§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ New Clause:—
§ (Power of Search.)
§ "If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes by any person in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice, such justice may issue a warrant authorising any person named therein to search for, and, when found, to take to and detain in a place of safety such woman or girl until she can be brought before a justice of the peace; and the justice of the peace, before whom such woman or girl is brought, may cause her to be delivered up to her parents or guardians, or otherwise dealt with as circumstances may require.
§ "The justice of the peace issuing such warrant may, by the same or any other warrant, cause any person accused of so unlawfully detaining such woman or girl to be apprehended and brought before a justice, and proceedings to be taken for punishing such person according to law.
§ "A woman or girl shall be deemed to be unlawfully detained for immoral purposes if she is so detained for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally, and—
- (a.) Either is under the age of sixteen years; or
- (b.) If of or over the age of sixteen, and under the age of eighteen years, is so detained against her will, or against the will of her father or mother or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her; or
- (c.) If or above the age of eighteen years she is so detained against her will:
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that after the clause was read a second time, of course, Amendments might be moved upon it. This was the clause which was under discussion the other day when it was objected to take it at so late an hour of the night.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he was quite prepared to support the clause as far as it went.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
§
MR. JAMES STUART moved, as an Amendment, to insert, after the word "girl," the following words:—
Or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl.
The hon. Member said, he had given Notice of that Amendment the day after the clause of the Home Secretary was put upon the Paper, and it had remained upon the Notice Paper immediately after the clause of the right hon. Gentleman until to-day. He saw that it had now disappeared from the Notice Paper, and he presumed that that was in consequence of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman having been introduced as a new clause. He had anticipated, however, that his Amendment would have been printed on the Notice Paper among the other Amendments, and he did not know why that had not been the case. At any rate, he proposed now to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the power under the section, or, rather, to increase the number of persons who could make use of it. At present, a search warrant could be obtained upon application by a parent or guardian, provided that the clause became law; but it could not be obtained by any other person. He was glad that the Home Secretary had introduced the clause in this form, because he thought that it was a considerable improvement upon the clause as it stood originally in the Bill; and he would make an urgent appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert in the clause the words which he proposed, and which appeared to have dropped out of the clause, seeing that they existed in it when the Bill was introduced by the late Government. He proposed their re-insertion on this
852
ground—that the clause, in many important cases, would be practically inoperative unless some such words were introduced. He regarded this clause as one of the most important in the whole Bill, and it was, therefore, necessary to trace its history. As the Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, a Search Clause was inserted; but that Search Clause, in his opinion, was absolutely bad. It gave power of search to the police, and to the police only, and it only gave them an indefinite power of search. The clause, as it now stood, was a much better clause. A search warrant was given on the application of an interested party, and it was given for a specific object, and, therefore, it did not possess the objections which the original clause did. Why was it that he wanted to add these words? For this purpose, principally—that the poor children whom they had to get out of these houses, where they might be confined for immoral purposes, had, in many cases, neither parent nor guardian. They were poor children who, as a rule, never possessed a guardian; and, whether they had parents or guardians or not, they had generally been removed from the locality where the parents or guardians lived to a distant locality. He would ask the Committee to imagine the case of a child whose parent or guardian was either out of London—it might be in Bradford, or Dublin, or Edinburgh—or in some distant part of London. That child was known to be in an immoral house, detained for immoral purposes. The parent or guardian, being far away, might have telegraphed to a clergyman or some other person who knew the child in order that he might take proper steps for rescuing it; but in that case the law would be perfectly inoperative, because the whole essence of the matter was time. It must be remembered that it would be fatal if they were required to wait for any length of time. Then, again, take another instance. Those who were well qualified to speak upon the subject knew that the parents not unfrequently sold their children, and, therefore, they would not be anxious to take them out of the miserable position in which they were placed. He thought that, in such circumstances, when a child was deserted by its father and mother, the State
853
should be at liberty to step in, and that the whole nation should be regarded as the guardian of the poor child, in order to prevent her from undergoing the horrible fate which awaited her. He was glad to see an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hereford (M. E. T. Reid), by which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to provide that a girl under 21 might be made a ward in Chancery, even although no property belonged to her or had been settled upon her. It would be highly advantageous if such a clause could be utilized for the purpose of getting a child out of the custody of those who detained her for immoral purposes. It was stated that the Amendment which he proposed would open the door for the action of Societies. He was prepared to welcome the action of Societies in the matter, and he wished to open the door to them. His objection to the Bill was the difficulty of putting it in operation; and he believed that the action of societies in respect of the Bill would, in that respect, be most valuable. He had no wish to see the action of societies generally in connection with the Criminal Law; but he submitted to the Committee that, in regard to the particular state of circumstances with which the clause dealt, the action of societies might fairly and properly be allowed, and the aid of societies was one of the advantages which he hoped would accrue from the adoption of the clause. He believed that there were many excellent societies which would carry out such work as this; and if they only succeeded in getting these little children out of these houses, they would strike an important blow against the abomination they were desirous of putting down, and which led to the seduction and ruin and prostitution of little children. It was upon such grounds that he was anxious to see some of the benevolent societies which existed in this country acting in the matter, and it was most important to introduce words into the clause which would enable them to act. He had no doubt that there were benevolent societies and benevolent individuals, who were very well known to the general public, who, if telegraphed to under pressing and terrible circumstances, would at once take upon themselves the duties of parent and guardian;
854
and what he desired was to give them the right of acting in that manner. He, therefore, begged to move the addition of the words he had read, and he appealed to the Government to agree to their insertion, knowing, as he did, that the Home Secretary and the Government were really anxious to make the Bill operative, and believing that they had introduced this clause with that bonâ fide object; and having had a long acquaintance with the subject, he was perfectly sure that the clause would be practically inoperative in really serious cases, where little children were confined against their will, unless these words were added. It was to make the clause operative that he begged to move their insertion.
§
Amendment proposed,
In new Clause, in line 2, after the word "girl," to insert the words "or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought there was very great force in the remarks which the hon. Member had just made. It must, unfortunately, be admitted that in many cases the parents of a child were its worst guardians. He should have no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member, if they could be guarded in such a way as not to give a roving commission to anyone who desired a search warrant. He was quite willing to extend the clause to others who were not the parent and guardian; and the wording of the clause ought to give a bonâ fide guarantee against any person interfering who had no right to interfere. That object would be accomplished by requiring him to prove to the Justice that he had a bonâ fide interest in the girl. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had included these words in the original Bill, and, as they stood in the Amendment, he thought they would provide that the person applying for the warrant must satisfy the magistrate of his bonâ fide interest in the girl whom he alleged to be detained; and with that security he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. HOPWOODwished to give a word of warning to the Committee in regard to this clause. It was the first departure, as far as he was aware, from the law by which the liberty of a girl up to 16 years of age was placed in the hands of somebody other than her parent or guardian. There was nothing in the Bill which, if this clause and the Amendment were adopted, would prevent persons who were not the parents or guardians from obtaining absolute power over the personal liberty of a child up to the age of 16. He wished to point out to the Committee that this was a very remarkable and exceptional power. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was of opinion that it would be guarded by the words "having a bonâ fide interest in the girl," whatever those words might mean. He (Mr. Hopwood) thought, on the contrary, that it might lead to monstrous mischief. What was to be done after the search warrant had been executed? Was the person who asserted that be had a bonâ fide interest to have possession of the child? There were no means of giving that power except to the extent of removing the child to some industrial institution. Did the Home Secretary intend to follow the Amendment up by a further Amendment which would meet that difficulty? He knew very well what the answer would be—that it was a matter with which the Government could not deal; and the consequence would be that, in the case of children over 12 years of age, there was a possibility of their returning to the same places unless there happened to be someone who could exercise the power and control of a parent over them. In the case of industrial schools, there was power even to take a child away from its mother, and it was repeatedly done upon no other plea than that the mother was a prostitute. Upon that ground the child was taken away from her and sent to a school, where she could never see it. The mother and child were separated by force, no doubt with the best intentions on the part of benevolent people; but there were no persons who could be as cruel as benevolent people. Very often the existence of a child was the only tie between Heaven and earth which these unfortunate women possessed. In many instances there was a beloved and tender child, treated with 856 the utmost care, kept in total ignorance of the mother's life, and yet down came some benevolent lady, who had never felt the springs of maternity within her, who took possession of the child, and, obtaining an order from the magistrates, ruthlessly carried her away without the slightest regard for the maternal feelings of the mother. He asked the Committee to judge what sufferings might be produced in a heedless manner by acts that were set on foot at the dictates of benevolent persons, and by these fussy voluntary Organizations which imagined they could govern the world better than Providence did. He admitted that much might be done by voluntary effort, but not in the shape of legislation.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Committee would consent to this Amendment, and pointed out that the Factory Acts recognized that a girl below 18 years of age could not protect herself. How could his hon. and learned Friend, or anybody else, suppose that these poor creatures under 16 could have the slightest power of protecting themselves? It was not a question of putting stringent clauses in an Act of Parliament, but a question of protecting those who might be exposed to the greatest misery and the greatest outrage which could possibly be brought upon them. They knew very well what the facts were. Children were inveigled into these houses, it might be even with their own consent; but he maintained that they were unable to give consent, and he was sorry to say that in many cases children were entirely neglected by their parents, or the parents themselves became accessories to their being placed in this wretched condition. The question, however, was whether the State was to assist in exposing young children to this criminality. If ever there was a case for the interference of the Legislature it was a case of this kind, and unless they gave full powers of search by means of which they might rescue the poor creatures who were detained in these immoral houses they would do very little good. Surely it was a very fair thing that there should be a somewhat quick and speedy means of getting a child out of such danger.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he took no exception to anything that had fallen from the right hon. Member for Brad- 857 ford (Mr. Forster) in regard to the clause; but his objection to it had reference to the mode in which it was drawn, and the enormous width of the cases it embraced. He would give an illustration of a case which would come within this section. If a wife were to fly away from her husband, and take refuge from him in a friend's house, and the place where she was staying came to the knowledge of the husband, he would have nothing to do but to go before a magistrate and swear that she was kept there against her consent, and the very object of the woman's flying away, in order to seek refuge in a place of safety until she could receive the full protection of the law, would be frustrated. It might be said that he knew that the husband would have to swear an affidavit, and that if he made any false statement he would be guilty of perjury. But how was he to be indicted, and how could perjury be assigned against him? This clause was one of the serious consequences of hasty legislation. The Committee were now about to adopt a clause which he ventured to say would do quite as much harm as good.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the Committee would consent to the clause as it had been proposed by the Home Secretary, and also that they would accept the Amendment. He would take a case in point. The Home Secretary had very justly stated that in some instances the parent might be the worst guardian a child could have, and that he was often a consenting party to the offence. He would take the case of domestic service where a mistress inveigled young maid servants into her house, and appeared to take great interest in them, when her only object was to make use of them for immoral purposes. Surely in such a case any person who was acquainted with a girl under such circumstances should be able to take steps for going before a magistrate to express his or her belief that the girl was detained for immoral purposes? He hoped that the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) that a husband might make some affidavit affecting a wife who had taken refuge in a friend's house, which had really no bearing on the matter at all, would not prevent the Committee from taking the necessary 858 steps for protecting these children. He believed that this was the only way of making the clause effectual, and that unless they gave power to some other person besides the guardian or parent to step in, the clause, in numerous instances, would remain practically in-operative.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that whatever his opinion might be with regard to the clause he was not going to stake it against that of the main body of the Committee; but he appealed to the Home Secretary and the Attorney General whether the words proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) would carry out the object aimed at? The words were—
Or any other person who, in the opinion ef the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl.In his opinion, the words ought to be "such woman or girl."
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to point out that the words he proposed to insert were accurately drafted, and the words "such woman or girl" occurred afterwards.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. Member was quite mistaken; the clause would read in this way—
If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes," &c.He maintained that the first words "any woman or girl" should be "such woman or girl."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it might be some comfort to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to tell him that they were now only discussing the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart). After they had agreed upon the insertion of these words, it would be quite open to amend the clause by substituting the word "such" for "any."
