§ (1) In Section 1 of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in Section 1 of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, in Sub-section (3) (which deals with the evidence of living on the earnings of prostitution) there shall be substituted for the words "and has no visible means of subsistence" the words "or is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution with any other person."
§ (2) The period of imprisonment with hard labour which may be awarded to a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or to a person convicted summarily of a crime and offence under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, shall be increased to six months [but such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824].
§ (3) The Vagrancy Act, 1898, as amended by this Section, shall extend to Ireland 718 with this modification, that for the words "be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and be liable to be dealt with accordingly" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with hard labour."
§ (4) A person charged with an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, may, instead of being proceeded against in England as a rogue and vagabond, or in Scotland or Ireland summarily, be proceeded against on indictment, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the court may sentence the offender to be once privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified by the court in the sentence.
§ (5) The wife of a person charged with an offence under cither of the said Acts may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged, but nothing in this provision shall affect a case where the wife of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that person.
§ Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) after the word "person" ["compelling her prostitution with any other person"] insert the words "or generally."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay we have some arguments from the Home Secretary as to why these words are inserted? I am sorry we have got no arguments from him for the insertion of the previous words, and I hope we may have some explanation in this instance. In order to produce that, I beg to move that this House doth not agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. McKENNAUnless the words "or generally" are inserted in a case of this kind the prosecution would have to prove that prostitution was compelled with a particular person. It: will be remembered that the words "any other" were inserted on the Report stage, and, adding these 719 words, "or generally," will now make the Clause agree in form with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. It is purely a drafting Amendment making the two cases correspond.
§ Lords Amendment: In Clause 6, Subsection (2), leave out the words, "But such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824," and to insert instead thereof the words, "But nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction to deal with a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, anything in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding."
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move "That this House do not agree with the Lords in omission of words, 'But such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824.'"
I shall propose later to agree with the Lords in the words added to the Amendment. As already stated, the words omitted in another place were inserted in the Bill on an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. G. Greenwood). The effect of them is to ensure that the flogging shall in no case be inflicted except after trial by jury. Consequently, although on other grounds it might be desirable that the complete Amendment should be accepted, I think the House should adhere to the arrangement made with the hon. Member for Peterborough.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps it may be better to divide this into two.
§ Amendment divided.
§ So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out the words, "But such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824," disagreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: To insert the words "But nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction to deal with a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act. 1808, anything in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding."
720§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think we might have some reasons as to why this addition should be made to the Clause. I understood from the Home Secretary that he was going to disagree with this Amendment of the Lords. We were told by the Prime Minister that we were not going on with this subject very late, and now we are told that the Home Secretary has decided, after all, to accept this Amendment from the House of Lords. We ought to have a very clear reason why the right hon. Gentleman has accepted these words which, as far as I remember from the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George, Greenwood), give to a magistrate powers which, according to the dictum of the Lord Advocate, they do not at present possess. We ought to be very chary of further extending the powers of the magistrates under the Vagrancy Act. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment which made it possible for a sentence to be given for a first offence, what is the object of adding these further words, "But nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction to deal with a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I suggest to the hon. Member opposite that the Government are acting on their responsibility assisted by competent Law Officers. They have stated that, with the exception of the Amendments already agreed to in this House in principle, no change is being made in this Bill from the shape in which it left the House of Commons. I think that relieves us from needless suggestions that departures are being made from the decision of this House. Therefore, however much the hon. Member may feel on the general question of flogging it is hardly fair at this hour of the morning to subject a Minister to needless criticism when he has given his assurance that no change except that already approved by the House of Commons has been made in this Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will just in a sentence explain to my hon. Friend that really his anxiety is quite unfounded. 721 These words do not affect the question of flogging at all, and the only point of their insertion is to enable a magistrate to pass this sentence of six months' imprisonment without the prisoner having to go for trial. That is the whole effect of the Amendment and it does not, as I have said, touch the flogging question at all.
