HL Deb 18 June 1894 vol 25 cc1323-9

Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.

*LORD LEIGH moved an Amendment to leave out Clause 6 and insert a clause making Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, apply within the borough of Cambridge in the case of every common prostitute loitering or being in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation. As an old Cambridge man 50 years ago he well remembered the old state of things, when the University proctors had the power of taking up any woman on suspicion and putting her in the Spinning House. The present proposal was a great improvement upon that; but still it was dangerous to give the police power to deal with a woman waiting in the streets as a prostitute, unless she was actually seen to be soliciting. The object of the Amendment was that the police should not have power to take up a woman on suspicion and unless she were seen soliciting. A poor woman going home after her day's work might be merely talking to a friend she had met, and it would be very dangerous to put in the hands of a policeman the power of assuming that she was a common prostitute. He therefore desired to make it compulsory on the police to prove, in arresting a woman, that she was soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.

Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 6, and insert the following Clause:— Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, shall, for the purposes of its application within the borough of Cambridge, be read and have effect as if the following paragraph were therein inserted; (that is to say), Every common prostitute loitering or being in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, he regretted, on behalf of the University of Cambridge, that he was unable to assent to the Amendment. Many of their Lordships were aware of the circumstances under which this Bill had been introduced and had now reached its Third Reading. The University of Cambridge had from very ancient times been invested with very extensive powers of a police character, dealing with vagabonds, prostitutes, and other suspected persons. Those powers had from time to time caused a good deal of conflict between the University and the Municipal Authorities, and, although it was generally admitted that the powers had on the whole been exercised with moderation, it was felt that they were not altogether suited to modern ideas and to modern circumstances. This had led recently to considerable discussion between the University and Municipal Authorities, and the result had been that the compromise embodied in the Bill had been adopted, with the unanimous approval of the Town Council and of a town's meeting. Under the Bill the law for Cambridge would be assimilated to that which had long existed at Oxford, and would be brought much more into assimilation with the ordinary law which prevailed in every other borough in the county. It was quite true that the Oxford Act and the present Bill conferred upon the police and the University authorities powers somewhat in excess of those which were possessed by the police in ordinary boroughs; but it was considered, and generally admitted, that in towns such as Cambridge and Oxford, where a large number of young men resided for a considerable portion of the year for the purposes of education, the University and Municipal Authorities should be armed with somewhat larger powers than were necessary in the case of other towns. The effect of the Amendment would be to make it impossible for either the Univer- sity or Municipal Authorities to arrest any prostitute unless the act of soliciting were actually proved. In the opinion of the University authorities such powers would be insufficient; and if the Amendment were adopted, the whole of the arrangement arrived at, after much trouble and finally so much unanimity between the University and the Municipal Authorities, would come to an end; the clause in the Bill would have to be withdrawn, and the law would remain as it at present stood. It was greatly to be regretted that the solution of an extremely difficult and irritating question should be thus threatened at the last moment. The Bill passed through most of its stages in the House of Commons without any opposition, and the clause which the noble Earl challenged, though its omission was moved in the Report stage, was carried by a considerable majority. A copy had been placed in his hands of a Petition presented by him in 1891, signed by a number of Cambridge ladies, most of whom had taken part in educational work—among others Miss Helen Gladstone, of Newnham College, and other ladies connected with Cambridge institutions—and the petitioners, while fully recognising the necessity of guarding against any undue infringement of liberty, and while advocating the desirability of important changes in the present situation in reference especially to the Vice Chancellor's jurisdiction over disorderly persons, expressed the earnest hope that no special powers of checking immorality in the streets might be lost to the authorities of Cambridge. He therefore hoped that their Lordships would pass the Bill in the form in which it had come from the other House, the only shape, ho was informed, in which it could be accepted by the University authorities.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

desired to say a few words on behalf of the borough of Cambridge. The Corporation spoke quite as strongly as the University as to the necessity of passing the Bill in its present shape. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment suggested that under Clause 6 indiscreet policemen would behave in an unseemly manner, and that a virtuous woman going home from her work would be subjected to insult on the part of the police; but they had already had some experience in this matter. Oxford had had these powers for many years, and the noble Lord had not mentioned any instances in which those powers had been abused. Why, then, should they assume that the police of Cambridge would take a more unscrupulous and a less discriminating view than their brethren at the University and City of Oxford? He hoped that the Bill, which was the result of a compromise, would be passed by their Lordships in its present shape, and that the difficulty, trouble, and annoyance so long caused by the state of the law in Cambridge would be finally removed.

