§ (2) Any person who is convicted of a third or subsequent offence against the said Section thirteen shall beliable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour, and in addition to any such penalty or imprisonment, may be required by the court to enter into a recognisance with or without sureties or in Scotland to grant a bond of caution to be of good behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and in default of entering into such recognisance, or granting such bond such person may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of his said offence.1202
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not propose to move my Amendment to leave out the Clause. The discussion is limited to an hour, and therefore I think it is advisable to confine it, as far as possible, to the more important points.
§ Mr. LAMB
I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "so far as it relates to brothels." I shall, like the hon. Baronet, limit my remarks to the smallest possible space. I do not think it is necessary to argue afresh my Amendment, for hon. Members who have followed the course of this Bill in Committee upstairs, will be fully cognisant of the points raised by it. I do want to emphasise the fact that Clause 3 seeks to strengthen the Act of 1885 by making it apply to the person in charge as well as the tenant, lessee, or occupier, whereas the words which I am seeking to delete, if allowed to stand, will have the effect of narrowing the scope of the Bill. By deleting them we shall again widen the issue. The words I seek to delete were inserted upstairs by the narrow majority of one vote, eighteen to seventeen, and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he voted in the minority. The principal point raised by the Amendment is the fact that since the Act of 1885 a new type of building has grown up in the shape of great blocks of flats, some of 1203 which we desire purposely to bring within the scope of this Act. We feel that a case was undoubtedly made out upstairs for the inclusion of these flats, and also the inclusion of single tenants. When I remind the House of the great development that has taken place of recent years in this matter, and the strong feeling that has been aroused in the country by the insertion of these words, I think the House will readily recognise the need for again widening the scope of the Section by the deletion of the words, so that the person in charge of these great blocks of flats will also be implicated as well as those in charge of brothels only, as in the words inserted upstairs.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
The Mover of this Amendment bases his case to some extent on the alleged feeling in the country in favour of the re-insertion of these words. I would like to point out that practically the whole, agitation in the country—
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
Yes, I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Practically the whole case in the country has been fought on the question of white slavery. Our point in asking that these words be retained is that their retention will not in any way interfere with the suppression of the white slave traffic. The words were inserted in the Standing Committee to prevent any danger of the prostitute living on her own, and subject to no external control, from being harried and driven from the house or flat which she occupies. No one upstairs objected to strengthening the law as regards brothels. We felt if there is white slavery it finds its best recruiting ground in brothels. Even if the brothel-keeper is not actually a white slaver, he depends very largely upon the white slave traffic for recruits, and we do not in any way oppose the first Sub-section of this Clause so long as its operation is limited to brothels. The existing law in the principal Act clearly recognises this distinction, because under Section 13 it is an offence for the tenant to keep a brothel and also the landlord to allow his premises to be let for the 1204 purpose of a brothel; but there is no offence in the landlord letting his premises for the purpose of habitual prostitution. If the House strikes out the limiting words as proposed by the hon. Member you make the person in charge liable where the premises are used for the purpose of habitual prostitution. We have never succeeded in getting any definition from the Law Officers of what the "person in charge" really means.
I believe by putting in these words "person in charge" and accepting them in case of habitual prostitution you will for the first time make it an offence on the part of a landlord to allow premises to be used for habitual prostitution. What do the words "person in charge" cover. I think it is quite arguable that if you ring the bell and the door is opened to you by a maid, and you find the occupier is out and the maid is left in charge of the premises she would be made liable to prosecution. She is knowingly permitting the premises to be used, for as I shall show under Section 13 it is an offence under the existing law—although certainly prosecutions are never taken—to permit premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. Any prostitute who uses her own premises is permitting them to be used—that was the opinion of several barristers on the Committee upstairs—and therefore the maid who serves the prostitute in her own rooms is permitting the premises to be used when by going to the police she could take steps to prevent their continued use for that purpose.
The agent who lets flats is also responsible. He is in charge on behalf of the landlord and there are no limiting words. He lets flats, knowingly lets them, to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. In most cases these flats are held upon short tenancies. The agent permits them to be used by not exercising his power of giving notice and turning the prostitute out. I think it is quite clear if you do not limit the words to brothels the effect of this Amendment will be in certain districts where there is a feeling in that direction to make it practically impossible for the prostitute living upon her own to get accommodation. I know there are many people who honestly believe you can stamp out vice and prostitution by repressive measures. I do not agree with that, and I do not think that public opinion agrees with it. That is why I believe 1205 there has never been up till now any prosecution of a prostitute living on her own under Section 2 for being the occupier of premises and allowing them to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution.
