HL Deb 28 April 1885 vol 297 cc939-53

Suppression of Prostitution.

On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 8, leave out the words "Suppression of Prostitution" and insert instead thereof the words "Protection of Women and Girls."

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

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,

in moving in the 2nd sub-section of the clause, as an Amendment, to insert the words "under 21 years of age," said, he did so for the reason that it was really impossible to protect people of mature age from the natural results of their own misconduct.

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, the sub-section was necessary in order to protect women and girls from deception. The very fact of procuring implied a certain amount of deception. It was shown in evidence before the Commission which sat on this question some time since that all the girls found in foreign brothels were deceived by false pretences.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that though not wishing to express any strong opinion on the subject, he thought there was a decided distinction between procuring for English and foreign brothels.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he thought that as the Bill aimed at the punishment of all those who endeavoured to procure young women for these purposes there should be no limit of age.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by threats or fraud).

On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 24, leave out ("any") and insert ("himself or any other"); page 2, line 2, leave out ("any") and insert ("himself or any other"); line 7, leave out ("any") and insert ("himself or any other"), and after ("man") insert— ("Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where such woman or girl knew such connexion to be unlawful"); and in line 9, leave out ("any") and insert ("himself or any other.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, that it was very difficult to prove the complete offence; and the most horrible and revolting barbarities were practised on children by wretches who, owing to the existing state of the law, escaped anything like adequate punishment.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 27, after ("labour") insert ("and any one who attempts to commit the said offence, or aids or abets any other person to commit the said offence, shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for any period not exceeding ten years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment, on the ground that it had not been shown that the punishment which an offender could at present be made to suffer was thought insufficient by the administrators of the law.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, he thought that the Bill would be weighted too heavily if the Amendment were agreed to.

LORD BRAMWELL

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would introduce an anomaly into the law. When their Lordships considered the severity of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, which he had been told by governors of gaols was almost more than a man could bear, they would, he hoped, think it enough for the attempt, which they must bear in mind might differ morally from the full offence, because the man might have relented. He believed that with the exception of attempt to murder no mere attempt was a felony.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, he thought the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) was in error. An assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was a felony, also an attempt to commit murder; and he altogether failed to see why an attempt to commit a horrible crime of the nature in question should not be placed in the same category. He felt so strongly on the matter that he would ask their Lordships to divide.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 69: Majority 34.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp. Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.
Carnarvon, E. Hereford, E. Bp.
Dartmouth, E. Lichfield, L. Bp.
Harrowby, E. Llandaff, L. Bp.
Lathom, E. London, L. Bp.
Lucan, E, St. Asaph, L. Bp.
Malmesbury, E. Winchester, L. Bp.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Milltown, E. [Teller.] Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.,]
Nelson, E.
Northesk, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Colchester, L.
Ravensworth, E. de Ros, L.
Ellenborough, L:
Hawarden, V. Gerard, L.
Inchiquin, L.
Lamington, L.
Bath and Wells, L. Bp. Norton, L.
Chichester, E. Bp. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Ely, L. Bp. Ventry, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Calthorpe, L.
Richmond, D. Carlingford, L.
Carrington, L.
Normanby, M. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Northampton, M.
Ripon, M. Coleridge, L.
Salisbury, M. Colville of Culross, L.
Dormer, L.
Camperdown, E. Erskine, L.
Cowper, E. FitzGerald, L.
Derby, E. Hatherton, L.
Ducie, E. Hothfield, L.
Granville, E. Howth, L. (E. Howth.)
Kimberley, E. Lyttelton, L.
Minto, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Morley, E. Monson, L. [Teller.]
Northbrook, E. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Onslow, E.
Redesdale, E. Mount-Temple, L.
Spencer, E. Ormathwaite, L.
Stanhope, E. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Sydney, E. Ribblesdale, L.
Cranbrook, V. Romilly, L.
Eversley, V. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Rowton, L.
Hardinge, V. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Powerscourt, V.
Sherbrooke, V. Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Sidmouth, V. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Aberdare, L. Sudeley, L.
Abinger, L. Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Alcester, L.
Auckland, L. Talbot do Malahide, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Thurlow, L.
Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)
Brabourne, L.
Bramwell, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Braye, L. Wrottesley, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Amendment disagreed, to.