LORD WALSINGHAM

urged the House to reject this Amendment. He desired to protect the rights of women in every way, and to afford them all opportunities of meeting with the opposite sex subject to necessary conditions in the interests of good conduct, decency, and morality; but unless the powers of the clause were given to the police there was grave danger that the streets of Cambridge would become a source of serious scandal and of moral danger to the undergraduates in the University. Special powers were required and had existed since the time of Elizabeth, and there was no reason to suppose that they had erred on the side of undue severity. No doubt a great deal had been made of a few exceptional cases, but they had been due rather to jealousy between the University and the City authorities as to which of them was best fitted to exercise these powers. He trusted that the House would not, by accepting the Amendment, wreck this Bill, which would finally end the long-standing dispute between the two Local Authorities. In the interests of morality at the University the House should pass the Bill as it stood. After all, the powers it conferred were merely those in operation at Oxford. It had been contended that the police in exercising them would err on the side of severity; but if an instance of that kind should occur, it would not be repeated in the face of an outraged public feeling.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

My Lords, I do not think that the difference between the Amendment and the clause in the Bill is so great as appears to be supposed. I desire to explain why, personally, I intend to support the Amendment. I will say at once that I quite assent to the proposition that special legislation in this respect is necessary in University towns. Indeed, that is admitted by the Amendment quite as much as by the clause which stands in the Bill. The question now before the House is very different from that which was before the House of Commons. The Amendment proposed in the House of Commons was to omit the clause altogether and to leave the University and town of Cambridge exactly as any other town under the general law. The present Amendment, however, proposes to substitute one provision for another, and is, therefore, very different from the Amendment proposed in the other House. It cannot be denied that a very considerable feeling of hostility has been aroused in regard to Clause 6 as it now stands in the Bill. I am not going to discuss here the extent of that feeling, but certainly it is proved that this feeling exists to no small extent by the very considerable minority in the other House who voted for leaving out the clause altogether. Therefore, we have to face the undoubted fact that agitation exists, and, by passing the clause without amendment, that agitation will not subside, and endeavours will be made to obtain some modification of, or altogether to remove, the clause from the Statute Book. It is, no doubt, truly said that Clause 6 as it now stands is a compromise between the University and the town; but the proposal now put forward in the Amendment has never been considered either by the University authorities or the Town Council. If the Amendment would equally accomplish the object which both have in view, there is, I think, no reason why it should not be accepted. If it efficiently accomplishes that object, it is no objection to it that in the first instance they put forward a clause somewhat differently framed. The clause as it stands provides that the persons referred to may be dealt with under the Disorderly Persons Act—apprehended and treated accordingly. The Amendment is not limited to a person actually soliciting—indeed, such cases are dealt with under the general clause in the Town Improvements Acts. But the Amendment goes further, and deals as an offender with a person loitering or being in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation. It is not necessary in order to arrest a woman to prove that she actually solicits; the proof that she is there for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation may be arrived at by proper evidence. In order to prove that a woman is a common prostitute there would have to be some evidence that she is a person of that character. That evidence would have to be given, both under the Amendment and under Clause 6 as it stands. If, under the terms of the Amendment, a woman who is known to be a common prostitute were found walking up and down a street for the purposes of prostitution, that would be enough to show the ostensible object without proof of solicitation; and if the Amendment is accepted I do not think it would give the police much less power than would be conferred upon them by Clause 6 in its present form. It may be asked, if the difference between the Amendment and the clause is not great, why I support the Amendment. For this reason: that this Amendment is put forward by those who have strongly opposed the clause as it stands in the Bill; and I believe that if the Amendment is embodied in the Bill, it will cause the opposition and agitation to cease, and will make it far more likely that the measure will be allowed to work to the satisfaction both of the University and the town than would be the case if the clause is retained in a form to which very many are opposed, and the retention of which would probably give rise to efforts hereafter to obtain the removal of the measure from the Statute Book. If mistakes are made under a clause passed in spite of opposition, the result may be that legislation which we all agree to be necessary will be swept away altogether. These are the reasons why, although I should not have been prepared to vote for the total omission of the clause, I now support the Amendment, believing as I do that it is likely, upon the whole, better to secure the object in view.

LORD HALSBURY

My Lords, I confess I am very much at a loss to understand the course taken by the Lord Chancellor. Though I do not agree with him altogether as to the substantial identity of the proposal in the Bill and the Amendment moved, I think with him the difference is very trifling. The natural result of accepting the Amendment will be to wreck the Bill and destroy the compromise which has been agreed to on both sides, and which Clause 6 embodies. My belief is that the authorities will drop the Bill if the agitation is re-opened and the Bill remitted to the House of Commons. The whole matter has been discussed, both in the town of Cambridge and by the University authorities, and the compromise has been arrived at with some difficulty. The Lord Chancellor has said that the distinction between the clause and the Amendment is small. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

With regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said as to the effect upon the Bill, I am not satisfied, if the Amendment were thoroughly understood, the Bill will be wrecked. I have received a letter from a distinguished officer of the University, which indicates to me that the proposed Amendment will confer less power than it is supposed really to give.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

said, that under the special circumstances arising here he could not give a silent vote. They were here dealing not with an ordinary town's Bill, but with a measure affecting a University town. He considered it his duty, as the clause obviously went beyond the general powers of the law, to take some notice of it, and he should support the clause as it now stood, on the ground that it embodied a compromise between the authorities of the University and the town, and that, so far from adding to, it actually mitigated the severity of the law now in force in the University, and more nearly assimilated it to the law in force elsewhere. He would not go into the details of the case, as it had already been fully discussed, but should regret to see the Bill wrecked at its last stage.

On question that the clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 14.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.