wards, under the voluntary system, women were induced to enter of a class whom the police could not have touched under a coercive system. The reason why the police could not introduce them would perhaps be seen in the report of one of the cases in Captain Harris' recent Paper. But what was the difference? In that time he was speaking of women coming in; no questions were asked; they were cured and they went out, no one being able to point at them in their future life. Now they could not come in without having their names placed upon the register. The result was that many women were kept out who, under the voluntary system, would have been brought in. If it were true that the women left before they were cured, that might have been met. He considered the point at the time, and it seemed to him best if they had a volun

single word against the police who had to carry out these Acts. He himself had had a hand in placing the Metropolitan Police in the Dockyards, and he believed that a better step in the way of economy was never made. He was fully aware of the good services rendered by that force, but he greatly regretted that they had employed them in this business; but should these Acts be extended, as was proposed, they could be no longer worked by the Metropolitan Police, and he wanted to know how they would be enabled to get a sufficient number of experienced and competent men to discharge the duties-it would be impossible to find a sufficient number of the Metropolitan Police for the purpose. He would here refer to a suggestion contained in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), which he made last year, and which had been backed up by Peti-tary system to rely upon it as a purely tions of singular weight, which he presented the other day. The suggestion was that they should treat this disease as they treated other contagious diseases, and say that any person should be punished for wilfully and knowingly communicating it. If they were to act upon this expedient, they would have this great advantage that they would punish not only her, but him who communicated disease. In that case the legislation would be fair and equal as between the two sexes. The policy that had been adopted in the Army appeared to him a great mistake. There it was made penal to contract the disease, and the soldier who did contract it was placed under stoppages. He could not imagine a more fatal policy; because if, in place of making it penal to the soldier or sailor to contract the disease, they had put him under stoppages for concealing the fact, and made it penal to communicate the disease, they would have been dealing with the matter in a far more sensible and natural manner. Now, as it had been found impossible to stamp out disease in this country by coercion, was it not time to consider whether there might not be some alternative course? The voluntary system was voted a failure, but the solid fact remained that the voluntary wards were popular and full. He was now going to state that which he could not prove, but which he believed at the time, and believed still to be true, and that was this, that into the Lock

voluntary system; but it must be evident that it would be a very different thing to take powers to detain a person who had voluntarily come into the hospital and to exercise the power which was now in operation under the Contagious Diseases Acts. The objections as to the two would be of a very different degree. In fact, in our Poor Law system, as at present administered, there was power to detain in the workhouse infirmary any person who might be brought in affected with one of these diseases. His own opinion was that it would be better to rely on the system as purely voluntary until we had more experience upon the subject; and if, after that experience, it were found necessary to take powers to detain the dangerous, then the objection he would have to offer to legislation of that kind would be very different in degree and in kind from that which he entertained to the police powers of the present Acts. Now, it could not be said that no alternative was offered. He was as anxious as the hon. Baronet who spoke against the Bill (Sir Charles Legard) to minimize, as far as possible, this disease, but he honestly thought that the end might be attained by means less objectionable than those by which it was now sought. He would earnestly appeal to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty to apply his own candid mind to the consideration of the question. Let them get rid of the various supposed indirect advantages of

MR. HUNT: I agree with most of those who have spoken, that this is a subject which it is painful to discuss. It is most painful for me to speak upon it. I have never opened my lips upon it before, and I should not have troubled the House on the present occasion but for the fact that the Government Department of which I have the honour to be the head, has necessarily been referred to in the discussion, and that I have felt it my duty, as an administrator of the Navy, to examine carefully the evi

the system, and ask themselves whether | private Members, but to take up the it was clear that the voluntary plan matter for themselves. If they were to would not have done at least as much get rid of the police powers in these Acts, as the Acts; at all events, if supple- and if they could come again to the mented by some of the provisions to voluntary system, they would be rid of which he had been referring; he would much that was now distasteful to the ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe public. It could truly be said by those it was as unpleasant for them to bring who opposed these Acts that the relationthis matter forward as it could be for ship which had been established between him or others to defend the Acts. He the police and houses of ill-fame was sincerely hoped, for one, that it might novel and dangerous-one of co-operanot be necessary to have an annual tion rather than of repression. It was discussion upon it. But the right hon. said that now for the first time in this Gentleman himself was far too fair country legislation had made authority to say to them that whilst these Acts the handmaid of vice; and believing were upon the Statute Book, and whilst that the question could not rest where the Government published an annual it was-that either one side or the other Report, with the fullest details from the must prevail, either we must get rid of officer who was at the head of the sys- the coercive system or the Acts must be tem, they on their side who objected to extended-he earnestly urged upon the them were to keep silence. On the sub- House and the Government to take this ject of the agitation against these Acts question up and endeavour to put an end he wished to say one or two words, and at once to this painful agitation. he could say them more freely because he had taken no part either by speech or in any other way in the progress of the agitation in question. But he did believe that the agitation was engaged in by those who moved in it first upon the purest principles. He was glad the two sides were beginning to understand each other. He remembered last year, in the justly commended speech of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Alexander) who moved the rejection of the Bill repealing the Acts, that he listened to no part with more pleasure than the grace-dence on which the maintenance of these ful tribute he bore to the high character Acts rests. Looking at that evidence in and qualities of a lady who had been the most unprejudiced manner, I am much engaged in the agitation. Let the bound to confess that the health of the House remember, if it was unpleasant Navy has materially benefited by the for them in that Chamber to have to dis-operation of these Acts which the meacuss this question, what it must have been for ladies, against whose life or character there was not the faintest breath of any suspicion, to have come forward and thrown themselves into a public agitation upon such a subject. They must have suffered deeply and acutely. Those who were engaged in this agitation were amongst the most deserving of our citizens. They took up this matter after mature consideration, knowing what it would cost them, and they were not likely to lay it down quickly, believing as they did that there was a vital principle at stake. And now, as it seemed to him, that the time was ripe for a solution of the question, he urged upon the Government not to leave it in the hands of

Mr. Whitbread

sure before the House proposes to repeal. [Quoting from the published Reports of the health of the Army and Navy, the right hon. Gentleman here instanced the case of the Britannia at Dartmouth, where for three years there had been no case of disease among the crew. A similar state of things had been experienced in the case of a vessel at Southampton. The carefully collected statistics which were to be found in these Reports as to the home stations, and as to Malta, Gibraltar, Calcutta, and other places where the Acts were in operation, showed, as he contended, that in the case of the Army as well as in the case of the Navy, the Acts had decreased disease and greatly diminished its virulence, where it had

not entirely stamped it out.] He con- | Acts, as has been stated during the course tinued: That the disease will occasion- of this debate, were first proposed with the ally occur in isolated cases, even under view of maintaining the efficiency of our most effectual surveillance, is only what military and naval forces. They were may be expected, but there is abundant not proposed in the interests of morality. testimony to the efficient manner in They were proposed in the interest of which the Acts have been carried out. the efficiency of the Services; and when Reading the health statistics, coming as it was stated that the loss to the Army they do from the naval authorities, and was, by reason of this disease, equal to from the military authorities, I cannot three regiments, I think it was about conceive that anyone can come to any time the Government stepped in, to see other conclusion than that the operation whether some remedy could not be apof these Acts has been materially bene- plied to this most horrible state of things. ficial to the health of the Services. I Although that was the primary object know it is said by some hon. Gentlemen of the Acts, it was thought that, concur-"You have no business, and it is not rently with the cure of our soldiers and the duty of the State, to diminish this sailors, something might be done to cure disease;" and I believe some go so far the morals and religion of the unfortuas to say it is the duty of the State to nate women concerned, and therefore leave this matter entirely alone because in these Acts there was special provision this disease is the proper punishment of that, in every hospital which was regissin. I cannot go with that argument. tered, moral and religious instruction I think that, even supposing the disease should be given; and I think that those never affected any but those who are who have taken the trouble to read the sinners, it is our duty to alleviate the Reports on the subject will be satisfied infirmities of humanity, even when that a great improvement has taken brought about by the wrongful acts of place. With regard to the moral imthe patients themselves. But when we provement of these women-not only as think of the innocent persons who have regards their manners, which, perhaps, been alluded to by the hon. Member be- do not always show a greater real imhind me (Sir Charles Legard), who suffer provement, but only some outward refinefrom this disease, I think it becomes the ment-but those who read the Reports duty of the State to step in. With will, I think, find that a large number of reference to that, I may call attention to women have been rescued from the some statistics that I do not think have paths of vice, sent home to their friends, been mentioned in this House with re- or got into service, who otherwise would ference to this matter. My hon. Friend have been left to pursue their ill ways. behind me (Sir Charles Legard) alluded to It is idle for the hon. Member for Bedthe thousands unborn who were the ford (Mr. Whitbread) to say that all this victims of the sins of their forefathers, might have been done without these and upon whom fell the greater part of Acts. the burden of suffering which these sins entailed. What do I find in the Registrar General's supplement to his fifth Annual Report of Births, Deaths, and Marriages? What does he say with regard to deaths by syphilis? He says the registered deaths for syphilis during the 26 years from 1848 to 1873 were 31,860, of whom 22,269 were infants under one year of age; 24,253 were under five years of age; so that we see that of the registered deaths in conse-pital compulsorily brings them under a quence of this disease, a very large proportion indeed were innocent babes. With these figures before us I think no one can say it is not the duty of the State, so far as in it lies, to repress this disease, so as to prevent posterity being affected by this horrible disorder. These

