said, he saw no reason why they should not begin to punish these crimes as soon as the Bill was passed, instead of allowing them to go, as they would if he accepted the Amendment, unpunished all through the winter. He, therefore, could not accept the hon. and learned Member's proposal.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "procure" to "intent," in line 23, both inclusive, and to insert—

"(3) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or (4) procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel) with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions,"

said, he would propose to amend the Amendment by the omission from Sub-section 3 of the words "for the purpose of prostitution." No right-minded Englishman would allow a woman or girl to be carried away even to become a servant in a brothel.

said, he was not at all disposed to stand by the words which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport proposed to strike out.

said, he thought that the words ought to be retained as a safeguard against the clause imperilling persons to whom it was not right that it should apply.

, in moving to insert in page 1, line 26, after the word "labour," the following new paragraph:—

"Provided, That no person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evi- dence of one witness, unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular,"

said, he thought it would be well, on the whole, if the House accepted the Amendment of the right lion, and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). It applied only to Sub-section 2; but it included not only the doing of certain acts, but the attempt to do them, and the offence therein might be committed in conversation with a woman. It was desirable, therefore, in order to prevent false charges being made, that there should be corroboration. If a person did an overt act the corroboration could always be supplied, and it was the law in Scotland.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General on the point, and hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

said, the Government had considered this matter fully, and they were prepared to accept the Amendment. While adopting every means to punish these offences, they must take care to prevent injustice being done.

said, the charge might be maliciously made by an immoral woman. He would, therefore, suggest that words should be added making it clear that the corroboration had relation to the charge. He should therefore propose to add to it the words "by testimony tending to implicate the accused." The corroboration should certainly be of that character.

said, he thought the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton were rather vague, and suggested that the addition should consist simply of the words "by evidence implicating the accused."

said, he would accept the Amendment of his proposed Amendment as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther).

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that particular point had been very fully discussed in Committee, and the conclusion then arrived at was that it would be dangerous to accept the Amendment. What they must look to primarily was the intent with which the accused person acted.

said, he had now an Amendment to propose in the clause to meet cases which were omitted from the Bill, but which he thought should be included in it. Houses of ill-fame were recruited by the importation into them of young women and servants, who did not know the real character of those places when they went to them. He, therefore, proposed to make it an offence for a person either knowingly to induce any woman or girl to become an inmate of a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, or to induce any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, to enter a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, with intent that she should have unlawful commerce with any person.

said, he thought that the proposed Amendment was either covered by the words "false representation" already in the Bill, or that it went too far. Unless a person induced a woman by some false representation to go to a place that would tend to destroy her character that person ought not to come under the Criminal Law.

, in moving to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "common prostitute" the words "or person of known immoral character," said, that when a girl came to a London railway station the kidnapper did not tell her—"I will find a respectable lodging for you." The kidnapper would be more artful, and would say—"I will find a lodging for you," without saying it was "respectable." It was desirable that when a girl went to a situation or a lodging she should go to it with her eyes open.

said, he had the strongest hope that the Government might see their way to accept this subsection. Many girls, especially servants, were taken to houses not knowing they were brothels. The Amendment endeavoured to put a stop to one of the most frequented avenues of procuration.

said, that several hon. Members professed to know a great deal on the subject; but he should like to know where they obtained their information? The House was handling this matter in a very light-hearted way, and showing great ignorance of law and morals. The words used would apply to persons of either sex; and many of the women it referred to were often capable of acts of kindness towards each other and others of their sex. It might, therefore, be that, while intending an act of kindness to another person, they might be brought within the scope of the clause. He wished to know, therefore, whether the Amendment was intended to prevent a woman of the class of unfortunates from taking to her house, from motives of compassion, a sick girl or woman? No proposal was made in the case of hotels; and it appeared to him that the House was legislating in a sanctimonious, Pharisaical spirit, which it would regret when its legislation came into force.

