§ (1) In Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in Section one 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."
§ (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.
§ (3) 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 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 1594 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.
§ (4) The wife of a person charged with an offence under either 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.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert,
(1) In Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, the word "male" shall be repealed so far as regards paragraph (a) of that Subsection, and in Sub-section (2) of the cited Section the word "male" shall be repealed in both places where it occurs, and in the corresponding enactments of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, similar Amendments shall be made.
Provided that for the purposes of this Section a female person shall not be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution by reason of her receiving from that prostitute money in good faith paid and received only as fair and reasonable rent.
For Sub-section (3) of the above cited Section of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and for the corresponding Sub-section of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, there shall be substituted the following provisions, namely:—
Where—
such person, unless able to satisfy the court to the contrary, shall be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.
- (a) a male person is proved to live with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or
1595 - (b) a person of either sex is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show or give reasonable ground for supposing that that person is aiding, abetting, encouraging, or compelling her prostitution;
I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Annan Bryce). As will be readily seen it is to ensure that women as well as men who live upon the proceeds of the prostitution of others should be amenable to the law. For my own part I think it is self-evident that a woman who descends to this degradation, cruelty, and immorality, ought to be as amenable to the law, and as subject to punishment as a man. I believe the whole sense of the House will be with me.
§ Mr. ANNAN BRYCEI beg to second the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I was unfortunately detained outside the House, and was unable to be here in time to move it. I second it in rather a different form from that in which it has been moved by the hon. Member. I find that it is not necessary to put in the proviso with regard to rent, and I want to make a limitation whereby the unfortunate woman herself, whom the Bill is designed to protect, shall not be penalised. The second paragraph reads that every person "knowingly living in part or in whole upon the earnings of the prostitution of another person," etc. I also make this further Amendment to leave out the latter part, which provides the alternative Sub-section (3) of the Vagrancy Act of 1898. Although I think it would be a desirable thing, it might give rise to some debate, and therefore interfere with the progress of the Bill. I leave that out, and the corresponding Sub-section (3) of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902.
§ Question proposed,
§ (1) In Sub-section (1) of Section one of The Vagrancy Act, 1898, the word "male" shall be repealed so far as regards paragraph (a) of that Sub-section, and in Sub-section (2) of the cited section the word "male" shall be repealed in both places where it occurs, and in 1596 the corresponding enactments of The Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, similar Amendments shall be made.
§ In Sub-section (1) paragraph (a) of above cited Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in the corresponding enactment of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, there shall be inserted after the word "prostitution" the words "of another person."
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)The purpose of this Amendment is that the penalty which is now inflicted upon the male prisoner who knowingly lives upon the proceeds of prostitution, shall also apply to the female.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDNot flogging?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am dealing now with the penalties apart from flogging, which will be dealt with later. The substance of the Amendment is to make it an offence for the female procuress just as it is in the case of the male. It is, of course, common ground that the woman as a procurer is frequently used to decoy the innocent girl. I think it is desirable that it should be treated as an offence in the case of a female as well as a male. My hon. Friend has not moved the first part of his Amendment. In consequence, the first Sub-section of Clause 6 ought not to be struck out, and his Amendment would come as an addition to Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 of the Bill. I would suggest that the first Sub-section of my hon. Friend's Amendment with the verbal alteration which he has made should be accepted upon the sole ground that in a case of this kind when a woman is equally guilty with a man she ought to be subjected to a penalty.
§ Mr. McKENNAAs to the question of flogging we will have something to say later on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]
§ Mr. RAWLINSONHon. Members say "Agreed," but I do not think one Member in ten knows what the hon. Member has moved, and still less what the effect is of what has been moved. Section 1 of the Vagrancy Act of 1898, as it is now, provides:—
Every male person who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution shall be deemed to be a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act of 1824.1597 The Vagrancy Act of 1824, for the first offence, makes the man liable to certain penalties, and for a second offence makes the offender liable to be flogged as frequently and with whatever instrument the Court thinks fit, the Court being the chairman of Quarter Sessions, or the Recorder of a borough. The Amendment proposes after male person to insert "or female," and to insert "every male or female person." To give a concrete example, suppose the mother of the prostitute lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, she, of course, would commit an offence under this Act, and would be liable, on a first offence, to the punishment indicated, and on the second offence to be flogged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am only stating facts. I am not even arguing the case. When you are passing any alteration in the criminal law every Member of the House should understand what he is doing. I am merely stating that as it stands that is the effect of this Amendment. No one on this side of the House could understand what the hon. Member was moving.
§ Mr. LEEI think there is some misunderstanding with regard to this Amendment. I think my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in what he says as to the effect of the Amendment as it stands. I understand a consequential Amendment has been handed in, which would exempt females from any punishment of flogging.