I do not think that we can be so confident of the immunity of prostitutes if this Amendment, is carried. The people in the country who hold very extreme views will undoubtedly, if the hon. Member has his way, bring pressure to bear on Watch Committees to institute proceedings against the persons in charge and public opinion in that case is less to be depended upon because the direct effect upon the women is less easy to see. It will be more difficult for public opinion to realise that by striking at the maid, the agent, or the landlord they really are striking at the woman. It will be argued that the maid, agent, or landlord ought to receive no sympathy, because they are living on the wages or rent earned by the immorality of another person, but the real person who will suffer will be the prostitute, because it will become more dangerous to allow her to occupy the premises, and therefore the price will go up and the result will be that a large number of them will be driven on to the streets. I do not suggest that the Home Office are going to prosecute. The Home Secretary told us in Committee that this Clause was only pointed at brothels, and if that is so he might keep these limiting words in. The right hon. Gentleman said that all our fears were groundless on this particular question of harrying a prostitute who was not in a brothel, and he led us to believe that this Clause was only intended for use in the case of brothels.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
That is what we wish to bring about. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks I believe that the police do not wish to go in for the persecution of these women living in separate apartments. Local authorities will be sure to suffer from a great deal of pressure to attack these women. I was talking to a Member of this House who recently was the mayor of a metropolitan borough, and he told me that as the law now stands there was continual pressure to prosecute these women living on their own, and his opinion 1206 was if that course were adopted, instead of decreasing white slavery you would very much increase it, because the natural result would be that the woman, finding it impossible to live unmolested in her own rooms, would pay one of these scoundrels to let her call him her husband, and then she would find it much easier to evade those who try to persecute her. The real hardship is that these prostitutes cannot find a way to earn a living otherwise. We have been continually told if we wanted to learn the facts that we ought to read the book entitled "The Daughters of Ishmael." It is a terrible revelation of the methods of the white slave traffic, but the moral I drew from it was the unwillingness of society to give these women a second chance. A woman was trapped to her ruin; she wished to get work and go back to her family, but all these courses were impossible owing to the action of public opinion. That woman was driven into a continuance of a life of shame, and no doubt if that book is a true picture, as we are told, there are many cases of the same kind in this country. I suggest those who wish to stamp out this evil ought to educate public opinion. You will not do any good by driving these women out of their rooms and into the parks and streets. This Bill was carried, and only carried by the agitation against white slavery. I do not believe that one person in a hundred who has spoken in favour of striking out these words which limit it to brothels, and protect the prostitute living on her own, have read the Clause in the principal Act. They do not understand the danger. I believe there is absolutely no demand on the part of public opinion to interfere with a woman living on her own account, and I believe those who wish to suppress the white slave traffic, as we do, will be taking a very ill-advised step in that interest if they go beyond public opinion and make it possible to bring prosecutions which the general opinion of the country will think unjust.
§ Mr. McKENNA
If I do not agree with the hon. Member, it is not because I fail to recognise either the fearlessness with which he has presented his case, or the point of view which he takes upon this subject. I do not think the hon. Member has himself appreciated the meaning of the Amendment. I shall have to trouble the House for its very close attention while I read the actual Subsection of Clause 13 of the original Act of 1207 1885, to which this Bill is an Amendment. Under Section 13 of the Act of 1885, that is to say, under the present law,Any person who, being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permits such premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel, or for the purpose of habitual prostitutionis liable to certain punishments. That is the existing law, and, if there is anything in the argument of the hon. Member about the harrying of prostitutes, and the driving of them from house to house, it must have been true for the last twenty-seven years, ever since the Act of 1885 was passed, and I am not aware the hon. Member produced the smallest evidence in support of the case which he has endeavoured to make. That is the present law, and has been the law for twenty-seven years. What is the Amendment which it is proposed to make? It is proposed to add after the words "being the tenant, lessee, or occupier," the words "or person in charge." It does not seem to be, nor is it, a very serious extension of the law. One would have supposed that the words "tenant, lessee, or occupier," would have covered by themselves all persons who could be responsible for carrying on or for permitting anything which went on in the house, but it has been found by experience that those words do not cover the grossest case of all, and it is in order to meet that gross case this Amendment was proposed in the original Bill. What is the case? I would remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Wilson), who was so positive in his memory that I had stated I only intended the Sub-section to apply to brothels, that as I voted against it I could hardly have stated that in those broad terms.
The hon. Member, who is so positive, does not really recollect what occurred. The facts are the police report that at the present time in London, and no doubt the practice will be extended to other cities in the world, blocks of flats are built in which numbers of prostitutes live, and inasmuch as each of them has got a separate door to her own flat, a block of flats cannot be treated as a brothel. They are separate tenancies or houses, consequently Sub-section (3) of Clause 13 of the Act of 1885, which applies to brothels, does not apply to these blocks of flats. Technically each flat in these blocks is separately occupied, consequently the block of flats as a whole is not a brothel. They are 1208 the kind of premises which ought to be dealt with, because although they are not technically brothels, they are in fact brothels. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will leave hon. Members to conjecture for themselves what are the interior conditions of these blocks of flats. You may have ten, twelve, or eighteen, even all behind one front door.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD
Was not the case that in which in one building there were eighteen flats, with one front door—the case of Durose and Wilson; did not the magistrate hold it was a brothel, and did not the judge uphold his decision?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, and that is a case very strongly in my favour. In the particular circumstances of that case the magistrate held that it was a brothel. The Court was not willing to upset the magistrate's decision on the evidence. But it only needs a little ingenuity in order to avoid the consequences in that case, and it is in order to avoid that exercise of ingenuity that this Amendment is now sought. I will go back to what I was saying.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Let me read what occurred in the case of Durose and Wilson:—The appellant was employed by the owner as a porter in charge of a block of eighteen flats, among the tenants of which were twelve women who were in the habit of bringing men to them for the purpose of prostitution. There was no evidence to distinguish the occupier of any particular flat, nor whether there were other tenants as well as the said women; nor was it proved that any one flat was used by more than one woman. The premises consisted of one large building, the external appearance of which was that of one large house. Internally each flat was 'self-contained,' and could be occupied as a separate dwelling. There was only one street door, giving access to the common staircase. The appellant knew and connived at the purpose for which the women used the premises, and was convicted of being wilfully a party to the continued use of the premises or part thereof as a brothel.What does this Amendment do? It asks the House to establish by law that the magistrates shall hereafter in cases of that kind treat these premises as brothels for this particular purpose. That is all that this Amendment does.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act lays it down that where premises are used as a brothel the agent of the landlord is liable. The person in charge is obviously the agent of the landlord for the purpose of 1209 this Sub-section, and we seek to provide that in such a case of flats as I have mentioned, they shall be taken as a whole, and the person in charge made liable. Unless we have the power given in the Amendment of my hon. Friend in the case of premises used habitually for the purposes of prostitution, then the agent of the responsible person will not be liable. It is quite true that in the case of the block of flats to which I have referred the magistrate held that the premises were to be treated as a brothel, but that decision might not be binding in any other set of circumstances. We wish to guarantee by this Amendment that the porter or the person in charge, who is the really responsible person for the time being, shall be liable where blocks of flats of this kind are used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) suggested that under this Amendment the maid who opened the front door might be held to be liable. The maid could not be said to be knowingly permitting the premises to be used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the maid must also be in a position to prevent the premises being used. If you cannot prevent, you cannot permit.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
Could she not go to the police and ask for a prosecution under Sub-section (3)?
