CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 06 August 1885 vol 300 cc1386-428

Bill, as amended, considered.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—

(Unlawful detention with intent to have carnal knowledge.)

"Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will—

1. (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. (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.

"Where a woman or girl is in or upon any premises, or in any brothel, a person shall 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.

"Legal proceedings shall not be taken against any such woman or girl for taking away or being found in possession of any such wearing apparel as was necessary to enable her to leave such premises or brothel."

New Clause brought up, and read the first and second time."

MR. WARTON

begged to move an Amendment to the clause to insert after the word "premises," in line 9, the words "for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection." He pointed out that as the clause was drawn it was possible that a private master or mistress might be brought within its scope. Nothing could be wider than the words "any premises." He was quite sure that, however rigorously and harshly a master or mistress might behave in regard to a servant, they would not wish to bring them in guilty as they would the keepers of brothels.

Amendment proposed, In line 9, after the word "premises," to insert the words "for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection."—(Mr. Warlon.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

thought, with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that some other words might be introduced here. As the clause was now drawn, it might be taken to mean other premises than a brothel. He thought it was better that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member should be put in.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

asked whether this matter was not controlled by the 1st sub-section of the clause, which said— Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will in or upon any premises with intent that she may be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally.

MR. WARTON

No.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, he preferred the simpler plan of adding the words "as aforesaid."

MR. STANSFELD

thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on reflection would not be able to accept these words.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) said was quite right; but the whole clause was such nonsense that the more nonsensical it was made the better. The Government did not seem to know at all what they were going to do with the Bill.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir B. ASSHETON CROSS)

I beg your pardon.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, that if the hon. and learned Member would agree to accept these words— Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will for the purposes herein mentioned," &c. he thought he might accept them.

MR. WARTON

was not prepared to withdraw his own Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member to accept his words.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

pointed out that the Amendment would defeat its own end, for in the second part of the paragraph they would simply be re-enacting the first paragraph of the clause. He thought the being in or upon the promises was to be primâ facie evidence.

MR. WARTON

I must insist upon my Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 59: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 273.)

On Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendment made:—Line 9, after "or," insert "is."

MR. WARTON moved, in line 15, after "such person," to insert "such person." The reason he desired the Amendment was because there was such a very large interval between the expression and the definition of "such person."

Amendment proposed, in line 15, after "such person," to insert "such person."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That 'such person' be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

It is so absolutely immaterial.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WARTON moved, in line 18, to insert the word "No" at the beginning of the paragraph. His object was to strike out the word "not" later on, so as to make the paragraph read "no legal proceedings shall be taken," &c., instead of "legal proceedings shall not be taken."

Amendment proposed, in line 18, place "No" at the beginning of the line.—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'No' be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

had no objection to the Amendment; but he preferred the words "shall not."

MR. WARTON

did not quite understand. He desired to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed before he gave up his position?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he agreed to the sense of the Amendment, but not to the actual words.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was right, as the clause would be bad grammar otherwise.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

suggested that it really was desirable to put a little common sense in an Act of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendment made:—Line 18, leave out "not."

MR. STAVELEY HILL

proposed an Amendment, in line 19, to leave out the word "such" in order to insert the word "necessary," so that the words should run, "being found in possession of any necessary wearing apparel," instead of "such wearing apparel as was necessary to enable her to leave such premises or brothel." The clause, as it stood, seemed to him to be an amplification of words without giving any meaning.

Amendment proposed, in line 19, by leaving out the word "such," and inserting the word "necessary,"— (Mr. Siaveley Hill,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

desired to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the words in line 20 which he proposed to leave out were intended to prevent the girl taking away anything which was not absolutely necessary. If they said "necessary wearing apparel" it would leave the girl a discretion to take away whatever she might think was necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

pointed out that with the Amendment which had been added the clause in line 9 recited— Where any woman or girl is in or upon any premises for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection. There might be many cases in which the girl was not there for the actual purpose, although efforts were being made to induce her to have carnal connection.

MR. SPEAKER

said, they had gone through the clause now. It was, there- fore, too late to make any further Amendment on the clause.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

did not propose to make any alteration in those words; but he wanted to call the attention of the Attorney General to the matter, and to ask him whether he would not make some addition to the clause at the end?

MR. SPEAKER

said, it was impossible to make any Amendment now. The Question was whether the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he had given Notice of the following new clause:—

(Evidence of girl against whom the offence is committed shall be admissible in evidence.)

"When a girl, in respect of an offence against whom a charge is brought under this Clause, is, in the opinion of the court justices or magistrates, too young to understand the nature of an oath, such girl shall be competent to give evidence without oath: Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of the offence unless the testimony of such girl, implicating the accused, shall be corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof. And the court may, for the same purpose, allow a similar statement made by her before the committing justice or magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used for the same purpose at the trial.

The House would see that the clause was divided into two parts, the later part being contained in the last three lines, which allowed a statement made by the girl before the committing justice or magistrate to be used as evidence at the trial. With regard to the major portion of the clause, he found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had a similar proposal to make later on; and therefore he was agreeable to withdraw the first part in favour of that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would then ask to add the last three lines of his clause to the end of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the proper course would be for the hon. Member to withdraw his clause, and then to bring up his words as an Amendment to the later clause.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

then asked leave to withdraw his clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

begged to move the following clause:— Upon the conviction of any prisoner under sub-section one of section five, the judge shall inquire of the jury whether they find that the act of which the prisoner has been convicted was done with the consent of the girl, and, if the jury shall and that she did so consent, the judge shall order her to be sent to a reformatory school for a period not exceeding two years. He ventured to call the attention of the late Home (Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) to this matter in reference to what he had said the other night. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that it would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if they proceeded to fill their gaols with boys and with men against whom there could be no real offence charged. Now, let them consider what they were doing. What they were doing was this. When a lad of 15 or 16 was having connection with a girl under 15, with full consent, in any place where they might be found by a policeman, he might be dragged off to gaol at once. He would put it to the House was it, or was it not, a wrong thing that was being-done by the persons guilty of that at which the Bill was aimed; and was it, or was it not, intended that they should be punished? What was the punishment for? Was it because an offence was committed, or merely because the girl was under the age of 16 at the time it was committed? What was the real state of the case? In this country a girl was supposed to have reached the age of puberty when she was between 12 and 13. There was no period in a girl's life, especially where she had not been properly brought up, or cared for by her parents and guardians, at which she was more likely to be led astray than when between the ages of 15 and 16 years. He thought that in that statement he should carry the concurrence of any person who had studied the question. Well, that being so, what was it the House was doing? They were saying, as the Bill stood at present, that where a girl was in this condition, and induced a boy or a young man to commit an offence, the boy was to be punished and the girl was to go scot free, not only with regard to punishment for her share in the offence, but in regard, also, to any education she might obtain in a reformatory to which she might be sent for the pur- pose of improving her mind and teaching her better habits. Now, he asked the House, was that fair? Let them consider the question for a moment. Let them take the case of two children—a boy and girl, both under the age of 16. Those two young persons might be found by a policeman committing an offence under this Bill, and in the result the boy was to be the only party punished. He did not know whether the boy would be flogged or not; but he would be imprisoned, and, under certain circumstances, he would be liable also to undergo a flogging. It might happen that a few yards further on the policeman might come upon two persons—a man and a woman, of the age of 25, committing the same offence. The question naturally arose, was that wrong on the part of the two who were under 16 which was right in the case of those of 25; and was it intended to reverse the principle of the law, and say they would punish the younger offenders and excuse the elder ones? If that were so, on what principle was the boy to be punished and the girl to be allowed to go scot free? He submitted that the House ought to adopt the words he had inserted in his clause; and, if it would allow him, he would read them, as they were very brief. They were as follows:— Upon the conviction of any prisoner under sub-section one of section five, the Judge shall inquire of the jury whether they find that the act of which the prisoner has been convicted was done with the consent of the girl, and, if the jury shall find that she did so consent, the Judge thall order her to be sent to a reformatory school for a period not exceeding two years. What, he asked, would be the result of adopting this clause? They would find that cases would not be so likely to be trumped up, and where a girl under the age of 16 had tempted a boy to the commission of an offence she would not bring a charge against him. They would not have such cases as had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but due caution would be exercised. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) entreated the House, if they would do justice between the two sexes and prevent charges under this Bill being used as a means of extortion by policemen and girls against boys in a better or worse position, not to omit to punish the girl as well as the boy; but, where a charge of this sort was made, to allow the Judge, when he thought he could fairly do so, to put it to the jury whether the girl was a consenting party, and if the jury found that she was, then to give the Judge the power to afford her the opportunity of a proper mode of reformation by sending her to a reformatory for a period of two years.

New Clause (Girl to be sent to reformatory if act was committed with her consent,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I fully appreciate the motives that have induced my hon. and learned Friend to bring forward this clause, as there is no one in this House who has a stronger desire than myself to prevent anything in regard to legislation of this kind that would, afford the slightest facilities for extortion. At the same time, I cannot consent to the insertion of this clause. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved it this question—What crime has the girl committed? because we could not confine a girl in a reformatory, as he proposes, for a period of two years, unless she has committed some crime. A reformatory school is essentially a criminal institution, and you could not send a girl to such a place unless you can show that she is a criminal.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not wish to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary at any length; but he would reply to it very briefly. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that the girl could not be considered guilty of any offence. Now, he (Mr. Hopwood) asserted that she had committed an offence.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I said "crime."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he would adopt the word mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and would say that the girl had committed a crime. The Bill made the act done a crime on the part of the man, and it was quite clear that he could not commit the crime without the girl. The girl was held to be bound to know the law, and, therefore, the act being a crime on the part of the man, she was accessory to that crime. He would make bold to say that they might have some very nice questions raised on this point with regard to the girl's being an accomplice, whose evidence could not be received without considerable suspicion; and he only hoped the House would find that they had landed themselves in some of these complications by attempting to make that a crime which Nature never meant to be so interpreted. He could not say that the clause, as it stood, was altogether what he should have made it if he had had the drawing of it, because he saw some difficulty in the way in which it might operate. There were many hon. Gentlemen near him who felt that the law should be made the same for both sexes. What they contended was this—that cases, as his learned Friends would admit, constantly occurred in which girls under 16 were a hundred times more culpable than the youths whom, in reality, they seduced—cases where the girls were more advanced and matured, both in body and mind; and yet, as the Bill stood, the act done was to be a crime on the part of the boy, and none at all on the part of the girl. That appeared to him so utterly preposterous that he could not understand how the House could possibly legislate in such a direction. He put it to those who were responsible for the measure, how could they defend so monstrous a proposition? If the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved this clause went to a division he (Mr. Hopwood) should vote for it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought there was a very simple answer to the argument of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill). The assumption of the Bill was that a girl under 16 could never be a consenting party; that a girl of that age would be in exactly the same position as a girl under 13 was placed in by the existing law. Therefore, the arguments employed by his hon. Friends who supported the clause applied equally to the state of things under the present law. Whether it was right or wrong to raise the age to 16 was a question that had already been determined by the House. As the Bill now stood, the age of consent had been raised from 13 to 16, and the assumption was that a girl was not to be considered capable of I giving consent until she was 10. His right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) would seem to place those under 16 on an equality, in this respect, with those above that age.

MR. GREGORY

did not think the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would have made some of the observations he had addressed to the House on this subject if he had had the experience which had fallen to his (Mr. Gregory's) lot in regard to the description of crime with which it was proposed to deal. In numerous cases that were brought to his knowledge the girls were the daughters of very respectable persona, and had been sent to service at a very early age, whereby they were often exposed to all sorts of temptations, such, for instance, as they were subjected to in public-houses or lodging houses. Those girls required every protection, and he did not think it would be right, in cases where they might have yielded to temptation, to send them to reformatories, and thus to stigmatize them as criminals before the world. He certainly protested against any such proposal.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he rose to protest against the interpretation put by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) on the position taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) and himself. They believed in the equality of men and women; but they had never believed in the equality of children with them. The existing law was, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, for the protection of female children below the age at which they had hitherto been supposed capable of giving consent; and they knew that under the age given in this Bill they were not capable of giving consent. Therefore, they were not on an equality with men and women.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

thought it would be desirable to alter the framing of the clause under discussion by substituting for the words "reformatory school" the words "industrial school," and that, instead of the matter being left to the jury, it should be left at the discretion of the Judge to take the action required. He did not think it could be maintained that a girl brought herself under the category of those for whom reformatory schools were designed—namely, those who had been convicted of crime—even when she was a consenting party; but there could be no doubt that she took part in an act of great indecency, and might very properly be made the inmate of an industrial school. He, therefore, suggested that his hon. and learned Friend should amend the clause in the manner proposed.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot).

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

thought his hon. and learned Friend did well to accept the Amendment just proposed.

MR. WARTON

concurred very much with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), as it was quite clear that the Bill was drawn on the assumption that a girl under 16 was incapable of giving consent; and, that being so, he put it to the House why should that fact not be expressed in the clause? In Chapter 45 of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., it was expressly stated that consent was no defence where the girl was under the age of 13; and if were not so stated here it might be held that the girl could consent. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that a great many girls under the age of 16 knew quite as much as the boys, and often a great deal more.

MR. PICTON

thought the clause would introduce a very dangerous principle into their law, as it would constitute about the only case in which a person might be committed to a period of confinement without being first tried. The clause would enable the Judge, on the conviction of any prisoner charged with an offence against a girl under the age of 15, to inquire of the jury whether they found that the act was done with the consent of the girl; and without the girl having been called upon to plead, but on a mere side issue like this as to the impression in the minds of the jury, the girl might be deprived of her liberty for two years. He thought that to adopt this clause would be to introduce a very bad and a very dangerous precedent. The object of this part of the Bill was to treat young girls as not having the right to consent; and he hoped the House would not come to a contrary conclusion by raising the assumption of consent.

MR. W. S. ALLEN

said, the effect of adopting the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) would be to render that part of the Bill absolutely nugatory, because parents would never come forward to prosecute where they saw there was a chance of having their own children punished. He could hardly imagine any clause that would work more cruelly or unjustly.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he rose to move a clause he had put upon the Paper——

MR. WARTON

rose to Order, He wished to ask whether the clause about to be moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, and which dealt with a totally different class of offence to that against which the Bill was directed, was within the scope of the Bill?

MR. SPEAKER

At this stage of the Bill anything can be introduced into it by leave of the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, his Amendment was as follows:—After Clause 9, to insert the following clause:— Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, 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 one year with or without hard labour. That was his Amendment, and the meaning of it was that at present any person on whom an assault of the kind here dealt with was committed must be under the age of 13, and the object with which he had brought forward this clause was to make the law applicable to any person, whether under the age of 13 or over that age. He did not think it necessary to discuss the proposal at any length, as he understood Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept it. He, therefore, left it for the House and the Government to deal with as might be thought best.

New Clause (Outrages on public decency,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not wish to say anything against the clause; but he would point out that under the law as it stood at the present moment the kind of offence indicated could not be an offence in the case of any person above the age of 13, and in the case of any person under the age of 13 there could be no consent.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, the clause proposed to restrict the punishment for the offence dealt with to one year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour. He would move to amend the clause by omitting the word "one," in the last line of the clause, and substituting the word "two."

MR. LABOUCHEEE

had no objection to the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not know how the next clause, put down in his name, as to the cessation of parental authority, had got upon the Paper. He supposed it was by some accident; but as he did not intend to move it, he would, with the permission of the House, move the clause following it—namely— In cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the seduction or prostitution of a girl under the age of sixteen has been encouraged, facilitated, or favoured by her father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress, it shall be in the power of the Court to divest such father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress, of all authority over her, and to appoint any person or persons willing to take charge of such girl to be her guardian until she has attained the ago of twenty-one, or any age below this as the Court may direct. He would explain the object of this clause as briefly as he could. Let the House suppose the case of a girl of, say, 13 years of age, whom someone had been prosecuted for outraging, and that, in the course of the proceedings, it had been shown that the parents had favoured and facilitated the seduction or prostitution of the girl, it seemed to him a most monstrous thing that that girl should be sent back to the care and custody of her parents. When the Bill was in Committee he had brought forward a clause somewhat to the effect of the present proposal; but it contained the provision that the girl should be sent to a reformatory, and, no doubt, there were certain objections to that course—objections which had been urged just now to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill). It would be seen that by the present clause it was proposed that the Court should be allowed— To appoint any person or persons willing to take charge of such girl to be her guardian. That provision would allow the Court to send the girl to one of the homes which were being kept up for purposes of charity, if such home were willing to receive her. He had received a letter from Miss Webb, the Lady Superintendent of the Chatham Lock Hospital, in which that lady said she wished to state a fact in regard to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport's (Mr. Hopwood's) opposition to the proposal that the custody of any girl under 16 being placed in any other hands than those of her parents. A few years ago a girl under 16 and her mother were in Miss Webb's hospital at the same time. The mother was discharged first, and the girl asked Miss Webb to put her in a home unknown to her mother. This was done, and the mother went to Miss Webb and abused her, and afterwards applied to the magistrates in order that she might recover the child for purposes of prostitution. The mother took the girl out of the house, and she was soon on the streets again, and was now keeping one of the worst brothels in Chatham.

New Clause (Custody of girls under sixteen,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he was sorry he was unable to approve of the insertion of the clause as it appeared on the Paper. He must remind the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that it was open to the objection pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the discussion that had taken place on another clause, inasmuch as it dealt with the position of the parents, and would override the obligation of the father and mother, which was a matter with which the Bill did not deal, and was not intended to deal. He could not think it would be a wise thing to attempt to deal with this question in the manner proposed by the clause.

MR. GREGORY

said, there was a good deal to be said in favour of this clause which, in the event of it being shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the parents or persons having control of the girl were, for the reasons stated, morally unfit to have such control any longer, enabled the Court to divest them of such control and to appoint as guardian any other person or persons willing to take charge of her. Well, he thought that was not an unreasonable proposal, because there were, many persons and many institutions which, under the unfortunate circumstances described in the clause, would be willing to provide for a girl at the period of life named. It was simply to give those persons or institutions the power of guardianship over the child—to give them that legal authority which, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, they would not have if the Amendment were not adopted. On the whole, he was inclined to support the clause.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought there was a great deal of difficulty in the way of accepting the clause as it stood. No procedure, no forms were provided. The jurisdiction of the Court was not defined. He hardly thought that either the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) or the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had considered that point. It would appear that somebody had to get up and ask the Judge to let them have the body of the child; but there was no means provided which would allow the Court to form its mind in the matter. What was it that the hon. Member proposed to put on the Court to deal with? He had formulated no procedure for the Court to be guided by, and he (Mr. Hopwood) said therefore that the clause was a mere brutum fulmen, and that they would be stultifying themselves if they inserted in the Bill these benevolent but crudely expressed intentions.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was very much in favour of this clause, although he could not see exactly how it would work. It was true enough, as his hon. Friend said, that the persons referred to in the clause ought not to be guardians of the child under the circumstances. No one doubted that; but it would require a great deal of consideration before the clause could be properly elaborated. Suppose the Court deprived the parents of the guardianship, and suppose it was given to a person whom they would assume to be an excellent person—what if that person died in the following week? That was an important consideration. Then, again, suppose that, the new guardian being appointed, the child were to run away, the now guardian would have no power to compel the child to go back again, and the parents, he presumed, would return to their obligation to support the child.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the parents, at all events, would be liable for the support of the child under the existing law; if children were taken into the workhouse the parents were liable for their keep. But if this clause became law, and if the parents were as bad as they were supposed, they might not be unwilling to facilitate evil practices, when they knew that they could get rid of their responsibility.

MR. M'LAREN

pointed out that this difficulty would vanish if there were power given to anyone to take out a summons to make the child a ward of Court.

MR. ELTON

said, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He wished to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had in the course of his observations departed from the obvious meaning of the clause by reading it as if the Court might declare a fit person to take charge of the child; whereas the clause distinctly stated that it was for the purpose of enabling the Court to appoint a guardian. That was perfectly legal language. The matter turned on the old question, "what was a guardian and what was not?" With regard to the question as to what was to become of the child if the guardian appointed by the Court were to die—why, then the Court could appoint another. [Sir HENRY JAMES: NO.] He thought the Court could do so. Finally, as to the feeding the child. Of course, the parents' obligation to do that would remain, whether there was a guardian appointed or not. For those reasons he should vote for the clause.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he hoped the House would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He believed that the only chance of rescuing girls in the position described was to take them away from their natural guardians who had violated their trust. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House on his Motion, in which case he should feel it his duty to support him.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he was always alarmed when the occupants of the two Front Benches united in saying that a clause which was sound in principle was unworkable in practice. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government for the time being, when a clause was accepted in principle, to find out means by which it could be made to work. A case had been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to which the proposed clause would very properly apply. But he (Mr. Rogers) remembered a case more fitting than that. It was a case of a man convicted of a criminal assault on his two children. Although the man had a severe sentence passed upon him his parental rights survived, and the Guardians of the Poor had to get the consent of this very man—this abominable villain—to send the two children out of the country. Application was made to the Local Government Board on behalf of the children of this wretch; and the Local Government Board informed the Guardians that they—the Guardians—could not find the means for allowing the children to emigrate. But the Guardians, he might say, broke the law, and he thought rightly. They sent the children away. He wanted to know what was to be the remedy in cases of abomination like that? It was a far stronger case than that which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton. His experience was that parental rights should cease when they were neglected or violated in the manner described in the clause. This was a single case, and the hon. Member for Northampton had touched on one of a similar character. It was perfectly well known that there were a number of wretches in the country who would commit outrages on their own children, and then insist on their parental rights.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton would press the clause on the House. Unfortunately, there existed a number of dissipated parents who sent their children into the streets, and encouraged them, to become prostitutes. In the interests of children this clause was, in his opinion, one that ought to be accepted, in order that they should not be left under the control of such parents—human beings only in name.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he thought it would meet the desire of the House if some such clause as that proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton could be accepted. With that object, he believed, if they put their hands to the work, they would be able to frame a clause that would probably receive the approval of the House. He therefore suggested that one way of dealing with the objections raised to the clause would be to insert these words— And the High Court of Chancery shall have power from time to time to rescind or vary such order or appoint any other person or persons as guardians. It was, he thought, advisable that those words should be introduced. He supposed the case of a good father and bad mother; if the father died, the question would arise whether the child should go back to the mother.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, it appeared to him that the clause was right in principle, and that it might be worked on the lines of the present law, which allowed any girl who was an inmate of a brothel, and under 14 years of age, to be sent to an industrial school. There was, in his opinion, no moral difference between keeping a girl in a brothel and a parent making a profit by putting his child in the way of vice; and therefore he thought that the machinery of the industrial schools might be very properly used in this case, although he could quite understand the feeling of some hon. Members in not wishing to bring the industrial schools under the provisions of the proposed clause. It could, however, be done with safety, subject to certain restrictions. There was, of course, a distinction to be drawn in the case of a girl whose father or mother were not fit to be entrusted with her guardianship. He thought that this suggestion would meet one of the difficulties that had been referred to in the course of this discussion, because when a child was sent to an industrial school an order could be made for the maintenance of the child, and therefore the parents would not get rid of their obligation to contribute to its support. It would, however, be necessary to provide that the parents' right of custody should cease in the case of children sent to industrial schools, because it was a well-known fact that parents who were very worthless came to the doors of the schools in order to get possession of children the moment they reached the age of 16, and return them to the paths of vice. He thought that the machinery of the industrial schools would be the best that could be used in respect of the custody of the children in question.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought hon. Members were by degrees coming to something like an agreement on this subject. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had, however, used singularly infelicitous words in speaking of "seduction and prostitution." He thought it would be more correct if the clause ran— In cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the abduction of the girl under the age of sixteen has been encouraged, facilitated, or favoured by the father, mother, guardian, &c. but then, again, the word prostitution was used improperly. It seemed to him that the cases contemplated by the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill were not cases of seduction or prostitution; and he ventured to suggest most respectfully that it would be better to alter some other clause of the Bill, and say "when on trial under the 4th and 5th sections of the Act." That would get rid of the incongruity of words.

MR. DAVENPORT

said, it appeared to him that the difficulty with regard to the question of guardians had been disposed of by the discussion which had taken place. Although he agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) that the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act should be applied under this clause as far as empowering the Court to compel the parents to contribute to the maintenance of a child under the care of a guardian, he protested against those children being sent to industrial schools. He thought they might be sent to reformatories, but not to these schools; and he said that in the interest of the children in the schools, some of whom were thieves, but who, for the most part, had not committed any offence against the law, but simply broken away from the control of the parents. He thought it would work most injuriously to them to introduce a number of girls of the character possessed by those dealt with in the clause. If the clause of the hon. Member for Northampton were read a second time, he hoped the Amendment suggested by the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would be introduced; and he would also amend the clause by giving power to the Court to make an order on the parents for the payment of such sums and on such conditions as the Court might think fit.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out the words "In cases where," and insert the words "Where on the trial of any person for an offence under this Act."—(Sir Henry James.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

suggested that instead of the words "seduction and prostitution" the word "defilement" should be substituted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the alteration would be unnecessary, because they had agreed to insert the words—"Where on the trial of any person for an offence under this Act."

Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "guardian," to insert the words "by any person having the lawful charge or authority over such girl."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he thought that "father and mother" ought certainly to stand in. Whether it was necessary to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) it was for the House to consider; but, certainly, he did not think it would be right to leave out father or mother or guardian.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

thought it would be sufficient if they said "father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress." He did not think "step-father or stepmother" was at all necessary.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would explain the way in which this clause had been drafted. He had had some doubts on the matter, and he had taken it to one legal gentleman who drew it up. Then he had taken it to another legal gentleman, who had said, "Oh, he's a fool," and had drawn up another clause. If he had taken it to 20 other legal gentlemen he had no doubt he would have had 20 different opinions.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DAVENPORT

then proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words— And the Court may make an order upon the parent for the payment towards the expense of the maintenance of the girl of such sum, and under such conditions, as to the Court may seem right,

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Member must give the power under the Industrial Schools Act. They must have some machinery.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he would like to know who the money was to be paid to?

MR. DAVENPORT

said, that was to be left within the discretion of the Court.

MR. ONSLOW

thought it would be hardly enough to say "the parent," for the child might not have a parent. It should run "parent, guardian, master, or mistress."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

was afraid that was a fatal objection, as it would be impossible to enforce the penalty against anyone but the father or the mother.

MR. BRYCE

pointed out that this was an order that might be made behind the back of the father; and, therefore, they must put in some provision to enable him to apply to have such an order rescinded.

MR. DAVENPORT

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY JAMES

proposed to add, at the end of the clause, these words— And the Court shall have the power from time to time to rescind or vary such order by the appointment of such guardian or in other respect. He had not much faith in clauses drawn up in this hurried manner; but he had done his best to meet the views of the House.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he would not divide the House on the clause; but he would repeat what his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) had said. It was not a practicable clause, and it was a mistake to insert it in the Bill.

Clause, as amended, added.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

begged to move the following new clause:— Every person selling, circulating, or distributing, or writing, printing, or publishing, with a view to such sale, circulation, or distribution, any matter or thing calculated or tending to debauch, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a period of not more than two years, and to be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred pounds, and all such writing, prints, or publications shall be seized and destroyed. The offence which this clause aimed at should, in his opinion, be punishable with two years' imprisonment and the imposition of a fine not exceeding £200. Such a Clause as that was necessary at this time, which during the tenure of Office by the present Home Secretary had become the Augustan era of obscene literature. Just recently a newspaper, failing in its circulation, and having a very great difficulty to maintain its own in the world, thought by a very sensational report to regain its circulation——

MR. BRYCE

asked whether the remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman was making were relevant to the issue he was putting before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

said, that as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone his remarks were certainly relevant.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, this journal had invented for that purpose new fables and stories which, they might depend upon it, as every day went by, would be shown to be entirely false and groundless, by which there had been brought about a state of things which, he would venture to suggest, had done more than anything with, respect to that which it had been said it was intended to prevent, towards debauching the minds of young people. It was no secret that not only in the streets, but in the most private room of almost every household in the country, this filthy literature had permeated without any attempt to control its circulation. "Non olet," said the smug proprietor of this journal, as he shovelled tens of thousands of pounds into his pocket. "Non olet" he repeated, as he galvanized into life this wretched journal that was falling to pieces, and, by means of its circulation, produced an amount of prurient inquiry among those who otherwise would never have touched this matter at all, and who, but for this journal, never would have known it in any shape or way. Well, what was the state of things that existed? He said if this journal could not be punished it ought to be punished. If there was a state of things brought about tending to corrupt the mind, as stories of this kind must tend to by exciting the curiosity of young people, was there no law to prevent it? While they were now placing on the Statute Book a measure to purify the bodies of young people it was necessary, at the same time, that they should endeavour to purify their minds. He had hoped the law was such as to cause the journal in question to be prosecuted. He remembered a case of a very similar nature, where a book bearing the title The Confessional Unmasked, and published by a Protestant Body, professed to expose the errors of the Church of Rome. On its title page it stated that the practices described within would convert our Eden into a Sodom. The book was seized, its circulation was prohibited, and a prosecution was instituted, a course which should have been followed in the case of the journal in question. He would have thought that the fact of that publication having been prosecuted with success would have been enough to have induced the Law Officers of the Crown to consider that it would have been possible to have prosecuted in this case. He would read part of the Judgment of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, who tried the case which he had mentioned. His Lordship said— It is said that the respondent's purpose was not to deprave the public mind. Be it so; but then the question presents itself in this simple form. May you commit an offence against the laws in order thereby you may effect some ulterior object which you have in view, which may be an honest and even a laudable object? My answer is emphatically—'No!' It seems to me, to adopt the affirmation of that view would be to uphold something which, in my view of what is right and wrong, would be most reprehensible. This book, we are told, is cir- culated at the corners of streets and in all directions; and, of course, it falls into the hands of all classes—young and old—and the minds of those hitherto pure are exposed to the danger of contamination and pollution from the impurity it contains. I think the old sound and honest maxim, that you shall not do evil that good may come of it, is applicable in law as well as in morals. Well, now, he could not but think that it was a great pity that a step was not taken to stop the circulation of this paper, which had done an infinity of mischief. He knew these publications took place when there was practically no permanent Law Officer in the Government. The person who now occupied the Lord Chancellor's Office was in a condition of transit from one Office to another, and the present Attorney General had scarcely assumed Office. But, he said, the Home Secretary, with his knowledge of the evil that would come of it, ought to have stopped the circulation of this filthy paper. But the Home Secretary did not do so. He was bound, therefore, to assume that he did not believe the law was sufficient for the purpose; and, therefore, what he had to do was to furnish in this clause the power of dealing with such matters in the future. He believed that under Lord Campbell's Act he could only seize and destroy the journal and not punish the offender. Now, what he intended by this clause was that the offender should be punished. The Pall Mall Gazette, as a friend had pointed out to him, had, in one of its latest numbers, moralized in this manner—"Let us not too suddenly do away with prostitution, because by that means you would be taking away bread from those poor girls, and you would have to supply their means of living from Imperial funds." That was the view taken by a journal professing to be shocked at immorality. He could only suppose the Home Secretary had not prosecuted this journal because he thought the law was not sufficient. Under these circumstances, he entreated the House to pass this clause. He had seen a letter from a father of a family in Germany, who told him that this disgusting literature was largely circulated there, and among those who believed that the revelations truly represented the general state of things in England, and naming distinguished statesmen who were commonly said to be guilty of these crimes; and it was alleged that this was the reason that The Pall Mall Gazette had not been prosecuted. Then, he said, let them improve the law; let them see what was done in other countries. He found that in America they inflicted a fine of from £20 to £100, English money, with from one to five years' imprisonment, for selling obscene publications. Well, if that was the law in America, let it be the law in England also. Where there was printing, or publishing, orselling, or distributing any matter or thing calculated to debauch, let it be a misdemeanour. He was sure the House would not think he was too severe in suggesting that a person convicted of such a crime should be liable to imprisonment for two years, and to a fine of £200, and that the publication should be seized and destroyed. When a man, under the pretence of public duty, did this kind of thing in order to put tens of thousands of pounds into his pocket, and when he did it out of the pockets of poor people who were tempted to believe such stuff, and to the detriment of the pure-mindedness of the young, he thought it was high time to interfere and to punish him as he deserved, and if the "cat" were added it would be an improvement.

New Clause (Sale of matter tending to debauch a misdemeanour,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, that after the somewhat impassioned speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down it was necessary for him to say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Law Officers of the Crown a lecture on the law; but he could assure him it was altogether unnecessary in this case, as they were perfectly well acquainted with the law on this subject, and with the only authority the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted. He took the responsibility of advising the Home Secretary in this matter. The whole case was most carefully considered by the Law Officers of the Crown and by still higher authorities, and the opinion they formed was formed upon the merits of the case, and with a perfect acquaintance with the law, and they came to the conclusion that it would not be a wise or prudent thing to prosecute The Pall Mall Gazette newspaper, and, as the Home Secretary had stated a few nights ago, they never deviated from that opinion. A prosecution of this sort had to be very carefully handled, as it very frequently aggravated the mischief. While he did not justify the tone and language of that paper, he contended that in such a case as this no one who was responsible would consider it a desirable thing to prosecute. Such prosecutions took a very long time, and did more to spread the mischief than anything else. [A laugh] His hon. Friend might laugh; but he contended that there were circumstances in this case which would not render it desirable to prosecute. The law as it stood was quite strong enough, and did not require amendment; but he would like to call the attention of the House to what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. What did he propose? That anyone— Circulating anything calculated or tending to debauch, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a period of not more than two years, and to be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred pounds, and all such writing, prints, or publications shall be seized and destroyed. Well, for his part, he did not think that there was anything did more harm to the minds of young people than French novels. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that the sale of French novels should be a misdemeanour? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, all he could say was that he considered that these cheap French novels were as calculated to debauch the minds of young people as anything else. He said that no amendment of the law was required; and certainly this was not the time to deal with such a matter, or with any other matter unless it was such a matter as was dealt with generally by the Bill, and, in any case, the Amendment would not be an amendment of the law, nor would it meet the case of the placing before the public matters that were obscene.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, he had no objection to this clause; but he took leave to enter his very strongest protest against the personal attacks which had been made upon the editor of a particular journal. He held no brief for that newspaper. He had frequently had to differ from it on political matters; but from a personal knowledge of the editor, whom he supposed to be the person aimed at, and who after all was responsible for this exposure, he felt bound to record his protest against the statement that he was actuated by any catch-penny motives, or by the mere desire of promoting the circulation of his paper. His primary idea was to carry out a great and much-needed moral reform which he saw was necessary, and it was a work which it was impossible to conduct without a certain departure from journalistic rule and style of language usually adopted in newspaper literature. For his own part, he believed that departure, though it might cause some evil, had been productive of an amount of good far in excess of the evil. As to the question of profit, he believed if the hon. and learned Member would examine the statement thoroughly he would see that, considering the great expense incurred, there could not have been the profit he imagined. As to the policy of the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, he ventured to say that his policy had been abundantly justified by its result in that House. He believed most firmly that the measure was at one time in imminent peril; and when it was talked out by hon. Gentlemen opposite with ill-concealed satisfaction, the fact being gloated over by certain newspapers the next day as a proper dismissal of a mawkish measure, its chances of passing at the fag-end of the Session were infinitely small. He believed the enterprize of the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette had been the chief means by which the result arrived at that night had been obtained.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was sorry the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) who brought forward the clause had weakened its strength by pointing the moral of it at The Pall Mall Gazette. It was evident there was a great difference of opinion as to the action and motives of that paper, and as to the moral results of its recent "revelations;" but he thought he might have found justification enough for his clause in the class of obscene literature which had been thriving and circulating in London for many months before The Pall Mall Gazette had entered upon its crusade. He was sorry to hear from the Attorney General that the law as it stood was sufficient to deal with the circulation and dissemination of such literature, because, if that were so, the late Government had incurred a grave responsibility in not putting it down, and that responsibility now devolved upon the present Home Secretary for permitting the circulation of the vile trash they daily met with in most of their great London thoroughfares. Everyone who saw the vile publications which were placed under the eyes of young men and boys who walked down the Strand must have been struck by the impunity with which they were allowed to be circulated. And yet the Attorney General told them the present law was sufficient to put a stop to it. The hon. and learned Member who had moved the clause did not allude to that—his motive, apparently, being a personal one against The Pall Mall Gazette. He hoped the House would feel that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to take action, not against The Pall Mall Gazette, but against these atrocious publications which were sold openly in the streets.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he cordially supported the clause of his hon. and learned Friend. He was no lawyer, and, therefore, did not understand whether it was drawn up in legal phraseology or not. He had felt some surprise at hearing from the Attorney General, when he addressed the House that night, that the existing law was sufficient to put down immoral publications. That might be so; but he believed that the duty of prosecuting devolved upon no particular individual. As the law stood now, anyone could prosecute a newspaper proprietor or publisher for printing and circulating any obscene and vile literature; but surely, when Her Majesty's Government knew that these publications, and others worse even, were being sold broadcast in the streets, it appeared to him the duty devolved on the Government of putting a stop to them. But it was not only this vile letterpress which had been shocking and horrifying the country recently. That was bad enough; but hon. Gentlemen who walked the streets saw this Pall, Mall Gazette literature reprinted and illustrated with filthy woodcuts. He would venture to say that in no country in the world had such indecency been seen as had distinguished the streets of London during the past few weeks. Moreover, he would inform the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that not only was it in London that this vile literature was sold, but that in many places of ordinary legitimate pleasure it was now purchasable by every country boy or girl who wished to possess it. He would ask the Home Secretary how long this sort of thing was to be allowed to go on? It was all very well to say that he or any other gentleman could prosecute; but who would take the trouble—who would go to the expense to do it? The duty must devolve upon the Government. His friends had told him that The Pall Mall Gazette had declared that the whole cost of the prosecution of this investigation only cost £300. It was absurd to say that this journal had put itself to any great expense. The Pall Mall Gazette, in the course of this wretched business, had had the countenance of gentlemen who ought to have known better. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) was one of those gentlemen who ought to have known better—he was one who ought not to have lent his countenance to the circulation of this paper by sitting on its Committee in concert with others. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) had said that great mischief had ensued from this publication, and he (Mr. Onslow) was quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right. The obscene articles in The Pall Mall Gazette had contained exactly that information which many young girls wanted to know. The very things they wished to know were in it, so that these papers, when they got into their possession, would be handed from one child to another. How much longer was this thing to be allowed to go on? How long were they to have the streets of this City sullied with the filth and indecency of The Pall Mall Gazette and Town Talk;—the streets of a City said to be in the highest state of civilization of any in the world? If it were the fact that this clause, if carried, would prove unworkable, he would press on the House the necessity of having some new clause framed to carry out the object in view. It was all nonsense to say that good would result from these publications—it was all nonsense to say that this indecency had been published from a good motive. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER (Lord Mayor): No, no!] The Lord Mayor behind him had peculiar views on many subjects. His (Mr. Onslow's) opinion was that this thing had not been done from a good motive, but that it had been done for pecuniary reasons, and that the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette was not the only person to blame. Other gentlemen who were anxious for a certain notoriety had embarked in it, and were equally to blame. One gentleman, who was spoken of as a very religious person, had a great deal to account for. He was endeavouring to make a great deal of money——

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is wandering from the subject before the House, which is whether the law ought or ought not to be altered by the adoption of this new clause.

MR. ONSLOW

said, it had been contended that the circulation of the literature of which he had been speaking would do more good than harm; but he did not believe it. His opinion, which he held most strongly, was this—that if there were some clause such as the hon. and learned Gentleman desired put in the Bill, they would do more to prevent prostitution than they were likely to do by all the rest of the Bill. Do not let girls of 13 or 14 know more than they heard or saw in their own homes—do not allow their minds to be polluted by this vile literature. He held this opinion most strongly, and, if the clause were not put in here, he hoped it would be put in in the House of Lords.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was getting very late, and he did not think they would be able to succeed in determining whether these publications had done more harm than good, or more good than harm, however long the debate was continued. The question was whether this clause should be put in the Bill. For his own part, he did not think it was wanted. He believed the law as it existed was amply sufficient. Some observations had been made as to whether or not the Government should undertake prosecutions of this kind; but he believed that a Government Press prosecution was about the most likely to fail of any in the world. If a prosecution was to be undertaken, it was better that anyone should undertake it than the Government. He himself had been, at one time, pressed to undertake such a prosecution—a prosecution which was undertaken in the end against The Freethinker. From his experience in connection with that case, he was sure that prosecutions of that kind undertaken by a Government were most likely to fail; therefore, he did not think the new clause was wanted.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)

said, that after the reference which had been made to him by the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Onslow), he felt bound to say a word or two. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to denounce these special articles in The Pall Mall Gazette; but he had no doubt about it that the result of these articles had been to pass this Bill. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords. It was brought into this House on a Morning Sitting, and talked out; and he apprehended that if The Pall Mall Gazette had not drawn attention to the matter, there the Bill would have stood. There was then a change of Government, and the force of public opinion pressed the subject on the attention of the House. Therefore, whatever might be said about The Pall Mall Gazette, though he agreed with some of the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), he could not but feel glad that public attention had been drawn to the matter.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the Government had taken this Bill in hand because of the publication of the articles in The Pall Mall Gazette, and had been determined to pass it into law. There had been quite sufficient evidence taken to satisfy the House of Lords and this House that something of the kind was wanted. When he had been asked about The Pall Mall Gazette, he had stated that the wiser course by far would have been, if the information was in the hands of The Pall Mall Gazette, to have brought it to the notice of the Secretary of State, so that he might have brought it before the House. It would then have had no effect on the people who heard it—it would not have had the effect of demoralizing the public. No one could regret more than he did that the publication had taken place. As to the non-prosecution of the journal in question, he did not wish to shirk responsi- bility in the matter. He had stated openly in the House that the best legal advice had been taken—not from the Law Officers alone, but from the Lord Chancellor. [Sir HENRY JAMES: He is a Law Officer.] Technically, but not practically. Acting on their advice, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to prosecute in this case. From that determination they had never swerved. There were reasons, which he did not think he was bound to go into, why such a prosecution could not be undertaken. In the first place, there was no reasonable certainty of a conviction; then it might have involved waiting a long time, and have necessitated a long trial.

An hon. MEMBER

How could it have done harm?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

What would hon. Members have said to a long trial, going over 10 days or a fortnight, and all the details being published in the papers, and hawked about the streets, without anyone being able to prevent it? Thus, the increased publicity which the trial would have given to the obnoxious matter had also to be taken into consideration.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, it had been decided, in the case of Brennan and Steele, that the republication of indecent matter repeated in Court was in itself a misdemeanour.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that in this case, at any rate, there would have been no right to punish anyone for this republication. So far as the proposed clause was concerned he did not think it would do any good, because he believed the existing law was strong enough to put down objectionable publications. If the hon. and learned Gentleman went to a division, he should have to vote against him.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he should like to say a very few words on this subject. He very much agreed with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) in what he said about the publication of this paper. There were two ways of treating the subject dealt with by The Pall Mall Gazette—one was the language of the Old Testament, and the other was the language of M. Zola; and he left the House to determine in which method it was desirable to touch upon such a subject, or in which matter the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette had treated it. The question might arise whether it was not at times necessary to violate public modesty in the interests of public, morality—whether it was not necessary to speak out plainly in order to make the Government act rigorously. How far it was the fact that in those matters, if the existing law had been put into operation, the greater part of the difficulty before them would have been met, he would leave those whose duty it was to put the law into motion to determine. It was clear that a great deal of injury had been done to the public morals latterly; but he felt convinced that if they did not act as they were trying to act now a great deal more harm would be done. He was convinced, from his experience of London, that there had never been a single feeling in it more profoundly startled than its moral sense had been by the recent exposure of vice. The exposure had to be made. He did not object to The Pall Mall Gazette making it, although he had not read that paper for a long time, regarding it as an odious journal, in consequence of its habit of going in for vulgar and sensational articles. He bad not read a word of it lately, and he wished a great many other people bad not. If there was not a proper administration of the law as it at present stood, all he could say was that the Government were responsible for the detestable task of inviting the attention of the atrocities which went on in the Metropolis being undertaken by a public journal. There was another hateful paper called Town Talk, edited by someone who, if he rightly remembered, had been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for some previous indecency. He regretted that those concerned in the publication of this paper had not been taken in hand and punished. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was discreet in his dealing with these matters. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would adopt what he thought the best means to put down that which he believed to be atrocious and criminal vice. He (Mr. Rogers) believed, however, that the existing law, although the administrators of it had failed to put it into operation, was quite sufficient to repress this sort of thing, and he should be very sorry to see express legislation passed for the purpose of prosecuting this or that journal. He should not have said what he had if he had not intended to add that though The Pall Mall Gazette might have thought it its duty to take the course it had taken, it had done it in the worst possible manner. It had spoken of the vices of England in the most prurient language. It was a disgrace to the English Press, and, whatever indirect benefits might arise from it, he did not think any honest man could sit in the House whilst these matters were being discussed without denouncing the paper.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

said, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow)—who, he was sorry to see, had left the House—had spoken harshly of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) and others in league with him, for their conduct on the Committee which investigated The Pall Mall Gazette charges, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had stated that the whole story was false and frivolous. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat here when the Bill was last before the House, and must have heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol say that, so far from these accusations being false and groundless, the state of things was much worse than had been described. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that thousands of pounds had been put into the pockets of the proprietors of The Pall Mall Gazette. Well, he (Mr. M'Arthur) was not there to defend the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. He had not the pleasure of knowing him; but from what he had heard of him, and from what he bad heard in connection with this case, he believed, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, that that gentleman had acted from the purest motives and with the highest object, and that what he had done had had a great deal to do with the successful progress of the Bill. It was perfectly true, as the Home Secretary had pointed out, that this Bill had been prepared two or three years; but he was convinced that if it had not been for The Pall Mall Gazette, another year, at least, would have been allowed to elapse without its being passed. He had no doubt that considerable injury had been done by The Pall Mall Gazette by the publication of these articles; but he believed that the arousing of the people of the country to these abominations and terrible crimes would more than counterbalance any amount of evil that had been done.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, that after the complete repudiation they had heard of the course taken by The Pall Mall Gazette, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, He begged to propose the following new Clause:— (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 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. This clause was one which he thought was rendered absolutely necessary by the intolerable practice of insulting girls which had grown in this Metropolis to frightful dimensions. There were few subjects which excited the people out-of-doors more than the manner in which these girls were dealt with. With the permission of the House he would call attention to a few remarks which were made on this subject in the House of Lords last year by the Earl of Shaftesbury. It would put the whole case before the House as clearly and in much better language than he could, and would enable them to come to a right judgment on the subject; moreover, it was very brief. The noble Earl said— Hundreds—indeed, thousands—of women and girls were employed in the factories, workshops, and great houses of business far away from their homes. They returned home at all times of the night—some very late Their Lordships should recollect that the many relaxations of the Workshops Act, granted by successive Secretaries of State, had greatly increased the mischief. Those employed at restaurants and railway refreshment rooms necessarily so. Their Lordships should hear the statements of these girls; they were beset on issuing from their places of work by vile and designing men, singly or collectively, who were on the watch for them, and who were there for no other purpose than to work their destruction. Many employers stated the same, and added that they gave protection as far as they could. These defenceless girls were fairly safe as long as they could keep together; but when obliged to separate, they were exposed to the most serious annoyance. But now women were to be subjected to far more fearful trouble. The law defining solicitation was to be altered, and the offence was to be determined by the judgment of the police constable. If a woman were seen speaking to a man, or being spoken to by a man, a constable could at once arrest the woman. Thus, a poor, innocent girl—timid, ignorant, defenceless—might be brought into a Court of Justice and ruined for life. Men were perfectly safe and enjoyed absolute impunity. The offenders were numerous, and were found in all parts of London, and many of them were well known to the Agencies with which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was connected. He had it on the authority of officers of the London City Mission that they were known and designated as 'night walkers,' and, frequently, missionaries and others had interfered to save the girls from brutal assaults. His proposition was very simple and very just; it was no more than to place the men on an equality with the women, and to say that any man soliciting habitually or persistently should be subject to the same penalties as these wretched women."—(3 Hansard, [288] 410–11.) Those words, he (Mr. S. Smith.) thought, placed before the House very fully the nature of his clause and the necessity for it. So far as he understood the law, at present there was nothing to prevent a man from insisting on walking home night after night with a young, innocent girl—insisting on talking to her all the way even in an insulting manner, and unless he made an attack on her it was impossible for her to have legal protection. Oases had come before his notice of most cruel hardship in this way, and He felt it was an absolute necessity that the House should deal with the question, and that men should be placed on the same footing as women in regard to these dastardly offences. He should not now do more than move the clause.

New Clause (Habitual solicitation,)—(Mr. Samuel Smith,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, there was a great deal to be said for the view the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool had taken; but the House would remember that when they were in Committee on this matter it was agreed on all sides that the "Street Clauses," as they were called, were not to be entered upon in this Bill. That was the clear understanding, and when Clause 9 was struck out by both sides of the House without a division—by common consent—it was understood that they should not enter on the Street Clauses at all. If they were now to proceed with them, he should look on it as a distinct breach of the understanding entered into with those hon. Gentlemen who were not now in the House that they should not deal with the matter. He had had communication by letter with the Earl of Shaftesbury on this matter, and the noble Earl, no doubt, feeling convinced that it would imperil the Bill to deal with these clauses at this period of the Session, had given him his full sanction to withdraw them. The clause would open up the whole subject-matter that the Committee refused to enter upon, therefore he opposed the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was absent from the House when Clause 9 was dropped, and if he had been in the House he should have had something to say with regard to the dropping of it. It was disgraceful to witness the state of the streets, and he was extremely sorry that something could not have been done by Clause 9 to have remedied the existing state of things. However, it was only a small part of the Bill, and anything that would tend to jeopardize the measure as a whole, he, for one, was not prepared to support. Therefore, he was reluctantly compelled to acquiesce in it.

MR. BROADHURST

wished to know whether the present law was not sufficiently strong to deal with the question? He remembered a case a short time ago in which the police arrested a man, and he was sent to prison for two months for annoying some young women. There was another case also of a County Justice who had been bound over in very heavy penalties to keep the peace towards a lad}7. It would be well if the Law Officers of the Crown could give the House some information on this point.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CALLAN

begged to move the following Clause:— Any failure on the part of an official of State, or a superior officer of police, to act upon a complaint with reference to keeping of a disorderly house, or any offence against this Act, made to him by any of his subordinates, shall be a misdemeanor, and that, if any officer of police is censured by his superiors for making a charge or report against any house of being a 'disorderly house' within the meaning of this Act, directed against the keeping of brothels, the said officer so censured shall, on demand being made by him, be entitled to a public inquiry into the truth of his charge or report for which he may have been censured. On the previous day he had intended to call the attention of the House to the misconduct of—thank God!—the late Home Secretary, in regard to such offences as it was intended should be dealt with in this Bill. When the facts of the case became known there would be a feeling of thanksgiving throughout England that he was no longer in his late position. What was this case of Mrs. Jeffreys? She was charged with keeping a brothel by an Inspector named Minahan—with keeping a brothel for the aristocracy; but that was to some extent a mistake, because, from the evidence adduced, he was able to say that it was largely supported by what he might call the wealthy Members of the Radical Party. He contended that the foreign traffic in young girls went on while the Home Office was under the management of the late Home Secretary, and the facts were fully reported in a paper called The Sentinel. He complained that Inspector Minahan had been dismissed from the Police for reporting the character of the houses Mrs. Jeffreys kept, and that cast the greatest reflection upon the Home Office, because they knew the Home Office was responsible for the conduct of the police. He had risen that night merely to bring forward the manner in which this Inspector Minahan had been treated by the Home Office, and he would point out that the case of Minahan and the Home Office and the case of Mrs. Jeffreys were mixed up in a most extraordinary manner. Minahan was substantially dismissed for proceeding in the Jeffries case. He found that in the month of May the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) asked the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) whether it would be right to lay upon the Table of that House the shorthand notes of the case, and whether he would allow an inquiry by that House into the matter, and also into the case of Minahan? The then Home Secretary said that he would lay the depositions on the Table, but he had not done so. Then the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was the matter which he wished to call the attention of the House to—that the case of Minahan had been brought before him a year ago, and he was satisfied with the Superintendent's Report. But he would point out that these were the very parties who were interested in the Minahan case; they were the very people who, if Minahan was right, they were wrong. Minahan had stated that he was practically dismissed for reporting that Mrs. Jeffreys' houses were kept as brothels for the aristocracy, and had demanded an inquiry. Now, he (Mr. Callan) reiterated that charge. He charged the police with having connived at—and having connived at with the late Home Secretary—hushing up the case of Mrs. Jeffreys. Now, that was a specific charge, and if an inquiry were granted he would be prepared to sustain it. It was a shame that the Home Office had not taken up the case. On the 3rd of August he had asked the Home Secretary a Question as to the way in which the case had been dealt with by Mr. Edlin, and he might say that the Home Secretary avoided that Question. In his reply on that occasion the Home Secretary said that he (Mr. Callan) had stated that the case was disgracefully conducted. He had said nothing of the sort. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that the case was conducted by the Chelsea Vestry. Well, that was a matter which he would refer to in a few moments. Now, what was the Jeffreys case and what was the conduct of the magistrates, what was the conduct of the police, and what was the conduct of this immaculate Chelsea Vestry. In October, 1884, informations were sworn to and laid before Mr. Partridge, at the Westminster Police Court, charging this woman Jeffreys with the same offence now charged, and made by the same parties who had eventual]v prosecuted. After 24 hours' considera- tion Mr. Partridge refused to issue a warrant for her arrest. "Leave the information with me" said this immaculate magistrate. The Vestry—this immaculate Vestry—for which the Home Secretary entertained such a high respect that he brought them forward in that House as an answer in regard to the case of poor Mr. Minahan, did not take the matter up. Neither did the police take it up, nor did the Home Office; nor did the Home Office instruct the Public Prosecutor to take it up. He might ask did this information reach the vigilant and acute Home Secretary? If it did not reach him, then the police failed in their duty; but if, on the other hand, it did reach him, then he said that he had deliberately failed in his duty and had been a discredit to the Office over which he had unfortunately presided. ["Divide! divide!"] It was no use to call "Divide!" He did not wish to be interrupted, because if he was he might say something unpleasant personally. Well, the woman was prosecuted, and the evidence—but he would not refer to the nature of the evidence. It was sufficient to say that she pleaded guilty under the advice of an able counsel, and a more disgraceful scene than was enacted at the time of her pleading guilty he must say he had never read. She was tried at the Middlesex Sessions before Mr. Edlin, the Assistant Judge. Mrs. Jeffreys, who was elegantly dressed, conferred with Mr. Montagu Williams, and the latter then came forward and made a statement. He might say that Mr. Williams had done his duty very well to this woman.

MR. ONSLOW

rose to Order. Was not the hon. Member becoming too discursive?

MR. SPEAKER

said, he had allowed the hon. Member to go on, but it I appeared to him that under cover of moving a new clause he was re-trying a case which had already boon settled by a. Court of Law. He might raise the case as an illustration of his argument; but to discuss it at great length in the manner he was doing, was going beyond the limits of debate and would be entirely out of Order.

MR. CALLAN

said, he would compress his remarks into the very smallest compass out of deference to what had fallen from the Chair, and from his own inclination. He had merely quoted these matters to show the necessity for having someone responsible to that House and the country in such cases as this. Mr. Williams passed on to a variety of matters which he (Mr. Callan) would not go into. The sentence passed on that occasion drew the attention of the public to the matter, and it was a matter of comment at the time that many of Mrs. Jeffrey's clients were of the highest order. He would not name the clients, although he could do so, having the names in his possession. It was not considered prudent by the authorities to allow the case to go so far. He quoted the words of The Echo as emphasizing in the strongest way his own feelings in the matter. That paper said that the authorities made no complaint; that so far as the Home Secretary and the police authorities were concerned Mrs. Jeffreys might have continued to carry on this horrible trade as she had done for 27 years, and that at the preliminary examination it was shown that the Inspector who reported this house to his superiors was told to hold his tongue.

MR. SPEAKER

I have now to ask the hon. Gentleman to concentrate his remarks upon the new clause. His course is quite unusual, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to refer to cases which have already been decided.

MR. CALLAN

said, He contended that the law could be put in force, and that the way in which it should be done depended on the police and the Local Authorities. Mrs. Jeffrey's case had been brought before the Local Authorities by Mr. Rowlands, a member of the Vestry, but without effect.

MR. SPEAKER

I shall be very sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance; but if the hon. Gentleman does not move the clause or speak with reference to it, I must ask the House to support me in enforcing the ordinary Rule of Debate.

MR. CALLAN

said, in that case he would refer to the answer given the other day by the late Home Secretary to a Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman—he gave as his answer that he had inquired with regard to the case, and found that on inquiry the charges were proved to be baseless. That was why he (Mr. Callan) wanted the second part of his clause accepted which provided "that if any officer of police were censured by his superiors for making a charge or report against any house of being a 'disorderly house' within the meaning of the Act, the officer so censured should on demand being made by him be entitled to public inquiry into the truth of the charge or report for which he may have been censured." The late Home Secretary had stated that the charge he was referring to was a baseless charge. He would produce the evidence on which that charge was made.

MR. SPEAKER

I must inform the hon. Gentleman that he is now entering into debate on a series of answers given in this House on a previous occasion which have nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House. If the hon. Member wishes to move the clause standing in his name he is at perfect liberty to do so; but I must warn the hon. Member that if I have to interpose again it will be to request him to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance.

MR. CALLAN

said, he charged the Home Office with having a full knowledge of the facts. There was evidence that since the trial Mrs. Jeffries had continued to carry on these infamous practices. He said that if the Home Secretary did not take action when he had his attention drawn to such cases as these he ought to be held guilty of a misdemeanour. He had evidence that during the progress of the trial officials connected with the Home Office visited Mrs. Jeffreys' establishment, he supposed, for the purpose of reporting on the case, and he wanted to know whether there was at the Home Office any record of their Report? He repeated that he charged that for years the late Home Secretary and the Home Office knew that these houses had been carried on. Mr. Minahan had been dismissed for making a charge that was said to be baseless. But the police had themselves reported on the improper character of these houses; and before the late Home Secretary said that the charge was without foundation he should at least have examined the records in the Police Office. There was a Report which had been suppressed; and he said that the suppression of Reports of the kind ought to be made a misdemeanour, and that if the Home Office received it and did not act upon it their conduct was so improper that the official of the Department who was responsible should be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour. In the month of April——

MR. SPEAKER

I have allowed the hon. Member the fullest latitude in his remarks, and I must now ask him to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance and tedious repetition.

MR. WARTON

said, that from its title the Bill would seem to range over the whole Criminal haw. But as that was not the purport of the Bill, he would suggest that the words "Criminal Law Amendment" be struck out, and the words "Women and Girls Protection Act" substituted.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "Criminal Law Amendment," and insert the words "Women and Girls Protection,"—(Mr. Warton,) —instead thereof.

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the point was worthy of consideration; but he would propose that they should negative the Amendment, and the Government would state what they proposed to do in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.