HC Deb 22 May 1878 vol 240 cc474-90

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. HOPWOOD

Mr. Speaker, I have a Petition to present from certain Ministers of the Church of England, and of various Denominations in Portsmouth, calling attention to statements made in the Report of the police charged with carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts in that town, and the surrounding district. The Petitioners allege that the police have stated in their Report that only 11 prostitutes under the age of 17 are to be found in those places, and that there is only a gross total of 530 of all ages plying their avocation therein. To that statement the Petitioners desire to give their unqualified denial, and to state that, in their view, the Contagious Diseases Acts have a debasing and hardening effect on the women who are submitted to their operation, and they pray that the House will forthwith repeal those Acts.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE,

in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House—

MR. CHILDERS

Before the hon. Baronet addresses the House, perhaps I may be allowed to interpose by presenting a somewhat remarkable series of Petitions, with which I have been entrusted, on the subject of this Bill. These Petitions, Sir, are exactly 100 in number, and in them are embodied the views of gentlemen of all kinds of professions. They are signed by 446 clergymen resident in London, by the Cardinal Archbishop, and 116 of the Roman Catholic clergy; by 109 resident members of the Colleges in Oxford, by the Provost and Fellows of Eton, by Professors and others at Cambridge, by 303 barristers-at-law, by medical officers of health, by surgeons, and by other professional men in the country; and their prayer is, that the law may be so amended that a wilful communication of contagious disease may be met by penal consequences.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

I can assure the House that it was not from any want of interest in the subject, or lack of conviction as to the objectionable nature of the Acts we are now to discuss, that I refrained last year from bringing the matter under the attention of the House. The attention of those outside the House is steadily increasing with regard to the subject. I am aware that it has been stated that it is easy to manufacture Petitions; but it is evident that the Petition which I have had the honour to present from nearly 114,000 women, does to a great extent testify to the increasing interest taken in the subject, not only by the lower classes in the country, but by those who are in a position above them. The Petition is signed by such ladies as Miss Florence Nightingale, Mrs. Grote, and Mrs. Butler; and, although it may be the fashion of this House to sneer at those women who have deliberately put themselves in a position very painful often to themselves and their relatives, I am bound to say that I consider the extreme necessity of repealing the Acts justifies the line of conduct they have taken. I feel now, that as time is limited, it is impossible for us to expect a full discussion or a division on this question, so that I must ask the House to bear with me at the outset whilst I briefly refer to the last Returns which have been obtained from the Government with regard to the working of the Acts in the several places where they are at present in operation. I had the honour last year of moving for a Return showing the number of cases of disease in Her Majesty's ships and vessels stationed at certain of the Home ports. That Return I have obtained, and if the House will give me its attention for a few minutes, I think I shall be able to show that, as far as concerns the complement of men, a fair comparison can be obtained between ships in the same port, but that it is impossible to say that the Contagious Diseases Acts have produced the effect claimed for them. As to the comparison