§ Mr. BOOTHI should like, to explain to my hon. Friend that you cannot flog a rogue and a vagabond. You can only flog an incorrigible rogue; that is to say, you can only flog after a second offence.
§ Lords Amendment: To insert as a new Sub-section, after Sub-section (3):
§ ("(4) Every person, of either sex, who acts as a pimp, souteneur, or bully, or otherwise for the purposes of gain aids or abets prostitution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this section shall apply accordingly.")
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Mr. McKENNAI wish to inform the House what occurred on the Report stage. In various Amendments the proposal was made that women who were of the same character as an ordinary souteneur and bully should be equally subject to penalties with men other than the penalty of flogging, I undertook that, inasmuch as the case of women was in material circumstances different from that of men, I would find words if possible to carry out what appears to be the wish of the House in regard to women. The result of that promise is this Clause as it now stands. It is really a women's Clause, and I put it forward to the House as an effort to carry out what was the opinion and wish of the House.
§ Mr. RADFORDI desire to move that the House do not agree with the Lords in this Amendment. I am, I must confess, astonished at the language of the speech just made by the Home Secretary. He tells us that this Clause has been inserted in order to impose penalties on women who commit acts analogous to the act of procuration. I would like Members of the 722 House to consider the terms of the Clause.
§ "Every person of either sex,"
§ That is not a woman's Clause, whatever the Home Secretary may think.
§ "who acts as a pimp, souteneur, or bully."
§
Is a woman likely to act as such? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Very well, I will return to those words presently. Up to this point there is, surely, nothing in the Clause which specially refers to women. It goes on:—
or otherwise for the purposes of gain, aids or abets prostitution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this Section shall apply accordingly.
I am not concerned with the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act—I do not understand the Scotch law but I am concerned with the Vagrancy Act, 1898. That is an Act which applies to England and incorporates by reference the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which imposes the penalty of flogging that we are considering on this and other Clauses.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEMay I point out to the hon. Member that flogging is expressly excluded in the case of women.
§ Mr. RADFORDI am aware of that. The Vagrancy Act, 1824, does not allow the flogging of women. My point is this, that so far from this being a Clause, which is intended for women, it applies specially to men. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary and the Attorney - General whether that is not so, and if it is so then I think the House has been led into a position which it does not desire to occupy. Let me remind the House of what has happened in regard to this subject of flogging. When we were discussing the Bill here, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is rather a timid torturer, if I may say so, and not so full-blooded in his ferocity as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lee), wished to limit flogging for the offence named in Clause 2 to a second offence. But the House ran away from the Home Secretary, being excited by a rather inflammatory message from Scotland Yard, and the right hon. Gentleman was overborne.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf it will meet my hon. Friend I will make the words "every female person."
§ Mr. RADFORDI am aware that since 1824, women have been immune from flogging. I am very glad to get even the small concession from the Government which the right hon. Gentleman has promised, because in my opinion flogging is a repulsive form of punishment, whether practised in Putumayo or within the walls of an English prison. As far as I can judge at this late hour of the night, the concession which is offered to me by the right hon. Gentleman will remove a fatal blot on the Bill.
§ Sir W. P. BYLESI should really like to know how this concession which has been made to my hon. Friend does exclude women from flogging and meet the objections which have just been raised.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am in jour hands, Mr. Speaker, but I should be glad if the Amendment could be altered to read "every female person" instead of "persons of either sex." It really means the same thing. The substance of the Clause is not altered, and the change I suggest is merely a matter of form.
§ Mr. RADFORDMay I say one word on this concession. If the Clause is to read "Every female person who acts as a pimp, souteneur, or bully," then I submit that the words are very ill-chosen. I do not think that in literature you will find the word "pimp" applied to women, and I am certain that you will not find the word "souteneur."
