said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the reasons for the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, on Friday last—

"That it was not advisable that a private firm should have the use of portions of the Royal Dockyard for the purpose of breaking up two ships for which they had made offers;"

Sir, I am a good deal surprised at the Question of the hon. Member. I will undertake to say—and I am not without reason for so saying—that if we had admitted workmen employed by private persons to work in the dockyard he would, I have little doubt, been the first to object. However, as he has asked the Question, I may say that the reasons against such a course are obvious. It would be most difficult to maintain the discipline and business of a dockyard if a large number of workmen were employed in it by private persons not under the control of the Government, and it would have led to questions about hours, wages, and discipline which would have been very inconvenient. It is quite impossible to give any reply to the second Question. Whether the two ships were broken up inside or outside, the dockyard labour would be employed, and I have no means of knowing in either case how many labourers might have been formerly in the dockyard.

said, he wished to ask why the Admiralty did not break up the ships themselves?

It is quite impossible to answer such a Question off hand. Ships are broken up in the dockyards as well as by contract; but the extent of work at each place or time is a matter of careful arrangement.

rose, pursuant to Notice, to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts (1866–1869)"—

Mr. Speaker, I see Strangers present.

said, that if the hon. and learned Member persisted in calling attention to the presence of Strangers they must be ordered to withdraw.

I beg to suggest that on re-consideration the hon. and learned Member for Ayr will not insist on excluding Strangers. Does the hon. Member persist? Several hon. MEMBERS were understood to call upon the hon. Member for Ayr to withdraw his Motion.

There is no Motion.

Does the hon. Member persist?

I do, Sir.

The Galleries must be cleared. Those parts of the House to which Strangers are admitted were accordingly cleared by the officers of the House. On Strangers being again admitted the House was proceeding with the next Notice of Motion. The following is believed to be an accurate representation of the opinions of the several Members who addressed the House on the Motion, so far as they can be ascertained:—

Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in the Bill mentioned in my Notice, I must observe how sincerely I regret the course taken by the hon. Member for Ayr. I think we had too much of secresy in this matter last year. This Act was passed without discussion, when most of us were out of town, and it is high time that the whole question was thoroughly discussed here. The origin of these Acts is easily explained. Some years since attention was drawn to the state of the camps, arising in the main from the enforced celibacy of so great a body of men. I do not deny the importance of the evil. My doubt is as to the character of the remedy. I will state on this question the views of a very distinguished surgeon, Mr. Holmes Coote. He says—

"The few earnest men, who, some years ago, assembled together to originate the movement which terminated in the passing of the Contagious Diseases Act of 1866, had little idea of the use which would be made of their labours and advice. As one of those who took an active part in all that then transpired, I loudly maintain that the idea of the compulsory examination of women, their enforced subjection to the police, their exposure to the penalties of registration and imprisonment, were views which would have been scouted by the few quiet gentlemen who met to devise means of giving shelter and protection to many unfortunate females, whose outcast and neglected state was bringing a scandal upon the nation."

"In 1864 the English Parliament signalized itself for the first time as the protector of men from the baneful physical consequences of their own profligacy, by enacting what was called 'The Contagious Diseases Prevention Act, 1864.' This was a merely tentative measure, and was wholly superseded by 'The Contagious Diseases Act, 1866,' which is entitled 'An Act for the better prevention of contagious diseases at certain naval and military stations.' This Act was amended, and, as we shall see, its application was greatly extended, by virtue of 'An Act to amend the Contagious Diseases Act, 1866,' which received the Royal Assent, 11th August, 1869.

"By these Acts the Metropolitan police employed in each of the 18 named districts, have virtually the power within these districts, or within ten miles of the limits of them, as defined by the Act of 1869, of designating any woman they choose as a common prostitute, and of causing her to be submitted to medical examination as such. The words of Section 4 of the Act of 1869, are as follows:—'Where an information on oath is laid before a justice by a superintendent of police, charging to the effect that the informant has good cause to believe that a woman therein named is a common prostitute, and either is resident within the limits of any place to which this Act applies, or being resident within ten miles of those limits, or having no settled place of abode, has within 14 days' before the laying of the information, either been within those limits for the purpose of prostitution, or been outside of those limits for the purpose of prostitution in the company of men resident within those limits, the justice may, if he thinks fit, issue a notice thereof, addressed to such woman, which notice the superintendent of police shall cause to be served on her.' 'Moreover, any woman who, on attending for examination, or being examined by the visiting surgeon, is found by him to be in such a condition that he cannot properly examine her, shall, if such surgeon has reasonable grounds for believing she is affected with a contagious disease, be liable to be detained in a certified hospital, subject and according to the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Act, 1866 to 1869, until the visiting surgeon can properly examine her, so that she be not so detained for a period exceeding five days.'

"When a woman has been constrained to submit herself to a medical introspection by a 'visiting surgeon' or his assistant, and has been found free from disease, she is allowed to return home; but is ordered to present herself again for examination, 'from time to time as occasion requires,' and is given 'a notice in writing of the time and places' at which she is to attend for that purpose. If, notwithstanding that she is found free from disease, she 'temporarily absent herself in order to avoid submitting herself to such examination on any such occasion, then, and in every such case such woman' is held 'guilty of an offence against this Act, and on summary conviction' is 'liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, in the case of a first offence for any term not exceeding one month, and in cases of a second, or any subsequent offence, for any term not exceeding three months.' But if, on examination, 'the woman examined is found to be affected with a contagious disease,' she is at once 'liable to be detained in a certified hospital,' when she is, to all intents and purposes, a prisoner during the long period of nine months. The power of thus detaining her during any period not exceeding nine months, 'under one certificate,' is exercised by the visiting surgeon or his assistant. After receiving from him 'a certificate to the effect that she is affected with a contagious disease,' and 'naming the certified hospitals in which she is to be placed,' she may, 'if she thinks fit, proceed to the certified hospital named in the certificate, and place herself there for medical treatment; but if she neglects or refuses to do so, the superintendent of police, or a constable acting under his orders,' may be called upon to 'apprehend her, and convey her with all practicable speed to the hospital.' Moreover, just as prisoners are conveyed from one prison to another, she may be conveyed in the custody of the police, from one hospital to another. 'The inspector of certified hospitals may, if in any case it seems to him expedient, by order in writing, direct the transfer of any woman, detained in a certified hospital for medical treatment, from that certified hospital to another named in the order.'"

"By virtue of a clause in the Act of 1869, a woman who thus voluntarily subjects herself to medical treatment puts herself in exactly the same position as if she had been forcibly subjected to examination by order of a justice of the peace 'Such submission,' it is ordained, 'shall for all the purposes of the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866 to 1869, have the same effect as an order of the justice subjecting a woman to examination,' and all the provisions of the principal Act, respecting the attendance of the woman for examination, and her absenting herself to avoid examination, and her refusing or wilfully neglecting to submit herself for examination, and the force of the order subjecting her to examination after imprisonment for such absence, refusal, or neglect, shall apply and be construed accordingly."

"1007. Can you tell the Committee whether you have any grounds for believing that there are many diseased soldiers going about who have not given themselves up, and who are not under treatment in hospital for diseases of this class?—Yes; I have for a very considerable time been impressed with the belief that many men are at large who are diseased, and who ought to be in hospital, from seeing them so frequently in the chemists' shops at Aldershot. I have taken some trouble to see what they were doing and bringing out; and I thought I could see, by what they were taking out, what they were having; so I asked one of the chemists if he would be kind enough to take the number of the men whom he served with the particular medicine during one week; and he did so, and he very kindly gave it to me.

"1008. Have you that with you?—I have.

"1009. Will you read it, if you please?—On Monday, 14th June, 1869, there were 16; on Tuesday, 15th June, there were 13; on Wednesday, 16th June, there were 17; on Thursday, 17th June, there were 18; on Friday, 18th June, there were 11; on Saturday, 19th June, there were 23; the total being 98 in one week."

"Since the last edition of this book appeared, venereal diseases must have become much modified. Mr. Callender, in charge of Mr. Paget's wards, has kindly furnished me with the following observations:—He says—'That at the present day the system of competition (to which I alluded at page 138 of my former edition) for admission to the female venereal ward has ceased. It oftentimes happens that there are not enough applicants for the empty beds. The cases are comparatively slight: a warm bath, rest in bed, and a little lotion, causes a complaint which looked very formidable on entering the hospital, to become a relatively mild affection.'"

