24 and 25 Vict. ch. 96, s. 110—“In all cases where the sum adjudged to be paid on any summary conviction shall exceed five pounds, or the imprisonment adjudged shall exceed one month, or the conviction shall take place before one justice only, any person who shall think himself aggrieved by any such conviction may appeal to the next Court of General or Quarter Sessions, which shall be holden not less than twelve days after the day of such conviction, for the county or place wherein the cause of complaint shall have arisen; provided that such person shall give to the complainant a notice in writing of such appeal, and of the cause and matter thereof, within three days after such conviction, and seven clear days at the least before such Sessions, and shall also either remain in custody until the Sessions, or shall enter into a recognizance with two sufficient sureties,” etc. etc. This appeal clause is identical with that in 24 and 25 Vict. c. 97, and continually repeated in other Acts of Parliament, as, for instance, in the one against brawling in church, etc. etc. It will be seen therefore that the absence of a right to appeal from the conviction by the justice of the peace under the Contagious Diseases Acts is a peculiar harshness of these Acts, as contrasted with general criminal Acts. It appears from the “Criminal Law Amendment Acts,” 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, 97, and 100, that the largest fine that can be inflicted by a justice of the peace is £50, which large fine can apparently be inflicted only in one case, viz., that of wounding deer (see c. 96, s. 12). Generally the limiting fine is £20 or £5. The greatest punishment mentioned in these Acts, as assignable by a justice of the peace, is _six months’ imprisonment_. Now, under the Contagious Diseases Acts (clause 7, Act 1869) the woman can be imprisoned in hospital for _nine months_. (By clause 24, Act 1866, the period during which she could be thus imprisoned was limited to six months, but was extended to nine months by clause 7, Act 1869. This extension, in common with many other features, shows the insidious character of these Acts.) In addition, therefore, to the fundamental and absolute points of difference mentioned in the text of this Essay, these Acts differ from all previous Criminal Acts—1st, In inflicting a longer imprisonment on summary conviction; and 2d, In not permitting the appeal allowed under other Criminal Acts. ----- Footnote 1: _English Constitution_, p. 2. (Eighth edition. Bentley.) Footnote 2: Speech of the Earl of Chatham on the exercise of the Judicature in matters of Election, 1763. Footnote 3: Lord Chatham’s Speeches. Footnote 4: _English Constitution_, p. 148. Footnote 5: _Middle Ages_, chap. ii. p. 324. Footnote 6: _Ibid._ Footnote 7: _Ibid._ Footnote 8: De Lolme on the Constitution, p. 28. Footnote 9: Coke on Magna Charta. Footnote 10: _English Constitution_, p. 150. Footnote 11: _English Constitution_, p. 151.