§ Mr. McKENNA
She would have no power to prevent. The person in charge is the person who is responsible. Before the person in charge can be convicted it must be shown that the person in charge was a person who knowingly permitted the thing to be done. The words of Subsection (3) are confined at the present time to the tenant, lessee or occupier, and it is found, as a matter of fact, in order to avoid the effect of Sub-section (3), that the tenant does not live upon the premises, and there is no occupier in the ordinary sense, there is no lessee to be found, but there is a person in charge who is managing the premises and who is the person who, in substance and in fact, is knowingly permitting it to be carried on. This Amendment consequently does no more than render Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1885 really operative in the case of blocks of flats. Outside the cases I have mentioned it does not extend the Act of 1885 one iota. As I began by saying, so I must conclude with saying that the argument of the hon. Member for Bury St. 1210 Edmunds was directed against the Act of 1885, and if there has been any harrying, that harrying must have been going on for twenty-seven years and does not relate to this particular Amendment.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTON
The Home Secretary has devoted most of his speech not to the Amendment before the House, but to another Amendment. I wish to speak with the greatest respect of his motives. I should not shrink, if I thought the Act of 1885 was oppressive, from amending it, but certainly I should ask the House to shrink from extending its operations. I conceive, on the right hon. Gentleman's own case, that this Amendment would extend the operations of the Act of 1885, because by striking out these words he would bring the penal Clauses of this Act to bear upon precisely the case of single flats occupied independently by prostitutes under no control or influence. I challenge anyone with legal knowledge on the front bench, to deny that that would be the effect of this. There is no need for any of us to deplore immorality, but we know that immorality exists. The object of this Bill, of which I have been a very warm supporter, is not to deal with immorality, but with the monstrous traffic by which men, by fraud, duress, misrepresentation, by the use of drugs, condemn unhappy women to a life of unspeakable horror.
That is what has obtained the immense support that it has received in the country, and I say, though I know I shall be misrepresented for saying it, that it is positively wrong for the Government, after eleven o'clock, to endeavour, under the cover of this most honest and sincere motive, which actuates everyone, who is supporting the Bill, to introduce Amendments which will extend the operations of Acts with which it does not purport as a whole to deal. Let me associate myself in the most cordial manner with my hon. Friend in what he said with regard to the scope of this measure. Nobody proposes to punish men for immorality, but what do you propose, if I am right, by this Clause, to do with these unhappy women? They are pursuing their miserable calling, but, so far as they can, with decency, living independently, under the control of no one, not giving their gains to anyone, living separately and in flats. Do you imagine it is possible to stop that by legislation?