§ Mr. LEEI understand that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] But we must proceed with due caution on that point. I think the subsequent Amendment applies only to Sub-section (3). I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had handed in a consequential Amendment, excepting women from flogging under any circumstances. Assuming that to be so, the main point of the Amendment is desirable, because there is an undoubted risk that if by this Bill we drive this trade out of the hands of male souteneurs, or bullies, it might be taken up by persons of the opposite sex, and they should not be allowed to escape. But without a consequential Amendment excepting women from corporal punishment, the Amendment would be obviously objectionable. I do not think the Amendment later on the Paper applies to this particular point.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODI think there is some little mistake. Offenders can only be flogged under the Vagrancy Act of 1824. That Act, which gives power to flog incorrigible rogues, says "such offender not being a female." Therefore females are already exempted from flogging under the Act of 1824.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONNot under Section 6.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThere is another point on which I should like an explanation. If you refer to a male who lives on the earnings of prostitution it is quite clear whom you want to get at. It is a person who lives on the earnings of another's prostitution. But, if you include females, may it not be held to include a female who is living on the earnings of her own prostitution?
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend has moved the additional words "of another person," which are not on the Paper.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSWe have had a good deal of legislation by reference lately, but I have never seen a case where the draftsman had not taken the trouble to name the enactment he was repealing. Here we have the phrase, "corresponding enactments." I think the hon. Member might alter that, and name the Section and Sub-sections which he proposes to repeal.
§ Sir FREDERICK LOWWould the words "living wholly or in part upon the earnings of prostitution" include a female servant or charwoman living in such a house? A maidservant, for instance, might be employed, no doubt knowing what was going on. Could she be said to be living on the earnings of prostitution, and be amenable to these penalties? I hardly think that the House intends to include such a case in this enactment, but the words seem to me to cover it. Surely there ought to be something in this Section which prevents such an infliction upon a girl who is merely acting as a servant in the house of a prostitute.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat is the Amendment? One hon. Member moves an Amendment, then the hon. Member in whose name it stands seconds it, saying he wants to alter something which is quite different to what he is seconding. It is a most extraordinary proceeding. What is the Amendment? Is it the first paragraph on the Paper ending at line 4?
§ Mr. ANNAN BRYCEWith an addition.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhere is the addition?
§ Mr. BRYCEWith the leave of the House I will give the addition: "Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), of the above cited Section 1 of the Vagrancy Act of 1898, and the corresponding enactments of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902." In Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1902, we desire that there shall be inserted after the word "prostitution," the words "of another person," in order to clear the case of the prostitute herself.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt seems to be a hash culled from the words of the Amendment. So far as I can make out the hon. Member is dealing with a Section in the Vagrancy Act, 1898; that section by reference to the Vagrancy Act of 1824, imposes the penalty of flogging, not as the hon. Member is going to leave out, on the "male," and the natural sequence of leaving out the word "male" is that the "female" will be included. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So that we are imposing flogging on the female. Not, it is said, if the consequential Amendment is carried. Well, that Amendment says, "After the word 'offender,' insert (if a male)." If hon. Members will turn to the Bill they will see that the words that are to be inserted are a long way from Sub-section (1). The Amendment deals not with Sub-section (1) of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, but with the new provision which is to be inserted in paragraph 3. It is absolutely certain that the Amendment of the hon. Member, whatever he may have intended it to mean, will not have the effect that he says it will have. The least the hon. Member can do is to withdraw this confusing Amendment, and give us something which the ordinary Member of the House can understand.
§ Mr. McKENNAI think the real point at issue now is as to whether a female shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence if she acts as a procuress or lives upon the earnings of a prostitute. That is the only point. I think the House is agreed that we do not want to flog a woman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] At any rate, that is as I present the case. Assuming that to be the case, the only question upon which the decision of the House ought to be taken is whether a woman should be guilty of an offence if she knowingly lives upon the earnings of a prostitute. The case that we have in mind is the case of a woman who is a party to the prostitution, and is living 1600 upon the profits of it. If we get a decision upon that point I will undertake in another place to have the matter from the point of view of the law made perfectly clear that a woman guilty of that offence shall not be liable to be flogged, and with that undertaking I hope the House will come to a decision on the point whether a female should be deemed guilty of an offence if she lives upon the earnings of prostitution.