§ Mr. RADFORDApart from the objection that the words are peculiarly unlikely faithfully to describe the acts of a female person, I do not think, although you can find these foul words in the literature of the seventeenth century especially, that they have ever been copied into Acts of Parliament. But I am not responsible for this Clause, and I accept the concession which has been promised by the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. BARNESIt may seem very ungracious on my part to object to this particular Sub-section, seeing that the Home Secretary promised to put the provision in 724 on my Motion. I do not like the Subsection because of the vagueness of the words. It seems to me that this Subsection is really creating a new offence. When we had the matter under discussion before, Ave were dealing with an offence as set out in the first Sub-section of Clause 6, an offence of a different character altogether to that which we are now dealing with, which is that of being proved to be living on the earnings of prostitution or "proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution." It seems to me to be a different thing altogether, and I think we ought to have some such words in this Sub-section as the words dealt with when the Bill was discussed before.
§ Mr. MOLTENOIf the Home Secretary would abandon this Amendment it would be very satisfactory to us, because the words seem to us so extraordinary vague and unsatisfactory. The language is of a very general character and is really not concrete. We have already had illustrations of the danger of such vague words in the case of the Vagrancy Act of 1824. And that experience shows how careful we have to be in using the proper words.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTIs the definition really effective? Some of us feel that it is rather hasty and vague. Those of us who are not lawyers are a little doubtful as to whether we are not suggesting something which the courts may not be able to carry out as Parliament intends.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEThe word "souteneur," although not an English word, is well understood, and then there are the words "pimp" and "bully." I do not know whether it is possible to put in the exact definition which we desire those words should have.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI really hesitate to detain the House any longer, especially after the appeal of the hon. and learned Member opposite. I should explain that I am only too willing to accept the dictum of the Home Secretary, only he told us the other day that he was guided in his decision by the police. I have a very wide suspicion of the police in this matter. This seems to me a corrupt policeman's further endowment act. I do not want to accept even from the Home Secretary a dictum 725 or legislation which is based merely upon the desires of the police, who already have, in my opinion, sufficient powers to suppress the white slave traffic. This Amendment, even if accepted with the modification proposed by the Home Secretary, will be a very dangerous addition to the Bill. See what it means! It embraces servant girls who open the front door of the house, because it might be said that they are aiding and abetting prostitution. Take the case, however deplorable, of the mother of a prostitute. She for purposes of gain is kept by her daughter and aids and abets prostitution. Do you intend to punish this woman by six months' imprisonment? The prostitute will be a woman of between twenty and thirty years of age and able to look after herself. However great the moral crime of living upon a daughter's prostitution, there is not the slightest right to send a woman to six months' imprisonment because she does knowing or "under the rose" live upon her daughter's vice. For all these reasons, I hope the Clause will be left out in spite of the appeal of the hon. Member for Fare-ham. I know well enough what a dangerous Member he is, and what a strong influence he exercises, not only upon his own side, but upon our Front Bench as well. I do not think at this late hour it is possible for the House to properly consider the measure, and I do not think we should include in the Amendment of the measure a large new class of persons. I, therefore, think that we should adjourn in order that we should have the Amendment put before us in the amended form proposed by the Home Secretary. We should consider it on its merits, and see whether we are carrying out the intention of the Home Secretary and of the hon.
§ Member for Fareham, or whether we are doing what I think we are, opening the floodgates to a large new class of crime and of criminals. I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think there is some force in part of the, criticism which has been directed to this Clause. I do not like myself the words, and I think it would puzzle anyone in this House to define them accurately. I confess myself, although I have a general notion of what the words mean, that if I were a judge I should find it rather difficult to decide what the words "pimp," "bully," and "souteneur" really mean. Therefore, as I dislike the words, and as they create an offence, on the whole I should certainly prefer that they should be left out. It seems to me there are words which I think are very useful, such as aiding and abetting the commission of an offence, which are well understood in law, and which the judge would find no difficulty in summing up to the jury explaining exactly what they mean. The words in question are not known in our jurisprudence, and we do not understand them. The proper course is that we should disagree with this Clause and bring up a Clause containing only the offence of aiding and abetting.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMr. Speaker, on a point of Order. Is not the question before the House that of the Adjournment of the Debate?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is so.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 145.
