of the City of London, headed by our late venerable friend, Mr. Benjamin Scott, for many years Chamberlain of the City of London.

Since the year 1880 a host of younger workers has gathered into our ranks, of whom, while thinking of them with loving regard, I will not attempt here to give even such an imperfect notice as the above.

I have named, after all, only a portion of those who deserve all honour for the sacrifices they made and the good work they did. Our Parliamentary friends, as well as certain leaders of Churches and Denominations who were prominent in our work, are noticed in the course of my narrative. Our principal Continental, American, and other friends come in the same way into the story itself.

Most certainly we have had strong consolation and high privileges in the midst of much obloquy, and some painful experiences. Among the former advantages stands first the fact that the question we dealt with has brought forward at all times, and in all countries, the best men and women of those times and countries, welding them and us into a great league of solid friendships and common aims. Those who have gathered round the Abolitionist standard from the first till now have indeed been of “the salt of the earth.”

Personally, it has been to me an indescribable blessing and strength to have been surrounded all along by tenderly loyal adherents and supporters in the persons of my own family, and of those dearest to me. Few, perhaps, have been so highly favoured in this respect. My husband’s character and his position in the work are known. My sons, following in his steps, always gave me loving sympathy, and, as they advanced to manhood, practical help, for which I here record my affectionate acknowledgments. My five sisters were, at different times, more or less associated in the work, and were always and strongly in sympathy with it. One of them was for many years an active member of the Executive Committee of the Ladies’ National Association, and at her death was succeeded in that position by another sister. Another though frail and in failing health, laboured closely with me for several years, especially in promoting petitions and memorials from Churches.

The year 1875 has few clear recollections for me, personally, in direct connection with our cause. Six years of work, and more especially the winter months spent in very difficult work on the Continent, had over-taxed my strength. My health gave way, and was only restored by several months of rest, during which I heard only the distant echoes of the conflict, while I remained at home.

Some of those echoes were of a mournful nature. The _Gazetta di Milano_ recorded early in that year several cases of girls who had committed suicide to avoid the agony of being placed on the Government register of shame, and of another who had been deliberately and cleverly entrapped into the “service,” and who had locked herself into her room, and attempted suicide by breathing the fumes of charcoal. She was found in the morning, stretched on her bed quite insensible, with a crucifix clasped in her arms. The immodest pictures, and other objects suggestive of evil, with which her apartment had been furnished, were found all broken to pieces by her hands, and lay strewed about the room. Happier had it been for her if that sleep had been her last; but life was not extinct, and she was restored to consciousness, to her own bitter grief.

In the month of March, Mrs. Percy, of Aldershot, a widow, who had for some years during her husband’s illness maintained her children honestly, drowned herself in order to escape from police persecution, by which, if she had yielded, she would have been driven to be registered on the Government roll of shame. Before taking the fatal resolve she had written a letter to the _Daily Telegraph_. It was a wild appeal of terror and indignation, relieved by a faint hope that some heart would be touched, and her case would be taken up. No answer, however, coming at once to her cry of anguish, she sought refuge from dishonour in death. The National Association instituted a strict inquiry into all the circumstances, which were found to be as Mrs. Percy and her young daughter had stated. That Association also charged itself with the care of the little orphan sons of Mrs. Percy, while her daughter was committed to my husband’s care and mine, and was sent to our home in Liverpool. Much indignation was aroused in the country; the Government agent who had hunted this poor woman to death, however, retained his position, possibly receiving a mild warning from the Secretary for War to be more careful in future in the selection of his victims.

An Indignation Meeting was held in St. James’s Hall, London, at which our Parliamentary leaders spoke out plainly on this matter. My husband read to that meeting an informal deposition made to him by the young girl soon after she came under our care.

“The statement,” he said, “which I am about to read to you was drawn from little Jane Percy in the confidence of a quiet Sunday chat after she had been a fortnight in our house, and it was written down immediately. We asked her to tell us exactly all she could recollect, if it was not too painful to her. She replied, ‘I will tell you exactly what I saw and remember’; and then, speaking for the first time of the bitter trial to which she had been subjected, she said: ‘They called the police and ordered my mother to go up to the Metropolitan Police Office and bring me with her. Mamma and I went. We there saw Inspector G——. He was in his room, and mamma was first called in alone. I cannot, therefore, tell what passed between mamma and the Inspector, because I was not there. I can only tell you this, that mamma was never the same person again after that hour. She told me that she assured Inspector G—— that she would rather sign her death warrant than the paper he gave her to sign. I was then called in. I shall never forget the moment when I stood before Inspector G—— and he accused me. He said, “Do you know, girl, why you are here?” I replied, “No, sir, I do not.” He said, “You are here because you are no better than you should be. You know what that means, I suppose?” I said, “No, sir, I do not.” He laughed in a horrible way when I said this. I continued to deny that I knew what he meant; for, indeed, I did not. I knew what a bad character was: there are plenty in Aldershot; but I could not understand that he meant to accuse me and my mamma of being bad characters. He asked me if we had a “pass” into the camp. I answered “Yes, we always had one: for we had engagements to sing while papa was lying ill.” He then shouted to some one, “See that these two women have their passes taken away from them; we will put a stop to all that!” You see, mamma could not earn a living after this. It hurt me so when he called mamma and me “these two women!” Mamma said to me when we came out, “Jenny, this will be the death of me.” She never looked cheerful any more. She was watched by the police wherever she went. Then she wrote that last letter to the _Daily Telegraph_. Soon after that we went away to try and get an engagement elsewhere, but could not succeed. Mamma was always crying, and we began to feel what a loss father was; for though he was so ill that he was not able to earn a penny for two years, he was a good friend. We used to tell him every trouble, and he would talk it over and advise us kindly. Nobody but myself knows what mamma suffered. She could never rest at night; for she said Inspector G——’s face was always before her, as she saw it when he accused her. If she fell asleep, she would wake up sobbing and in a fright. I consider that man has been the death of my mamma. He said to her at the end, “I will not let you alone.” Well, a friend came from Aldershot to ask mamma to go back there. We went back. Friends used to say to her, “Cheer up! you will be all the more respected when this is cleared up and the truth is known.” She again said she would choose death rather than do as Inspector G—— wished her to do!’

“Jenny spoke all this in a low, quiet voice, not at all excitedly. Her visit to the police station seemed to haunt her even more than her mother’s death. She is proud of her mother, and this pride helps her to bear the loss. She said at last: ‘What a law this is! I never could believe there was such a law. Since this law was made it is not considered respectable to speak to a soldier, nor have one in your house; but I can tell you that, though I have lived among soldiers ever since I was born, I never had a rough word or an insult from one in my life, and they were always respectful to my mamma. I think you will find that all those who knew her spoke well of her.’”

In May of this year a very important series of conferences was held in London on the occasion of the visit of several well-known Continental members of the Federation whom we had invited to meet us. Among these was M. Edmond de Pressensé. This distinguished man has been described as “one of the most eloquent scholars and scholarly divines of the French Reformed Church.” He had an intellectual countenance and a rich and pleasant voice; but his success as a preacher was chiefly secured by the solidity of his attainments and the depth of his religious convictions. He published many solid works, among which are “Lectures on Christianity in its Application to Social Questions,” “A History of the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era,” and his “Life of Christ,” which was published in 1866. He was a member of the National Assembly, and was nominated by it as Chairman of a Committee for investigating the Penitentiary Laws, and was later the principal actor on a Commission on the prison of St. Lazare. He was created a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour for his devotion in relieving the poor during the Franco-German War, and was finally elected a member of the Senate.

M. George Appia, an Italian by birth, was well known as an ardent apostle of the ancient Waldensian Church in Italy. He had been called to Paris as a Pastor of the Church of the Augsburg Confession; a man of genius and of a highly spiritual nature.

Two of our other visitors on this occasion have already been introduced to the reader, viz., M. Aimé Humbert and M. Giuseppe Nathan. Père Hyacinthe also was among the invited, but took ill after arriving in London, and was prevented attending these Conferences. He addressed a meeting some weeks later in St. James’s Hall on behalf of the Federation.

A Conversazione was held in the Westminster Palace Hotel on the evening before the Conference, when one or two informal addresses were given by the Continental visitors. M. Humbert, speaking in French, said: “I must tell you that the work of reform which you have taken up is not entirely an innovation in our Continental history. As far back as twenty years ago Pastor Borel undertook single-handed in Geneva the stupendous task of bringing the question before the public, and of combating for the abolition of these laws. But he was alone in the work; alone in signing a petition to the Grand Council. He sent his petition. It was acknowledged and sent back to be examined by the Council of State, and no more was heard of it. The following year he made another charge, with no more success than the first. He continued to labour on, and by great tact and effort succeeded in securing the escape of several of the victims from the tolerated houses. The track had been opened, and pioneers came in. Two years ago the newspapers of Geneva acquainted the public with the startling fact that an English lady had come for the special purpose of holding Conferences on the question raised by Pastor Borel. Every one said, ‘Ah, a very English proceeding, indeed!’ The matter was treated with more or less of levity until the Genevese learnt that a British and Continental Federation had been formed to deal with the matter, and that the seat of the Federation was London. This news stirred them. A Federation with its headquarters in London must be something worth notice.... I believe that henceforward both sides of the Channel will advance hand in hand in this great question of justice.”

A very large and representative Conference was held the following afternoon. A crowd of delegates came from all parts of the United Kingdom. Mr. Stansfeld presided Canon Butler read several letters, one from Père Hyacinthe regretting his enforced absence, a second from Professor Emile de Laveleye, whose attention had only recently been drawn to this question, and who now sent us the expression of his complete adhesion to our principles and work. Another letter was from Pastor Theodore Monod, who was prevented joining us by the obligation to attend a series of Conferences in the South of France. He wrote:—

“We are with you in spirit; we are providing ourselves with ammunition; we shall make use of your guns on the battlefield. Surely it is high time that every Christian should rouse himself to more earnest prayer, more steadfast trust and more whole-hearted devotion, and, as a necessary consequence, march forward in the Saviour’s might against these citadels of iniquity.”

M. de Pressensé’s speech on this occasion was one of the most remarkable we had ever heard. Mr. Stansfeld spoke of it as follows: “I knew that M. de Pressensé was a politician with a great and well-deserved reputation in his own country. I knew that he was an orator and a well-known divine; but I did not expect the privilege which was in store for us in the discourse to which we have just listened, a discourse displaying merits which are very rarely to be found combined in the speech of one man. It was the speech of a philosopher who has alike the instinct and training of a statesman. It contained the clearest statement of principle, and it was full of the divine sentiment of love which should fill the hearts of those who preach the Gospel. It was delivered with an energy and antithesis of eloquence of which, I fear, few Englishmen are capable.”

Every word of this speech is worthy of reproduction, but I only give here an extract or two.

“I entreat you to observe,” M. de Pressensé said, “that the State can only defend rights conformably with right, and with respect for individual liberty. Now in the case we are considering, not only does it pursue the opposite of right, but the means by which it acts are a flagrant violation of right. It withdraws the individual liberties of thousands of human beings from the guardianship of law and of justice, and delivers them over to the caprice of the administration; by this act all those laws and rules made to prevent injustice being done, and to prohibit imprisonment except under formally determined conditions, are abrogated; they are replaced by the _régime_ of arbitrary will.

“I will consent, however, to come down to the lower ground of consequences, of results, although, in advance, I assert I am convinced that there can be no real conflict between principles and results, and that evil must always bring forth evil. You, who are the partisans of these sanitary laws, speak of the public safety. Well, I will confine myself to this question—Who do you save? We will not speak of the woman; she is the necessary victim of the system—the living material, which has to be mangled and torn by the iron teeth and wheels of this pitiless mechanism. We will speak of her later; for the present I leave her out of account. I repeat my question, Who do you save? (putting out of account the woman, doomed to irremediable perdition.) Is it the _man_ whom you save? I deny it! Placing myself even at your own materialistic standpoint, I deny it. You speak only of the man’s body; you speak not of his soul, and you are right. But you do not save his body. This is certain, even from the documents furnished by the partisans of the system themselves. A competent writer,[10] who has deeply studied this subject, has uttered these words (speaking of Paris): ‘Prostitution engenders prostitution. That which lights a fire at one point propagates it everywhere.’ So true is this, that this sincere writer records the fact that prostitution, outside of the sanitary laws, increases from day to day in a most frightful degree.

“Statistics are peremptory in their condemnation of these laws. For one victim who comes under sanitary observation hundreds escape you, and your measures of protection are useless. How could it be otherwise? You wish to regulate vice, but it is of the essence of vice to refuse to be regulated. Vice violates moral law, and you may expect it to transgress human rules. It is like a torrent which has overflowed its banks; you cannot say, ‘Thus far shall thou lawfully go, and no further.’ It mocks all your regulations. You will never succeed in making disorderly passions universally well ordered in their gratification.

“You do not save the body! And the soul, the moral nature!—does not the State contribute towards its perversion in sanctioning the idea that debauchery at a certain age is a natural law, before which the young man must bow—a law which the State recognises? And thus the State facilitates the first steps to immorality, and becomes the tempter of the young man. In facilitating these first steps, it favours public immorality; for the patented evil has its recognised place in human legislation. You speak of the harm which prostitution does to the body. You would preserve the body, and you begin by poisoning the soul. Ah, you have forgotten that _trifling thing_, the immortal soul! You have forgotten the soul of youth, the soul of your country. You have forgotten that this profligacy which you facilitate contributes to the corruption of the youth of the nation, and sends it back to the domestic hearth blighted, corrupted, prematurely aged, when it is not separated for ever from the domestic hearth, as is the case now in certain countries, where the complaint is made of the diminution of marriages, and (as in the decline of the Roman Empire) rewards are held out to those who will marry and bring up children. You have withered the purity, the vigour, the moral energy of those young hearts. The Proverbs of Solomon tell us that the house of debauchery (officially regulated or not) is an open sepulchre—that it rests upon the tomb; and it is true. And you wish that the State should hold the key to that chamber of death—that the State should be the door-keeper to admit to it our youthful citizens! You will not hinder, by your sanitary laws, the realisation of the terrible genealogy of sin recorded by St. James: ‘When lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.’ Yes, prostitution kills the soul, even when it does not kill the body. This is the dialectic of evil, which follows its own inexorable course.

“The partisans of this system say to us, however:—‘Society has a right to defend itself against physical evils which destroy it; it has a right to resort to any means when it has to deal not only with debauchery, but with debauchery which is a commerce; and these regulations, after all, only apply to the infamous creatures who sell themselves, and have put themselves beyond the pale of the law and of society: they are but the dirt of the street.’ Now I do not under-rate the abomination of paid debauchery. Yes, the vice which sells itself is abominable; what, then, shall we say of those who buy it? But there are distinctions to be made among those who sell. Let us look a little closer at the situation of the woman whom Governments have submitted to a regulation which is a complete and abject slavery. She deserves nothing but contempt you tell us! She is invariably as morally perverse as you tell us she is! I ask, how many of these girls are thrust upon the streets by abandonment after seduction, or dragged down by want into the infamy from which they cannot escape? What is your part in the matter? You engulf them further; you thrust them down lower; you throw on them the last shovelful of earth to hurl them to the abyss; you roll upon them the stone which cannot be removed except by a supernatural effort. ‘Ah! you have fallen, unfortunate creature,’ you say; ‘well, we will complete the work, we will consummate your degradation: that which is already soiled shall be made still more vile.’ This is logic; but it is the logic of demons!

“I have supposed the case—so frequently occurring—of the misfortunes which precipitate into public vice a young girl, a weak being, a mere child, perhaps, of fifteen or sixteen years, the victim of infamous seduction. Let us go further, and passing beyond all the various shades of difference, let us take the worst cases of degradation. I have admitted, I admit, that the woman who sells herself is a shameful being; but what, I have asked, and ask again, shall we say of those who buy? Is the stronger sex, being the purchaser, worthy of greater respect than the weaker sex which is purchased? You desire that the State shall sacrifice to the supposed public security thousands of female victims doomed to perdition, and you forget that the profligate man is equally a peril to public health with the impure woman. When I look at this extremity of degradation which is set before us in order to justify measures so terrible as those we oppose, I remember that I belong to a religion of divine pity, and that no Christian can dare to say that even these most degraded beings are beyond hope. I remember that there is a love which seeks the lost soul, the lost treasure, in the very dust of the road, and that that love is faithful and powerful and hopeful. A noble Christian has said: ‘The world will believe in God when it sees that the disciples of Christ believe in the human soul’; or, rather, that they believe in that immense charity which descends into the lowest abyss to seek that which is lost. In the face, then, even of the profoundest debasement, we have no right to say, ‘All is over! we may now treat this being as vile matter which may receive the official stamp at the custom-house of human merchandise.’

“Here is a poor sinner who has heard of Jesus of Nazareth; her heart beats with a new hope; she curses her abominable life; she feels an impulse to go forward and throw herself weeping at His feet. But the State policeman steps in and says, ‘Stop! you cannot pass; you must wait for our authorisation; you must wait till your name is removed from the register: you belong to us, and we will not give you up until you have been long tested.’ She turns away and waits, and while she waits her tears dry up, her heart again hardens, and she returns to infamy. Thus the poor drowning creature is plunged once more into the waves of impurity, and when she would seize hold of the plank of salvation it is dashed away from her trembling hands. Such is your system! and there are _Christians who approve it_! I know that there was an age when pagan temples were devoted to the worship of Venus, and where there were priestesses who were also the victims of horrible vice; but I had believed that, eighteen centuries ago, Eternal Love had appeared upon the earth!

