The Victorian era was undoubtedly a period of contradictions, characterised by growing affluence and wealth existing alongside widespread poverty. This was also the case with the issue of prostitution: despite Victorian values promoting high moral standards and sexual restraint, and prostitution being condemned as a ‘great social evil’ by puritan lobbyists, it was widespread. The moralists insisted that urgent action should be taken to rid the nation of what was seen as a dangerous threat to decent society.

The Victorian views of sexuality were especially narrow, with sex being seen as a means of procreation as opposed to pleasure and this applied especially to women. The 19th century ideal of womanhood was that she was the ‘angel of the house’ who looked after her husband and children within the private sphere of the home and had limited outside dealings with wider society. In addition, the Victorian woman was expected to be both sexually passive and morally pure so that her behaviour was always beyond reproach.

Therefore, in total contrast, the Victorian prostitute, earning a living through selling sexual services, was not only a societal anomaly but was also morally corrupt and regarded as a real threat to social stability, the antithesis of the ideal Victorian woman.

What made ‘the oldest profession’ a particularly contentious and visible issue in the Victorian era was the stark way in which it clashed with those highly moralistic values. The Victorian puritans also regarded prostitutes as victims of exploitation, drawing comparisons with slaves, especially as many working-class women were seen as being trapped within a deplorable and morally repugnant system from which there was little chance of escape. Therefore, as early as 1840, puritan lobbyists put forward a Brothels Suppression Act before Parliament which, although unsuccessful, served to highlight the moral concerns that the system of prostitution raised.

But Victorian society was also characterised by its laissez-faire approach to interfering in the workings of commerce as well as the private lives of individuals, so that the government saw it as unnecessary to intervene directly. Furthermore, despite the Victorian belief in sexual restraint, it was seen as mainly applicable to women who needed to remain pure before marriage. Conversely, men were seen as having differing sexual needs from women, both before and following marriage, for which a suitable outlet was required. Consequently, most of the political elite, though aware of it, were prepared to turn a blind eye to the issue of prostitution, with many actually regarding it as a viable outlet for male sexual needs and as such a ‘necessary evil’. This attitude certainly demonstrates the double standards that existed in with regard to female and male sexuality in the Victorian era.

Within the world of prostitution, not all prostitutes were the same in terms of social standing or were as equally vulnerable as the puritan lobbyists claimed. In fact, prostitutes ranged from high-class courtesans who lived in luxurious homes, having a select number of upper class clients and commanding high fees, to West End prostitutes who could earn more in a night than a working man could earn in a month; or else periodic or part-time prostitutes who sold sex to supplement their low incomes or even to treat themselves to luxuries such as a new dress. Finally, there was the lower-class prostitute who made her living through street walking, making herself more vulnerable to violence, exploitation by pimps and also the contraction of a sexually transmitted disease.

By the middle of the 19th century it was estimated that there were at least 8000 prostitutes making a living in London alone and that prostitution was also prevalent in provincial cities and military and market towns throughout Britain. However, Victorian physician Michael Ryan, drawing on the work of the deeply puritanical London Rescue Society, claimed in 1839 that there were actually 80,000 prostitutes in London. Therefore, although this figure seems overly high, it was used by puritan lobbyists to reinforce their message that it was a ‘great social evil’ which needed direct government intervention. But although the puritans were able to exert enough pressure to earn temporary victories in closing down individual brothels, most just reopened elsewhere so that the problem was only temporarily solved and, without a proper police campaign to close them down, nothing could be done to permanently outlaw them.

Interestingly, the great Victorian novelist Charles Dickens highlighted the evils of prostitution through his novels in which characters who were implied as being prostitutes, such as Nancy and Bet in Oliver Twist, were treated sympathetically, and also in a more direct way through the setting up of an actual refuge for prostitutes in London, called Urania Cottage. Dickens’ aim was to morally rehabilitate ‘fallen women’, so that they would give up the profession for good and be restored to respectable society. In collaboration with a wealthy heiress, Angela Burdett Coutt, Dickens aimed to reform the character of former prostitutes through a system of rewards rather than punishments.

Indeed, he recognised that there were various reasons why women fell into prostitution and that poverty was a major factor. In order to reform them, the women were encouraged to dress demurely and also refrain from using bad language, in addition to engaging in suitable ‘ladylike’ and refined past times such as embroidery and piano playing. Dickens actually believed his initiative to be successful although this is difficult to prove.

The social investigator Henry Mayhew meanwhile provided a further insight into the prostitute’s world when, having interviewed some, he revealed that most did not actually wish to be prostitutes for all of their lives. Furthermore, although many were not ashamed of how they had made their living as a prostitute, they nonetheless mourned their loss of respectability and of social acceptance so that many hoped to eventually find a husband who would ‘make an honest woman’ of them and thereby be able to redeem themselves in the eyes of respectable society.