"617. The disease is by no means so common or so universal, I may say, as is represented in that article, in my opinion; and I have had an opportunity of communicating with several leading members at the College of Surgeons, and they are all of the same opinion that the evil is not so large as is represented by the Association (for extending the Acts)."

"628. I think the reports are too highly drawn. I think, if you took the impression of any individual in reading these reports, you would infer an extent of syphilis in society far beyond the truth—very decidedly beyond the truth: it is not so common, and it is not so severe."

"700. You do not refer that (the milder character of the disease) to the operation of the Act?—No: I think certainly not in London. The class of syphilitic diseases which we see are of a very mild character, and, in fact, none of the ravages which used formerly to be committed on the appearance and aspect of the men are now to be seen.

"701. And you do not think that that is rightly to be attributed to the operation of the Act?—I think not: I think that the whole type has changed, and that hygienic considerations are better known by the people who have intercourse with those persons, and by the women themselves. It is an undoubted fact that in this country and in France the character of the disease is much diminished in intensity."

"708. I understand you to say that, in your opinion, the venereal disease has generally, independent of the Act, become more mitigated, and of a milder type?—yes: that is the experience of all surgeons, both civil and military."

"All that I have said on the chances of contracting disease to which prostitutes are exposed, confirms the truth of the position taken by surgeons and others who have had their charge—namely, that, notwithstanding all their excesses and exposure to so many causes of disease, their health resists all attacks better than that of the ordinary run of women, who have children, and lead ordinary lives. They have (as some one has remarked) iron bodies, which enable them with impunity to meet trials such as would prove fatal to others.

"If we compare the prostitute at 35 with her sister, who, perhaps, is the married mother of a family, or has been a toiling slave for years in the over-heated laboratories of fashion, we shall seldom find that the constitutional ravages, often thought to be necessary consequences of prostitution, exceed those attributed to the cares of a family, and the heartweary struggle of virtuous labour."

"That out of 873 cases where the disease was traced, in 625 the disease had been taken from public prostitutes, registered and examined."

"589. A large portion of those women present themselves voluntarily for examination; but some of them, I apprehend, are brought up by the police?—Some of them are brought up by the police."

"610. I gather from the answer that you do not think that this Act can be completely successful, if the examinations are confined entirely to females?—I certainly should strongly advise such an inspection of men; no doubt, that is absolutely required, at any rate, for a considerable time."

"617. Would you, therefore, suggest that the system of examining soldiers periodically in the Army be resumed?—If I may be allowed, I will read a short paragraph upon that subject, from the Report—'The first and most obvious measure to be adopted is the practical application of periodical examination to the whole body of troops,

resident in the district and at other stations. This should be conducted strictly and carefully, without exception, and be of sufficiently frequent occurrence.' I am of opinion that every soldier should, for some time to come, be examined once a week."

"It seems to us that anyone studying those regulations will be prepared to expect that the women who are subjected to them will resist and evade them by every means in their power. Whether well or ill, they are compelled to submit themselves at the ever recurring periods prescribed to an examination, which, in a large proportion of cases, is at once so distressing and repulsive, that, as stated by the great advocate of the system, Duchâtelet himself, many women only approached the dispensary with a kind of horror!"

"1300. There would be, I think, no possibility of dealing with clandestine prostitution?—I believe, so far as I can judge from the Paris information on this subject, that what they call clandestine prostitution breaks down their system. They catch a number of specially flagrant, unregistered prostitutes, and bring them before the police; but the quantity which evade is enough to defeat them."

"All these results prove that prostitution is increasing, and that it is now more dangerous than ever to the public health. Has the action of the police been relaxed? No; on the contrary, it has constantly more powerfully organized its means of repression, by surveillance, and sanitary control. It has never been more active than now. This is proved by the fact that the number of daily arrests of unsubmitted girls, filles insoumises, is on the increase; while the sanitary state of the registered women is satisfactory. The evil is a moral and social one, and cannot be controlled by the police, who can neither restrain nor destroy it. The number of permitted houses (brothels) is diminishing. This sounds well; but now let us see. The fact is this—women leave the permitted houses to swell the list of solitary prostitutes,

files isoliés, whom it is much more difficult to bring under police control. These filles isolées, with difficulty brought under control, are again from year to year being diminished by going over to, and augmenting the ranks of the filles insoumises, clandestine prostitutes. The numbers of these are continually increasing, and are a great danger to public health; and the difficulties encountered by the police are insurmountable. I have shown you what we have done by science. I have shown that the evil is increased and increasing. I have indicated the cause. I have pourtrayed the work of the police, and the limits of their mission. The evil must be overcome, not by legislative, but by moral means."

"50, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C.

"23rd May, 1870.

"William Fowler, Esq., M.P.

"Dear Sir,—As a surgeon who, when in practice, had an opportunity of seeing a great deal of obstetric, and what is called 'special' practice,

desire to convey to you my impressions as to the cruelty and impropriety of some of the clauses of the Contagious Diseases Acts, more especially those relating to the use of the speculum vaginœ.

"In cases of health or disease great discretion is required by the surgeon in the use of such an instrument, or great pain, and even permanent injury may be inflicted on the person examined. And from what I know of the rapid manner in which the examinations are conducted by the examining surgeons under the Contagious Diseases Act, I should say that such care and discretion could not be exercised, and is not attempted, for want of time. (I have heard of one a minute being examined.)

"Moreover, I am prepared to declare from experience that, in a very large number of cases, it is quite impossible to decide, after such painful examination as may be sometimes necessary, whether the woman is suffering from contagious disease or not; and it is a manifest injustice to compulsorily demand or take doubtful evidence when the examination of the men would give positive and certain proof of the existence of disease, and this without any painful examination of any kind.

"In cases of women who have not borne children, the examination is by the same instrument as that used in the cases of mothers, and there is great cruelty in the application of any uniform instrument.

"It is said that there is no more degradation or pain inflicted on a prostitute when examined than upon a modest woman who is subjected to a similar process in consequence of uterine disease. Women, under any circumstances, shrink from the ordeal, which is conducted in the most private manner, in the presence of a mother or near female relative; and the fact is most studiously concealed from all the patient's friends and acquaintances, and even from her husband.

"The case is wholly different with an 'unfortunate.' She is brought publicly to the place, and the constables know for what purpose. The days of examination are publicly known—the women are herded together for a purpose known to each other (good, bad, and indifferent), and when they leave it is with a consciousness that all the officials know what has been done. This is calculated to blunt and destroy all sense of modesty, and notoriously does so. Moreover, the women are conscious in the one case of the necessity of an examination for their own benefit, and that it will be conducted with the most delicate care by the confidential adviser of the family. In the other case the women are conscious that they are subjected to a revolting introspection for the benefit and advantage of others who do not hesitate to pollute them when healthy; and they undergo this at the hands of a public official in a public place.

"Under all these circumstances, I declare that the promiscuous examination of women with the speculum vaginœ is cruel, because it is often very painful, and because it cannot be properly conducted without time, caution, and care; that it is degrading because it is publicly known, and in that sense it is demoralizing; and lastly, the evidence it affords is uncertain in a very large number of cases.—I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

"I was informed that on the day after their inspection the houses are specially frequented by the public, in the belief that there is then less chance of contracting disease. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that, under the French system, many yield to indulgence whom the fear of the natural penalty would otherwise deter."

"He would be a foolish person indeed who would enter into conflict with the police, unless by accident—we should rather write by miracle—he had the most overwhelming proofs upon his side. Independently of direct evidence of the kind named above, we assert, without fear of contradiction, that there is a universal complaint amongst Londoners as to the tyrannous and masterful bearing of the police on our streets."

"399. Supposing that a woman is brought up by the police, who is a modest woman, surely she would decline to sign the paper, would she not?—No; for this reason: the police, believing the correctness of their own impressions, say—' Very well, if you do not sign that, you go to the bench;' and then the woman says, in order to avoid that—'I do not mind going into a private room and speaking to Mr. Parsons;' and she will sign the voluntary submission.

"400. Therefore they sign a voluntary submission, under the fear of being taken before the magistrate?—Unquestionably."

"375. Must she be making a livelihood by it?—Yes, she ought to be; but if you confine yourself to that definition, all I can tell you is, that your Act will never succeed. The amount of clandestine prostitution is very large. Unless the Act includes every class of that sort, you cannot possibly hope to extirpate disease."

