The form of the voluntary submission is as follows:—“I —— voluntarily subject myself to a periodical medical examination by the visiting surgeon for —— calendar months.” In order to put it more plainly before the reader, let him imagine some petty misdemeanour, such as petty theft or disorderly conduct,—let him imagine a paper of a self-criminating character put before the accused, wherein he signs words to this effect: “I —— submit myself to (here mentioning some new form of punishment, which shall include the public registration of his calling as a thief or a drunkard) for —— calendar months.” Where is here the desirable expediting of justice? and where is here the “benevolent motive of setting the culprit, after a brief punishment, free to start a new life”? Footnote 44: When the gross nature of the outrage involved in the examination becomes known to them, many refuse to sign the voluntary submission a second time, and have to be taken before a magistrate. Footnote 45: See Chapter v. Footnote 46: Not only is the case treated summarily under the Contagious Diseases Acts, and thus the safeguard of jury trial taken away, but even the safeguards which are generally allowed in summary cases are taken away. In other summary cases, where the imprisonment adjudged shall exceed one month, there is the right of appeal to the general or quarter sessions (see Appendix). But even this appeal is not allowed under the Contagious Diseases Acts, although (see clause 7, Act 1869, and clause 26, Act 1866) the woman may be imprisoned for nine months, and (see clause 28, Act 1866) may be imprisoned for three months with hard labour. Footnote 47: Blackstone, Book iii. p. 367. Footnote 48: If the reader will in the following speech substitute the words “Contagious Disease” for “Smuggling,” and make several consequent alterations, he will find that this address stands as that of a man rising from the dead to plead on our behalf. Footnote 49: Compare with this, clause 4, Act 1869, where information is to be lodged against a woman of whom the policeman has “good cause to believe” that she has been “outside of those limits _for the purpose_ of prostitution.” The reader will observe that the policeman here has not suspicion necessarily of any act perpetrated, but merely he has suspicion that this woman harbours in her breast a certain intention. Footnote 50: If Lord Hardwicke could use this language in respect to the danger which every honest man was subjected by a law directed against smugglers only, how much more are we justified in saying that every woman encounters dangers of as grave a kind by the existence of a law directed against unchaste women? Footnote 51: Only _one_ witness is required under the Contagious Diseases Acts. Footnote 52: