It is easy to _assume_ that the compulsory periodical examination of women will check diseases due to vice; but the assumption has never been proved. The statistics of the years during which the C. D. Acts prevailed in certain military stations in Great Britain, as compared with the statistics of later years, show a marked decrease since repeal took place, and therefore that the compulsory examinations in no way diminished disease, but rather the contrary. And when an unbiased person thoroughly investigates the history of the controversy on the subject, and is made acquainted with the course of deceit which has been practised in the past by Anglo-Indian[6] advocates of licensed vice, in order to maintain an odious system, a belief in Indian military assertions will not be inspired. The statement is being heralded to the world that over half the British army in India is suffering from diseases due to vice. Yet Lord George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, was obliged to explain in the House of Commons, January 25, 1897, that while it had been reported that the aggregate of admissions to hospital for venereal diseases among the British troops in India amounted in 1895 to 522 per thousand, "This does not mean that 522 men per thousand were separately and individually admitted, still less does it indicate that 522 soldiers per thousand are incapacitated for duty from this cause. It is calculated on the latest returns that an average permanent reduction of 46 per thousand is the loss entailed by these diseases." In other words, instead of over half being incapacitated from military duty, less than one in twenty is off duty from this cause mentioned. The larger number, which is calculated to startle the public into submission to the demands of certain Anglo-Indian officials, has been secured on the assumption that every "admission" into hospital means a fresh case, whereas it has been conceded that all re-admissions from relapse, and every stage of the progress of disease which requires a new diagnosis, has been reckoned as an "admission." A Member of Parliament who has been enquiring about the hospital records, says: "I have before me the hospital sheet of a man who was in hospital from January 1st to January 25th in one year. During that time the medical description of his disease was changed four times, and the man is formally entered and discharged and re-admitted on each of these occasions, the date of each discharge and admission being entered in the column provided for the purpose. So that this one man, who has been only once in hospital during the year, actually furnishes four 'admissions' to the official record. The same man was again in hospital from the 1st to the 30th of May, in the following year, during which time the diagnosis being three times changed, he was entered as admitted and discharged three times."