The Contagious Disease Act was initially enacted in 1864 with the goal of preventing sexual diseases within the armed forces. This Act allowed for any woman who was suspected of being a prostitute to be arrested and later was forced to endure medical checks for sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman was to be found with a disease, they were detained in hospitals for a certain period of time. The Act was later reformed in 1866 as government officials worked to spread the jurisdiction of the Act to more sites of military personnel as well as the civilian population. Both Acts were to be carried out and executed through the use of police force with the addition of purpose-built lock wards in which the women were confined to in the reformed Act of 1866 (McHugh 16). To begin with, the Contagious Disease Act was defended as a means of sanitary measures and to set proper moral views. The House of Commons Committee states in Acton’s book, “Although the Act has only been in operation for two years and a half, and at some stations only seven months, strong testimony is borne to the benefits, both in a moral and sanitary point of view, which have already resulted from it” (Acton 3). With a little over two years in action, the House of Commons Committee claimed they were making beneficial strides towards a more sanitary and moral environment with the implementation of the Acts. Overall, prostitution had seemed to fully diminish and society seemed to morally be doing better. In addition, Acton states “Only those utterly ignorant of what has been achieved, will be so bold as to deny the excellent effects produced by the Contagious Disease Act in the protected districts” (Acton 11). Once again, Acton claims that there have been beneficial effects in response to the Acts, and anybody who denies it is wrong. Acton’s idea is that whatever is good for the few is good for the many, regardless of how the Acts treat women as inferior to men. When the Acts first came about, government officials did not worry themselves too much of defending the purpose of these Acts, as there was no significant challenge to their legitimacy (Walkowitz 71). It wasn’t until the late 1860s where public opposition became prominent enough to where government officials had to begin to justify themselves. The start of the repeal movement recruited many extraordinary campaigners who found the Acts to be repugnant such as moralists, feminists, individualists, and other opponents of medical pretensions and military arrogance (McHugh 16). One campaigner who made unprecedented strides towards the repeal of the Contagious Disease Acts and is considered to be the leader goes by the name of Josephine Butler. Mrs. Butler saw prostitution as a social problem rather than a sexual problem and demanded equality of treatment with men (McHugh 21). Mrs. Butler was not alone, as those who wanted to repeal the Act made the same argument. It was unfair to treat the disease as if it is something only a woman could cause and there cannot be an Act that singles out one gender and punish them. The Acts were essentially made for the protection of males in which was assured through the inspection of females (McHugh 17). Once again, government officials mentioned the moral and social benefits of the Act and made post hoc fallacies arguing that since women are the gender with the disease, they must be the one causing it, which was entirely irrelevant to the initial argument in 1864. At the end of the day, these acts were intended to be the first stage in the creation of a moral and sanitary utopia. The Contagious Diseases Acts were consistent with a set of attitudes and "habits of mind" toward women, sexuality, and class that permeated the official Victorian culture.

Works Cited:

Acton, William. Contagious Diseases Act, Shall the Contagious Diseases Act be Applied to the Civil Population? London, John Churchill & Sons, 1870.

McHugh, Paul. Prostitution and Victorian Social Reform. New York, Routledge, 1980.

Walkowitz, Judith R. Prostitution and Victorian Society: Women, Class, and the State. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980.