instituted in this Return between ships in the ports where the Acts are in operation and ships in the ports where they are not, the comparison is not such as any statistician, or any man acquainted with figures, would dream of accepting, because the conclusions are not founded upon any proper method of taking Returns such as we desire. I am ready to state all these facts, if it is necessary, before another Commission or Select Committee; and I will undertake to say that no statistician in Europe, looking at the figures side by side, would ever admit that they bear the interpretation which the Government officials have put upon them. I know there are many hon. Gentlemen in this House who say—"If you could convince us that those Acts are doing no good, we might be disposed to listen to your arguments;" but I do not base my arguments entirely upon Returns. I believe there are greater arguments to be adduced with regard to this question; but to repeat them at this hour would be, I conceive, trifling with the temper of the House, and, therefore, I must confine myself within as brief a compass as possible. With regard to these Returns I may state that the Government selected their own ports. They did not take the ports which might have been taken, but they took the ports of Dartmouth—with its steady-going Britannia—Plymouth, Portsmouth, Queenstown, and Southampton, as their typical cases; and they compare with Dartmouth and Southampton places like Greenock, Hull, Dublin, Leith, and Liverpool; and I think that everybody will at once see that such a comparison is not founded upon anything like a strict equality of circumstances. Let me take the place of Plymouth alone; and I think I shall be able to show the House, in a few sentences, that, as in the case of different regiments to be found in the Government service at Aldershot, so in the large ports in the Kingdom are there circumstances attaching to each particular vessel, which indicate the existence of the disease year after year, and which the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts does not affect. I will take two ships which, for a time, belonged to the same port. They had the same complement of men, and, in other respects, might be fairly compared. Now, I can show the House that, since 1860 down to the present time, there were continuous circumstances affecting these vessels, which can leave no doubt whatever in the mind of any reasonable man that very much depends upon character, that the disease cannot be looked for like any other ordinary disease that lurks in the hold of the ship, but that the cause of its existence is to be found in the character of the men, as much in the sailors on board a ship as in the soldiers belonging to any regiment in Her Majesty's Service. Now, I will take the Returns as far as Plymouth is concerned. In 1860 there were two ships there, the Royal Adelaide and Wellington, their complement of men was almost the same—namely, 515 and 565; but disease in the Royal Adelaide was 78, in the Wellington 30. Then I will take the year 1861, and the ships Royal Adelaide and Impregnable. The Royal Adelaide had a complement of 600, and the Impregnable a complement of 615. The Royal Adelaide was distinguished for the number of her men who were diseased; the number amounted to 96, while those on the Impregnable were only 30. Then I will take 1862, and I find that the cases belonging to the Impregnable were reduced to 8, whilst those of the Royal Adelaide were no fewer than 226. This shows how disease was of a continuous character on board that unfortunate ship. Then I will take 1863, and the ship Canopus. Compared with the Royal Adelaide, the Canopus had a less complement of men, and yet the number of her men who were invalided by disease was 132, and the Implacable, which had the same complement as the Royal Adelaide, had but 5 men diseased, and the Royal Adelaide 114 men in that condition.

