The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1875-06-26 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 23, Sir Harcourt John! stone, in moving the second reading of the Contagious Diseases Repeal Bill, remarked that he was aware that he was undertaking a difficult and delicate task. But any unwillingness he might have felt at bringing the subject forward did not arise from any feeling that such a measure of repeal was unnecessary, • as his feeling in favour of a repeal of those measures were strengthening every day. There were three Acts, differing from each other very slightly, excepting that they became more stringent and despotic as they advanced. He contended that many cases of injustice and cruelty had taken place under the Act, and quoted thd well-known Aldershot case, remarking that while the woman might have been a drunken character, the threat to put the Act into operation drove her to commit suicide. When the Acts come to be looked into, the whole country would, he believed, be in favour of their repeaL Colonel Alexander movel the rejection of the Bill, and while giving credit to the promoters of the Bill for good intentions, believed that they were mistaken in their views, He contended that the Acts were not unduly oppressive, and that the only interference with the liberty of the subject was with reference to persons who had by their lives rendered such an interference necessary. Upon the whole the gets had, he said, worked well, and had proved most valuable, and it would be a great pity to repeal them. If he thought for a moment that these Acts were an incentive to vice he would not support them, but this he believed was not the case, and considering that this legislation had been productive of good, he proposed the amendment standing in his name. Mr. Hopwood having watched these Acts during five years, believed that they were unfair and unjust. Not only were they a great hardship upon one sex, but they actually involved State recognition, and gave unprecedented, exces. the and improper power to the po!ce forces of the country. Mr. S. Cave agreed with previous speakers that the House had no right to shrink from the dicussion of this question, but could not admit that there had been a "conspiracy of silence" on the subject, as it had been discussed in the House both in 1870 and 11:73. On the whole, he believed the Acts had been productive of good, and therefore he supported their continuance. Mr. Childers believed that the Acts had been productive of good, and had diminished the amount of vice. He suggested, however, certain changes in the existing law, among which were abolition of registration and compulsory examination, but substituting certain safeguards. He trusted that where it was possible the administration of the Acts would be left to the metropolitan police at garrison towns and dockyards, and not placed in the hands of the provincial police forces. Mr. Henley supported the Bill. - - -•- •  Mr. Massey, one of the Royal Commission, gave it as his opinion that the weight of evidence was in favour of the Acts, and that the statistics of the poliae were to be relied upon. Mr. Stansfeld said that those who supported the repeal of these Acts were in favour of State-aided voluntary hospitals and reclamatory agencies, but they disapproved of a register for a practical examination, and of a Government guarantee. He contended that, according to the army returns, these Acts were, hygienically considered, a failure. These Acts had outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the community, who would never be satisfied until they were repealed. Mr. Hardy could not admit that the Acts were imperative. As Minister for War he would decline to withdraw the protection they gave to the army. He deprecated the warmth Infused into the discussion, and quoted statistics to show these Acts had produced beneficial effects among the class they were intended to reach. He could say for himself that when first these Acts were introduced his instincts were much against them, but he could now give them his support, because he received many assurances that they were doing good both physically and morally. In conclusion, amid tremendous cheering, the right hon. gentleman expressed a hope that if ladiee thought proper to agitate such a question as this, they would at least not disseminate horrible literature among young gitls, and thus inform them upon subjects upon which they would otherwise and very properly be ignorant.  The House then divided, when there appeared :—For the second reading, 126 ; against, 303 ; majority, 182. The Bill to repeal the Acts was therefore rejected.  The other orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned.