said, that one of the objects of this Bill was to transfer certain property and tolls to the Corporation under the 11th and other clauses of it. Now, as a rule, the right of tranferring property could only be carried out under the general law by affixing a stamp, frequently very costly, to the instrument by which the transfer was effected. Such stamp formed part of the receipts of the Inland Revenue Office. It appeared, however, that an Act for the erection of an additional bridge over the River Dee at Chester, and for the construction of convenient roads and approaches, was authorized in the 6th year of the Reign of Geo. IV. c. 124, and by that Act, subsequently extended by an Act 2 Will. IV. c. 41, certain tolls were authorized for the purpose of maintaining the bridge, and of defraying the interest and repaying the principal of any debt that might be contracted; and after satisfaction of these purposes the tolls were to cease and determine. The Act thus created a public trust, and did not establish any private undertaking with a possibility of surplus revenue and profit. By the present Bill, the Corporation were empowered to purchase the Dee Bridges Undertaking for £15,000; but this was, in fact, the amount of the existing debt, and the real effect of the Bill was simply to transfer the trust from one public body to another without any conveyance of a beneficial interest. The stamp on such a transfer was nominal, and might be neglected; but he had felt it necessary to direct attention to the matter, because there had been other instances in which the Inland Revenue had suffered materially from non-compliance with the law in cases of transfer of property under the authority of an Act of Parliament. He was, therefore, anxious that the present instance should not be passed over sub silentio, and an inconvenient precedent established for the future. Some five or six years ago, a bridge which belonged to a certain Company, and from which a revenue, in the shape of tolls, was derived, was transferred by Act of Parliament without the Treasury knowing anything of the matter, and the consequence was that the obligation imposed by the Stamp Duties was evaded. In order to prevent that unfortunate occurrence from being drawn into a precedent he had considered it desirable to trouble the House with these observations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered; to be read the third time.

I beg to give Notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall move the following Resolution:—

"That it is necessary to declare that the House of Lords, in rejecting the Representation of the People Bill for the purpose of forcing the Ministers of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, has abused its authority, encroached upon the prerogative of the Crown, and assailed the independence of this House; and, in refusing its assent to the Second Reading of the said Bill because it did not contain provisions for the re-distribution of Electoral Power, has violated the fundamental right and privilege of this House to determine in what order it will redress the grievances that happen within the realm."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give any facilities for the consideration of the Notice which has just been given?

No application has yet been made for the consideration of this subject by the hon. Member who has given Notice; and it is not usual to reply to an application from another Member, even from one so much respected as the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that upon this Vote he wished to call attention to the subject of the suspension of the Compulsory Clauses of the Contagious Diseases Act. In the course of the Session he had been anxious to obtain an opportunity for saying something on the subject under a little more favourable circumstances than he could have now, at that late period of the Session. However, late as the period of the Session was, he felt it his duty not only to his constituents, but to the public generally, to bring the question forward. Last year the Resolution moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was passed by what he would call a sort of snatch vote in the House; and he thought he might say, without his right hon. Friend venturing to contradict him, that the country entertained the confident hope that after the triumph obtained by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government would, as soon as possible, give effect to it by bringing in a Bill based on the lines of the Resolution; no one could have dreamt that the Resolution then passed would have immediate effect given to it by the Government by repealing the existing law. He thought he had a right to say that the course taken by the Government was altogether un-Parliamentary and un-Constitutional. What he had complained of, and what he still complained of, was not that the Compulsory Clauses of the Act should have been suspended, but that they should have been suspended before anything was put in their place. They were promised that a Bill should be introduced. A Bill was laid upon the Table late last Session; but it was afterwards practically withdrawn by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), who promised another Bill with some alterations. That Bill was also introduced and withdrawn, and a third Bill promised this Session. Nothing, however, had been done, and they were now at the close of the second year since the Compulsory Clauses of the Act were suspended. A Return had been issued by the War Office, in which the figures strongly indicated the deplorable consequences which had resulted from the suspension of the Acts. It must be borne in mind that those who were in favour of the Acts had not raised an agitation upon the subject. They had no paid Committee, no paid agents, and no paid secretary. They had neither spent hundreds nor thousands of pounds, and therefore they had no opportunity of replying to the enormous quantity of literature which was issued upon this subject day after day, and distributed broadcast throughout the country. Their only course was to bring the matter under the attention of the House; and, although he regretted to occupy the time of the Committee, no other course was open to him. He had received the other day a somewhat important letter, which he was about to quote, from the paid secretary of the Association for the repeal of these Acts, who, condescendingly referring. to the answer of the Home Secretary to a Question he (Mr. Puleston) had put, wrote as follows:—

"Apropos of the Home Secretary's prepared answer to your Question yesterday, I beg to call your attention to the inclosed. If, as a superintendent of the police in your borough says—'It is preposterous that the Home Secretary should be hoodwinked in such a manner with the cock-and-bull stories about the much worse state of Devonport; surely it is not only preposterous, but disgraceful, that persons should seek to hoodwink you in a similar manner.'"

Now, he (Mr. Puleston) did not think he was very much hoodwinked in the matter. When he first went to Devonport, he went without prejudice. As far as he knew anything about the working of the Acts, his prejudice was rather against than in favour of them; but having paid, as he considered himself bound to do, a great deal of attention to the subject, having been President of the Royal Albert Hospital, and having gone into the figures and the assumed facts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), time after time, he felt himself unable to come to any other conclusion, with due regard to common honesty, than that the Acts, objectionable as they were to some people, were necessary. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had told the House, on more than one occasion, in answer to himself (Mr. Puleston) and other Members, that it was no part of the duty of the Government to protect the morals of the community among whom these Acts were enforced. Perhaps the noble Marquess would bear with him when he said that that was not altogether so, because, if an Imperial Government established barracks, naval depôts, and dockyards in particular localities, they certainly owed it to the community at large to protect the inhabitants of such districts from the consequences of placing large bodies of soldiers and sailors there. He thought that so much, at all events, ought to be readily conceded by the noble Marquess. In view of the statement contained in the letter of the Secretary to the Metropolitan Repeal Association which he had just read to the Committee, he (Mr. Puleston) had taken pains to inquire specially into the condition of the subject at this moment in order that he might not be accused of quoting ancient history. He had, therefore, written last week to friends at Plymouth, Devonport, and Stonehouse, asking them to let him know how the matter stood now. He had received a letter from the Mayor of Plymouth—a gentleman who was known to a good many Members of that House. At one time the Mayor was Chairman of the Liberal Committee in Plymouth, and he was a man very much respected in the borough. Well, the Mayor of Plymouth said—

"I was at one time strongly opposed to the Acts; but, having seen the uniformly judicious action of the Metropolitan Police, and the great improvement that was brought about in our town, I was compelled to admit the beneficial influence of the Acts. Since the Government have ceased to give effect to the Acts, I can only say there is a general testimony as to the sadly altered condition of our streets, and also as to the great increase in the extent and virulence of disease. The magistrates are unanimous in their desire to see the Acts again in operation, and, at the same time, they feel that the local police are not suitable agents to be employed for the purpose. I see much of the opposition comes from Members who are ignorant, or who represent constituents ignorant, of the real working of the Acts; and I believe if they knew something of the places where the Acts have been in operation, not only reducing disease, but lessening prostitution, and, in many cases, leading to reformation, their objections would be withdrawn."

He considered it right to trouble the Committee with these matters, because it was the only way in which he could give an authoritative denial to the leaflets that were constantly issued by the Association of which the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was the distinguished head. Surely, when he stated in that House, on the evidence of gentlemen of all political Parties, and of the magistrates, that they were unanimous in desiring to see the Acts again in operation, he trusted that hon. Members would accept that statement in preference to the one which was contained in the letter written to him by the Secretary of the Association. He thought the right hon. Gentleman himself, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) who sat near him, and who took an equal interest in the matter, would feel inclined to repudiate any such authority as that which he had quoted. The ex-Mayor of Plymouth, also a gentleman very well known, and possessing great influence in that part of the country, said—

The increase of disorder in the streets, the increase of juvenile prostitution, the increase of disease, and the loss of the opportunities for preventive and rescue work, which were afforded and made use of under the operation of the Acts, are now remarkably apparent."

Mr. Shelly went on to say—

"Suspension has had its natural effect, and the streets are still more disorderly than they were when the Acts were in operation. The magistrates are very stern, and do everything they can in order to minimize the effect produced by the suspension of the Acts."

He adds—

"We are greatly shocked and alarmed at the large proportion of very young girls now in the streets. What I may call irregular prostitution—by servant girls, dressmakers, and even by women in a higher position of life—is on the increase. The fear of registration under the Acts was a great deterrent to women of this class, and the police, acting under the Acts, were able to warn them, and to prevent many of them from going astray; but this influence being now removed, there is no check upon them. I have had brought under my notice specially, both in this way and as a magistrate, the great mischief which is done by the large liberty granted to the boys on board the training-ships. This is a matter which ought to be brought to the notice of the Admiralty."

He (Mr. Puleston) had received a great many other letters, with which he would not trouble the Committee; but they brought the question right down to the present day. The letter he held in his hand was one from a very prominent member of his constituency, who was disposed, in the first instance, to look favourably upon the repeal of these Acts, and who had done everything to study the question from a conscientious point of view. He wrote as follows:—

"Notwithstanding these views, with which you are familiar, one thing is very certain, and I am obliged to confess it—namely, that the disease is worse now than it has been for some time; and I may say emphatically that the disease is more prevalent in other places than it was before, and the increased prevalence of the disease is a matter of general remark, but I speak of it as knowing it in my professional practice."

The Town Clerk of Devonport, also, who was not a gentleman who did him (Mr. Puleston) the honour of supporting him politically, but who occupied a very high position in that part of the country, and was not likely to err in any statement he made, because he was constantly on the spot, wrote as follows:—

"There is a general concurrence of opinion in our town that the virtual discontinuance of the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts, as regards their compulsory powers, has brought about a most remarkable state of things, only too apparent in the condition of our streets, and in the condition and behaviour of women and young girls of loose character. Here, as in other towns, it is found to be practically impossible for the local police to act without the Compulsory Clauses."