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the difficulty might be met by omitting the words—
On oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl.859 The clause would then read—If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that any woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes," &c.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty he had pointed out.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, because his contention was that the governing words of the clause should be that the application was made by the parent or guardian or by some persons acting bonâ fide in the interest of the girl.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, the clause, in line 2, referred to "any woman or girl," and if they added the words—
Referring to any person who, in the opinion of the magistrate, was interested in such woman or girl,it would be left just as wide as it was now by the words which appeared in the clause. The words to which it was proposed to attach the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) were general, and would cover the case of "any woman or girl;" and if they added the words "referring to any such woman or girl," the word "such" would be of no use as qualifying the clause in this particular. He wished to point out that circumstance to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He did not know whether it occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but it appeared to him that the word "such" would not carry out the intention with which it was suggested, and that the word "such" would, in this respect, have no value or meaning whatever.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the best way of meeting the objection would be to put in words to say "any woman or girl in respect of whom the information was granted." He trusted that as the Committee seemed inclined to accept the Amendment, it would be accepted without further debate, and the verbiage of the clause could be easily altered when they came to discuss the clause as a whole.
§ MR. M'COANwished to call attention to a defect in the clause. Even if it was amended as proposed, it would give to the parent or guardian or anyone 860 possessing a bonâ fide interest in the girl the right of laying an information before a magistrate to search for any woman or girl who was suspected to be detained for unlawful purposes, and when found there would be authority to detain her in a place of safety until she could be brought before a Justice of the Peace, who might order her to be delivered to her parents or guardians, or otherwise dealt with "as the circumstances might require;" but once out of the hands of the law there was no provision made as to the subsequent condition of the girl. He thought that was a defect which ought to be remedied, for it appeared to him that the moment the girl or woman was outside the door of the place where she had been unlawfully detained, her rescuer would have no power over her whatever.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause gave power to the Justice of the Peace to deal with the case in such manner "as the circumstances might require," and to deliver her up to her parents or guardians.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, there might be cases in which the girl had neither parents nor guardians, and there ought to be some provision to say what was to be done under such circumstances, because, so far as the law was concerned, the person who had succeeded in getting her out of the place where she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes would have no power whatever over the girl afterwards.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him that the words were entirely governed by subsequent words—namely, that it should be—
A woman or girl whom there was reasonable cause to suspect to be unlawfully detained for immoral purposes.He was glad that the Government had accepted the Amendment. He was connected with an institution—the Foundling Hospital—which had given him some little experience in cases of this kind. He had found that in numerous instances a girl whose parents were dead, and who had no guardians, was placed out in domestic service, and it very often turned out that the person into whose service she went, or a District Visitor, or some person of that description, was the only person who took any interest in her, or showed her 861 any kindness. It would be very proper to clothe these persons with some legal authority, if they were willing to accept the responsibility of it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. WARTON moved, in line 4 of the proposed new clause, after the words "immoral purposes," to insert the words "as in this section denned." The clause would then read—
If it appears to any justice of the peaoe, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes, as in this section defined.
The clause as it stood used the term "immoral purposes," but at the same time did not define what those immoral purposes were, and it might be contended that an artist who made use of a model for the purpose of a sketch might be brought under the operation of the clause. He thought they ought to have "immoral purposes" clearly defined, because there might be other purposes which would be held to be immoral than those which were defined in this Act. There would be no use in passing a clause applying to immoral purposes without they defined what those immoral purposes were, and took precautions to see that the provisions of the the Bill were enforced.
§
Amendment proposed,
In proposed new Clause, line 4, after the words "immoral purposes," to add the words "as in this section defined."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he now proposed an Amendment, in line 5, of which he had given Notice some days ago. It was to omit the word "may," in order to insert the words "shall forthwith." The clause as it now stood provided that—
On information being given in any place within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, such justice may issue a warrant authorising the person named therein to search for, and, when found, to take to and detain in a place of safety such woman or girl until she can be brought before a justice of the peace.862 The effect of his proposal would be, instead of making it permissive for the issue of the warrant, to compel the Justice to issue it "forthwith." He conceived that the word "may" had been transferred into the clause, as it was now drafted, from the original clause, and upon that original clause he had given Notice of an Amendment when it first appeared. He thought it was undesirable to leave the matter within the discretion of any Justice of the Peace whether he should issue a warrant or not, after a sworn information was laid before him by any person properly authorized to make it under the Act. What he desired was that the Justice of the Peace should be obliged to issue the warrant just as he would be if the case were one of theft. In point of fact, the only effect of this Amendment would be to make a warrant in cases of this kind run on all fours with a search warrant for stolen property. He thought the necessity of a warrant being issued forthwith was quite manifest, because it was of absolute importance to obtain the power of search as speedily as possible, so as to guard against any wrong happening; and as he believed the whole of the provisions of this Bill would be brought under the Vexatious Indictments Act, there would be a remedy against any person who wrongfully applied for a warrant in the matter. He, therefore, begged to move the insertion of the words "shall forthwith," instead of the word "may."
§
Amendment proposed,
In new Clause, line 5, after the words "such justice," to omit the word "may," and insert the words "shall forthwith."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the new Clause."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not possibly accept the Amendment. The whole matter was left, in the clause, to the discretion of the magistrate, and it would be useless to make the proposed change, because there would be nobody who could be a judge in the matter except the Justice of the Peace before whom the information was laid.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was inclined to think that the Amendment would give greater effect to the clause. The clause at present read— 863
That if it appeared to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath, that there was reasonable cause to suspect that a woman or child was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes by any person in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice, he might issue a warrant authorising the person named in it to search for and detain in a place of safety any such woman or girl until she could be brought before a justice of the peace.That, however, was simply permissive, and the object of the Amendment was to compel the Justice of the Peace to issue the warrant.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
MR. WHITBREAD moved an Amendment, the object of which was to give the officer execting the warrant power to bring before the magistrate other persons found in the house whom he suspected to come within the operation of the Act. He wished to know what it was that his hon. Friend contemplated? The house which was to be so searched might probably be found to be one in which there were one or more girls detained who were not specified in the warrant. What, in such a case, was to happen if an officer went there with a search warrant, and, although he succeeded in finding the girl for whom he was in search, found other girls detained by the owner of the house with every reason to believe that they were unlawfully detained for immoral purposes? When the Bill came down from the House of Lords the only person who could execute the search warrant was a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or some officer of that kind, and such Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or officer, would have power to apprehend and bring before the Justices any person who might be found on such premises, in regard to whom there might be reasonable ground for believing that she was detained for immoral purposes. This clause, as it had now been amended by the Home Secretary, seemed to have weakened the Bill as it originally came down to the House from the House of Lords, and he would, therefore, move to amend the clause, in line 14, by inserting the words—
That any person holding such warrant, if a superintendent or inspector, or other officer of police, shall apprehend and bring before a justice of the peace or stipendiary magistrate any person whom he may have reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of an offence
864
under this Act, and also any woman or girl in respect of whom such an offence is charged.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. INCEsaid, he had an Amendment which would come before the one proposed by the hon. Gentleman. In line 4 occurred the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice." The effect of those words was to provide that the Justice of the Peace, who was to issue the search warrant, must be a Justice having jurisdiction in the place where the girl or woman was detained. He had been looking at the Larceny Act and some other Acts, including, among others, an old Act of George III., having regard to searches for marine stores belonging to the Crown, and in all those Acts the right of granting a warrant to search appeared to be general—that was to say, that any Justice of the Peace might issue a search warrant, and it was not at all material that the Justice of the Peace by whom the warrant was issued should have jurisdiction in the place to which the warrant applied. This was a somewhat important matter, because it might sometimes be difficult to define the exact limits of jurisdiction.
§ MR. GREGORYrose to a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman was raising a question upon line 4 of the new clause, whereas the Committee had already passed an Amendment in line 5.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was so, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would, therefore, be out of Order.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not approve of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He had considered this point before, and whatever might be the actual scope of the words originally used in Clause 6 of the Bill, he did not think they were intended to have the operation which was evidently the desire of the hon. Member. There could be very little doubt that if the words proposed were inserted, anybody found on the premises in respect of which a charge was made would be liable to be brought before a Justice of the Peace. He did not think it was ever intended to give a roving commission to the police of that kind which 865 would enable them to bring before the magistrates almost any person whatever who was suspected of being guilty of an offence. Certainly, if that had been the intention of the present clause he should have asked the Committee not to adopt it. The clause as it now stood directly specified what the cases were in which the police should have the right of search, and who the persons were who were to be brought before the Justices; but the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member would give a general power which would be liable to be abused. If a police constable happened to see some girl in one of these houses, which he was entitled to search by virtue of a warrant, there would be very little difficulty in finding out whether it was a case which ought to be dealt with, and making it subject to another information; but he (the Attorney General) submitted that it would not be wise to give a power of this kind to the police, and he thought that the clause of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went far enough.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, that if that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown he would not press the Amendment; but he would point out to the Committee that in such a case as that which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Attorney General the girl might be spirited away before a fresh warrant could be executed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved an Amendment, in line 27, giving the officer in possession of the search warrant power to enter, besides the original place—
Any other house, building, or place where there is reasonable ground to suspect that such girls may be found.
His object was to deal with a case of this kind. A parent or guardian, or other person having a bonâ fide interest in the girl, might lay information and apply for a warrant; but, on endeavouring to execute it, it might be discovered that the girl had been spirited away to another house or place, and the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to enable the police constable, or any other person executing the warrant, to follow the girl. He thought some such words were necessary to give effect to the clause. The object of the Amend-
866
ment was so obvious that he did not think it necessary to discuss it at length.
§
Amendment proposed,
In new Clause, line 27, after the word "warrant," to insert the words "or any other house, building, or place, where there is reasonable ground to suspect that such girls may be found."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not accept the Amendment; and he would remind the Committee very briefly what the foundation for this now power was. It was an information before a magistrate stating that the parent, or guardian, or other person having a bonâ fide interest in the girl, had reason to suspect that she was unlawfully detained for an immoral purpose in a certain house or place specified. The word "place," of course, was an elastic one, which might apply to a house or street, or to more than one house; and if the magistrate had information before him he would issue a warrant in such a form as to justify the police officer in entering more than one house. It was, however, desirable to fix the special place to which the search warrant should apply; and if the police officer had reason to believe that the girl had been taken away to another place it would then become necessary to apply for a fresh warrant. He submitted to the Committee that it was not desirable, in giving a power of this kind to the police, to give what he had previously called a roving commission. He thought that the person who applied for the warrant ought to satisfy himself, in the first instance, as to the place which ought to be searched. He sympathized very much with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend; but he thought that by adopting the Amendment they would be going a step too far.
§ MR. HOPWOODquite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General. He thought it would be monstrous to confer upon the police these large powers, under which, for instance, they might be able to search Buckingham Palace or any other place. It would be most objectionable, in a Bill of this nature, to give powers of search beyond those already conferred in other cases by the Common Law either to a parent, 867 or guardian, or to any other person who might have a bonâ fide interest in a girl in regard to whom there was reason to believe that she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes. If a constable had reason to believe that a felony had been committed, he would have the right to enter under a warrant so far as any question of felony or misdemeanour was concerned. Those powers existed at present, and, in reference to the particular cases dealt with by the Bill, it would be a felony if the girl were under 13, and a misdemeanour if she was under 16. His own opinion was that the law conferred ample powers already, and to give the police further powers, under this clause, would be to bring about the mischief which his hon. and learned Friend had shadowed forth.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could not accept the Amendment, because he thought that it simply carried out the object of the clause itself. So far as entering a house in order to see whether a felony had been committed, what he wanted was that the police should have authority to enter it in order to prevent a felony from being committed. If it were found that the person for whom the police were searching had been removed, the Committee would see what loss of time might be involved. In the first place, it might not be possible to find a magistrate at once, and there would be considerable difficulty in getting a fresh warrant. Take this case. In the afternoon a police constable went in search of a child, and found, before he could execute the warrant, that she had been removed; he, however, received information which would justify him in obtaining another warrant; but on going back for it he found that the magistrate had gone away, that it was impossible to obtain another warrant, and, in the meantime, all the mischief was done. What he wanted was to prevent the felony from being committed; but if the Committee would not support him in the Amendment he would ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he believed they had now reached the end of the new clause, and in that case he had an Amendment to propose, the object of 868 which was to add to the clause words providing that—
In the absence of a Justice of the Peace, or, if it were found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall, on receiving information on oath, as in the clause mentioned, take such information down in writing, and shall act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid; and that any person who shall wilfully make such information, knowing it to be false, shall be guilty of perjury, and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly.He was quite aware that the words he proposed to add might be open to objection. He was quite alive to the danger of placing a power of this kind in the hands of a police officer, or of any other person, even if it were the Home Secretary or the hon. and learned Attorney General himself. No one was more keenly alive to the importance of safeguarding the liberties of the people, and of not allowing them to be subjected to the irresponsible and despotic action of the police; but in all cases there were instances to be found which would demand exceptional treatment. Under the clause, as it now stood, a search warrant might be obtained by information on oath before a magistrate by any parent, relative, or guardian, or other person, having a bonâ fide interest in any woman or girl, that there was reasonable cause to suspect that she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes; but what was to happen if a magistrate could not be found? Suppose that it became necessary to apply for a warrant late at night, and that information reached the police station through the parent or guardian that a child was locked up in a particular house for immoral purposes, and it was desirable to obtain power at once in order to rescue and save the child. Unless the magistrate could be found, which might be very difficult at a late hour of the night, no warrant could be obtained, and the child might fall a victim unless some provision, such as that which he suggested in the Amendment, were inserted in the clause. He was certainly of opinion that power ought to be given to the police to go and do all that was necessary, even without a magistrate's warrant, just as the police would have the right to do on receiving information that a felony had been committed. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for 869 Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had pointed out, if a felony had been committed, and the police received information of it, they already possessed the power of entering a house, and taking into custody the criminal who had committed the offence. It was, therefore, no novel power to give to the police to enable them to enter a house without a warrant. The case he wanted to provide for was a case where a felony had not actually been committed, and where a child had not been made the victim of a great crime. What he wished was to save the child, if possible, from the consequences of the position in which she was placed; and it was, therefore, for that reason that he proposed to insert these words to provide that if by any accident it was found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, then the Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or any other officer in charge of a police station, should be able to receive information on oath, and take down such information in writing, and should act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued. In order to guard against abuse, he proposed to add that if any person should wilfully and falsely make such information, knowing the same to be false, he should be guilty of perjury, and should be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. His object in adding that proposal was to safeguard the Amendment. Short of having a warrant issued in the presence of a magistrate, supposing that a magistrate could not be found it was desirable that the police should take information on oath, the same as would be necessary for the issuing of a warrant; but he had safeguarded that power by providing the punishment of perjury against any person who wilfully made a false statement. It was only in a very extreme case that the power would ever be used. The felony might not have been actually completed; and all he proposed was to extend to the police constable, in a case where it was suspected that a felony was about to be committed, the power which he now possessed where a felony had actually been committed.
§
Amendment proposed,
At end of new Clause, to add—"In the absence of a Justice of the Peace, or, if it were found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall, on receiving information on oath, as in
870
the clause mentioned, take such information down in writing, and shall act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid; and that any person who shall wilfully make such information, knowing it to be false, shall be guilty of perjury, and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly." — (Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that much as he respected the motives which had induced his hon. and learned Friend to make this proposal he was sorry that he was obliged to oppose the Amendment. This, as he had pointed out before, was a very important duty. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to give the power even to a police officer for the time being in charge of a police station. They had heard of cases where grave mistakes had been committed by police officers in charge of a police station when persons were brought to the station; and he did not think that the Committee would be willing to entrust to a subordinate police officer a duty of such responsibility.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) moved to add at the end of the clause the following Proviso:—
Provided always, That every warrant issued under this section shall have been addressed to and executed by a Superintendent, Inspector, or other police officer.
As the clause had been framed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the warrant was to be issued upon information laid by the parent or guardian, or any person having bonâ fide interest in the girl. Upon that information it was proposed that a warrant should be issued by a Justice of the Peace authorizing one of these persons to search for and bring up the girl. It was quite clear that this might be a work of considerable difficulty, requiring great tact; and there might be occasions in which a breach of the peace might be caused, and it would be dangerous, after the law were put in motion, if some person, in no way connected with the administration of justice, but only having an interest in the girl, were allowed to go, unassisted by anybody connected with the law, to carry out the warrant. The Proviso would, he thought.
871
in no way weaken the clause, but rather strengthen it in requiring that the warrant should always be carried out by a responsible police officer.
§
Amendment proposed,
At end of new Clause, to add — "Provided always, That every warrant issued under this section shall have been addressed to and executed by a Superintendent, Inspector, or other officer of police."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HOPWOODobjected to the words "other officer of police." They would include all, for every policeman was an "officer." He thought that a Police Inspector ought to be the lowest officer entrusted with this power.
§ MR. WESTsuggested that the word might be "constable" instead of "police officer." There might be instances in which the only officer available would be a parish constable.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he understood the object of the Attorney General to be that in either case the execution of the warrant could only be entrusted to a police officer.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that was so.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTagreed that it would be quite proper to take precautions to prevent a person visiting a house of this kind with a search warrant in an infuriated state of mind. Under such circumstances, a breach of the peace might be occasioned, and he should, therefore, be accompanied by a police officer; but he thought that provision should be made to enable the parent or guardian to accompany the police in the search if it were only for the identification of the child. To Clause 6 of the Bill as it originally stood he had put down an Amendment to this effect—to enable a police officer of ordinary or superior rank to enter the premises with such assistance as he might consider necessary. In addition to those words he proposed, in order to make it sure that there should be ample identification of the child, to add these words—"Such assistance as may be necessary for the identification of the girl or otherwise." His object in making that proposal was to permit that in every case where the parent or guardian made a proper representation he should be allowed to accompany the police in the search. He was afraid that the parent or guardian 872 would run the risk of being excluded if the words suggested by the Attorney General were adopted; and he hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the exact form of words with a view of providing for the point he had indicated.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General were all that were necessary. They required that an officer of police, whether an ordinary constable or an officer of superior rank, should execute a warrant; and it was perfectly clear when any necessity arose that the police would have a perfect right to take such strength with them as they might deem necessary for enforcing the warrant, or for the purpose of identification. Therefore, the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add would be mere surplusage.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he certainly felt, seeing that this was a matter of morality, some distrust in regard to the action of the police; and, therefore, he would like to give the parent or guardian something more in the shape of a right than the mere permission of the police to accompany them in the search for the purpose of identification.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he could not understand why, if the hon. Member had a distrust of the police, he should desire to give them such enormous powers. It was quite clear that no police officer in his senses would go to look after a girl if he was not accompanied by somebody who was able to identify her.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) had remarked that the relative or other person interested in the case might be in an infuriated condition. It was, therefore, extremely desirable that the police officer should have some discretion vested in him to say whether it was wise to associate with himself in the search an infuriated person who might probably bring about a breach of the peace.
§ MR. INCEpointed out that there might be danger of collusion to a certain extent if they placed the right of search in the hands of the police only. It must be borne in mind that the persons with whom the police would have to deal in these cases were, in most cases, persons making a large income out of 873 their nefarious practices; and, therefore, they would be supplied with long purses, which might be exercised in preventing a poor man from obtaining his rights. If they put the right of search entirely in the hands of the police, without desiring to make any imputation upon that body, he thought they might be putting an instrument in the hands of men who worked hard for extremely small salaries, and who wore, consequently, open to bribes. It must also be borne in mind that the execution of the law would be entrusted to them as against persons who possessed the means of bribing, and who would not hesitate to go any length in order to prevent the possibility of discovery.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)reminded the hon. and learned Member that there was nothing new in the clause, and that all warrants were now executed by the police.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that, before the clause was finally adopted, he wished to call attention to the vagueness and inadequacy of the words in the 10th line of the clause, which provided that the girl might be delivered up to her parents or guardians, "or otherwise dealt with as circumstances may require." To his mind, that contained no enactment whatever, nor did it add anything to the present power of the Justices. A girl might be taken out of a house which was not necessarily a brothel, and, once out of it, the power of interference by the police would be exhausted. The girl would be practically in the streets without being under the legal control of any person whatever. He had brought that question forward before, but had been stopped by a remark from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that the case was one which was dealt with under the Industrial Schools Act. But on referring to that Act he found that he (Mr. M'Coan) was right, and that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The present clause referred not only to girls, but to women. There were two Acts which affected the question, and the first, which was passed in 1866, 874 provided for the detention of girls under 12 years of age; the second increased the age from 12 to 14; and in those cases there was power to send the girls to an industrial school. But there was no provision for girls beyond that age. The Act of 1880 did provide for the treatment of and dealing with girls who were found lodging, living, or residing reputedly for purposes of prostitution; but that was a limitation of possibility which was not dealt with by this new clause at all. He had no doubt that there were cases in which girls were smuggled into a private house or hotel which could not be described as being kept "for purposes of prostitution," and in that case the girl could not be said to be living in the companionship of prostitutes. Unless, therefore, there was some such provision as he suggested, the law would still remain inoperative; and he trusted the Home Secretary would consent to the insertion of some words which would render the clause more effective.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the hon. Member asked what was to be done with the girl when she was taken out of the house whore she had been detained for immoral purposes? The clause provided that she must go with her parent or guardian, or, if no parent or guardian was to be found, with any person who had a bonâ fide interest in her before the Justice of the Peace. He presumed that if there was no person to take charge of her she could be handed over to the Board of Guardians and taken care of out of the rates. He thought that course would be taken under the clause as it stood at present; and if there was no parent and no legal guardian the girl would, of course, be sent to the workhouse, and dealt with in some other way. He did not wish to send her before the magistrates, unless there was no other way of dealing with her; and, therefore, he would be chary in putting any additional words into the clause. He would, however, consider the point before the Report, and see whether the clause could be altered in any way.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was satisfied, as far as he was concerned, with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman; but he should not be astonished if there were a large awaken- 875 ing of public opinion in this matter, and if it were ultimately found that children who were rescued were subsequently left homeless and friendless. Under the circumstances, he would be prepared to await the result of the operation of the clause before taking further legislative action in so difficult a matter. The only objection he had at present to the clause was to that part of it which related to the execution of the warrant, and which placed the sole power in the hands of the police. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that the insertion of additional words was not necessary, because all the warrants were now executed by the police; but he thought that some words should be added to give the Justice of the Peace power to order that some person should accompany the police officer in the execution of the warrant. He thought that that might meet the difficulty, and upon the Report he would propose an Amendment to that effect.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it would be very dangerous to impose any legal liability in regard to the future care of a girl rescued under these circumstances upon the person who had interposed in her behalf. There were many persons who would be anxious to befriend children placed in this deplorable condition; but if it were to involve a future liability to provide for them they might hesitate very much about showing any kindness in the matter. There were a good many individuals who would do a great deal voluntarily; but if it came to compulsion, they would, at any rate, hesitate before they incurred any responsibility.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, that before the clause was added to the Bill there was one point upon which he wished to say a word. He desired to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in many cases it was very difficult to know where the magistrates were to be found, as many of them lived a long distance from their courts. He thought it would very much conduce to the smooth working of the measure if some steps were taken to remedy this difficulty. In London some of the stipendiary magistrates lived a long distance from the police court at which they presided, and were not accessible at night at hours when an application for a warrant would most probably be made. It 876 would be most advantageous, he thought, if steps were taken to make known who the Justices of the Peace were, and where their residences were to be found. He made the suggestion to the Home Secretary in the hope that he would give instructions to the police to provide that this information should be readily obtained at all the police stations.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought that the matter alluded to by the hon. Member was one rather of administration than of legislation. At the same time, he thought the suggestion was a very good one, and he would consider it before the Report.
§ MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that a case might occur of special emergency, and he asked if the Home Secretary would consider before the Report if it were possible to take any course, properly safeguarded, which would enable a Superintendent of Police, or some other police officer, where it was found impossible to get a police magistrate to interfere, to exercise some limited power.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. STANSFELD moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Medical examination when unlawful).
§ "Any medical man, midwife, or other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the examination is required with a view to an immoral purpose, shall examine any woman or girl in order to discover whether she be a virgin, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."
§ The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal which he submitted to the consideration of the Committee was an exceptional one; but it was made under exceptional circumstances. They had heard a great deal lately of the abuse of the privileges of the Medical Profession in connection with the commission of abominable offences, and it was against the perpetration of such offences that the clause was directed. He did not know whether there was any person who could say to what extent these offences were committed; but the allegations which had been made had not been contradicted, as far as he was aware, either 877 on the platform or in the Press; and, therefore, he was bound to believe that, to a certain extent, they were true. If there were cases of the kind, whether they were few or many, he held it to be the duty of Parliament to make provision for them. He therefore begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not ask the Committee to agree with the clause. Of course, he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it; but he objected to the clause as a matter of principle. In the first place, he thought it would be unwise, on the face of the Bill, to draw a distinction between girls who came within the class of virgin and those who were not. It would be a very difficult thing indeed to decide who should come within that class, and it was not desirable, when they were administering the law on a broad principle, to say that special privileges should be given to any particular class; but there was another objection to the clause, which he would specially commend to the right hon. Gentleman. It was well known by those connected with the administration of justice, especially in the Divorce Court, that it was absolutely necessary, for proper and sufficient purposes, that an examination should sometimes take place by a medical man; and if this clause were passed medical men might decline to have anything to do with such an examination. Even assuming that a girl was not a virgin in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman meant, it might still be right to have a full opportunity for examination; and he did not think it was desirable that the Bill should contain a clause in favour of special protection being given to any class of persons. As to what had been said in reference to the recent action of the Press, he desired to say very emphatically that, however much public opinion, with reference to the subject-matter of the Bill, might have been awakened by the Press, the opinion of the Government had not been so 878 awakened, inasmuch as they would have adhered to the Bill in any circumstances, and it would have been proceeded with quite apart from any statements which had appeared in the Press. At the same time, he had no wish to pass any criticism upon the action of The Pall Mall Gazette; and he certainly did not attach so much importance to that part of the exposure which referred to proceedings of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as he might to some others.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that as the Government did not intend to accept the clause, his duty would be rendered more easy than it would otherwise have been. He had come down to the Committee to protest against the clause, and to oppose it by every means in his power. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have attempted to place an unmerited stigma upon a distinguished Profession by the manner in which he had worded the clause. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what ground he had for branding an honourable Profession with the most frightful imputations which could be cast upon any class of persons? He was convinced that in no part of the world, except in England, could any person for one moment have supposed that medical men required to be specially legislated against on account of practices of this kind being prevalent among them. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be satisfied with a very small amount of evidence in order to induce him to inflict an inexcusable and abominable insult upon a Profession which everyone respected. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to frame his clause simply to insure that the object of it should be carried out, it would have been quite sufficient to have used the words "any person," instead of which he had attempted to inflict upon the Medical Profession an insult of which they were altogether undeserving. He protested against the infamous publication which had charged medical men with the malpractices to which this clause had reference. What possible good, he asked, could be done by the offensive and bestial prints with which the town was now in undated? For his own part, he did not believe one word of the statements which had been made, and he would like to call the at- 879 tention of the Committee to the conduct of the conductors of the journal in which they had appeared. [Cries of "Question!"] What they had done appeared to be to discover some medical man who was willing to make himself a party to these disgraceful proceedings, and then to publish an account of the investigations of this medical man. He believed that in so doing they had themselves been guilty of a criminal offence. If not guilty of a criminal offence it ought to be made one; and, so far as the Medical Profession was concerned, this individual who had placed his services at the disposal of The Pall Mall Gazette was the only individual who had really and truly appeared in such a position. He was therefore glad that the Government objected, not only to the first words of this clause, but to the whole of it. Whether it was true that such things were ever done he did not know; but he did not think it was proper to place such a brand upon their common humanity without better proof than that which had been afforded in the columns of The Pall Mall Gazette. He trusted that the Committee generally would express its indignation against The Pall Mall Gazette for continuing to inundate the country with unnecessary sensual and pestilent paragraphs.
§ MR. STANSFELDremarked that after the violent attack which had been made upon him——
§ MR. WARTONNo, no!
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) must forgive him if he repeated that it was a violent attack.
§ MR. WARTONNot half strong enough.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Member had undoubtedly made a somewhat violent attack upon him. He did not object to that attack, because he knew that the hon. Gentleman had in former times been an honourable and distinguished member of the Profession which he now desired to defend. But what he (Mr. Stansfeld) wished to draw attention to was the fact that the hon. Gentleman had practically justified his clause, because the ample knowledge he possessed of the Profession of which he was formerly a member did not induce him to say that such things had not happened in the past and might not happen again. His hon. Friend 880 stated that if they wished to accomplish this object it ought to be accomplished by a different method, and by the use, in the clause, of different phraseology. He was perfectly ready to accept any different phraseology; but he had felt that he could not logically put it in any other form. It would have been impossible to make his meaning clear except by putting it in these words; but when his hon. Friend came forward and said that he could not accept the Amendment unless it was put in a form which would not convey a reflection upon an honourable Profession he had no answer to give except to express his readiness to acquiesce in the request of his hon. Friend, and to say that he should be delighted to do so if it were possible. Having made that concession he should feel bound to insist upon dividing upon the clause.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause was undoubtedly a very strong one so far as the honourable Profession to which it related was concerned. It might be the fact that some cases of this kind had happened; but he should be sorry to see such a clause put into any Bill at the present moment without there was the strongest evidence to show its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten one point—namely, that if a medical gentleman undertook an examination of this kind at the instance of a third person he would undoubtedly be guilty of conspiracy, and would lay himself open to a prosecution together with the other person concerned. He believed that the law relating to indecent assaults was quite strong enough, and would meet the object of the right hon. Gentleman. He, therefore, hoped that the clause would not be pressed.
§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIRexpressed a hope that his right hon. Friend would not divide upon the clause. There might be in the Medical Profession, unhappily, some person so degraded as to undertake an examination of this kind; but that was no reason why they should insert a clause in the Bill which would cast an imputation upon the whole Medical Profession. His right hon. Friend stated in the clause—
Any medical man, or other person, who had reasonable cause to believe that the examination was required for an immoral purpose.881 How was a medical man to have reasonable cause to believe that except by instituting a cross-examination of a most delicate nature which might place him in a very difficult position?
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had no objection to leave out the words "medical man."
§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the words which followed were "midwife, or any other person."
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would confine the clause to "any person."
§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that, in his opinion, the clause was not required at all. If a degraded medical man, or any other person, could be induced to make such an examination he would place himself under the law relating to indecent assaults; and, therefore, the clause was not required.
§ MR. SAMUEL MORLEYdesired to say a word or two with regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) as to certain statements which had appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette. No doubt, as a matter of taste, most serious objections might be raised to the modus operandi of the newspaper in question; but he was prepared to say distinctly, having been engaged for four days with three or four distinguished men in making an investigation, that the truth of the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette was substantially proved to the satisfaction of the Committee. He would even go so far as to say that the half had not been told of the condition of things in London. Although he could not approve of the phraseology adopted by the writer of the articles, he believed The Pall Mall Gazette had done an enormous service to the moral life of London. He trusted his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would carry the Amendment to a division; if he did he (Mr. S. Morley) would certainly vote with him.
MR. STAVELEY HILLdeclared, in the face of the country, that if the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette had been proved to the satisfaction of what was called the Committee of Investigation, it was the duty of the Committee to give the names of the persons implicated. A filthy editor of a filthy production had no right to make gross charges against Englishmen occupying 882 exalted positions in Church and State, and then to go skulking before four or five men who were as unfit to try the case as they would be to try a domestic cat. If the allegations were true it was the duty of the publishers of the journal in which they were made to give the names of the guilty persons. Dearly cherished as some members of the Investigation Committee were, it was their duty also to give to the House and the country the names of the persons implicated, so that if they had been guilty of these foul practices they might be convicted of them and dismissed from the offices they held.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, everybody must feel that if crimes of this kind were committed by medical men they ought to be punished. But the Committee must be very careful what they did. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) that it was not merely by generalizing the words that the guilty men only would be reached. The great risk which the Medical Profession ran of having charges preferred against them was very well known, and therefore he entreated the Committee to pause before accepting this Amendment. If a clause of this kind were carried, he could not see how a medical man could safely, in delicate cases, attend women at all. Suppose a woman, suffering from a painful disease with which human nature was afflicted, went to a doctor for advice. What would be the position of the medical man if he felt there was the possibility of a criminal charge being preferred against him? Of course, examinations of a certain nature must necessarily be made very privately; and, therefore, the medical man was at the mercy of any person who consulted him. This was a fact which must be taken into consideration.
§ MR. FIRTHthought it was very undesirable to duplicate legislation. If he rightly understood the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) it was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that legislation already provided for a case of this kind. He would like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) whether he did not consider that offences of the nature con- 883 templated were not sufficiently met by the existing law?
§ MR. DWYER GRAYsaid, it was a very serious thing to ask the House of Commons to cast a slur of this kind upon a highly honourable Profession upon the strength of the allegations made in The Pall Mall Gazette, allegations in which no names had been mentioned. No means of identification had been provided, and the verification of the allegations, if verification it could be called, had been made by a number of gentlemen who, however much they might be respected—and, of course, the Committee did respect them individually and collectively—had, in the opinion of rational men, discredited their own certificate. The Investigation Committee said they did not investigate charges against classes; secondly, they did not investigate charges against the police; thirdly, they did not investigate charges against individuals. What, then, did they investigate? What conceivable means could they have taken to verify the charges? There might be medical men who were a discredit to their calling; but the same thing happened in every Profession. He asserted that the suggestion that the Medical Profession as a body, or any appreciable percentage of them, would prostitute themselves by going about certifying to the physical condition of girls was an outrageous calumny upon the Profession. He protested against any Amendment of this kind. Personally, he was of opinion that what was now contemplated would amount to conspiracy, and was covered by the law as it now stood.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYprotested against one remark made by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). The right hon. Gentleman said he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) admitted the necessity, to some extent, of a clause of this kind.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that what he said was that the hon. Gentleman admitted that such cases might occur.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the observation the right hon. Gentleman had just made showed how very cautious the Committee ought to be in what they did in this matter. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not make the observation attributed to him. He repudiated, on the part of the Medical Profession, any kind of complicity in this matter, and he said 884 most distinctly that he believed the charges were inventions and lies. And, further than that, he now wished to say that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) would have done himself more honour in that House if he had said one word in condemnation of the paragraphs which had appeared recently—so late as Friday last—in The Pall Mall Gazette, calculated to excite the passions of the individuals who read them, and totally unnecessary to accomplish the good object with which The Pall Mall Gazette professed to have introduced the subject. He trusted his hon. Friend would do that yet, because his voice was potent, and a word from him might possibly prevent a repetition of these loathsome and wicked paragraphs calculated only to sell the paper.
§ MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was sorry that so much heat and so much irrelevant matter had been imported into this debate. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to make one observation with regard to his responsibility concerning the investigation into the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette. For what small part he had taken in that investigation he intended to be responsible to himself. He was not responsible to the House of Commons, and would not be. He hon. Friend (Mr. S. Morley) and himself had done what they thought their duty in a most painful and difficult inquiry, and he was not going to answer to anybody. Now, he intended to vote for this Amendment; but he had not the smallest desire to make an imputation against the Medical Profession. Were they to be told that they were not to legislate in regard to a particular evil because it was suggested that wrong might be done to a Profession which stood as high, if not higher than any other Profession? His firm conviction was that this offence was rarely, if ever, committed by medical men at all. It was committed, as a rule, by the midwives, or wretched people connected with this unhappy and nefarious traffic. What he would suggest to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) was that he should omit from his Amendment the words "or having any reasonable cause to believe," because before they convicted a man or woman of an offence of this kind they ought to be satisfied that the person knew that the examination was being made for an im- 885 moral purpose. If his right hon. Friend would so amend his clause that it would read—
Who knowing that the examination is required with a view to an immoral purpose,a safeguard might be provided against the evils which had been pointed out by the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). He could not help thinking that this evil existed, and he would be glad to learn from the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) whether he was informed by the police of its existence. He (Mr. Reid) would vote with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld); but he trusted that no hon. Member would suppose he did so in the belief that the Medical Profession was not one of the highest, if not the highest, Profession in point of honour in the whole country; he believed there was no Profession which stood more deservedly high than the Medical Profession.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that, knowing the part the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid) had played in the recent inquiry, the Committee must with great satisfaction have heard him say that he believed that rarely, if ever, had this offence been committed by a medical man. But the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to comprehend the objection to this clause. It was not objected to because it might possibly imply a reproach on an honourable Profession; but it was objected to because it would add to the many dangers which beset that Profession. Charges which might be made might be dissipated and disproved; but the very making of them would be sufficient to ruin the most honourable man practising in the Profession. It was because the clause would open the door to an infinity of accusations that he hoped the Committee would reject it.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAbelieved that the adoption of this clause would add to the dangers to which medical men were subjected in the performance of their duty; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would not divide the Committee upon the clause.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) he had to say that the Govern- 886 ment did not oppose this clause on the ground that the offence was covered by the present law, but because the clause was one which ought not to be introduced in the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 115: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, the Amendment which appeared in his name was directed to the second part of the Bill, and was intended for the protection of girls and women who were in a good many cases compelled to remain residents in houses of ill-fame when they might be anxious to escape. He believed there was no more potent engine employed by the keepers of these houses than the threatening of unfortunate women with criminal proceedings if they went away with wearing apparel which had been supplied to them. He understood it was a common case that girls, when they went to houses of this description, were induced to part with their old clothing, and were supplied with other and more attractive apparel, so that they might ply their trade successfully. The consequence of this was that the unfortunate women felt bound to remain in a life which they might be heartily sick of. He understood that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had an Amendment on the Paper of a kindred nature to which he (Mr. Raikes) had no objection; and if his Amendment were accepted by the Committee he should be happy to agree with him to put them into one clause. He had also reason to believe that there might be some suggestion made on the Treasury Bench of words to cover part of the ground; and he should be very happy to hear what the suggestion would be, with the view, if possible, of accommodating what was contained in this clause to the views of the Government in this matter. In the hope that his proposal might be of some assistance in reclaiming from this life a number of their fellow-country women, who he believed were detained entirely against their will by the power which was exercised over them by the keepers of these houses through the belief that they would be prosecuted if they went away with the clothes lent to them, he asked that the clause should be read a second time.
§ New Clause—Page 4, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause: —
§
(No criminal proceeding against a woman for retaining apparel supplied by owner, &c. of brothel.)
Whereas it frequently happens that women and girls are intimidated and deterred from leaving brothels by threats of criminal proceedings for taking away with them wearing apparel which has been lent or otherwise supplied to them by any person, being the owner or occupier of such premises, or having or acting or assisting in the management or control thereof: Be it therefore declared, That no criminal proceedings can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he believed that this was the first time Parliament had ever been asked to legalize a breach of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." The Amendment proposed to allow a woman living in a brothel to steal the clothes lent to her for immoral purposes, and there was to be no indictment. If hon. Members would look at the clause, they would see that no criminal proceedings were to be taken, so that the result would be that, in addition to the woman or child being a prostitute, they were to allow her to be a thief also. If the clothes were the property of another person, the woman ought not to be allowed to steal them without incurring the ordinary penalty of the law. A girl ought not to be entitled, because she was a prostitute, to pack up any quantity of clothes which did not belong to her, and walk off with them, without being liable to prosecution for stealing the clothes. He believed that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, and those who supported this clause, was that if there were power to claim civil damages they would stop it if they could. He did not for one moment imply that they were in favour of allowing women to steal clothes under the circumstances; but he pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted they would allow the clothes to be stolen without liability to prosecution. It was equivalent to saying that if a theft were committed it would be no crime.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had listened with attention to the argument 888 of his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) who had just sat down; but his right hon. and learned Friend ought not to forget that if the same clothes were supplied to a girl by the keeper of a brothel, on the understanding or the promise that she should pay for them, she might snap her fingers at the person who supplied them, because no Court of Law in the country would enforce a contract or liability incurred for an immoral consideration. Therefore, in another form it might be said that the law encouraged a girl to commit an immoral action. However, he would pass from the casuistical questions raised by his right hon. and learned Friend, and come to the practical question before the Committee—that was to say, whether something could not be done to bring pressure to bear on the persons who got women to lead an immoral life, and prevented their leaving it by threats of various kinds. That state of things, he said, ought to be met by the law; and he proposed to meet it by the clause of which he had given Notice. It went further than the clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) then before the Committee. It did not legalize theft, as the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had said was the result of that clause; but it said that the person who retained and kept any girl under restraint, or kept her in a brothel, or, by retaining her clothes, prevented her from leaving, should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted, should be punished accordingly. He proposed that the offence should be dealt with and punished summarily. For these reasons, he should, with all submission, propose his own clause in substitution of the clause brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he presumed that he could do so if the clause now before the Committee were withdrawn. He should propose his own clause if that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were not adopted, because he believed it would be very efficacious in checking the evils which had been pointed out. If the right hon. Gentleman the 889 Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had a clause which would meet the case he should be glad to accept it. He presumed they had only one object in view—namely, that of protecting the women in question, and vindicating the law.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, the Government intended to propose a clause which would go farther in one direction than the clause before the Committee, which would leave the unfortunate girl still exposed to threats. The clause of the Government would be to the effect that—
Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will—(1) In or upon any premises, with intent that she may be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally; or (2) In any brothel, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.And they proposed that—Where a woman or girl is in or upon any premises, or in any brothel, a person should be deemed to detain such woman or girl in or upon such premises or in such brothel, if with intent to compel or induce her to remain in or upon such premises or in such brothel, such person withholds from such woman or girl any wearing apparel or other property belonging to her, or where wearing apparel has been lent or otherwise supplied to such woman or girl by or by the direction of such person, threatens such woman or girl with legal proceedings if she takes away with her the wearing apparel so lent or supplied.And then would follow the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge—That no criminal proceeding can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel.He believed this proposal of the Government would meet the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had in view; and in commending it to the Committee he would remind the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that although the words "carrying away" occurred in the clause there was no mention of stealing.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he was at a loss to understand why the words which he proposed were not added at the end of the clause. His object was to make it a punishable offence to threaten a girl. He could see no use in saying that criminal proceedings should not be taken if she kept the clothes supplied to her in a brothel. His proposal was to make it an offence to threaten proceedings, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the view embodied in his clause.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, after listening to the first part of the clause as read by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), he thought he preferred the wording of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). He quite agreed with the desirability of stopping these threats of detaining clothes, and so preventing the girl leaving the house; but he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the words—
That no criminal proceedings can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel.He had admitted that these things took place, and he had admitted all that had been said against the practice. But if the woman said, "I object to your taking the clothes." and the girl went away with the clothes, he said there was no Judge in existence who would not say that technically it was a theft. He contended that they ought not to say that what was technically theft was not a great crime; and he asked the Government to consider whether they should not stop short of saying there should be no criminal proceedings if the clothes were taken away against the will of the owner. With regard to punishing the person making the threats, he would prefer the wording of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought that what his hon. and learned Friend had proposed might be admissible; but he submitted that the words referring to criminal proceedings did not constitute an objection to the clause. It frequently happened that a woman had the use of a carriage and clothes. Actions had been brought for the hire of a 891 brougham and clothes, and it had been held that no action would lie for either. He would go further, and say that no action of detenu could be brought for the clothes. He was dealing with the case of a girl walking away with clothes which did not belong to her. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed that the Amendment should not protect her if she took away mere necessaries. He (the Attorney General) ventured to say that that was not an objection which the Committee ought to accept. He would ask the Committee to pass the clause in the form proposed by the Government; and if there appeared to them reason for altering it in respect of the words declaring that no criminal proceedings should be taken it should be altered hereafter.
MR. STAVELEY HILLpointed out that there was nothing in the proposed clause which would not allow a girl to take away any amount of clothing; and although no hon. Member would have any objection to that, yet it was a very strong measure to put into an Act of Parliament. He thought they had better leave the matter to the Judge and jury before whom it might be brought, feeling absolutely certain that the girl would not be convicted.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Attorney General to consider whether what they desired to accomplish—namely, that these girls should not be threatened—was not secured by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). He said they should desire to avoid legalizing in any form a criminal act. If they were to declare that criminal proceedings should not be taken in these cases it would be imagined very soon that they would not be taken in other cases. Surely they ought to set their faces against such a proposal as this. With regard to the taking of criminal proceedings, it was clear that if a woman were to take such measures against a girl, under the circumstances she would convict herself of being guilty of a misdemeanour. If that argument applied, he thought they might avoid the other alternative, which would be a summary alteration of the law of the country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir B. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought that their present course should be to 892 take the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). The clause which had been presented by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department was a long one, and until it was read it could not be fully understood, or, at all events, discussed. He therefore suggested that they should take the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, and before the Report he would see to what extent the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) could be added to the clause.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) would proceed with his Amendment. It had received the sanction of all hon. Members sitting around him, who considered that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury did not touch the essence of the case. The gist of that Amendment was that it made it an offence on the part of the owner or occupier of the house to threaten to detain the clothes belonging to the girl. But there was no question about the clothes of the girl, because these would have been already taken away and others lent to her. The object of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters was to deal with the clothes lent to the girl, and not with those belonging to the unfortunate woman herself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had spoken of legalizing theft. That was one of the strangest remarks he had ever heard. The whole of the contract with the brothel-keeper was an immoral contract, and he did not wonder that hon. Members smiled when they heard his argument about breaking the Commandments. The whole thing was immoral, and he repeated that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not touch the point they were aiming at—namely, the threats about the clothes that did not belong to the girl. He appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney General to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that evening-, and then, if any modification were necessary, let it be made on Report; but he could assure him in the meantime that the principle 893 of that Amendment was such as he and his hon. Friends meant to insist upon, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it would not allow it to be deferred.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be prepared to save the Committee the time and trouble of dividing if he were to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a satisfactory assurance that the object at which he was aiming would be secured by the now clause to be proposed. But he was afraid that at the present time he was hardly in possession of that assurance. The object he had in view was distinct from that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), whose Amendment was directed entirely to the act of the brothel-keeper in detaining the girl and threatening to detain her clothes. But his own clause was intended to reach the minds of the persons concerned, and he had no doubt that many unfortunate women would not be slow to avail themselves of this provision as soon as they became sufficiently acquainted with it. He thought it was a mistake to suppose that it would not become known. There would doubtless be some cases in which its effect would not be reached immediately; but he imagined that this particular provision would become speedily known, and that a great many would avail themselves of it in order to quit a life of which they had become ashamed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had said that his proposal was one for legalizing a breach of the Ten Commandments; but, although he regarded the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a great authority both on law and morality, he could not think that he had fairly construed the words of this particular clause. His (Mr. Raikes's) object was that no criminal proceedings should be had or taken for taking away necessary apparel, and he had not proposed in any way to legalize theft. He should be willing to accept words limiting the operation of the clause to such clothes as the woman might find it necessary to wear on the occasion of making her escape. He had no intention that the operation of the clause should extend so far as to enable her to pack up and take away clothes that were not necessary for making her escape. If he could obtain from the right hon. Gentleman 894 the Secretary of State for the Home Department an assurance that he would embody in the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury words which would secure the object he intended to reach by means of the words he had placed on the Paper—in that case he would not press this particular clause; but unless he could get that assurance from the Government he should feel justified in proceeding.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he understood that the object was to secure that a girl who took away with her only the amount of wearing apparel necessary should not be brought into a Criminal Court. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly in forming that view, he was willing to go to that extent.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to point out, before the Committee passed from the present discussion, that such legislation as was proposed was utterly unnecessary. No one supposed for one moment that a girl wishing to leave a brothel would hesitate to take the clothes that were necessary for her. There was no magistrate in the Kingdom who would commit her under the circumstances. He sympathized with those who desired to prevent the girl being kept in a brothel; but that was dealt with by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon). But it was not alone with innocent girls that they had to deal; there were artful girls in these places as well as others, and there was no doubt that many an artful girl who heard that there was legislation of the kind proposed would walk off with what clothes she liked, because she would know there was no possibility of punishing her. He did not say that the clause was not right in its object; he pointed out that it was quite unnecessary, because even if a case of the kind were brought before Quarter Sessions, or before a Judge and jury, there would be no chance of obtaining a conviction unless it was shown that the girl had taken away a great deal more than what was necessary for her to go away with. He said that neither in law nor morality would there be any criminality in leaving with the clothes necessary for her escape; if she took more it would be a question to be decided by the Court in the ordinary way.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he was willing to introduce words into the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) which would effect the object he had in view, of preventing legal proceedings being taken against a girl who took away such wearing apparel as might be necessary. If he was correct in that, he had no wish farther to occupy the time of the Committee, and would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. DWYER GRAYsaid, he wished to point out, before the clause was withdrawn, that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not meet the case. Neither, in his opinion, did either of the Amendments. What they wanted was to combine the principle of the two Amendments. The mere providing for the taking away of clothes was not sufficient, because the point was that the girl should not be threatened that a prosecution would ensue unless she remained. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury only provided against the detention of the girl's own clothes, whereas they wanted to deal with the clothes which the brothel-keeper lent her. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see his way to combine the essence of both clauses. It was impossible to get a knowledge of the law home to the migratory population of these houses, which were constantly recruited by girls who had no means of knowing the law. But the brothel-keepers would know the law well enough, and it seemed to him necessary to go beyond the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury by dealing with the clothes lent by them. Unless they did that they would do nothing, for those persons knew that they could not prosecute the girl for taking away the clothes she was wearing. Therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would meet his wishes and those of his hon. Friends by combining the two clauses.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANI am of opinion that the clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) does not come within the 896 purview of the Bill, and that it cannot, therefore, be moved.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would ask whether he could divide the Committee on the Amendment, or what steps he should take to get a decision upon it?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, it would save the time of the Committee if he stated that it was just as well that they should have some law of this kind. He would bring up an Amendment of a similar kind on Report.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had another clause on the Paper dealing with the cessation of parental authority. It was as follows:—
In all cases where it can be proved that the carnal connection of an unmarried girl under the ago of twenty-one with a man has been encouraged, favoured, or facilitated by the father, mother, or guardian, such father, mother, or guardian shall cease to have any authority over her.He had given Notice of another clause on the same subject, but he did not see it on the Paper. He could, however, move it here. It was—And in such cases where the girl is under the age of sixteen any magistrate shall have authority on proof of the offence to send her to a reformatory or industrial school, or to commit her to the custody of any person or persons whom he may think fit until the age of seventeen.It seemed to him that this Bill had a very great defect. It punished those who seduced young girls, and those who induced them to go into houses of ill-fame; but it did not in any sort of way say what was to be done with the girls themselves. It might be said that the parents or guardians of a girl would be punished if they sold her for improper purposes; but there were many other ways in which the defilement of a girl might be "encouraged, favoured, or facilitated" besides by selling her. The magistrate who heard the case might come to the conclusion that it had been the intention of the parent or guardian to allow the girl to engage in these offences; and under such circumstances he did not think the guardian ought any longer to have authority over the girl. At the same time, if they deprived such parent or guardian of all authority, they must place authority somewhere else—they must either vest it in the magistrate, or, if the girl was deter- 897 mined to hold to the life, and was under the age of 16, they must give him power, in the words of this Amendment—To send her to a reformatory or industrial school, or to commit her to the custody of any person or persons whom he may think fit, until the age of seventeen.Because there were now a considerable number of homes to which girls of this kind could be sent, and they could send her to one of these if it was not thought desirable to commit her to a reformatory. He limited his Amendment to cases where the girl was under the age of 16 years and up to her attaining 17 years of age; but in all cases where the girl was under 21 he would deprive parents and guardians of all authority over her. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to add this to the clause, and to move it altogether.
§ New Clause (Cessation of parental authority,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not advise the Committee to accept the clause. He would point out to the Committee and the hon. Member that the issue under the clause would be a thoroughly collateral one to the issue being tried by the magistrate—namely, the guilt of the seducer; and it was doubtful whether, in many cases, it would be raised. Although he sympathized with the hon. Member's object, the words of the clause were vague, and would be found unworkable. The hon. Member did not say what would become of the obligations of the father. They would not wish to get rid of these obligations because of the man's misconduct. In nine cases out of ten he did not think it would be possible for the magistrate to try this collateral issue; and though he admitted it would be well to cast a stigma, if possible, on the father, he thought the clause would not operate if it were passed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had taken the clause out of the French Criminal Code. What, he asked, was to be done with these particular girls? Take a girl of 13. A man was accused of having seduced her; it was admitted that it had been done in the worst way 898 —that it had been "encouraged, favoured, or facilitated by the father, mother, or guardian"—was the girl then to be sent back to the custody of this father, mother, or guardian? That seemed to him to be rather a strange thing to do. He did not wish to pin himself to this particular clause; but he did think that something ought to be done in the Bill—or, if they liked, in some subsequent Bill, if it was too late now—to meet the question of what was to be done with these girls.
§ CAPTAIN PRICEthought there was a great deal to be said in favour of the latter portion of the clause moved by the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he had proposed to move a clause giving effect to what the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) had just stated. He had desired to insert a new clause after Clause 5; but, no doubt, it would come in very well where the hon. Gentleman proposed. They had raised the age of protection from 15 to 16; and he had sought on Friday night to make that provision applicable to girls who were not prostitutes. There was no doubt there was a great number of those girls—namely, prostitutes under the ago of 16 years, who were so with the connivance and encouragement of their parents. As the hon. Gentleman had said, some punishment should be provided for these girls. Certainly they ought not to be sent back to the custody of their parents, but should be detained in a house of correction or reformatory. They should remember that the legislation they were passing now was not solely for people in well-to-do circumstances who went and deliberately debauched young girls, but that it was for the whole community—for the boys of the working classes as well as others. He was quite certain that it would be found in all large garrison towns, and in many other places, that frequent cases would arise of extortion practised by young girls and their parents under the Act. He would point out a case that he thought would be a very common one. A man had improper relations with a young girl under 16–15 and a-half, say—a precocious, well-advanced, and well-developed girl, who looked more like a woman of 17 or 18. But the man knew perfectly well that she was under 16. He (Captain Price) did not wish to complicate the matter with a question as to default of knowledge. He would as- 899 frame that the man knew he was having unlawful intercourse with the girl; the girl was, perhaps, not satisfied with the present she received, or got in the way to become a mother, or had a quarrel with the man, and wished to be revenged on him, or, from some cause of that kind, caused proceedings to be taken against the man. That would be a very common occurrence, he thought, and they ought to guard against such an easy means of extortion. If the clause were left as it was, it seemed to him that it would encourage juvenile prostitution, and lead to extortion being largely practised. He, therefore, thought that some punishment should be provided for the girl. When a man had been prosecuted, and it had been found that the girl was a common prostitute, she ought to be punished in some way. Certainly she ought not to go back to the custody of her parents if they were found to have connived at her prostitution.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would take one class of these girls they were desirous of protecting. There was, unfortunately, a large number of parents who found their children very burdensome, and desired to get rid of the duty of taking care of them. Now, they were quite familiar—those of them who knew anything about reformatory schools—of the great danger there was that by taking charge of children they might be really offering temptations to people to get their young girls seduced—to encourage this offence on the part of their children in order to get rid of the responsibility of maintaining them. What would happen in this case? If a parent desired to get rid of his child he would only have to encourage or facilitate her seduction for the State to take charge of her and maintain her up to the age of 21. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had said was perfectly true. In the newspapers they saw this question treated as a question of the rich seducer and the poor girl. That was an easy topic of prejudice; but that was not the way this Bill was going to operate. It was going to operate on the whole mass of the people who belonged to the humbler classes; and if they did not take care this Bill was going to fill their gaols, which, happily, in the last few years, had been so rapidly emptying. They might have hundreds, aye thou- 900 sands, of the people of this country thrown into prison simply through yielding to the passions of their nature. When that occurred they would find that there would be a tremendous reaction against the measure. If it were put in operation in the sense in which some people desired it to operate, he ventured to think that, in the course of a few months, there would be thousands on thousands of people, not at all of the wealthier classes, but belonging to the manufacturing and the agricultural classes of the country, cast into gaol. What was it proposed that they should do? They had dealt with the offence of the male sex towards the woman; but now the woman was to be provided for by the State in an industrial or reformatory school. The expense to the country would be enormous. Wherever immoral relations had existed between two persons where the woman was under the age of 16, if this Bill were carried into operation the man would go to prison and the girl would go to a reformatory school. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Or to a home.] Or to a home. Had they any idea of what the consequence of such a state of things as that would be? Why, he ventured to say if it were to happen they would have the greatest reaction in the matter. From the point of view of everyone who wished to put down the crimes with which the Bill dealt there was that in this proposal which should induce them to regard it with care. The Bill was not directed against ordinary sexual vice, but against degrading and corrupting the child. If the present Amendment, however, were agreed to that which he had described would be what would follow from the Bill—the ordinary, casual, immoral association with a prostitute would come within this clause and other clauses of the Bill; and under these circumstances, as he had said, the man would go to prison and the woman would be sustained at the cost of the State in an industrial or reformatory school. It would not be maintenance by a private charity; it would be a State support, and that would, he thought, be a most dangerous and extravagant proceeding. With regard to the hon. Member's object, everyone would agree to that. The parent or guardian should cease to have control over the girl under these circumstances; but that was the 901 law already, which would be enforced if a case were brought before the proper tribunal—namely, the Court of Chancery. If a case were brought before the Court of Chancery in which a parent had encouraged a child to prostitution—and that would be the state of things dealt with in this clause—the child would be taken away from the custody of one of the parents. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that they could not do away with the authority of the father on a collateral issue, and that it would be necessary to have a separate and definite charge brought before they could deal with a case of this sort.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the very excellent observations of the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) opened up one of the most difficult considerations in connection with this Bill, because they had already enacted that wherever a boy or young man of 15 or 16 had to do with a girl under the legal age he was guilty of an offence; and no one would say that a girl of 15 or 16 was not as matured as the boy. They would have cases of this kind oocurring—and he ventured to say that it would be in cases of this kind that the Act would most come into operation—namely, where in the district or neighbourhood of a factory town a boy and girl were found by a policeman on his rounds behaving immorally, the girl under the age of 16. The boy would be immediately taken up and tried for misdemeanour. Which of the two—the boy or girl—would have been most to blame—the girl, who for two or three years had arrived at puberty, or the boy who, developing much later, had scarcely arrived at puberty then? Who was the more guilty of the two, supposing they called it guilt? Why, every woman would tell them that a girl approaching 16 years of age was far more advanced and developed than a boy of that age, and yet they were going to punish the boy and not touch the girl at all. He thought that before they got to the Bill on Report they would have to deal with that state of things. He himself would propose a clause which would deal with the matter in this way—that wherever a boy was being tried for having had improper relations with a girl under 16, the Judge might ask the jury to find whether or not the girl had been a con- 902 senting party, and if the jury answered in the affirmative it should be in the power of the Judge to send the girl to a reformatory for two years. He certainly thought that by doing that they would be able to stop a great deal of mischief that might otherwise arise under the Bill. When they arrived at the Report stage he should venture to bring before the House an addition to Clause 5. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary had drawn their attention to this point, because it was really one of the most difficult matters they had to deal with.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)deprecated any lengthened discussion on the clause.
§ MR. LABOUCHERELet it be negatived.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)Very well; let it be negatived. I do not want to go on with the discussion.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. GRAFTONsaid, he wished to move, as a new clause, after Clause 12, the following:—
Any person who, by his own act or that of his agent, lots or leases premises with the knowledge that such premises are to be used as brothels, or for immoral purposes, shall, on summary conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable—and in case of a third or subsequent conviction such person may, in addition to such penalty or imprisonment as last aforesaid, be required by the court to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, as to the court seems meet, to be of good behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and in default of entering into such recognisance, with or without sureties (as the case may be), such person may be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three months, in addition to any such term of imprisonment as aforesaid.
- (1) To a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour; and
- (2) On a second or subsequent conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour;
Any person on being summarily convicted in pursuance of this section may appeal to a court of general or quarter sessions against such conviction.This clause would be an extension of the Act to the owners of brothels or persons letting houses to be used for im- 903 moral purposes. He maintained that those who let their property for such purposes were as bad, or worse, than the occupiers, and it was only right that the Act should, accordingly, be extended to them. He understood that the Government were prepared to meet the object he had in view, to a certain extent, by substituting words for the purpose in another portion of the Act; and if they did that, and the words were made strong enough, he should have no objection to withdraw his clause. He felt himself that the imposition of a heavy fine would very often prevent these people from letting their houses for improper purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would permit him to say that, as he desired the clause to be applied to brothels or houses to be used for immoral purposes, he hoped that before the Bill passed he would take care that the definitions were strong enough and wide enough to cover all these places.
§ New Clause (Suppression of brothels,)—(Mr. Grafton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, if this clause were withdrawn, he should on Report move to introduce words as to ownership as in Clause 12, which dwelt with the occupier.
§ MR. GRAFTONYes.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he would move the insertion of the following new Clause:—
Any owner or occupier, or any person having or acting, or assisting in the management or control of any brothel, house, or premises, or any person who shall keep any woman or girl under restraint in any brothel, house, or premises, or shall prevent, or threaten to prevent, any woman or girl from leaving any brothel, house, or premises, or shall detain her clothes or other property in order to prevent her from leaving such brothel, house, or premises, or to compel or induce her to remain in any brothel, or to compel or induce her to remain for immoral purposes in any house or premises, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)That clause will be put in the Bill—the effect of it.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONThen I will not move it.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTIn the absence of Mr. William Fowler—["Order, order!"]—the hon. Member for Cambridge, I beg to move the following Clause in his name:—
(1.) Everyman who, in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, habitually or persistently solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under section fifty-four of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis.'(2.) Every man who, in any street within any town or district wherein section twenty-eight of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847,' is in force, habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under the same section.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot move this now. He must wait his turn—that is to say, he must wait until the Amendments on the Paper are disposed of.
§ MR. PICTONsaid, he begged to move the following Clause:—
Every person charged with an offence under this Act, and the wife of the person so charged, shall he competent witnesses on every hearing at every stage of such charge: Provided, That no person so charged shall be compellable to be a witness on any such hearing: Provided also, That no person so charged, being a witness on any hearing of such charge, shall have the right to refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence so charged, unless the court before whom such hearing shall take place shall think fit.It had been said in connection with various parts of the Bill that it would give occasion for false accusations against people. Instances had been adduced of special cases of conflicting testimony in which, had the person charged and his wife been competent witnesses, all suspicious circumstances would have been explained, and a miscarriage of justice would have been prevented. In some oases already the accused was allowed to give testimony for himself—in cases of adultery, for instance, and in many cases of conspiracy. It appeared to him that offences charged under this measure were especially offences on which such testimony ought to be allowed, and, 905 therefore, it was that he moved the clause. He should like to add after the word "wife," in the first line, "or husband, as the case may be," because, in some cases, women might be accused under some of the clauses. He might add that the wording of the clause was taken directly from the Bill which had received the assent of the other House of Parliament, and had received, he believed, the sanction of this House, but which had not been carried to its final stage.
§ New Clause (Person charged and his wife shall be competent witnesses,)—(Mr. Picton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he should not at all like to say what his view of this new clause was. In his opinion it was right, in some cases, to allow the accused to give evidence; and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) would do well to allow the merits of his proposal to be considered. It certainly would seem that of all classes of cases that dealt with in this Bill was the one in which the defendant should be allowed to give evidence. As he had said, the principle had been allowed in some instances—in affiliation cases, where it was sought to fix the paternity of illegitimate children on certain persons; and in cases where charges of sending un-seaworthy ships to sea were made the defendant was allowed to speak for himself. He wished to say this, in view of an Amendment negatived by a small majority the other day—that to prevent a child giving evidence—that if there was one reason why he felt why the House should be in favour of this clause, it was because he thought the guilty would be detected just as well, whilst the innocent might more readily escape. He remembered once being in a case with one of the best men who ever practised at the Criminal Bar—namely, Mr. Serjeant Parry—at the York Assizes. The case was one of sending unseaworthy ships to sea; and Serjeant Parry had pointed out that where permission was given to a defendant to give evidence, and he did not do so, the conclu- 906 sion to be drawn was that he was in the wrong. He could not help thinking that in cases where the evidence of a small child was taken, the statement of the prisoner himself would be of value. Where guilty he would be likely to say nothing—so that the provision would enable the innocent man to get off, and aid the conviction of the guilty. With regard to the Proviso—
No person so charged, being a witness on any hearing of such charge, shall have the right to refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence so charged," &c.That, he thought, should be left to the discretion of the Judge at the trial. He thought the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) the better form of clause—namely,Any person charged with any offence under this Act shall be a competent witness on his own behalf: Provided always, That no such person shall be compelled to give evidence.As the Committee was principally concerned, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would say whether he agreed to the clause, or the principle of it.
§ MR. PICTONdesired to point out that the concluding lines expressly gave power to decline to give such evidence.
§ MR. M'COANentirely agreed with the principle involved in the first lines of the Amendment, but strongly objected to the end of it. He ventured to suggest that the intention of the hon. Member would be carried out if the clause were amended in this way—"Every person charged," and so on, "shall be competent but not compellable witnesses," &c. Of course, in the case of a witness refusing to give evidence, the inference would be very strong against him.
§ MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that, in accepting this Amendment, they were making a very serious alteration in the jurisprudence of the country. He did not see how the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General applied, because affiliation summonses were not criminal cases.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)wished to explain that he had also mentioned the charge of sending an un seaworthy ship to sea, which was certainly a criminal offence.
§ MR. TOMLINSONfelt it his duty, nevertheless, to warn the Committee that in putting this clause into the Bill, they were practically conceding' the admission of the prisoner's evidence in all criminal cases.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)hoped the Committee would accept the clause. When it had boon read a second time, he should move to strike out the last portion of it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. M'COANwished to move an Amendment in the first line of the clause, so that it would read—
Every person charged with an offence under this Act, and the wife or hushand of the person so charged," &c.
MR. STAVELEY HILLthought the Home Secretary would find it necessary to slightly amend this clause on Report. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that, under the clause as it stood, there would be no power of cross-examining these witnesses. He was under the impression that there was some particular form of words to be put in a clause of this sort to enable this to be done.
§ Question put, "After the word 'and,' inline 1, to insert 'if married,'" and agreed to.
§ Question put, "After the word 'wife,' in line 1, insert 'or husband,'" and agreed to.
§ MR. M'COAN moved, in line 2 of the new clause, after the word "competent," to insert the words "but not compellable."
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HOPWOODthought the Committee would make a great mistake if they made these class of persons competent but not compellable witnesses. He would put it to the Home Secretary, who would see at once what he meant. There was a prosecution against a man who was not called as a witness. The counsel prosecuting would be able to say—"Where is the prisoner? He might have been called; I could not call him, but my learned friend could have done so: and, as he has not been called, I say it amounts practically to a confession of guilt." That would be 908 a great injustice to the prisoner. The only way in which they could make the clause workable at all was by inserting the words "competent or compellable." They ought to give the prisoner no choice in the matter, as they would be doing him a great injustice if they gave him a discretion. Juries did not always understand the fencing of opposing counsel; and if they were told that the defence could have called the prisoner, they would naturally come to the conclusion that they had some very good reason for not doing so. He ventured to warn the Committee that if they adopted the principle that the prisoner was not to give evidence unless he liked, it would be found that they had not conferred the benefit on him which they intended in giving him the power of rebutting the evidence against him.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was no doubt that where an accused person was competent to be a witness and was not called, it raised a presumption against him; but, in administering the Criminal Law, they wished to give protection to an innocent man, and they could not deny that a provision like this was of the greatest value to enable a man to prove his innocence. If a man were innocent, he would appear to give evidence; but if he were guilty he would not appear; and if they forced a guilty man into the witness-box, whether he liked it or not, they would be subjecting him to the temptation to commit perjury, and thus rendering him liable to the additional penalty attaching to that offence. That was a pressure to which he ought not to be exposed.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYthought that this clause would be valuable in any shape at all, and hoped there would not be too much criticism of detail. It would be such a great step in regard to their Criminal Law that he hoped it would not be too much criticized. They know that in civil cases it was not supposed to be the duty of the plaintiff to call the defendant, although he knew a great deal about the case at issue. It was the business of the defendant to call himself. He had some doubt in regard to the cross-examination, for they know how the people were occasionally shocked by the cross-examination of a prisoner by the Judge in France. He thought, however, that 909 public opinion in England would keep the counsel for the prosecution in check. Under all the circumstances, he hoped they would accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That all the words after the word 'charge,' in line 3, be struck out," put, and agreed to.
§
MR. STAVELEY HILL moved to insert, after the word "charge," at the end of the clause, the words
And if tendering himself or herself as a witness, shall be subject to cross-examination.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that surely this followed as a matter of course. If a witness gave evidence, he would be subject to cross-examination in the ordinary way.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)was bound to say that he was of the same opinion as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood); but if the hon. and learned Member thought the words necessary, he had no objection.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, it would be necessary, then, to insert words to enable a re-examination. He would really ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his Amendment.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had been all through this matter, and there was really no necessity for the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR HENEY JAMESsaid, he would not move any further Amendment on this clause now; but he would do so on the Report, because it ought to be made clear that the prisoner could be examined at every hearing. At present he was rather afraid that there might be a difficulty about the Grand Jury where the prisoner did not appear. He was so glad to got this alteration in the law, however, that he would not take up the time of the Committee now, but would consult with the Attorney General, and move some Amendment at the later stage.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
910§ MR. WARTONpointed out that they were now making a most startling change in their Law of Evidence. The clause introduced so vital a change that he was surprised at the ease with which the Attorney General and the ex-Attorney General had seen their way to desert the principles which had hitherto formed the bases of their criminal legislation. The two important principles involved in this clause should certainly not be introduced into a measure which they were hurrying through Parliament as they were hurrying that one. He did hope the Committee would pause. All the other questions in this Bill did not together amount to the same importance as the great and grave principles which they were now introducing into it. No more startling innovation had been made in their Criminal Law for centuries, and he could not allow the clause to pass without entering his earnest protest against it. He warned them of the state of things which happened in France, where the Judge cross-examined the prisoners in a most infamous manner. Next year he would undertake to say they would have the same sort of thing in their Courts. They would have lawyers cross-examining these unfortunate criminals in the same infamous style. It was a return to the same state of things as existed in the old days of the Inquisition in France, and was quite too serious a change to be introduced into such a wretched Bill as this, which, after all the noise and fuss that had been made about it, might not produce any startling results, or, if it did, stood a very good chance of being repealed in a very short time. The principle of the Bill was sure to be abandoned when the public returned to their common sense. In the meantime, he stood aghast and horrified at the action which had been taken by the right hon. Gentlemen of the Legal Profession on this occasion.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESaltogether denied that they were acting in a hurry in this matter. The clause bad in the shape of a Bill received the approval of the House of Lords twice before, and it had received the approval of the Criminal Code Commissioners. It had also been inserted in the Explosives Act, and its introduction into that measure had been the direct means of estab- 911 lishing the innocence of a man charged under that Act.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked whether this clause ought not to be carried further? They were going to allow a prisoner to give evidence on his own behalf in a class of cases of the nature of rape, but they did not allow him to do the same thing in the actual case of rape itself.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESwished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that they could not, while this Bill was in Committee, extend this clause to prisoners charged with rape; but they might do on Report.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONinsisted that it was a most extraordinary and invidious thing that they should allow the principle in these cases, but that in the case of actual rape, when the man might be the only person who could thoroughly explain the matter, they should not allow it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH,with the permission of the Committee, begged leave to move the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. William Fowler), which was as follows:—
(1.) Every man who, in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, habitually or persistently solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall he deemed to commit an offence under section fifty-four of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis.'(2.) Every man who, in any street within any town or district wherein section twenty-eight of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847,' is in force, habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under the same section.
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order, and submitted to the Chair that the Committee had decided this matter when they struck out Clause 0 with regard to solicitation.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was not in the Chair when Clause 9 was struck out; but he now saw it referred to the same thing, and therefore the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving this Amendment. The principle of the matter had already been rejected by striking out Clause 9.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had a short clause to move. Under a previous clause, the age at which consent could be urged as a defence to an indecent assault had been raised from 13 to 16. It would be necessary, therefore, to put in a few words to make it meet the case of young persons of 16 under this Bill. Therefore, he moved the following words:—
Consent to be no defence to a charge of indecent assault on a young person below the age specified in this Act.
§ MR. HOPWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that a woman could be charged with familiarity with a boy of 16 years of age, and consent was to be no defence? He hardly knew what they were coming to. This clause opened up a vista of new ideas in regard to the relations of the sexes which Parliament had never dreamed of. He did not know whether those who were responsible for this Bill knew where they were going to stop, or where this whirlwind was to cease. For his part, he thought it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to leave this matter alone, at all events for the present, and if they found that there was any necessity for dealing with it, they could amend the Act at some later period.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and bring it up on Report. If the offence took place, it might generally be proved by direct evidence.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had been about to bring forward a clause providing for the punishment of a man who did an act tending to the commission of a midemeanour; but he would bring it up on Report.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had an Amendment to propose the object of which was to provide that no person should be convicted of an offence under the 2nd and 3rd sections of the Act upon the evidence of one witness only. It had been observed a short time ago by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the Committee hardly knew where they were going in the matter of this Bill. In some respects he quite agreed in that opinion of the hon. and learned Gen- 913 tleman. As far as the 2nd and 3rd sections of the Bill were concerned, they were founding an enactment of a kind which he supposed had never before received the sanction of Parliament. By those clauses the door was opened to all sorts of extortion and fraud, especially since the existing limitation of the age of women had been repealed. Now, he proposed to tack on to the two clauses the Amendment which he had described. However, if his right hon. Friend did not wish him to move it then, he would do so later; but in the meantime he wished to express his views upon the subject. He had adopted in this case the principle contained in the former Bill brought in by the late Government, and adopted by the present Government, as would be seen on reference to Clause 9—the Solicitation Clause—which repealed portions of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847. The Bill substituted other clauses, and also provided that a conviction should not take place in pursuance of the section in question on the evidence of one witness only. He understood that that Proviso was introduced for the protection of women, and the Proviso he had to propose was intended for the protection of men. He believed that there was nothing new in this. So far as regarded Scotland, he was told by the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that no person could be convicted there criminally, on the evidence of one witness only, without there was some corroborative evidence; but, as he had said before, they were, by these two clauses, opening the door to all sorts of extortion. It should be remembered that if there was one characteristic in women of the unfortunate class more noticeable than another it was untruthfulness, as any person would be aware who had taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, or who like himself had sat on a Committee for the purpose of considering this question, or who had inquired at the Homes where this class of women were received. It was a well-known fact that these persons were not all credible persons; and it seemed to him that there was very great danger that false charges might be brought by such women utterly unsupported by any evidence, and convictions obtained against innocent men. Hon. Members knew that in cases of breach of promise of marriage, a good- 914 looking lady had an extremely good chance of getting heavy damages; and he thought it was more than probable that when a good-looking prosecutrix showed herself in the witness-box in support of a charge under these clauses, there would be a very bad chance for the defendant or prisoner as the case might be. Instances of charges of the kind unsupported by reliable evidence were very common, as might be seen by reference to a newspaper that had been mentioned once or twice in the course of the evening, and described by an hon. and learned Friend in a speech made the other night as a "magazine of filth." On Friday last there was a column in The Pall Mall Gazette devoted to an alleged case of ruining a young girl; and if hon. Gentlemen would be kind enough to read this story, they would find that the whole case depended entirely on the testimony of one witness—that was to say, of the girl alleged to have been injured. When he considered that they had not alone to deal with artless young girls, but with artful and immoral women of a notoriously untruthful class, he thought that some additional protection should be given to persons who were likely to be inculpated. Therefore, he had prepared a clause which he begged to move, and in which was incorporated a principle already adopted by Act of Parliament in England, and in operation in another part of the United Kingdom.
§
New Clause:—
That no person shall be convicted of an offence under the second and third sections of this Act upon the evidence of one witness only,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have known that, if this clause was unnecessary in the case of ordinary offences, it was unnecessary in the case of rape. He should not like to see this clause placed on the Statute Book. He did not believe that a Judge would ever allow a person to be convicted under these sections upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, there were within his own knowledge several instances of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven had alluded to. Some time ago he had had occasion to attend one of the Police Courts when a case of indecent exposure was before the magistrate; the sole witness was a highly respectable woman, and the magistrate said aloud to the clerk that he believed it was the rule of magistrates not to entertain charges of the sort unless they were proved by two persons. The clerk replied in the affirmative, and the magistrate dismissed the prosecution. These instances were very common, especially with regard to the relations of the sexes. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Home Department that this was a matter in which he had had to interfere on several occasions. There had been charges of assault in railway carriages. Within the last few months a respectable gentleman had been charged, his name appeared in the papers, and he had to submit to all the disagreeable consequences, and although he was not allowed to give evidence he had succeeded in rebutting the charge by the force of character. There was another instance which occurred when the right hon. Gentleman was last Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was the case of Seth Evans. He had interested himself in that case on behalf of a great number of people who did not believe the story against him. The man had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment; and after two trials for perjury against the girl, in which the jury could not agree, the right hon. Gentleman said the case was not made out—that it was completely rebutted in his mind—and the man was discharged. If there was a case in law which entitled them to ask for peculiar treatment it was this. If they were to make these things the subject of legislation, it seemed to him that they demanded special and peculiar treatment. He believed that as the House went on educating itself it would see that what was at first so clear had become fraught with great danger, and that those dangers were now unfolding themselves.
MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that having been appealed to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for White- 916 haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to say whether his view of the case with regard to Scotland was correct, he had to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had correctly stated the case. According to Scotch law there must be two witnesses, or one witness whose evidence was corroborated, in order to warrant a conviction. As a general rule two witnesses were requisite. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that although there was no technical rule to the same effect in England, the like practice obtained there, and that a direction would not be given by a Judge to find any person guilty on the unsupported testimony of one witness. He thought it desirable to know whether in such cases the liberty of a man would solely depend upon the arbitrament of the Judge, or whether he would not have the protection of a definite rule of law to the effect that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness was not sufficient?
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in anything connected with the law; but he was obliged to say that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) supposed that there was no hon. and learned Member having experience of criminal trials who did not know there had been convictions for rape that were absolutely wrong. He had one case distinctly before his mind. It was a case in which he was counsel, and where the man was convicted on a cock-and-bull story and sentenced to penal servitude. There was not the slightest corroboration of the woman's story; and although he had done his best to get a remission of the sentence, the man had to suffer five years' penal servitude for a crime of which he was, in his opinion, absolutely innocent. There was no requirement that there should be corroboration of the woman's evidence and no understanding that there should be any corroboration, and if a woman got into the witness-box, and her evidence could not be broken down be cross-examination, the man would be absolutely certain to be convicted. He entreated the Committee to take into consideration the arguments brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and 917 to consider how dangerous it would be to apply that system in the cases which they had then before them. As the Bill now stood, the girl, who might be a consenting party, might come forward and give evidence, upon which alone, as there was nothing to require the evidence of a second witness, a man might be convicted and sentenced. Unless the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) were added to the Bill, he feared there would be many cases in which serious injustice would be done.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, there were some reasons why a clause of the kind proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should be added to the Bill, as applying to some of the acts dealt with. For instance, with regard to the administering of drugs and other matters, it was a very common thing for a girl to state that drugs had been administered to her, and that she had been violated under those circumstances. If she was to be allowed to tell that story without corroboration, it might lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. As they had not the exact words of the clause before them, it was rather a difficult matter to form an opinion upon, and he would therefore suggest that the question should be raised on the Report, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of deciding what words should be added to the Bill.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not accepted the clause in the form in which it had been read. He hoped that on Report words would be adopted to meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). The right hon. Gentleman said, in the case of rape, no corroborative evidence was necessary. But with regard to the other cases, if they did not take care, the Bill would simply become the means of extortion as against men, whom it was their duty to protect as well as women. He thought it a monstrous injustice that a girl without any corroborative evidence should be able to bring a charge against a man, and probably get a conviction. Tie would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if a provision of this kind were in- 918 troduced into the Bill, a girl would not be so likely to bring a false charge against a man as she would be if she could get a man convicted on her own statement alone. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that, on the whole, some provision of the kind should be put into the Bill; and, for the protection of men and the prevention of extortion, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would be carried.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had not heard all the discussion on this clause; but his right hon. Friend had given him the meaning of the Amendment, which he understood to be that no person should be convicted under the 2nd and 3rd clauses of the Act on the evidence of one person only. He was not aware that any Statute had ever provided that no conviction should take place on the evidence of one witness only. He was bound to say that the Amendment really provided that there must be more than one witness, and that, so far as he knew, was an entire anomaly. The practical outcome of the discussion was that no Judge would allow a case under these clauses to go on without corroboration. ["No, no!"] Although he agreed with the hon. Gentleman behind him that there was no rule that there must be a second witness, yet all those acquainted with criminal practice would know that no Judge would allow a case of the kind to go to the jury upon the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. Corroboration did not mean that there should be another witness—they had experience of that in the Divorce Court, and in cases of breach of promise of marriage, where corroborative evidence was necessary. With all respect to hon. Members who thought otherwise, he said again that a Judge would not allow one of these cases to go to the jury without there was corroboration in fact of some kind or other. That corroboration might arise from a variety of circumstances, as, for instance, from the fact of the prisoner being found close to the spot. But, however it might arise, he said that they would be introducing into the Bill matter which ought not to be introduced into it, if they put in a provision that more than one witness should be called. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. 919 Gregory) had very properly said that a great distinction ought to be drawn between cases in which the mouth of the defendant was closed and where it was not. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause became law, no case could go to a jury upon the evidence of one witness, and he submitted that the person who made the accusation should be able to explain the circumstances and give evidence.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he felt a great deal of interest in this question, and, on the whole, he was rather inclined to favour the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). But he did not quite agree with what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He thought he was wrong in saying that Judges had not over and over again allowed persons to be convicted on the evidence of one person without corroboration. He recollected a case in which a man was convicted under those circumstances. Again, he did not understand the distinction which his hon. and learned Friend drew between a second witness and corroboration. Corroboration must exist in the mouth of a second witness, or else there would be only one statement. How could there be corroborative evidence of the worth of testimony, unless it came from a second witness? Any corroboration of the evidence of one witness must come from another witness. Certainly he was unable to see the distinction drawn by his hon. and learned Friend. In bastardy cases two witnesses were required, although the accused person might be examined; and if they insisted on two witnesses in that case, he did not see why the same principle should not be applied to the 2nd and 3rd clauses of this Bill. As to the rule in Scotland, he believed it had worked well, and there was a good deal to be said in favour of it, because, although it was much to be hoped that all Judges would hesitate to go on the statement of one person, they did not always do that. He should consider the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, if he could, he should, vote for the clause.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not propose to press his clause upon the Committee on that occasion. 920 He should put it on the Paper for consideration on Report. He did not wish to add a word to the arguments adduced in favour of his clause by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to set his face so strongly against a clause intended to prevent extortion. He did not wish to detain the Committee by any further observations. He would withdraw the clause now, and bring it up again on Report.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule.
§ MR. WARTONproposed to add, after "forty-nine," "and section fifty-five." The other evening something was said about the Consolidated Statutes of 1861. It ought to be said in justice to the memory of Mr. Grey, who drew the Code, that there never was a better series of Statutes drawn than the seven or eight Statutes which had formed for so many years their Criminal Law. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: It is already repealed.] If it was already repealed, they had had no law respecting abduction since it was repealed. When was it repealed? The Home Secretary had passed him the Statutes, and he found 55 still standing. He was perfectly correct, and on questions of Criminal Law he generally was right, because he knew the Criminal Law well. Was it the intention of those who brought forward this Bill that they should have two sections dealing with abductions? It seemed to him that when the promoters of this Bill drew their Abduction Clause—Clause 7—which fixed the age at 18, they forgot the existence of s. 55, c. 100, 24 & 25 Vict.
§ Amendment proposed, to add, after "section forty-nine," in the Schedule, "and section fifty-five."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was alluding to Section 51, and that was what he had in his mind when he said the section was repealed. It was intended to keep Section 55, because the offence it dealt with was quite different to that dealt with by Clause 7 of this 921 Bill. Section 55 was general in its terms—namely,
Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or any other person having the lawful care or charge of her;but Clause 7 of this Bill made it a misdemeanour for anyone to do the same thing—With intent that she should be unlawfully and carnally known by any man.The hon. and learned Gentleman would see that the two sections were very different.
§ MR. WARTONremarked, that Section 55 was never used except in cases of abduction for sexual purposes. Practically it was now intended to have two abduction sections, one fixing the age at 16 and the other fixing it at 18.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that as the Bill applied to Scotland he desired to put a question to the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour). He was told that the evidence of children of tender years, without the solemnity of an oath, was admissible in Scotland. The other night it was resolved by a very narrow majority that such evidence should not be allowed under the operation of this Bill. He would like to know what the law of Scotland was on this point'? If it was as he had suggested, would it not be well to consider on Report the advisability of assimilating the law of England to that of Scotland, especially as it was admitted that the law of Scotland was generally better than that of England?
MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, his hon. Friend had been correctly informed. It was not essential that a child of tender years should take the oath. The custom in cases where a child was concerned was for the Judge to put some questions to the child in a kindly fashion in order to ascertain its state of education and intelligence, and if it was fit to take the oath the oath was administered. If it was too young to understand the nature of an oath, but the Judge thought it understood the obligation to tell the truth, it was examined without being 922 put upon oath, but after being admonished to tell the truth. Of course, the evidence was given in the presence of the jury, so that they could form an opinion as to its worth. He was quite sure that there were many cases in which the truth would not be reached unless the evidence of the child were taken, and it was in that view he gave a vote in favour of the Amendment the other night. If on Report the proposal was made to allow a child of tender years to give evidence without being sworn, he should again vote for it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]