Notice being taken, That Strangers were present.—(Mr. Arthur Moore.)

MR. SPEAKER

stated, that it was his intention to follow the course which he had previously taken on similar occasions, and forthwith put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw?"—The House proceeded to a Division, whereupon Mr. Speaker called upon Mr. Arthur Moore to name a second Teller for the Ayes.—The honourable Member having stated that he was unable to do so, Mr. Speaker declared that the Noes had it.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

I now venture to compare, from the figures for the year 1864, the Cambridge and Indus. The Cambridge was a ship with a smaller complement of men, but yet disease in the Cambridge was as 98 compared with 102 in the Indus, a ship with 40 per cent more men. Before and after the Acts were put in force at Plymouth, the disease in the Royal Adelaide decreased from 114 in 1863 to 41 in 1864 (before the Acts), down to 12 in 1868 (after the Acts); but increased again in 1869 to 36, in 1870 to 144, in 1871 to 248, with 30 per cent larger complement of men, and with 90 per cent more disease. I might go through a series of years, and give the House other comparisons with regard to ships. There is no inflexible law, and you never can depend upon any ships having other than a varying character, owing to the character of their crews; but, in these particular Returns, certain vessels are selected as under the Acts which are really out of the category of those which have disorderly and immoral crews. There is one ship which has notoriously a crew of married men; it is the Victoria and Albert, and is taken alongside of the Asia, and Duke of Wellington, and it certainly is most improper that this ship should be selected by reasonable men as a typical ship. I might say the same of the Britannia, quartered in 1870 at Dartmouth, with its regular complement of trained men, which could not be affected by the same circumstances that affect the average of disease in other places. If we are to have Returns such as these, I would rather argue the question before the Statistical Society than before the House of Commons. I know there are some hon. Members who accept all these Returns as facts; as records and tables drawn up by gentlemen in whom implicit confidence should be placed; but I maintain that, although the authenticity of the figures cannot be disputed, in some respects they do not show any connection between the Acts and the absence or presence of disease, or prove conclusively that the operations of the Acts are to be relied upon as sure to produce good sanitary results. With regard to the Army Return, which was delivered this morning, I have also a word to say. There has not been much time to analyze it. I have had some little opportunity of perusing it, but not so much as I should have liked. From what I have seen of it, I must say that it will not bear examination. The stations brought under the Acts, and certain stations not under the Acts, are compared, but not station with station; so that it is impossible to obtain anything like an authoritative percentage from the figures. I know that this is a dry matter, and not of a kind to be brought before the House at this hour of the Sitting, but a great deal of unpleasant feeling has been aroused in the towns where the Acts are in operation, and my object in speaking of the Return just now is, to show to the House that the figures so entirely mix up one station with another of an entirely different character, that it is impossible, on the face of it, to accept the figures for one moment as correct. For instance, in the Army Report, all the stations under the Acts are taken, but only some stations not under the Acts are selected for comparison with them, and if the average amount of disease at all stations is really reckoned, the Government statistics are wrong to the extent of 25 per cent. So much for their statistical value! Then, I wish to mention to the House that the Army doctors themselves have admitted in former Returns—namely, in their Reports of 1873 and of 1875 and 1876, this important fact, which makes those Returns of no value whatever. They admitted that, in 1873, during Mr. Cardwell's time, a new Army Warrant was issued—which punished men for being diseased, and thus induced them to conceal it—under which a state of things sprang up such as invalidated all statistics of disease from that time. I maintain that these Returns are too apt to mislead, as, being stamped with the sign of officialism, they are really taken and accepted as correct by people living in the country. I am ready to lay these figures before a Select Committee of this House, and I will pin my faith to this—that they are not reliable as Government statistics, and they will be disproved at some future period. There is an impression amongst the Members of this House, owing to the weight and strength which is accorded to a Government Return, that the Home Office statistics also are most reliable—

MR. A. MOORE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I beg to ask if it is competent for a Member to move that the Ladies' Gallery be cleared?

MR. SPEAKER

That is a matter for the House itself to decide; the Gallery is open for ladies, and they are admitted by the order of Members of the House. If any Members of this House have given orders for the admission of ladies to the Gallery, I am not at liberty to interfere with those orders without the consent of the House itself. I wish to point out that the course I have formerly taken, when this question has been brought on, has been to desire the attendant to intimate to ladies who may present themselves for admission, that a discussion of a delicate question is likely to take place, and to put it to them whether they desired to remain or not. I was not aware, indeed, I did not believe, that this Bill would come on today. Had I thought so, I should have taken that course on the present occasion. ["Move!"]

MR. A. MOORE

I beg to move that the Ladies' Gallery be cleared.

MR. C. S. PARKER

I ask, Sir, if it is competent for an hon. Member to move that when another Motion is before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member proposes by his Motion to set aside one of the Regulations of the House, and I should not be justified in putting a Motion of that character to the House without Notice.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

The House will observe—

MR. A. MOORE

I beg, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that there are Strangers in the House.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

However desirable this interruption may be in the minds of some hon. Members, there is little time—

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member for Clonmel that he has already taken that course; the decision of the House has been distinctly declared; and in taking that course a second time he is, I think, trifling with the House.