He (Mr. Puleston) had taken the liberty of reading the evidence of some of the leading gentlemen in the three towns, and thoroughly well known; and he could not imagine that it was possible for any hon. Member to get up in that House and argue in support of the views enunciated in the leaflets issued and statements made by this Metropolitan Repeal Association, or whatever its name might be. An important Memorial to the Prime Minister from the Association had been placed in his hands that afternoon. It was addressed to the Prime Minister by working men, and was represented to be "The Memorial of the Working Men's National League for the Repeal of the Contagious Acts." There were several statements contained in it which were altogether unwarranted. One was that, under the operation of the Acts, women were set apart for immoral purposes. Of course, that was simply untrue; there was nothing of the kind, either direct or indirect; and it was a remarkable fact that serious men, or a serious Association, should allow themselves to make use of such language, for which there was not the least foundation whatever. Among the papers put in his hands was a translation from a speech by a well-known French Professor, in which the speaker gloated over the action taken in the House of Commons, because he believed that it would help them in France to do away with State-regulated vice. Now, he (Mr. Puleston) would be just as much opposed to State-regulated vice, if it were introduced into this country, as any hon. Member opposite, and he would join cordially with them in preventing the adoption of any such scheme of registration, or anything else in this country which might connect the operation of these Acts with the system now in vogue in France. To assert that there was anything in these Acts in the nature of the French system was simply to mislead the public of this country. He knew that it was a very easy thing indeed to go upon a platform in this country, and place before religious people the enormous evil of State-regulated vice; but the agitation was conducted under a false name by paid agents. The Memorial he held in his hand professed to be signed by working men,; but, on looking over the signatures, he found that they were those of professors of literature, editors of newspapers, and so on. Nevertheless, it was called a Working Man's Association. Against that Memorial he had another which was signed by every magistrate in Plymouth, with the exception of three, and their signatures were not appended to it simply because they happened to be absent at the time the Memorial was drawn up; but they were in agreement with their colleagues. He saw several hon. Members in the House, among others hon. Gentlemen representing Cornwall, who were well acquainted with Plymouth and the three towns, who would be able to judge of the weight to be attached to a Memorial signed, as this was, almost unanimously by the magistrates, and by more than two-thirds of the clergy of all denominations, medical practitioners, and gentlemen belonging to all shades of political opinion. He was glad to mention that fact, because one of the misfortunes connected with the question was that the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was carried by the votes of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and, therefore, the appearance of a Party character had been given to the vote. If the right hon. Member for Halifax and his Friends would only visit the three towns, or any other place where these Acts had been in operation, they would find that there was a unanimous opinion against their suspension; and surely the right hon. Gentleman would give the inhabitants of the three towns credit for possessing ordinary intelligence, and for not allowing themselves to be unduly biassed on this important subject. No one desired, naturally, to have Acts like these in operation. He should like to know who could desire them. But he remembered very well his Predecessor, Mr. Delaware Lewis, who represented Devonport in the Parliament of 1868, saying, just before the last Election—

"If you happen to defeat me there is only one thing I want to say to you, and that is, consider and study well the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts before you take any stand against them. When I first came here I felt very much disposed to think that they were wrong, but I have given them very careful consideration, and I can only say to you that so far as my opinion may be of any use to you I hope you will act upon it."

He (Mr. Puleston) had gone into the subject as well as he could, and every step he had taken only strengthened his conviction as to the good the acts had done. A Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the subject for four Sessions. His right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was a Member of that Committee. He had reason to think if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a bias either one way or the other, it was distinctly against the Acts, and in favour of the views of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, signed the Report of the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was well known in the House, and hon. Members on both sides had a great personal regard for him and for his intelligence, and would not fail to give him credit for desiring to act to the best of his knowledge. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the conclusion that these Acts were among the best upon the Statute Book, and that they ought to be retained. The whole of the evidence went to show—after sifting it for four Sessions, and a laborious work it was—that the Acts were necessary; and the Committee, by an overwhelming majority, came to the conclusion that they ought not to have been repealed. But, in the face of all that testimony, Her Majesty's Government, to the astonishment of everybody, upon a Resolution, which might be said to have been snatched in a Division, came down to the House and gave to it, to the amazement of everybody—friend and foe—the sanction of law. Such a thing had never been heard of before. If they had determined that a Bill should be brought forward, and that pending the passing of it the Acts should remain in operation, their course would have been understood. What was more remarkable than all was that the three Cabinet Ministers who alone had to do with the Acts—the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Home Secretary, and the noble Marquess at the head of the War Office—were personally very strongly in favour of the Acts. Why was that the case? It was owing to the fact that of all the Ministers of the Crown they were the three Representatives of the Cabinet who alone had had anything to do with the subject, and they were unanimously in favour of the Acts. The other Members of the Government who were in favour of the Acts were his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General and the Secretary to the Admiralty. Only recently, a deputation, headed by the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe—a deputation composed of gentlemen of the highest character and standing in their respective districts, including the Mayors of every place where the Acts were in force, waited upon the Government in reference to these Acts. The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe lived in the neighbourhood of Plymouth, and was perfectly well able to understand the operation of the Acts. No one could accuse him of saying anything that was deliberately untrue, and yet the statement issued by the National Association for the repeal of these Acts, with which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was connected, deliberately denied the statement of the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe as the mouthpiece of the deputation. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!] His hon. and learned Friend said "Hear, hear!" but he had very little doubt the statements made by the Association were made by men who had no knowledge of the communities among which the Acts were in operation. Was it reasonable to suppose that any hon. Member, or any individual, who had never paid any attention to the working of the Acts, and who had never lived in the communities in which they were in operation, could be sufficiently good judges of the effects of their working to pronounce that all men were liars who lived in the districts affected, and who were as honourable and as respectable as themselves? He had read a letter from the Secretary of the Association.

I have called no one a liar.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman imagined for a moment that he attributed such words to him, he might disabuse his mind at once. He might add that he was quite satisfied of the sincerity of the convictions of his right hon. Friend as well as of those of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). The person he referred to was the paid officer and Secretary of the Association of which his right hon. and hon. and learned Friends were active members.

I am not a member.

begged his hon. and learned Friend's pardon. He had been under the impression that he was a member of the Association; at any rate, he had taken an active part in the agitation for the repeal of the Acts. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was, he believed, a member of the Association.

I am not a member; but, nevertheless, I endorse the acts of the Association.

said, this was what the right hon. Gentleman endorsed—that the Home Secretary was hoodwinked with "cock and bull" stories about the moral state of Devonport; and it was not only preposterous, but disgraceful, that other persons should seek to hoodwink him (Mr. Puleston) in a similar manner. His right hon. Friend deliberately endorsed that view after the evidence he (Mr. Puleston) had produced in reference to the feeling of men of the highest character and position in the communities among which the Acts were in operation. What was he obliged to say now, that his right hon. Friend endorsed this statement? He was afraid that he should be obliged to rescind his withdrawal of the expressions complained of. There was no other course left open to him, because those who objected to the compulsory suspension of the Acts had not suffered themselves to be hoodwinked at all. He had already referred to the Memorial to the Admiralty got up by the magistrates, medical practitioners, and others in the boroughs of Plymouth and Devonport, and the township of Stonehouse. In that Memorial was the following statement:—

"We believe that although, if extended, the usefulness of the Contagious Diseases Acts would soon be greatly increased, and more universally recognized, they have been the means of removing a great amount of physical suffering, while they have been the road to reformation to many fallen women, who, were it not for the existence of these Acts, would never have had an opportunity of returning to a respectable course of life."

Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman endorsed a statement which was absolutely untrue. He should be very glad indeed not to have the opportunity of connecting his right hon. Friend with these matters; but if his right hon. Friend endorsed this statement, he gave the lie direct—it was as well to call things by their right names—to the opinion of the magistrates of Plymouth and Devonport, and a large body of clergymen and ministers of religion of every denomination. He (Mr. Puleston) had no hesitation in saying that he believed the Memorialists were thoroughly conscientious in what they did. He was sorry that no one of greater force and weight than himself had undertaken to bring the facts of the case out, because he was entirely convinced that the suspension of the Acts had led to a greatly increased amount of suffering and immorality; and the amount of seduction which had taken place among young girls, now that the powers of these Acts were gone, hon. Members had no notion of whatever. A gentleman in Plymouth, who had taken great interest in the question, had published a correspondence upon the subject. He was a magistrate—Mr. Luscombe—and in answer to statements made by friends of the right hon. Gentleman he quoted a passage from the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons—

"That they would call special attention to the fact that in the course of 16 years not a single case has been brought before your Committee in which any women, alleged to have been wrongfully brought under the operation of the Acts, have brought an action or taken legal proceedings against the police authorities in respect of any act done by them under the Contagious Diseases Acts."

Mr. Luscombe added—

"It is only necessary to look over the evidence given by the opponents, to be convinced that the slightest chance given by the police would have instantly become the basis of proceedings hostile to particular legislation."

The noble Marquess, on more than one occasion, and only the other day the Home Secretary, had pointed out that the local police could themselves enforce the Acts. Mr. Luscombe said—

"I am ready to admit the possibility to some extent; but there are services rendered by the Crown police only, and necessarily so, from the peculiar sources of information open to them. It is not merely the minimizing of a foul disease, but there is a suppression of youthful depravity in the rescue of children from the snares of vice in its most deadly form, and in the assistance ever ready to be given by the parent or guardians when the unexpected and dreaded absence of one of the home group creates a suggestion or terror intelligent enough to those who are familiar with the temptations too rife in a large community."

