In July 1896, the unprecedented furore caused by the Amelia Dyer case was too great to be ignored by the Home Office. In a series of memos from Whitehall, the Secretary of State made clear his feeling that “the recent case of Elizabeth Dyer in which a series of infant murders extending over a period of years was brought to light, have convinced Sir Matthew Ridley that the [infant life Protection] Act of 1872 has not secured the results which were expected by Parliament”. His first step was to urge all borough and district councils to routinely pursue “the advertisements of baby-farmers (such as those by means of which Elizabeth Dyer seems chiefly to have obtained the children entrusted to her)”.
Secondly, he admitted that the case highlighted that there were “important limitations in the Act itself”; that it was essentially “defective”; and announced that its improvement was to be put “under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of lords”.
The second infant life Protection Act came about as a result of the findings of that Select Committee. The new act accounted for the shortcomings of its predecessor and provided authorities across the country with the remit to identify and supervise the nursing and adoption of infants under their jurisdiction, along with power to enforce it.
Every authority was to appoint inspectors who would implement and maintain the terms of the Act: they were to make frequent inspections of any residences they had reason to suspect were houses of confinement or baby farms. They had the authority to remove any children found to be abused. It also stipulated that any newspaper advertisements “relating to establishments for taking in infants are to be submitted to the Commissioner, with a report of any circumstances connected therewith known to the Police”.
Three more baby farmers would hang for infanticide during the ten years that followed the execution of Amelia Dyer.