A critical summary of the evidence before the Royal Commission upon the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866-1869 / prepared for the National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, by Douglas Kingsford.

  • Kingsford, D. P. W. (Douglas P. W.)
Date:
[1869]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A critical summary of the evidence before the Royal Commission upon the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866-1869 / prepared for the National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, by Douglas Kingsford. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    47/130 (page 17)
    IS.O’ti I3,3 '8-43: 13,13:2-68 ; 13,585-93 17 / exaininatiou, she incurs a peril, which the following cases, taken as examples, illustrate:— (1.)—A girl at Canterbury, who hatl just come out of gaol after a month’s imprisonment for neglecting to be examined, showing every disposition to reform, was placed by a benevolent lady in the house of a respectable person to be taken care of till employment could be found for her. The girl was in strict charge of the people of the house, and her conduct was perfectly good. The police called repeatedly at the house, wanted to see her, and ordered her to go to examination. She did not go to examination, and consequently was summoned before the magistrates. Meanwhile she had left the neighbourhood, having obtained a situation, in which she* is still living respectably. Had not the husband of the lady, interested in the girl, appeared before the magistrates and explained the cii'cumstances, a sen- tence of imprisonment wonld certainly have been inflicted. (2.)—Jane Featherstone, “having refused to sign a voluntary submission,” was subjected, on April 25th, 1870, to periodical examination by an order of the Canterbury magistrates (see the evidence on which this order was made, 19,558), and the j)olice ordered her to attend for examination on April 29th. She at once left the district, and placed herself and children under the care of the Rescue Society in London. The Society shortly found for her a respectable situation in London; she remained in that situation for eight months, and then married. Mean- Avhile, for not having gone up for examination on April 29th, 1870, the Canterbury magistrates had, in her absence, sentenced her to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour, and a war- rant for her commitment, dated May 2nd, was placed in the hands of the Canterhm’y pohce. In February, 1871, imme- diately after her marriage, Jane and her husband went to Canterbmy to see the wife’s childi’en, then iu an orphanage there. On Saturday night, February 4th, Jane, while walking mth her husband in the streets of Canterbury, was apprehended by the police (to wdiom the husband in vain showed his marriage certificate), locked up till Monday, and then sent to Maidstone gaol, where she underwent the old sentence of seven days’ im- prisonment with hard labour. The grievance complained of is that this woman, Avho had for nine months at any rate led an lionest life, should be taken from her husband and sent to gaol iu Februai-y, 1871, for not having submitted her person to a surgical examination in April, 1870, Now it is interesting to note the explanation on the report of B, lU.