COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 30 July 1885 vol 300 cc578-90

Order for Committee read.

Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS and Mr. HOPWOOD rising together, Mr. SPEAKER called upon the former.

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

I rise to move, Sir, that you do leave the Chair, and I will not detain the House more than one or two minutes. I simply want to say that this Bill deals with questions of a very grave character, and though I regret that some time has elapsed between its second reading and the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, yet, as the right hon. Gentleman beside me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has stated to the House to-day, we shall go on with the consideration of the measure from day to day until the Committee is closed. This is a question which has stirred England from one end to the other. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member expresses dissent; but I am bound to repeat the statement which I have already made—that there is nothing more sacred to the English people, and there is nothing which they are so determined to maintain, as the purity of their own households. The feeling has gone abroad that the purity of their households and the honour of their daughters has been and is liable to be violated, and they have made up their minds that this shall no longer be the case. I do not know what reasons the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and others who intend to oppose your leaving the Chair can possibly bring forward upon this question; but I am surprised that any Amendment should have been put upon the Paper against the proposal, and they will have to answer to the public and to their constituencies for their action in this case. All I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, can say is that, as far as we are concerned, we are determined, as far as we can within ordinary and proper limits, that the purity of the households of this country shall be maintained, and that those who wish to violate them shall be punished. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

MR. HOPWOOD,

in rising to move the following Amendmont:— That, in view of the fact that there already exists much legislation of the kind, little known or resorted to, and that besides much of it is of a contradictory character partly for the regulation and partly for the repression of vice, it is expedient that further inquiry and more deliberation be given to the subject before proceeding with the said Committee, said, that he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) had interfered with the ordinary course, and interposed between the House and the Motion of which he (Mr. Hopwood) had given Notice, unless it were for the indecent purpose—[Interruption, and emphatic cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]

MR. SPEAKER

That is not a proper expression for the hon. and learned Member to use——

MR. HOPWOOD

I withdraw—["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

It is out of Order, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw it.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that he had, at once, withdrawn the word; and he would say, with leave, instead, that it was an unbecoming attack on those who, like himself, were as much moved by a sense of duty as the right hon. Gentleman, and who were doing their duty to their constituencies quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman, who, though now riding upon a storm created by sensational statements of a filthy character in a public journal, many of them being untrue, while others only dealt with well-known phases of immorality, common to every large city in the world, nevertheless had for years acquiesced in the state of things he was now so anxious to amend. He (Mr. Hopwood) could show that the right hon. Gentleman himself was one who had resisted on a former occasion the raising of the age of protection. It was possible that he should find himself alone in the course which he was following. He should, nevertheless, continue in it, because he deprecated any change in the law, ex- cept where it was shown and proved to be necessary; and, secondly, it should then be discussed calmly, for there were dangers to be considered in the Bill which were of such a serious nature that before the Bill was allowed to come into law they should carefully consider what its effect was likely to be. If the House of Commons was not to keep its head clear, and preserve a dispassionate coolness in a time of clamour and panic like the present, upon what institution could the country rely for advice and guidance? Whom else could they look upon as their saviour? He deprecated all talk about the purity of homes and the inviolable sanctity of the family as inflammatory. He considered he had a perfect right to discuss the question; and with regard to those, if there were any, who doubted whether he took a wholesome interest in this subject, he would remind them that the very last Act passed for the protection of childhood was drafted by him and passed through the House by him with very little help, indeed, from other hon. Members. As his character seemed now to be impugned, he would call evidence in support of his statements from that undeniable source, the Statute Book of the Realm. He referred to the Act which declared that consent on the part of a child to participation in filthy practices should no longer be a valid defence. Those hon. Members who were ready to hurry the present Bill through the House at all hazards, knew nothing about the evils of which they were making so much ado, and would have taken no steps except for the publication of some sensational and inflammatory stories in a public print which they were innocent enough to believe. There were full-grown men in the House who now, forsooth, were so shocked with what they had read and heard that they could rest neither by day nor night until this Bill was passed; but, for his part, he thought it was discreditable to them to pretend not to have known that much depravity had existed in London in all times. Had hon. Members who were in such a fume about the passing of this measure ever practised before a Judge and jury and seen a wretched man in peril in consequence of a false accusation? Writings of a sensational and scandalous nature had been circulated abroad, and those who pretended to take the matter up under the plea that their own ignorance had been shocked by the disclosures contained in them did little service to the community by encouraging the further publication of such offensive stuff. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), whom he regretted not to see in his place, had only published one-half of that which had appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette, the cry would have been, "Prosecute him, prosecute him!" When they were told that it had been clone in the service of humanity, he wondered at the innocence of those who put it thus. It was not the language of truth. It was sentimental, inflammatory language, written with a spice "to make it read" as attractive as such vile filth could be made. The greater part of the publication was untrue, and that part of it which was true hon. Members already knew, and it was hypocrisy for them to pretend that they did not know of the existence of such crimes in London and other cities throughout not only England, but the Universe, before they saw it proclaimed under the voucher of the Editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. But before introducing fresh legislation the promoters of the Bill must prove that the existing law was not sufficiently strong to deal with the matter. The Law of Rape would not be improved by the passing of this Bill. What they wanted was detection of crime, and not a multiplicity of Acts of Parliament which could be of no practical service. The laws as to rape and the offence of decoying girls under 14 were applicable to more than nine-tenths of the cases which had been brought to the notice of the public. The real agitation came to this—a very sen-sentional newspaper had taken up the cause of morality, and had argued it from motives of its own; and a large Society in the country, which also traded upon the weaknesses of mankind while it professed to direct its higher aims towards religion, had also taken it up. He referred to the Salvation Army, which, in this matter, provided that religion should be served, combined with a good investment of its funds, for the purpose of gratifying personal ends. If this Bill were carried forward, he wished its promoters joy of their success; but he was sure that they would live to rue it. The House should be careful not to relieve women of their indi- vidual responsibility, while paying no regard to the dangers from designing females to the young of the other sex. It had been said publicly by a benevolent friend of his, to whom society owed a great deal (Mr. S. Morley), that with reference to this matter there was one law for the rich and one for the poor. Great caution ought to be observed before using inflammatory language of that kind. The law was perfectly equal both for the rich and the poor. It might, perhaps, be said that the protection of the Court of Chancery could not be taken advantage of by the poor man; but he (Mr. Hopwood) contended even that might be secured by investing some £20 to £100 and making a girl a ward of Court. It was, therefore, most unjust to make use of expressions which would work upon the mind of the poor man by leading him to believe that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. One great evil—one upon which he must address a solemn warning to the House, as likely to be the result of such legislation as this—was the increase of the danger of extortion by means of false charges. If such a measure became law there would practically be no protection for youths and the sons of persons of position. There were cases in which girls were steeped in depravity at the ages of 13 to 16 years; and he believed that if the Bill were allowed to pass there would be great danger of young men and even boys being betrayed by designing creatures, whose object was to levy "black mail." Such cases of extortion had occurred in the past, and they abounded, he regretted to say, under the present law. It might be said that because such cases of extortion abounded under the present state of the law, such a contingency would be inseparable from all law; but he would point out that the peculiar danger of such a measure was that there was no other law under which a party to the act complained of was allowed to be a complainant and a witness against the other party. Abandoned and profligate fathers and mothers, as well as girls themselves, might make the provisions of this Bill a means of extortion. Then, again, he could not conceive why protection should be afforded to one party alone; and he asked those who heard him whether there was not something in the Bill that struck home to them as affecting their