MR. A. MOORE

It is not my custom to trifle with the dignity of the House at any time, much less is it my wish to do so on the present occasion; but I feel—

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that he is not in Order.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

Sir, I am anxious to say a few words on the subject of the Home Office Returns. The Home Office Returns for years past have been framed on a well-known form. They show that the Metropolitan Police are employed at stations under the Act, and that marvellous power is given to them by the law. I find, to my astonishment, that, year after year, the Metropolitan Police—admirable as they are in keeping order in London—are employed by the State in towns and municipal boroughs, to do that which municipal authorities can do without their aid. We are told that in some of those towns the efforts of the police have been so effectual that they have succeeded in "doing away with numbers of houses of ill-fame" by virtue of the Acts! It would seem from the Reports that the police were competent, not only to suppress brothels, but to reclaim unfortunate women who have strayed from virtue into vice. There are many towns in this Kingdom, especially in the North of England, which protest against these Acts. I am bound to say that their very introduction was a direct interference with the powers and privileges of municipal authorities, and no step has been taken more objectionable than that of allowing the central police to administer the law where there is already local government, administered by and responsible to local authority. The idea of the police being made the special guardians of public morality is of itself so absurd, and the result of their efforts so often contradicted by the officers of the Rescue Society itself, that I need not trouble you with any more remarks upon it at this time. With regard to the diminution of brothels, important evidence was given before the Irish Sunday Closing Committee, last year. It came out that, in the City of Glasgow, where they had no Metropolitan Police, the authorities had succeeded in reducing the number of houses of ill-fame from 204 in the year 1874, to 38 or thereabouts in 1876. Therefore, the argument that the Metropolitan Police alone are doing the work, ought to disappear. With respect to the number of women who are reclaimed and go back to their friends, I should like to know how the police can tell that they go back? How can any man in his senses accept such a statement as that? Many of these women go about with regiments, and how can the police tell always where they live? It is likely enough that, in many cases, women take themselves off, disgusted with the operations of the Act, to another part of the world, and that when they are missed it is assumed by the police that they have gone back to their friends. I think such statistics as are here given ought to be left out of the Government Returns, as they are calculated to mislead from the weight of the authority that is given to them. Then, with regard to another remarkable body of statistics which have been brought forward, showing that in some large towns and cities there was a considerable amount of disease in consequence of their not being protected districts—a larger amount than was to be found in places which were protected. I will give you an instance. There are several regiments quartered in London, comprising sometimes as many as 7,000 men. I will take the Horse and Foot Guards. It is not for me to say which of these regiments does or does not consort with the less degraded class of women; but it is a fact that there is always more disease among the Foot Guards than there is in the Household Cavalry, taking man for man, quartered at the same stations. The Returns of the averages of disease per 1,000 men of the Household Cavalry was only 48 per 1,000, while among the Foot Guards it was 162 per 1,000, from 1867 to 1872 inclusive. Therefore, I say that, as in the case of ships, so it is with the Army. The surgeons at Aldershot affirm that disease varies in certain regiments, so in London one of the regiments may have 20 men diseased, whilst another has 80. This is not an isolated typical case of one particular year, but it goes on year after year; for it is the character of the men, or the accident of consorting with the lower order of women, that really influences these Returns. Now, I want to say a few words to my Friends above the Gangway, who are difficult to convince. They go down to Plymouth or Devonport, or the nice little Cathedral City of Winchester, or Chatham, and Rochester, and are told by those who advocate the Acts that they are doing a great deal of good. I will ask any hon. Gentleman to go to Paris—as I myself did a fortnight ago—and judge for himself from what he will see there. In the most outwardly respectable City on the face of the earth, they will find none of that solicitation which more or less prevails in a free City like London, and yet there is more vice and more disease. Go to Hamburg and Stockholm, where this system of legalized prostitution has been carried on for many years, and you will find that the amount of disease is infinitely greater than in a place like London which is unprotected. There were many medical men examined before the Royal Commission; and, considering the statements that they made, I am only astonished that the Commissioners had the courage to make the recommendations that they did. I want to point out that the Royal Commissioners sat eight years ago, and that, since they reported on the matter, nothing, or next to nothing, has been done in the direction that I am now advocating. There was some distinct recommendations which nobody could overlook, and made, too, by Gentlemen who are still Members of this House, and whom the House would like to hear. These recommendations are towards the end of the Report, and the first recommendation amongst many was this—"That the periodical examination of public women be discontinued." We are now in the year 1878. That Report was addressed to this House and to this country, and I am bound to say that, considering our own Friends were in Office for some time after that Report was issued, and considering that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in power all these years, I think it is not creditable to either Government that there should not have been some notice taken of that recommendation. I know that in the time of the Liberal Government there was a Bill introduced; but, through lack of time or some other cause, it was found impossible to proceed with it. But, at all events, things do not grow better by being kept on too long; and if this is a disagreeable subject, and distasteful to the Conservative Government, I would recommend them, while there is yet time, to grant a further inquiry; because a further inquiry I am convinced there ought to be. Now, as to this charge of fanaticism that has been brought against us. I have been connected myself with many practical works, and I do not think that I have been a fanatic. I have a very great regard for the exact sciences, and especially for figures, and I am not easily influenced by varnished statements calculated to mislead. I will say no more about myself; but I will rely upon four or five typical men who gave evidence before the Royal Commission in favour of the repeal of these Acts. I will take a man like John Stuart Mill, or Professor Maurice. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, then, I will take the evidence of an honoured man like Mr. Henley. Mr. Henley was one of those old-fashioned Gentlemen who are rather out of date. In the House of Commons there used to be a great many men of that kind 25 years ago; but I am afraid that they may soon become as extinct as the dodo. But between the years 1870 and 1876, that right hon. Gentleman never lost an opportunity of denouncing these Acts. I will not trouble the House with extracts at this time of the day; but one comes to my mind which I will give to the House. In speaking of these Acts, and, speaking of the relative positions of the men and the women, he says— It is long since I looked into any matter of heathen ethics (the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong), but I do not think 'that in any system of heathen ethics' you can find that those who tempt are less blameable than those who are tempted. That is the opinion of many of us today. If you are to carry out the system to its legitimate conclusion, you have no alternative left but to allow the medical men to examine all the men as well as all the women. It is not only a question between the men and the women, but it is rapidly becoming a question in this country and outside this country, whether it is not a case of the rich against the poor? In this particular case, the working-classes of this country are beginning to find out that these Acts are specially levelled against women of their own class—that their class supplies the unfortunate women who are the subjects of this legislation. It is nonsense talking about legislation if, in legislating for women, you leave out the magnificently attired women who drive their carriages in the protected towns, while you compel the wretched girls on the streets to be subjected to these Acts. Why, the police in Paris state that the higher class is the most dangerous in the whole of France; that, so far from this being the class that men can associate with without suffering any physical harm, it is by far the most dangerous class. The head of the police there, who has full arbitrary power over the poor girls in the streets, is always lamenting not having power over that more dangerous class, the clandestine class. This high official is always lamenting the diminution of women on the register. They used to claim a great deal of praise for increasing the number; for he argued, of course—"If I had all these women on the register, I could cure them." He wished—Caligula like, who desired that all his people had but one neck that he might destroy them with a single blow—he wished that he could, by a complete register, abolish the evil wholesale. M. Lecour gives the number of prostitutes as 30,000, and out of these 27,000 escape his clutches. As to the effects of these Acts upon the diminution of disease, I know that one particular disease has been lessened by the introduction of the Acts. [Ironical cheers.] I grant you that; I never denied it or disputed it. And what is that disease? Does any hon. Gentleman know, who has ironically cheered my admission? It is "not" the dangerous class of disease. It is a class of disease which may be easily cured, and which leaves no hereditary taint behind it; and I will vouch for the accuracy of this fact—that the hereditary disease has increased 4.6 per cent