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTON
I do not care I whether it is the Act of 1885 or not. By this Amendment you are extending the operation of the Act of 1885 by harrying and hunting these unfortunate and unhappy women who are the victims of society. The true way, and by far the most powerful argument that you can use against immorality, is by enlisting the feelings of chivalry that men have for any woman however degraded. But the State, represented by the Government upon this occasion, so far from echoing and voicing that honourable feeling, is putting itself at the head of society not in punishing immorality, but in punishing the unhappy victims of society. Let me assure the House that no one has a greater detestation of the offence against which the Bill is aimed than I have. I dislike Hogging intensely, but I think the mischief so horrible and the creatures so horrible who minister to procuration, that I cast a vote without a doubt in favour of flogging. When it comes to increasing the law against these unhappy women, I say that the good feeling of this House in its chivalrous sense ought to protest against it.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very eloquent speech, but it does not apply to the Amendment. There is not one word in the Amendment which will alter the position of a single woman referred to by the right hon. Gentleman [HON. MEMBERS: Yes, it will."] The Act of 1885 makes the occupiers of flats liable. The woman herself is the occupier, and the Sub-section extends the provision in the Act of 1885 to the "person in charge." That is the Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
If the hon. Baronet will look at the Sub-section in the Act of 1885 to which this refers he will see that the occupier is made liable, and all that Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 does is to extend the liability applicable to an occupier to a person in charge. The Act of 1885 may or may not be too strong. I think it is too strong. I think the Act of 1885 does allow attacks on these women which should not be allowed. Whether that is right or wrong I defy anybody to say that Section 13 of the Act of 1885 is extended one atom against these women themselves.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I desire first of all to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) for his admirable speech. I do not think I have ever listened to a speech so effective in this House, or in a better cause, because this is a case where the House of Commons ought to think very carefully before they alter the law. These women are absolutely unprotected. Most of us know very little about it, and it would be a great disaster if we increased the power of the police over these women. The Home Secretary made it quite clear, I think, that the law as it stands at present makes it illegal for single women to live on their own as prostitutes. The law is as follows:—Any person who … being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or for the purposes of habitual prostitution …There is therefore no doubt that it is illegal to let premises to a single woman where she carries on the trade of prostitution. It has been illegal for twenty-seven years, and the law has been allowed naturally to become a dead letter. I do not think this House wishes by amending Acts to enforce what the common sense of the police has allowed to become a dead letter. I think it would be most undesirable that we should go back on the decision of the Committee upstairs, where this matter was debated day after day, and cut out these words which were put in upstairs simply to protect a woman living on her own from the fearful alternative which the advocates of this Bill seem to wish to throw in her path. After all, if she finds, the police dropping their present attitude, harassing her, driving her off the streets or chivying her out of the houses, she has a simple way of escape, that is, to get a man and pay him part of her earnings to become a bully and a procurer. We have had enough legislation surely to stop immoral crime, and to give the police powers to make people moral. Suppose, instead of trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament, you try to make men a little more decent in their minds. I have had countless communications from religious bodies not only in reference to Clause 1, but also to cut out these words in Clause 3, in order to make it, as they explained, more uncomfortable for these prostitutes to carry on their business.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Yes. That is not our business as legislators. Our business as legislators is to do away with those social conditions which create prostitution. Women are driven into this life through poverty very often, through not being able to have a decent life of their own, not being able to marry; and it seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy when you have created those conditions which create prostitution, to suggest these processes simply to solve and soothe your consciences.
§ Mr. HUGH LAW
It is obvious that the House is in a great difficulty. If these words stand it will probably be very difficult, as the Home Secretary has said, to deal with the class of case to which he referred. On the other hand, if these words go out, and no other limitation whatever is put in, we cannot be altogether sure that the dangers to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred will not arise. I am afraid that as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) pointed out, there might be cases of that sort in which the unhappy woman, finding it more difficult to obtain rooms, might be forced to take a nominal husband, who would be nothing more or less than a bully. I am informed from a quarter entirely friendly to this Bill, that that is not merely a danger, but a certain fact. Anybody who has studied this matter at all knows that these women are already harassed, worried, and bullied by a set of sharks perhaps more than any other class in the community, and I do think we ought to do nothing in this House which will add to that evil. I am acting merely for myself in the matter, and appeal to the Government in view of the feeling in all quarters of the House to reconsider the position, and leave the matter to the free decision of the House.
§ Mr. LEE
It is necessary I should say a word or two as the Member who originally introduced this Bill. This is the one Clause which personally I never regarded with any particular enthusiasm, but I do not go so far as some hon. Members who have addressed the House, because I think that the fears of some of them are exaggerated as to the effect it may have on the women. I have always thought, however, that the hopes of those who supported the Amendment were optimistic. I do not think that it will make any great difference one way or the other, and for that reason I have 1214 not at any time attached great importance to this particular portion of the Bill. I realise from the discussion upstairs, and still more to-night, that a very large number of people who are very earnest supporters of this Bill and its real object, the suppression of the white slave traffic, which I have very much at heart, fear that this may lead to the harrying of these unfortunate women. I have myself on more than one occasion in the last week—and I have stated it in print—have said that if there was any provision in the Bill which would have the effect of harrying these unfortunate women I personally should not support it. I have taken that view throughout, and my one object has been to punish crime rather than to attempt to deal with the vast problem of the reformation of the morals of the nation. For that reason I would like to make this representation to the Government with regard to this Amendment: I recognise they have met me in a very generous spirit in taking up the Bill which I introduced, and therefore I am very loath to find myself in opposition to the Home Secretary on this point. At the same time it must be plain that the feeling of the House is not only very strong, but is very deep and earnest. I cannot help feeling that as the main object of the measure itself is the suppression of the white slave traffic which we all have at heart, it would be much better to drop altogether Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 rather than to accept Amendments which would weaken the existing law.
§ Mr. McKENNA
After the speech of the hon. Member, who is responsible for this Bill, I have to say that it is no part of my desire, having taken up this Bill, to press this Amendment further than the hon. Gentleman desires. As he does not wish to have this Amendment, I certainly ask my hon. Friend not to press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words:—"(2) A house shall not be deemed to be a disorderly house or used for the purpose 1215 of habitual prostitution within the meaning of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, or this Act, solely because the occupant thereof is a woman who is there carrying on, upon her own account and independently of the control, direction, or influence of any other person, the calling of a prostitute."