“I do not hide from myself the horror and the peril of the prostitution which exists where there are not these laws—the horror and danger of prostitution under every aspect, independently of the moral guilt of governments which guarantee it. We must enter upon a grand crusade, not only against legal prostitution, but against profligacy itself; we must form an indomitable league.... We must pursue vice up to its source; we must follow it in all its forms and in all its hiding-places; we must attack the unholy literature, the impure art, and the debased drama which are connected with it. Above all, we must combat the disastrous delusion, so fixed in many minds, that vice is an inevitable fatality; we must hold up before our youth the ideal of purity and of domestic worth.

“One word more: contemporary Christianity has done much for the furtherance of the Christian faith, and we are profoundly moved at the sight of its noble works. This is the month in which religious societies hold meetings and record their labours. Nothing better! but let us take care that, in giving ourselves to these good works, we do not forget the wrongs which lie at our door; that in the midst of this activity, so rich, so varied, carried to the very ends of the earth, we do not overlook the perdition in which are plunged the victims of our civilisation. Let us take heed, lest the Master say to us, ‘Yes, you have served Me; you have adorned My sanctuaries to receive Me with honour; you have shown great zeal in the propagation of your religion; but the Pharisaism of old did the same; yet I rejected it because it rejected the poor lost woman. He who truly loves, loves that which is lost; but you, O Christian who bearest My name, what have you done for her that is lost? what have you _allowed_ to be done to her? You have suffered her to be taken and devoted to infamy for the security of your sons. Therefore I say to you, I cannot endure your solemn feasts.’ May we be spared this condemnation!”

During the meeting a letter was received bearing the Paris postmark, and handed to the Chairman, who pronounced it to be important. It was an address expressing the fullest sympathy with the aims of the Federation, and was signed by a long list of divines and laymen, Protestant leaders throughout France.

Professor Sheldon Amos made a very weighty speech on this occasion, full of close reasoning, and supported by legal arguments. He was followed by Sir Harcourt Johnstone, the Rev. James Martineau, the Right Honourable G. Shaw Lefevre, and others.

In April of this year Mr. Gledstone and Mr. H. J. Wilson started on a mission to the United States as delegates from the Federation. I asked Mr. Gledstone to write for me briefly his recollections of the chief events of that important mission. He consented to do so, and the following is his account:—

“It was, I remember, a cold stormy Thursday in April, 1876, when you persisted in accompanying Mr. Wilson and me to the river, to see us on board the _Adriatic_. The anti-regulation struggle has seen some uncommon things; I think so now, as I recall your slender form seeking shelter from the keen wind that swept through the little tug that conveyed us to the huge steamer lying in the middle of the Mersey—two strong men sent out on their mission and cheered to it by one woman! Snow was on the tops of the Welsh hills as we got into the Channel. The next day—Good Friday—was spent in Cork; then came a cold enough voyage.

“Bearing, as we did, letters of introduction to several of the leaders of the old anti-slavery party, we thought of beginning our mission to the American people at Boston, and using that as a centre for our propaganda. Providence had arranged it otherwise; we began at New York and ended at Boston, thus reversing our plan.

“First of all we tried, simultaneously with our missionary efforts, to learn exactly the state of opinion on the system of State regulation of vice, and what had been done to keep it out of the country. We found that attempts had been made at many centres, in different ways, to get the system a footing. Doctors and sanitary specialists were its apostles. Some of the medical journals had, at odd times, for some years past, been doing what they could to commend it to the notice and favour of the profession. Although we never came upon any sign of the existence of an organised pro-regulation party, we saw abundant evidence of the existence, all over the States, of men, chiefly doctors, who were resolutely bent upon having the regulation established in some form or another. _The Medical Gazette_ of New York had been very zealous in 1870–71 in that direction.

“In New York, in Chicago, in California, in Baltimore, in the district of Columbia, in Cincinnati, in Pennsylvania, unsuccessful attempts had been made to get State or municipal regulation. In California the Bill which was introduced into the Legislature became known to a quick-witted woman, the wife of one of the members, who immediately had another Bill drafted, exactly the same as the first, save one word—for _woman_ she substituted _man_. She then got several members of the Legislature to promise that they would bring her Bill forward if any further progress was made with the other. The mere sight of hers drove the other into oblivion! She played a bold and risky game, for had her Bill been accepted along with the other, it would have lain a dead letter, whereas the police would have worked the other with vigour. She saw, so far, only the injustice of the proposed Bill, inasmuch as it touched women and exempted men; but did not see that it was also immoral to apply regulation even to men and women alike.