own sons, which might well make them cautious how they passed the Bill? False charges were even made under the present law, as was shown by the case of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, recorded in The Annual Register, 1860, which was one of the most appalling instances of the depravity to which children could fall. This gentleman had two little girls of 11 and eight years of age, whose names were Plummer, consigned to his care to be educated. They were taken away after a few days by their mother, and a very short time afterwards the rev. gentleman learned that a most revolting charge had been made against him of committing indecent assaults upon them. The offence was alleged to have been committed in the presence of his wife. The story was told with such a clever simulation of artless innocence, that a jury, in the Central Criminal Court, convicted him, and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each of two indictments. His wife was by law, of course, precluded from giving evidence in the case. Six months afterwards the case was further investigated, and the eldest of these young girls was convicted of perjury; and after enduring for this period all the indignities and humiliations consequent upon his conviction, he was pardoned for an offence which he never committed. This was a striking illustration of the dangers that might arise, especially from abandoned girls of older years. There was certainly a very strong feeling out-of-doors on this subject at the present time, and he believed that it was a revulsion of feeling caused by the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Women had been so exasperated by that insult to womanhood that they would not stop short of reprisals. There had been a great deal of talk which plainly showed how little those who were taking the lead in clamouring for the passing of this Bill knew of what the present law was. He contended that the ordinary law contained all that was necessary in order to deal with cases of abduction and the offence of procuring females up to the age of 21 years. By Statute it was a crime to procure the defilement of any girl under that age, and to decoy a child under 14 was also a felony. In the case of heiresses there was also a severe penalty imposed upon those who, for the purposes of lucre, took them away from their guardians. No case had been made out for this storm of indignation and this loud demand for the amendment of the law. They had heard a great deal of noise made in the country concerning alleged revelations made by an evening newspaper. He, however, desired proof of these sweeping assertions before he would believe them, and he maintained that they ought to be subjected to the consideration of a Select Committee. They should promise the persons who made them a hearing for everything they should urge in support of their case, and next Session an inquiry ought to be instituted to find out whether the statements were true or not. The editor of this paper, however, said he could not tell the public his authority for the statements he had published, because he had promised not to tell their names; but he (Mr. Hopwood) would ask why these statements were produced to a so-called Commission of Prelates and Cardinals, and yet could not be made public? If the seal of secrecy was broken for the one, it ought to be broken for the other. Why were statements of this kind, assailing the character of England and Englishmen, allowed to go broadcast over the Continent of Europe and the United States of America? Let them have an inquiry into them in order to see whether they possessed one-tenth part of the foundation which was claimed for them. He denied that the law of other countries was essentially different from the law of England. After a comparison of portions of the French and German law with the existing English law framed for the protection of minors, he said that in none was 14 years exceeded, and in the vast majority a younger age was the limit. The only thing which he noticed was that while upon the Continent they were always logical in their legislation, in England they were not. He had another reflection to make. He had described to the House the case of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, and he wished now to refer to the extraordinary proposition in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to administer the vulgar and commonplace punishment of flogging. He said so because it was always the remedy to which the rash and thoughtless resorted. Well, he would ask the House what would they think if, in such a case as that of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, he had had, in addition to the many indignities which he had been compelled to suffer innocently, his hack torn, gashed, and bleeding by the cruel thongs at the bidding of some zealous Member of Parliament? Why, it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons to pass the clause. All he could say was that he hoped it might not be considered an uncharitable wish that some of those Gentlemen who seriously joined in the support of such a provision might some day be the objects of a false accusation, and might be enabled to know in the hour of trial what it was to suffer personal pain inflicted by brutal and horrible torture. In former years for almost every offence the lash had been tried as a moans of repressing crime; but he would like to ask what had ever been gained by flaying the naked backs of unfortunate people? In connection with this subject he felt bound to condemn, in the strongest possible language, the Contagious Diseases Acts, which, he maintained, deprived a woman of her liberty, reducing her to the position of a mere human chattel. In conclusion, he would apologize to the House for the plainness of his language, and the length of time which he had occupied in discharging a duty, with the gravity and importance of which he was fully impressed, and would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the fact that there already exists much legislation of the kind, little known or resorted to, and that besides much of it is of a contradictory character partly for the regulation and partly for the repression of vice, it is expedient that further inquiry and more deliberation he given to the subject before proceeding with the said Committee,"—(Mr. Hopwood,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was sure that everyone would respect the motives that had induced the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) to express what he (Sir William Harcourt) had no doubt were his sincere convictions. At the same time, they must feel that the desire of the House was to proceed with the Bill, and not to embark on a long and protracted discussion upon the Speaker leaving the Chair. A good deal of what the hon. and learned Member said was a suggestion that this Bill was the offspring of a sudden panic due to recent occurrences. This was not so. This Bill was framed three years ago, when there was, and had been for some years before, a great and well-founded complaint of traffic in girls taking place abroad, especially in Belgium. Soon after he (Sir William Harcourt) came to the Home Office, five years ago, he had ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter, and the Report of that inquiry, which was prepared by Mr. Snagg, be came the foundation for the Committee of the House of Lords, and their Report in turn became the foundation of this Bill, which had been several times introduced. The Bill had been taken up, after due consideration and with the conviction that there was a great evil which required a remedy. The Bill had been carefully considered by the other House of Parliament; it came down to the House of Commons after several years' consideration, and the time had now come when the House of Commons was determined to deal with the question. He thought the sooner they got into Committee and considered what Amendments ought to be made in the Bill, the better it would be for the thorough discharge of their task, and that the more especially as it seemed that the House were evidently not in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

