CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

HC Deb 07 August 1885 vol 300 cc1461-508

[SECOND NIGHT.]

Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.

Clause 1.

MR. HOPWOOD moved an Amendment, providing that the Act should come into force on the 1st day of January, 1886.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 6, by inserting after the word "Act," the words "shall come into force on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

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

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

said, he saw no reason why they should not begin to punish these crimes as soon as the Bill was passed, instead of allowing them to go, as they would if he accepted the Amendment, unpunished all through the winter. He, therefore, could not accept the hon. and learned Member's proposal.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendments made.

Clause 2.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, by leaving out the word "character," and inserting the word "reputation,"—(Mr. Warton,) —instead thereof.

Question, "That the word 'character' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 17, by inserting after the word "prostitute," the words "or of known immoral character."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "procure" to "intent," in line 23, both inclusive, and to insert— (3) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or (4) procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel) with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions, said, it was the re-casting of the clause which they had undertaken to effect when the Bill was in Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, by leaving out from the word "procures," to the word "intent," in line 23, both inclusive, and inserting the words— (3.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or (4.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel), with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. WARTON

said, he would propose to amend the Amendment by the omission from Sub-section 3 of the words "for the purpose of prostitution." No right-minded Englishman would allow a woman or girl to be carried away even to become a servant in a brothel.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words— '(3.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or '(4.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel), with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions. be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in lines 2 and 3, leave out "for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was not at all disposed to stand by the words which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport proposed to strike out.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he thought that the words ought to be retained as a safeguard against the clause imperilling persons to whom it was not right that it should apply.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment amended accordingly.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 3, by leaving out the word "elsewhere," and inserting the words "without the Queen's dominions,"—(Mr. Warton,) —instead thereof.

Question, "That the word 'elsewhere' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 4, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of thirty-one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, by leaving out the words "such place."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question, "That the words 'such place' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

, in moving to insert in page 1, line 26, after the word "labour," the following new paragraph:— Provided, That no person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evi- dence of one witness, unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular, said, that in the class of offence dealt with by the section false swearing was extremely probable, and that the precedent of the Bastardy Acts should be followed in requiring the corroboration of the principal witness in some material particular. When this subject was under discussion before, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department said it was unnecessary to mate such a provision, as no Judge would allow a prisoner to be so convicted. The right hon. Gentleman had no sooner made that statement than the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James), the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) got up and gave a totally different account of the action of the Judges under the circumstances supposed. That being so, he hoped Ids right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would accept his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, by inserting after the after word "labour," the words—"Provided, That no person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he thought it would be well, on the whole, if the House accepted the Amendment of the right lion, and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). It applied only to Sub-section 2; but it included not only the doing of certain acts, but the attempt to do them, and the offence therein might be committed in conversation with a woman. It was desirable, therefore, in order to prevent false charges being made, that there should be corroboration. If a person did an overt act the corroboration could always be supplied, and it was the law in Scotland.

MR. ELTON

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General on the point, and hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the Government had considered this matter fully, and they were prepared to accept the Amendment. While adopting every means to punish these offences, they must take care to prevent injustice being done.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, the charge might be maliciously made by an immoral woman. He would, therefore, suggest that words should be added making it clear that the corroboration had relation to the charge. He should therefore propose to add to it the words "by testimony tending to implicate the accused." The corroboration should certainly be of that character.

Amendment proposed, by adding at the end of the said proposed Amendment, the words "by testimony tending to implicate the accused."—(Sir Henry James.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton were rather vague, and suggested that the addition should consist simply of the words "by evidence implicating the accused."

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he would accept the Amendment of his proposed Amendment as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther).

Amendment (Sir Henry James) to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, by adding at the end of the said proposed Amendment, the words "by testimony implicating the accused."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 2, by leaving out from the word "intimidation," to the words "any person," in line 6, inclusive, and inserting the words—" procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions; (2) By false pretences or false representations procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.) —instead thereof.

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

Question proposed, "That the words,— 'procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to have any unlawful or carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions; (2) By false pretences or false representations procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions,' be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, leave out "attempts to procure."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 1, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of thirty-one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 5, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of twenty one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 4, by leaving out the words "or attempt to procure."—(Sir Henry James.)

Question, "That the words 'or attempt to procure' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. STANSFELD moved to amend the clause by providing that it should be an offence to administer, or cause to be taken for immoral purposes, by a girl, intoxicating liquors, as well as drugs, so as to stupefy or overpower her. He would point out that intoxicating liquors might be given to a girl to such an extent that she might be overpowered by it.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, by inserting, after the word "any," the word "liquor."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'liquor' be there inserted."

SIR HENRY JAMES

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that particular point had been very fully discussed in Committee, and the conclusion then arrived at was that it would be dangerous to accept the Amendment. What they must look to primarily was the intent with which the accused person acted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 90: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 274.)

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "overpower," to insert the word "her."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question, "That the word 'her' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Amendment made.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had now an Amendment to propose in the clause to meet cases which were omitted from the Bill, but which he thought should be included in it. Houses of ill-fame were recruited by the importation into them of young women and servants, who did not know the real character of those places when they went to them. He, therefore, proposed to make it an offence for a person either knowingly to induce any woman or girl to become an inmate of a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, or to induce any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, to enter a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, with intent that she should have unlawful commerce with any person.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after sub-section (2), to insert the words—"Or (3) knowingly induces any woman or girl to become an inmate of a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, or induces any woman or girl not being a common prostitute to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, with intent that she shall have unlawfule arnal connection with any person."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought that the proposed Amendment was either covered by the words "false representation" already in the Bill, or that it went too far. Unless a person induced a woman by some false representation to go to a place that would tend to destroy her character that person ought not to come under the Criminal Law.

MR. ELTON

, in moving to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "common prostitute" the words "or person of known immoral character," said, that when a girl came to a London railway station the kidnapper did not tell her—"I will find a respectable lodging for you." The kidnapper would be more artful, and would say—"I will find a lodging for you," without saying it was "respectable." It was desirable that when a girl went to a situation or a lodging she should go to it with her eyes open.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 3, by inserting, after the word "prostitute," the words "or person of known immoral character."—(Mr. Elton.)

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

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he had the strongest hope that the Government might see their way to accept this subsection. Many girls, especially servants, were taken to houses not knowing they were brothels. The Amendment endeavoured to put a stop to one of the most frequented avenues of procuration.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that several hon. Members professed to know a great deal on the subject; but he should like to know where they obtained their information? The House was handling this matter in a very light-hearted way, and showing great ignorance of law and morals. The words used would apply to persons of either sex; and many of the women it referred to were often capable of acts of kindness towards each other and others of their sex. It might, therefore, be that, while intending an act of kindness to another person, they might be brought within the scope of the clause. He wished to know, therefore, whether the Amendment was intended to prevent a woman of the class of unfortunates from taking to her house, from motives of compassion, a sick girl or woman? No proposal was made in the case of hotels; and it appeared to him that the House was legislating in a sanctimonious, Pharisaical spirit, which it would regret when its legislation came into force.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he wished to point out that false accusations could readily be made under the proposed sub-section. If a man took a woman "not a common prostitute or person of known immoral character" to a brothel, although she knew where she was going, she might afterwards, for the purpose of levying black mail upon him, turn round and accuse him of taking her to a place she did not know to be a brothel. He considered that nobody would be safe under the clause, unless a person provided himself with a witness beforehand to prove that he did give the required caution.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was afraid the sub-section might be going too far. It might be made the means of false accusations by turning silence as to the nature of a house into a crime, and such a thing as a penalty on silence was unknown to the law. He thought it would be safer to confine the crime to making some false pretence, such as saying that the place was a respectable and proper one for the woman to enter. In cases where a false pretence was made they could rely on the first part of the clause. They had better content themselves with that, and not go so far as was proposed.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he strongly supported the proposed subsection, which he considered reasonable and necessary.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, by inserting, after the word "have," the word "any."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question, "That the word 'any' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the words,— 'Or (3) knowingly induces any woman or girl to become an inmate of a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, or induces any woman or girl not being a common prostitute, or person of known immoral character, to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, with intent that she shall have unlawful carnal connection with any person,' be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 71: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 275.)

Clause 4.

On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 26, after "labour," insert, as a separate paragraph— Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of any girl under the age of thirteen years shall he 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; line 32, after "offenders," insert— And the said Act shall apply, so far as circumstances admit, as if the offender had been convicted in manner in that Act mentioned; and line 37, at end, add— The court may also order the offender to be detained in custody for a period of not more than seven days before he is sent to such reformatory school.

SIR HENRY JAMES moved to insert at the end of the clause a sub-section to the effect that when a girl, upon whom an offence under the Act is charged to have been committed, does not understand the nature of an oath, her evidence may be received, though not upon oath, if, in the opinion of the Court or Justices, such girl understands the duty of speaking the truth, provided that no conviction shall take place on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other testimony.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 37, at end of Clause 4, to insert the words—"Where a girl, in respect of whom an offence under this section is charged to have been committed, in the opinion of the court or justices before whom the charge is heard, does not understand the nature of an oath, her evidence may be received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of such court or justices, such girl shall be possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of her evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth: Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of such offence unless the evidence of such girl implicating the accused shall be materially corroborated by other testimony."—(Sir Henry James.)

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

MR. WHITBREAD

said, he would suggest that the Amendment should be extended to "any other person who is tendered as a witness" with the same requirement of corroboration of such evidence. He contended that the evidence of a child should also be admitted on behalf of the accused person, and had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. The same rule should apply to all parsons giving evidence. It could not be right to admit a class of evidence on the accusation and to reject it when tendered for the defence.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that he had opposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General's Amendment in Committee on the ground that it introduced a new principle into English law. But he had had the opportunity of consulting the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the operation of the Scotch law, which admitted such evidence as the Amendment proposed to admit. His right hon. and learned Friend assured him that no difficulty or risk had arisen in consequence of the Scotch law, which was practically the same as that proposed in the Amendment. In those circumstances he would support the Amendment; but he was inclined to think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) was preferable, because, if the evidence of a child was to be taken as against the accused, he saw no reason why, in fairness, a child equally young should not be allowed to be called as a witness for the accused.

MR. ASHER

said, he also supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He had intended to vote against that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James); and even if it had been carried he should have been prepared to move that it should not apply to Scotland, because it would undoubtedly restrict, rather than extend, the effect of the existing Law of Evidence in that country. He had had for many years practical experience of the working of the system in Scotland; and he was bound to say, as the result of his own experience, that the evidence of young children was a most material and valuable aid in a great number of cases to the ascertainment of the truth; and that, he believed, was the opinion of lawyers in Scotland generally.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought it would be better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) to withdraw his Amendment, and let the hon. Member for Bedford's Amendment be moved as a substantive one.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he should support the original Amendment, and oppose the extension of it suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He could not help thinking that to allow a child other than the complainant to give evidence otherwise than upon oath would be a source of serious danger to the accused.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he thought the feeling of hon. Members was rather in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread); and he would withdraw his sub-section in favour of that of his hon. Friend, which, however, he should propose to amend by adding a Proviso at the end.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 37, at end, to insert the words—"Where, upon the hearing of a charge under this section, the girl in respect of whom the offence is charged to have been committed, or any other person who is tendered as a witness, does not, in the opinion of the court or justices, understand the nature of an oath, the evidence of such girl or other person may be received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the court or justices, as the case may be, such girl or other person is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence."—(Mr. Whitbread.)

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

On the Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, the following Amendment made to the said proposed Amendment:— Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of the offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of this section, and given on behalf of the prosecution, shall be corroborated by some other material evidence tending to incriminate the accused.

Amendment, as amended, further amended, and agreed to.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

, in moving to add words at the end of the Amendment to enable the statement of a child of tender years made by her before the committing magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used at the trial, said, the reason that he proposed this further Amendment was that frequently a little child might lose its memory of the facts before the trial came on.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "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."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he regarded this further Amendment as being most dangerous. In the case of a false charge being brought, it would be most unfair to the accused that the statement should be received without the child being produced and cross-examined. In such a case no man would be safe, and would be at the mercy of any person who chose to coach up a child to give evidence in support of a false charge.

MR. GREGORY

said, he also thought that the Amendment might have very dangerous consequences. In considering the Bill they had to guard as much against conspiracies being brought against innocent men as against the offence sought to be a stop to.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he thought that the Amendment should not be rejected without fair consideration. After a few months the facts would fade away from the child's memory like a dream, although, at first, her statement might bear the impress of truthfulness. Of course, it would be necessary that the statement should be corroborated.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he had always understood that it was better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should be convicted; and it appeared to him that, if this Amendment were to be carried, the danger of convicting innocent persons would be largely increased. The Scotch law contained no pro vision of this kind.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that if he had had any idea that this rider was to be added to it he would have had no hand in framing the clause. He would remind the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) that the examination of the child before the committing magistrate might not take place until months after the charge was brought.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he should vote against the whole clause if this fantastic addition were made to it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HOPWOOD

, in moving an Amendment to the effect that a witness whose testimony had been received without oath should be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he or she had been sworn, pointed out that an indictment for perjury was the only Court of Appeal open to a man who had been wrongfully convicted of charges of this nature.

Amendment proposed to Sir Henry James's Amendment, as amended, at end, add— Provided also, That any witness shall be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if she had been sworn."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

said that, as far as he was concerned, he should be glad to see the words added—not that it was desired to punish the child, but in order that the accused should have every opportunity of establishing his innocence. He would, however, prefer to amend the Amendment, so as to make it run as follows:—"Any witness whose evidence has been admitted under this section shall be liable," &c.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "witness," insert the words "whose evidence has been admitted under this section."—(Sir Henry James.)

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

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BROADHURST

, in moving the following Proviso:— Provided on the trial of any person whose age does not exceed sixteen years, if it is proved in evidence that he has, through inability to procure better accommodation, habitually slept in the same room with other persons of both sexes, the court before passing sentence shall take such circumstances into consideration, said, he wished the House thoroughly to understand the importance of the proposal he was then making, and would, therefore, ask hon. Members to study it well while he was speaking in support of it. If there was overcrowding in our large cities, society and the State were responsible for it to a larger extent than the poor victims of the crime. Therefore, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to give as favourable consideration to the provision as possible; for he could not imagine that the members of families brought up under the conditions in which thousands of families in this country were, unfortunately, born and brought up for the greater part of their lives could really be expected to possess as high a code of morality as children brought up in the well-to-do houses of well-to-do parents. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Bill passed without some Proviso of this kind a great and grave injustice, if not a crime, would have been inflicted upon the poorer classes of society. The evils of overcrowding were fresh in the minds of the public, especially to those Members of the House who served on the recent Royal Commission; and it was amazing to him, considering the circumstances in which the poor lived, that morality amongst them was so high as it was. The truth was that large numbers of persons belonged to a class of society plunged in misery and pressed by starvation, and that they could not place themselves under any better conditions. He hoped the House would assent to the introduction of the Amendment; for though some Judges might, without it, consider these palliating circumstances, others might not.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end of Clause 4, to add—"Provided on the trial of any person whose age does not exceed sixteen years, if it is proved in evidence that he has, through inability to procure better accommodation, habitually slept in the same room with other persons of both sexes, the court before passing sentence shall take such circumstances into consideration."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he perfectly recognized the feelings which, had prompted the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) in making this proposal; but he was sorry to say he could not support the Amendment, and thus make a different law for the rich and for the poor. It appeared to be a shallow and popular idea among many persons out-of-doors that the Bill would chiefly affect the rich and the profligate seducer of the poor man's child; and it was upon that assumption that an agitation had been got up, and much inflammatory language had been used. That was, however, a mistake. It was the poorer and humbler class that would be affected by the Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying that for one case in which a rich man would be affected there would be thousands, and, he might say, tens of thousands, of cases in which the poorer classes would. At the same time, there was no doubt that the evil of overcrowding was the direct cause of many of the results they all deplored. Still, while sympathizing with the important observations of the hon. Member, they could not decide that the Bill should apply to the rich, and not to the poor; that was a distinction which they could not draw, and he saw no means of making any safeguard of the kind suggested. He, therefore, opposed the proposal of the hon. Member, on the ground that its insertion would make a distinction between classes, and this would infallibly ruin the usefulness of the measure. The greater part of the seductions of poor men's children took place in their own homes and in their own neighbourhood, for many of them were brought up without any conception of purity.

MR. WHITBREAD

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed there could be no doubt that the Court would take into consideration circumstances such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke. He should be glad to see it inserted in the Bill, if only as a protest against overcrowding, and as a public acknowledgment that so long as the present conditions continued, under which the working classes as regarded their dwellings existed, immorality must ensue, and such scenes could not be avoided. He thought it would be well to insert the clause, as soma Judges might otherwise not consider the circumstances in mitigation of punishment.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). One of the main causes for the introduction of the Bill was the deep sense of injustice done by rich debauchees to the daughters of the poor.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he entirely endorsed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Stoke with reference to the wretched condition of the surroundings in which the children of the poor in London and other large towns were brought up; and he hoped that before many hours were over the House would be able to advance a Bill whose object was to take a small step in the direction of ameliorating this state of things. He also recognized, and it was a matter of surprise to him, in the course of the inquiry held by the Royal Commission into the Housing of the Working Classes, to find the high standard of morality which prevailed among the population of the poorest parts of London. While recognizing that there was a great deal of misery and the existence of certain moral offences peculiar to an overcrowded population, he did not see what could be done in the matter. He had had conversations with the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) on this point, and it was a matter which he himself had considered with great care. They had to consider, however, the manner in which such a clause as this would work. Take the case of a boy brought up by bad parents amid the worst surroundings. He committed a theft; why? Because he had been brought up to look upon the commission of such an offence as an ordinary occurrence, and in carrying out which he committed no infraction of the law. The same consideration held good with regard to offences of violence, and the fact was that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children. They must begin, as well as they could, by improving the education of the children, with the object of bringing about an improvement in their morals. While he would have been anxious to recognize mitigating circumstances in the Bill, he thought it would be better to leave such matters to the Judge. If he thought there were any Judges who would not receive evidence on this point, and would not consider a condition of overcrowding as a circumstance to be weighed in passing sentence, he would not oppose the Amendment. But he had had some experience as to the motives which weighed with the Judges of the land in passing sentences, and he was convinced that they would take into consideration all mitigating circumstances which could be produced in evidence regarding the commission of these offences, and he was therefore convinced that the clause was unnecessary.

MR. WOODALL

, in supporting the Amendment, trusted that the last word had not been heard with regard to this proposal. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Broadhurst) would take a division on his Amendment, and thus enter a protest which might not be without its effect in the administration of the law.

MR. WILLIS

, in supporting the insertion of the Amendment, said, that in the ease referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the young lad was really not responsible at all, as what he did was the result of the evil circumstances in which he was born and in which he lived.

MR. TOMLINSON

wished to remind hon. Members that the primary object of this Bill was the protection of women and girls, and that the clause now under consideration dealt with the punishment of odious crimes. Parliament was surely not going to stultify itself by withdrawing the protection intended to be given on the ground of the unfavourable conditions under which the perpetrator of the crime might have lived.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he felt a certain amount of difficulty in looking at an offence as excusable under any circumstances; but, on the other hand, he recognized that they were taking a step just now for the protection of the daughters of the poor, and he did not wish to shut his eyes to the circumstances under which the poor lived. He was prepared, therefore, to support the Amendment as an addendum to the clause. There could be no doubt that the miserable condition of the housing of the poor was the great cause of this evil; but he must say that the amount of guilt was also very unequal between the rich and the poor in this matter. When a man, fully educated, well instructed, and comfortably brought up, preyed upon little girls of the poor, he considered him an offender of a different character from the men who were indicated in this discussion, and whose offence they were endeavouring to extenuate in some degree by such a clause as this.

MR. HOPWOOD

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that, if adopted, it would, as standing by itself, make the Judges think that the circumstances of it were the only circumstances present to the minds of the Legislature, shutting out all others, and making that the sole case in which the House declared that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the Court, and would tend to disturb the balance of justice as between one class and another; for it would not apply equally to the sons of rich persons who were misled, as well as to the sons of the poor. He thought that in all cases the Judge should take into account whatever mitigating circumstances might arise in the case before him, therefore it was far better left to him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 63: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 276.)

Amendment proposed, to add, at end of Clause, the following Proviso:— Whereas doubts have been entertained whether a man who induces a married woman to permit him to have connection with her by personating her husband is or is not guilty of rape, it is hereby enacted and declared that every such offender shall be deemed to be guilty of rape."—(Mr. Thomasson.)

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he protested against this clumsy and haphazard mode of reforming the law, which, he maintained, was discreditable to their intelligence.

THE SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WARTON

, in whose name several subsequent Amendments stood on the Paper, said that, after the extraordinary action of the Government in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomasson), with regard to a clause with which it had nothing whatever to do, he (Mr. Warton) would move no further Amendments.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, after the word "labour," to insert the words—"Provided, That in the case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any term of imprisonment, order him to be whipped, as prescribed by the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighteen, intituled an 'Act to amend the Law as to the whipping of Juvenile and other Offenders,' and the said Act shall apply, so far as circumstances admit, as if the offender had been convicted in manner in the said Act mentioned; and if, having regard to his age and all the circumstances of the case, it should appear expedient, the court may, in addition to the sentence of whipping, order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for a period of not less than two years and not more than five years. The court may also order the offender to be detained in custody for a period of not more than seven days before he is sent to such reformatory school."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he feared that detention in a reformatory might utterly ruin young men who chanced to make a mistake.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he objected to the Amendment.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that as the Amendment was objected to be had no wish to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

, in moving an Amendment to leave out the Proviso, which stated that it should be a sufficient defence if the person charged reasonably believed the girl to have been above the age of 16, said, that by such a Proviso they were legalizing a breach of the law, and giving express encouragement to immorality. It was saying to a person who took his chance of breaking the law or not—"We will protect you in case it should turn out that you have broken the law." There was no instance of such a provision in any other case of the kind where age was a material fact.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 10, by leaving out the words "Provided, That it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under sub-section one of this section, if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge shall be brought, that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. It would be most dangerous to pass the clause without the Proviso.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he was in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon).

