PART I.

HL Deb 15 May 1884 vol 288 cc395-415

Suppression of Prostitution.

Clause 2 (Procuring a woman to be a common prostitute or to enter a brothel).

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

moved an Amendment so as to limit the penalties for procuring women to leave the United Kingdom for the purpose of leading an immoral life to the case of girls under 21 years of age, so as to assimilate that part of the clause to the former part, which related to the offence of procuring girls to lead an immoral life within the Kingdom. He could not see why protection should be afforded to women over 21.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("girl") insert ("under twenty-one years of age.") — (The Earl of Milltown.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, that the clause, as it stood, was framed upon the recommendation of the Committee which was appointed to consider the whole subject of the Bill, and he saw no reason for accepting the alteration proposed. The clause was in the same form as that in the Bill of last year as it passed the House. It was not the opinion of their Lordships' Committee that there was no occasion for extending the proposed protection to women over 21 years of age.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, that false pretence was the essence of the offence; and, for that reason, it was deemed inexpedient to adopt any limitation of age. It was in evidence before the Committee that women were induced to go abroad under false pretences.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, he proposed to amend the paragraph of the clause which gave the Court power to exclude the public on the hearing of a case by inserting instead of "the public" the words "all minors." He could not see why the community and the accused persons should be deprived of all the security derived from the attendance of the public.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out ("the public") and insert ("all minors.") — (The Earl of Milltown.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

, in opposing the Amendment, said, it was opposed to the recommendation of the Committee of their Lordships' House. He pointed out that the clause gave discretionary power to the Courts to exclude the public. Besides, how were magistrates or Judges to determine who were under 21 years of age?

LORD FITZGERALD

supported the Amendment. The carrying out of the Act would be in the hands of the police. They could trust to the discretion of Judges; but they could not trust to the discretion of all magistrates, to whom they proposed to give power to direct the exclusion of all persons from the Court. He considered there was great danger to the proper administration of justice if they allowed the introduction into the law of the power of excluding the public from Courts of Justice. As an instance, he would refer their Lordships to a case which occurred some years ago, in which a man was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. All the auditors in Court were dissatisfied with, the verdict and the sentence; and such was the force of public opinion that the Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened, and the man was discharged. Was it intended that the proceedings were to be conducted entirely in camerâ and in secret? He protested against the clause, as admitting a principle which endangered the administration of justice, because it proposed to exclude the Press, whose presence and criticism constituted a valuable security that justice would be done. He would suggest that, in order to meet the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie), the Amendment should run that such persons as appeared to the Court to be under 21 might be excluded.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, the question was, whether only minors should be excluded. The Courts had always assumed power to do that. No one was more sensible than himself that there should be full publicity given to the hearing of all cases in Courts of Justice, and of the great advantages resulting therefrom; for nothing had so great an influence upon those who had to administer the law, as the knowledge that what they said and did would be criticized, and criticized with uncommon sharpness on many occasions. Still, no benefit could accrue from the public being admitted to the hearing of those filthy and disgusting cases which sometimes came before Judges and juries. An exception in such cases as those might be fairly allowed without the slightest sacrifice of public good. While quite admitting the value of the principle of publicity, he could not see that the small sacrifice of it suggested by the clause in the Bill would do any harm.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, he wished to point out to their Lordships that the Bill of last year passed through that House in a scramble, several Amendments having even been introduced after the third reading; and he thought that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) should not quote it as a precedent for their proceedings on this occasion.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he differed from the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Longford). He contended that the Bill of last year was very much discussed, and that the clause under consideration had been carefully considered by a very large Select Committee, and that the Members of that Committee were unanimously in favour of it. He agreed with what had been said by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) as to the value of publicity; but thought an exception should be made in disgusting cases.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, he was opposed to the clause as it stood, and therefore cordially supported the Amendment. Without it, the clause would be an infringement of a fundamental principle of English law. Possibly, the Judges might be safely entrusted with the power of clearing their Courts, as they would doubtless act with discretion; but their Lordships must remember that the law would not be worked by Judges only, but by all the magistrates in the country; and the clause under notice would confer on every magistrate in England the power to hear cases in camerâ, and would thus take away the greatest safeguard of English justice. To that he strongly objected. What protection or guarantee would the public have of justice being properly administered, if they were all excluded from the Courts on these occasions? And how would public confidence in these Courts be affected?

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, he was also in favour of the Amendment.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?"

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 91; Not-Contents 58: Majority 33.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp.	Hardwicke, E.
	Jersey, E.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Kimberley, E.
	Morley, E.
	Nelson, E.
Bedford, D.	Northbrook, E.
Westminster, D.	Powis, E.
	Ravensworth, E.
Northampton, M.	Saint Germans, E.
	Shaftesbury, E.
Belmore, E.	Stanhope, E.
Cairns, E.	Sydney, E.
Camperdown, E.	Waldegrave, E.
Carnarvon, E.
Derby, E.	Eversley, V.
Ducie, E.	Exmouth, V.
Granville, E.	Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)
Haddington, E.

Powerscourt, V.	Cottesloe, L.
Sidmouth, V.	Crewe, L.
	Denman, L.
Bangor, L. Bp.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Gerard, L.
Carlisle, L. Bp.	Hammond, L.
Chichester, L. Bp.	Hothfield, L.
Durham, L. Bp.	Howth, L. (E. Howth.)
Exeter, L. Bp.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.
	Lawrence, L.
Hereford, L. Bp.	Leigh, L.
Lichfield, L. Bp.	Lovat, L.
Lincoln, L. Bp.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
London, L. Bp.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Oxford, L. Bp.
Rochester, L. Bp.	Mount-Temple, L.
St. Albans, L. Bp.	Norton, L.
St. Asaph, L. Bp.	North, L.
St. David's, L. Bp.	Penrhyn, L.
Winchester, L. Bp.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Aberdare, L.
Alcester, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Balfour of Burley, L.	Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Bramwell, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Sudeley, L.
	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Carew, L.
Carlingford, L,	Thurlow, L.
Carrington, L. [Teller.]	Tollemache, L.
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)	Truro, L.
	Winmarleigh, L.
Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)	Wrottesley, L.
	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Colchester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Grafton, D.	Calthorpe, L.
Rutland, D.	Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Somerset, D.
	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Bristol, M.
Salisbury, M.	Cloncurry, L.
	Colville of Culross, L.
Ashburnham, E.	de Ros, L.
Bathurst, E.	Dinevor, L.
Cowper, E.	Dorchester, L.
De La Warr, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Denbigh, E.	FitzGerald, L.
Fortescue, E.	Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)
	Houghton, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Inchiquin, L.
Lucan, E.	Kinnaird, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)
Manvers, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Mar and Kellie, E.
Milltown, E. [Teller.]	Lyveden, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntley.)
Redesdale, E.
	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Gough, V.
Hardinge, V.	Poltimore, L.
Hawarden, V.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Hood, V.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Saltoun, L.
	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Sherbrooke, V.
	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Brabourne, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.	Templemore, L.
Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)	Teynham, L.
	Tweedmouth, L.
Stratheden and Campbell, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Amendment disagreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by fraud).

On the Motion of The Lord BRAMWELL, the following Amendment made:— In page 1, line 27, leave out from ("who") to end of page, and insert — (1.) By throats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to hare unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any man; (2.) By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, procures any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any man: Provided that this subsection shall not apply where such woman or girl knew such connexion to be unlawful; (3.)By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, endeavours to procure any woman or girl to hare unlawful connexion.

On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 32, insert the following subsection:— Or (4.) induces a girl under the age of twenty-one years, with intent that she shall have unlawful carnal connection with any man, to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel nor being a party to the intent.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

moved an Amendment, to provide that no persons should be convicted of offences under the Act on the uncorroborated evidence of any woman or girl bringing a charge against him. He pointed out that the girl would be particeps criminis; and it would be against the first principles of our law, and highly dangerous, that a man should be liable to a conviction on her unsupported testimony. The provision was similar to that which was enacted when the principals in an action for breach of promise of marriage were made capable witnesses.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 3, after ("labour") insert ("provided always that no person shall be convicted under the provisions of this section by the uncorroborated evidence of any such woman or girl.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that discretion should be left to the Courts in the matter.

LORD BEAMWELL

said, that convictions on uncorroborated evidence would very rarely take place in suck cases; and he thought it was undesirable to establish any absolute rule that more than one witness should be necessary. It would be an anomaly. The rule was the other way—perjury being the only exception.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

proposed the insertion of a new clause, making it a misdemeanour, punishable by imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, to procure the defilement of any girl under 21 years of ago, whether there had been criminal knowledge or not.

