CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 116.]—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 April 1866)

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that two years ago he opposed the Bill brought forward by the Government, because while that measure ministered to vice, it made no provision for the reclamation of the unfortunate women who were to be made subject to the operation of the Act. He was glad to find that the Government had profited by his advice, and that many of those unfortunate women hail been reclaimed and restored to their friends. He objected, however, strongly to the appointment of stipendiary officers, who were by this measure to grant certificates of health to immoral women, and thus to sanction and promote the practices of debauchery in the towns which wore to be favoured by the protection afforded by the Act, among which he noticed were the names of Windsor and Eton. He attributed the present measure entirely to the action of the medical officers of the army and navy, who strongly objected to the present mode of inspection. He proposed to amend the clause which related to women submitting themselves voluntarily to periodical medical examination by requiring them to make a declaration that they were persons which the law recognizes only to punish.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he should decline to follow the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who appeared to be ignorant of the care taken to preserve the health of the men in both services. He protested against the statement that there was anything in the Bill which could be tortured to mean that women were to be certificated.

MR. HENLEY
seriously asked the Home Secretary why the Bill, which was very different from the last, was not to be general in its application? If it was to be extended to Windsor, why not to Westminster? [Sir GEORGE GREY: There are troops at Windsor.] There were troops in Westminster, which also contained a public school, and he asked for a certain explanation.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the only question for the Committee was, whether the existence of disease in the services justified exceptional legislation, that the Bill applied to places where either of the services constituted a considerable portion 2178 of the population, that a radius of five miles was necessary to prevent such evasion as might be practised otherwise by those living in the villages that surrounded Aldershot, and that the five mile radius did not apply to Woolwich, because it would include a large portion of London.

MR. HENLEY
instanced Staines and Egham as within five miles of Windsor, and not containing soldiers or sailors.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, he had understood that the Bill was not to be publicly discussed—a decision which would not have been creditable to the modesty or common sense of the House. He had understood that it was to be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had made statements which ought not to be allowed to go uncontradicted. It must be clear to everyone that the effect of the operation of the Bill would be to diminish expenditure considerably by reducing the number of men in hospital.

MR. OTWAY
expressed a hope that the police of those boroughs to which the Bill applied would be ordered to exercise extreme caution; and that any laxity on their part would be visited with the severest punishment.