since the Acts came into operation; and I maintain, moreover, that there was a greater diminution of this hereditary disease, as it is called, before the Acts came into operation than there has been since. There was one thing I noticed with reference to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Henley, and that was that, after leaving this House, he was presented with a testimonial from gentlemen in his own county. But one of the leading Conservative papers—and there are some who still uphold the good old Tory tradition of Tory papers—praised Mr. Henley because he never was in favour of compulsory legislation, and never did anything to interfere with the liberty of the subject; and it went on to say that he was opposed on this ground to the Contagious Diseases Act, thinking it right that this question, which is a moral question, should be dealt with by moral means and by Christian charity. In fact, he was "a popular Tory of the old stamp." I leave that to the consideration of the popular Tories of the old or of the new stamp. But I trust that the words and the witness of an old man with one foot in the grave, whose labours in this House have been manifold, will be held worthy of some attention from this House. Then we have Mr. John Stuart Mill, who may not, perhaps, be considered a great statesman, and Mr. Maurice, with his Broad Church views. If these were not statesmen, at all events I must claim for Mr. Henley some small reputation in that respect. But I will take the case of a woman—a woman who, 20 years ago, devoted her life and sacrificed her health for the good of the soldiers of England. That woman was Florence Nightingale. She was in charge of the Government hospitals in the Crimea, sent out by Lord Herbert. She has been in charge of soldiers, and knew soldiers well, and yet she was the first to sign that roll of Petitions against the Acts; and she said that she felt sure that the system of Government regulation of vice and examination of women is contrary not only to the rights of woman, but to the general liberty of the State. She has seen hundreds of people cured under her own hands. She is not one of those who think that it is improper to sign the Petitions, or who are too squeamish to have this matter discussed. Now, I will take another typical name, the President of the Royal College of Physicians. You may quote instances against me; but do not run away with the impression that we have no supporters, that we are all fanatics; for there are several hundreds of medical men in this country, and in every town in England, who hold that the examination of these wretched women cannot be depended on as a certain test whether they are diseased or not. I believe no medical man is absolutely certain on the subject; and one of the highest physicians in the country has recorded it as his belief that, in 33 per cent of examinations, the examiner, who often—aye, usually—examines very rapidly, would fail to detect the more serious disorders; and, therefore, the State is in this peculiar position—that it gives its seal and imprimatur to this system of periodical examination, which can only be relied upon, at the most, in two out of three cases, and which the Royal Commission has recommended should be discontinued. The examination says to the women—not called "the Queen's Women" now, as they used to be—"You are safe; you may go." But hear what Dr. Routh says— Not only are these examinations outrageous, because made under compulsion, but very often useless, because they do not ensure the safety of any man who may afterwards consort with these women. I say this—that by the operation of these Acts some disease has been checked. It is impossible to have the examinations and re-examinations without being able to do some good. I always granted that. And more than that, I say that it is desirable, and in the highest degree essential for the health of this country, that there should be infinitely more done for the treatment of this disease. I agree with the recommendation of one of the medical men examined on the Royal Commission, that there ought to be Lock wards in every hospital in the Kingdom. This thing will be always better done under the voluntary system than under the State system. But some people are impressed with the idea that nothing can be done without the assistance of the State; that you must have the State to find religion for you, and in some countries the State finds theatres, and they think that the State must be everything and do everything. Time alone will solve this problem. But of this I am satisfied—that year by year will bring conviction to the minds of those who are still undecided, and I trust will confirm those who are already convinced, that it is impossible to maintain these Acts in the face of the public feeling of the country which, whether right or wrong, has pronounced—and I believe rightly pronounced—that these Acts have not been proved to be of any appreciable sanitary value; but that they have outraged the sense of decency, of equity, and of freedom in the minds of thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen. With these few words, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am sorry that the hon. Member has brought this most painful subject before the House. It is certainly one of the most painful subjects that could be discussed in the British House of Commons. I am very far indeed from