Moved, after Clause 3, page l, line 31, insert as a new clause (3a.):— Any person who procures, or induces, or endeavours to procure or induce, any girl under the age of twenty-one years to be unlawfully and carnally known by any other person, whether such carnal knowledge takes place or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being-convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as he believed it was in advance of public opinion on the subject.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

said, that public opinion was growing very rapidly.

LORD TRURO

said, he would suggest the appointment of protectresses of girls between 12 and 16 years, who should have power after sunfall to stop these girls in the streets, and to obtain the addresses of their parents.

New Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause 4 (Defilement of girl under twelve years of age).

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

moved an Amendment providing for the extension of the clause to those who aided in or attempted the committing of the offence. He said that the attempt to commit the misdemeanour in the following clause was dealt with in the same way as the offence itself; and there was no reason why this most horrible felony should not be dealt with in the same way, the more so as it was extremely difficult to prove the full offence.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 11, after ("knows") insert | ("or attempts to have, or aids or abets any: other person in having or attempting to have, unlawful carnal knowledge of.") —(The Earl of Milltown.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that it was entirely unnecessary, as the law now provided for such cases.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

moved an Amendment providing that a prisoner convicted of such an assault should be liable to flogging, in addition to a term of imprisonment. Such miscreants dreaded whipping more than any other punishment. As a proof of that, he would refer their Lordships to the salutary effect the punishment had exercised on garotters, and he anticipated a similar result in the present case.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 16, after ("labour") insert ("and the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted may, in addition, adjudge such offender to be privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified in the sentence."—(The Lord Bishop of Rhochester.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, that while he sympathized with the sentiments and with the object of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, and would be very glad to see it inserted in the Bill, he must oppose it, because he believed i that it would endanger the prospects of the measure in "another place," where a large proportion of Members objected to flogging. He thought it would be better that it should be inserted in the House of Commons than by their Lordships. He believed that the diminution of the crime of garotting was not so much due to flogging as to the heavy sentences inflicted by some of the Judges upon such criminals.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he could assure the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the contrary was the fact, and that the dread of receiving a flogging had exercised a strongly deterrent effect upon garotters, since the punishment in question had been applied to such crimes.

LORD ABERDARE

said, that that, diminution, which he fully admitted, had taken place before the alteration in the law permitting flogging for garotting. For instance, the cases of garotting, which occasioned so much alarm, began in July, 1862, and in three months 95 cases occurred. He was appointed Under Secretary of State in the Home Office in November, 1862, and by that time the attacks had ceased, No more genuine cases of garotting occurred from that time up to the passing of the Act. The garotting had been put down by the police breaking up the; gang, and by severe sentences that had been passed on some of those who were convicted. In regard to garotting, the results that were attributed to the passing and operation of the Act had, in fact, been realized before the passing of the Act; and, for himself, having official knowledge of the facts at the time, he I believed there had not been one robbery with violence the less in consequence of the passing of the Act. He advocated flogging in cases in which it could be adopted as an alternative to imprisonment for young offenders; in that respect flogging might be carried much further; but, on this occasion, he opposed the adoption of the punishment.

LORD NORTON

said that, in his belief, the punishment of flogging had had a deterrent effect in respect of other offences, such as shooting at the Queen and wanton injury to works of Art in; public buildings. Punishments must be suited to the motives of offences, and pain and disgrace were, therefore, the fittest cheeks to a morbid itch for notoriety, which was the usual motive for these offences; and similarly suited to check a vile brutality on little girls under 12 years of age.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

, in supporting the Amendment, said, they I had heard no good arguments adduced to show that it should not be adopted into the Bill; and he must be allowed to express his strong disapproval of the reason given by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) for not accepting it. He thought the punishment of flogging was of a character most likely to appeal to the feelings of those persons who were likely to commit these offences.