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

(for Mr. MORGAN LLOYD), in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, after "years," to insert— Or that the girl at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was a prostitute, said, that the girl might be the greater offender of the two.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

in opposing the Amendment, said, the ground of the Bill was that the girl was to be protected. The House had raised the age from 13 to 16, and the meaning of that was that a girl of 16 should be protected in the same way as it was before proposed to protect a girl of 13.

MR. HOPWOOD

supported the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the House and the country would understand that, if they inserted the age of 16 in the Bill, not only would girls under that age be prevented from pursuing the trade of prostitution, but they would also be prevented from pursuing other trades. No man who had young sons would ever employ in his house any girl under 16. They ought to understand the bearing and operation of the Bill.

MR. GREGORY

said, he should not regret if the operation of the Bill had the effect indicated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), because he believed that girls were sent into service very much too early.

MR. M'COAN

said, that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to protect young girls who were chaste, and he thought a distinction should be drawn in this connection between prostitutes and chaste girls.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the remark of his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) would apply to the age of 15 as much as to the age of 16. It was not simply because girls between 13 and 16 years of age could not, in every case, protect themselves, that they wanted to do what they were doing today. What they contended was, that it was against the interests of morality, against the interests of society, and against the interests of the State, that juvenile immorality and prostitution should exist. He, and those who thought with him, were prepared in their minds to go a step further, and say that a girl of such years should not be entitled to consent.

MR. TOMLINSON

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that if it was not adopted some provision ought to be inserted in the Bill with the object of clearing the streets of juvenile prostitutes, and sending such girls under the age of 16 to industrial schools or reformatories.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was given to understand by the police authorities that, if the Contagious Diseases Acts were properly worked, there would not be a girl under the age of 16 on the streets.

MR. JAMES STUART

, in objecting to the Amendment, said that, if adopted, it would have the effect of invalidating the Bill in one of its essential features, by giving a legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, which it was one of the objects of the measure to repress. In that event the Bill would not deal with juvenile prostitution at all. If the evil had been reduced by the Acts referred to, it had been reduced by immoral means; if it were chocked by this clause, it would be cheeked by moral means. Those iniquitous Acts would be repealed by the wave of public opinion, which insisted on dealing with the beginning of the evil rather than with the outcome of it. The law should deprive these children of their means of living, and society should, at the same time, come to their rescue.

MR. STOREY

said, he must warn the House against striking a serious blow at the objects nearly every hon. Member had in view by passing clauses which, by their very stringency, would make the measure stink in the nostrils of reasonable men. He believed that the danger in the way of rendering legislation of this kind unsuccessful arose from the enacting of too stringent provisions.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that the clause, as it stood, would operate unequally in the case of two men committing the same moral offence, if one girl was under age and another not.

MR. PICTON

urged that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with the main objects of the Bill.

MR. VILLIERS STUART

said, that if this Amendment were accepted it would have the effect of giving a kind of legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, and defeat one of the primary purposes of the Bill.

Amendment amended, by inserting the word "common," before the word "prostitute."

Question put, "That the words 'or that the girl was at the time of the commission of the alleged offence a common prostitute,' be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 82: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 277.)

MR. HOPWOOD moved, as an Amendment, that it should be a sufficient defence to a charge against a defendant under 18 that the girl was, in point of fact, the more guilty of the two.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 14, at end of Clause 5, to insert the words—"Provided also, That it shall he a sufficient defence if on the trial of a defendant under the age of eighteen years it shall he made to appear to the court or jury that the girl was, in point of fact, the more guilty of the two in the commission of the offence."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)

, in opposing the Amendment on the part of the Government, said, it was against the whole policy of the Act. The clause was practically one of the most important in the Bill, and without it it would in many cases be a failure.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, to add, at end of Clause the following words:— No prosecution shall commence for an offence under sub-section (1) of this clause more than three months after the commission of the offence."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he thought the matter ought to be left to the ordinary law. He saw no reason for an exceptional provision of this kind.

MR. HOPWOOD

supported the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. INCE

, in moving to omit in page 4, line 32, the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice," said, the section related to the power of search; and the object of his Amendment, taken in connection with the next Amendment which stood in his name, was to place the law with regard to search in the case of offences under this Bill on the same footing as in cases of ordinary larceny. As the clause stood at present, the search warrant must be obtained from a Justice who had jurisdiction in the place where the girl or woman was suspected of being detained. If his two Amendments were agreed to, the search warrant might be granted by any Justice whatever.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 32, by leaving out the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice."—(Mr. Ince.)

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he thought it would be dangerous to confer such a wide jurisdiction upon any Justice of the Peace, and, therefore, opposed the Amendment. It would practically give a Justice of the Peace jurisdiction over the whole of England. Beyond that it involved a considerable change of principle, and with Justices of peculiar views might be productive of considerable inconvenience, by leading to the searching of a great many houses.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was also opposed to such a sweeping alteration of the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. He did not think it would be prudent to give any Justice of the Peace, having peculiar views, the power to issue any number of search warrants to search any number of places.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he was of opinion that, judging by a recent case, great delay in the execution of jus- tice might arise unless the proposed power were given. He would call the attention of hon. Members to the case of a woman who had applied to a magistrate the other day for assistance to enable her to regain possession of her step-daughter, alleged to have been spirited away by a "wicked Baronet," and who was informed by the magistrate that he had no jurisdiction. This distribution of jurisdiction was calculated to delay justice.

MR. HOPWOOD

pointed out that the proposed change in the law was not needed, and could not be effected without breaking down our whole magisterial system. All the magistrates in the Metropolis had jurisdiction throughout the county; but, for convenience, to each was allotted a district.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. JAMES STUART

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 20, after the word "police," to insert— Who shall he accompanied by the parent, relative, guardian, or other person making the information, if such person so desire, unless the justice shall otherwise direct, said, his motive for doing so was that he had no confidence whatever in the police in their search of immoral houses, where plenty of money was going. In saying that he had no intention of casting any reflection upon them as a body; but he thought they should not be exposed to the temptations which the circumstances would bring about, and which would be such that no reasonable body of men, however praiseworthy, could be expected to resist. The Bill was simply an instalment in the right direction; and he apprehended that, in the course of a few years, the whole question would be again under the review of the House.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 20, after "police," insert "who shall be accompanied by the parent, relative, or guardian, or other person making the information, if such person so desire, unless the justice shall otherwise direct."—(Mr. James Stuart.)