The object of this Amendment is to do what I understand the House, by the decision arrived at a few moments ago, desires, and that is not to prevent a person who happens to be a prostitute being able to find a shelter in which she can lay her head. As the Bill stands at present, any woman who is a prostitute and has a room or flat or house in which she lives can be turned out of that house, because she uses it for the purpose of prostitution, but if she goes into a park or into a public place and there uses a bench or something that is in that public place for the purpose of prostitution, she cannot be turned out. Therefore the effect of this Bill, unless my Amendment is carried, will be to drive people who are endeavouring to decently carry on the trade of prostitution into public places and into the public streets. It must be remembered that the effect of my Amendement is not solely with regard to Clause 3, because there are other Clauses in the Bill which, unless my Amendment is carried, will prevent the prostitute having a room in which she can live. Clause 4 says, that if a landlord lets a house or room or Hat to a woman who may be living with a man or two men, as the case may be, that the landlord on a conviction a second time shall have that house taken away from him. He may have bought the house and given two or three thousand pounds for the lease, and may have five or six respectable tenants, and one or two rooms may be let to a woman who does not happen to be married and who is living with one or two men. That woman will not be allowed to remain in that house.
The object of the Bill as I understand, and an object with which I deeply sympathise, is to deprive the bully and the ponce from living on these particular people. Of all that I am in favour. I voted in favour of flogging for the second offence but I voted against it for the first offence. I am in favour of exercising the full powers of the law to prevent innocent women being decoyed into becoming a prostitute; but when the woman is a prostitute, to 1216 say that she shall not have a place in which she can lay her head, and shall be liable to blackmail by people who will go to her and will say: "I happened to see that a certain man has gone into your room. I know that he has gone into the room for a particular object, and unless you give me a sovereign I shall go to the landlord and say that you are using that room for the purpose of habitual prostitution." And then the landlord, if he desires to retain the house in which he has invested perhaps the savings of his life, unless he turns her out will lose those savings. I do not believe the majority of the House, or the majority of the country, desire such a Clause. They desire to do what was ostensibly the object of this Bill, namely, to stop the decoying of innocent people into other countries. As I understand the House is with me, I will say no more.
§ Mr. McKENNA
This was a Bill for one purpose only, and to deal with a particular evil. It is now proposed to use the Bill, not to check the evil at all, but to repeal an existing law. Whether the hon. Baronet is right or wrong in desiring to repeal the Act of 1885, I do not think that this is the proper occasion to do it. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton), said that he would not shrink from any necessary cutting down of the Act of 1885. I am not aware whether he would regard this as one of the necessary cuttings-down from which he would not shrink. For my part I should have thought he would not have been a supporter of the hon. Baronet on this point. I would ask the hon. Baronet not to press the Amendment to this Bill, and I would urge him, even if it were desirable, not to press it in this form. It would be most undesirable to put into an Act of Parliament words which seem—although they do not actually do so—to give legislative sanction to prostitution. If the right hon. Gentleman does not shrink from repealing—
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTON
I did not say that, I said that if it was necessary, and it was 1217 shown that mischief was being done by an existing Act of Parliament, I would not mind amending it. I am not frightened by what may be said on the Bench opposite. If the existing law is proved to be bad, amend it.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my meaning. I do not suggest that he would be frightened by anything. His argument on the preceding Amendment would undoubtedly in my judgment lead to the acceptation of this Amendment. I think the hon. Baronet was right when he said that the argument used against the preceding Amendment was an argument in favour of the present Amendment. If it is considered desirable that certain parts of the Act of 1885 should be repealed, they should be repealed directly, and not by the use of language which seems to legalise prostitution. I hope, therefore, the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
As the Amendment is not accepted I will continue my speech. I stopped before because I thought that Members in all parts of the House agreed with what I was saying. I distinctly said that if my Amendment was agreed to I had nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman allowed me to think that he agreed, and hon. Members below the Gangway implied that they were going to support my Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that is any kind of way we are endeavouring by this Amendment to repeal the Act of 1885. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Act of 1885, with regard to habitual prostitution, has not been in force for twenty-seven years, and therefore it was necessary to do something to bring it into effect. What I want to do is to leave the law as it is—a dead letter. People now may say that the Act cannot be allowed any longer to remain a dead letter. To avoid any risk of that, my Amendment, while in no way weakening the Act of 1885, so far as regards the brothels or procuration, or anyone who decoys an innocent person and procures her shame, says that if a wretched woman lives in a house decently and quietly she is not to be subjected to blackmail or turned out. Unless my Amendment is carried, the negativity of the last Amendment will be ineffective. The result will be ineffective because Clause 4 and other Clauses that follow necessitate, if the 1218 House is to continue the opinion which it expressed when it negatived the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester, my Amendment must be carried. The arrangement was that this Debate should not continue beyond an hour. I feel obliged to insist on my Amendment, unless the hon. Gentleman can give me any other words that will carry out my intention.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Baronet should understand that I am against his Amendment, and I shall be against any alternative words which have the same object.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Very well, then, there is a clear cut issue. We were in favour of allowing these unfortunate women a place where to lay their heads. Nothing more than that.
§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR
May I shortly make an appeal? The other Amendment was withdrawn on the lines that it was outside the scope of the agitation that really brought this Bill forward. If that Amendment was outside the scope, so is this. I would beg the House to carry out the policy that this measure was intended to carry out—a certain general set of ideas, and not to repeal the other provisions of the other Act. I would suggest to the House that we should divide on that principle, not committing ourselves for or against the hon. Baronet, though if he withdrew his Amendment it would be much better.