That statement had been made several times in answer to the remark that other agencies could effect the good which had been going on under the instrumentality of the Metropolitan Police. The local police under the existing Acts did not possess the power necessary to carry out the Acts as they were carried out before the suspension of the compulsory powers. Even if they were a central body, the local police were not competent to deal with the matter on account of their unwillingness. The superintendent of the police at Devonport was deservedly respected, and performed his duty very well; but, surely the statements of the principal people of the town, and the large majority of the most respectable inhabitants, ought to be worth something against the statement of the superintendent of the police. The superintendent of police, however, only referred to the order in the streets. Everybody knew what the condition of the streets in the three towns was, and what the state of morality was before the Acts came into operation; and the fact was, that they had grown greatly and tin. deniably worse since the suspension of the Acts. No doubt, during the time the Acts had been in operation, now some 16 or 17 years, the state of thing. had improved; but they were rapidly falling again into their old state. He was sorry the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had endorsed the new that it was the duty of the localities to look after their own morals. What had the Societies for the repeal of these Acts done for these poor women? They sad spent their money in agitating and n printing; but had they ever done anything to help these poor women by the establishment of voluntary lock hospitals? If they would visit the Royal Albert Hospital in Devonport, they would find that there had been a cessation of voluntary admissions, except in the most severe cases, and the nature of those cases might be taken as a type of an immense mass of disease not under treatment outside the hospital. Was that what hon. Members opposite wanted to promote? [ Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh!" but he made this statement on the authority of the Secretary of the Royal Albert Hospital, and if hon. Members doubted it, let them go there and make inquiries. Let them appoint a Voluntary Committee to look into the matter, and sit during the Recess in the three towns. Let them go into the whole question carefully, and let them have all the ministers of every denomination, magistrates, and others before them to examine them for themselves. If they would do that, they would soon become convinced that the consequences of the withdrawal of the Compulsory Clauses of the Act had been deplorable in the extreme. He had no wish to occupy the time of the Committee. Although there was a great deal more which he should like to say in connection with the matter, he thought he had said enough. He hoped that other hon. Members on both sides of the House would advocate a cause like this which had been so neglected by the Government, and which, in spite of all their promises, they had failed to legislate upon. They had admitted that it was necessary to substitute something for what they had taken away; and, notwithstanding the admission, they had allowed, and were allowing, these deplorable consequences of their want of action to go on from month to month. It would be quite an intelligible policy on the part of the Government if they said that nothing was needed. But to suspend the Acts without providing something in their place, although they admitted that something was absolutely and essentially necessary, was a most misguided policy. Not only was it unwise, but in this case it was the most cruel and deplorable policy that could possibly have been pursued by the Government.

said, he was anxious to say a few words, not because he had not much sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) in his notion of the cruelty which might be perpetrated under these Acts, but because what had been reported and proved to him in the borough he represented (Hythe) compelled him to bring the plain logie of facts to bear upon the question. The borough he represented contained the Shorncliffe Camp at one end of it, and the School of Musketry at the other, and the experience of the borough showed that the suspension of the Acts must be looked upon as an unmixed evil. Last year a deputation waited on the Home Secretary, consisting of the principal authorities of Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe. He had introduced the deputation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What did they say? Sadly enough they informed the right hon. Gentleman that juvenile prostitution was largely on the increase; that as regarded the minor point of disorder in the streets, it was plainly and unmistakably on the increase; that as regarded the increase of disease, lamentable as it was, it was undoubted, and as regarded the virulence of the disease there could be no possible mistake. They, therefore, contended that undoubtedly a curse had been inflicted upon the borough by the abolition of the Acts. He could not find out that there had been a single complaint of abuse on the part of those who had administered the provisions of the Acts in Hythe. There had been no complaint against any of those who had been charged with putting the Acts in operation; and therefore they found themselves in this position—that whereas before the suspension of the Acts they had order, comparative morality, and a very large amount of effort for the reclamation of these unfortunate women, all that had now been reversed. They, therefore, said to Parliament—"Why inflict upon us this evil, when previously, by the operation of these Acts, we were relieved from the evils of which we complain?" He was one of those who thought the question might probably be solved even to the satisfaction of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) by a simple alteration—namely, by requiring that the examination of women should be conducted by women. He thought that would do away with a great deal of the antagonism to the Acts, and he saw no reason why it should not be done. It was complained that women only were subjected to this treatment; but if that was an objection, why did not the right hon. Member for Halifax bring in a Bill to treat men in the same way? He wanted to know if Parliament had any concern whatever in the future of the rising generation; and, if so, whether they were justified in allowing poison to be spread wholesale? He contended that it was the duty of Parliament to prevent the sowing of the seeds of degradation and of death. He hoped the action of the Government would now be changed, and that they would not allow themselves to be swayed by different sets of opinion. They ought to make up their minds collectively as to what was best for the people of the country, and there would be no difficulty if they would act in accordance with the vast body of opinion before them. The question was a very serious one; and he asked again, why should Parliament or the Government persist in inflicting upon the population evils which were incalculable in their consequences? When he had introduced the deputation to the Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he agreed with them. On being asked why ho did not act, he said that it was because Parliament had of its own account passed a Resolution for the suspension of the Acts. When told that Parliament would yield if the Government took a decided attitude, he then pleaded the Cabinet. He was satisfied that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his responsibility as a Cabinet Minister, supported by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, were to advise Parliament to re-impose these powers, they would not meet with a refusal.

said, he did not know that the question was intended to be raised, or he would have fortified himself with facts. He would, however, mention one fact which he thought he had mentioned before—namely, that many of the clergy, and even the Nonconformist ministers in and about the neighbourhood of the three towns, had expressed a most earnest hope that if the Government were not able to reimpose the Acts as they were before, they would do something to remedy the evils which had been brought about by their suspension. He had been told by one of the leading gentlemen in the three towns that he himself knew the Acts had had the greatest influence in deterring young girls from commencing an immoral career. He had discussed the question carefully with residents in Plymouth, and he must say that he had modified his own opinion to a certain extent since the vote was taken which led to the suspension of the Acts, and he believed there was some ground for the answer given by the Government that it was a question now for the inhabitants of the affected districts. It was, no doubt, in the power of the locality to do a very great deal to remedy these evils, and Glasgow was instanced as a place in which a great deal had already been done. Glasgow, however, was not in the same position as three or four garrison towns like Devonport, Portsmouth, Dover, and others, where it was a matter of necessity to the Government that a large number of soldiers and sailors should be collected. Therefore, although Glasgow had been able to succeed, it did not at all follow that Plymouth, Dover, and other towns would have the same success. At any rate, he thought that if the Government were not prepared to retrace their steps, it was their duty in some way or other to help the inhabitants of the places affected in remedying the evils which were now produced. There were one or two points which he wished particularly to bring to the mind of the Committee; and, first, he would direct attention to the appeal which had been made by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and their friends, for the repeal of the Acts. That appeal had been backed up by opinion wholly outside the affected districts. It was not supported inside those districts, and yet the latter were the only localities which possessed any experience or knowledge of the matter. It might be in- cumbent on the affected districts to do something for themselves; but, at any rate, it was incumbent on the Government to assist them. In the course of the agitation promoted by the right hon. Member for Halifax it had been frequently urged that every town ought to look after its own immorality; but he would ask whether it was not a highly criminal act for individuals to be constantly spreading disease, knowing perfectly well what the consequences of their proceedings were? In some of the garrison towns cases of the most aggravated character had occurred; and he contended that for any individual knowingly to spread disease was a criminal act. He was of opinion, much as he respected the liberty of the subject, that the Government had a right to prevent the spread of disease by the strongest possible measures. All he wished now to urge upon the Government was that in the interests of the people they could not afford to neglect the inevitable results of the accumulating disease in the affected districts, not only on account of social and moral reasons, but for sanitary reasons also. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Halifax that the Government ought not to lend its sanction to the regulation of vice; but he thought that the ordinary laws of the country ought to be directed to a certain extent to the enforcement of those rules of morality which ought to guide the conduct of every individual. There was even more than that in the case now under consideration, and they had a right to appeal to the Government for help. At any rate, the agitation which the right hon. Member for Halifax led was not supported by the districts to which the Acts applied.