727| Division No. 443.] | AYES. | [3.30 a.m. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Radford, G. H. | |
| Hogge, James Myles | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and F. Whyte. |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| Pringle, William M. R. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bowerman, C. W. | Crumley, Patrick |
| Adamson, William | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Cullinan, John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brace, William | Dawes, J. A. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bryce, J. Annan | Doris, William |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Doughty, Sir George |
| Barrie, H. T. | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Duffy, William J. |
| Barton, William | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Bird, Alfred | Clough, William | Falconer, James |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Ffrench, Peter |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Crooks, William | Field, William |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Leach, Charles | Richards, Thomas |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lewisham, Viscount | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Lundon, Thomas | Robinson, Sidney |
| Ginnell, Laurence | Lynch, A. A. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Maclean, Donald | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Macmaster, Donald | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Gulland, John William | Macpherson, James Ian | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Hackett, John | M'Curdy, C. A. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Shortt, Edward |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Hardie, J. Keir | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Stanier, Beville |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Meagher, Michael | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.) | Millar, James Duncan | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berks) | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Higham, John Sharp | Munro, R. | Sutton, John E. |
| Hills, John Waller | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Nolan, Joseph | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Hughes, S. L. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Shee, James John | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Ward, A. (Herts, Watford) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Webb, H. |
| Joyce, Michael | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Keating, Matthew | Pointer, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | |
| King, J. (Somerset, North) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dundas White and Sir J. Spear. |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rind, Cockerm'th) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Amendment proposed: Instead of Lords Amendment last disagreed to, insert as a new Sub-section:—
§ "Every female who is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute, in such a manner as to show that she is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution with any person, or generally, shall be guilty of an offence under The Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this Section shall apply accordingly."— [Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe object of this is to create exactly the same offence for the woman as is created in respect of the man.
§ Mr. RADFORDLet me appeal once more earnestly to the Home Secretary not to proceed with this business at this time of night.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe House has decided by a large majority to go on.
§ Mr. RADFORDThat was in regard to the adjournment of the Debate. I refer to this particular Clause.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt would be only raising exactly the same question the House has just decided. The hon. Member can take exception to this new Amendment proposed.
§ Mr. RADFORDThat is what I am desiring to do. This Sub-section which it is proposed to introduce has been read by the Attorney-General and yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I venture to say that it is quite impossible for us to understand it as we ought when we are creating a new offence. It is a scandal that criminal legistion should be enacted in this manner. I myself, after sitting here until twenty minutes to four, confess I am quite unable to deal with the matter, and I think the majority on both sides are in the same condition.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI, on the other hand, am perfectly fresh still. Of course, it is useless to protest against having a new crime put on the Statute Book in the form of a drafting Amendment which we cannot see on the paper; but there was one point I listened to when the Amendment was read out, namely, whether the conjunction should be "and" or "or." Everyone who has discussed this Bill at all knows the importance of that conjunction. Was it to be "control, direction, and influence," or was it to be "control, direction, or influence"? It was not "and" but "or," 729 and the presence of that word makes the word "compelling" absolutely valueless. You could not have a more vague word or a more vague crime than a person who is said to have influence over the movements of a prostitute.
Why, even the writers of a great many books would be locked up under this proposal, because it cannot be disputed that they influence people. The fact is that you open the door extraordinarily wide if you put the words in. I ask the House to consider seriously before they make a new crime which will include more people even than the Amendment would have done as passed by the House of Lords. If you leave the Amendment so vague that anyone who is said to have any influence over a prostitute becomes liable to six months' imprisonment, I feel sure you will be likely to do great injustice to a great many people in this country. The servant girl comes in again and the mother comes in again. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the widow."] Oh, the widow is only brought in where there is a financial interest.
