Note 1 — III.—Woman in Art, Literature, Politics, and Social Polity.

‘She kept no notes or records. She desired to forget what she had done.

‘Many ladies try to benefit these women in different ways; not many receive them into their houses.

‘A sufficient number of private persons doing this work would obviate the necessity for Government machinery.

‘Witness would wish to keep clear of Government aid, because Government would then assume a right to control. The work was too delicate for the State to meddle with.

‘She knew nothing of the garrison towns: knew most of the north: declined to give an opinion as to the operation of the Acts: had no interest in them.

‘Reminded that she had given her opinion pretty freely at meetings and in publications, the witness stated that that was merely in illustration of her views on the constitutional and moral part of the subject.

‘No alteration in the Acts could reconcile her to them. She would be satisfied with nothing but entire repeal.

‘Witness remembered addressing the Secretary at War with reference to a girl named Hagar. She thought her letter to Mr. Cardwell was a private one. She had apologised to Mr. Cardwell for having written in warmth of feeling.

‘She was aware that therein she made a charge of gross misconduct against a policeman: was not satisfied that she had been entirely mistaken. She reported the case on the authority of Mr. and Mrs. Heritage and of the mother and girl.

‘She was aware that the Secretary of State ordered an inquiry, and that the inspector of hospitals came to the conclusion that there was not a word of truth in what the woman and girl said. She believed the woman and girl in preference to Dr. Sloggett. She did not know the nature of the evidence on which Dr. Sloggett reported to the Secretary of State, and was still disposed to believe the woman and girl.

‘Her speeches had often been incorrectly reported. She did say at Nottingham that the promoters of the Acts did not dare to ask the Queen to sign such a measure during the life of Prince Albert; but did not say, as reported, that Her Majesty signed the Act believing it to be a Cattle Bill.

‘She considered any reformations under the Acts accidental, and doubted whether, as brought about by the Acts, reformation was a benefit.

‘She would take no legal measures for prevention of the infection of infants by diseased parents; only moral means.’