§ The Earl of MINTO presented 30 Petitions, praying for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he desired to put a Question, to the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) in reference to the Petitions he had just presented. Numerous Petitions relative to this subject had been presented to their Lordships, one of which, from Glasgow, presented by the Duke of Argyll, purported to bear 21,000 signatures. Now he (Viscount Lifford) had taken an opportunity of looking at some of those Petitions, and he found that of the signatures appended to them, many were written in the same handwriting. Many of the signatures were apparently those of children, and many were those of women: and when he considered the nature of the subject to which those Petitions referred, he thought it very doubtful whether women were thoroughly instructed as to what they were petitioning against, and he was quite sure that children knew no-tiling at all about it. There had been a great amount of misrepresentation on this subject. He would not enter into the question as to how successful the Contagious Diseases Act had proved in the Army and Navy; but in the printed form from which these Petitions were copied it was alleged—rather illogically—that these Act were immoral because they were successful, and that they were unsuccessful because they were immoral. There were other extraordinary statements in a paper which had been issued by an organization called the Ladies' National Association. It was stated, for instance, that the houses where the women who were subject to the Act congregated had the same protection as was 1265 afforded to private houses, and even to schools and churches. But that was quite untrue. The common law against houses of that description was in force as heretofore, and it rested with the magistrates to suppress such houses and punish the offenders. It was then stated that the Act deprived these women of every guarantee for personal freedom, which the law had asserted for all, and that it put the reputation and even the person of anyone suspected absolutely in the power of the police. But in this country everybody was to a certain extent in the power of the police. A policeman or anyone else could make any charge against any other person, whether Peer or peasant, but he would make the charge at his peril. Since this Act had been passed there had been only one case in which a respectable woman had been brought under its operation, and in that case there were certain extraordinary circumstances which led to the arrest. The Act was so guarded in that respect that any woman who gave security that she would give up her unfortunate avocation, or leave the district, was immediately released from surveillance. The third statement was even more extraordinary than the others. It described the Act as cruel to women, as violating the feelings of those whose sense of shame was not wholly lost, and as further brutalizing those who were already very much degraded. Those of their Lordships who had read the evidence of the Select Committee would know how entirely untrue that was, and to how great an extent the Act had exercised a reforming influence. At Devonport, for example, the number of prostitutes had diminished from 2,000 to 770, and at Plymouth 40 per cent had been reformed. One of the chaplains, moreover, had testified to the striking improvement in the behaviour of the women after being for a short time under his charge. The kindness they received, the time given them for reflection, and. the attention bestowed on them by the chaplains in the hospitals to which they were consigned, had exercised a most salutary effect. Ladies were, nevertheless, found to organize an opposition to a measure which was thus benefiting the most unfortunate of the sex, as well as conferring great advantage on the Army and Navy. The Act was, in point of fact, a law to prevent murder—to 1266 prevent the murder of the unfortunate children who died through the most horrible malady every week, and to prevent the murder of those who died later in life from a thousand other diseases all springing from that one. He wished to ask his noble Friend, Whether, in the Petitions he had presented, there were I not the names of persons who were I utterly incapable of forming a judgment on the matter, including the names of I children who were so young as to be unable to write at all, their names being subscribed to a mark under those of other members of their families?
§ THE EARL OF MINTOreplied that he had little information about the Petitions. He had simply discharged his duty in presenting the Petitions. As far as he knew, judging from the names of well-known persons who headed the list, he believed the Petitions to be of a bonâ fide character. Many of the signatures might be in the same handwriting; but he had heard no complaint of their being appended without authority. He did not know whether the head of a family might not in some cases have signed for all of her children. He did not say that he had made up his mind on the subject; but he was informed by persons in whom he had the greatest confidence that considerable feeling against the Act existed.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in presenting some further Petitions against the Act from Belfast, said he could not express an opinion as to the nature of the signatures to the various Petitions he had presented; but he agreed with the noble Earl that there was a considerable degree of feeling on the subject in the country. He had no reason to believe that the signatures to the Petitions he had presented were otherwise than genuine.