§ Mr. RADFORDWe are in a position which has been described by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) as a fog. We have had an Amendment proposed to the House in terms which are not on the Paper and which not half-a-dozen men in the House know the meaning of. The Amendment has been expounded by the Mover and Seconder of it without giving the slightest glimpse of the object they have in view in introducing it. It has been further expounded by the Home Secretary in a speech which I venture to say has left the House more confused than ever. This is a matter of great gravity. If we are to have this matter settled at all to-day, which I very much doubt, we should have a statement from the Attorney-General, who should give us not-only the actual words of the Amendment, but should also expound to us the law upon the subject and should read to us the Sections it is proposed to amend as well as the Acts which are incorporated by reference. I think until we have had such an exposition from my right hon. and learned Friend it would be criminal levity upon the part of the House of Commons to proceed to vote on this matter.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONMay I make a suggestion. Inasmuch as the Home Secretary thinks it necessary to carry part of this subject to another place, I think he ought to carry the whole there. It is a little unsatisfactory that a penalty-should be created in this House, and an exception to that penalty should be made in another place. Might I suggest that the whole subject should be remitted to another place. I entirely agree that the offence should be created, and I agree that women should not be flogged.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment it shall be considered in another place, and the House will then have an opportunity of deciding hereafter upon the question whether this House agrees or disagrees with it.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned." I think the course suggested is extremely inconvenient, and it is not one which this House ought to take. This is a question of great moment, and one in which hon. Members of this House feel considerable interest. It also excites a vast amount of interest outside. I cannot see on what reasonable grounds it can be urged that we should divest ourselves of the responsibility of coming to a decision on these matters by thrusting it upon another place. The difficulty we are in to-night is not so much one of principle, but it arises because we have not got this Amendment on the Paper. I think we ought to adjourn the Debate, and then the Government can produce to the House the exact form of words desired after they have been considered by the Law Officers of the Crown and other legal Members of this House can also consider them. The House will then be thoroughly well guided, and can arrive at a reasonable decision.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to second the Motion. I will indicate only one difficulty. We have decided that flogging for males should be in the Bill and we want to put in some substituted penalties for the females. We have no opportunity at this short notice of framing our Amendments. I think that probably the majority of the House if they find an extra penalty of flogging for men is imposed would not want the females to escape altogether, but would want some other penalty. I think we ought to have some opportunity of suggesting Amendments. I did it on the Grand Committee. If we give an additional flogging for men I think we should lengthen the imprisonment for women as an additional penalty.
§ Sir FREDERICK LOWI suggest to the House that under these circumstances the Debate should be adjourned. I venture to say that the piecemeal way in which we are dealing with this important piece of legislation is most inconvenient. We are called together here at the last moment of the evening to discuss the most important Amendment in very drastic statutes relating to criminal offences, and I do press upon the Government that to take this important Bill piece by piece in this way at a late hour of the evening is most conducive to unsatisfactory legislation in every way. It is a most inconvenient course to suggest that whenever we get into a difficulty that difficulty should be 1602 referred to another place. Surely it is our duty in formulating legislation to make that legislation ourselves into a satisfactory shape, and simply because we came to an impasse to say that, well, let it be dealt with at the other end of the corridor, is neither consistent with the dignity of the House of Commons nor with our position as legislators.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI venture to think we ought to adjourn. It seems to me, without having the Amendment on the Paper, it is impossible to understand what we are about, but in addition to that there are only a limited number of books on Public General Acts in the House, and there has been an unseemly rush for these volumes during the last half-hour. I happen to have secured one, and I do not think anyone who has not secured the Act of 1898 is able to appreciate exactly what this Amendment means. Under this Act of 1898 you will find that every female person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution is liable—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to argue the merits of the Amendment. The only question now before the House is whether the Debate should be adjourned or not.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI will certainly bow to your ruling, Sir, but I rather wanted to point out it was important Members of this House should have an opportunity of studying the Act which we are now proposing to amend before we proceed to amend it, and it is almost impossible to do that unless we have the whole of the Amendment upon the Paper, and unless we have also Members on the Front Bench able to explain to us exactly what the Amendment effects. I therefore think it is advisable we should adjourn, and that we should bring this matter up at some time of day when it is not only possible to secure a complete and satisfactory debate upon this subject, but also that our Debates may be printed in the Press of the country, so that the people of the country may know exactly what it is their legislators are effecting in Parliament.
§ Mr. McKENNAI recognise fully that the House is placed in a great difficulty by not having this Amendment of my hon. Friend placed upon the Paper in its full and precise form, but I trust the House will not desire to adjourn. I quite agree if the Debate on this Amendment were to be continued now it would be very incon- 1603 venient, and I would, therefore, press upon my hon. Friend that instead of the House adjourning he should withdraw his Amendment, and allow us to go on with the discussion of the Bill.
§ Mr. BRYCEI am extremely reluctant to withdraw this Amendment, and the discussion has, I think, clearly established a general agreement, because hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, as well as on this, consider the principle of the Amendment ought to be accepted. I am very sorry that owing to my not being able to see the Home Secretary until just before the Debate began, the Clause does not appear upon the Paper in the form in which it is being actually moved. I can assure the House that there is really nothing in it. The effect of the Clause is merely to extend to women the provisions which at present apply to men. Still, in order to facilitate the conduct of debate, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether in the event of this Amendment being withdrawn it would be competent to raise it at a subsequent stage? Could we not proceed with Clause 6 and then resume consideration of this important matter?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the Amendment is withdrawn by leave of the House it can be moved subsequently. But the question now before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate.
§ Mr. LYNCHI rise to make a protest against the manner in which we are asked at this hour to pass sub silentio a Clause for the flogging of women. That certainly would have been the effect of passing this Amendment had it not been for the discovery of the hon. Member opposite. There are, perhaps, not half a dozen Members in this House who are aware that this Amendment dealt with a Clause for the flogging of women. A promise on the part of Ministers to deal with this in another place does not absolve them from responsibility. I wish also to protest against this practice of legislation by reference.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
§ Mr. LYNCHI ask the Home Secretary to recognise that the general feeling of the House is in favour of an Adjournment. We desire time to make this as effective as possible, and we want to consider what is the proper solution.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI understood the hon. Member asked your ruling if, supposing the Amendment were now withdrawn, it could be subsequently introduced, and if we could go back to it. I am anxious there should be no misunderstanding.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere was no question put to me about going back.
§ Mr. BARNESI wish to make an appeal to those who are responsible for the Motion for Adjournment to withdraw it. I take the opposite view to the last speaker. It is perfectly true that the House appeared to be anxious for the Adjournment, tout that was due to a misunderstanding. So far, as I can understand the answer of Mr. Speaker to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), that misunderstanding is cleared away. If the Amendment is now withdrawn by the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce), we can proceed with the Clause, and all the Amendments now upon the Paper can be discussed, and at a later stage; Mr. Speaker having left it quite open, we can resume the discussion. [HON. MEMBEES: "No."] We can resume the discussion on an Amendment which is similar, if not in identical terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At the end of the Clause. Let me also point out that it may be found unnecessary to move it at the end of the Clause, because it may be that the points which the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) has in his mind, will be covered by the Amendments on the Paper. I therefore appeal to those responsible for the Motion for Adjournment to give us an opportunity of discussing the Amendments in a straightforward way, in order that we may now get on with business.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI think the House has some reason to complain of the way in which the Bill has been placed before it to-night. The House is placed in an extremely awkward predicament. In the first place there was the question of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce), which, owing to various causes, nobody could understand. The Home Secretary appealed to the House in several different speeches, and the Law Officers of the Crown did not seem to have taken the smallest trouble at all to place the House in cognisance of what was actually before them. We have been asking information of the various legal gentlemen who 1605 seemed to be the only ones to keep their heads in the general proceedings. The House has every right to complain of the situation in which we are placed, and I shall therefore vote for the Adjournment.
§ Sir WILLIAM BYLESI would be very reluctant to delay the Government's business or hinder the passing of a Bill like this, but I feel that the Motion for the Adjournment is one we ought seriously to consider, because I cannot believe that the House is in a mood, or that the hour is opportune, to pass legislation of this kind. The Amendment of the Criminal Law is a very serious matter. It ought to be done with deliberation and with a sense of the gravity of the work upon which we are engaged. I do not think the atmosphere of the House or the hour is appropriate for going on to construct an Act of Parliament which will affect directly the lives and liberties of large numbers of poor people, of whose lives and circumstances many of us are very ignorant. If the Motion goes to a division, I shall be obliged, very reluctantly, to support it.
§ Mr. KINGI should like to appeal to the House either at once to decide to go on with this or to adjourn. I have been unable to communicate with the Home Secretary who appealed to me, who by the way has nothing to do with Dundee, to withdraw the Amendment. I am unable to do so as there are several Members who are opposed to it on principle and they will not allow me to withdraw. I therefore desire that the House should decide one way or the other, and personally if it comes 1606 to a vote I shall support the Government in going on with the Bill.
§ Mr. LEEI think that this is a very serious matter. Probably no one in this House cares more about the fate of the Bill than myself, but I must recognise that the House is obviously not in possession of information which is necessary to enable it to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment, and for that reason I support the Adjournment. I appeal to the hon. Member, who I know is desirous of helping the Bill, if his Amendment appears on the Paper at our next sitting it may be in another form, and that we may not again have the proceedings interrupted owing to the fact that the House is not in possession of information.
§ Mr. McKENNAI recognise that the House is not in a mood to continue the discussion.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (11th November).
§ The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That the House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.