Clause agreed, to.

Clause 5 (Defilement of girl between twelve and fifteen years of age).

LORD NORTON,

in moving an Amendment the object of which was to fix the age of protection at 16, instead of 15 years, said, the Report of the House of Lords Committee, 1882, over which the noble and learned Earl (the late Earl Cairns) presided, recommended that the age below which consent should be no defence should be 16. That noble and learned Earl said in the debate on this Bill in Committee, 1883— In the Select Committee on this subject, the evidence given established a conclusive case of the necessity of raising the ago. He (Earl Cairns), therefore, was in favour of making the age 17, though the majority of the Committee had decided against him, thinking that 16 was sufficient."—(3 Mansard, [280] 1391.) And this was accepted in 1883 and 1884, after discussion in the House of Lords. Why was it proposed in the present Bill to lower the age to 15? There were the following parallel adoptions of the age of 16 in the Statutes and in legal decisions. The 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, s. 55, on offences against the person, made it criminal to abduct a girl up to 16 from her guardians, though consenting. There was a case of a father recovering his daughter, though against her will, by habeas corpus. The 38 & 39 Vict., c. 94, amended this Act by raising the age of protection of girls generally. The Court of Divorce adopted the 16 limit of age, and dealt with the custody of children until 16. The Infants Custody Act, 36 & 37 Vict., enabled the Court of Chancery to give the custody to the mother instead of the father up to 16. The Court of Chancery retained special guardianship up to the age of 16, over which it allowed its wards to choose with whom they would live. Boards of Guardians were legally responsible for the care of girls whom they placed out in service up to 16. Finally, in matters of discretion in minors the law took the same limit. In the Friendly Societies, Industrial and Provident Societies, and Trades Unions Acts, infants up to the ago of 16 were not recognized as capable of being members except of children's societies. It was, therefore, according to the general principle of our law that the discretion of a girl under 16 should not be thought sufficient to permit her the unprotected disposal of herself, A girl might marry at 12; but then the man bound himself to her protection, and in common liability pledged his own interests as much as the girl's. Practically, there were scarcely any marriages under 16. Lord Cairns's Committee reported, in their evidence, that— No such protection is now given in England to girls above 13 as in other countries is given them up to 21. The question now was between raising the age of protection as agreed, in former debates, to 16, or falling back to 15. There was no precedent whatever for the adoption of the age of 15.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 31, to leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("sixteen.")—(The Lord Norton.)

Question proposed, "That ('fifteen ') stand part of the Clause."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. The Government were extremely anxious that the Bill should have the unanimous support of their Lordships; and they hoped, by reducing the age from 16 to 15, that they would be able to get the Bill through without serious opposition. The Government also desired to have the sanction of the public in regard to legislation of this kind, and in that view were anxious to make the measure workmanlike, practical, and effective. It was doubtful whether the age of 16 would meet with unanimous approval, and, therefore, they proposed to take the age of 15. He thought that in making the alteration they were taking a wise and prudent step; but if they went one step further in the direction of the Amendment they would be going too far, and would ruin the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that in the Select Committee which considered this subject he always voted for the age of 16 when the subject was discussed. There was no doubt that public opinion on the subject was in a very divided and uncertain condition; and if they took too violent a step by adopting the higher age, they would run the risk of turning public opinion against them in this matter. To have public opinion on the side of immorality would be a far more serious loss to the community than as any advantage which could be obtained in the other direction. The Government, he thought, had exercised a wise discretion upon the question in limiting the age to 15, and he hoped the House would not assent to the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

said, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division. So far as means existed of ascertaining public opinion, it had been strongly expressed in favour of the Amendment. For many years the House had been receiving Petitions, which prayed that even a higher age than that named by the Amendment might be fixed. If the Government were anxious for the support of public opinion, they would be more likely to obtain it by accepting the Amendment than by adhering to the clause. The House would be stultifying itself to lower the age which, for two years, had been affirmed by divisions, and that without any new reasons having been given for such a change. It was quite an assumption that the opinion of the other House would not be in favour of the higher age. He hoped the higher age would be adhered to as covering a year in the age of girls at which it was exceedingly desirable to protect them from the temptations to which too many were exposed.

LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,

in supporting the Amendment, said, attention had been directed too much to the possibilities of fraudulent accusations against men, and too little to the misery and degradation of girls whose inexperience and weakness required such protection as the law could afford. The opinion of competent witnesses examined by the Select Committee was that 15 was too low an age at which the consent of girls should be considered a justification for their seducers. The question of the age at which a girl ought to be considered to become responsible for the disposal of her own person required much information and consideration. Those who had devoted their lives to the rescue of women from degradation advocated the ages of 16, 17, or 18. It was a deplorable fact, which their Lordships could not ignore, that the main subject of this Bill was a trade. Some wished it to be a free trade, with as little restriction as possible. That was a trade in girls for immoral purposes; and, unfortunately for the victims, it was carried on by women, so that young girls were thrown off their guard by their own sex. Looking at the question from that point of view, the question was at what age the trade in girls should be interfered with. Those who objected to the intervention of law for the protection of young girls from enticements and injury might be reminded that laws had been passed to protect young fish and young birds, on the ground that it was to the advantage of the nation that fishes and birds should be allowed to attain to maturity. For the preservation of the young progeny of salmon, anglers were prohibited from casting a glittering fly concealing a cruel hook at the season when the young fish required protection. Wild birds had legal protection from snares and nets of captors, at seasons when injuries would otherwise be inflicted on the unfledged nestlings. Even on the lower grounds on which this legislation could be defended, it was surely important that society should defend itself against the evil consequences of sacrificing, to those who traded in vice, girls who were undoubtedly too young to protect themselves.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERRURY

said, that the House and the country would thank the Government for their determination to carry a Bill on this subject; but he did not think the House would thank them, and he was sure the country would not thank them, for lowering the age already fixed by their Lordships by large majorities. The dignity of the House was somewhat compromised, seeing that it had declared, once and again, that 16 was the right age. Now, without any pressure being brought to bear upon the House, or any new arguments being used, it was sought to reduce the age to 15. He asked their Lordships, therefore, not to make a retrograde step, but to adhere to their former decisions. He believed that, without any exception, 16 was the earliest age at which the law recognized the right of girls to exercise independent responsibility. A girl under 16 could not marry without parental consent; a ward in Chancery under 16 could not choose with whom she would live; children under 16 could not be made responsible in any decent and suitable matters of life. Was the law, then, to allow a child under that age, who was not held responsible in other affairs of daily life, to be responsible for banding herself over for self-ruin? Consider the difference the lowering of the age would make to a father in the protection of his daughter. A working man missed his daughter from home; he came to know in what house to look for her, and although be could search that house for a stolen article of trifling value, he could not do so to rescue a child who in no other circumstances could act without him. There was no analogy to the case of marriage under 16; because in the case of marriage there was the consent of the parents, who banded over their child to the care of a man who undertook to maintain and protect her. But even such marriages were extremely rare; for when the statistics were examined, it was found there had been only 130 contracted marriages with girls under 16, out of a total of 750,000 marriages. Public opinion had been gauged in this matter, and the House would be acting in agreement with it, if it maintained the age of 16. The conscience of the people bad been roused by recent disclosures on the matter, and they would heartily support that House if it adhered to the higher age.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, be must point out to their Lordships that the Bill was not a Bill for the prevention of illicit intercourse between men and women. It was not even a Bill against seduction. The only principle of the Bill was to deal with cases in which men committed offences which, from the age of the girls, amounted to the commission of what might be termed unnatural crime; and that being so, he was in favour of making the age 15, and was by no means sure that even 14 was not a high enough limit, and that it would not have been wiser to have adopted that age. Girls were frequently married at 16, and although he could not admire the wisdom of a man who married a girl at that age, such a marriage was not viewed with repugnance or as an objectionable proceeding. He would warn their Lordships against making the law too severe, and thought that the adoption of the higher age would tend to bring the law into contempt if a man could be indicted whose offence was that only of having intercourse with a prostitute just short of 16 years of age. The Bill would work injustice, and thereby become unpopular, and it was un- necessary and dangerous to meddle with the law as it stood.