I do hope that even now the House will think better than to pass this extremely wide Amendment. I have not much confidence in the majority of the Members present voting against it, but I still think that if the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) would drop the Clause the Bill would not be materially damaged. I do not think it will do much good at any time, but I am quite certain that if there are cases of people being prosecuted under this particular Clause you will have such an outcry going up from the people of this country at the monstrous injustice done that, in the first place, you will find it very difficult to put the law into operation, and, in the second place, if the law is put into operation juries will refuse to convict, because it will be so monstrous that people should be submitted to punishment for such a thing as this.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI do not wish to oppose the Amendment, but I desire to ask whether, as drafted, it does not go a little bit farther than was intended. There is not a word in the drafted Amendment about "for the sake of gain" or anything of that kind. The idea during the discussion on Report in this House was to hit at the woman who lives on the earnings of a prostitute. In the Amendment, as drafted by the Attorney-General, there is not a word about making any money out of it. What I should like to 730 know is, do you mean to hit a case of the kind where there are two prostitutes working together and neither lives on the earnings of the other? One girl may be older than the other, and may, probably will, have a certain amount of influence over the other. That woman would fall within the proposed words, though I am perfectly sure it is not intended that she should. It is meant to apply where a man and a woman are associated in that way but I do not think you mean to stop two prostitutes living together under circumstances such as I have suggested.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think the difficulties suggested are really covered by the words we use, but in order that there may be no possible doubt about it I have not the slightest objection to put other words in. Certainly I did not intend that there should be a conviction unless the offence is committed for the purpose of gain. It will therefore read "every female who for the purpose of gain is proved to have exercised control," etc. I think that will meet the case.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment made: After the word "female" to insert the words, "for the purposes of gain."— [Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
§ Sir J. SPEARI hope the Government will stand by their position in the matter, because I venture to say that those who have steadily supported the Bill believe that the earlier Clauses will deal with men carrying on the traffic and reduce the evil in that direction. But in consequence of that we are beginning to fear that more women may be induced to engage in the traffic. Therefore, to my mind, this is one of the most essential parts of the Bill, and unless it is carried we shall destroy the great value of a measure which, I believe, the whole country is anxious to see passed into law.
§ Mr. BOOTHIn my judgment the Clause will be rendered inoperative by introducing the words "for gain." If those words are put in you will have to prove two things: That the woman was aiding and abetting prostitution, and that she was making a profit out of it. The lawyers, I am sure, will have a difficult task in proving that there was an actual financial gain, and the Clause will be a failure.
§ Mr. BARNESI think the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is under a mis- 731 apprehension. As a simple matter of fact the words to which he refers are in the Clause in the case of the men. I am going to vote for this Sub-section as now proposed, because it seems to me that it carries out literally the promise made by the Home Secretary when the Bill was last under discussion in this House. On that occasion it was pointed out that women might engage in this trade as well as men, and therefore it was wrong to allow them to escape just punishment. The Home Secretary promised to frame a Sub-section that would deal with it, and now we have the women brought in, no new offence is created by the Sub-section, because we have here the same offence exactly as is dealt with in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6.
§ Sir WILLIAM BYLESI thought I heard an aside from the right hon. Gentleman, some half hour ago, in which he seemed to be willing to drop altogether this Amendment proposed by the Lords. I would suggest that if the Government were willing to disagree with this proposed Amendment they would get their Bill in five minutes. There really is a very considerable amount of doubt and dissatisfaction in this quarter of the House about the creation of a new crime in this hurried manner by rapid consultation on the Treasury Bench. It is an Amendment which we have not had an opportunity to discuss, and I feel it my duty to say that I do not like this way of creating criminal legislation. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) was kind enough to give us some very wise advice on this subject. If he will tell us, after his long experience of this House and of the Courts, what he thinks of this proposal and take a glance at the clock before he does so, I think the House will be glad.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI have no objection whatever. All the best legislation for Ireland was done between three and four o'clock in the morning. With regard to this particular Amendment, I have followed the action of the Government very closely and not in a very friendly spirit. But I am satisfied that what they have done is correct, and I am not sure that in yielding to the suggestion of my hon. Friend for Cambridge they have not gone a little too far. In driving males out of the traffic, let us take care that hags do not get into it. What is the safeguard that you have in this country, the enormous safeguard? It 732 is an honest judiciary and honest juries. You have the protection of twelve men of your own sort, and if a prisoner gets into the box and has a case at all—I can speak from my own experience so far as Ireland is concerned—the tendency is always, if there is any kind of decent excuse, for the jury to acquit. That is particularly the case in dealing with women prisoners. I do not think the charges will be multiplied. The police will get to know the kind of evidence which juries and judges will tolerate, and that is a great protection.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am glad the hon. and learned Member has made some advance upon his attitude earlier in the evening. On the former occasion, he advised us to accept this Amendment without any question because we had the authority of the Government that no charge was made.