"Facts only are admitted as proofs by our laws, and by these facts a judge and jury are to form their opinion of the character of the accused. A great security for our liberties is this—that no subject of the realm can be imprisoned unless some felonious and high crime be sworn against

him, or her. This, with respect to private persons, is the very foundation stone of all our liberties; and if we remove it, if we but knock off a corner, we may probably overturn the whole fabric."

"345. How do you obtain the information of a woman not being guilty of prostitution being brought before you as a public prostitute?—I knew one instance of my own knowledge, by my happening to know the woman as a respectable married woman. She had been guilty of a little indiscretion; she had, I believe, even accosted one of the police officers themselves, not for the purpose of prostitution, as he admitted, but she was, to use his own term, 'larking about the streets;' and he concluded that she was a prostitute."

"346. What injury occurred in consequenee of that case being brought up to you?—No injury, except to her feeelings, at having been brought there."

"Mrs. Baker, a respectable married woman, had one evening gone to fetch her husband home from a public house, and met the detective. He asked her name, and ordered her to go to Hawkes Lane for examination. Her husband enquired at the police station to know if anything could be done to the officer for assaulting and annoying his wife, and was informed he could take out a summons for him, stating the case before a magistrate; but if the inspector had ordered her up, he would try to prove she was a prostitute. The whole thing was so disgusting to them, and the exposure she could not endure, so they immediately left the town."

"Mrs. Dodds, the wife of a pig-dealer, residing at 21, Best Lane, says that she has four grown-up daughters residing at home with her, and that they are all respectable girls. About three months ago the two officers came to her house and insisted on seeing her daughters. They said they were sent there by girls in the town. They said her two eldest daughters must go to Hawkes Lane to be examined. She said they should not go, and they have not done so, and no proceedings

have been taken to make them. One of her daughters went out one evening after this, and the next day one of the officers came again to the house, and told her of every place she had been to, showing that she had been followed all the time she was out. He also demanded the names of two acquaintances (men) she had spoken to in the High Street, and again ordered her to go to Hawkes Lane for examination. She again refused to go. Some of the neighbours, however, seem to have been aware of the visit of the officers to Mrs. Dodds, and she and her daughters have since this been frequently called after in the streets, being asked if they had been to '—Fair,' if they had 'just come back from Shorncliffe.' These expressions refer to Hawkes Lane, where the examinations are carried on, and to the hospital at Shorncliffe, where most of the women found to be suffering from disease are sent to. In consequence of this her daughters are afraid to go out, and one of them has not been out for two months. In one instance the annoyance to Mrs. Dodds was so great that she was obliged to appeal to the police for protection."

"Our sources of information are these—we have the military and naval hospitals, and our men visit them, and ascertain from the patients themselves from whom they contracted the disease. … We get information from the men themselves, and frequently from private sources. Gentlemen, for instance, or persons of a superior class, who have been so unfortunate as to become tainted, will denounce the women in writing, and send their address, and the police look out for them. … The brothel-keepers, who are subject to penal consequences if they harbour diseased women, are also very valuable sources of information to us. It is becoming well known that a woman in a state of disease is not to be tolerated even by the person who keeps the house, and they give information to the police."

"We have been enabled to see what a mistake it is to pretend that our Government toleration is necessary for the protection of modest women. If that were the case, we may be sure they would reject this annihilation of their sisters for their benefit; but it is proved, on the contrary, that the insecurity of every woman results from the prerogatives granted to vice in France. Are we not aware that nations, which have not our monstrous measures of preservation, permit the girl to go out, to travel, and live by herself, for the purpose of either the secondary or the higher course of instruction; whilst in Paris more than 100,000 regulars and soldiers of the National Guard, and a numerous body of police, fail to inspire the young woman of the middle class with sufficient confidence to allow her to venture a single step without a protector, or the lower-class young woman with a security sufficient to keep her from being made a merchantable article."

"It must be borne in mind that the practical execution of the Act is confined to a class of men who probably are not the best versed in using judgment as to their selection: they see a woman out late of an evening, and they are very liable to jump at the conclusion that she is a prostitute."

"As for sin, the causes of it cannot consist with rule; and if the law fall to regulate sin and not to take it utterly away, it necessarily confirms and establishes sin. To make a regularity of sin by law, either the law must straiten sin into no sin, or sin must crook the law into no law."—(Works, iv. 96.)

"With regard to putting lavatories in these places, would not that be legalizing or supposed to be legalizing prostitution?" "I am afraid" says he "that you have legalized it under the present Act."

"He, who had been in the 73rd Regiment for two years, refused emphatically to say that it was a noble Army. He knew better. As long as they would keep so many thousands of poor, miserable, ignorant, homeless, unmarried soldiers and sailors, they would have this evil with them. They left these poor young men, full of health and vigour, in comparative idleness, shifted them about continually, and refused to allow them to marry, while at the same time they supplied them with drinking shops in every barrack. Was there any wonder that they were a curse to society, that they were the cause of prostitution and disease. The real source of the evil, then, was the standing forces of this and other countries. Many years ago, in Birmingham, they had opposed the idea of making it a garrison town, and so they had kept it comparatively pure and healthy; but other places in the land were suffering, and it was as well they should know the real cause. In the matter of standing armies, they might well take a lesson from across the Atlantic, and imitate America. There they had no standing army; and yet they had recently shown—especially the North—that they were capable of defending their wives, homes, and hearths."