MR. WHITBREAD explained that what he had pointed out was, that there was a Reforming Committee before these Acts were passed.

MR. HUNT: I think with the hon. Member that a good deal could be done by voluntary effort without these Acts; but I also believe that there are many of these women who never would be reached but for these Acts. The fact that these women are brought into hos

system which they never would have consented to be brought under voluntarily. The moral influence would not have been brought to bear on these women in the same number of instances as under the operation of these Acts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax

Не

(Mr. Stansfeld) says he knows those | the proper people, and never could be who oppose these Acts are looked upon the proper people, under any circumvery much in the light of fanatics. I stances, to reclaim and send back to the have never looked upon them in that paths of duty those unfortunate people. light. I fully appreciate the motives of He would not detain the House. It was those who are opposed to those Acts, and not his purpose to enter into discussion I think their convictions on the subject with hon. Gentlemen opposite. are fully entitled to respect. And I believed the House was not divided as must say, as a matter of feeling, that to the necessity for curing disease, but one would be much more inclined to on the question how it was to be done. take the same view as the opponets of He trusted the Government might, at the Acts, than the view of those who some future time-as there was no desire maintain them. But to me it is not so on his side to make this an annual much a matter of feeling as a matter of Motion-look into this matter in a difreason; and looking at it by the light ferent way. While their wish was to of the evidence brought before me, I cure the country from disease, they must say I consider the maintenance of wished equally that women should be the Acts advantageous to the interests of spared exceptional treatment, and that the Services, and that I think it is there- some means should be found less profore the duty of the Government not to ductive of moral evil than these Acts. consent to their abolition. There is some difficulty with regard to the way in which this Motion is put by the Chair, to which I would call the attention of the House. There is an Amendment on the Paper that this matter be referred to a Select Committee. Now there has been an inquiry by a Commission, in the year 1871, and very full evidence on the subject was taken. That Commission also made some important recommendations. Therefore, I am not prepared to assent to the Amendment that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee; but I think it most desirable that we should come to a decision upon the Main Question - namely, whether this Bill should be read a second time. Therefore, I should propose that the Amendment be put and negatived, in order that the Main Question may be put and decided that the Bill be read a second time.

MR. T. E. SMITH then intimated that, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, and in order to meet the wish of the House to divide on the Main Question, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now,' "and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day two months." (Sir Charles Legard.)

Question put, "That the word 'now stand part of the Question.'

The House divided:-Ayes 102; Noes 224: Majority 122.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE said, if time had allowed, he might have made some reply on the debate, but he would not now interpose between hon. Members and their desire to come to a division. He maintained that his figures were fairly selected, and that they sustained months. his arguments. With regard to the moral question he had an opportunity,

Second Reading put off for two

BILL.

at an earlier stage of the discussion, of INNS OF COURT PROCEDURE AMENDMENT contradicting most authoritatively the moral effects which the agency of the police was said to bring to bear on the unfortunate creatures concerned. If anything was more striking than another, it was the evidence of the managers of reformatories that the police were not

Mr. Hunt

On Motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Bill to provide for the Election of Masters of the Bench of the Inns of Court, and to amend the procedure by which Members of the Bar are disbarred, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Mr. INGRAM, and Mr. DILLWYN.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 258.]

sonal inconvenience which is certain to ensue. Within the last two hours I have received a confidential communication the nature of which I am not able to put before your Lordships, but I have explained it unreservedly to the noble Earl. The effect of that communication is to lead me to the conclusion that considerable

House adjourned at five minutes inconvenience-I do not mean inconvebefore Six o'clock.nience to the Government, but to the