§ 57. Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the London Sessions on 10th July, when a woman giving the name of Queenie Gerald pleaded guilty to charges under the 1474 Criminal Law Amendment Act, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the second division; whether when she was arrested she had in her possession over £200 in gold and notes in a handbag; whether the three girls on whose account she was charged were aged seventeen, seventeen, and eighteen years, respectively; whether the letters and documents seized by the police when the flat was raided showed that Gerald had also been acting as a procuress for rich people staying in London; whether these letters were in Court in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, but only one of the names contained in them was disclosed, whilst the names of the three girl victims had already been made public during the preliminary proceedings connected with the case; and whether, in the interests of the public and the efficient administration of the Act, he will now give the House the names of the men implicated?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThe Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case. It is the fact that money to the amount mentioned was found in the woman's possession, and the ages of the girls whom she employed were as stated in the question. It is true that the documents showed she was keeping an establishment for immoral women frequented by wealthy persons; but there was no evidence whatever that she was guilty of an offence within Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, of procuring any woman or girl not being a common prostitute. The case was conducted by the solicitor to the Metropolitan Police, not by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The letters were in the possession of the prosecution. The name of one man whose letters showed he was acting as an agent for the woman was mentioned by counsel in Court. Other names appeared in a diary kept by Gerald, but these names were not relevant to the case, and there was nothing to show that they were the names of persons who in fact frequented the premises. As the woman pleaded guilty to all the seven counts of the indictment, the facts were not given in evidence in Court; but in any case it would have been an injustice to persons who were possibly innocent to have brought their names into the case, and for the same reason I cannot mention them now.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether the Home Secretary does not consider that 1475 the publication of the names of men who tempt women in this way by offering large sums of money would not act as a deterrent; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the names of certain very prominent men, including those of members of the Cabinet, are being mentioned in the rumours outside?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI certainly was not aware of that. If these men were guilty of any offence, of course they would be prosecuted. That may, in my hon. Friend's opinion, justify the necessity for changing the law, but as the law now stands none of these men whose names appeared in the diary can be proceeded against.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWhy were not the facts of the case, including the names of these men, submitted by the prosecuting counsel, so that the judge might have had the opportunity of weighing up the case in all seriousness before pronouncing judgment?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHAs my hon. Friend knows, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the seven counts of the indictment; under these circumstances no evidence was proffered or permissible. The only thing that counsel did was to make an opening statement, as is always done. The names of the men were not relevant to that particular issue.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDWas it not stated in Court that there was a ledger kept with the amounts opposite the names of each of those who had paid this woman sums of money, and is not that proof enough that they were connected with her sufficient to justify prosecution in each case?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI am advised that the facts and the evidence in this case did not justify prosecution in the sense that prosecution would be successful. As the hon. Member no doubt is aware, the mere fact of a man going to a house of this kind is not in itself a criminal offence.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWere there not letters found from men inviting this woman to procure young girls for immoral purposes, and does not that of itself constitute an offence under the Act?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHWe are advised that nothing that was disclosed in the 1476 letters would make any of the men who wrote them amenable to criminal prosecution.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHow many letters were found? Were they of such a nature as to induce the belief that this woman was acting as a procuress? If so, why was she not charged with being a procuress?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThe Noble Lord knows that there was no charge against this woman at Quarter Sessions under Section 2 of the Act of 1885, and the reason for that is quite well known to him, because the women who were on the premises were common prostitutes or women of known immoral character. Under these circumstances no charge of procuration, as such, was ever brought against her, either in the first instance before the sitting magistrate or in the second instance at Quarter Sessions. The charge upon which she was indicted, to which she pleaded guilty, and on which she was sentenced, was under Section 7 of the Act of 1912.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI do not think I made the question clear. I asked the hon. Gentleman how many letters there were, and whether they were of such a nature as to lead to the belief that this woman was a procuress, and, if so, why she was not charged with being a procuress on the evidence of the letters?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHMy information is that none of the letters would have supported a charge of procuration under Section (2) of the Act of 1885, and for the reason I have already given the Noble Lord.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHow many letters are there?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will call attention to this matter.