said: the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Fowler) makes so many grounds of impeachment against these Acts that it is difficult to know with which Ave should begin. None, however, appear to me more unwarrantable than the allegation that Parliament passed thorn hastily and inconsiderately. In 1864 an experimental Act was passed, and, in the following year, an excellently constituted scientific Commission was appointed by the Government to investigate all questions relating to these contagious diseases. In 1866 the experimental Act was made more comprehensive. In 1868 the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the working of that Act, and in the following year this House appointed another Select Committee for the same purpose. The Scientific Commission of 1865, having occupied a long time in its investigations, now published its elaborate Report. Fortified by three inquiries and Reports, Parliament passed an amending Act last Session. Few subjects have received such full and exhaustive inquiry before being legislated upon. The complaint then limits itself to the fact that, though the subject was well considered, it was not fully debated. But there are subjects which Select Committees can consider more calmly and thoroughly than a large Assembly, and, doubtless, the House thought that this question belonged to that class. I agree in that view, though I think it is right, in the present state of public opinion, that we should now discuss it, and I hope to do my part in a way that will not prove offensive to any hon. Member. The very existence of the Acts carries us beyond the stage of proving their original necessity. Previous to 1864, the diseases, to which they relate, prevailed to such an extent in the Army, that Dr. Parkes says they prove "equal to the loss of two regiments constantly." As regards the Navy, I think it is the Scientific Commission which states that, even on our home service, the loss is "equal to the complement of an iron-clad." No doubt much of the opposition, which is now manifested, is due to the fear that the Acts may be extended to the civil population. This would be a serious question; but it is not before us. What the hon. Member for Cambridge asks us to do is to deprive our soldiers and sailors of certain sanitary safeguards which these Acts afford to them. In order to keep our Army unencumbered, State policy enforces celibacy on about 90 per cent of the soldiers. The Navy, by the nature of its occupation, acts in a like way. Now, these contagious diseases are certainly largely promoted by celibacy, and the State is bound to preserve its combatants from the consequences of an abnormal position. But we are told that the Acts passed for this purpose do not accomplish their end, and if this be true, I allow that they should be repealed. If the assertion simply means that they have not stamped out disease, as the cattle plague was stamped out, I admit that they have not done so, nor were they ever expected to act in this way. An epizootic can readily be dealt with; for it is easy to prevent the movement of cattle, and even to kill infected animals. But when human beings are the subject of disease, the case is very different, and it is rare that you can stamp it out, though you may largely mitigate it. Though the Acts have only been three years in force, yet the results obtained in this limited period are conclusive as to their efficacy. Before describing these, it is necessary that I should remind the House that two main diseases are included in the general term. The one is a minor form, and has existed from early periods; for it is frequently referred to by classical authors. It inconveniences the individual affected, but only rarely injures his constitution; it is local in its character, and is not transmissible to his offspring. Though the Acts have mitigated the severity and duration of this minor disease, they have had little influence on its frequency. The second, or major disease, is that which we chiefly aim to subdue. It is comparatively new, for Europe did not know it till the end of the 15th century. Of all diseases it is one of the most loathsome and terrible; it often saps the constitution of its victim, and is readily transmissible by descent to his innocent offspring. Upon this major form, the Acts have had a most beneficial effect. The statistics, which I shall quote in proof, have been furnished to me by Dr. Balfour, the eminent statistician at the head of the Statistical Department of the Army. It is well known that he was not favourable to the introduction of these Acts, and that at first he doubted their success; but now I am authorized by him to state that he can no longer resist the favourable evidence which the Returns afford of their efficiency. In 1869, there were seven protected stations and 15 unprotected stations of our home Army. The first Act of 1864 had thrown a partial protection over the former, and this is seen in the period of three years ending 1866, for the ratio of disease in the protected towns was, in the case of the major disease in its primary form, 93 cases per 1,000 men, while in the unprotected places, it was 107. But it was only in 1866 that an effective Act was passed, and it did not come into operation till towards the close of the year. In the next period of three years, ending 31st December, 1869, we find a large reduction of the major disease; for the protected stations had now a ratio of 71 cases per 1,000 men; while the unprotected stations increased to 111. This fact renders all doubt impossible. During the last three years there is no diminution at all, but some increase in the unprotected stations; while at all the protected stations there is a steady diminution until, in 1869, the ratio was only 58 to the 1,000, or nearly half the number found where the Acts are not in force. The mean reduction during the three years has been quite steady, in one direction, in the protected districts. In the first year, the ratio was 86; in the second year, 70; in the third year, 58. You will observe that this mode of comparison between protected and unprotected districts eliminates all chances of error as to a natural decrease in the disease down to I860, which my opponents make much of, but which must tell equally upon both; nor was this decrease maintained up to 1869, for in 9 out of the 15 unprotected stations the ratio was higher in the latter year thrn in the preceding years. I have confined myself to Dr. Balfour's statistics of the major disease in its primary form, because I believe that they are strictly and scientifically accurate. Perhaps you may think that I ought to state the proportions of all enthetic diseases. For this purpose I must use the Returns of the police, which are no doubt approximatively correct, though they can scarcely claim the rigid accuracy of those to which I have referred. By these Returns, owing to an increase in the number of cases of the minor disease, Portsmouth has neither gained nor lost by the Acts, and it may, therefore, be classed as a case of failure, though as regards the major disease this is not true. The Acts have been applied to the various stations at different dates, but if we take the mean ratio in the year preceding the application it was 22·8, and in the last quarter it was only 11·27, or less than half. This refers to all enthetic diseases. If we take two special cases, by way of illustration, the difference between a protected and unprotected station will be bettor understood. Last year a battalion of Guards left London for Windsor on the 1st of March. "Windsor has only recently been brought under the Acts, but formerly was notorious for its unhealthiness. During their stay of four months, thirty cases of sickness occurred. The battalion then returned to London, which is unprotected, and in the corresponding period of four months there were 108 cases, or three and a-half times more. Again, the 5th Fusiliers were at Aldershot, a protected station, for the first eight months of last year, and their average daily roll from these diseases was 3⅓ they then went to the unprotected stations of Glasgow and Ayr, and in the last four months of the year the daily roll was 7⅓, or more than double. I have hitherto treated only of the quantity of the disease, but the quality of it has been much changed in the protected stations. By this I mean that the severity and duration, both of the major and minor diseases, have been much lessened. Thus, in the first year of the Act, at Devonport, the duration of treatment of the major disease was 85½ days; in the second year, 66J days; in the third year, 53 days; and in the last quarter of 1869, 37 days. So that, if the experience of Devonport is general, while the quantity of disease has been reduced by a little less than a-half, the actual duration of what remains has been also lessened by more than a-half. In the Metropolitan Female Lock Hospital there are patients sent by Government from military and naval stations, and ordinary patients from London. It is pitiable to visit this hospital, and see the ravages of disease among the latter, as compared with the former. Mr. J. R. Lane, the surgeon to the hospital, has kindly given me the periods for cure on an average of three years. As regards the major disease, a Government patient is cured in 45 days, while an ordinary patient requires 56 days; and, as regards the minor disease, a Government patient is cured in 25 days, while an ordinary patient requires 39 days. Surely I have said enough to prove how successful these Acts have been. Since 1846, when I acted as a Royal Commissioner on Public Health, sanitary laws have been to me an incessant object of interest; but, with the exception of the compulsory Vaccination Acts, I know no such achievements of legislation as have been performed by the Acts under discussion. Before leaving this part of the subject, I ought to refer to the effects of the Acts in diminishing disease among-fallen women. For this object the statistics available to me are limited; but I possess them for several stations. At Chatham, for instance, when the Act was first applied, 70 per cent were found to be diseased; last quarter only 6 per cent were in this condition. This is, no doubt, the most marked case; but we are assured that the amelioration at every station has been great. Perhaps we may get a fairer view if we compare the state of common women at Winchester, in which the Act came into force last January, with that of Devonport, where it has been, in operation, since 1866. In Winchester, in the two first months of the year, 43 per cent of the unfortunates were found to be diseased; while, in the corresponding months, at Devonport, only 14 per cent were in that condition. In our foreign stations similar Acts are in operation. At Malta traders in vice have been inspected since the time of the Knights, though by custom merely, for a law enforcing it was passed only in 1859. That law made the custom efficient, and its results are stated in Mr. Inglott's evidence. He says—

"The operation of the law has had the effect of checking public prostitution to a great extent, besides of almost annihilating the disease."

"Thus less than two years ago, in a terribly morbid condition, with the habits of beasts and the appearance of beggars, the majority of these outcasts of society were alike endless sources of sickness among the troops and disgust among the respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood."

"And that the chaplain has on several occasions mentioned the pleasure with which he has noticed their uniformly decent behaviour, as well as their quiet attention to his ministerial addresses during the religious services held by him."

"The improvement which has taken place in the persons, clothing, and homes of common women, as regards cleanliness and order, is most marked. Many of the women formerly looked bloated from drink, whilst others were greatly emaciated and looked haggard through disease. Their language and habits are greatly altered. Swearing, drunkenness, and indecency of behaviour have become quite exceptional. The

women now look fresh and healthy, and are most respectful in their manner. In fact, these poor creatures now feel that they are not altogether outcasts from society, but that there are people who still take an interest in their moral and physical welfare."

felt strongly on this legislation. He thought that the Standing Orders should not be put in force when large numbers appealed to the House; 270,000 people had petitioned against these Acts; 67 public meetings had been held. He objected to this legislation in the dark—they had had too much secresy already. Their constituents had a right to know what was said and done, and should not have elaborate statistics shoved down their throats. After referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh University, contrasting his figures with the facts that came out in Committee, he (Mr. Henley) said he had referred to these statistics rather to weaken the case of the hon. Member—for him- self, he preferred to argue the subject on high moral grounds. So much, he said, for this worthless portion of the subject. They were sapping the morals of the country. The hon. Member was using these great towns as a lever to extend that legislation to the whole country. The system was an immoral one. He knew great names held otherwise; but, in fact, it was licensing prostitution. On June 1, the Derby Day, the cabs were to be examined. Those that were fit were to go on. That was what they did in the case of women. The system was vicious, and one which they dared not debate in public. He deprecated these "secret, dirty, underhand proceedings." Why did not the Committees go a little further? The witnesses in Committee related that some of the women were married, some reclaimed. The figures were remarkable. He (Mr. Henley) dissected the figures at length; but resisted the argument based on those figures. He said, would they take the whole prostitution of the country into their hands? He would make no crusade against any special vice. He objected to making a vice more useful. The Almighty had created a penalty. He (Mr. Henley) said—Relieve misery, relieve disease; but do not turn loose those who are clean. They dared not argue this matter in open day. So many had petitioned—the subject had been so frequently discussed—that they might as well have debated it in open day. What would people say? Every statement might be tested. To-morrow the hon. Member for Edinburgh University would say his figures were right; he (Mr. Henley) would say his were right. He could not sit down without referring to a document signed by many great names, including five Bishops—"a smartish lot to go into an affair of this kind," "some of them colonial." It was a disgrace not to argue it in open day. If it could be shown that it was not licensing prostitution, it would have been well to show as much. As to the document to which these Bishops had appended their hands, the evidence was unsatisfactory. He went on to dilate on Mr. Parson's evidence. The appeal to a magistrate was illusory. The woman preferred to go to be examined at the dictum of a police officer. Officers were men, and liable to be misled. Would they dare to put the law in force in the case of men? He criticized Mr. Sloggett's evidence and the questions put to him, and the motives with which they were put. He was sorry to have detained the House. The prosperity of the country had increased, marriages had increased, and children had increased, and illegitimate children had diminished. He would never be a party to licensing this offence. But "the rulers had taken counsel together" and was it not possible they might be laughed to scorn? Medical testimony was not trustworthy, for men would sometimes treat themselves. This was human nature. He repeated—this legislation was immoral; they dared not proceed with it openly, and so they were proceeding by sap. He cast upon them the responsibility of the cursed legislation on which they seemed determined to proceed.