EARL NELSON

said that, in his opinion, there was a very great probability of the Bill being characterized in the other House as a flogging Bill; and, as one strongly interested in its passing, he desired to avoid doing anything that would prejudice it. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

LORD DENMAN

said, that it would be easy for the House of Commons to remove the clause; and if their Lordships might choose to re-insert it, as several of them had promised to remain from the 15th of July to the end of the Session, they might do so, and insist on its being part of the Bill. He protested against the timid course of withdrawing a clause only because it might be erased in "another place."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he could assure their Lordships that it would affect very seriously the spirit in which the House of Commons set to work to consider the Bill if the provision for flogging were inserted.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he was so anxious to see the Bill pass, that he thought it would be better for the advocates of flogging to get someone to introduce a clause in the House of Commons.

THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

said, that having regard to what had been urged by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and in the interests of the measure itself, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Defilement of girls between twelve and sixteen years of age).

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

said, girls ought not to be treated as responsible for consenting to seduction and ruin so as to exonerate their seducers from legal guilt. The age of 16 did not develop the faculties of discretion, will-force, and knowledge of the world, required to appreciate the dangers to which they were exposed, and the way of escape. Though girls sometimes married at 16, they could not legally do so against the consent of parents. Ought they to be legally entitled to become prostitutes without the consent of parents or guardians?

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 26, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen.") — (The Lord Mount Temple.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, the question had been already dis- cussed, and a majority of their Lordships were in favour of the Bill as it stood. The Bill was of a tentative character, and the Government proposal to raise the present age from 13 to 16 was an experiment which it would be wise not to carry further. If the experiment answered, subsequent legislation might raise the age to 17. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; as, in his opinion, the feeling of the public was scarcely ripe for an extension of the age.

LORD BRAMWELL

said that, in his opinion, even 16 was too high, and he should strenuously oppose its being extended to 17. He would remind their Lordships that girls were occasionally married at 16. The Bill was not one against immorality generally, but against offences which were, in a sense, unnatural.

LORD TRURO

said, he looked upon the suggestion embodied in the Amendment as not in accordance with the experience of undoubted authorities among the clergy, who were most familiar with the lowest and most criminal populations. They had assured him in hundreds of cases solicitation for an improper intercourse came from girls of even so tender an age as 12 years.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he failed to see what was the real object of the Amendment, and he hoped the clause would be allowed to stand as it left the Select Committee.

LORD BALFOUR

said, he agreed with the noble and learned Earl who last spoke. He thought the provision in the Bill was a fair compromise which had been arrived at.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE

said, that although, on a former occasion, a similar Amendment was carried, and he had voted for it, he hoped this proposal would not now be pressed, because the age of 16 had been restored by the Government after careful consideration; and, no doubt, they were better informed than their Lordships on the question.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

said, he was willing that the Amendment should be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 2, insert at end of clause ("Provided that when in case of any charge under this section any girl under the age of sixteen years appears to have solicited an offence under this section, such solicitation shall be deemed to be an offence, and on conviction thereof, the court may require such girl to find securities for good behaviour or sentence her to be sent to a certified home as if she had been convicted in pursuance of section eight of this Act."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 40, leave out from ("conducted ") to end of clause and insert— ("If any person is charged before a justice with any crime under this Act, no further proceeding shall be taken against such person without the consent of the Attorney General or by the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, except such as the justice may think necessary, by remand or otherwise, to secure the safe custody of such person.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour).

On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 13, insert after ("labour") as a separate paragraph:— A justice of the peace, if satisfied by information made before him on oath by any superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, or any parent, relative, or guardian of any such girl, or any other person who in the opinion of the justice is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any such girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect any offence under this section to have been committed in or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of such justice, may grant a warrant under his hand authorising a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, at any time or times within the period named in the warrant, but not exceeding one month from the date thereof, to enter, with such assistance as may be necessary, and if need be by force, and make search in or upon such premises and every part thereof, with a view to the discovery of any offence under this section; and any such superintendent, inspector, or other officer so authorised, may apprehend and bring before two justices, or a police or stipendiary magistrate, any person guilty of an offence under this Act whom, he may find upon such premises, and also any girl in respect of whom such offence is charged; and if the justices or magistrate so think fit, they or he may bind over any such girl to appear as a witness on the trial of any such person.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Abduction of girl under eighteen with intent to have carnal knowledge) agreed to.

LORD NORTON

moved the insertion of a new clause, to provide that the guardian or master of a girl in domestic service or other employment who is guilty of an unlawful assault upon her should, on conviction, be liable to two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour, but that it should be a defence to a charge of the kind to show that the girl had been previously unchaste.

Amendment moved,

In page 3, line 33, insert as new clause: Any person who being the guardian of a girl under the ago of eighteen years, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful and carnal knowledge of such girl, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour: Provided that it shall be a defence to any charge under this section to show that such girl had been unchaste previously to the time of the offence charged."—(The Lord Norton.")

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was not opposed to accepting the clause if the words "or other employment" were omitted, and its operation were confined to cases of guardianship and domestic service, on condition that subsequently a provision against vexatious prosecutions was introduced.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he would suggest that the proposal should be limited to guardians and no other.

LORD FITZGERALD

said, he objected to the clause. It converted immorality into crime, and that was the weakness of the Bill. They never would be able to make mere immorality a crime by Act of Parliament.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

hoped the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would be adopted, confining the operation of the clause to guardians.

THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

asserted that there was no offence more frequent in London than the seduction of young servants by their masters, and he hoped the clause would be pressed.

LORD DENMAN

said, that masters were as responsible for their servants as guardians for their wards; and as to the defence of previous unchastity, a girl might have fallen, trusting to a promise of marriage; but if the master took advantage of her weakness he might entirely destroy her engagement with the man who had seduced her, and ruin her prospects in life.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he would agree to accept the clause modified by the limitation that it should only apply to guardians.

LORD NORTON

said, he would accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl.

Clause amended, by leaving out from ("girl") in line 2 to ("employment") in line 4; and all after ("labour") in line 8.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following new clause, to follow the one just added to the Bill, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. If upon the trial of any indictment for rape the jury shall be satisfied that the defendant is guilty of an indecent assault, but are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the felony charged in such indictment, then and in every such case the jury may acquit the defendant of such felony and find him guilty of an indecent assault, and thereupon such defendant shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for the misdemeanour of indecent assault.

Clause 8 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict. c 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

, in moving an Amendment to substitute the offence of soliciting for loitering in the streets, said, that as the clause transferred the power now residing in the passer-by, but which was seldom exercised, to the police, and as it would give the police great opportunities, if so disposed, and some of them were so disposed, to levy black-mail, he proposed to make the offence more definite.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 40, to leave out ("loiters") and insert ("solicits.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

EARL CAIRNS

said he objected to "solicits" being substituted for "loiters;" and further he was of opinion that the police should have the power either in case of loitering, "or" of importuning. He would divide the Committee on the proposition of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was ready to agree to the retention of the words "and importunes."

On Question, that the word ("loiters") stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 37: Majority 11.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.
	St. David's, L. Bp.
Cairns, E. [Teller.]	Winchester, L. Bp.
Carnarvon, E.
Nelson, E.	Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]
Shaftesbury, E.
	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Bangor, L. Bp.
Chichester, L. Bp.	Denman, L.
Durham, L. Bp.	Mount-Temple, L.
Exeter, L. Bp.	Norton, L.
Hereford, L. Bp.	Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)
Lichfield, L. Bp.
London, L. Bp.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Oxford, L. Bp.
Rochester, L. Bp.	Strathnairn, L.
St. Albans, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Grafton, D.	Hammond, L.
	Howard de Walden, L.
Bristol, M.	Howth, L. (E. Howth.)
	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Bathurst, E.	Leigh, L.
Camperdown, E.	Lovat, L.
Derby, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Granville, E.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Hardwicke, E.
Kimberley, E.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Lucan, E.
Milltown, E.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Morley, E.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Ribblesdale, L.
Redesdale, E.	Sandhurst, L.
Sydney, E.	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Aberdare, L.	Teynham, L.
Bramwell, L.	Ventry, L.
Carlingford, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Carrington, L. [Teller.]
Cloncurry, L.	Wrottesley, L.
FitzGerald, L.

Resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

EARL CAIRNS

said, unless the Government accepted the words "or importunes" in lieu of the words "and importunes" they would make the law a great deal weaker than it was at present, for it was now an offence to loiter. The chief difficulty in the way of conviction was the unwillingness of persons to come forward and say that they had been annoyed. Under the Bill, soliciting was not to be an offence unless it were combined with importuning. That was a retrogressive step. Under the pretence of correcting the existing abuses, he hoped the public would understand that the Government were going to make their streets much worse than they were at present.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

, said, there was one thing the public would understand, and that was, that the remarks of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) must be qualified by the explanation that, in future, the initiative would rest with the police, to whom great power was given with regard to the regulation of the streets in connection with this matter, and it was desirable that the power of the police should be defined as strictly as possible.