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

, in urging the Government to accept the Amendment, said, he thought it would be most useful that someone should accompany the police to identify the person. He was very sorry to hear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart) that they were likely soon to have this question again before them.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said that, as a matter of fact, the police always took some person with them to identify the person sought for, otherwise there would be no use in their going to a house. The addition, therefore, made such a little difference in the actual practice that he had no objection to accept the Amendment. After giving the police enormous powers, discredit should not be thrown on them.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved to add at the end of the 9th clause the following sub-section:— In the absence of a justice of the peace, or if it should be found impossible to go before a justice of the peace, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall receive information on oath as in this Clause mentioned, and shall take down such information in writing, and shall act upon such information in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid, and any person making any false information in the matter herein mentioned shall he guilty of perjury, and dealt with and prosecuted accordingly. The hon. and learned Member said that the object of the clause was to prevent delay in the execution of the warrant. If a felony were committed, a police officer would have the right to enter a house without a warrant; and he proposed to give him the same right in order to prevent the commission of a crime which was even greater than an ordinary felony. It might be said that in all the important towns a Justice of the Peace was easily to be found; but he held in his hand a letter—the authority of the writer of which could not be doubted—mentioning the fact that in a town with which he was connected—a town containing 17,000 inhabitants, in a mining district where, he was sorry to say, the population were of a rough and dissolute character, and where crimes of this kind were frequently committed—there was not a single magistrate resident within it. Then, again, hon. Members would be fully aware that in many of the populous districts of the North of England they might travel for miles through a succession of small towns and villages without being able to find a single resident magistrate. It was among such populations as this that the offence which they desired to put down was committed, and was likely to prevail. The object of the Amendment was to secure expedition where expedition was of the most vital importance. While "the parent or guardian or other person interested in the girl" was endeavouring to find a magistrate, and was going from one place to another in order to procure the formality of a warrant, the mischief might be done which it was the object of the Bill to prevent. He proposed that in the absence of a Justice the Superintendent or Inspector of Police should have power to receive a deposition on oath and in writing which would subject any person who set the law in motion, and who made a false deposition, to the penalties of perjury. The subject had been raised when the Bill was in Committee; but the House did not accept the Amendment. He hoped that hon. Members would now feel inclined to reconsider the matter, and deal with it in the way which he proposed. He believed that the clause would be utterly without value unless it had some addition of this kind to it. No doubt it might not be a matter of difficulty to find a magistrate in London, although it would at particular times of the year; but it must be remembered that these offences took place generally at night, at hours when a police magistrate was not sitting in Court, and was not easily to be found. He might live out of town, and in other respects not easily accessible. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that such an addition to the clause was absolutely necessary in order that the Bill might be rendered really effectual; and he hoped the House would allow the Amendment to pass.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, at end, to add the words—"In the absence of a justice of the peace, or if it should be found impossible to go before a justice of the peace, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall receive information on oath as in this Clause mentioned, and shall take down such information in writing, and shall act upon such information in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid, and any person making any false information in the matter herein mentioned shall be guilty of perjury, and dealt with and proseecuted accordingly."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he objected very much to this clause, on account of the enormous powers it would give to the police. It would give an Inspector of Police the power to permit another person to break open the doors of any house in London at any hour of the night in order to make a search for some person or other in regard to whom there was a suspicion that something wrong was going on. He was bound to say that it was not desirable to give such a power. As to the difficulty of finding magistrates, he had been in communication with the Chief Magistrate in London since the Bill was in Committee, and it had been arranged that the names and addresses of all the magistrates should be scheduled and published, so that those gentlemen might easily be found when required. Any person desirous of obtaining a warrant would know where to find a magistrate, and would readily secure what he desired. He thought, that would be quite sufficient, without giving these very large powers to the police.

MR. PICTON

said, that the real grievance which was felt in regard to this subject was that it was much easier to recover stolen goods than it was to recover a stolen child. If hon. Members learned in the law would assure the House that that was not the case, but that it was just as easy to recover a little child seven or eight years of age who happened to have been stolen from her parents as it was to recover a set of silver spoons, undoubtedly a considerable amount of the objection entertained to the clause in its present shape would be met. But, certainly, as it stood in the Bill at the present moment it assumed that form. If a man lost his silver spoons he could get a warrant without the formality of going before a police magistrate, and could get a police officer to go with him and search the promises where the stolen property was supposed to be concealed. But if a man had a little daughter of seven or eight years of age who had been stolen, and was detained for immoral purposes, the parent could do nothing of the kind; and if a magistrate did not happen to be at hand at the moment it would be impos- sible for him to obtain a search warrant, and, in the meantime, the injury might be committed. He thought that it was only right for Parliament to remedy so great a grievance, and with that view he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

also supported the Amendment. He thought the Government were bound to find out some other way to enable a parent, who had a child stolen at night, to get that child restored to him without the delay, and possibly the danger, which might result from being compelled, in the first instance, to obtain a search warrant from a Justice of the Peace. If the Government could point out any other way by which a child so taken away could be restored his objection to the clause, as it stood, would be removed; but if they could not suggest any easier way to secure the recovery of the child, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted by the House as the only means which hon. Members, not connected with the Government, could think of.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)

denied that there were any greater facilities for recovering stolen goods than there would be to recover a stolen child if the clause, as it now stood, were agreed to without the suggested Amendment. If it could be shown that it was a case of a stolen child, then there was a remedy under the existing law, just the same as in the case of stolen goods. He believed that under the Explosives Act, if circumstances of great emergency could be shown, the assistance of the police could be called in; and certainly, in the case of a stolen child, he could not conceive that there would be any difficulty under the clause as it stood, but that the powers of the police would be just as large as those now possessed in regard to a search where a felony had been committed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 87: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 278.)

MR. SAMUEL SMITH moved, in Clause 9, after the word "brothel," to insert— Or being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises used for lawful business know- ingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used for purposes of prostitution. The hon. Member said that the Amendment was of very great importance, and he hoped it would receive the careful consideration of the House. As the clause stood, it simply dealt with a place technically described as a "brothel," by means of which, as he understood the law, the most dangerous of all places would escape the operation of the clause. It was very well known that the greatest portion of the mischief was often done, not in places that were technically "brothels," but in other places which were largely used for the purposes of prostitution without coming under the description of brothels. It was well known in the City that there were a large number of places, such as coffee houses and restaurants, frequented by a certain class of people, and even, he was afraid, some shops, where every facility was afforded for the carrying on of these vile practices. It was into these places of lawful business that innocent girls were most frequently entrapped. They were brought up to the Metropolis under the pretence that situations would be found for them; they were taken to these places, and when once they got there they found themselves encompassed by temptations and surroundings that made escape almost impossible; and if the Pill was to be of any value whatever it must include in its purview all places whore prostitution was knowingly carried on. He did not think that it was necessary that he should say more in support of the Amendment, and he hoped that the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 28, by inserting, after the word "brothel," the words "or being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises used for lawful business knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used for purposes of prostitution."—[Mr. Samuel Smith.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would extend the operation of the clause to cases which the hon. Member could hardly have contemplated. The proposal of the hon. Member went a very great deal further than the speech which the hon. Member had delivered in that House. If it only proposed to give effect to the sentiments I which the hon. Member had addressed to the House, the House would probably have been disposed to entertain it; but the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would certainly make it a criminal offence if a person should on any occasion permit any room in his house to be used for an immoral purpose. If the law were made so stringent that any person who should, on a single occasion, allow an immoral act to take place in his house be rendered amenable to a criminal charge, it would be a change in the law of a most important character. He took it, however, that such places as the hon. Member described in his Amendment would in reality be brothels, because the Amendment extended the operation of the clause to tenants, lessees, or occupiers of premises used for lawful business who might "knowingly permit such premises to be used for such purposes." If they "knowingly permitted" the premises to be used for immoral purposes, he (the Solicitor General) took it that they would be held to be brothels; and, therefore, the kind of places which the hon. Member asked them to include were already included in the Bill, and the introduction of these words would not effect what the hon. Member desired.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that it would be in the memory of hon. Members that, when this question was brought before the House in Committee upon the Bill, he was the Mover of the Amendment; and on that occasion there was, of course, as was constantly the case with regard to any attempt to improve the law, a conspiracy between the two Front Benches to defeat the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary went across the floor of the House, and he heard the right hon. Gentleman say—"Of course, you will oppose this." He could not mention the name of the Gentleman to whom the remark was addressed, because it would be against the Rules of the House. He did not know what the legal definition of a place of this kind was, and the House had not been favoured with a definition. They had now to rely upon the assertion of the Solicitor General that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith) was already covered by the provisions contained in the Bill. He (Mr. Rogers) had long distrusted the assurances that were given by Gentlemen learned in the law, and there was nothing which he less trusted than an assurance that a particular Amendment of the existing law was already covered by the existing law itself. If hon. Members would believe the Law Officers of the Crown, there was hardly ever any necessity for making any amendment in the law at all. He took a totally different view of the matter. It would be a very serious thing, for instance, if a man who kept a draper's shop, and made use of a number of rooms in his house for the purpose of letting them to a woman who had the key of the door, and who admitted male visitors—it would be very awkward to charge the owner of the premises with keeping a brothel. He did not believe that anyone would ever attempt, to make such a charge, and yet at present it was said that there were numerous premises of that kind which were made use of in that way. Of course, everybody know what a place was that was generally called a "disorderly house"—one of those places where the churchwardens were called on to interpose in order to prevent immoral practices from being carried on. What they were now dealing with was a much more insidious evil. He had received a letter from a clergyman of great experience and knowledge. The writer said that "this was the most insidious and most mischievous way in which young girls were debauched." The Solicitor General informed them that this kind of mischief was already provided for by the existing law; and although it would be certainly necessary to take a division upon the Amendment, he presumed that those who were in favour of it would be defeated and have to grin and bear the consequences. Upon the heads of Her Majesty's Government those consequences must rest. It was stated that there was a great deal of severity in the Bill; but his opinion was that it contained a great deal more of hypocrisy in the way in which the repressive clauses of the Bill were proposed to be carried out.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that if he had followed the hon. and learned Solicitor General rightly, the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, appeared to express sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but thought that in its terms it was too vague and wide. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman also to express an opinion that places where prostitution was habitually carried on might be brought within the clause. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went further, and asserted that such cases were already covered by the existing law, seeing that they would be regarded as brothels. Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) did not feel satisfied that a place of this description would technically be a "brothel" under the existing law; and he thought the case might easily be met if, according to the view of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, instead of making this addition to the clause, they added after the word "brothel" the words "for purposes of habitual prostitution." He thought an Amendment of that kind would answer the purpose which his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) had in view.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in favour of the words suggested by his right hon. Friend, if the Government would accept them.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the Government had no objection to the words it was proposed to substitute.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANSFELD moved, after the word "brothel," to insert the words "or for the purposes of habitual prostitution."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 28, after the word "brothel," to insert the words "or for the purposes of habitual prostitution."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

