BLACKWELL FAMILY ELIZABETH BLACKWELL GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE From Becker, S.E.[Becker] 1. 28 Jackson's Row Albert Square Manchester Dec 2 1869 Dear Friend Thanks for your letter which I had not time to answer yesterday. I do not quite understand the position you take about C.D.A. Mrs Bright would send you Prof. Newman's letter I fancy he wanted me to make some representation at Nottingham but I do not see my way to this directly and my only chance of urging the views expressed in the letter with which I entirely and heartily co-incide, is through you. When you have considered the letter will you please let Miss Wolstenholme see it - when she is well enough to work again. I was much aggrieved to hear she was ill - It seems to me that a society to resist the extension of the Act beyond a certain limit is incomprehensible in its aims, because the object never can be accomplished. The Act isnow extended If I understand rightly there was an effort made last session to introduce a Bill extending to all the women in the realm - but that attempt failed The ostensible object of the society is already accomplished The Act does not extend beyond a radius of 25 miles round certain military stations Therefore you [?] organizing a society to agitate for the existing state of things Now of all the unpracti- -cal objects I ever heard as the laws of a society this strikes me as the most utterly unpractical There is no end proposed When will you consider that you have gained the non extension of the Act? A society for maintaining the existing state of things as they are and deprecate any change in the principles on which legislation is based But it is just the present state of the law which has [next page] roused our action + called the Society into being We are indignant that a law has been passed which destroys the safeguards of liberty for women within a certain geographical area which tales away their human rights + puts then on a level with cattle supposed to be diseased Women of Liverpool + Manchester are horrified at the thought that their liberty may soon be sacrificed and wish [?] to raise the country in indignant protest And the cry is to be "Leave the women of Dover , Winchester , Plymouth tc to their fate, but for the Heaven's sake do not touch the women of Liverpool + Manchester Is that a cry with which we can rouse the sympathy of the country? It outraged the very sense of justice to which we appeal and which is our only hope It seems that either you or I must be strangely mistaken as to the scope of the law within its present limits - My impression is that it is as completely a one sidedmeasure in military depots as it would be outside of them. I have seen the Act, & I think there is not a word in it which touches men in any way. I am very sorry I have not a copy to refer to, so that I do not give it as a positive assertion, but I believe that there is no word nor clause in the Act giving power to the police, magistrates, or surgeons, to inquire into the health of any man however notoriously immoral. No power to [of] the police to hale suspected men before the magistrates, no power to these to decree compulsory examination, or to inflict imprisonment in case of refusal to submit. If I am correct in this, the assertions that "Legally the inspection of men is compulsory equally with that of women" cannot be sustained. 2. My faith in the accuracy of my impressions is strengthened by your admission that the Act if extended - say to Lancashire - would affect women only, for it is obviously impossible that the mere extension of an Act could alter the meaning or force of its clauses. It seems as if you had allowed your mind to become confused by the juggling phraseology of the framers of the Act and to overlook the fact that the law even within military districts applies to the civil population only. It has never been extended to the military population. Whatever inspection soldiers undergo is by virtue of military discipline, and has nothing to do with C.D. Act. It appears to be regulated by the discretion of the commanding officer and varies in different regiments. But I cannot believe that the power of the officer in this respect varies with the place where the regiment is stationed. Burnley is a garrison town. Should aa regiment move from Aldershott to Burnley surely the discipline would not be changed nor the military pose the power of inspecting their men. Suppose the C. D. Act were repealed tomorrow would that in any way affect the discipline of the army - the rights either as soldiers or citizens, of any man in it? I say not. A man whether soldier or civilian may move into a district where C. D. A is in operation, and his civil rights or personal liberty will not be touched by it. The Act as far as men are concerned is an absolute nullity. It was never meant to [effected] include men. But if a woman move into such a district her civil rights are affected, out of such an area she cannot be brought before a magistrate on mere suspicion and have thrown on her the burden of proving her innocence - nor can she be imprisoned until after conviction by power of law of such offence. But the moment she moves into a proscribed district she loses all these safeguards of liberty and is placed at the mercy of a policeman's belief. A man & his wife go to settle in Portsmouth, the man retains his civil rights intact, the woman comes under the surveillance and may at any moment be dragged to ignominious imprisonment. Could the law be more one sided if extended to Liverpool than it now is in Portsmouth? It seems to me a complete mistake [that] to say that both man and woman are by law prisoners in hospital while diseased in military places -"By Law" that is, by the particular law against which we protest, men are not touched at all whether in or out of military places. The comparatively small number of men who are also soldiers are amenable to military discipline, but that has nothing whatever to do with civil law and does not affect the principle of this Contagious Disease Act. This Act in the districts where it is in practice is equivalent to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act asregards women only there is nothing like "equality" Suppose Parliament had hastily & blindly passed a law destroying the safeguards of the liberties of men civilians within military districts would not men outside the proscribed area have been moved to a storm of wild indignation so soon as they learned what had been done. would they have been satisfied with an assurance that the legislation should not be extended to them? Would they not say that the principle of constitutional freedom had been violated and that they insisted on the law which contravened it being expunged from the Statute book? They would feel that so long as a law remained in force in any part of the United Kingdom depriving men [in any] [part] within that part of the protection of judge and jury and a fair trail before liability to imprisonment for life, there was no security for the liberties of men in any part of the realm - no principle left in which to rely for the maintenance of freedom. 3. They would say. This legislation subverts the very foundation of civil rights and it must be repealed. That is what men would say, and they would have power to vote for its repeal. That women have not the power to vote for its repeal is no reason why they should not ask for its repeal. Ask for the restoration to women in the proscribed districts of the civil rights which have been destroyed and you ask for something intelligible and your demand is justified by an appeal to acknowledged principles. Ask merely that the liberties of women outside this area may not also be destroyed and you can find no principle on which to base your demand for exemption. You also ask impossibilities - Parliament can extend the Act - or it can repeal the Act, just the one thing it can not do is to decree that the Act shall not be extended. There is an association for the extension of the Act - there should be one for the repeal of the Act - Let the two fight it out.and let the nation decide between them. Our army must be free to attack the enemy - you must not despatch it - bound over to keep the peace till the foe chooses to stir. Yours ever L. E. BeckerBecker_