said, that, as far as the discussion had already proceeded, hardly a word had been said upon the relation of the subject to the Army. A great deal, however, had been said about the effect of the Compulsory Clauses of these Acts upon the order and morality of the towns to which the Acts originally applied; and, although the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) had said in a general way that the statistics laid upon the Table showed the enormous increase of disease that had resulted, he had not used any figures to prove the position he had taken up. He (the Marquess of Hartington) had had to deal with this subject chiefly, of course, with regard to the effects of this legislation upon the health of the Army. He had very little indeed to say on the subject of the indirect benefits supposed to follow from the operation of the Acts. He had been very much confirmed in the opinion he had previously formed that the effects of these Acts on the health of the Army were, owing to the extremely partial character of their operation, very slight, and also extremely fluctuating. That opinion was borne out by a Return which had been laid on the Table since the suspension of the Compulsory Clauses of the Acts. There had been an increase in the amount of disease since the suspension of the Acts; but he thought he would be able to show that it was not a large increase, and that it was one which might be attributable to other causes. Between the first week after the Compulsory Clauses had been suspended and the last week included in the Returns, after the suspension had been in operation for rather more than six months, the difference in the number of men admitted into hospital for this disease was very small, being only 0.86 per 1,000—that was, in a strength of 1,000 men, there were about 8–10ths of a man more admitted after the suspension had been in operation six months. The number was 3.78 before the suspension, and 4.64 six months after the Act was suspended. A similar, though smaller, increase had been going on in the 14 unprotected stations, in which there had been an increase of 0.18; there was, therefore, an increase of 0.68 due to the suspension, or a little more than half a man per 1,000 per week. The same Return showed that, during the same period, in the number of men remaining in hospital there had been an increase of 2.24 per 1,000, or two and a-fourth of a man. While there had, no doubt, been an increase since the Acts had been suspended, there had been fluctuations during their continuance quite as great. In the 14 protected stations, on the 12th of May, 1882, the ratio per 1,000 was 2.73; but in the month of September in the same year, while the Acts were in full operation, that rate had risen to 5.98, or to a larger rate than even now existed. It was, therefore, very difficult to attribute to these Acts any remarkable effect upon the health of the Army. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), conscious of the weakness of his case, had not gone into these figures, but had confined himself to the cases adduced by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He (the Marquess of Hartington) thought it was probable that, in consequence of the suspension of these Acts, the severer form of disease had increased in a somewhat greater ratio, though it was not shown to be greater by any figures, and neither himself nor the hon. Member was justified in making use of problematical or hypothetical results if the information was not absolutely before them. The hon. Member had dwelt almost entirely upon the moral effects of the administration of the Acts; but, as the hon. Member himself admitted, he (the Marquess of Hartington) had already reminded the House that with that the War Department had nothing to do. The Acts were not passed for the purpose of improving the morals of the people. Any effect which the Acts might have had in that direction had been purely incidental, and were not within the intentions of those who passed them. The Acts were passed simply and solely in the hope of improving the health of the Army and Navy, and of increasing their efficiency. He did not in the slightest degree underrate the importance of the moral considerations brought forward by the hon. Member and others, but the object of the Acts was what he had stated. If it were possible by any improvement or alteration of the law, or by granting increased powers, to secure morality, by all means let it be done, and that was the object of the Bill introduced in "another place;" but that Bill had shared the fate of a great many other measures which had been abandoned for the present Session. The moral aspect of the question could only be dealt with by special legislation; and he believed it was still the firm intention of the Home Secretary to endeavour to pass a Bill similar to that which had passed the House of Lords. Surely anything that was done in that direction ought to be done upon the responsibility of the Government, and with reference to the whole country. They discussed the question fully last year, and all he could do was to repeat the statement he had then made on behalf of the Government. He denied that the decision on the Resolution of last year was in any sense a "catch" vote; and he did not believe that if the House were to divide on the question of the Compulsory Clauses again the result would be different. He had done all in his power to warn hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of the Acts what the consequence would be. He had, therefore, felt it useless to propose a Vote for the continuance of the compulsory powers exercised by the Government under the Acts. He also believed, and, indeed, he had stated the view of the Government, that the powers conferred on the Government under the Acts were permissive, and not compulsory, and it was entirely within the discretion of Government whether they would ask Parliament to provide the necessary funds for the administration of the Acts, or allow them to remain in abeyance. As he had said before, under the powers of the Acts it was left to the local districts and the local police to exercise the powers if they thought fit. The powers of the Acts still remained, and the only thing that was in suspense was the employment of the Metropolitan Police, in regard to which it would require the action of the Government and the approval of the House in order to provide the necessary funds. He believed that the approval of the House would not be given; and, therefore, the Government had lost no time in acting upon that belief, and in withdrawing, to a great extent, the Metropolitan Police. The effect of the suspension of these Acts upon the health of the Army, as he had shown, had not been considerable, although that there had been a certain effect he did not deny. What was done last year was done with the full knowledge of Parliament—that the decision would, to a certain extent, lead to evils of this kind. Nevertheless, the House voted deliberately in favour of the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and he believed if the question were put now a majority of the House would be still of that opinion, and would remain of opinion, that even an improvement of the health of the Army was not to be accomplished at the cost of enforcing these unpopular Acts. He had not concealed, and he had not altered his opinion, that these Acts had been beneficial, and he was convinced that the moral objections which were taken to them by his right hon. Friend and those who acted with him had no solid foundation. What he had said, and what he repeated was, that so long as the operation of these Acts was partial, and was limited to a few districts, the effect must be small. It was in vain to suppose that by the limited operation of Acts such as these any considerable effect could be produced upon the health of the Army; and, looking at the question from that point of view, he must admit that he was not surprised that those who entertained very strong moral objections to the operation of these laws should contend that the results which had been obtained, or could be obtained, were not sufficient to justify the continuance of Acts which were opposed to the moral sense of a great number of people in the country. The only other object which had been referred to was the promise which had been given with regard to the introduction of a measure dealing with the subject. It was his firm intention to introduce that Bill as soon as the state of Business in the House afforded an opportunity of doing so; but that opportunity had never yet arisen, and, from circumstances which took place a few weeks ago, it appeared quite impossible to introduce the Bill, or to hope for its second reading this Session. Until, however, that Bill had been introduced, and the House had been able to discuss the principle of the Bill, he contended that the results obtained under the powers conferred by the Compulsory Clauses which had been suspended were not sufficient to warrant the rescinding of the decision of last year.

said, he had heard with great regret the intimation conveyed by the Secretary of State for War that he had not been convinced of the necessity of reviving the Compulsory Clauses of these Acts. He had always himself supported the Acts, both on the ground of reforming the persons who were unfortunately brought under them, as well as on the ground that they were for the advantage of the Army and Navy and the public generally. He had risen now because the noble Marquess, in quoting the Returns, had alluded to the Navy as well as the Army, and had included the Navy as well as the Marines. He was, therefore, anxious to say a word on the subject. He thought the noble Marquess was wrong in saying that, owing to the great increase of disease in the Navy, there had not been a serious deprivation of the services of a large number of men. Now, the Returns he had consulted put the question in such a light that he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in consequence of the Navy being deprived of the services of 12,000 men since the suspension of the Acts, it might not be necessary to increase the Naval Force, in order to render it efficient? At Page 10 of the Returns, the Secretary to the Admiralty would see that the force being the same at Portsmouth—namely, 7,000 men during the year—whereas there had only been 800 in Haslar Hospital previous to the suspension of the Acts, there were now 1,111 men in Haslar Hospital. If they took Plymouth Hospital, they would find that the average number, which was about 500, although it occasionally went down to 360, had now gone up to nearly 900. The same thing had occurred at Plymouth, where the number of men in the hospital had been increased by 133 per cent.

Per 1,000, not per 100.

said, the number had risen to 230, or 133 per 1,000. The figures showed that there were nearly 2,000 men in hospital suffering from contagious disease in the course of last year, as against 1,000 in the last year in which the Acts were in force. In other stations there had been almost a similar increase; and this terrible contrast was also to be drawn, that whereas nearly 2,500 women were admitted into certified hospitals and discharged cured, with many of them reclaimed, during last year only 720 were admitted during the period of the suspension of the Compulsory Acts. This Return was, to his mind, more convincing than anything which could have been placed upon the Table in showing the advantage of the Compulsory Clauses of the Acts. He had always supported the Acts on moral grounds, and in regard to their advantage in preserving the health and strength of Her Majesty's Forces. He trusted that the Government would take his view, and take advantage of the experiment they had themselves made to re-enact the Acts, having already ascertained the evils which resulted from suspending them. He thanked the Government for having given this information to the public, and he thought it would completely justify them in reviving the Compulsory Clauses, which had done so much for all persons concerned. He was glad the question had been raised now, as it would prevent any reference being made to it when they came to the Naval Vote. He would, however, ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty intended to add to the Naval Forces of the Crown, in order to make up for the increasing number admitted into the hospitals owing to the ravages of disease?

remarked that, although he deplored the result, yet he could not help thinking that the action which the Governmeht had taken in the matter had been forced upon them by the decision of the House, and it appeared to him that they had no alternative but to yield in the way they had done. They were now placed in the curious position of having practically suspended the operation of the Acts without substituting anything for them. It was promised, in the first instance, that a Bill would be introduced to put everything right; but there was not the slightest chance of any measure being introduced during the present Session, and they might have to wait for several Sessions before any fresh legislation took place. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) that the suspension of these Acts had been disastrous to the observance of order and decency in the streets. Juvenile prostitution was rapidly on the increase, and a large and influential deputation had waited on the Government the other day, and gave some deplorable facts as the result of the withdrawal of the Acts. They were told that the condition of women in many of these towns was most pitiable; that they were living in a state of misery and wretchedness rapidly approaching the condition they were in before the Acts were originally passed. All this misery, vice, and immorality was being brought about because the Acts were not in force. They were told that the Acts were not introduced in the interests of law and order, although, no doubt, law and order had benefited very much from their operation. They were told, also, that they were not brought forward for the benefit of the women who were principally affected by them, although they had undoubtedly received many benefits under them. Not only had they been early brought under the influence of medical treatment, but large opportunities had been afforded them of escaping from their evil courses and becoming once more respectable and reputable members of society. He maintained that the withdrawal of compulsory examinations was fatal to the efficiency of the Acts. He bore testimony to the admirable and skilful manner in which the Metropolitan Police and the doctors engaged in the administration of the Acts had carried out their duties, and the aid which the police had rendered in rescuing many girls in the streets who were trembling on the verge of vice. He stated that his firm and unalterable opinion was that in the absence of compulsory examination, the administration of these Acts must always prove a failure, and he regretted that this provision had been withdrawn.

wished at once to respond to the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), although the question the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised did not properly come under the Vote they were now dealing with. He entirely agreed with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figures which he had quoted showed a decided increase of disease at Haslar, Plymouth, and Devonport. Anyone, however, who had followed the statistics of this subject must be aware that there were most extraordinary fluctuations in the number of persons affected. He said that by way of caution, although, of course, it was to have been expected that a large increase of disease should have taken place after what had occurred last year. But his right hon. and gallant Friend stated that those Returns showed that more men in the Navy were disabled, and asked whether the Admiralty had taken any steps to supply the places of those men. The figures quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were admissions to the hospital, and not Returns of men absolutely disabled during the year. There was nothing like the diminution in the strength of the Navy which had been indicated. Instead of 1,200 men being disabled from service, the excess of loss to the Navy throughout the year had been only 110 men. That, he thought, was not a matter sufficiently serious to warrant the Admiralty in taking steps to supply the gap with fresh men. There was really no cause for any such action being necessary, although there was no difficulty whatever in finding a sufficient supply of seamen.

said, that having held a command at Aldershot for many years, he could bear testimony to the beneficial effect of these Acts, which had been very great in one respect at least—namely, in the large decrease in the number of prostitutes since the Act came into operation. Some years ago at Aldershot, before the Contagious Diseases Acts were in force, there were known to be about 400 of these women parading the streets; after the Acts came into operation, the number had decreased, he believed, to slightly under 150; since the suspension of the Compulsory Clauses, the number had increased to 350 two months ago, and it had since probably increased still further. The Contagious Diseases Acts, although many hon. Members might not be aware of the fact, did not render the trade of prostitution legal. The trade was not an offence at Common Law, and the operation of the Acts was to limit a previously existing right. He contended that the beneficial effect of the Acts was shown by the state of their great camp at Aldershot, where, as he had already pointed out, the number of prostitutes had, while they were in force, been reduced from 400 to 150. He, for one, regretted the increased facilities for prostitution now given by the non-enforcement of the Compulsory Clauses.