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

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he had been somewhat surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General say that the word "brothel" was covered by the words which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) proposed to insert. He held it to be very questionable whether the word "brothel" would, in law, cover premises ostensibly used for another purpose, and actually used for another purpose, although occasionally used for the purpose of allowing immoral practices to be carried on. Notwithstanding the high authority of his hon. and learned Friend, he ventured to doubt whether the word "brothel" would cover, in an Act of Parliament, premises of that kind; and he was afraid that if the case were argued out in Court, the Court might decide that a brothel did not mean premises such as those which were intended to be struck at by the Amendment. At any rate, the question admitted of so much argument, and so much doubt as to whether the word "brothel" was intended to include such premises, and to prohibit them under the existing law, that the words ought to be inserted so as to place the matter beyond all doubt.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

said, he did not think there could be any objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). With regard to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), he thought his hon. and learned Friend had omitted to look at the 2nd subsection of the clause in the Bill, which included the tenant, lessee, or occupier of premises used as a brothel, and also any part of such premises. He should have thought that if part of any premises was used for lawful purposes, and another part of the same premises was used as a brothel, the whole of the premises would be covered by the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS) moved— In page 5, line 28, after the word "brothel," to insert the words, "or (3.) Being the lessor of any premises, or the agent of such lessor, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel.

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

asked whether the word "lessor" would be sufficient for the purpose? It might be the landlord of the premises without being the lessor. He would suggest that the words should be "lessor or landlord of any premises," and he would move an Amendment to that effect if the Home Secretary had no objection.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to amend the Amendment, after the word "lessor," in line 1, by adding the words "or landlord."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question, "That the words 'or landlord' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, it would be necessary to add the same words after the second word "lessor."

Amendment proposed, to amend the Amendment, in line 2, by adding, after the word "lessor," the words "or landlord."—(Sir Henry James.)

Question, "That the words 'or landlord' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

pointed out that it would also be necessary to insert, after the word "lets," the words "or let."

MR. STOREY

said, that this was the only sub-section in the Bill which dealt with the owner. The landlord of any premises, or the agent of such landlord, who knowingly let the premises, or any part of them, for use as a brothel, was to be punished on conviction. What he wished to see was the inclusion of the owner, as well as the landlord and lessor. Experience in London often proved that the greatest delinquent was a person who lived at a distance in a fashionable villa, and conducted the business of a brothel-keeper through another person, who acted as his agent. The Home Secretary would do well, he thought, if he would propose some means by which they would got at the owner; and he would, invite the attention both of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Solicitor General to that point—namely, to what extent did they propose to interfere and punish the owner? They proposed to punish the owner, according to the Amendment of the Home Secretary, if he let his property with a knowledge that the premises, or some part, were or was to be used as a brothel; but he (Mr. Storey) undertook to say that they would never get a conviction in such a case. No owner let his property with a knowledge, such as could be proved, that it was going to be used as a brothel. He would give an illustration of what had really happened in an important town in the North of England. A person occupying the position of Alderman of the borough, and also Justice of the Peace, had a house which was let as a brothel. He let it for a term, but he took good care, through his agent, to collect the rent weekly. The rent commenced at the beginning of the tenancy, and because it was let as a brothel he got twice the amount of rent regularly every other Monday morning which other landlords were able to get for similar property in the same locality. If they had brought that Alderman up, as they ought to have brought him up, before his brother Justices, they would have to prove that he let the premises with the knowledge that such premises were to be used as a brothel. His answer would be—"When I let the premises I did not know they were going to be used as a brothel;" and how much further could the case be carried? He asked the Home Secretary most respectfully, but urgently, to add words which would enable the law to punish such an owner as that. There were already in the Bill, in the 2nd sub-section, the following words referring to the tenant, or lessee, or occupier:— If he knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel. He asked the Home Secretary to extend these words so as to include the owner and landlord as well as the lessee and tenant; and in order to test whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do so, he would propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words— Or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel. The sub-section of the clause would then read— Or being the lessor or landlord of any premises, or the agent of such lessor or landlord, lets the same, or any part thereof, with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel, or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel. People were extremely anxious in his part of the world, if the Bill was to be passed, that they should be able to get at the owner. It might be urged that if the Amendment were passed the landlord might re-let the property. But the owner could be got at in two ways— first, by providing that the house should only be let as a respectable house, and not turned into a brothel, or otherwise that the tenancy would be voided at once, and the landlord have power to resume possession; or, if they did not make that provision, the landlord could serve a legal notice for the termination of the tenancy, and when the tenancy was determined, then, and not until then, if it were continued to be occupied as a brothel, and the landlord knowingly permitted it, he would render himself liable to be punished. He begged to move the addition of those words.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the said proposed Amendment, to add the words "or knowingly permits such promises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel."—(Mr. Storey.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

intimated that he would accept the Amendment, with a Proviso that the landlord should have power of determining the tenancy.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). The landlord, when he let the premises, might have no opportunity of knowing that it was intended to make use of them as a brothel; but if he afterwards learned that they were so used he ought not to permit it. They could not, however, punish the landlord until he had had the power of determining the tenancy; and an hon. and learned Friend behind him was endeavouring to draw up some words which would meet that point—some words of this kind— Knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel after he has had the power of resuming the premises.