Whatever the opinion of individual Members of this House may be with regard to the Contagious Diseases Acts, we must all agree that it is a matter of the greatest importance, and one, moreover, upon which the people of this country would be justified in feeling extremely jealous as to any action which might be taken with regard to it, either by the House or by the Government. It is, therefore, not only to be regretted that the speeches to which we have already listened should have been delivered in the absence of the only channel of communication between this House and the general public; but it is also of the deepest importance that the general views of Members of the House on this subject, and the evidence which they may advance, whether for or against the working of the Acts, should be laid before all classes in the country, in order to enable them to form a sound opinion on the subject. It is with this object in view that, in the absence of the usual means of spreading this information, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

announced that the Government were prepared to authorize the issue of a Royal Commission.

said, he had heard the decision of Her Majesty's Government with very great regret. He thought it a weak and most unfortunate course, especially at a moment when the fair trial of a great experiment was only just commencing, and when a great majority, both in Parliament and the country, was prepared to support the Government in resisting a premature demand for a change of policy.

said, that the granting of a Commission was no proof of weakness on the part of the Government in their support of the system in force under the present Acts. On the contrary, if the discussion had proceeded, he should have been prepared to bring forward proofs of the great advantages—moral as well as physical—which had resulted from the system. But was it desirable that such a discussion should proceed? Were they not under great disadvantages in discussing such a subject in that House? If they discussed it, as they had to-night, with the Galleries cleared, they excluded those whose representatives they were from the knowledge of the proceedings they took on their behalf. If they discussed it with the Galleries open, then a subject—which, until this year, there was a very natural indisposition on the part of everybody to discuss at all—was made painfully familiar to the young as well as to the old, and brought next morning under the notice of ladies, perhaps, as well as of men. It seemed to him, then, that this dreadful subject ought to be thoroughly examined, but not in Parliamentary debate; and that a Commission afforded, the best means of probing it to the bottom without giving needless offence to public decency.

hoped the House would, even at this protracted period of the debate, agree to the Motion for Adjournment. It was most desirable that a debate upon this subject should take place; and, above all, that constituents and the public generally should be informed of the reasons for or against maintaining the Acts now under discussion. So strongly had he felt this conviction that he had risen an hour and a-half ago, quite early in the debate, to make a similar Motion. He was not in favour of the repeal of these Acts upon an imperfect knowledge of their working and effect; but he was fully aware that, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, the public mind had been deeply stirred by the agitation of this question out-of- doors. He believed the public were ill-informed upon this question, and that much misapprehension and no small exaggeration prevailed respecting it. He had no fear of inquiry, because he believed it would confirm the policy of these laws; but it was precisely for these reasons that he had so deeply regretted the injudicious course adopted by an hon. Member earlier in the evening. He regretted that this painful subject had been discussed with closed doors and empty Galleries. He thought the step taken to secure secresy for this discussion was, to say the least of it, inexpedient. What the public wanted to know, and had a right to know, was—if these laws were to remain in force—why? They were waiting to hear what the Home Secretary had to say on behalf of the "Police;" what the "War Secretary had to tell them for the "Soldiers;" and the First Lord of the Admiralty for the "Sailors" of this country—and regretting, as he did, that much had already been said in secret which ought to be heard openly, he trusted they would, with one voice, assent to the adjournment.

said, he was exceedingly glad to hear of the determination at which the Government had arrived. In consequence of the great interest taken in this question in the town which he had the honour to represent, he had felt it to be his duty to take great pains to ascertain what was the right course to pursue with reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. He had carefully read the evidence given before the Committee of this House, as well as the numerous pamphlets which had been published on the subject; and the only conclusion at which he had been able to arrive was, that further inquiry was absolutely necessary. The evidence of Mr. Simon was, to his mind, perfectly conclusive upon this point. He had pointed out what the points were on which further evidence was necessary, and the manner in which it could be obtained. There was only one other matter which he wished to press, and that was that, until this further information was obtained, there should be no extension of the area over which the Acts now in force should have operation. It being admitted that further inquiry was necessary, it was exceedingly undesirable that any district should be brought under the operation of the Acts until the information was furnished which it was hoped would satisfy the public of the groundlessness of the objections which had been urged with so much force by the opponents of the Acts.

said, he had risen to address the House for a few minutes, only to correct a misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, who appeared to think that the numerous public meetings, and the 270,000 petitioners who had addressed this House, desired only an investigation into the operation of these Acts. Now, this was a most erroneous opinion. He (Mr. M'Laren) had presented many Petitions, and had read the resolutions and proceedings of many meetings; and, as a rule, they did not ask for any inquiry, nor would the petitioners be satisfied with the result of any inquiry, however favourable it might appear to be to the operation of the Acts. The petitioners took up the question on the ground that these Acts were a violation of justice and of civil liberty—a contrivance to oppress weak and defenceless women for the gratification and supposed benefit of men; and being already satisfied with the inquiries which had been made, they held mainly to the moral aspects of the question, and called for the total repeal of these iniquitous Acts. None knew this to be the general feeling of the petitioners better than his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; for he had received a very large deputation, consisting of gentlemen and ladies, appointed by a conference of the delegates from all parts of the kingdom recently held in London, and who had stated to him their views, and had left with him their memorial, which had since been printed. He (Mr. M'Laren) would, with the permission of the House, read from it a short passage to show that he had correctly represented the views of the petitioners—

"We unhesitatingly adopt an ancient sentiment, that an injustice to the meanest citizen is an insult to the whole community. Grant that a woman who trades in her person is the meanest of citizens, yet she does not cease to be a citizen, much less to be a woman. In our belief we are speaking truthfully and soberly in pronouncing the treatment of the women indecent, depraving,

and barbarous. Moreover, the Acts overthrow legal safeguards for all women, as is stated below in detail. To us it seems that the phrase instrumental rape,' applied by a leading physician to that which is by the Acts called medical examination, is strictly correct. The examination is made not because disease exists, nor for the purpose of curing disease, but merely to ascertain whether the woman may be pronounced by the authorities fit for prostitution. The process is used even against wives and against women who recently have been, or are about to be, mothers. Such violation of the person is in our judgment an intrinsic wickedness; and we feel called on to avow this judgment plainly."

Sir, I desire to tender to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) a very simple piece of advice, and this is, that he should divide the House against the Motion for the adjournment of this debate. It is quite obvious, that if this debate is adjourned and again renewed, that it is very improbable that the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) or any other Member will move that strangers should again be excluded from the House. During the absence of the reporters on this occasion the hon. Member for Cambridge has made a most able speech in moving for leave to introduce his Bill. He was followed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) in a speech, of which I will only say that its purport was very materialistic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) has made a very able speech in the sense of the Member for Cambridge, impugning the highly immoral character and. tendency of this contagious diseases statute. I feel strongly on this subject with the hon. Member for Cambridge and the right hon. Member for Oxford- shire. In my opinion, the sooner the House gets quit of this nauseous, this noisome piece of legislation, of this aping of foreign police espionage, of this unconstitutional system of foreign police, the better for the country and the better for the reputation of this House. It is obvious that there is an intention to extend the sphere of the operation of this noxious statute beyond the already wide limits of its operation around the garrison towns and camps in which it already prevails. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has intimated, since the Adjournment was moved, that the Government intend to issue a Commission to inquire into the operation of this statute, while expressing approval of its operation. [Mr. CARDWELL here rose, as though to make some explanation, but sat down again without uttering a word.] If Her Majesty's Government are contented with the operation and effects of the Contagious Diseases Acts and do not intend to extend the sphere of their operation, why, I repeat, do they propose to inquire? No one could doubt, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh—who appeared armed with privileged statistics unknown to Members in general—that there is an intention to extend the operation of this statute, and of the police system it enacts, to the general population of this country. What did the hon. Member say? He said that the operation of the Acts in and around Windsor had, in his military sense, been so successful that he hoped they would be extended to the metropolis; and, again, he cited what he considers the success of the statute in and around Aldershot (I think), and that, therefore, he desired the extension of the operation of the statutes to Glasgow. There can be no doubt of the intention to extend the operation of this noisome legislation, to which the people object. I advise the hon. Member for Cambridge to divide the House against the adjournment of this debate, as the only means by which he can avoid being taken advantage of. He spoke very ably in moving for leave to bring in his Bill; he spoke in the absence of the reporters; so has my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire. The Government—Her Majesty's Ministers—have not spoken; neither the hon. Member for Cambridge nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire can, according to the rules of the House, speak again upon the Main Question. If, therefore, this debate be now adjourned, and when it conies on again the reporters be not excluded, the speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers and of other Members, in defence of this noisome statute and in answer to the Members for Cambridge and Oxfordshire, will be reported, while their able speeches will not be reported; this would be obviously unfair, and tend to the misinformation of the public. It is obvious that this debate ought in fairness to be concluded, as it began, in the absence of the reporters and of other strangers.

said, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) asserted, with truth, that the very numerous petitioners in favour of this Bill asked for a repeal, and not for inquiry; but it did not follow that they would not be, at least, partially satisfied by the latter course. The hon. Member had mentioned a very influential deputation which had waited on the Home Secretary to urge upon him repeal; but the hon. Gentleman was either ignorant of the fact, or had forgotten to mention it, that that deputation expressed satisfaction at hearing the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) insisted that it was the intention of the Government to extend the operation of this obnoxious law, and he used this singular argument—"If this is not so, why inquire?" Why inquire In order to enable us to decide whether it is right to support such a Bill as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) seeks to introduce to-night. Inquiry was asked for not with the view of ox-tending the operation of the present law, which, in the present state of feeling in the country, would be madness, but in order to know whether it is right to repeal it.

said, that as a member of the deputation which had waited upon the Home Secretary, he could bear witness that the deputation expressed gratitude to his right hon. Friend for having received them with his wonted candour and courtesy, but not for his promise of a Commission. He did not know whether an individual or two might have spoken in that sense; but, certainly, the deputation in general signified no approbation or acceptance of the proposition, which was quite new to them, and on which they had no authority to speak. He had one remark to make—namely, that he had heard with pleasure that evening from his right hon. Friend that, if a Commission were appointed, it would inquire into the moral bearings of the question, as well as its physical bearings. He was sure that, in the present state of public feeling on the subject, the moral question could not safely be disregarded.

said, his object would be to widen the scope of the Commission; and he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Baines) that the moral aspect of the question should not be lost sight of. And he could further promise that those selected for the Commission should be persons of knowledge and authority, and enjoying the confidence of the community. He must say that he protested against the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd)—he thought it was an unhappy course, and that the subject was one from which public advantage would result from its being openly discussed. The public were already distrustful on the subject, and ought to have every opportunity of being re-assured by public discussion.

Sir, the Motion for the adjournment of the debate prevents me from submitting to the House my reasons for supporting the Bill of my hon. Friend for the repeal of those Acts. I have arrived at the conviction that they ought to be repealed from different reasons to those already advanced; and I could have wished that a full discussion of this important question had been permitted, and that it should have gone forth to the country through the ordinary channels. This, I regret, has been prevented by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs. I hoped that one result of this debate would have been a cessation of this agitation, and a stoppage of that stream of offensive literature which has flooded our houses for several months past. This desirable result, however, has been frustrated by the injudicious exclusion of reporters from the House. And the discussion of this disagreeable question, which has penetrated into the kitchens and factories, will be prolonged, and the agitation intensified, by the conviction on the mind of the country that investigation has been stifled in this House. In our present position those of us who are opposed to these Acts have no alternative but to vote against the Adjournment and accept the Commission offered by the Government. But the House may be assured we have not heard the last of this question. It will meet us in a less decorous form than it has done to-night. These Acts are opposed to the sacred family life which is the glory of this country; and I was prepared to show that in those countries where they had been most stringently enforced, they had most signally failed. At the commencement of this debate, two intelligent foreign merchants of my acquaintance, were under the Gallery. I inquired of them the effects of these Acts on the health and morals of their respective countries. One answered he believed they operated injuriously to both. The other objected. He said—"They are favourable to health, but as for morals—we have none."

Sir, I respectfully protest against the course just taken of advocating the Acts which have been under discussion while speaking on the subject of the adjournment of the debate. I submit that it is quite out of Order. Referring to the subject to which several hon. Members have alluded—the exclusion of the public upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Ayr—I have shown my opinion of that exercise of a questionable privilege by placing in your hands a Notice of Motion restricting such privilege in future to the majority of Members in this House.

, in reply, said, he objected to the decision of the House being taken upon a side issue. The appointment of a Commission would not remove the difficulty which he felt, which was one of principle.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Horse Racing, said, that since he had placed his Notice of Motion on the subject on the Paper he had received a large number of letters, assuring him that the evils which attended on the sport of horse racing had spread more widely and much more deeply than he had any idea of. One letter which he had received was from a turf agent in times past, who had conducted many large money operations, and who stated that he had witnessed the ruin of hundreds of persons of all classes, and could tell of bankruptcies, robberies, suicides, and other ills, all arising from the habit of betting, as well as the rise to wealth of some of the greatest and most illiterate vagabonds. He had also had many letters, chiefly anonymous, abusing him for taking the step which he was now taking. In one of those letters—he would pass over all the personal abuse with which it opened—it was stated that it was, in fact, difficult for any one to define in what the evils of betting consisted; that in the opinion of the writer they were more imaginary than real, and that they existed in the minds only of prejudiced idiots, as thousands of persons were getting their living by betting. Now, his reason for bringing the subject before the House was precisely this—that thousands of people were getting their living by betting, just as thousands were getting their living by picking pockets openly. He would refer, in support of the view which he took, to a case which had happened within the last few months. It appeared, from the sporting newspapers, that at a race meeting at Chester—a very important meeting—a gentleman well known on the turf had a horse which was a favourite for an important race. That gentleman, it seemed, on arriving at Chester, communicated with persons interested in racing in the town his intention not to run his horse. When asked why he came to that resolution, he said he had not money enough on the race, that his price was £14,000, and that if he did not get that sum his horse should not run. There was no pretence of sport; but it was simply a case of speculative trading of a mischievous character. Now, that was a case which clearly showed, he thought, that betting was degenerating into a trade, and no one would maintain that it was a useful trade to the country. It was, however, said—"Why not leave the whole matter to the Jockey Club?"—and so far as he was concerned he should be glad to do so, if the Jockey Club of the present day were only like that of our fathers or grandfathers. The Jockey Club of 60 years ago were vigorous rulers of the national sport. They had turned out of their own body the highest Gentleman in the realm, the then Prince of Wales, and prohibited him from running his horses on the turf, on the simple suspicion that he had instructed his jockey not to win a race when he could have won. The jockey, whose name was Chiffney, published a pamphlet, in which he brought forward evidence to show that the accusation was untrue. He had not himself seen this work, which was so rare that a copy of it was, he believed, now worth something like £5. In it, however, Chiffney made a solemn declaration that he had not been instructed not to win, and that he had, in fact, done his best to win. But be that as it might, the Jockey Club, in former times, proceeded on mere primâ facie evidence, while the Jockey Club of our own day had not shown the same power of dealing with such matters. At the commencement of the reign of her present Majesty there were four Acts by which affairs relating to the turf were regulated. There were the Acts of Charles II., and of Anne; and, by the combined operation of those Acts, any person who lost more than £10 by betting on horse racing was empowered within three months to sue and recover that sum from the person who won it. If, after the expiration of three months, he did not so proceed, power was given to any common informer to proceed against the person who won the bet, and he was entitled to recover three times its amount together with the costs of the action. Besides the two statutes he had mentioned, there were two of the reign of George II. The first of these was the 13 Geo. II., by which it was enacted that no person but the actual owner could run any horse; that no person should run two horses in any race; and that no race should be run for a less stake than £50. Again, there was the 18 Geo. II., which provided that any person who either won or lost a sum of £20, on any one day, in betting should be liable to be sued by any person who might take the matter up, and that five times the amount might be recovered, either from the persons who lost, or those who won. For the alterations made in the law as it stood at the beginning of the present reign the Jockey Club were responsible. The first alteration took place in the third year of her present Majesty. In 1840 the Duke of Richmond of that day brought in a Bill, as the representative of the Jockey Club, to repeal the 13 Geo. II., and that Bill was passed. The result was, that within three years afterwards the whole country was filled with little races. Every second-rate town, where a publican found a spot to set up a racecourse, came to have its races for all sorts of small stakes. That was the commencement of the system which brought racing into the position in which it now stood. The Jockey Club appeared to have soon become alive to the mischief of the change, and in 1843 the Duke of Richmond, again as the representative of the Jockey Club, took very strong measures, for certain persons were ordered out of the racecourse at Goodwood to mark the sense in which the Jockey Club viewed their conduct. In answer to this decided declaration of hostilities, actions, varying from £5,000 to £120,000, were brought against gentlemen of the highest position in the country on account of Bets they had made—one of the Gentlemen, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), being at that moment in the House. He had no doubt that the result of these actions afforded great relief to the mind of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow-sufferers. The only one really brought to an issue was the one against the late Lord George Bentinck. That action was brought to recover three times the amount of a bet of £3,000 laid by the late Lord George Bentinck, and it would have gone hardly against him had it not been that the late Mr. Gully, then a Member of that House, appeared as a witness, and stated that the bet had been made with him instead of with the person whose name was mentioned in the indictment. Before the other actions could be brought to trial the then House of Commons decided to interfere, and a short Act was passed in 1844, suspending all legal process while inquiry into the matter was made. A Committee of both Houses sat, and the result of their deliberations was the Act of the 8 & 9 Vict., which was the present law for regulating horse racing. By that Act the whole of the statutes on the subject were swept away, a tabula rasa was made, and all the notice that the statute took of the subject was in the provision that money lost in betting on horse racing could not be recovered in a Court of Law. It was stated at that time that the matter would be effectually dealt with if left to the direction of the Jockey Club. The next time that the House legislated on the subject was in 1853, when the Betting House Act was passed, which provided stringent remedies against the system which had sprung from the repeal of the old statutes—namely, the system of betting houses, advertising agents, and cards. The unfortunate omission of Scotland from the operation of that Act, he was happy to hear, was to be rectified in the present Session by a Government measure. No doubt matters improved considerably from 1853 to 1860; but in that year they had again become so bad that Lord Redesdale introduced in the other House the Light Weights Bill, which was to fix the minimum weight to be carried by any horse at seven stone. In opposition to that Bill the late Lord Derby represented, on behalf of the Jockey Club, that that body were prepared to deal with the evil of light weights and handicaps. Upon that representation the Bill was withdrawn. Nothing had been done since that time by the Jockey Club, or by any other racing body in the coun- try, nor had any further legislation taken place, and things had now become so bad that he submitted it was high time that the House should do something instead of relying any longer upon the Jockey Club. The House might, perhaps, remember the story of the Kentuckian who, boasting of his strength, offered to bet his walking companion—a small Englishman—that he could throw him over a pretty wide ditch. The Englishman accepted the wager, and the Kentuckian, taking him by the scruff of the neck and the waistband of his trousers, flung him into the middle of the water. Scrambling to the bank the Englishman demanded his 10 dollars, whereupon his companion answered—"No, stranger, I guess not. I did not say I could do it the first time or the second time; but lean do it." And if the House trusted to the Jockey Club to get them over the ditch, they would find, in the same way, that they would only be thrown, over and over again, deeper into the mire. There was no wish on the part of the Club to interfere. The question must be looked at from two points of view, and the first regarded horses. He believed that the very highest evidence had shown that the present system of horse racing must result in the deterioration of our breed of horses. [Mr. OSBORNE: No, no!] He was willing to confess that his hon. Friend behind him who cried "No, no!" was more conversant with the subject than he was [Mr. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!]; but to race horses under two years was simply using beasts before they had arrived, at maturity, and could only be likened to subjecting to competitive examinations and training for boat races boys of seven years of age. He held in his hand a letter signed by two of the highest authorities on this subject—Sir Joseph Hawley and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). In that letter, the Gentlemen to whom he alluded said—

"We do not join in the cry so often raised now about degeneration; as yet we believe that our horses, properly used, have not materially suffered; but we are no less firmly convinced that, deterioration being shown by experience to be as clearly possible as improvement, the running of two-year-olds, and the consequent prevalence of short courses, will as surely effect it as the care and judgment of our ancestors turned the ponies of the last century into racehorses of to-day…The prescience of one whose experience

has justly placed him at the head of turf authorities (Admiral Rous) long ago recognized the danger of present tendencies, and has more than once denounced the insatiable appetite for early racing as 'a crying iniquity which ought to be forbidden by Parliament.'"

"Still, when we find that while for 10 years no English-bred aged horse has started for any of the three great cups, yet an enthusiastic supporter of the present system can nevertheless declare 'our four-year-olds to be unexampled specimens of perfection, and Belladrum and Wild Oats the two grandest specimens ever seen by man,' the time for action seems to have arrived."

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he had resided for many years in France and taken some share in the racing there, and he believed the time would come when we should go to that country for an example by which to regulate our sports. That House, based as it was upon a large franchise, was bound to deal with that which was injurious to public morality. He regretted that there was no clause in the Bill to meet the evils resulting from "P.P. betting" and handicaping, and he himself, if no other Member should do so, would introduce clauses on the subject. There was scarcely a Member in that House who did not know persons who had been led into immoralities by the present system, and something ought to be done to render racing what it once was—the sport of English gentlemen.

did not offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill; but he considered that neither the Mover or Seconder knew anything of the subject of which it dealt. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Hughes) had shown himself utterly wanting in the most elementary notions about racing, and the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject of the popular franchise knew just as little about it. He reserved any observations he might have to make on the measure for the second reading.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. What he considered the real part of the measure should have his cordial support, and he might say also the cordial support of the body which had hitherto watched over racing in this country. When he said "the real part" of the Bill he meant that portion of it which dealt with the betting that had grown up among us to such an extent of late years. The Jockey Club felt that that was an evil with which they were not competent to deal, and, therefore, they would most cordially welcome the action of that House in correcting so great an evil. But when the hon. Gentleman proposed to legislate on other matters which more nearly affected the details of racing, these were things which he ventured to say the Jockey Club were more competent to deal with. It might not be within the knowledge of all the Members of that House that at this moment there was a committee of the Jockey Club appointed to consider these matters, and of that committee the two very high authorities which the hon. Gentleman had quoted—namely, the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and Sir Joseph Hawley—were members. That should be some guarantee that the various matters which formed the subject of inquiry would not be lightly passed over. The hon. Gentleman had been somewhat hard upon the members of the Jockey Club for a period of years, and had gone back half-a-century to show how they had deteriorated. The hon. Gentleman was not quite justified in what he had said on that point, inasmuch as there was no evidence to show that, if the same circumstances arose, they would be inclined to deal more leniently than the Jockey Club had done in the case referred to. Such circumstances had not arisen, and lie trusted would not arise; but he had no hesitation in saying that if any member of the Club were proved to be guilty of such practices as were shadowed forth by the hon. Gentleman he would be dealt with in like manner.

said, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The only thing he would suggest would be this, that a clause should be introduced in the Bill to suppress Tattersall's; and now that public lotteries were forbidden, it would be a great means to put a stop to betting if the publication of the odds in this kingdom were not allowed.

said, he was opposed to the Bill, and he trusted that the House would not consent to its introduction. In almost every club there were Derby lotteries, in which were the names of Members of that House and some of the most distinguished names in the country. Those lotteries had nothing to do with horse racing. They had nothing to do with the evil effects of horse racing. Neither had Tattersall's. He was of opinion that the evils connected with the present condition of the turf had been greatly exaggerated, and that betting, when legitimately conducted, was a very fair business. He did not think the House was called upon to legislate for foolish young men and foolish old men who might choose to throw away their money. He did not know that the breed of horses had deterio- rated in consequence of horse racing. Only the other day a horse was sold for £5,000. If the House consented to read the Bill a first time, he hoped its rejection would be moved on a future stage.

desired to say a few words on this subject, because it was one on which he had had some experience. He entirely concurred in the judicious observations of the noble Lord the Member for Cambridgeshire (Lord George Manners). The Bill was intended to do away with great abuses. They had the avowal of the two great heads of the Turf on different sides—of Sir Joseph Hawley on the one side, and Admiral Rous on the other, that unlimited betting, and especially list betting, was a very great evil. One of these gentlemen said it was a gangrene in our moral system; the other said its effects were such that one could hardly judge of the amount of evil they produced. The 1st clause of the Bill met the question of very early racing; the next portion of it was to put a stop to three-year-olds running for Queen's Plates. The latter was a matter that fairly came under the consideration of the House, because there was a question of a grant of public money involved in it. The great object of those prizes was, no doubt, to induce persons to keep hardy horses to run at a more advanced age; but the most important portion of the Bill was that aimed at list houses. It was notorious that many men-servants, clerks, and other persons in responsible positions had been ruined by these houses. List betting had nothing whatever to do with good racing. In his opinion it was most injurious to good racing, because it encouraged robbery and rascality. Young men were induced to enter into it by the hope that they might at once become rich. He would not go into the question of the running of two-year-olds. He was not himself opposed to all "two-year-old running;" but when two such authorities as Mr. Chaplin and Sir Joseph Hawley thought it ought to be prohibited, he thought the point was not one which could be discussed at 10 minutes past 12 o'clock. It was one of the gravest possible subjects connected with racing. Certainly it was one on which there was very great difference of opinion. The Jockey Club was now considering it; and, therefore, he thought the better course would be to read the Bill a first time to-night, and postpone the second reading till after the Jockey Club had come to a decision.

could not help expressing his astonishment that a subject of this kind should have been brought forward in that House. Whatever might be the mischief arising from the wrongdoings of young men or of old men, or however bad the running of young horses or of old horses, he did not think the time had arrived when such subjects should become matters of argument in the House of Commons. The discussion of this question had been raised by letters which had appeared in a portion of the Press; but the matter was of such trivial import that he almost blushed at having to address the House on it. It was true that, at a time when gambling had become a great evil to society, Parliament did direct its attention to the suppression of gaminghouses; but no such necessity for legislation existed in the present instance. He contended that a horse was an animal—an animal like an ox or a cow, which when in the possession of a person became his property. If stakes were to be run for, and a man had a good horse which he thought would win, he ran him for profit. ["No!"] He thought he knew more about the matter than the hon. Gentleman who cried "No!" Men did run horses for profit, and he thought a man was entitled to exercise power over his own animal. Questions like the one raised by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), and which affected quadrupeds, were not interesting in a House which met to legislate for bipeds. He believed no gentleman in the House could speak with more touching feeling on this subject than the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory). The turf was a sport, and he admitted that anyone who speculated upon it encouraged gambling to a certain extent; for speculation had its losses as well as its gains, and, he believed, that the former much exceeded the latter. He, however, contended that the House had no right to interfere with the public in this matter. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not understand these demonstrations. He had lived—he was not ashamd to own it—with gentlemen, and it was not the habit of gentlemen to receive opinions contrary to their own with demonstrations such as these, and which he had heard hon. Members of more experience than himself notice and condemn. He did not mean to oppose the introduction of this Bill. It might do good; he did not think it would do any. The evils of betting in "list-houses" had, he believed, been much exaggerated, yet he admitted that they encouraged men-servants, and even maidservants, to embark in matters with I which they ought not to have anything to do. But there was no more immorality in such transactions on the part of house-maids or kitchen-maids than on the part of hon. Members. If it was wrong for A. to speculate 6d., it was equally wrong for B. to bet £1,000. If the House attempted to legislate on betting, hon. Members would enter upon a difficult subject, and one with which they could not deal effectually, although, if the House would declare that no betting should be permitted in this country he would applaud the resolution, but he defied hon. Members to carry it out. A bet was a contract—it was an obligation, upon honourable people which law could not enforce. The Jockey Club were willing to do all they could to put an end to what were called "turf abuses." He had, however, opposed Sir Joseph; Hawley's propositions, on the ground that betting was a matter not for legislation, but for settlement between man and man. [Laughter.] No doubt many hon. Gentlemen who laughed had had bet now and then; but they had probably never considered that if they made a bet and lost it they would probably have to pay. There was no law or Act of Parliament about it; but there was no question that a man was more fidgety about paying a bet of £10 than a grocer's bill of £5. The House of Commons had never hitherto interfered with questions of public sport. The hon. Gentleman might get excited about the turf—to which he believed he should not attend; and people who wrote for the public Press excited the public mind upon the subject; but he did not believe their legislation would produce any effect. He would not oppose the Motion; but he would oppose the Bill on its second reading, when he would make some comments, and would probably move its rejection.

Sir, I had hoped that a question which has been represented as one not only appertaining to the dignity of this House, but also to the morality of the country would not have been left simply to the advocacy of members of the Jockey Club, of which I believe the noble Lord who spoke last is a distinguished representative. He is, at any rate, an esteemed Friend of mine. I had hoped that some Member of Her Majesty's Government, one or two of whom I see on the Treasury Bench, representing the racing interest as well as that of public morality, would have given us their opinion upon this Bill. Now, Sir, whatever may be the sentiment of this House upon this Bill—and some ridicule has been thrown upon it by the way in which it has been treated—I think it is only duo to this House that some observation should have been made as to the course that Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue with regard to it. I do not feel that anxiety with respect to the female portion of the community that has been manifested by the noble Lord the Member for Cambridgeshire (Viscount Royston). He has made a noble speech, at all events, and has told us about his housemaids and his ladies'-maids. But there is another view to be taken of this subject—is the time of this House to be wasted in discussing questions with which we are totally incompetent to deal? It is said that this Bill contemplates legislating with reference to the racing of two-year-olds. This is a very respectable House of Commons, and the majority of its Members, as far as I can make out, keep gigs; but, as far as legislating upon the racing of this country is concerned, we all are pretty well aware that if we were to pass a Bill to put a stop to two-year-old races, we should simply be wiping out racing altogether. It has been said by the hon. Member before me (Mr. W. H. Gregory)—a retired member of the Jockey Club—that Sir Joseph Hawley and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) contemplate abolishing two-year-old races altogether. Now, that is an entire mistake. All that those gentlemen propose is to delay those races. Well, we are asked to give leave for the introduction of this Bill, and the Government sits silent. I do not mean to refer to the Home Secretary, because I do not see him here [A laugh.] Oh, is he there? Well, I did not see him. Well, then, I should prefer to leave the legislation upon the subject of this Bill to him. We shall probably give leave to bring in the Bill, and we shall read it a first time out of compliment to the hon. Member who introduces it; but would it not be more sensible of us not to allow him to bring it in? He has got up his speech very carefully as far as the history of racing goes, although, were it not so late an hour, I might be able to point out one or two points in which he was in error; but is it not a work of supererogation for us to read the Bill a first time, in order that it may be printed at the expense of the country, after which we shall hear no more about it? The Jockey Club, in whom I have the greatest confidence, in spite of the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Royston), held a meeting on Saturday last, and are about to legislate upon this matter. We had better leave the subject in their hands, and if they do not deal with it efficiently it will then be time enough for us to take up the question. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Hughes) has made an excellent speech—he has given us a synopsis of Buff's Guide to the Turf, and he ought to be satisfied with his achievement. I say, therefore, let him withdraw his Bill, which is a sample of amateur legislation, and is full of moral crudities. If no one else does so, I shall move that we do not give the hon. Member leave to introduce the Bill. I should like, however, to hear the opinion of the Government upon the matter.

In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), I must say that I do not profess to possess much knowledge upon the subject of this Bill. I think that the hon. Member has given the hon. Gentleman who asks leave to introduce this Bill (Mr. T. Hughes) some excellent advice, although I myself would not be guilty of the discourtesy of moving the rejection of the first reading of the Bill. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member who spoke last has said about leaving the question of two-year-old races in the hands of the Jockey Club. With reference to the betting question, I shall be happy to give every assistance in my power to put down what I believe to be a great source of evil.

, while acknowledging the right of the House to interfere where gambling became an evil from which society suffered, thought the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) should be content with the promise of Her Majesty's Government to do their best to put down betting, and with the assurance of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) that the question was now before the Jockey Club.

said, he could not consent to withdraw his Bill without some assurance being given by the Home Secretary that the principle of his Bill would be incorporated in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce in the course of the Session. The Jockey Club had had opportunities of legislating; but since 1853 matters had been getting worse rather than better, and they had over and over again pledged themselves in 1860 to do something, but in vain. He was quite ready to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) to postpone the matter until the Jockey Club had had an opportunity of dealing with it.