§ Mr. CROOKS
I appeal to the hon. Baronet very sincerely not to press this Amendment. He does not perhaps know the case of unfortunate men in poor districts who find themselves with a lodger of this character. They can now talk to these people and ask them to remove. A man can say to such a person, "I do not want to make any fuss; you leave or otherwise I will have to get the police to remove you." If this Amendment is carried you cannot get these people out under six weeks. I am sure the hon. Baronet does not want that. There are many people in London who cannot keep a house by themselves; they have to sub-let a room, and they may get a character of this kind, and may have to keep them for six weeks before being able to get rid of them, with their own little children running about in such circumstances and conditions. I implore the hon. Baronet not to press his Amendment.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
It is really necessary to pass this Amendment. The law has remained a dead letter for twenty-seven years, but now the opportunity will be seized of putting it into force, and if we are to have the administration of the law to remain as it has been we must pass this Amendment. Otherwise we may have these women living peaceably in their lodgings moved and harried by the police. The police will be on their metal, and will desire to put their powers into force to show they are making good use of the Act. There is another point. The ordinary single woman, who is not a prostitute at all, is liable to suffer if that law is put into force, because the ordinary single woman who wants to get a lodging—a bed-sitting room—is liable to be penalized because the landlord or the landlady will be doubtful of her character. She will find she has either to pay a big rent or go elsewhere. You are not only penalising the prostitute, but every woman who can not prove she is a respectable woman. How many of us can prove we are respectable people in a strange country or town in which we find ourselves for the first time. I do not think there is much in the eloquent plea of the hon. Member for Woolwich. We all know the landlords of this country are strong enough anyway; and, after all, the woman lodger can be put out in the ordinary way. Most of those rooms are let on weekly tenancies and only require a week's notice—
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Both from the point of view of making it easy for the single woman to live, and from the point of view of people who are prostitutes, I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I should be very glad to know what view those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) take of this Amendment. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee upstairs, and the promoters protested very strongly against this system of harrying prostitutes by in any way turning them out of their lodgings. It was pointed out that the object of this Bill was not to hurt the prostitute. I think the Government will not find the promoters in favour of this Amendment. Not once, but time after time they said 1220 they were in favour of it, and I hope the Government will listen to what they say here, and carry out the effect of it. If we do not mean that what is the effect? Any woman who occupies a single flat by herself, not under the control of any man or other woman, not sharing her earnings, who receives men at that flat, is liable to be prosecuted. By Section 4 we propose to put a further burden upon the single woman who occupies a flat, because, if the woman is convicted, the landlord is to have the immediate right to evict her.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
That is what brings landlords into disrepute, and it is actions of that kind which makes the poor of the East End of London look upon landlords as tyrants. Under this proposal the landlord will have the power to evict the tenant. Further than that, if he does not evict her he is liable to certain penalties. What would be the position under Clause 4? It would be far worse for the woman who is the occupant of a flat than the position she occupied before this Bill was introduced. I ask the Government to reconsider the position before it is too late. I am not asking for the acceptance of these exact words, but after the strong remarks made about the position of the single woman in flats, and the discussion upstairs. I think an Amendment of this character is necessary.
§ Mr. CROOKS
Will the Committee allow me a moment for a personal explanation. I have been misunderstood. I never owned a house in my life, and I am only a tenant. I know there are many poor men who have been obliged to sub-let part of their houses, and to get a person in like those dealt with in this Bill, where there are little children about, is a positive danger to the children.
§ Mr. LEE
I should not have prolonged this discussion but for the appeal which was made to me. I am not in favour of this Amendment for the reason which has been stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. This Amendment is quite outside the real scope and intention of the Bill, and just as the previous Amendment was rejected, I think this Amendment should also be rejected.
§ Mr. FRANCE
There are many who strongly support this Bill who acquiesced 1221 in the withdrawal of the Amendment because we felt that the subject raised by it was outside the original scope of the measure which attracted so much support throughout the country. This proposal would involve an entirely new change in the Bill of 1885, whereas the desire of many hon. Members is to keep the Bill in such a form as will enable that great evil—the white slave traffic to be adequately dealt with.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I must entirely protest against the suggestion that the last Amendment was withdrawn on that account. It may have been the reason why its supporters did not press it to a division. It was evident that the general feeling of the House was that whether we enlarged the scope of the Bill or not the Amendment had no chance of passing, and my hon. Friend agreed to withdraw it rather than be beaten in the division Lobby. With regard to this Amendment I am not particularly in love with it. I took no part in the discussion upstairs on this point but it is only fair to recognise that after attention was drawn to it by the agitation outside we began a different era of administration. It is now admitted that the law in this matter has not been enforced for the last twenty-seven years. In my opinion administration is far more important than legislation. Only recently I had a controversy with the London County Council on this point. Certain members of the County Council came to me and said if I would name any particular property of which complaint could be made they would see that the tenants were fired out into the streets. I pointed out that that was entirely against the Bill but it shows that some who are taking part in this agitation are prepared to go on with this process of harrying these people.