“On three occasions attempts had been made in the district of Columbia, for the sake, of course, of including Washington. One of them was defeated by the energy and resolution of Miss Edson. Learning late one evening that a proposal was to be brought before Congress the next day, she instantly left her home, and spent almost the whole night in visiting newspaper offices, interviewing editors, and ringing Congress men out of their beds to inform them of the character of the Bill, and to implore them to oppose it. By this means time was gained, and with the assistance of others she continued an opposition which was ultimately successful. Her effort cost her her life; she soon fell ill from over-exertion and died.

“In every case the women seemed to have been particularly vigilant and resolute, and from them we got some of our most effective help. The women doctors, who were just as capable as the men doctors of understanding the question in its physical bearings, were entirely with us; at least, I cannot remember one who was not.

“As an example of the service that may be rendered by one intelligent and resolute man, I think I ought to name Mr. Francis King, of Baltimore, a member of the Society of Friends, who, when the Chairman of the Grand Jury broached the system of regulation, gave it his firm resistance. Mr. King had studied the subject in Europe.

“One place, St. Louis, had been afflicted with regulation from 1870 to 1874. It had been introduced with a craft quite worthy of the ‘father of lies,’ a clause of the City Charter which dealt with the suppression of houses of ill-repute being modified by the introduction of two words, ‘or regulate’; the Charter was thus altered—‘to suppress _or regulate_ houses of ill-fame.’ Rev. Dr. Eliot, of Washington University, led the opposition to it; 4,000 women petitioned for its repeal; and it was removed by a unanimous vote of the Senate of the State of Missouri.

“There was evidently work to be done; more than the Federation which had sent us knew of, much more than the American friends of purity for a moment suspected. They were mostly living in happy ignorance of this plotting against the rights of all the women of the States, and against the morals of the whole Republic. If our mission did nothing else, we have the satisfaction of knowing that it effectually broke up that self-confidence.

“In New York, where we landed on April 24th, we found that preparations had been made by Mr. Aaron M. Powell and Mrs. Gibbons for the holding of a conference the next day. This was only a small gathering at Mrs. Gibbons’ house of some twelve or fifteen ladies and gentlemen, to whom we explained the object of our coming, and from whom we received suggestions as to the best course for us to pursue. During the ten weeks of our stay in America, we held six conferences in New York, each of them interesting in its own peculiar way; one of them, in the New York Infirmary, specially so, owing to the number of young women present who were studying medicine.

“In Dr. Cuyler, of Brooklyn, we found a warm and influential friend; he took me with him to the house of Mr. Dodge, where I had the opportunity of addressing some twenty-five of the most noted Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Congregational clergymen of the city. The same privilege was extended to me by the Baptist ministers, of whom a hundred were present at the meeting. I believe that by means of these ministerial associations I succeeded in addressing almost the whole of the ministers in all the great cities of the East. They were, of course, busy in every case with their own local concerns, and could not find time to discuss the theme brought before them; but there is ground for believing that interest was excited and sympathy gained.

“Among the more striking incidents of our tour was the presentment, while we were in New York, to the ‘Court of General Sessions of the Peace for the City and County of New York,’ of its own Grand Jury in favour of dealing with the social evil by means of regulation. The presentment closed with a resolution earnestly requesting the Legislature of the State of New York to adopt some system of laws calculated to confine houses of ill-fame in large cities to certain specified localities, and to subject them at all times to the careful and vigilant supervision of the Boards of Health and Police. This presentment appeared in the _Evening Post_ of June 2nd (Friday), 1876; and before we slept that night we had penned a protest against it in the name of the Federation, taking up each point and answering it in the light of our English and European experience. The next day we spent in interviewing editors, and on Monday the _Herald_ published our protest; three other papers also had articles on the presentment, either condemning it as immoral, or making light of it as a suggestion made too late in the day for acceptance.