MR. WARTON

said, he, for one, whatever time it might take, intended to express his opinion on the Bill. He considered it a duty and a right to speak—a duty, because he felt strongly upon the question; and a right, because he had been one of the persons who had been foully slandered by an evening paper, The Pall Mall Gazette. That was a newspaper which had lived on sensation. It had been saved from ruin by the "Amateur Casual;" it had invented the "dog fight;" and now it had invented this story about the streets of London. With reference to the Committee which had been appointed to consider the statements published by that newspaper, he begged to enter his protest against a Committee so constituted. It was composed of three ecclesiastics, the hon. Member for Hereford, and the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Samuel Morley), and nearly every one of those Gentlemen, with the single exception of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been distinguished as a fanatic in one shape or another, and he protested against those Gentlemen constituting themselves a Committee on such a serious question as this. They had given the go-by to the names of individuals; they had refused to enter into the accusations against the police; and yet they had said that, on the whole, the statements were substantially true. No man in his senses could doubt that there must be in a City like London, with its millions of population, some men who were thoroughly depraved in their morals; but that vice of this kind was so prevalent as stated was not to be believed for a moment. He had said that his (Mr. Warton's) name had been brought into this abominable production. Not only was he libelled in The Pall Mall Gazette, but even the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) did not escape. The object of the promoters of the Bill—ill-conditioned Democrats and Salvationist sentimentalists—was to set class against class. Look at the audacious and reckless mendacity of that abominable newspaper. It said that a certain house in St. John's Wood was resorted to by one Prince and one Cabinet Minister—that, of course, could not refer to the present Cabinet, as it was written before the Conservatives came into power. He strongly complained of the sensational articles published by that journal being allowed to be sold promiscuously in the streets of London, whereby, he ventured to say, more demoralization would be caused than could possibly be prevented in the next 10 years by the legislation now under discussion, even if the House should consent to adopt it. He also commented severely on the attempt which was being made in connection with that question to sow a bitter feeling between different classes of the community. With that view, it was scandalously alleged that the daughters of the working men were to be the victims and slaves of those above them in rank; for there was nothing more congenial to the ill-conditioned Democrat than to cast foul slanders and aspersions on the higher orders of society. He reminded those who thought they might stop the mischievous agitation now on foot by adopting any moderate compromise on the question of age, that meeting after meeting of fools and fanatics had been called to pass cut-and-dried resolutions on that subject, got up in a very questionable manner, the movers and seconders of them not even knowing their own minds or understanding in the slightest degree the subject with which they were dealing. For instance, in one case where it was proposed to raise the age of protection to 18, a man shouted out that the age should be 21, whereupon the meeting unanimously came to a vote in favour of the latter age.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he would not have troubled the House in the matter, were it not that he had lately received a large number of anonymous letters, professing to come from those who agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). To the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) denying that they were asked to legislate under the influence of panic, he desired to give the most absolute contradiction. He wished to know why, if the measure was so necessary for the preservation of a proper state of society, and for the protection of women and girls, the late Home Secretary did not propose it to the House at a more reasonable time of the Session, when it could have been properly discussed? Last year they heard nothing about it; and this year the Motion for the second reading was brought on just before the rising of this House for the Whitsun Recess. Why was his (Mr. Bentinck's) right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary not in his place on that occasion? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) knew that the Bill was likely to come on for second reading, and yet he ran away. He (Mr. Bentinck) did not object to the Bill; on the contrary, he was most anxious that proper protection should be afforded to women and girls, so long as extortion by women on the male sex was not promoted. But he believed that this matter was now brought forward as an electioneering cry, and attempts had been made to use it as a means of irritating the humbler classes against those above them in circumstances. The present Home Secretary had allowed the sale of publications to go on unchecked which ought to have been stopped. The late Home Secretary also had been guilty of grave official negligence in not bringing the Bill on at an earlier period of the Session, when it could have received a discussion which was at present impossible. But for the publications to which reference had been made, he did not believe that the House would have been so full as it was on the present occasion. The conduct of the Government in allowing abominable newspapers to be sold about the streets was a disgrace to civilization—it was a disgrace to the Home Secretary. When he (Mr. Bentinck) was at a public school, if he were found with a copy of such a paper as that in his pocket, he would be soundly flogged; and when he was at the University, he might have been rusticated for the same offence. He would like to read some of the opinions which the late Home Secretary gave on the subject years ago; but, of course, there was no greater master of the political morality of public men than the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] He had no intention of opposing the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill; but he desired that there should be a full discussion of the clauses of the measure, unwarped and unprejudiced by the reprehensible agitation which had been going on out-of-doors, the result being that the deliberations of the Committee would result in wise and beneficent legislation.

SIR FREDERICK MILNER

said, with reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the measure had only been proceeded with by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of the publications and agitation that had taken place, he could undoubtedly assert that it was the intention of the present Government, as soon as it came into Office, to pass this Bill into law. He would also remind hon. Members that the House of Lords had on three different occasions provided for the better protection of the unfortunate children of the poor in this country. He was of opinion that legislation was necessary to deal with the state of crime which had been revealed. It was true that the accounts might have been exaggerated; but if one-tenth part were true, it was necessary for the House to deal with the evil. He believed that the law also required amendment by the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal and by altering the Law of Evidence so as to make it competent for married women to give evidence against their husbands in cases in which they were the accused parties.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.