While we hope to get rid of this white slave traffic we are not prepared to see crime and immorality spread into streets and houses now innocent of it by putting difficulties in the way of prostitutes getting shelter. If they are not allowed to get shelter we are in for a good deal of trouble. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the experience of Colchester where prostitutes got into the homes of working men and proceeded to invite the working men's daughters to go with them in order to get a new bonnet cheaply. Or let them remember the experience of Liverpool, described by Josephine Butler, where as a 1222 result of this harrying of prostitutes prosecutions and convictions for immorality increased by leaps and bounds. Hon. Members will not be promoting morality by driving these women into homes hitherto uncontaminated. Let us give this simple measure of protection to these women. We pity them and are sorry for them: we do not want to add to their degradation, neither do we desire to drive them into respectable homes.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I am reluctant to take part in this discussion, because I have had no share in the very heavy work upstairs in connection with this very grave question, but I do ask the House whether we ought to decide to proceed to decide this question now, in view of the facts which have been disclosed in this Debate? It has been said, with perfect truth, that the general support which this Bill finds in the House and in the country owes its origin to the steadfast determination in the minds of every honest person in the country to put down this trade—the most abominable trade, probably, that exists in the country. But, it has also been truly said, you have no right to use that influence in order to deal with a totally different question, and to deal with that question in such a way as to persecute a class which in my humble opinion is more sinned against than sinning. I am not going to enter into the question of the origin of prostitution, but I will say that the majority of people who have studied that problem know perfectly well that the great majority of these women have been led into that course of action by those who ought to be punished rather than the women themselves. If we decide this Amendment now we are undoubtedly going to run the risk of failing to make an alteration in the law which seems to be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary) has told us that this is not the time to do it; that this Bill ought not to be used to amend the Act of 1885. That is a sort of argument which has never had any weight with me. It is a kind of argument which I detest. If it be quite true that, owing to the agitation which has arisen against this white slave traffic, owing to the prominence given in the public mind to this question by the Debates in the House and the discussions upstairs, the result will be that the administration of the law will be altered in the future and persecutions will be going on against these unfortunate 1223 women, then I say it is the duty of this House to face the fact and try to remedy it by this Amendment.
I am myself strongly inclined to vote for the Amendment of my friend, the hon. Baronet who represents the City (Sir F. Banbury). I admit there is some force in what the Home Secretary says, that the language of the Amendment is not as happy as it might be, and that it might be construed as an endorsement and an approval by this House of a form of immorality which undoubtedly we would all cure, if we could. That is undesirable, but it is much more undesirable that we should proceed here and now, at this hour, and in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown—who should be here to advise us, to answer questions, upon this difficult question, in which they are taking no part—to decide in what possibly would be an unfortunate way upon an issue which is so grave. I respectfully suggest that the proper course to adopt is to adjourn in order to allow the Government time to solve the difficulty and to be in a position to advise us upon this question. They could consider how to avoid the difficulty, and they might be able, when the Debate is resumed, to prevent the House from doing this grave injustice. The Government can, if they choose, persist in the attitude of the Home Secretary and resist this Amendment; they can use their forces to prevent an adjournment. If my hon. Friend will go to a Division, I shall certainly support him, and I say that on the shoulders of the Government will then rest the responsibility for driving this House into taking a decision at a time when neither the information which is necessary is before us, nor is the House at this hour in a condition to decide a question of this grave kind. I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Mr. McKENNA
For a considerable time we have been debating this Amendment, which was regarded as an Amendment that would not necessarily take up a very long time. I certainly hope we shall not be asked on another occasion to renew this Debate. I must really urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, having had so full a debate upon it, in which it has been considered and discussed from every point of view, we should not be asked to take it up again.
§ Mr. PIRIE
The question, I understand, is still whether the House shall now adjourn. I should have thought that the Home Secretary might have enlightened us, instead of taking refuge in silence and not answering the questions which have been put to him, before asking the House to decide upon the Amendment. He has been asked whether he intends to administer the law—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member has himself pointed out that the question now before us is the adjournment.
§ Mr. PIRIE
I hope the Government will not put the Whips on, and will allow us to vote without them on the adjournment of the Debate. It is a most important legal point, and the Law Officers of the Crown are not here to answer questions and to guide the House. We have discussed it for an hour and a half and we should adjourn now.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON
In view of the promise made by the Government at the commencement of the proceedings, that this Debate would only take an hour, and the fact that it has now gone on for an hour and a half I think they should fall in with the Motion for the Adjournment. I think everybody will admit that the Government ought to be given a little time to think this question over. If they would only give us a promise that something might be done in another place, or that some words might be drafted, if the House now adjourns, and be ready to be put before us when the House meets again, it might ease matters. These words might take the place of the words proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, because, as has been pointed out by the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), these words do not altogether meet the views of the Government or of some sections of the House. If they can do that, I am quite sure we shall be prepared to accept anything that meets with the views of the Government. I am sure the Government must see that the feeling in all parts of the House now appears to be very strong in favour of something like the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think from the cheers there is not the slightest doubt that there is a strong feeling for the Amendment, 1225 and I hope the Government, in view of this, will agree to adjourn this Debate.
§ Mr. MORRELL
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot see his way to accept the Motion? It seems to me his position is very unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself again and again during the night entirely out of touch with the feelings of a great many of his supporters and with those of us who wish to see this Bill pass. I do not wish to do anything which would embarrass the passage of this Bill. I ask him whether he cannot accept this Motion now, and then see whether some words could not be found which would be satisfactory to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman. If that were done we should be doing our best to expedite the passage of this Bill.
§ Mr. KING
As so many voices have been raised urging the Adjournment, may I raise my voice in favour of going on? I must confess that I am not tired, neither are my natural faculties clouded. I will only add one reason why we should go on, the reason put forward by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Wilson), who declares that the feeling of the House is entirely in favour of the Amendment.