“I cannot leave the subject of New York without saying a word about the kind and devoted friends we met. Mr. and Mrs. Aaron M. Powell gave us a cordial welcome and unstinted help, and have carried on, ever since our return, the work of meeting and resisting all attempt to legalise vice. Mr. Powell had formerly been editor of the _Anti-Slavery Standard_, and, like all the surviving members of the great anti-slavery movement, seemed to have an intuitive knowledge of the great moral principles for which we were contending. Mrs. Gibbons was another of our good friends, and in the rooms of the Isaac T. Hopper Home (a benevolent home named in honour of her brave, unselfish father) we had one or more of our conferences. Mrs. Gay, of Staten Island, another Quaker and Abolitionist, gave us excellent help, and has continued in the good work till now. Mrs. Hussey aided us much among medical practitioners.

“As one result of our visit, a Vigilance Committee was formed, which has kept a sleepless eye on the movements of the enemy, and has defeated many insidious plans to introduce regulation through sanitary arrangements, or municipal laws, or State enactments. It has also created a literature, modest indeed in size, but appealing to all that is best and purest in the nation. Ten years ago the _Philanthropist_, a monthly journal, was started, to be the organ of the purity party, and has done good service. I cannot but believe that in New York alone our work was a quiet introduction to the energetic White Cross Crusade, and to the daring attacks of Dr. Parkhurst upon the corrupt police and municipal authorities. The friends who had co-operated with us have, for almost nineteen years, not only kept up a protest against every form of legalising vice, but have also thrown themselves into every available form of service for the promotion of a sound public opinion on the relation of the sexes.

“By the time we reached Washington a Bill had been framed by the Board of Health and introduced into the House of Representatives, which, on its face, looked innocent enough, but which really contained clauses of a very dangerous character. Professing to be only a sanitary measure, it, in fact, gave ample powers for working a system of inspection and license. At one of our conferences we had the presence of the Rev. J. L. Townsend, Chaplain of the House of Representatives, who, hearing of what was being proposed, said he should confer with the Chaplain of the Senate, so that together they might co-operate against the objectionable measure. Mr. H. J. Wilson also had an interview with Mr. Willard, who had introduced the Bill into the Legislature, but who frankly declared that he had no intention to support the regulating system; he said the phraseology of the Bill, which was evidently open to a bad interpretation and use, must be altered.

“One of our best friends in this city was Mrs. Dr. Winslow; she was one of the first women in America who took a medical degree, and in consequence she suffered a good deal of domestic and social persecution. The people who had smelt the fire of trouble for conscientious convictions seemed to fall to our side by a kind of instinct; they grasped the moral principles we set forth, and understood their bearing at once.

“At Baltimore the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church was sitting. Dr. Rigg and the Rev. W. B. Pope, who were attending it as delegates from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference in England, having been entrusted with an address to it from the Wesleyan Society for the repeal of the English Acts, the former gentleman carried out this commission. A special Committee which was appointed to draw up a reply, heard evidence from Dr. Rigg and myself as to the nature and futility of our English Acts, and as to the great uprising of opinion on the Continent of Europe against licensed vice. In their reply they expressed themselves as being utterly opposed to regulation; and I believe I am right in saying that both in America and by its missionaries in India this powerful Church has always and consistently gone against regulation in any form.

“It is pleasant to recall the kindnesses and aid of single persons and of groups of persons; Dr. Thomas, a Quaker physician, was the friend who socially aided us at Baltimore.

“We had quite a remarkable experience at Philadelphia, both in the way of assailing our opponents and in making for our cause new and influential friends all over the States. At the time of our visit the doctors of Pennsylvania were holding the annual meeting of their Society, and gave our work aid which was as unexpected as it was unwilling. They had been told by one of their journals that a ‘vehement effort’ ought to be made by them to get prostitution legalised; it was their ‘duty’ to do it. Of any intention to do their ‘duty’ they gave no sign; but at the last moment, just as we were on the point of leaving for Boston, two anti-regulation doctors, of whom the city had a goodly number, informed us that on the following day a determined effort was to be made to commit the Society to an active regulationist policy. Thereupon we got Mrs. Franciscus, the President of the Women’s Christian Association, and Mrs. French, President of the Moral Education Society, to send a letter to all the doctors known to be opposed to regulation, asking them to attend every meeting of the Medical Society, and resist any such attempt. At the meeting of the W.C.A., the hundred women who were present rose to their feet to signify their approval of the letter; a feeling of intense indignation was aroused, and a regulationist doctor would have had determined opposition from the women of the capital city of the State. How it came to pass we never could learn, but it is certain that the ‘vehement effort’ never was made. As we came across many friends in Philadelphia who saw no need for doing anything—the subject being ‘unpleasant’ ‘not before the public,’ and ‘not fit for discussion before men and women’—we had the doctors to thank for effectually scattering all these objections, and sending a shock of much needed energy into our work. So the way of men was over-ruled by the higher way of God.