§ Mr. McKENNAI never said anything of the kind.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am in the recollection of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Cork commended to us the Lords Amendment. He reminded us that some of the best legislation for Ireland was passed at three o'clock in the morning; I am sure it was not done with his consent on those conditions. I think that the charges the Government have made have justified the criticism which has taken place in this quarter of the House. I rise for this purpose, that the House should be clear as to what it is now doing. It is obvious that the words in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 are intended to create a presumption that, if the conditions therein disclosed arise, it is being done for the sake of gain; but in the Sub-section, as applied to women, we now introduce the words "for the sake of gain," and consequently we state that the presumption which is applied to men is not applied to women. I think the House should be absolutely clear that it is not making the same offence for women as for men.
§ 4.0 A.M.
§ Lords Amendment: Insert in Subsection (4), after the word "conviction" ["in the case of a second or subsequent conviction"], the words "such second or subsequent conviction being a conviction on indictment."
733§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Mr. WEDGWOODCould we be told the object of this Amendment?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is in order to make it perfectly clear that nobody shall be flogged except after trial by jury.
§ Lords Amendment: After the word "offender" ["sentence the offender to be once privately whipped"], insert the words "if a male."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI desire to ask whether it is necessary that this Amendment should be put in. I understood that the Bill as sent from this House to the Lords did not provide for flogging women. Why is it necessary then to insert this special proviso exempting women from flogging? Indeed, as the suggestion was made in the House of Lords that women might be branded instead of flogged, I should rather like to know whether it is desirable to make this distinction at all between the sexes. We have heard so much about the deterrent effect of flogging, how it will stop all sorts of things being done in this country, that I must say we ought to have some arguments directly to show that it is desirable not to flog women, although it is desirable to flog men. I am told it is a monstrous brutality to flog women. Yes, but in the interests of all these people we are so anxious to save it has been found necessary to inflict this brutality upon men. The crime is just the same in regard to women, and why are we not to flog women also? We are not giving them an equivalent sentence. In the case of men it is additional to imprisonment; but in the case of a woman she gets her six months' imprisonment and nothing more. Now nearly all the stories which we know so well from letters to the papers or in the columns of the sensational Press deal with women. It is the woman who decoys away for ever the girl who assists her when she faints. It is the woman who is waiting in her carriage at Euston station to catch the unwary servant girl, and take her away in her carriage and pair to a brothel in Soho. In all these cases it is the woman who is the villain of the piece, 734 and why exempt them from flogging, and merely flog men who are carrying on this abominable traffic? If you are going to introduce torture under the ordinary law it ought to be the same for1 both. If we are going to be Russified by the introduction of the knout in this country, let it apply to all sexes. The arguments used for flogging men are equally applicable for flogging women, and I think we are entitled to ask that when the House of Lords are so merciful as to make special exemption for women and suggest branding instead of flogging, and when flogging is blessed from the Holy Episcopal Bench we ought to have some words from the promoters of the Bill or those who are guided by the Archbishops why this exemption should be made in the case of the people who, according to all their stories, are at the back of this infamous traffic.
§ Further Lords Amendments agreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
§ Committee nominated of Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Arthur Lee, Mr. McKenna. Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and the Marquess of Tullibardine.
§ Three to be a Quorum.
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Reason for disagreeing to one of the-Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed1 to.
§ To be communicated to the Lords.— [Mr. McKenna.]
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."