§ Mr. BARNES
I should not have risen but for the fact that the House may be misled by what has been said by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), into thinking that all of us are going to follow the lead he gave. I simply want to say that I will vote with the hon. Baronet if he goes to a Division. I hope that will not be necessary, and that the Government will see that there is a general feeling in favour of something of this sort being inserted in the Bill, even if this particular form of words does not meet with general approval. Therefore, it would be very unfortunate if we had to proceed to a Division now and many Members were obliged to vote for the words proposed by the hon. Baronet which do seem to give some legal sanction to prostitution. I would, therefore, add my voice to the appeal already made to the Home Secretary to let us consider the matter over.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 155.1227
|Division No. 301.]||AYES.||[12.40 a.m.|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Clynes, John R.||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Hill-Wood, Samuel|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Courthope, George Loyd||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.|
|Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Dixon, Charles Harvey||Larmor, Sir J.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Essex, Richard Walter||Lloyd, George Ambrose|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Barnes, George N.||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Barnston, Harry||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Forster, Henry William||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||France, Gerald Ashburner||Lynch, A. A.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, George Abraham||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo. Han. S.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Gilmour, Captain John||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Bird, Alfred||Glanville, Harold James||Mackinder, Halford J.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Goldman, C. S.||Macmaster, Donald|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur C. T. Griffith-||Goldsmith, Frank||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Manfield, Harry|
|Brocklehurst, William R.||Greene, Walter Raymond||Martin, Joseph|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Campion, W. R.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Haddock, George Bahr||Morrell, Philip|
|Carr-Gomm, H W.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hardie, J. Keir||Needham, Christopher Thomas|
|Cator, John||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Helmsley, Viscount||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Outhwaite, R. L.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Smith, Harold (Warrington)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Spear, Sir John Ward||Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Stanier, Beville||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Pollock, Ernest Murray||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Stewart, Gershom||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Sutherland, J. E.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Talbot, Lord Edmund||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Radford, George Heynes||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)||Yate, Col C. E.|
|Rees, Sir J. D.||Touche, George Alexander||Younger, Sir George|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Ronaldshay, Earl of||Waring, Walter|
|Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||W. Guinness and Mr. S. Wilson.|
|Sanders, Robert Arthur||White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Adamson, William||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Dowd, John|
|Armitage, Robert||Hazleton, Richard||Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Higham, John Sharp||O'Shee, James John|
|Barton, W.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Parker, James Halifax|
|Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Bentham, George J.||Hudson, Waiter||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Pointer, Joseph|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Brace, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Burns, Rt. Hen. John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Reddy, Michael|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Keating, Matthew||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Clough, William||Kelly, Edward||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kilbride, Denis||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||King, Joseph||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Crooks, William||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Robinson, Sidney|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Cullinan, John||Leach, Charles||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Doris, William||Lundon, T.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Duffy, William J.||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||McGhee, Richard||Sheehy, David|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Macpherson, James Ian||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Falconer, James||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Tennant, Harold John|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Meagher, Michael||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Furness, Stephen||Millar, James Duncan||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Molloy, Michael||Webb, H.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Muldoon, John||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Munro, Robert||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Nannetti, Joseph||Wiles, Thomas|
|Gulland, John William||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Hackett, John||Norman, Sir Henry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Hancock, J. G.||Nuttall, Harry||Lamb and Sir Charles Henry.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."1228
§ The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 174.1231
|Division No. 302.]||AYES.||[12.50 a.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Baird, John Lawrence||Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Barnes, G. N.|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.||Balcarres, Lord||Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Helmsley, Viscount||Pirie, Duncan Vernon|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel|
|Campion, W. R.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lloyd, G. A.||Scott, Sir S. Marylebone, W.)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Sutherland, John E.|
|Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Waring, Walter|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Mackinder, Halford J.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Forster, Henry William||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gibbs, George Abraham||Martin, Joseph||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Goldman, C. S.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Morrell, Philip||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Greene, Walter Raymond||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Younger, Sir George|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Haddock, George Bahr||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Perkins, Walter Frank||F. Banbury and Mr. W. Guinness.|
|Hardie, J. Keir|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Adamson, William||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Millar, James Duncan|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molloy, Michael|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Muldoon, John|
|Armitage, Robert||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Munro, R.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Gulland, John William||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hackett, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Hancock, J. G.||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Barton, William||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Dowd, John|
|Brace, William||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Higham, John Sharp||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Shee, James John|
|Burn, Colonel C, R.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cator, John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hudson, Walter||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Hughes, S. L.||Pointer, Joseph|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||John, Edward Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Clough, William||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Reddy, Michael|
|Crooks, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cullinan, John||Joyce, Michael||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Keating, Matthew||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Kelly, Edward||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Doris, William||Kilbride, Denis||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Duffy, William J.||King, J.||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Leach, Charles||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Levy, Sir Maurice||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Falconer, James||Lewis, John Herbert||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, Thomas||Sheehy, David|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||McGhee, Richard||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Maclean, Donald||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Stanier, Beville|
|Trance, Gerald Ashburner||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Furness, Stephen||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Tennant, Harold John||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)||Webb, H.||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Toulmin, Sir George||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Wiles, Thomas||Lamb and Mr. Macpherson.|
|Verney, Sir Harry||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered that further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Wednesday).
§ The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.1232
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute before One a.m., Wednesday, 6th November.