EARL NELSON

said, he would suggest that the words following the Amendment just carried "and importunes" should be omitted from the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Government would agree to leave out the words "and importunes" altogether.

Amendment agreed to; words omitted accordingly.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

, in rising to move the first of some Amendments to provide that the clause should be applied to every man who in any thoroughfare or public place habitually or persistently importuned or solicited any woman or girl for an immoral purpose, said, that the Amendments were identical with those which he proposed on the third reading of the Bill last year, and which then obtained 45 votes from the Members of their Lordships' House. Since that time he had seen and heard a great deal on the subject, and he was convinced that, unless the words he suggested were inserted in the clause, very heavy wrongs would be inflicted on poor girls. Their Lordships should consider the state of society and its industrial occupations. Hundreds—indeed, thousands—of women and girls were employed in the factories, workshops, and great houses of business far away from their homes. They returned home at all times of the night—some very late. Their Lordships should recollect that the many relaxations of the Workshops Act, granted by successive Secretaries of State, had greatly increased the mischief. Those employed at restaurants and railway refreshment rooms necessarily so. Their Lordships should hear the statements of these girls; they were beset on issuing from their places of work by vile and designing men, singly or collectively, who were on the watch for them, and who were there for no other purpose than to work their destruction. Many employers stated the same, and added that they gave protection as far as they could. These defenceless girls were fairly safe so long as they could keep together; but when obliged to separate, they were exposed to the most serious annoyance. But now women were to be subjected to far more fearful trouble. The law defining solicitation was to be altered, and the offence was to be determined by the judgment of the police constable. If a woman were seen speaking to a man, or being spoken to by a man, a constable could at once arrest the woman. Thus, a poor, innocent girl — timid, ignorant, defenceless—might be brought into a Court of Justice and ruined for life. Men were perfectly safe and enjoyed absolute impunity. The offenders were numerous and were found in all parts of London, and many of them were well-known to the agencies with which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was connected. He had it on the authority of officers of the London City Mission that they were known and designated as "night walkers," and, frequently, missionaries and others had interfered to save the girls from brutal assaults. His proposition was very simple and very just; it was no more than to place the men on an equality with the women, and to say that any man soliciting habitually or persistently should be subject to the same penalties as these wretched women. He should be met, no doubt, by the old argument that such a provision might be abused; possibly, it might be in some instances; but this evil would be far less than the terrible and frequent abuse of poor defenceless girls. He felt sure he had the sympathies of every woman in England. It must not be forgotten that a large discretion, together with very stringent powers, was given by the Act to the police. Now, he had great respect for that force, and he believed that, as a rule, they carried out their duties very well; but, however admirable a body the police might be, there must, in so large a number, be many who would abuse their power, and in this particular matter he was sorry to say they were sometimes the worst of all. Indeed, he had himself been informed by women that such abuse of power was by no means rare on the part of the police. Unless adequate protection were afforded to women, the greatest abuses would arise, and there would soon be an outcry against the Bill. It was for the reasons he had stated he proposed these additions to the clause.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 41, after ("prostitution,") to insert ("and (2) every man who in any such thoroughfare or public place habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), though they recognized his high intentions in moving it. The eloquent and earnest manner in which he had stated the case had added to their difficulty in refusing it; but they were bound to do so; for, if agreed to, it would be liable to great abuse, for there was nothing to prevent "black-mail" being extensively levied.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

supported the Amendment. Inquiry into the matter would not fail to convince anyone who was unacquainted with the facts concerning it, of the absolute necessity of something being done to correct the evils against which it was directed. If the Government were not satisfied, they should make that inquiry. He would rather run the risk of the annoyance of the clause being abused than see it left out of the Bill.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. He thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not advanced a single valid argument against its adoption. It was impossible, with any show of justice, to deny that protection to virtuous women which was afforded by the Amendment. They were just as much entitled to protection in the public street from men, as men were from women. The cases, in fact, were on "all fours." He hoped the Government would re-consider the Amendment before deciding finally to reject it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he must deny the truth of the assertion of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns). He (the Earl of Kimberley) thought it was quite impossible to say that men and women were in the same position. This was a clause dealing entirely with women who frequented the streets for the sake of gain, and there was no class of men to correspond with that class. But, however that might be, he hoped the Bill would pass. Those who desired that it should not have the slightest chance of passing would vote for the Amendment.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