LORD NORTON

said, he earnestly protested against the distinction which the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) attempted to draw between what he thought natural and unnatural in crimes of the kind now under discussion—a distinction unknown to the Statute Book, and entirely in the human breast.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 34: Majority 31.

Amendment disagreed to.

Clause agreed to.

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

On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 30, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall"); line 32, leave out ("guilty of an offence under this Act"); and in line 33, after ("premises") insert ("and have reasonable ground for believing to have been guilty of an offence under this Act.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,

in moving, as an Amendment, that a master or guardian who assaulted a girl under 18 years of ago should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be rendered liable to imprisonment for two years with hard labour, said, abuses of power by masters over female servants were common, and by guardians over wards were not rare. A householder was in a position of trust in respect to a servant girl under 18 who had been committed to his care by her parents. If by means of his authority he ruined her morally he ought to be liable to severe punishment.

Amendment moved, In page 4, line 9, after ("labour") insert ("any person who, being the guardian of a girl under eighteen years, or having the care or charge of her, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, or other person whose lawful commands she is bound to obey, unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful and carnal knowledge of, or indecently assaults 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 under this section to show that such girl had been unchaste previously to the offence charged.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, the Amendment was very wide in terms. It was open to grave objection and liable to abuse, and he could not agree to it.

Amendment disagreed to. Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Power, on indictment for rape, to convict of indecent assault).

On the Motion of The Earl of DAL-HOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 13, after ("indictment") insert ("or of an attempt to commit the same.").

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict, c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28).

On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 2, leave out ("only of one police constable") and insert ("of one witness only.")

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,

in moving the omission of the clause, said, it gave an unlimited and most dangerous power of arbitrary arrest to the police, against both men and women, and would leave them indeed, when walking through the streets of London, at the mercy of the police, for it would allow any policeman who saw a man and woman talking together to arrest one or both of them—the man on the charge of importuning, and the woman of soliciting. Even if the charge was dismissed the mischief done could never be repaired. In the interests, too, of the thousands of work girls, who in a largo place like London were obliged to go long distances to their homes, he protested against rendering them liable to the danger of a charge by a corrupt or malicious policeman. As the law stood at present, if this solicitation took place to the annoyance of the passengers or inhabitants, the offence was criminal. That was amply sufficient, and there was no necessity for this clause. A Proviso was inserted to the effect that no committal should take place on the testimony of one witness only. As the Bill originally stood, it was "on the testimony of one police constable." That had been altered on consequence of his remarks on the second reading; but it meant exactly the same thing. That was a very strange inconsistency, as the clause gave the policeman this arbitrary power of arrest, and yet said that his evidence was not sufficient for a committal—in fact, that he was not to be believed on his oath. He contended that the existing powers of the law were ample, and on these grounds he begged to move the rejection of the clause.

Moved, "To omit the Clause."—(The Earl of Milltown.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he would point out that the clause was recommended by the Select Committee on the subject. The words were, that soliciting prostitution in the streets should be an offence. The present condition of the London streets was a very great, if not the principal, cause of the corruption of the young; and the Bill having for its object the protection of the young, it would be impossible to pass over the question of the condition of the streets.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he would point out that the clause, as it stood, differed materially from the recommendation made by the Committee, because there was the remarkable addition that the men should be liable to arrest as well as the women. He thought they were now discussing the question rather from the point of view of those of their own class—those who had houses. But, as their Lordships doubtless were well aware, there was a large portion of the population who, after their day's work was over, went out to walk in the streets and to meet their friends. They walked in the parks and in the streets, and talked with their friends there; and yet by this clause they proposed to make it, if not not an absolute offence, a serious matter of suspicion, if a man spoke to a woman in the streets. "Was this a condition of things which their Lordships would like to see brought about? He felt that very serious hardships would result to those who now very largely used public places for recreation. Such large powers placed in the hands of the police would enable them to damage this Act in public estimation, as had been done in the case of another measure which had for its object the suppression of immorality—the Contagious Diseases Acts—in which the police had had to do very unpleasant things, and the prejudice against these Acts was that they put it in the power of a policeman to damage the character of an innocent girl; and he was afraid that under this clause the characters of innocent young girls would be subject to the same danger. By such a clause he thought they would really run the risk of a very considerable social danger, that they would inflict a great hardship, and would do no good whatever. If his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) went to a division he should support him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the question was whether a possible miscarriage of justice under this section was at all to be balanced against the benefit of checking the system if they could. The evil which it was proposed to cope with—the condition of the streets of London—was a very serious and grave one, and full of danger to young persons, and it was felt that this state of things was a source of great public mischief. He would point out that the clause provided that there must be more than one witness to justify a conviction; and, as policemen did not go about in couples, it was certain that the second witness would not be a policeman. As to the case of men, only those were liable who in a thoroughfare or other public place habitually and persistently importuned women for an immoral purpose.

EARL COWPER

said, he thought it would be more satisfactory if the matter could have been disposed of by the Committee, and thus the disagreeable discussion, which came before the House year after year, be avoided. But he thought the clause now under consideration would lead to much mischief. In spite of there being more than one witness required, he thought the danger of collusion would be great for the purpose of extorting money, or gratifying any evil design, as in the way of revenge or otherwise. In addition to that, the wording of the clause was too vague, for nothing could be more difficult to define than the words "habitually and persistently importunes." He could not vote for the clause.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he could not understand why two witnesses should be required to prove the strange, vague offence dealt with in the clause, when one witness was sufficient to prove much more serious crimes. That very necessity for having two or more witnesses, in his opinion, condemned the clause, and he should vote against it.

LORD COLERIDGE

said, that the opponents of the clause argued that unfounded accusations of solicitation might be brought against a man; but any other crime might be wrongfully charged against a person in the same way, and, therefore, this argument had no special substance. His only objection to the clause was that it would be very difficult to prove persistent and constant solicitation.

LORD NORTON

said, that the condition of some of the streets of the Metropolis was far more disgraceful, and the offence of solicitation was carried to a greater length in London than in any other capital in Europe. In the case of women, the only change effected in the law by this clause would be that it would be no longer necessary to prove that the solicitation with which a woman was charged caused annoyance to passengers.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, that in his opinion, at least, the proposed change in the law which the clause would bring about might be tried experimentally.

LORD ABERDARE

said, he could not but think that there would be little difficulty about proving the offence of persistent solicitation. Women were now seldom committed for the offence; because it was almost impossible to induce respectable persons to come forward to say that they had been annoyed. It was well known that there were men who habitually solicited young women on their way home from business.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE,

said, he objected to the clause. It was easy to explain the reason why there were more prostitutes on the streets of London than in Continental towns—namely, that immorality was accepted as an inevitable evil and dealt with accordingly; and houses were licensed where men and women met, and by proper regulations health was protected, as well as any indecent exhibitions in the streets prevented. It was most desirable to protect young girls; but it was impossible, in his opinion, to do away with immorality, which was the vain attempt made by the supporters of the Bill.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 45; Not-Contents 34: Majority 11.

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

Remaining clauses agreed, to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 92.)