PART I.

HC Deb 30 July 1885 vol 300 cc590-630

Protection of Women and Girls.

Clause 2 (Procuring woman to be a common prostitute or to enter a brothel).

MR. ELTON

said, he hoped the Committee would approve of the principle of the Amendment he was about to move. It was as follows:— In page 1, after line 9, insert the following sub-section:—"(1) Procures, or by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours to procure any woman or girl not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any other person or persons; or. The object of the Amendment was twofold, and was intended to punish two distinct offences. The first was the offence of procuring young persons to have illicit connection; and the second was to punish the persistent or aggravated attempt to procure persons to have connection, even although such attempt did not result in the commission of the offence. He thought that they ought to extend the punishment under this clause to those persons who were guilty of persistently luring and debauching the minds of young girls, even although the actual act was not carried out. They did not wish to punish the mere suggestion or licentious talk of young people; but they wanted to meet the case of those professionals who committed the offence habitually, and therefore might be taken to make it into a profession. In fact, the people they wished to attack were those whose proper place would be at the cart-tail—the pimps and bawds they had heard of of old. Besides those there were those professional procurers and rascally kidnappers who lurked at ports and stations and thievish corners of the streets, in order to entrap the ill-protected daughters of the working classes to houses of ill-fame at home, or to send them for evil purposes abroad. One of the best results of this Amendment, he anticipated, would be the retirement of those sly and quiet procuresses who kept on the safe side of the law. They were always anxious to know what the law was, and evidence showed that in a way they were law-abiding people. They wanted to keep on the right side of the line. Now, he (Mr. Elton) thought they would catch them by making their profession illegal; for when they found that it was illegal they would come to the conclusion that "discretion was the better part of valour," and retire from their business. As to the rest—the sterner and more abandoned culprits—they might have to be punished once; but he still thought the Amendment would do much to put down this public nuisance. He would like to know how far these things that he was dealing with were illegal under the present law, if done openly, because he did not desire to introduce anew species of crime. He believed they were illegal at present; but he would qualify that opinion by saying that it was almost impossible to find any punishment that would apply to them. Conspiring to obtain people to commit illicit intercourse was, undoubtedly, a penal offence, so that they might, with great difficulty, succeed in catching these very unpleasant people when they went about in groups, or hunted in couples. If, however, these kidnappers went about single-handed, it was very difficult to catch them. Taking a child away from home was an offence also against the peace of the Realm, according to a decision in the time of Henry VII.; but, probably, the offences were punishable in the Ecclesiastical Courts, the jurisdiction of which was now obsolete and was never well-defined. With regard to the expression "persistent persuasion," which, no doubt, some hon. Gentlemen would speak about, all he could say was that there was no doubt, from Howell's case, that although it might not be an offence which was punishable by their Statutes it was unquestionably unlawful, and that was why he had put the words into the Amendment. The warm and over-excited speech they had heard from the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was exceedingly interesting; but he (Mr. Elton) would point out that they had heard the same thing with regard to every amendment of the Criminal Law for many years past, and, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, he hoped the Committee would support his Motion. The Amendment which he felt it his duty to move was based on the Reports of various important Inquiries which had sat before any statements on this subject were published in The Pall Mall Gazette. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, after line 9, insert the following sub-section:—"(1) Procures, or by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours to procure any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any other person or persons; or."—(Mr. Elton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the clause was one directed against the offence of procuring. He took it that the object of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton) was to prevent anyone procuring or endeavouring to procure, under the circumstances he had specified, any woman or girl to become a common prostitute. He, therefore, intended to support the Amendment, which sought to prevent a girl taking the first step towards an immoral life.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he did not wish to be considered a critic of the Bill or of any Amendment which would strengthen it; but he thought the Committee would agree with him that they must be very careful in what they did. The Committee must look at the effect of this Amendment. They would observe that there was no limit as to age whatever, and that the Amendment was so drawn that any person who carried a message from a woman to a woman might be liable to two years' imprisonment. Let him put another case in which the Amendment would apply. Suppose a man married abroad his deceased wife's sister. Any cohabitation between them in this country would be an unlawful connection. He had known a woman in such a position consult a professional man as to whether she should remain in the man's house. The advice given was that, under the circumstances, she should. It might be contended that the person who gave such advice would be liable to two years' imprisonment, if this Amendment became law. Now, there was an Amendment standing on the next page, in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), which, if it could be discussed and slightly altered, would get rid of the objection he (Sir Henry James) had pointed out. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. J. Stuart's) Amendment was to insert— Procures, or endeavours to procure, any girl under the age of twenty-one years, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful carnal intercourse with any other person, either within or without the Queen's dominions. If they could adopt some such proposition, they would avoid the difficulty of a definition, which they must have, of "persistent persuasion or other importunity."

MR. HOPWOOD

asked what was meant by "endeavours to procure?" The law did not know "an endeavour;" but it did know "an attempt," and an attempt to commit a crime was punishable. If they adopted the word "attempt," the term would be thoroughly understood. How were they going to define "endeavour?" He earnestly asked the repositories of legal science in the House to protect them against this sort of legislation.