MR. GREGORY

said, there would be enormous difficulty in proving what the tenant was. Very often a charge of this nature would fail, and sometimes the person who made it would render himself liable to prosecution.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

thought the House had some right to complain that it was asked to treat as a crime a state of circum- stances covered by an Amendment which had not been printed on the Notice Paper. He strongly protested against the continuance of a practice of that kind. He would, however, in this case suggest words which seemed to him to carry out all that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired. The words he would suggest were these— Or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel. It would then be necessary to prove that the landlord was a party to the continued use of the premises for immoral purposes, and he thought that would meet everything which the hon. Member desired.

MR. SPEAKER

asked whether the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) withdrew his Amendment?

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should like to know, before the Amendment was withdrawn, what the Government meant? Did they mean to drive out every one of the inhabitants from these places, or what was their policy? Was it their object to provide more decent houses and more decent rooms with the intention of debauching more of the population? He did not understand his hon. Friend to advocate strong measures. He presumed that his hon. Friend had in his eye some disorderly place which was a source of annoyance and inconvenience to the neighbourhood. He wanted to know from the Government what their policy in the matter really was, or whether their anxiety to deal with these questions was pure hypocrisy? Were these wretched people to be driven from pillar to post, and to be hunted out, rendered fugitives, and to have black mail levied upon them wherever they went? Was it proposed to imitate the course which had been pursued in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the authorities had no mercy, but drove all these people out by having recourse to the most extreme measures; sending them out, in all their wickedness and sin, upon their neighbours until they could find, in the course of time, some surreptitious mode of returning back? He did hope hon. Members would bear in mind the nature of the case they were dealing with, and see whether they could not moderate their extraordinary rage for securing an impossible virtue.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he did not rise for the purpose of replying to the charge which his hon. and learned Friend had brought against the authorities of Edinburgh, but for an entirely different purpose. He thought the Government might lessen the evil by framing the Amendment in a different way. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired to reach the owner as well as the lessor of the premises; but in very few cases would the owner or lessor allow the premises to be taken as a brothel. As the clause now stood the first two sub-sections were practically the same, and were directed against any person who kept or managed, or acted, or assisted in the management of a brothel, or who, being the tenant, lessor, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permitted such premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel. These two sub-sections were practically taken from the Edinburgh Local Act. But the remainder of the clause was different, and he would explain how they attempted to deal with the owner or lessor. Upon a first conviction, any person against whom such an offence was proved was liable to a money penalty, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour, with an increased pecuniary penalty; or three months on a second or subsequent conviction. Then, in case of a third or subsequent conviction the offender, in addition to the penalty or imprisonment, might be required to enter into recognizances to the amount of £50 that the house should not for six months be used for a similar purpose; and if he failed to find such security power was given to the Local Authority to shut up the house for a period not exceeding six months. In that way they secured a remedy for the undoubted evil which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and were able to get eventually at the owner or lessor, besides providing effectually for the cessation of the nuisance. He suggested to the Government that that was a better way of dealing with the evil than that which was proposed by the Solicitor General.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he would like to address a question to Her Majesty's Government. He wished to ask, as the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had asked, what the policy of the Government really was? Was it intended that a house where a woman lived by herself and received visits was to be designated a brothel, and that the owner of that house was to be subjected to the penalties proposed by the clause? He had asked a similar question when the Bill was passing through Committee—namely, why, if they were anxious that all houses called "brothels" should be put down, they were also desirous of closing houses where a prostitute happened to live by herself and received visitors? He was of opinion that houses of that kind ought not to be prosecuted, and ought not to be treated as brothels. He trusted that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would consider that question and give an answer to it. Some explanation would certainly afford satisfaction to those who wished to see the question settled in a satisfactory manner.

MR. STOREY

intimated that he would accept the words of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the said proposed Amendment, to add the words—"Or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

contended that the words proposed by the Solicitor General did not carry the matter one whit further than the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), nor could the landlord be wilfully a party to the use of the premises as a brothel.

MR. STOREY

asked what was the Question before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the Question was to insert the words— Or is wilfully a party to the continuous use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a "brothel.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that anyone might write a letter to a landlord and say that his premises were being used as a brothel; but he might not become wilfully a party to such use of his premises, because he might not believe the statement which had been made. Therefore, the words suggested would have no effect, and no indictment or punishment would lie. He would suggest these words— Or having power to determine the existing tenancy declines to do so after having Become I aware that such premises are used as a brothel. He believed that a provision of that nature would be effectual.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

said, he had purposely made his words less strong than those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he left it to the person prosecuting to prove— That the landlord or lessor knowingly permitted the house to be used as a brothel, He thought the words he had proposed were quite adequate for the purpose.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

objected to the proposed Amendment, and hoped the Government would adhere to the words they had placed upon the Paper.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

asked what would be the effect of the penalty? Would the cases be triable summarily, or by jury?

MR. M'COAN

said, that after the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), he thought the Government would have little difficulty in acceding to another which he (Mr. M'Coan) had placed upon the Paper, the object of which was to provide that the penalty should be increased. They punished the keeper of a brothel who let his upper rooms for a misdemeanour; but he might simply be carrying on a lawful business as an hotel keeper, who happened to let a bed-room to persons who conducted themselves reasonably while on the premises, and yet they scrupled to inflict an adequate punishment on the worst offender of all—the man who lived by this immoral traffic. What did they do to him after having made it a punishable offence to use a room in a coffee-house for immoral purposes? They let off the regular brothel keeper with a penalty of £20. Why, it was only 20 pence or 20 farthings to a man who was carrying on a prosperous business. It was in the discretion of the public to give him two months' imprisonment; but the punishment in the two cases was altogether unequal, and was much less severe upon a brothel-house keeper who employed the whole of his time in the business, than in the case of the coffee-house keeper who quietly lent a room.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

remarked, that the Amendment to which the hon. Member was addressing his remarks had been withdrawn.

MR. M'COAN

said, his object in addressing the House was to move that the word "£20," in line 31 of Clause 10, should be omitted in order to substitute "£50."

MR. SPEAKER

It is not competent for the hon. Member to move an Amendment which would have the effect of raising the penalty.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was not aware that there was any Rule in existence which precluded him from doing that; but the ruling of the Speaker would dispose of two or three other similar Amendments which he had intended to propose on this clause. [A laugh.] It was not so much a laughing matter as some hon. Members seemed to think. He did not at all see the logic of the clause. They imposed a heavy penalty on the offender who was the least culpable; and they dealt very lightly with the person who employed the whole of his time in this immoral traffic. They merely imposed a twopenny-halfpenny penalty, which was simply ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER

said, there was no Question before the House. It was not competent for the hon. Member to propose an increase of the penalty, or to discuss the propriety of increasing it.

MR. M'COAN

said, that he wished to move an Amendment upon Clause 11.

MR. SPEAKER

We have not yet disposed of Clause 10.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, that in line 33 the punishment was two months' imprisonment. He wished to know if the Government had any special reason for making it two months, because the effect would be to make the Bill practically inoperative?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that there was no Question before the House.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, that he had simply asked a Question.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would propose his Amendment in Clause 10, to leave out from "Nothing in this section," inclusive, to the end of the Clause, and insert— The enactments for encouraging prosecutions of disorderly houses contained in sections five, six, and seven of the Act passed in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King George the Second, chapter thirty-six, as amended by the enactment contained in section seven of the Act passed in the fifty-eighth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter seventy, shall he deemed to apply to prosecutions under this section, and the said enactments shall, for the purposes of this section, he construed as if the prosecution in such enactments mentioned included summary proceedings under this section as well as a prosecution on indictment.