said, were the women who solicited for gain of food and clothing worse than the men who solicited women for the selfish and cruel gratification of uncontrolled appetite? It might be difficult for a Parliament of men to appreciate the torture of pure women at being hunted through the streets by men who forced upon them infamous proposals. The young women required protection from importunities more than men; they suffered more, and were weaker in resistance.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, he was of opinion that, on its merits, the Amendment should be agreed to. If they wished to act justly as between men and women they were bound to insert it in the Bill.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, he had presented a Petition in favour of the Amendment from the University of Cambridge, signed by Undergraduates of every College, including Cavendish College (the latter being for the education of young farmers) and praying their Lordships to consider that it would be impossible to put down vice unless they dealt with men in the same way as they dealt with women in regard to solicitation. He had also presented a Petition from more than 6,000 young women associated with the Girls' Friendly Society in his own diocese in favour of the change of the law proposed by the Amendment. As far as his own opinion went, he decidedly thought that most of the solicitations came from men. He thought in a Bill of this nature they should deal alike with men and women; and the measure of punishment meted out to the latter should be applied to members of the male sex who importuned or solicited females, be they women or girls, for immoral purposes.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, there would be no real equality in the treatment of the two sexes under the words proposed. In the case of women one special and degraded class, or trade, capable of definition, was dealt with. In the case of men there was no such class, capable of being defined, and they were to legislate against all men, with the vague limitation of such words as "habitually and persistently." He protested against such legislation.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he most strongly protested against the supposition of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President), that the men described in the Amendment were not a degraded class, although they habitually and persistently tried to overthrow the morality and virtue of poor girls going home from their work at night. To his mind such men were the more degraded class of the two.

LORD ABERDARE

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that women ought to be protected from molestation by men in the public streets.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, he also entirely approved of an Amendment which would mark their Lordships' detestation of this offence on the part of debased men. In the opinion of ladies a law to punish women for these offences, but excluding men from its operation, would be most unfair and unjust.

LORD BALFOUR

said, that while he entirely approved of the principle of the Amendment, he would vote against it, on the ground that the Bill would have a better chance of passing if it contained as little debateable matter as possible.

LORD TRURO

said, that he would point out to their Lordships that the Amendment was directed, not against isolated solicitations by men, but against the iniquitous practice of men habitually frequenting railway stations at all hours of the day for the purpose of making the acquaintance of young girls, and effecting their ruin.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 20: Majority 14.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp.	Bangor, L. Bp.
	Chichester, L. Bp.
Cairns, E. [Teller.]	Durham, L. Bp.
Camperdown, E.	Exeter, L. Bp.
Carnarvon, E.	Hereford, L. Bp.
Milltown, E.	Lichfield, L. Bp.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	London, L. Bp.
Nelson, E.	Oxford, L. Bp.
Redesdale, E.	Rochester, L. Bp.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]	St. Albans, L. Bp.
	St. Asaph, L. Bp.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	St. David's, L. Bp.
	Winchester, L. Bp.

Aberdare, L.	Mount-Temple, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)
Denman, L.	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Howth, L. (E. Howth.)
Leigh, L.	Truro, L.
Monteagle of Brandon. L.	Ventry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Grafton, D.	Howard de Walden, L.
	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Derby, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Hardwicke, E.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Balfour of Burley, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Bramwell, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Carlingford, L.
Carrington, L. [Teller.]	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Cloncurry, L.
FitzGerald, L.	Wrottesley, L.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the following-Amendment made:— In page 4, line 6, after ("prostitutes") insert ("and (2) every man who in any such street habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes.")

On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 5, sub-section (2), leave out ("loiters") and insert ("solicits"); and in page 4, lines 8 to 17, leave out sub-section (3).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Certified homes for girls convicted of prostitution.)

On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, Clause left out.

Clause 10 (Prohibition of exclusion from trial, &c. of persons interested), agreed to.