said, he was rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down should have described the Acts as beneficial in their operation at Aldershot. He had alluded to the reduction in the number of prostitutes. The evidence showed that in Aldershot they would have one regiment side by side with another, under equal conditions in every way—the one seriously affected with disease, the other comparatively free. Now, he doubted whether this law was likely to put the men on a better footing as regarded character. Surely there was something to be said on that question. The character of regiments had been shown to be the cause of the difference between them in respect of the amount of disease. One regiment was absolutely forgetful of decency and of the restraints of good character, when placed in the way of these temptations; while another with the same temptations avoided them. Now, with all respect to the gallant officers of regiments, might they not do more for their men? If they set the necessary example, it might be that they would do much for the reclamation of their subordinates. He had once asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in that House this Question—he wanted to know why soldiers, more than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects, were to be protected by special laws from the consequences of their acts? And he put the same question now, because he thought that this was the groundwork of the Acts, and it was that which touched the moral sense of the nation. These Acts were passed in 1866–9, while the people were unaware of what was being done. It was said that the vote of the 20th of April, 1883, which condemned them, was a "snap" vote; but he asserted it was the result of a consensus of opinion of the majority of that House. A certain number of hon. Members on the other side who were in favour of the Acts stayed away; they dared not vote for them, and they abstained from doing so. Taking the majority, then, it was a very significant fact that the House was never more representative of the voice of the nation than it was on the occasion referred to, when the Acts were curtailed. But the conversation they were having had shown that a very great improvement had taken place in the conscience of the Government Departments statistically. It was a matter for wonder how that had been secured. For long years his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had fought this battle, during which time he had been met over and over again in that House with statistics of the most convincing and overwhelming character—if reliable—from the Departments in favour of the Acts. There had also been paragraphs inserted by authority in The Times and other newspapers describing the flood of blessings which this legislation had shed upon the British Army and Navy. But they found now, by the Report of the Committee on which he had had the honour of serving, what had been the actual result during the last 14 or 15 years—a trifling saving, if even that could be accredited to the system. Now they had it on the high authority of the noble Marquess that they must not rely on this sort of figuring, and found upon it these conclusions, because he had discovered for himself that the Acts had not done much good. He and his hon. Friends congratulated themselves on having one of independent judgment to preside at the War Office. The Department of the noble Marquess had given a complete answer to his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). The noble Marquess said that even when the Acts were in force the admissions, taking occasional periods of time, had been more numerous than they were now; and therefore, he said, they could not be too cautious in making use of the statistics. The best test they had were the Returns furnished for the six months which ensued on that very decisive vote that was given on the 20th of April, 1883. It appeared that at the end of that time the admissions per week had increased by a fraction of a man per 1,000. The noble Marquess, he was aware, had dealt with another set of statistics, and had said with regard to the continuance of the men in hospital that for the same period there had been an increase of those remaining in hospital. He did not want to dwell too much upon figures; it had always been their contention that they should not be too much relied upon—at least, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) had always contended for that, and he (Mr. Hopwood) had added his protest; but they were not listened to. But this he would say, if the disease, as was alleged, had so much increased, the admissions into hospital would have increased correspondingly. But it appeared there had been little or no such increase. He had had to ask Questions also in that House with regard to the statistics from the Admiralty. The right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) had been dwelling on the Return relating to the Navy. And what had happened with regard to that branch of the Service? Ever since these Acts had been in force, certain ports had been subjected to them. Some years ago, Sir Harcourt Johnstone had moved for a Return comparing five ports in subjection with five ports not in sub jection to the Acts. Would it be believed that in making that Return the Admiralty ranked 4,000 boys as men, and with regard to the prevalence of disease, gave the benefit of that classification to the subjected districts? That had been over and over again pointed out to the Secretary to the Admiralty as vitiating the Annual Reports; but it was not until last year that the Admiralty were brought to admit that the mode of comparison was misleading. Misleading! He should say it was playing with the House of Commons; he called it making statistics to justify a false conclusion. Last year the Admiralty promised to leave it out of the Navy Report. But they had only left out a portion of it. Their attention had been called to two tables in which the same error existed, and when reproached with it they said it was no error at all; they had the hardihood to say there was no error in ranking 4,000 boys amongst men; but they added that in the next Report, as the operation of the Act had been suspended, the classification would not be presented to the House. He said that the Return in question was an unfair and; unjustifiable statement; and, as a matter of figures, he was bound to say that it shook one's confidence in all the official Returns with regard to such things. Now this matter, with regard to the Acts, was a fancy of the Heads of the Departments and of some hon. Members; and it was also a fancy thing with some in society. It was, in his opinion, dangerous that those who advocated the Acts should be trusted to prepare unchecked the statistics which they put before the House. He was not going into the whole of the wide subject that had to be dealt with. He did not think it would be in good taste, because he was exceedingly glad to hear the opinion which the noble Marquess had expressed, and to perceive that he had taken up an important position in relation to the subject. But he (Mr. Hopwood) was anxious to refer to the question of morals. The idea of the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) was that those opposed to the Acts relied on fear of disease to deter young men from a departure from virtue, but that, for his part, he advocated protection for them. He would ask the hon. Baronet whether there was any such thing as the Code of Ethics, which he would apply to the conduct of the nation? His only idea was that boys should be kept from disease; and that seemed to be his notion of morality. The idea of the Acts was that greyheaded fathers should say to their boys—"Never mind those who teach that morality is right and self-restraint is necessary; we have thrown aside all that sort of nonsense; we have passed an Act to make vice safe; listen to the teachings of the Legislature, and not of the divines." The public standard. of morality was thus altered. Some hon. Members had said that the Acts produced order in the streets. They had been challenged over and over again on that point. There was not a word in the Acts which gave a policeman power even to question loose women; and a great deal that they did under the Acts was perfectly illegal, and ought long since to have been put an end to. It was said that they produced order. In what way? The policeman was made the tutor, the conductor, and the gaoler of women diseased, and he was set over them in command. And that was called preserving order! Why, they had no power under these Acts to interfere with women from the day they were on the register, provided they came up at the prescribed times for examination. Then it was said—"You know there are a number of people who disagree with you—estimable, religious people, and so on." Of course, he granted that. But what was the explanation? He would take one or two of the clergy thus cited. One gentleman was a Roman Catholic priest, and two or three instances of clergy of different denominations had been cited. Why did clergymen like the Acts? Clergymen were, as a rule, ready, in what they deemed the cause of religion, to pass Acts of Parliament arbitrary and tyrannical; and their idea was that if frail women could be got within the net, and placed under the influence of the clergy, or under other influence which they believed to be good, the legislation would be justified; and that was what they desired to do. Accordingly, they relied upon getting women into hospitals, and upon being then able to set to work to convert them. What could be more striking than the hypocrisy of asserting, on the one hand, that their intention was to reclaim, to guide to holier influences, while, at the same time, they put women on the register, submitted them to inspection, forced them into a hospital, and then went through the mockery of introducing the chaplain to them? They did not, and naturally they could not, expect their opponents to share their sentiments in this matter. But they knew that the majority, of their countrymen would not allow these filthy Acts to be continued in any shape, not even by a Bill in the Lords, such as had been brought in for the amendment of the Criminal Law. This legislation, he was glad to say, was doomed. In 1871 a Royal Commission sat to inquire into this matter, and they arrived at the same conclusion that the House had arrived at by its vote. For more than 12 years successive Governments had gone on, in the face of their advisers, imbuing the population with the filth of this legislation, and in spite of the strong efforts made against it. Would they go on in this way? It struck him that their masters would take care they did not, and they would not need a strong appeal to make them come to that conclusion.

said, he did not think the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had much mended his case by what he had said that night. He had not offered what could be called a strong defence of the course which Her Majesty's Government had thought proper to take in this case. He was obliged to join issue with the noble Marquess on one point—namely, that these Acts were originally passed for the benefit of the Army and Navy alone. It was quite true that that was the principal ground of policy on which the Acts were introduced; but at the time that they were carried, there were many Members, amongst whom was himself, who supported the measure as being in the interest of unfortunate women, and who, touched with pity at the miserable condition to which those unfortunates were reduced, were determined to do all that might be in their power to rescue them from the state of degradation into which they had fallen. That had been his motive for supporting the Acts when they were introduced into the House of Commons; and it was perfectly well known that there were many other Members whose motives at the time were the same. The noble Marquess had referred to the Returns of the Army; but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was bound to say that they were not satisfactory Returns to him in any way. They only came down to the end of last year, when the actual effect of the suspension of the Acts was not plainly visible; and he could not agree with the conclusions which the noble Marquess had drawn from them, for even in the short period referred to of the year 1883, while in the protected stations the average strength was 39,100, there were 6,960 admissions; whereas in the previous year, when there were 40,900 men, there were 5,927 admissions. There was, therefore, upon the noble Marquess's Return, a difference of 1,000 as between the two years. That he regarded as a very considerable amount; and so far as his own information, obtained from general officers, went, and as the result of his own observations, he believed that a great deficiency had occurred in the effective ranks of the Army owing to the suspension of the Acts; and he expected that the next Returns, when brought out, would show a still further diminution in the general efficiency of the Forces. Moreover, the noble Marquess, in this curiously-constructed Return, had not given the various forms of disease; the more severe and the lighter forms were jumbled together; and they were entitled to know whether there had been any increase in the former.

The Returns of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) are on the Table, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had objected to them, the form could have been amended.