MR. M'COAN

said, that he had an Amendment which took precedence of the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was proceeding to move it when he was interrupted. His Amendment had been on the Paper when the Bill was in Committee; but he had been accidentally prevented from moving it. He proposed to supply a deficiency which existed in Clause 11.

SIR HENRY JAMES

rose to a point of Order. They had not yet got rid of Clause 10. He had an Amendment upon that clause, which he would move in order to afford an opportunity for discussion. He proposed, in page 5, line 33, to strike out "two," and insert "three," which would increase the term of imprisonment on conviction from "two" to "three" months.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."—(Sir Henry James.)

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

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, he only wished to put a question to the Government. He wanted to know whether there was any particular reason for making the term of imprisonment two months; because if the penalty was increased to three or four months it would give an opportunity for the accused person to be tried by a jury. He would like to ask the Government if they had any reason to suppose that justice would not be done by a jury; and whether the matter was improved by confining the jurisdiction to the Justices rather than by allowing the case to go to the Assizes or the Court of Quarter Sessions?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that no doubt if three months were inserted the person charged would have the right to ask for a jury. He was not responsible for this part of the Bill; but the clause, as the measure came down from "another place," fixed the term of imprisonment at two months. He had not the smallest objection to increase it to three months.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, it would now be necessary to increase the penalty for subsequent offences. They had raised the punishment in the case of the first offence from two to three months; and, therefore, they could not retain the punishment proposed to be inflicted for a second and subsequent offence in the 2nd sub-section. It was necessary, under the circumstances, to increase the three months for a second offence either to four months or some other term of imprisonment, or else the clause would be rendered absurd. He would propose, inline 36, to omit the word "three," for the purpose of inserting "four."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 30, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "four,"—(Sir Henry James,)—instead thereof.

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

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there was very little difference between three and four months' imprisonment; and he would, therefore, suggest that the term should be six months for a second offence.

MR. SPEAKER

asked if the hon. Member proposed to move "six?"

MR. LABOUCHERE

No.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'four' be there inserted."

MR. M'COAN

said, he confessed that he had noticed with considerable surprise the course which the debate had taken during the last five minutes. He understood that by the ruling of the Speaker he was precluded from moving to increase the penalty from "£20" to "£50;" and now the matter had been altogether taken out of his hands by the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who had proposed and carried an increase in the term of imprisonment.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the ruling he had given had reference to the money penalty only, but did not apply to the term of imprisonment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked if he would be in Order in moving "five months" instead of "four?"

MR. SPEAKER

said, it would be impossible for the hon. Member to do that until the present Amendment had been withdrawn. The Question now before the House was that "four" be inserted.

MR. MONTAGU SCOTT

suggested that the words should be "not exceeding-four months."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 29: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 279.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in Clause 10, to omit the following paragraph:— Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt any person from any penal or other consequences to which he would have been liable at common law or under any Act of Parliament for keeping or being concerned in keeping a brothel or disorderly house, or for the nuisance thereby occasioned, or for any other matter whatsoever, if this Act had not passed: Provided that a person shall not be tried or punished twice for the same offence, for the purpose of inserting— The enactments for encouraging prosecutions of disorderly houses contained in sections five, six, and seven of the Act passed in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King George the Second, chapter thirty-six, as amended by the enactment contained in section seven of the Act passed in the fifty-eighth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter seventy, shall be deemed to apply to prosecutions under this section, and the said enactments shall, for the purposes of this section, be construed as if the prosecution in such enactments mentioned included summary proceedings under this section as well as a prosecution on indictment.

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

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he could not think that it was the desire of the Government to give a carte blanche for a prosecution in all these cases; and he thought he would be able to show that the clause of the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the difficulty. The same object the right hon. Gentleman had been desirous to carry out had been equally the object of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) who were both desirous to avoid placing the fortunes of these persons in the hands of the police. He dreaded the corrupting effect which it might have upon the police. What did the Amendment do? It applied to summary prosecutions the same course of procedure which applied to an indictment. The first process was that somebody gave notice, then the services of a constable were obtained to search the premises, and if two inhabitants could be found they gave bail for the prosecution. If they requested it the constable preferred an indictment; and if an indictment were preferred and were not successful, the constable would be in a position to throw the costs of the prosecution upon the county funds or the borough rate. In that sense, no doubt, the Amendment would encourage prosecutions. He had no objection to the system if it were properly safeguarded; but what he wanted was that somebody should be really responsible for the bona fides of the prosecution—the Crown Advisers or somebody named in the Act.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. M'COAN

said, he proposed to move the introduction of a special definition which was very much wanted. He need not remind the House how many penalties there were in the Bill attaching to brothels, or how frequently that term was used. But, although it was a common term, he pointed out that in England it had no definite meaning. On the Continent a definite meaning could be given, because the places in question were under the supervision of the police; but in England, where that was not the case, it might mean one thing or another. However, he said, it was necessary to have some definition of the word, and the Amendment he proposed was for the purpose of supplying such definition. The words were— The expression 'brothel' means any house or part thereof which is kept and used for the purposes of prostitution. He thought that definition was comprehensive enough, and not too much so; at the same time, it drew a complete distinction between houses kept for the accommodation of resident women of immoral character and those of a different kind, which some hon. Members, among them the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), declined to treat as brothels.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 18, by inserting the words "the expression 'brothel' means any house or part thereof which is kept and used for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. M'Coan.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)

said, it was rather inconvenient to have to discuss an Amendment of this character without Notice. The definition proposed by the hon. Member was of extreme importance, because it would have, if adopted, the effect of very greatly extending the number of criminal offences dealt with in the Bill, and yet the hon. Member proposed to the House to insert it on his Motion at that hour of the night, without the House having had any opportunity of considering it. As far as he could gather from the words read by the hon. Member, he proposed a definition so wide that it would include possibly a room in which a lady might be temporarily residing. He thought it would be wiser to allow the term to be defined by the common sense of the Judges and juries before whom the cases might be brought.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had opposed these words in the most elastic sense. He bad told the House just now that it would include places of the very class they were trying to get rid of; and then he said that the clause was so wide that he did not wish to have this latitude given to the term. Such opposition as that was hardly intelligible, and it justified the belief that there was an attempt being made to exclude from the operation of the Act the worst possible practices and the worst possible places of the kind referred to. He was astonished that anyone with the experience of the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put forward such grounds of objection. What was the meaning of the expression in the Bill? He had been listening with anxiety for the whole evening to learn what that was; and if, under those circumstances, the House were to be told that what was the meaning in some circumstances was not the meaning in others, he could only say that so far as he was concerned he was left en- tirely in a haze about it. The hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) had moved an Amendment which was intended to clear up this state of obscurity; and he was bound to say that they ought to have a definition before they passed from the question. He thought the whole statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General was highly unsatisfactory.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he did not think there was any reason for treating his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General roughly. His own opinion was against defining this word at all; but if it were necessary to have a definition at all, that of the hon. Member would not suffice, because it would apply to any room or part of a house in which a man was living with a concubine.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendment made:—Clause 14, page 7, line 6, leave out "of" and insert "or."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought it would be better to reserve trials for misdemeanour and felony under the Act for the Superior Courts, so that they might be tried by Judges of superior knowledge. He understood that the Irish Representatives were satisfied with trial at Quarter Sessions, and therefore he proposed to restrict the operation of his Amendment to England.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of Clause 14— And no indictment under the provisions of this Act shall in England be tried in any Court of Quarter Sessions."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Sir, I have now to ask that, having completed the consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee, we may be allowed to read the Bill the third time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Motion agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.