MR. GREGORY

said, that this was a highly penal clause, and, therefore, the Committee should be very careful what they did. It appeared to him the clause itself, as well as this particular Amendment, required the most grave consideration. It w7as quite clear that the Amendment, if not the clause, involved the greatest difficulty of judicial construction. Those who had to deal with cases under the clause would have to consider what was the meaning of "procuring," what was the meaning of "persistent persuasion," and what was the meaning of "other importunity," and what was the meaning of "by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward." There was no doubt there would be conflicting opinions as to the meaning of all these phrases; and in the case of a law of this kind it was most essential to avoid conflicting decisions. He confessed he disliked the words "procures or endeavours to procure." the clause might be open to the construction that the very seduction of a woman led her into prostitution. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) undoubtedly mitigated to some extent the severity of the clause, because it confined the operation of the clause to cases of women under 21 years of age. To apply the clause to women of all ages was simply ridiculous. But even the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would require very serious attention when it came before the Committee. He hoped the present Amendment would be withdrawn with a view to the consideration of that hon. Member's Amendment, which he (Mr. Gregory) considered much preferable to the subsection under notice as it stood.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he thought it would be very convenient to discuss the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) together. He would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) and the Committee generally of what the object of both these Amendments was. The object was to prevent any attempts to get a woman or girl to have unlawful connection with any other person. The Amendments were aimed at the horrible and ghastly trade of procuring, and had nothing to do with any vice between man and woman. That being so, let them consider for a moment whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General was right in the view he took of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He (the Attorney General) ventured to think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not right in the view he took. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) proposed the adoption of the words "procures or endeavours to procure." There was no limit to the endeavouring to procure. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Twenty-one years of age.] He quite admitted the question of age was one the Committee should consider; but he was, for the moment, dealing with the governing words "procures or endeavours to procure." He wished to keep that point distinct from the question of age. It was said, and, no doubt, said very truly, that there might be some such case as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General put—a case of a man marrying his deceased wife's sister, and some sort of persuasion being used. That, however, was a very uncommon case. It. was not an exceptional case for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; but it was very exceptional for there to be persistent persuasion or importunity of some other person to get the man and woman to marry. He did not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not be right in using the case as an argument for limiting the age to which the clause should apply; but he did not think it was a case to be used as an argument in dealing with the other parts of the clause—namely, "persistent persuasion or other importunity." The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had complained of the elasticity of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset. He had said the words of the Amendment would necessitate legal construction; of course they would, and with regard to their meaning there might be differences of opinion. The elasticity of the Amendment was just what was wanted. It must be a question of fact, it must be a question for the jury under the direction of the Judge; but he thought it was desirable to adopt some words which would make it clear to the tribunal that what was intended to be aimed at was the persistent endeavour to get a woman or girl to have illicit connection with some man. He, therefore, asked whether it would not be prudent to insert in the clause some such words as the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset suggested? In any case, he hoped the spirit of the Amendment would be adopted, so that the clause might really point at the evil they desired to cope with. He had no particular view on the question of age; that was a question which had better be raised by those who had more experience on the subject than he himself had.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, there seemed to be little or no difference in the Committee as to the object of this Amendment—namely, that it was to prevent the trade of procuring. But he confessed it was rather dangerous to go into details as to the method of procuring, as they would do if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elton). It appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) raised the question in what might be called the neatest form, though he agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) that they should say "attempts" instead of "endeavours." The clause would then read—" Procures or attempts to procure any girl, not being a common prostitute; "and then he should like to put in the words which had been suggested by an hon. Gentleman opposite," or of known immoral character, "for the clause was clearly not meant to apply to a woman who had been in the keeping of one man and then passed into the keeping of another man. He thought that if they took the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney as a basis, and altered it in the way he had suggested, they would come to a satisfactory conclusion.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he entirely sympathized with the view taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), as to the meaning of the clause. As the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, the object of the clause was to strike a blow at the trade of the procurer or procuress. He believed the whole of the Committee were agreed as to that object; but it appeared to him that this clause, while having that very laudable and desirable object, really lost that object in one point of view and went far beyond it in another point of view. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) ought to have moved his Amendment on Clause 3. Clause 2 was directed at a different class of offences, and Clause 2 was that clause which dealt with the trade of procuring. If they adopted this Amendment on this clause, the effect of Clause 3 would be weakened. That, however, was a more objection of form, and one which could easily be got over. But he should like to ask the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset what he meant by "any other person or persons?" Did he mean any person or persons other than the procurer; or, did he mean any other person or persons other than the girl or woman? [Mr. ELTON: Other than the procurer.] Then that would lead to a remarkable state of things. A man might seduce a girl and yet not be liable to punishment; but if he assisted a friend to seduce the girl, and persuaded the girl to submit herself to his friend's desire, he would be liable to two years' imprisonment. It seemed to him that in the desire of the Committee, in which he absolutely and entirely shared, to put down the trade of the procurer, there was a danger of introducing into the Bill the most illogical and absurd anomalies.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, it was expressly intended that this Amendment should not deal with the offence of seduction; that offence was dealt with in another part of the Bill. This Amendment was only intended to deal with procuring for other people.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he wished to point out to the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Elton) that the word "procures" covered the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward." These words, therefore, were quite unnecessary. "Procures or attempts to procure," would, no doubt, be better, and would meet the whole case.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) to a point which appeared to have escaped consideration. The Amendment, as well as the Bill itself, referred to offences which were to be committed within or without the Queen's Dominions. He would like to ask whether, in case a foreigner who procured a foreigner hi a foreign country without the intervention of a British subject came to this country, he would be chargeable with misdemeanour? This Bill was very carelessly drawn; he did not suppose that a more carelessly drawn Bill was ever presented to a Committee for consideration. He had heard that one of the causes was that the Bill was interfered with by the Bishops in the other house. Now, if it were the fact that a foreigner, procuring a woman or girl abroad, would be liable, on coming to this country, to be imprisoned for two years with hard labour, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could foresee that there might be intervention by Foreigu Governments, and that a great deal of inconvenience might result. He would be glad if the Law Officers of the Crown, would afford the Committee some explanation upon this point, and consent to introduce words which would relieve any ambiguity on the subject. Having said so much on the question, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether he would introduce here a limitation as to age, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), because, if he did not, there would be a vast amount of difficulty?

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he trusted that, after the opinions which, had been expressed, there would be no difficulty in settling this sub-section. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) to adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and which were perfectly clear.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, there was a reason for adhering to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He quite agreed that "attempts" would be a better word than "endeavours;" but it seemed to those who supported the Amendment that they ought to indicate the class of attempts they desired to make an offence. He should also be willing to adopt 21 years as the limit of age, and also the words "or of immoral character."

