The Select Committee of the House of Commons on the contagious diseases acts (1866-69), sessions of 1879 to 1882, inclusive : the minority report / as adopted by Mr. Stansfeld, M.P. [and others] ; with references to the evidence on which it is founded.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on the Contagious Diseases Acts (1866-69)
- Date:
- 1882
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The Select Committee of the House of Commons on the contagious diseases acts (1866-69), sessions of 1879 to 1882, inclusive : the minority report / as adopted by Mr. Stansfeld, M.P. [and others] ; with references to the evidence on which it is founded. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
14/60 (page 8)
![Tab. II, p. 158 William Muir's original Table, produced in 1879, related only to the two groups of 28 selected stations, and showed the comparative Apl879,p.l58 ratios therein dnring the period 1870—1878. The inference Footnote to drawn from those figures was, that the average rate of the subjected Table group is less than half that of the other. The Table shows, how- Evl881.1845, ever, that the average diiference throughout the period of complete ■^^^^ subjection is in fact nearly the same as the original difference in the first year, 1870. The initial ratios then Avere 4*4G and 9*74 (or 1: 2-18), the average ratios were 3-47 and 7-99 (or 1: 2-30). The protected stations therefore started with the advantage of a .ratio less than half that of the unprotected stations, and the extent to wliich the former class increased that origmal advantage —or in other words, the difference between the two sets of ratios— is the only result apparently attributable to the protected stations in respect of tliis comparative saving in efficiency. For it is clearly not the gross diiference, but only the net difference, after taking into account the original or initial disparity, which can properly be claimed on behalf of the stations protected by the Ev 1879. 59- Acts. Another inference was drawn by Sir William Muir from a 63,andNote series of similar ratios for the five years 1868—1872, viz., that the p.l5of Min- actual saving effected in the protected stations on the average of those 5 years Avas 190 men, which was equal to a possible saving of 300 men, if calculated for the entire Army. As to this inference EvlSSl 1845 '^^^^ subsequently shoAvn by Mr. Lawson that the basis of Sir 1846. ' William Muir's calculation was the absolute difference between the averages of the two sets of ratios, and not their comparative or net difference. Snch calculation therefore appears to us to be unsound in two essential particulars: (1) It compares the ratios of actual inefficiency in the two groups of stations again without taking into account their initial difference, and estimates the saving accordingly at 190 men. (2) It assumes that an extension of the Acts to miprotected stations woidd reduce their inefficiency to the same ratio again Avithout regard to the same initial difference, and thu.s adding an hypothetical saving of 110 men. It is quite clear to us that no saving can be shoAvn approaching these figures, and that the alleged saving of efficiency affords no sufficient reason for the Acts. Among other various official calculations as to the daily saving in the efficient strength of the army attributed to the operation of EvlSSl. 1529 the Acts, it is calculated by Mr. LaAvson to amount to 5*17 men per 1000 of force, Avhich, on the average strength of 50,000 in the protected districts Avould yield a total of 258 men. This saving,, even assuming it to be eflfected by, and to be attributaljle to the Ev]882, 4941 Acts, is gained at the total expense of 30,000^. per annum, Avhich is equal to 116Z. a year for each man saved. 7. Eegarding, hoAvever, as a simple fact, the greater reduction which has actually been effected in primary venereal sores since the introduction of the Acts in the subjected stations, the question remains Avhether such reduction has taken place alike in the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21453408_0016.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