That was for the noble Marquess to do, so far as the Army Estimates were concerned. But he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had suggested to his hon. Friend the addition with regard to admissions of women into hospital, and he should also have to refer to that subject again, and bring to bear upon it figures that were absolutely reliable. He was bound to say that Her Majesty's Government had shown great vacillation and inconsistency—that would not be denied—in this matter, because if the Acts were bad they ought to have dealt with them a long time ago. Why had they been allowed to continue in force for 17 years? He remembered the time at which there were very strong local objections to the Acts, but one by one they had fallen off; and now they were told, and most truly, what no one in the House would deny—that in the subjected districts the Acts were most popular, and that there was a strong desire on the part of the majority of the populations there that their provisions should be revised. Then he came to the next point—what was now the policy of Her Majesty's Government? First of all, they had introduced the Detention in Hospitals Bill, which had been practically withdrawn; then, in answer to a deputation the other day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that a remedy in the shape of a Criminal Law Amendment Bill would be forthcoming; but the noble Marquess knew well that that Bill never had the slightest chance of passing in that House, for it was objected to not only by those who shared his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) views, but also by hon. Members below the Gangway opposed to the Acts, and denounced by publications which represented their particular views. It was the general opinion that the Bill never had the least chance of success—certainly not this Session; and, from the nature of the Business which the House would have before it next Session, he did not think there was much likelihood then of its passing, or even being considered. Therefore, he felt justified in making charges of vacillation and inconsistency against Her Majesty's Government on account of their having suspended these useful Acts, and in having proposed one measure which they had not carried forward, and then in having put forward another which was not likely to become law. The result of this vacillation and inconsistency had been, as was generally the case with the policy of the Government in reference to most questions, disaster; at all events, it had proved disastrous to the unfortunate women whom he, for one, desired to be protected by the Acts. Now, if prostitution were not abolished—and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who represented the views of the Repeal Association on the Committee, had ever proposed to abolish it, or make it crimi- nal for a woman to carry on the trade of a prostitute—how were these women to be relieved? They could not be got into hospitals of their own free will; he should be able to show that nothing of the kind could be done. The country had an excellent law on this subject; it had been suspended, and nothing substituted for it; the Government had found order existing, and replaced it by chaos. He had taken some trouble to investigate this matter by the light of what had occurred at the London Lock Hospital, to which he had been for many years a subscriber; he had personally attended upon the House Surgeon and the Secretary, and obtained some statistics which perhaps the noble Marquess might place upon the Table as a Parliamentary Return, for they were very interesting statistics with regard to the condition of women in the hospital. Well, then, in the London Lock Hospital, comparing the year ending on the 30th of June, 1882, with the year ending on the 30th of June, 1884, the total number admitted on the Government side was 464 in the former period; whereas, in the latter, the number had fallen to 207; and the number of cases of gonorrhea, which in 1882 was 183, had dropped to 20. Constitutional or secondary syphilis had risen from 33 per cent to 55 per cent, and the average duration of treatment had extended from 23.31 to 52 days.

The average duration in the Royal Albert Hospital has risen from 30 days to 60 days.

said, the figures he had quoted showed that while there was the enormous reduction from 464 in 1882 to 207 in 1884, the percentage of cases of constitutional syphilis had risen from 33 to 55. He had a letter from the House Surgeon of the Lock Hospital, who, in forwarding the Return to which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had just referred, said—

"While the number of women relieved has enormously decreased, the disease under which they suffer is of a very aggravated kind."

He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would now take the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to the Chatham Hospital. Miss Webb, writing from Chatham on July 4, 1884, said—

"In answer to your letter received to-day, I consider we may say we are, since the suspension of the police, in about the same position as before 1870; therefore, a fair comparison should date within a short time of that period and now. The admissions to this Hospital, from July 1, 1871, to July 1, 1872, were 614. The number of beds usually occupied, 60 to 68; on one occasion, 73. Detention in hospital, 28.35 days. Owing to the benefits conferred by the 'C. D. Acts' in their entirety the numbers of admissions decreased, and from July 1, 1881, to July 1, 1882, they were 474. The number of beds occupied, 26 to 30. Detention in hospital, 24.58 days. On the suspension of the police, Shorncliffe Hospital was closed, and the patients of that district are received at this Hospital. With that addition, the number of admissions from July 1, 1883, to July 1, 1884, have been 154. The number of beds occupied, 13 to 26; on one occasion, 30. Number now in hospital 20, three of whom have been under treatment for more than seven months, and are still too ill to be discharged, and two came in two days ago likely to want as long treatment; few are able to be discharged under three or four months in the present state of things."

That was the result of the suspension of the Contagious Diseases Acts. In the Chatham Hospital, also, the number of admissions had fallen very much; but the diseases under which the unfortunate women suffered were of a very aggravated kind. Miss Webb also told him that 53 out of the 75 admissions during the last six months were very bad cases of secondary disease, and more of such cases were being admitted. He had a further letter from a gentleman who was well acquainted with the matter. His correspondent wrote—

"You may be assured that the reports you received yesterday from the House Surgeon at the London Lock Hospital, as to the relatively greater number and the increased severity of the cases of secondary syphilis are precisely what you would receive at all the certificated Lock Hospitals. What is worse, at Portsmouth and Davenport especially there are now a much greater number of very young girls between 17 and 20 than there were formerly, many of these affected with the worse forms of syphilis, and the statements made by them in hospital confirm the belief that there must be large numbers of young girls on the streets infected with the most virulent type of syphilis. They will not seek admission until compelled to do so by the severity of their sufferings, and the cases are necessarily much longer under treatment."

These were the results which were always prophesied by the supporters of the Acts. The witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee stated over and over again that women would not go into hospital until they were compelled, or if they did they went in too late and came out too early. It seemed to him that if ever the female sex had been misused, they had been misused by the policy adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had always endeavoured to befriend the women. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) laughed; but did he think it right that these poor unfortunate women should not be admitted to hospital; did he think it right they should be allowed to rot and starve in the streets? Was the right hon. Gentleman a subscriber to the Lock Hospital? No, Sir. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) a subscriber to the Lock Hospital? No. They considered it wrong to subscribe to such a place; but it was a great pity they did not visit the hospitals, and see what a great advantage they were to the unfortunate sex whose cause they claimed to espouse. There was a Society opposed to the Acts called the Rescue Society, the Secretary of which was called as a witness before the Committee. The Society had a very limited operation, and one of the pieces of information which the Secretary gave them was that they never, on any consideration, in these later times took in a woman who came from a subjected district. This was an instance of the Christian charity on the part of the Rescue Society; this Society declined to have anything to do with any abandoned woman who had come from where the Acts were in force. He had only that morning received a further letter from Miss Webb, and it was so interesting that he did not hesitate to read it to the Committee. Writing on July 25, 1884, Miss Webb said—

"I have so lately sent you statistics of the number of women who have passed through this hospital at different periods, that I will now only add, what has been brought to my notice lately, by ladies who devote their time to 'rescue work' in these towns; they tell me the state of the place with regard to immorality, is worse than they have ever known it, and two clergymen who I met a few days since, told me they had never known such a sad state of things in all their experience, as it has become since the suspension of the 'C. D. A.' police. I have been asked to help to trace girls gone astray, which I could have done easily when the Acts were in force, but am now powerless. Only two days ago two ladies came to me about a child, not quite nine running about barracks in danger of harm; her mother being in here. Had the 'C. D. A.' police been on duty, that child and many quite as young would have been placed out of danger. I am aware this has been fully represented by the deputations in favour of the 'C. D. A.,' and I am also aware that one argument is that 'rescue work' was not the intention of the Acts, but only incidental. Granted. Take it on sanitary grounds. There are only 20 women in hospital, and that from eight towns, with a radius of 10 miles round each, under (we can no longer say protected by) the 'C. D. Acts.' Though I came here solely for the purpose of trying to reform the poor women brought under the 'C. D. A.,' a time has come when the exigencies of the case require I should speak plainly, however painful to myself. The argument that women are injured by these Acts, I, after 14 years' experience, pronounce absurd. These unfortunates make a trade of their passions. Should the Police be restored (which is much to be desired) I would like a clause added to the Acts—namely, that once a doctor has pronounced a woman must be received into hospital, the police should not lose sight of her, on the plea that she' wants to lock up her house, 'etc., etc. Numbers have come in after, semi-intoxicated, and boasted to their companions of the mischief they knew they had done in the two or three hours so gained of liberty. Should such creatures—I cannot call them women—be allowed to go on unrestrained?"

That was the experience of everybody who had had to do with the Acts, and certainly it was his experience of the evidence which was given before the Committee. He was not aware that any witnesses thoroughly acquainted with the working of the hospitals had been brought to contradict the evidence which was given by the persons practically acquainted with the working of the Acts. In fact, almost all the witnesses who were produced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) were witnesses who, when pressed, said the real fact was they knew nothing about the matter. That being so, what answer had been given to the statements of the supporters of the Acts? What was to be said on behalf of those who would deny to these poor women the great benefits they had received from the Lock Hospitals? It was the old argument of superstition which was really at the bottom of the opposition to these Acts—namely, that these diseases were God-made punishments. Such an argument had been repeated to him over and over again at the time of a Parliamentary Election. He attended a meeting at Exeter Hall not long ago. He heard the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) make a speech; but he was bound to say that a more superstitious speech he never heard. It was so superstitious that even the audience objected to it. It was argued at the meeting that it was an offence against religion and morality to relieve the sufferings of these unfortunate women. Was that Christian charity? If so, it was not charity he (Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck) cared to practice. He was glad reference had been made to a certain Memorial to the Prime Minister against the Acts. He found, however, that most of the signatures to the Memorial were those of members of Radical Clubs, Trades Unions, and other similar Societies, who for some years had taken an objection to the Acts; but he could not exactly understand why. One of the paragraphs of the Memorial was to the effect that the tendencies of this legislation was to force women into the hands of irresponsible officers. He denied that a policeman was an irresponsible officer, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would not say, as a lawyer, that a police officer was an irresponsible person. A policeman was responsible to his superior and to the authorities. If ever there had been a case of misconduct brought against a policeman—no case had as yet been brought—he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had not the slightest doubt the man would have been punished. Another paragraph of the Memorial was to the effect that the power given by the Act was abused. A more untrue statement was never made, and he was surprised to see amongst the signatures to the document that of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). The hon. Member had before him all the evidence given before the Committee, and, therefore, it was surprising he should have neglected to examine that evidence before he signed a document which contained statements so deliberately false as the one to which (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had called attention. As hon. Members knew perfectly well, there was no instance in which virtuous young women had been hurried into a life of prostitution by the action of the police, as was alleged in the Memorial. If there had been such a case it would have been brought before the Committee, and its merits would have been adjudicated upon by the Committee. Another basis for opposition to the Acts was that of intolerance and prejudice. It was a most surprising thing that so few Scotch Members supported the Acts. He did not know what had become of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who used to defend the Acts so energetically; but he knew that the right hon. Gentleman was still a strong advocate of the Acts, and he also remembered that, not long since, a most able speech was made in the House by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Major General Alexander)—who he regretted not to see in his place—in answer to another very powerful speech against the repeal of the Acts. No doubt, considerable Parliamentary pressure had been put upon Scotch Members to induce them not to vote and speak in support of the Acts. That was one of the reasons why he had always advocated secret voting in the House on occasions of this kind. Under such a system they would really get at the true opinions of Members, because Members would not be afraid of an adverse vote at the next Election. How was it, he repeated, that the Government had allowed the Acts to continue in operation for 16 years without taking any action? Why, last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed his Resolution, the Government did not make up their minds until the eleventh hour as to which way they would go. The House were always led to suppose that, as three Heads of Departments—the Home Secretary, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who represented the Government on the Committee—were in favour of the Acts, the Members of the Government would vote for them; but, at the last moment, the majority were found going the other way. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government appeared to have given the word of command that the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) were to prevail, so the Government support melted away like wax, and a vote adverse to the Acts was taken. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could not congratulate the Government on the course they then took. He thought it was their duty, if they meant to oppose the Acts, to have used their influence, and not to have led hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to absent themselves, as many did, in the belief that, as this was a Government question taken on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, there was no need for them to come down to vote. He could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could reconcile the position he had taken up upon this question; because the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Acts were passed, allowed the money to be voted for the purpose of carrying out the Acts, supported the Acts all along, and then absented himself on the occasion of the memorable Division on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). If hon. Members looked at the Petitions which had been presented against the Acts they would find that almost everyone of them sprang from one class of society; they came principally from the Dissenting or Nonconformist Bodies of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had already said that the Nonconformist or Dissenting Bodies of the country were the backbone of the Liberal Party. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thought it was probably in the desire to keep that backbone in its right position that the extraordinary move or vote against the Contagious Diseases Acts was taken last year. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had announced a more distinct and straightforward policy upon this question; because then supporters of the Acts would have had a better opportunity of holding their own. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had said that some ladies demanded a repeal of the Acts. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) attended a meeting at Exeter Hall, and the right hon. Gentleman was present. It was called a religious meeting; but with the exception of a ceremony which occasionally took place at Naples, he thought he never saw any performance which ought more properly to be called rank superstition. There were at that meeting a certain number of half-crazy women—some in the pulpit, some on the ground, and they were preaching and praying and singing. So far as he could see, there was no reason why they should not pray and preach and sing any more than he saw any reason why people should not believe in the liquefaction of the blood of Saint Januarius. Belief in the latter would do no harm, whereas the preaching, praying, and screaming which went on at Exeter Hall did a great deal of harm, because, not only was the health of the Army impaired, but as he had already shown—and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not in his place when he was reading the statistics—the admissions of unfortunate women to the Lock Hospitals had been reduced by something like three-fourths; while the severity of the disease from which they suffered had been more than doubled. He presumed that result made no effect upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman cared not whether the women suffered or not, so long as he could keep his Party together and occupy a seat on the Treasury Bench—the unfortunate creatures might rot in the streets and perish without any commiseration on his part. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had in his possession the copy of a letter written by the Prime Minister to one of the principal performers on the occasion referred to at Exeter Hall. The letter was as follows:—

"10, Downing Street, Whitehall, June 20.

"Dear Mrs. Butler,—I am directed by the Prime Minister to acknowledge the receipt of the Memorial forwarded to him by you praying for the total repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. We need hardly assure you that the Government are sensible of its weight; and that, having advisedly adopted a Resolution on the subject, they intend to act to the best of their ability in the spirit of it. I remain, dear Mrs. Butler, yours faithfully, Herbert J. Gladstone."

Now, was that the Resolution which had been now advisedly adopted, or was it advisedly adopted last year when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was absent, or had it been adopted since? He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's policy was embodied in the Detention in Hospitals Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill? He would like to know, also, whether the Government meant to stick hard and fast by those two measures, and to pass them, if ever a Session came round in which they could pass them? It was said that there were many important members of society who were opposed to the Acts. He had been told that certain Bishops were opposed to the Acts. One Bishop he heard make a speech at Exeter Hall, but the right rev. Prelate knew very little about the subject indeed; he appeared to have never troubled himself at all to understand the alphabet of the subject. His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) impression was that a number of very excellent people did not take the least pains to acquaint themselves with the details of the case, but were too apt to rely on any wild statements they heard. No less a person than the Secretary to the Post Office, Mr. Stevenson Blackwood, presided at a meeting held at Exeter Hall this year on this subject, and he made one statement so astounding and so absolutely incorrect that he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) felt it his duty to call the attention of the Home Secretary to it. Mr. Stevenson Blackwood said—

"As citizens of a free country, we denounce and oppose the Acts, because they are a gross and violent outrage upon the liberty of the subject, and that, too, upon the liberty of the weaker and most defenceless portion of the population, whom they hand over to the mercies of the spy police and the danger of imprisonment without trial."

[Mr. SAMUEL SMITH: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would ask the hon. Member not to cheer too soon. And then Mr. Stevenson Blackwood went on to say that the Acts must be demoralizing to the agents who enforced them; for there were people ready to put money into the hands of the spy police to send women to hospital. It was an official of the Post Office who made this misleading statement; and when he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) called him to account for it, what did the Committee think was his excuse?—

"Oh, I did not refer to the police under the control of the Home Secretary—not to the Metropolitan Police—I referred to something that was done many years ago in Hong Kong."

Mr. Stevenson Blackwood was very angry with him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) afterwards, because he did not admit the excuse, and because he said he (Mr. Stevenson Blackwood) had no right to make such a statement to the superstitious and ignorant people who composed his audience at Exeter Hall. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not think it right to call any Member of Parliament ignorant, and therefore he would not say the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) was ignorant, but that the hon. Member was superstitious, and that his superstition forbade him to examine the law. The hon. Member evidently had not in- structed himself in law, or else he would have been aware that no woman could be imprisoned under the Acts without trial. But as to the statement about Hong Kong. If Mr. Stevenson Blackwood meant Hong Kong, why did he not say so? It was all very well to make a misleading statement to a number of ladies gathered together in Exeter Hall, and then withdraw it in a letter which, probably, very few persons saw—a letter printed in an obscure corner of a newspaper. Mr. Wheeler, of Rochester, afforded an instance of the same sort of thing. He did not wish to call anyone bad names; but Mr. Wheeler, who had said there were hundreds of cases of forcible imprisonment—who had repeated the statement in lying leaflets—while he was unable to show even one such case, pretended to describe them. Wheeler was a contemptible person; but he thought it was highly improper for an official holding one of the highest positions in the Service to take the chair at a meeting of this sort at Exeter Hall, and make such grossly misleading and untrue statements. If persons of that position committed themselves in such a way, it was not surprising that persons of an inferior class of society should allow themselves to be deluded. In fact, he himself knew of two cases in which ladies, having been told that Mr. Blackwood had made these statements, said they must be true, for nothing he said could be untrue. This gentleman held a leading position in some places as a preacher, and, he believed, was highly moral and virtuous; but, virtuous and moral and distinguished as he might be as a preacher, he had no right to preside at a meeting at Exeter Hall and give utterance to untrue statements that could not be supported in any way whatever. He felt very grateful to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) for having brought this matter before the Committee, for that was the only chance there had been that Session of discussing the subject. The discussion, he was sure, had been very whole-some and useful, for it had shown that no argument could be advanced in favour of the policy of the Government except the misleading Returns produced by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. He had had paper after paper sent to him by writers employed by the Society saying how misleading those Returns were, especially by their principal statistician. Therefore, he did not think it could be denied that the Returns were misleading. He had always supported these Acts, with a view to the relief of these unfortunate women. They had obtained relief while the Acts were in force, but since the Acts had been suspended, the reverse had been the case, and it was impossible to consider that the action of the Government had. been either for the public good or for the advantage of these unfortunate women.

I do not propose to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman at any length or in detail through the points of his very discursive speech. It does not seem to me that I am called upon to do so, and if not it would be a waste of the time of the Committee to do so, the Committee being desirous of proceeding with the Business before them. But there is one statement of the right bon. and learned Gentleman to which I must refer, and that is his statement involving an attack on the truthfulness of Mr. Stevenson Blackwood. Now, Mr. Blackwood is a gentleman well known to a great many Members of this House—well known to Gentlemen who sit on these Benches, and to Members who sit on the opposite Benches; and I will undertake to say that there is no man who has ever met Mr. Blackwood in official relationship, or who has ever met him in public, or private, or social relationship who does not entertain the very highest opinion of the character and the truthfulness and accuracy of the man. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said of Mr. Blackwood that he made a statement, as chairman of a meeting, which was grossly misleading and untrue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a correspondence with Mr. Blackwood, which I have seen, and now I say to the Committee that it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is guilty of misrepresentation, and that he has misrepresented to this Committee of the House of Commons the words and actions of Mr. Blackwood as explained by that Gentleman in letters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received.

I referred to a statement made at the meeting.

