Report of Royal Commission upon the Administration and Operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts.
- Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Contagious Diseases Acts
- Date:
- 1871
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Report of Royal Commission upon the Administration and Operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
796/952 page 698
![FORTY- 19,337. You think constitutional syphilis a very THIRD DAY. serious disease ?—Most decidedly it is. 19,338. And is doing a great deal of harm to the B W^'^Du community ?—No doubt of it. MR c'^S^' 19,339. You consider its ravages amongst the rising __' ' generation of children very considerable ?—There is a 8 May 1871. good deal of hereditary syphilis amongst children. 19,340. You think therefore that it is very urgent that it should be dealt with in some vi'ay or other ?— I think that it ought to be dealt vpith in some way or other. 19.341. Are you aware that the voluntary system has been tried in some of the places in which the Acts have been subsequently tried ?—No. 19.342. You are not aware that the voluntary system has lipon tried at all ?—No. I know there were workhouses where women were admitted, but no real lock-hospital except, I think, one at Bristol. 19.343. Have you never heard that women who go into voluntary hospitals are very apt to leave them before they are cured in the case of a ship coming into a port or a regiment coming into a town ?—I never heard it stated so ; but then I say I would make it a sine qua non that every woman going into hospital should stay there until she was cured. 19.344. Y'^ou would make her sign a voluntary agreement to remain in the hospital until cured ?— Yes. 19.345. And you would enforce that agreement ?— I would enforce that agreement. 19.346. By the police ?—No, not by the police. Simply if she would not remain in, I would let her go ; but I believe every woman would remain in. 19,347. In case she wished to go, are you prepared to keep her in by force ?—No, you could not keep her in by force. 19,318. But supposing you were able to do so, would you do so in that case ?—If you were able to do so, as a matter of course I should. 19.349. I mean, you would not make the hospital to that extent a prison ?—No; I would not make it so at all. I would simply ask a woman to sign an agree- ment that she would remain in hospital until she got well, and I should make her understand distinctly that she was to do so, and I believe she would. I think if they clearly understood that they had to do it, and understood the necessity of it, they would remain. 19.350. But what would you leave it to ?—Her own sense of honour. 19.351. You are not prepared to exercise any com- pulsion ?—No compulsion whatever. 19.352. I understand you to be quite clear that you have a right to detain a small-pox hospital patient in the hospital ?—No. I said it was quite right for Government to fine a cabman for taking a small-pox patient in a cab, because it makes it a centre of con- tagion, and gives disease to healthy people, and Government is quite right in insisting on that man disinfecting that cab before he lets it out again for hire. 19.353. In the case of a small-pox patient wishing to go out of hospital, and thereby spreading contagion in his own neighbourhood, would you consider the°Iaw had any right to detain him ?—I do not think it has. Dr. Charles Bell Taylor wa 19.354. {Chairman.') Are you a doctor of medicine ? —Yes. 19.355. Where do you practise ?—Al Nottingham. 19.356. Have you always practised thei-e?—For the last 10 years only. 19.357. Have you had much acquaintance practi- cally with the disease which is the subject of inquiiy before this Commission ?—I have seen a good deal of it. I have not attended such cases as a speciality at all. 19.358. Have you seen much of prostitutes ?—Yes, in the Nottingham Lock Hospital. 19.359. And you have treated them there ?—I have treated them thei'e. 19.360. You have taken a very great interest in these Acts ?—Yes. 19.361. And have written various pamphlets on the subject ?—Yes. 19.362. You are acquainted with the earliest Act which was passed, the Act of 1864 ?—Yes. 19.363. That Act subjected a woman who is rctually affected with contagious disease to be taken to a hospital by a magistrate's order, and there examined, and secluded until cured. You are aware that the Act of 1864 went to that extent, and no further ?—Yes. 19.364. Do you think that that law sanctioned the grossest violation of the liberty of the subject that had ever been proposed to a British Parliament ?— Yes, I agree to that. 19.365. You think that a woman, a common pros- titute, who hires out her body for money, in a state of disease, is entitled to the same liberty to which any harmless subject of these realms is entitled ?— She is entitled to the same amount of liberty as any man in the same condition. 19.366. Do men hu'e out their bodies for prostitu- tion ?—There can be no trade without a buyer and a seller, and I consider the man [as much a trader as the woman, and also as likely to spread disease. 19.367. That is no answer to my question. I put to you the condition of a woman who gains a liveli- hood by hiring out her body for the use of men, and I put to you the case of that woman in a state of disease. Is it a violation of the liberty of the subject called in, and examined as follows : to restrain her in the practice of her calling while she is in that state of disease ?—Yes, I consider it is. I do not think that you have any right to foi'cibly physic and forcibly operate upon British subjects against their will, especially Avhen they have committed no crime or legal offence whatever. 13.368. You have expressed this opinion that gonorrhoea and soft sores which form the great ma- jority of cases of venereal disease, 97 per cent, at least, Avhile local, trivial, and unimportant in themselves, are nevertheless great checks upon incontinence ?— Yes. 19.369. And consequently valuable safeguards against the more subtle and comparatively dangerous poison of syphilis. Do you still adhere to that opinion ?—Certainly. 19.370. Then, it being your opinion that gonorrhoea is a powerfvd check upon incontinence and a safeguard against syphilis, you would not attempt to cure it ?— Yes, I would cure it in all cases that come voluntarily, but ] think if you could get rid of gonorrhcea and soft sores without getting rid of syphilis, you would do more harm tlian good. 19.371. But you consider the existence of gonorrhoea is a safeguard against syphilis —I consider a man who has had an attack of gonorrhoea is checked probably in a career of vice. A burnt child dreads the fire, and a man who has had a bad attack of gonorrhcea is annoyed and frightened without being seriously damaged, and it operates as a great check in future, and he is much more careful, and very frequently it is the means of saving him from pursuing a course of life which undoubtedly would have ended in an attack of true syphilis. 19.372. You are of opinion that syphilis has greatly decreased of late years ?—Unquestionably. 19.373. And is no longer a disease so formidable as to require special legislation ?—No, certainly not. 19.374. Have you ever heard of women of the town being taken up in such a state of rottenness, that they could hardly hold together ?—No ; I should say it is absolute nonsense. 19.375. Absolute nonsense —Yes, unquestionably. 19.376. Then if medical men of character and re- putation have stated that, you still say it is absolute](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21365945_0796.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