Despite the protestations of puritan lobbyists who wished to see an end to brothels and the practice of prostitution and indeed the intervention of philanthropists such as Dickens, there also existed the belief within Victorian society that prostitution should be legalised and recognised as a legitimate profession in line with the continental approach in Belgium and in France. This, it was argued, meant that prostitutes would pay tax and they would also be regularly medically examined for venereal diseases which would protect male clients from contracting them. It was the public health lobby which called for legislation and regulation of prostitution as it viewed venereal diseases as a real threat to the health of the nation and especially the armed forces given that prostitution was rife in the garrison towns.

In 1850 the Westminster Review quoted WR Greg who, although a Conservative, nonetheless emphasised the need to regulate prostitution for the good of the nation’s health, speaking of “the incalculable deterioration of public health and the vigour of the race, which must ensue in the course of a generation or two more”. After the Crimean War a Royal Commission was set up in May 1857 to “inquire into the sanitary condition of the British Army”. Its findings were then discussed in the Lancet medical journal in February 1858, where it was argued that between 1830-1847 one fifth of soldiers were found to have a sexual disease and that the cost of treating them amounted to an expensive £3-£4 per soldier. The Lancet argued that it would be much cheaper to remove the prostitute from her trade and treat her in a special hospital until she was disease free, thereby limiting the number of servicemen who could be infected. It called for the compulsory registration and periodic medical inspection of all prostitutes in garrison towns and seaside ports and the establishment of ‘lock hospitals’ where prostitutes would be compulsorily retained until they were deemed cured. Therefore, the emphasis was placed upon preventing the soldiers and sailors from contracting diseases, rather than dissuading them from consorting with prostitutes in the first place. Furthermore, the health and the sexual needs of the servicemen were to take priority at the expense of the freedom, rights and dignity of the prostitutes. This approach was justified by claiming that not only would it save the armed forces a considerable amount of money but it would also benefit the health of the men. Sir John Liddell, who was Director General of the Medical Department of the Navy, proclaimed to the Royal Commission, “If the butcher’s shop may be occasionally visited and inspected for diseased meat, why should the brothel be exempted?”

Consequently, the government began drafting up the legislation for the first of a series of Contagious Diseases Acts which were designed to protect the health of the military and under which prostitution was to be recognised and regulated in naval and garrison towns. Thus, prostitutes were to be subject to regular medical examinations to determine whether or not they were diseased and would be apprehended and taken to a lock hospital if this was found to be the case. Failure to comply would result in either a £10.00 fine or a three-month prison sentence.

Naturally, the puritan lobbyists were outraged and incensed when not one but three Contagious Diseases Acts were introduced in 1864, 1866 and 1869 respectively and this spurred them into action. They were also aided in this period by the growing feminist movement and the galvanising influence of Josephine Butler who was outraged by the double moral standards that the acts enshrined within law. Indeed, Butler, despite her upper middle-class background, not only spoke out publicly at meetings against these acts but also formed the Ladies’ National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, which published its manifesto in 1870. This highlighted the double sexual standards of the acts and how women were being victimised. Furthermore, Butler was able on publication to obtain 2000 signatures to endorse her manifesto, including those of prominent women such as Florence Nightingale and social reformer Harriet Martineau as well as other famous people in the literary and philanthropic world.

Success in repealing these acts did not come about easily or promptly. A Royal Commission initiated in 1871 recommended that the Contagious Diseases Acts remain although the compulsory examination of prostitutes would be retrenched. Similarly, another select committee government enquiry of 1883 reached no agreement about whether the acts should be permanently quashed. Butler joined forces with her journalist friend WT Stead, who reported in the Pall Mall Gazette about the horrors of child prostitution and also the white slave traffic in London – it was revealed that British women were being snatched and sent to Brussels where they were sold to brothel keepers, detained against their will and forced to work as prostitutes.

This scandal forced the government to act, resulting in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 and also strengthened existing legislation against prostitution. This was undoubtedly a triumph for the puritan lobbyists and also feminists as it signified that the forces of morality had won and that there was now no prospect of any future laws liberalising prostitution. Spurred on by their success, the puritans and feminists set up a National Vigilance Association of men and women which later collaborated with other activist groups such as the Minors’ Protection Society, leading to a huge increase in the number of prosecutions brought against brothel keepers. Thus, whereas in the ten years prior to 1885 there were an average of 86 prosecutions per annum by 1885-1914 it had risen to over 1200. The final piece of legislation against prostitution was the 1898 Vagrancy Act, which was aimed at pimps – they would be rendered as a rogues or a vagabonds if found to be living off immoral earnings and would be dealt with under the provisions of the 1824 Vagrancy Act.

However, despite the victory of the lobbyists, the Victorians were never able to completely or permanently outlaw prostitution. Instead, it disappeared underground once more only to reappear as a problematic issue with successive generations as it still does today. Nevertheless, in terms of the moral stance and general attitude towards prostitution, whereby to this day it is still regarded as an immoral, unpleasant and yet unavoidable feature of society, the legacy of the Victorians may be seen to have endured and will no doubt persist for many generations to come.