I will prove my statement, I think, to the satisfaction of the Committee. The purport of the argument and the insinuation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that Mr. Blackwood, trading on the supposed ignorance of his audience, induced them to believe that in this country there existed a system of enabling spy police to lead people to offend against the law. I absolutely deny the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That meeting was called to protest not only against the Contagious Diseases Acts in this country, but against the system of which these Acts are the expression as far as this country is concerned; and one of the Resolutions passed by that meeting referred not only to the Contagious Diseases Acts, but to the system as administered in Hong Kong. I undertake to say that that vast meeting had every reason to understand, and that the vast majority did accurately understand, Mr. Blackwood to refer not to the state of things in this country, but to the possibilities of such principles and such a system as illustrated by the Acts in force in Hong Kong. That was the explanation given by Mr. Blackwood to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not deal with Mr. Blackwood as we deal with each other as Members of this House; and I want to know what right he has to not treat Mr. Blackwood as his equal, and as the equal of any man on the Benches of this House. Those who know him know there is no truer gentleman or more honourable man in this country than Mr. Blackwood, and I, for one, am proud of' the privilege of being able to call him my friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sneers at Mr. Blackwood as a religious man; but that is one of the attributes of Mr. Blackwood most to be respected and venerated. Whether a false impression was produced on the mind of the meeting or not—and I do not believe that was so—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the distinct declaration of Mr. Blackwood that he referred not to England, but to Hong Kong; and I think it would have better become him, knowing the character of Mr. Blackwood, if he had in a frank and manly manner accepted that explana- tion. I have another reason for wishing to occupy the Committee for a short time to-night, and it is this: I, for one, cannot but feel highly satisfied with the course of this discussion. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, it is true, said that he had never agreed with the arguments I have brought forward from time to time to demonstrate, as I thought, the immoral tendency of the Contagious Diseases Acts; but I need not quarrel with my noble Friend for that difference of opinion, because he absolutely testified to the correctness of the arguments I have been advancing for so many years with reference to the hygienic basis of these Acts. My noble Friend remains of opinion that if these Acts could be applied universally they would be of great benefit; but he says that as they are only applied to certain exceptional districts their effect is slight and fluctuating, and hence not very beneficial. If there is no sufficient hygienic argument to advance in support of these Acts, they are lost beyond any possibility of support. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) and other Members have referred to a certain Return; but I wish to say for myself that, so far as I am concerned, I take the authority of the Government as the highest authority upon this question of hygiene; and when we find Her Majesty's Government, in the Reports of the officials concerned in the administration of these Acts, admitting, as my noble Friend has frankly admitted, and as the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has also admitted, that their operation has not been of such hygienic value as to justify their retention, I am determined, in future, to take my stand upon that admission on the responsibility of the Government, and I do not feel myself compelled to occupy the time of the Committee by discussing statistics brought forward on the spur of the moment, perhaps privately obtained, and which it would be impossible to discuss. But there is another point upon which I must say a word. The hon. Member for Devonport seemed to think that because I ejaculated across the floor of the House an expression of difference of opinion, I gave him or some other hon. Gentleman the lie. He accepted my explanation that I had no such intention; but I do say this—that I absolutely dis- believe the accuracy of the views represented and believed in by himself and those other hon. Gentlemen. My hon. Friend referred to a deputation to the Home Secretary. He said truly that that deputation consisted largely of magistrates, and that their statements were of a very serious nature. They were of a very serious nature, and I have had a report of that deputation, and I find that the statement of the Memorial was no less serious than this—that the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police, by whom the Acts were carried out, had conduced to most disastrous effects, which were seen in an increase in prostitution; especially in juvenile prostitution; in more reckless conduct of prostitutes in the streets; in an increase of disease, and in its more virulent character. That was the very serious statement made by the deputation; but the attention of the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe was shortly afterwards drawn by two of our Associations interested in the repeal of these Acts to statements which he was said to have made, and I have a letter from him in reply. This letter was addressed to the Secretary of the National Association, and he wrote another to another Association, which I also have. He says—

"I have to acknowledge your letter of the 25th instant, referring to my remarks in introducing the deputation to the Home Secretary, in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts. In reply, I have to say that I was unexpectedly called upon to introduce the deputation, and while commenting on the statements made in the Memorial, I distinctly stated that I myself had no personal knowledge of the facts, which others who were present would be able to confirm."

Therefore, so far as the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe was concerned, it is perfectly clear that, as spokesman of the deputation, he relied on the statements of the deputation, and had no personal knowledge of the matter. Then the hon. Member for Devonport referred to the fact that a great many Members of that deputation were magistrates. I have something to say upon that question. If they were magistrates, they ought to have known the law, and as magistrates, it was their duty to enforce the law; and the magistrates and mayors of England would surely have command over the local police. It is absolutely undeniable that, if you want to preserve order in the public streets, you must have recourse to the general law, and not to the Contagious Diseases Acts, because they contain no powers for the preservation of order; and, therefore, when this deputation went to the Home Secretary, and entreated him to restore these Acts, and maintained that the suspension of the Acts had increased disorder, they were condemning themselves, because the law still exists which alone is necessary for the purpose of preserving order. No law has been repealed or suspended by which order could be maintained at all; and if these magistrates have not carried out the law the responsibility and fault are theirs. Then as to the facts. The hon. Member cited the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Plymouth; but I will cite the Mayor of Devonport for last year. He is a medical man, and when he had retired last year, and heard these statements by the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe and others, he denied that there had been any increase of disorder in Devonport, and maintained that there had been no such increase in consequence of the suspension of these Acts. I have been very much accustomed, during the many years in which we have been discussing this subject, to find gentlemen who desired to uphold these Acts glad to receive and rely upon evidence from the police. The police have always been held up to me as great authorities; but what say the police? The chiefs of the police of Plymouth and Devonport contradict every statement made by the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe and other members of this deputation, and I have their views on record. I have first to quote an extract from The Western Daily Mercury, of June 5, that being the Report of the Chief Constable of Plymouth contradicting the statement of increased disorder since the suspension of the Acts. Referring to a statement made at the Local Board of Guardians' meeting, that, since the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, there had been an increase of prostitution, he says—

"I am in a position most confidently to state that such is not the case. There are, in fact, fewer brothels and fewer prostitutes in the town than there were 12 months ago. Neither has juvenile prostitution nor disorder in the streets increased, as is so often stated; and as regards the street more particularly referred to—Summerland Place—there are at present only five brothels, and fewer prostitutes than there were two or three years ago. I and those under my command are ever ready and willing to undertake such prosecutions when taken in the interest of order and morality, and I fearlessly assert that, taking into consideration the large number of people who frequent our streets at night, the streets of Plymouth are as free from disorder as any town of the same size in America or in this country."

That is the evidence of the Chief Constable of Plymouth. Then I have the evidence of the Chief Constable of Devonport. What he says on the 11th of June is this—as to the virulence of the disease he would say nothing; but—

"As to the increase of juvenile prostitution and disorder in the streets, I must emphatically say that that is not the case in Devonport. Some time ago the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe made a similar statement; but then it was contradicted. Unfortunately, he had not seen the statistics of the town, and it must he in the knowledge of every magistrate in Devonport that there was a marked decrease in the number of loose women brought before them."

The Chief Constable adds—

"There is a wonderful decrease of prostitution, and as to disturbances in the streets, I emphatically contradict the statement of the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe."

That, at any rate, shows that there are two sides to the question, and that I am as much entitled to rely upon these statements as the hon. Gentleman is to rely on the statements he has laid before the Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to differ in toto from his view. The only other word I would say is this—I would like to get my hon. Friend, and some others who have been accustomed to argue that these Acts were very beneficial in reducing disease, and in promoting order and decency, and so forth, to turn back to the Resolution of April 20, last year, to see what it meant and what it has effected. That Resolution simply expressed, in a manner which was unquestionable, and which I think could not be reversed, the deep feeling and conviction of the majority of the House of Commons against the system of compulsory examination of women for the purposes of these Acts. Now, Her Majesty's Government, not able, I believe, to repeal these Acts at the time, and substitute what other legislation they might think necessary, in the exercise of their discretion and judgment, suspended their operation as far as they were, by that Resolution, bound to do. What, therefore, the Government have done is this—they have not with- drawn the police; they have only withdrawn a portion of the police; and the only thing they have stopped is the system of the compulsory examination of women; and what I want to point out is that, if nothing will satisfy hon. Gentlemen but harping upon these Acts, and entreating the Government to go back upon the Acts—which neither this nor any future Government will, I believe, be at all likely to do—the position in which they place themselves will be this—that the compulsory examination of women is not only the best, but the only method which they deem is possible to carry out their views. How can they justify a contention of that kind? So far as hygiene is concerned, we have it on the best medical authority that the effect of these Acts is trivial. So far as order and decency are concerned, they cannot deny that the Acts have done nothing enabling the authorities to preserve order. If they think that the deterrent influence of the system of compulsory examination is the only method of preventing juvenile prostitution, then I beg to say that they are extremely mistaken in point of fact. I deny, as a matter of fact, that juvenile prostitution has increased, and I have given the evidence of the Chief Constables of Plymouth and Devonport to support my case. But I would ask them to take the example afforded by Glasgow, where compulsion has become impossible. Let us accept the alternative of freedom and persuasion; let us strive to make our Army sober and moral, and so to diminish the causes of prostitution. Let us do what we can to save the young, and redeem those who have fallen. That can be done independently of the system of compulsory examination of women, which is odious to the hearts and minds of all people who have given consideration to this subject. I do not believe there is a man who has brought himself to the idea that compulsory examination was necessary, without beginning by disliking it. It is repugnant to every mind. Do not let us, then, despair. Do not let us be so impotent as to imagine that there is no other method of diminishing disease and enforcing order and decency in the streets, and checking prostitution. Do not let us, for a moment, be so feeble as to slip into the foolish conception that there is only one nostrum and method, and that is compulsory examination. I am profoundly con- vinced—and there is, perhaps, no man living who has given so much attention to this subject in all its aspects as I have—that when these Acts have been repealed, and are dead and buried, and when we have ceased to hanker after them; when, in consequence, you have given yourselves to the only other policy of non-compulsion and freedom, education and moral persuasion, charitable hospitals and medical assistance to the diseased of both sexes—I am strongly and completely convinced that you will then arrive at results in the reduction of disease, and vice, and disorder in the streets greater than any you can obtain by such methods as these Acts.

said, he did not desire to trouble the Committee with a speech on this subject; but he wished to make one or two observations, because he had been taunted by the right hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) with belonging to a superstitious sect. He did not believe that any good whatever could come from a bad principle, and that was the reason why he objected to these Acts. He hoped the House would never be led by any sophistry into believing that any benefit would ever be derived from legislation that was contrary to the laws of morality. He trusted that the Government would not desist from the course they were now taking, but that they would adhere firmly to the decision of the House of Commons last year.

said, he was sorry to see the Government in this position. All the responsible Heads of the Departments most interested knew that these Acts were absolutely essential for the promotion of the health of their soldiers and sailors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, who had formerly a strong prejudice and leaning against them, had been converted, and now took a favourable view of them, simply from hearing the evidence before the Committee over which he had presided.

remarked that he was not Chairman of the Committee.