depreciating or in any way calling in question the motives of the hon. Baronet, or of those who take a very deep interest in this question. I am sure that they do it from the deepest sense of duty, and from the consciousness that they are dealing with a matter that it is their duty to deal with. But I cannot help feeling myself that they take but a very partial view of the question, and it is one which, from its nature, they are not able carefully to study for themselves. I say that they are not able for themselves carefully and thoroughly to study it. But it has been my duty, occupying the position which I fill, to visit some of the hospitals in which these poor creatures, who are the subjects of this Bill, are incarcerated. I have been to Portsmouth and Devonport, and I have taken care to walk through the wards of the hospital with those who had the management, and to examine, as far as possible, into the practical operation of the Acts which are now under review. Well, Sir, I own in going down there in the first instance I was inclined—and I believe most hon. Gentlemen would be inclined—to favour the view which the hon. Baronet himself proposes to the House. But upon experience and examination, I came to the conclusion that these Acts are beneficial to public morality, beneficial to the persons who are intimately affected by them, and beneficial to the State. Some regard must be paid to the testimony of the clergymen, magistrates, and officers who are themselves engaged in carrying out, most tenderly, I think, and most carefully, these Acts, as they affect the women who are now the subject of this debate. If the hon. Baronet will take the trouble to visit these hospitals, to enter into a personal communication with the clergymen, who themselves are acquainted with the operation of the Acts—not those who remain outside, and merely speak in general terms of this matter—and see the patients in the hospitals, and examine the Returns, I think that I can say that he will come to a different conclusion from that which he has now stated to the House. The time is very short, and therefore I am obliged to compress my observations within a very limited space indeed. But I cannot help referring to one set of questions placed in the hands of clergymen, and very largely distributed by a body which is not often referred to in this House; but, at the same time, I think it must be admitted, whatever the views of hon. Gentlemen, that at least the object they have in view must be the preservation of morality—I speak of Convocation. Convocation printed certain questions which they sent around to clergymen and persons who, in their judgment, could give an answer to them which could be relied upon as to the operation of these Acts. I hold now in my hands the replies given to those questions by Mr. Grant, the Vicar of Portsmouth, who is, I believe, known to many hon. Gentlemen in this House. He is a gentleman who has devoted himself to the duties of his position, and who is at least capable of giving strong and trustworthy answers to any questions put to him. He is chairman of the committee of the hospital at Portsmouth, and it is known to the House that the Admiralty do not administer these Acts by their own officers, and the medical officers are appointed by the local authorities; and it is not too much to say that they have discharged their duty with zeal and care. The first question which was asked of Mr. Grant was— What is your opinion of the result of the Contagious Diseases Acts in increasing or diminishing prostitution? The answer is— In diminution of prostitution; for whilst in 1865 there were 789 prostitutes on the register of Portsmouth, there were in December 31st, 1876, 476. [Ironical cheers.] Well, I see hon. Gentlemen notice that statement as one which they perhaps think is not quite to be relied upon. This is not a statement of a mere statistical fact by Mr. Grant; but it is a statement out of the abundant local information which he possesses as to the condition of the town of which he is Vicar, and which may be relied upon. It is scarcely to be conceived that Mr. Grant would make a statement of this kind without he conscientiously believed it to be true. The next question is as to the amount of disease. The answer is— It diminishes the amount of disease in a remarkable manner. Whereas in 1875 the ratio of disease, upon their examination, was 70˙56 per cent, it has been gradually reduced, until in December, 1876, the ratio was 4˙84. So that you have a smaller number of prostitutes in this abominable trade, and you have, in that smaller number, a vast deal less of ratio of disease. These are answers which are at least of some value, coming from the source which they do. The other questions are— Q. What do you consider has caused these results?—A. The general working of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Q. Has the number of brothels been increased or decreased?—A. The operation of these Acts has reduced the brothels by one-half. In 1865 there were 263, and in 1876 there were 133. Q. Have any police regulations been in favour of this result?—A. There are no special police regulations beyond those which obtain, I believe, in all towns. The result has been entirely due to the general working of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Q. What is your opinion as to the effect— And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.