MR. WARTON

said, it was perfectly clear, from the little discussion they had had, that there was great difference of opinion on this point amongst the eminent lawyers of the house. Some were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), and others in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for "West Somerset (Mr. Elton): opinion seemed to sway backwards between the two Amendments. He was astonished the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset had adopted the word "endeavours," because the word was not known to the English law. He was still more astonished that it should be proposed to accept the words "or of known immoral character." The word "known" might be taken in the sense of being known to the person who committed the offence, and the criminal might therefore escape. Although he objected strongly to the Bill, he thought it was his duty, when the clauses came up for consideration, to make them as perfect for their object as possible. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity" made the sub-section more vigorous. He was inclined to think that they were words of limitation. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): No.] He was sory to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had compared the Amendment with that of the hon. Member for Hackney, and he was inclined to think that though the words looked grand, they were words of limitation, tending to weaken instead of to strengthen the clause.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he hoped the Committee would not waste time by proposing verbal Amendments to the Amendment before the Committee. He would propose to leave out "endeavours" and insert "attempt," and also to insert after the words "woman or girl" the words "under twenty-one years of age."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had been struck with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir "William Harcourt), which had been corroborated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), with regard to the inconvenience of putting the clause into the Bill. It was only too probable that these words would give rise to much discussion between Judges and juries. He would, therefore, propose to amend the Amendment by leaving out all the words from "by persistent persuasion" down to "reward."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours," in order to insert the word "attempts."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and he thought that the Committee ought to adopt the Amendment of the sub-section which he had proposed to move. Although he (Sir William Harcourt) had pointed out an objection to the words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Elton), he thought if they were to go on with the Bill they ought not to continue to propose verbal Amendments like this to that Amendment.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he wished to point out that this was not a question of verbally amending the subsection; it was a question of very substantial importance. It was a question of the expediency of narrowing the operation of the Bill, which would be the effect of allowing these ill-advised words to remain within the Amendment. The effect of these words, which were new to lawyers, had been pointed out— namely, that they would cause difficulty of interpretation. He did not believe in the filthy fables of The Pall Mall Gazette; but he and his hon. Friends desired, if the Bill was to operate at all, that it should operate on all the forms of vice which could be interfered with. Hon. Members would observe that it was proposed to repeal the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. He did not believe that the procuration of young girls was done in the way indicated by the Amendment—that was to say, by habitual importunity upon them. Probably, the most usual way was when a young girl was met at a railway station by a woman who told her that she—the woman—kept a lodging house; and the girl by mere false pretences found herself in some place of vicious resort. If the Committee adopted the clause and did not strike out the words relating to the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict., they would leave that offence unprovided for. The Act provided that—"Whosoever shall by means of false pretences, &c, &c, shall be guilty of misdemeanour." He agreed with the right bon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) that this clause would be most effective, if it contained the words "procured or attempts to procure;" and inasmuch as no one objected to those words, he hoped the Committee would agree that this was not a matter of triviality, but of importance.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, Her Majesty Government were willing to take the larger view of the question, and strike out the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).

MR. STANSFELD

said, there would be some difficulty in using the word "endeavours" instead of "attempts." The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elton) could not, he believed, use the word "endeavours," because it was not in the Bill.

SIR. FARRER HERSCHELL

said, he wished to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke") was mistaken in supposing that the Bill loft the offence of using false pretences undealt with.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'attempt' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "girl," the words "under twenty-one years of ago."—(Sir Henry James.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WARTON

said, he objected to the word "girl."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, in that case, the only thing to be done would be to put in the word "female" instead.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he objected to the word "female." It was much better to keep to the old phraseology, and let the word "girl" remain.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that the clause, as amended, was not free from ambiguity. It might be questioned whether the restriction of the age referred to "woman" or to "girl" only.

Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.

Said proposed Amendment further amended by inserting, after the word "prostitute," the words "or of immoral character."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARTON

said, the words "immoral character" only tended to weaken the clause, and he should move to substitute the words "known immoral character."

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, after the word "of," to insert "known."—(Mr. Warton.)

Amendment negatived.

Question again proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause."

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he wished to know whether the words "unlawful connection" were to stand part of the sub-section? They were of doubtful meaning, and the act had been described differently under various Acts of Parliament. He suggested that the expression used in the Amendment should be made to agree either with the Bill or with previous Acts of Parliament.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he had no objection; but the two expressions seemed to him to be the same in effect.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, they did not, in that part of the House, hear all that was said on the Treasury Bench. He had understood the Home Secretary to move the words "or of known immoral character." He was at a loss to see how they could adopt those words in the Act. Who could say that a person was a known immoral character? Some modification of the phrase ought, in his opinion, to be made; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who took so much interest in the Bill, would give his attention to the point before the Report stage came on. The expression might be popular, but it was not legal.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 10, leave out "procures or," said, before the Committee of which he had the honour of being a Member, and which sat to take into consideration the Contagious Diseases Acts, three witnesses were introduced to prove that there was no definition of the term "common prostitute." Those witnesses were men of great learning; and the Committee were told, over and over again, that the term "common prostitute" was not to be found in any Act of Parliament that they had been able to discover. One witness said that a common prostitute was a woman who was known to go about the streets, earning money in a certain way. Under the circumstances, he would do everything to prevent procuration; but unless they knew what common prostitution was, it seemed to him they were introducing into the Act what was absolute nonsense. How could a person procure anyone, whether woman or girl, to do these separate acts — it would be necessary to follow her about, day after day, inducing her to follow this avocation? He would point out the great carelessness which had been exhibited by the framers of the Act in leaving it undecided what a prostitute was; and he would ask whether it was not possible settle this matter for good and all, so that when the discussion progressed, they might know what a prostitute was? It was not his intention to divide the Committee, although he looked on this part of the Bill as pure nonsense. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to define what was a common prostitute?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "procures or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is to omit Sub-section 1 of Clause 2—or all but the three first words. It is to omit, after the word "endeavours," in line 10, all the words down to the word "to," in line 13. The Question, however, has been put in such a way as to enable the hon. Member to move his Amendment.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, it would save a great deal of time if they were to leave out this sub-section altogether. It was already punishable for anyone to procure a woman to have unlawful connection; they went further, and said it was unlawful for a woman to be a common prostitute. Surely what had been already done included this sub-section.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he had an Amendment of no insignificance to propose to this clause, which would come in after line 12; and he wished to have the ruling of the Chairman whether, if the present Amendment were put, his Amendment would be excluded from consideration?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have said that I will so put the Question as to enable the hon. Member to propose his Amendment. His competence to move the Amendment depends upon the manner in which the Question is put. It is proposed to leave out all the words after the word "endeavours," in line 10, to the word "to," inline 13. The Question is, that the words "procures or" stand part of the Clause.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to define the term "common prostitute," and in common courtesy he was entitled to a reply. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen would perhaps allow him to ask a question. He had pointed out why the term, as it at present stood, was objectionable. Unless something was done in the direction he had indicated, the magistrates before whom these people might be brought would have a difficulty in deciding who was a common prostitute and who was not. He asked the Government to settle the point for ever in the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

No words are needed to define the term "common prostitute."

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in line 10, after the word "girl," the words "under the age of twenty-one years." He presumed the Government accepted it?

THE CHAIRMAN

Whoso name is it in?

MR. LABOUCHERE

In that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). I would, however, move it myself if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "girl," to insert the words "under the ago of twenty-one years."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped those words would not be inserted. The object of the clause was to prevent a trade in prostitution within or without the Queen's Dominions. The clause, therefore, ought to be universal, applying to females over as well as under the age of 21 years. He hoped no indication would be shown in the clause of a desire to restrict its operation.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, these words had been inserted in the sub-section previously dealing with, the trade in prostitution. This was just the same thing. ["No, no!"] "Well, that was his opinion, and it was open to hon. Members to go to a division on the matter. The object of the Bill was to protect young girls—all the outcry had been for that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knew perfectly well; and to say that they would punish any person who procured or endeavoured to procure a woman of 30, 40, 50, or goodness knew what ago, to become either within or without the Queen's Dominions a common prostitute, appeared to him to be perfectly absurd. He must press the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 2; Noes 223: Majority 221.—(Div. List, No. 257.)I

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had another Amendment to move to the subsection, and whether or not the Committee would agree to it he did not know. The object of the following sub-section was to punish anyone who procured Or endeavoured to procure a woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, with intent that she might become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions. The object of his Amendments—and one was consequential on the other—was to provide for the punishment of any person procuring or endeavouring to procure a girl under or over the age of 21 to be a common prostitute without the Queen's Dominions, but confining the punishment in regard to such procuration within the Queen's Dominions to cases where the girl was under the age of 21. The reason he wished to draw the distinction was that, in English brothels, it was obvious that women above 21 would be able to get out if they desired, and unless they were imprisoned, in which case the Common Law would deal with the persons detaining them. Abroad, as they were aware, it often happened that women were not able to get out, however much they might have passed the age of 21. The residence of girls and women in foreign brothels was something very like imprisonment. These unfortunate women did not know what was about to happen to them when they went into foreign brothels. It was very proper to give this protection to women and girls who might be taken abroad and put into foreign brothels; but he could not think it was necessary to give it in the case of girls in English brothels. He begged to move the omission of the words "either within or."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "either within or." —(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Gentleman's object was to make a distinction between the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions, and cases occurring without those Dominions the hon. Gentleman wished to limit the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions to procuration affecting girls of under 21 years of age. Well, the Committee had already decided the point against the hon. Member, having refused to limit the action of the clause in cases occurring within the Queen's Dominions to girls under the age of 21.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I understood we had reached the Amendment on the next page.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to make the sub-section apply to cases of procuring a woman or girl to have "unlawful connexion with any particular man or generally;" but he did not now propose to move it, as the cases could be met by words in the Home Secretary's clauses.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that, in accordance with a Notice he had placed on the Paper, he wished to move the insertion of the following subsection: — (2.) While carrying on an otherwise lawful business, knowingly facilitates, in premises of which he is the occupier, an immoral connexion between such women as reside there, and are in his employ, and male visitors to them, or. This Amendment was intended to deal with an entirely new kind of offence— an offence which, he believed, was not already provided against by the existing law. Upon that, of course, he might be ill-informed; and if that should be the case, he was entirely prepared to be sot right. He might say that if there had been any Act of Parliament which was intended to extend — quite apart from the present excitement on the subject, and quite apart from any real or reputed revelations which had been made —or increase the penalty of the law against offenders who were, generally, covered by this Bill, such as were indicated by his clause, he should not have brought forward this proposal. He had it on very credible authority that houses of the kind referred to in his Amendment really existed; houses in which, downstairs, businesses of a lawful and legitimate kind were carried on, such as milliners, drapers, and fancy dealers, and the windows of which displayed a variety of goods, whilst the upstairs rooms were let to single occupants, those occupants being informed or instructed, or having it hinted to them, that they had private use of the apartment with a private key, and that, under the circumstances, they could admit their male friends or whom they pleased, without any questions being asked. He was informed that this kind of practice was carried on very extensively; and if that were so, it seemed to him that it ought to be met by the strongest action of the law. It was the worst kind of brothel life he could conceive. If, on the other hand, the report was untrue, he admitted that the clause was mere brutum fulmen. He heard the other day—a friend of his had told him —[Laughter.]—he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary laughing; he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not fully aware of the depth of the depravity of human nature, notwithstanding his experience in the Home Office, which was a great place for becoming familiar with it—but, as he was saying, a friend of his, a Member of the house of Commons, had told him that a short time ago one of his constituents had related this circumstance to him. A relation of his—a niece or cousin— [Laughter.]—he did not see any ground for laughter here—the incident seemed to him a very tragic one. This niece or cousin answered an advertisement in a newspaper, under which she was invited to become a milliner at the wages of the house—a house engaged in supplying people of station and not persons of a humble class with clothing. She came to the establishment, having been apprenticed to the millinery business. She inquired what the wages would be, and was told "so much." She replied that she could not live on the sum named, whereupon the person addressing her said—" You do not understand the business; you will have a room to yourself; no one will ask questions as to when you come in or when you go out." He ventured to say that this incident was true. It was told to him by a gentleman who had easily detected what this arrangement was—who saw at once the meaning of the statement "and no questions will be asked." It was a temptation, perhaps worse than a temptation, that was involved, and, that being the case, the house in question was the worst kind of brothel that could be conceived. If such a state of things did exist, it was the duty of the Committee, and of everybody who wished to protect young persons from the risk of being debauched by fraud or violence, to accept some such proposal as that contained in his clause. He did not mean to say that he had framed the clause in such legal language that no right hon. or hon. Gentleman on either side of the house could find fault with it. He knew little about that, and cared little or nothing about it; but the Amendment appeared to him an averment of what was necessary to protect young people under or over the age of 21, and he was bound to say that it ought to be taken seriously. If these words were objected to, the subject ought to be dealt with as those hon. Gentlemen learned in the law knew how to deal with it. He was only concerned in the vindication of what appeared to him to be a great principle—namely, the prevention of what he believed to be a very great wrong. He knew that clauses of this kind were constantly said to be unworkable; but he contended that it was the duty of the Government, particularly of the Law Officers of the Crown, in case the Committee decided to accept the principle, to discover for them the words in which the Amendment could be framed. With these words, and stating that he did really believe that in this new subsection he had fixed upon a genuine grievance, a wrong and a mischief which ought to be remedied, he put the Amendment in the hands of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, after line 12, to insert the words— "(2.) While carrying on an otherwise lawful business, knowingly facilitates, in premises of which he is the occupier, an immoral connexion between such women as reside there, and are in his employ, and male visitors to them, or."— (Mr. Thorold Rogers.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he must oppose the Amendment, because he thought it was not desirable that they should encumber this Bill by endeavouring to deal with every conceivable case. He did not think it was impossible at all that such a case as his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had suggested might occur; but there were many hundreds of other cases which might occur, and by which illicit connection might be brought about. Now, it appeared to him that such a place as that described by the hon. Member was either a brothel or it was not; and if it was a place where women prostituted themselves as part of the business, it would come under the Bill. It was not desirable that they should endeavour to meet every case.

MR. PICTON

said, he hoped the Committee would reflect before they rejected this Amendment. A situation was offered to a young woman in an apparently respectable house of business, She was offered a low salary, and then she was induced to prostitute herself, in order to increase her earnings. That was a very wrong and wicked state of things. The offer of the situation was used to induce young women to go to places of this sort in order to debauch them. He would certainly vote for the Amendment.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, the case which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would come under the sub-section which they had already passed. In the case of a man inducing a young woman to accept a situation in order that she might have illicit connection, that would come under the 1st sub-section. He did not quite see what cases would be met by this sort of provision which it was proposed to insert in the Bill. If a man did not procure, then there was no necessity for dealing with him; and, if he did, they had hit him already.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he would not withdraw his Amendment. He would certainly take a division upon it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Noes 152; Majority 100.No. 258.)

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert "under the age of twenty-one years," said, that on the Question of the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Bill he had endeavoured to express to the house his strong desire to do everything that could be done to protect women and children from crimes of this sort; but, at the same time, he expressed his fear that many of the provisions of the Bill might lead to extortion, and interfere with the public safety. He knew of no portion of the Bill which was more calculated to do that than this sub-section. His Amendment was aimed at that fact, and it proposed to limit the misdemeanour of inducing women to live in ill-conducted houses to the case of girls under 21 years of age. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) had illustrated his point very well the other day when he put the case of a man bringing a lady of 35 years of age to London from the country, and staying at one of those houses where there was a good deal of freedom. Under the clause as it stood, that man would be guilty of misdemeanour. It appeared to him that, unless some Amendment was effected, men might be induced to go with women into houses of ill-fame, and then a threat might be made that, if they did not pay a sum of money, a criminal prosecution would be instituted against them under this clause. He wished to point out also that, at the present time, there was no precise definition in the Bill of the word "brothel." Unless that term was defined, and unless the clause was limited as he had suggested, it would open the door to unlimited extortion upon the youth of this country. It often occurred that the youth of this country was lured into these sort of places; and now a threat would be held out that, unless a certain amount of money was paid, a charge of misdemeanour might be brought. He would like the hon. and learned Attorney General to tell the Committee what was "a brothel within the Queen's Dominions." They knew that in France and Italy all the houses of this sort were licensed by the authorities, and no one could come into them without the knowledge of the authorities. What he wanted to know was whether this term abroad was to be accepted according to the foreign definition, or according to an English definition, whatever that might be? He wanted to know what sort of a house they had in view? If they took the foreign acceptation, then there would not be much harm done; but if they were going to deal with houses like that referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis), then it became a very serious matter. ["Divide!"] Did hon. Members wish to stifle this question? They wanted to stifle it because they could not answer it; and they were afraid of meeting any responsibility. He had been a Member of that house for a great many years, and he had always taken an independent course, and he was going to continue to take an independent course to the end of his chapter. He was doing his duty to his constituents, and he was not to be put down by this clamour. He wished to place these points very calmly before hon. Members, and there was no doubt that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would meet the case he had set forth. What he wished to show was, that this clause, as it stood, would render liable many in this country and also abroad to extortion; and unless the term "brothel" was very clearly defined, therefore, great ambiguity would arise and consequent danger. While on this subject he wished to point out to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary line 17, which would hardly make sense. The whole sub-section was governed by the word "person;" and unless some definition were put in, and the person happened to be a woman and a procuress, she would escape unpunished. He thought he had shown that, unless the clause was very much changed, it would lead to very great extortion against Her Majesty's subjects.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert" under the age of twenty-one."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, there could be no doubt that the word "brothel" had a meaning according to the English law. There was no difference between "brothel" and "bawdy house," and the term occurred in many legal documents.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

asked if the sub-section applied to foreigners? The effect of the clause could only be shown by reductio ad absurdum. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that the meaning of the word "brothel" was understood in law—that was to say, as it was understood in England. But that was no definition at all. As the clause stood, it would mean that if a foreigner induced another foreigner to enter a house abroad which in England was called a brothel, the foreigner who induced the other to enter the house was to be punished if he or she came to England.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) appeared to forget that the question had been twice answered. The words "Either within or without the Queen's Dominions" referred to the place where the brothel might be.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ACKERS

said, he had not proposed to move the Amendment he was about to submit to the Committee, in relation to the first sub-section, because it would not be applicable; with regard to a person contemplated by that part of the clause who had become a prostitute there could be no such reservation as that proposed by the Amendment he was about to move to sub-section 2. With regard to that, he thought the Amendment most important, and he trusted that it would be inserted. He reserved to himself the right of raising the question with regard to the Amendment which had been agreed to of the hon. and learned Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton), if it should be shown by the discussion which followed that the words he proposed to introduce into this sub-section were applicable to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert "other than a common prostitute, or person of known immoral character."—(Mr. Ackers.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would point out that the object of the clause was not only to prevent women being induced to become prostitutes, but to prevent the trade in prostitution being carried on as between this country and foreign countries. The character of the woman ought, therefore, to make no difference.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) wanted to get rid of this traffic, and he (Mr. Hopwood) would point out that this sub-section was one of the most laudable parts of the Bill. But, as had been suggested, if a man removed a woman already a common prostitute from one house to another, even for the sake of continuing her calling, but possibly as an act of charity, according to the clause he might come within the law, because he did so within the Queen's Dominions. If his right hon. Friend wanted merely to interfere with the traffic in question, the meaning of the clause would be clear enough; but with regard to England, he (Mr. Hopwood) thought some sensible Amendment was required in ac- cordance with the view expressed in the previous sub-section.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, that the Government were prepared to accept an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Stockport was about to move, to add the words "for this purpose of prostitution." He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a lawyer, did not see that the words "with intent, &c." governed the case he had suggested. If they were going to deal with this particular evil he did not think they ought in any way to limit the operation of the clause by the insertion of such words as the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Ackers) had proposed. He submitted that the Committee should not agree to that Amendment.

An hon. MEMBER said, that the object of the Bill was to protect women and girls, and not, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had said, to prevent the transfer of women from one place to another.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, there were many women who, having been common prostitutes, were induced by clergymen and other philanthropic persons to enter reformatories. It was known that immediately they left those reformatories they were exposed to the attempts of those with whom they had formerly been associated to get them to return to their former courses. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) said there was no class of women around whom the protection of the Bill ought to be thrown more than the class he had referred to. He asked the Committee to protect them by saying that those who sought to get them tore-turn to their former mode of life should be punished under the clause.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he would put the case of a woman or girl moved from one place in London to another out of charity, in which case he would point out that the person who induced her to go would be liable as the clause stood at present.

MR. COURTNEY

said, it appeared to him that if this sub-section was allowed to remain without qualification they would be placed in an awkward position. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had put the case of a woman removed from one place in London to another, perhaps from mo- tives of charity. This was not a case of deception; it was not a case of inducing a woman or girl to enter a brothel for the first time; yet it was an offence if the clause remained unaltered. It was the case of a person being taken from one brothel to another by solicitation, which was intended to be met; yet he would ask if any one would suppose that the offence would be punished in the manner provided for in the Bill?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he proposed to alter the language so as to make the matter clear.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he hoped these words would not be applied to women when removed to foreign places. The horrible character of compulsory detention in a foreign brothel was as much worse than that in the case of an ordinary brothel, as prostitution was than ordinary life.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he did not think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart). He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that it was desirable to protect females in the circumstances mentioned.

THE CHAIRMAN

We have not come to that yet.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he thought he was in Order. The Question before the Committee was, that the words proposed by the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Ackers) be inserted, and he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to propose to leave out certain words and substitute others later on. He was endeavouring to show——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member can show that when he comes to the part of the Bill proposed to be altered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, with great submission, he thought that the Chairman had not heard what he had to say. He was endeavouring to show why the Committee ought not, in his opinion, to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire. He did not agree with the construction placed upon the clause, that it would apply to taking away a woman from one brothel to another. The words "with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel" implied for the purpose of prostitution for the first time; and he did not think they were open to the construction placed upon them, and for which the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire was supposed to provide a cure.

MR. ACKERS

said, he wished to make a practical suggestion with regard to this matter. He did not feel able to accept, as he understood it, the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General; because he gathered that it would limit the application of the clause to cases where the removal was from a place that was not a brothel to a place that was a brothel. So far as the effect abroad was concerned, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped it would be accepted in respect of England, and that it would be accepted in full, because he did not think it was a crime, although it was immoral, for one inmate of a brothel to say to another—"You had better leave here and go to another place." Therefore, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would be able to accept his Amendment so far as it applied to England, in which case he would be happy to withdraw it, and leave the wording of it to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would point out, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member, that the wording of the clause was— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General was a right one. The only objection of any force to it was that the clause ought not to apply to the case of a woman going from one brothel to another.

MR. HORACE DAVEY rose to Order. He said that the Chairman had properly called him (Mr. Horace Davey) to Order when he proposed to discuss the words which the hon. and learned Attorney General said he would leave out. He presumed that the ruling which applied to one Member of the house would apply to another.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) is not in Order in discussing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General.

MR. ACKERS

said, he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, they must break up the sub-section into two, and put in the first part— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with the intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, and in the second part— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may enter a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, whether or not he informs the woman or girl of such intent. Otherwise they would not deal with the two separate cases of a girl, whatever her character, being kidnapped or enticed away, and a girl leaving her residence in one brothel for another brothel. The Amendment ought not to be put in its present form, otherwise it would prevent their giving effect to what appeared to be in the mind of the Committee.

CAPTAIN PRICE

submitted that the point the hon. Member (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) wished to impress on the Committee had been dealt with in the previous part of the sub-section— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to become, cither within or without the Queen's dominions, a common prostitute.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he thought the following words would meet the difficulty:— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel without the Queen's dominions, or procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions," &c.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought those words were quite unnecessary, and that the case would be properly put by the insertion of these words— Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions," &c.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should prepare a clause embodying the wish of the Committee and bring it up on Report. The only difficulty seemed to be as to a verbal Amendment, and it was hopeless to arrive at a settlement when such a difficulty existed, and Amendments were suggested from all sides.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, they might insert after "place of abode in the United Kingdom" the words "such place not being a brothel," and then they could decide before the Report what other Amendments were necessary.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, after the words "United Kingdom," to insert the words "such place not being a brothel."—(Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. HOPWOOD

said, they must take into consideration the case of a girl who was residing in her own private apartments, though just as much a prostitute as a girl in a brothel, and who might be induced by some familiar friend to give up her apartments for the purpose of living in a brothel.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

We will consider the matter before the Report.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should have thought the best course would have been to have agreed to report Progress, so that the matter could have received the attention, of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General during the night, and they could have started with a comprehensive proposal to-morrow.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he thought the Committee ought not to pass the Amendment. He felt certain, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said just now, when he endeavoured to show how the clause would run, that, on careful consideration, he would see that the mere insertion of the words would not carry out his intention. As he (Mr. Horace Davey) understood the matter, two totally separate things were aimed at. One was to prevent the enticing of women or girls, whether of good or bad character—and, for his own part, he was desirous of protecting even women of bad character—to foreign brothels. The other thing it was desired to prevent was women or girls, who were not at present, at any rate, common prostitutes, from being enticed into becoming inmates of brothels. The Committee would at once see that there were two totally distinct things which it was sought to prevent. He was sure that if they endeavoured to prevent these two things by one common form of words, they would only get into error. He was sorry to have intervened just as the Chairman had been about to put the Question. His only desire was to see the wish of the Committee carried out; and he was sure the insertion of the words, after "United Kingdom," "such place not being a brothel," would not carry it out.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, it would be a pity to report Progress on this question. No doubt the matter required consideration; but he did not think there should be much difficulty in arriving at a settlement. He thought the proposal made did carry out the intention of the Committee, as the two things would be most distinctly dealt with in the sub-section. Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom … with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, assuredly covered the case of a girl enticed from this country into a foreign brothel; and the words To leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel quite as certainly covered the other case'—namely, that of enticing a woman to enter a brothel. The insertion of the words "such place not being a brothel" would, no doubt, meet a great many of the objections which had been mentioned. There was the case the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had put, and whether or not that should be dealt with was a matter for consideration. The best course would be to insert the words which would carry out the general views of the Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) that a little alteration was required in the Amendment. What was required seemed to him the addition of very simple words in line 10. In the case of procuring a woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, he did not think the words "either within or without the United Kingdom" should be used, and he would propose on Report to bring the clause up in an amended form. It might be well to say— Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel without the Queen's dominions, whether or not he informs the girl of such intent. Then, in another sub-section— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, whether or not the woman or girl be informed of such intent.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he wished, as an Amendment, to move to leave out the words "an inmate," in line 15, and insert "a resident for the purposes of prostitution," so that the sub-section might read— Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become a resident for the purposes of prostitution of a brothel, either within or without the United Kingdom," &c. If the Government would rather have the word "inmate," he would withdraw his Amendment; but he thought the words he proposed were better.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, leave out "an inmate," and insert "a resident for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, it seemed to him clear that what the Committee wished to do was to punish a person for inducing a woman or girl to regularly take up her abode in a brothel for purposes of prostitution. A person might take a woman or girl to a brothel for one night, and that would technically render her "an inmate" under the section; but it was not meant to bring a person so acting under the penalties of the clause. To say that a person taking a woman or girl to a brothel for purposes of prostitution should be liable to two years' imprisonment seemed to him altogether ridiculous. The clause would apply not only to the procurer or procuress, but to the man who went to a brothel temporarily, as he might go to an hotel.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he would point out that the clause would also apply to a person living in a brothel who engaged a female housemaid or cook.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to explain what legal construction he put on the word "inmate" as opposed to "resident."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the word "resident" seemed to the Government too technical a word. He quite agreed, however, that the clause was not intended to apply to anyone taking a woman to a brothel temporarily as to an hotel. Though a casual visit of that kind would not constitute a woman "an inmate" of a brothel, yet a residence of a week or 10 days would do so. The reason why the word "resident" had been avoided was because there was a technical meaning given to it sometimes which they had thought it desirable to avoid. They had desired to hit the case of a woman going to a brothel and spending some time there, so as to become in the full sense an inmate.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). It would defeat one very good effect that the clause would have in dealing with a well-known and common practice amongst brothel-keepers. One of the commonest devices for procuring prostitutes was the employment of girls in brothels as servants. They were often attracted as domestic servants, and then induced to lead immoral lives.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he would ask the Government not to alter the sub-section for the same reason. There was plenty of evidence that women were engaged in brothels as servants, and were afterwards trained up to be prostitutes. He would appeal to the Government not to omit the words which would protect this sort of women.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he quite appreciated the motives of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken; but he thought that if they allowed the clause to remain as it was, they would be providing legislation which would create difficulties— they would be falling into those pitfalls against which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir "William Harcourt) had cautioned them. They did not want to prevent these people from having cooks, and so on. They did not, by this clause, attempt to put down brothels; and if they adopted the advice of the last two hon. Members who had spoken, they would be giving the clause a wider scope than they desired.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

I now beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the Committee were now agreed upon all the points in the clause, save that of age. There were several Amendments on the Paper to limit the operation of the clause, or part of it, to girls under the age of 21 years; and these, he thought, they could easily deal with.

Several hon. MEMBERS: Go on; go on!

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, the clause would require a considerable amount of amendment, because, in its present form, it would not deal with a female procuress.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

appealed to the Committee to make further progress with the Bill. There was no serious point in dispute now.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

I beg pardon, there is.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 125: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 259.)

Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by threats or fraud).

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the first subsection said— Any person who by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl…with himself or any other man," &c. This, in point of law, was rape; and he wished to know what was the use of encumbering the Statute Book with alternative modes of stating that which was already the law? He had in several instances marked that tendency in the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would allow him to call attention to it here. Attempts to commit the offence dealt with in the sub-section were also provided against in the present law. An attempt at rape was an offence at law; therefore it was no use passing this subsection. He should very much like to know what reason there was for passing an Act of Parliament in this form, there being already in existence a well-known form of law, which was thoroughly comprehensible, to the same effect? He would move the omission of sub-section 1 of Clause 3.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave, out sub-section (1.)—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'By' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he ventured to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hopwood) was not quite correct when he said that the clause was simply a repetition of the existing law. He did not mean to say that there might not be cases where threats amounted to rape under the existing law; but there certainly might be other cases where consent was obtained in that way without incurring the guilt of rape. There was another state of things which the sub-section dealt with; and he would ask hon. Members to pay strict attention to the words. The sub-section said— Any person who—By threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl…..either within or without the Queen's dominions with himself or any other man. These words applied to cases which might occur without the Queen's Dominions. Of course, the words "with himself or any other man" would have to be altered, "person" being substituted for "man." There were at least two offences provided for which did not come under the existing law.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would boar with him (Mr. Hopwood) a little longer he would see that his (Mr. Hopwood's) contention was correct. The words were— By threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection," &c. —that was to say, "procures or endeavours to procure a rape."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

Possibly, it may be so.

