Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T01:24:08.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opposition to the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1864-1886

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Margaret Hamilton
Get access

Extract

Between 1864 and 1869, four laws, known as the Contagious Diseases Acts, were passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to reduce venereal disease in the armed services. These Acts, which applied to certain military stations, garrison, and seaport towns, gave a police officer authority to arrest any woman found within the specified areas whom he considered to be a prostitute. The woman in question was then brought before a magistrate who, if he agreed with the arresting officer, would order her to register and submit to a medical examination. If found to be suffering from venereal disease, she was sent to a hospital where she could be detained for three months or longer, at the discretion of the physican in charge. If she refused to submit to the examination or to enter the hospital, she could be imprisoned with or without hard labor.

This legislation was enacted at the urging of officials in the War Office and the Admiralty who believed that the efficiency of the army and navy was being dangerously impaired because of the high incidence of venereal disease. Ultimately, they maintained, the security of the nation itself would be jeopardized.

Parliament passed these laws very quietly, and the press referred to them only briefly, ostensibly because the subject was not considered seemly for public discussion. Little by little, however, English men and women became aware of this legislation, and with awareness came criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1978 , pp. 14 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The 1866 Act, which repealed that of 1864, incorporated most of the provisions of the earlier Act, and included a number of additions. The most significant addition was that which made periodical examination of all prostitutes within specified areas obligatory. The 1868 Act merely changed a number of technical details of the previous laws. The 1869 Act extended the number of military stations, garrison and seaport towns from 11 to 18 and enlarged the area around the subjected stations, in which a woman could be arrested, from 5 to 15 miles.

2 Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), vol. XIX (1871)Google Scholar. “Report of Royal Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Administration and Operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts,” p. 3. The Report of this Commission contains an excellent summary of the chief features of the Acts.

3 Ibid., p. 5.

4 J.L. and Hammond, Barbara, James Stansfeld, A Victorian Champion oj Sex Equality (New York and London, 1932), p. 190Google Scholar.

5 Anne J. Clough is probably best known for her establishment of Newnham College, Cambridge University, the second oldest college for women in England.

6 P. P. (Commons), vol. IX (1882), “Report of the Select Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Administration, Operation and Effect of the Contagious Diseases Acts, Minutes of Evidence Presented to the Committee,” p. 230.

7 The National Association for the Promotion of Social Science was founded in 1857 and for nearly thirty years, in its annual congresses and weekly meetings, emphasized the importance of a study of the social sciences. Its membership numbered many of the leading jurists and most of the academic economists of the day. The papers at the annual meetings contained valuable material on the social conditions of Great Britain at the time. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1933), I: 244Google Scholar.

8 The Times, October 5, 1869.

9 Butler, Josephine, The Constitution Violated (Edinburgh, 1871), p. 7Google Scholar; see also Butler, Josephine, Personal Reminiscences of A Great Crusade (London, 1896), p. 74Google Scholar.

10 Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, (Commons) 3rd Ser. vol. 201 (May 24, 1870): 1316–17Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., vol. 203 (July 20, 1870): 580.

12 PP, vol. XIX (1871), Report of the Royal Commission, “Minutes of Evidence Presented to the Commission,” pp. 533.

13 Ibid., pp. 818 and 825.

14 Parl. Deb., vol. 225 (June 23, 1875): 361–62Google Scholar.

15 P. P., vol. XIX (1871), Report of the Royal Commission, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 528.

16 Parl. Deb., vol. 201 (May 24, 1870): 1322Google Scholar.

17 Ibid. (July 19, 1876): 1584-1585.

18 Ibid. (April 20, 1883): 761; see also P. P., vol. VIII (1881), Report of the Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …,” Vol. VIII, pp. 207-10.

19 Dr. Nevins had been a supporter of the Acts, but after reading the Report of the Royal Commission changed his mind and in 1874 sent a statement to the Home Secretary opposing them. See P. P., vol. VIII (1880), Report of Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 289.

20 P. P., vol. VIII (1881), Report of the Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 250; also vol. VIII (1880), p. 306.

21 Ibid., vol. XIX, (1871), Report of the Royal Commission, “Minutes of Evidence …,” pp. 724-725.

22 Ibid.; vol. VIII (1881), Report of the Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …, pp. 216 and 250.

23 Ibid., p. 210.

24 Parl. Deb., vol. 203 (July 20, 1870): 574Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., vol. 230 (July 19, 1876): 1556.

26 The Times, July 23, 1864. Other leading articles appeared on May 25, 1870, July 21, 1870, July 20 and 22, 1871, February 15, 1872, May 22, 1873.

27 Ibid. July 21, 1870.

28 Ibid., May 25, 1870.

29 In 1882, the Select Committee heard testimony concerning the cases of Elizabeth Jane Southey and Caroline Wybrow, but because there was no convincing evidence, the Committee reached no conclusion concerning either case.

30 The Times, May 25, 1870.

31 P. P., vol. XIX (1871), Report of Royal Commission, p. 11; The Saturday Review, 27 (March 6, 1869), 310Google Scholar.

32 The Times, July 2, 1870.

33 Ibid.

34 In addition to The Times, the Pall Mall Gazette, the Saturday Review and the Lancet, journal of the British Medical Association, strongly supported the Contagious Diseases Acts.

35 In the April 1870 issue of the Westminster Review, there appeared an article entitled “Prostitution: How to Deal with It. The Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866 and 1869” which argued strongly in favor of repeal.

36 P. P., vol. IX (1882), Report of the Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 232.

37 The Times, August 3, 1872. Responsibility for administration of the Acts had been transferred from the War Office and the Admiralty to the Home Department following a recommendation to this effect made by the Royal Commission in 1871.

38 In a statement made to the Royal Commission, Josephine Butler made it clear that she, too, felt that the Acts discriminated against women of the lower classes. P. P., vol. XIX (1871), Report of the Royal Commission, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 532.

39 Quoted in The Times, January 15, 1880.

40 Ibid.

41 Daily News, December 31, 1869.

42 Altick, Richard D., The English Common Reader (Chicago, 1957), p. 355Google Scholar.

43 Butler, , Personal Reminiscences, p. 20Google Scholar.

44 Just prior to the 1870 Debate, the House of Commons passed a resolution ordering all visitors' galleries to be closed because many Members of Parliament did not consider the Contagious Diseases Acts a subject suitable for discussion in the presence of women.

45 P. P., vol. XIX (1871), Report of the Royal Commission, p. 11.

46 Ibid., p. 14.

47 Ibid., p. 19.

48 The Times, July 20, 1871.

49 P. P., vol. VIII (1881), Report of the Select Committee, “Minutes of Evidence …,” p. 225.

50 Ibid., vol. IX (1882), Report of the Select Committee, p. 595, Appendix 23.

51 Ibid., p. 597.

52 Ibid., p. xviii.

53 Parl. Deb., vol. 278 (April 20, 1883), 753-61, 762-69, 773–74Google Scholar. Mr. Stansfeld had been a member of the Select Committee, but had signed the Minority Report. The two reports were antagonistic in almost every respect, reflecting the great differences of opinion within the Committee, as well as in the country at large.

54 Lancet, I: (April 28, 1883), 745Google Scholar.

55 The rimes, April 21, 1883.

56 Pari. Deb., vol. 303 (March 16, 1886): 983Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., p. 987.

58 Parl. Deb., (Lords), vol. 304 (April 9, 1886): 1153Google Scholar.

59 J. L. and Hammond, Barbara, James Stansfeld, p. 144Google Scholar.