“Let me recall the friendly faces and names of those who aided us—the Rev. Andrew Longacre, the Rev. Joseph May, Mr. and Mrs. Enoch Lewis, Bishop Simpson, Mr. Rowland (of the Y.M.C.A.), Dr. Herman Thomas, Mr. and Mrs. Ingraham, Mrs. Harriet French, Miss Anthony, and that brave old lady, Mrs. Lucretia Mott. To some of your readers, dear Mrs. Butler, these names will mean nothing; but please let them stand on the pages of your book of reminiscences, for they mean much to others, and deserve a record.

“Our good friends Mr. and Mrs. Powell, of New York, were present during part of the time of our visits to Philadelphia, attending the meetings of the International Temperance Convention, and they kindly arranged a meeting of Temperance friends from all parts of the States for us to address. It was a choice opportunity, of which we made the most. Mrs. Powell sent you home an account, in which she spoke of the meeting as ‘a very impressive meeting,’ in which the power of the Spirit of God was present, and where many of the audience, men and women, were in tears. Yes; I remember it from a long distance of time as a season of help and blessing.

“The city of Boston, which we had at first counted upon as sure to be the most responsive and most easily worked, proved to be one of the most difficult, until we obtained the countenance and co-operation of Mr. William Lloyd Garrison. Even the women, usually the quickest to come to the aid of our cause, were cautious and doubtful. That Massachusetts should ever legalise immorality seemed to them to be as remote as the end of the world. New York was a dissolute city, under the control of foreigners, and might do anything bad; but Boston had some regard for the moral law. Our arguments were met with simple incredulity and indifference. Since then our warnings have only been too abundantly justified.

“When Mr. Garrison, to whom we had the best of introductions, heard our case and the difficulties which had been thrown in our way, he said:—

“Do not listen to the dissuasions from going on with your work, and speaking the message you are entrusted with. I do not agree with those who affirm that it is inexpedient to speak the truth here on this question. Speak it; it will do good. But do not hold a public meeting. Get those to hear you who will influence public opinion in the day of need. My name is at your service for any circular you may issue, calling such a conference as I have indicated.’

“This was the plan of operations we had followed all the way through, and as soon as the great Abolitionist’s name was put upon our circular, it was adopted by the leading reformers of the city. Never before had I seen so great a change wrought by the word of one man; his judgment was evidently regarded as a final court of appeal. With that splendid loyalty to his old chief which always distinguished Mr. Wendell Phillips, the great orator of the Abolition cause, he immediately gave us his aid, and consented to preside at our Conference. About a hundred and fifty of the most active of the reformers of the city came together in the rooms of the Y.M.C.A. (that institution always had an open door for us), and a most enthusiastic meeting was held. My colleague, Mr. Wilson, had gallantly offered to do the hardest part of the work, viz., answering any question that might be asked, but after more than an hour of severe catechising he was tired out, and I had to come to his aid. You may know a subject very well, but when you have been tested by the inquisitiveness of a Boston audience you may feel pretty comfortable anywhere else.

“Our meeting was favoured with short speeches by our Chairman, by Mrs. Livermore, and by Mrs. Stone.

“I cannot leave Boston without mentioning the inspiration which Mr. Garrison’s words and influence were to every good work; he started me on the study of the great Abolition movement, a cause which, indirectly has done much for our own. Then, again, I remember with a tender heart the modest kindness of Mr. Wendell Phillips in taking us to see some of the sights of Boston, and in calling with us on some newspaper editors. I remember his snug, quaint little house, which might have been taken from one of the ancient streets of York or Chester; I see now the bust of John Brown’s magnificent head, just arrived from the sculptor’s, standing on the sill of the staircase window; and I still hear the soft tones in which he said, as I parted from him—‘Don’t forget an old man.’ I can never forget him; his speeches have become to me the noblest models of Christian moral teaching; I know nothing like them in the whole range of English oratory, either for substance or for style.

“One strong desire which we felt at the termination of our work was for the American people to make common cause with the English and with Continental friends against legalised immorality; and this they have done. The American Committee joined the Federation, and have frequently sent Mr. Powell to attend its meetings; they realise that in this sacred cause the nations are one. If we were permitted to render any service to the great Republic, the debt has been more than repaid by the priceless work of Mrs. Andrew and Dr. Kate Bushnell on behalf of India. Bonds of love and sympathy have been woven which nothing can break.”