MR. HOPWOOD

No; certainly it is. It was, by law, a rape and a felony, and by the sub-section they would make it a misdemeanour only. They were now enacting conflicting laws—he prayed them to take care that their guidance was correct on these legal matters. If they did not take care, all sorts of confusion would result. They were endeavouring to embrace in one clause that which was a felony, and that which was a misdemeanour, in a matter that was of supreme importance in all cases of drawing up indictments in Courts of Law; and it was obvious that the clause would require a great deal of careful handling before the hon. and learned Gentleman could fulfil all the purposes he had in view. He (Mr. Hopwood) would like, further, to put it to the Committee, if the clause was to have general application and deal with cases outside the Queen's Dominions, how could it be put in force? Supposing a case occurred in Prance, what right would they have to put the sub-section in force in that country? They might punish a person for an attempt made in the United Kingdom; but if the offender were a foreigner, and the offence were committed abroad, they might find themselves on the edge of some considerable legal difficulties. Of course, he did not mean to say that they could not get at such a person for what he might do within the Queen's Dominions. He was afraid that when they came to have this clause strained and tested by legal decisions they would find it full of legal difficulties, and. would be greatly disappointed at the result of their Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he was afraid the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hopwood) had not looked at the Amendments the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put down to this sub-section. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert, after "intimidation," "or by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means," and also to leave out "himself or any other man," in order to insert "any person." The offence which was pointed to in the subsestion would have to be committed in the United Kingdom. "Without the Queen's Dominions "to the had reference to the place to which the girl or woman might be taken.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, this showed the extreme difficulty of the matter they were dealing with. It was admitted that the words in the sub-section as they stood included the offence of rape. ["No, no!"] He thought hon. Gentlemen must agree that "procures or endeavours to procure any woman or gill by threats or intimidation" was rape. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said there might be threats which were not sufficiently violent to constitute rape; but everyone who went on Circuit knew that of all cases in which they had to grapple with difficult points of evidence there were none which bristled more with difficulties than cases of rape. It came to this —that in a case where the evidence was not sufficient to convict a person of rape they were going to invite the jury to convict of misdemeanour, and they were not going to allow a man to give evidence on his own behalf. If there was a case in which a man ought to be allowed to give evidence, it was a case of rape or indecent assault. Yet it was positively suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) that where the evidence was not proof of rape the accused should be convicted of misdemeanour. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): No.] Well, but if a man "by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl" he was to be guilty of misdemeanour. It was admitted that there might be many threats, and when there was a small amount of threatening or intimidation the offence was to be a misdemeanour. Of course, if the woman was good looking and attractive her testimony would have great weight with the jury. Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending Assizes knew that very often charges of rape arose out of cases where there was practical consent—that some one coming up the woman had screamed to save her reputation, and a charge of rape had been preferred against the man the Committee ought to examine this subsection very carefully before accepting it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in his objection to this sub-section. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had very truly said there was not only a kind of intimidation — intimidation carried to a certain point—which amounted in law to rape, but that there was also intimidation, which even, if it were technically rape, would certainly not be found by a jury to be rape. It was felt that that sort of intimidation ought to be punished. Supposing a man threatened a girl with the dismissal of herself, or of her father, or some relative from employment, and because of that effected his purpose, he (Sir William Harcourt) doubted very much whether a jury would consider it rape. But surely a man who induced a girl to sacrifice her virtue by intimidation of that kind ought to be punished.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he thought the speech the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had just delivered illustrated the extremely dangerous character of what the Committee were asked to do. This clause might be divided into two parts the first part dealt with intimidation. Now the law was perfectly clear. It was a question for the jury whether the connection took place with 1 the consent of the girl. If the girl was I only submissive, it was rape; if it was submission to threats and intimidation, which were sufficient to overcome the resistance of the mind, and the jury found that the threats and intimidation reached that point, it was undoubtedly rape. But it was said there was a lower form of intimidation, and that a girl might be threatened by something which would not overbear the resistance of the mind, but might induce her to think, as a matter of calculation, that it would be better for her to submit to the connection than to put herself or relatives to an inconvenience which was threatened. He could not imagine a more terrible instrument of oppression than such a clause. There could be no evidence in contradiction, and a woman could say anything as to having had threats used towards her. So far as the rest of the clause was concerned, it was not required at all, because the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100 was now on the Statute Book, subject to alterations. He certainly had a very strong objection to repealing a clause which had existed on the Statute Book for a good many years, in order to put a slightly different clause into an Act passed in 1885. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would seriously consider this matter. He certainly desired to enter his strong protest against this dangerous proposition.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Edward Clarke) seemed to have forgotten that one of the main features of this clause was to provide punishment in England for something done outside the Queen's Dominions. It was quite true that the 24th & 25th Viet, did cover part of this clause; but it did not provide against girls being procured for foreign parts. This was not simply a question of rape, but it was— Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with himself or any other man. Such an offence was not covered by the old Act.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, it was just as if two or three persons were present, and one held the woman while the foul purpose was effected by the other. Surely an accessory before the fact was a principal either in felony or misde- meanour. A man who aided another to commit a rape was an accessory, and guilty of the crime himself.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he thought the Committee were indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) for having brought this subject forward; because it was plain, from the admissions of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and the Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross), that the clause required very considerable amendment. It now seemed to be generally admitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport was quite right in saying that this clause included various classes of crimes which were at present punishable as rape, and that it proposed to make a rape—which he (Mr. Horace Davey) was given to understand was at present a felony—a misdemeanour. Although the clause included rape, although it also included the accessories to rape, although it included, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out, what was already made an offence, it included something more. Let the Government say what it was they meant by the clause. He was desirous of supporting the Government in carrying the Bill, and in carrying a clause which would aid in grappling with that which they all knew to be a great evil—namely, enticing English girls to brothels abroad. If that was what the Government desired to prevent, why did they not say so? Why did the Government introduce a clause which had the effect, as hon. and learned Gentlemen, who had far greater knowledge of the Criminal Law than he had—and there was no greater authority in the house on Criminal Lawthan the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke)—said, of including what was already a felony? At that hour of the morning (2.30) they were asked to enact that what was already a felony, according to the English law, should be a misdemeanour. That was a ridiculous position for the Committee to be placed in. It was evident that the Government did not understand their own clause, and had not thought it out; and he would, therefore, move to report Progress. Perhaps before the Committtee met again the Government would re-consider the clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he thought they ought to go on. The question had been argued for some time, and surely it was better to settle it at once. They would not arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion to-morrow than they would to-day.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, the last division was taken at 2 o'clock, and the Committee were then assured that this clause would lead to no contention. They had gone on now for half-an-hour, and the discussion had shown that the clause was much fuller of difficulties than the Government imagined. He thought they were entitled at that hour of the morning to take a division, if necessary, on the Motion to report Progress.

MR. ONSLOW

said, the Bill was one huge jumble; but he did not blame Her Majesty's Government one bit, because, as a matter of fact, it was not their Bill. He thought, however, that as the Government had taken up the Bill they ought to bear the responsibility of it. He intended to support the Motion to report Progress, and hoped that before the next meeting of the Committee the Government would consider what they really did intend to pass.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) made a very powerful speech against the clause, but prevented any Member of the Committee replying to him by moving to report Progress. Of course, if the attitude which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had taken up was to prevail, and if the Bill was to be practically obstructed——

MR. HOPWOOD rose to Order. He would like to know whether it was not un-Parliamentary to charge any Member of the Committee with Obstruction?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it would be out of Order for an hon. Member to charge another hon. Member with Obstruction; but he did not understand the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to do that.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he made no such charge. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) hinted that this was a time of the morning when a minority of the Committee was entitled to insist on reporting Progress. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was about to say, when he was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that if that course was to be adopted—he did not think the hon. Member for Oldham would adopt such a course—those who supported this Bill would be placed in a very awkward position. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) thought it would be hopeless to go on at that hour of the morning; and therefore he would not be displeased if the Government consented to report Progress, but not on the ground that this Clause was a jumble. The clause was perfectly intelligible, and he thought the opposition to the clause was perfectly intelligible too.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not wish to enter into the merits of the clause or of the Amendment; but he thought that at half-past 2 in the morning the Government might fairly consent to report Progress.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.