said, he wished to point out that false accusations could readily be made under the proposed sub-section. If a man took a woman "not a common prostitute or person of known immoral character" to a brothel, although she knew where she was going, she might afterwards, for the purpose of levying black mail upon him, turn round and accuse him of taking her to a place she did not know to be a brothel. He considered that nobody would be safe under the clause, unless a person provided himself with a witness beforehand to prove that he did give the required caution.

said, he was afraid the sub-section might be going too far. It might be made the means of false accusations by turning silence as to the nature of a house into a crime, and such a thing as a penalty on silence was unknown to the law. He thought it would be safer to confine the crime to making some false pretence, such as saying that the place was a respectable and proper one for the woman to enter. In cases where a false pretence was made they could rely on the first part of the clause. They had better content themselves with that, and not go so far as was proposed.

said, he strongly supported the proposed subsection, which he considered reasonable and necessary.

said, he would suggest that the Amendment should be extended to "any other person who is tendered as a witness" with the same requirement of corroboration of such evidence. He contended that the evidence of a child should also be admitted on behalf of the accused person, and had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. The same rule should apply to all parsons giving evidence. It could not be right to admit a class of evidence on the accusation and to reject it when tendered for the defence.

said, that he had opposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General's Amendment in Committee on the ground that it introduced a new principle into English law. But he had had the opportunity of consulting the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the operation of the Scotch law, which admitted such evidence as the Amendment proposed to admit. His right hon. and learned Friend assured him that no difficulty or risk had arisen in consequence of the Scotch law, which was practically the same as that proposed in the Amendment. In those circumstances he would support the Amendment; but he was inclined to think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) was preferable, because, if the evidence of a child was to be taken as against the accused, he saw no reason why, in fairness, a child equally young should not be allowed to be called as a witness for the accused.

said, he also supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He had intended to vote against that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James); and even if it had been carried he should have been prepared to move that it should not apply to Scotland, because it would undoubtedly restrict, rather than extend, the effect of the existing Law of Evidence in that country. He had had for many years practical experience of the working of the system in Scotland; and he was bound to say, as the result of his own experience, that the evidence of young children was a most material and valuable aid in a great number of cases to the ascertainment of the truth; and that, he believed, was the opinion of lawyers in Scotland generally.

said, he thought it would be better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) to withdraw his Amendment, and let the hon. Member for Bedford's Amendment be moved as a substantive one.

said, he should support the original Amendment, and oppose the extension of it suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He could not help thinking that to allow a child other than the complainant to give evidence otherwise than upon oath would be a source of serious danger to the accused.

said, he thought the feeling of hon. Members was rather in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread); and he would withdraw his sub-section in favour of that of his hon. Friend, which, however, he should propose to amend by adding a Proviso at the end.

, in moving to add words at the end of the Amendment to enable the statement of a child of tender years made by her before the committing magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used at the trial, said, the reason that he proposed this further Amendment was that frequently a little child might lose its memory of the facts before the trial came on.

said, he regarded this further Amendment as being most dangerous. In the case of a false charge being brought, it would be most unfair to the accused that the statement should be received without the child being produced and cross-examined. In such a case no man would be safe, and would be at the mercy of any person who chose to coach up a child to give evidence in support of a false charge.

said, he also thought that the Amendment might have very dangerous consequences. In considering the Bill they had to guard as much against conspiracies being brought against innocent men as against the offence sought to be a stop to.

said, he thought that the Amendment should not be rejected without fair consideration. After a few months the facts would fade away from the child's memory like a dream, although, at first, her statement might bear the impress of truthfulness. Of course, it would be necessary that the statement should be corroborated.

said, he had always understood that it was better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should be convicted; and it appeared to him that, if this Amendment were to be carried, the danger of convicting innocent persons would be largely increased. The Scotch law contained no pro vision of this kind.

said, that if he had had any idea that this rider was to be added to it he would have had no hand in framing the clause. He would remind the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) that the examination of the child before the committing magistrate might not take place until months after the charge was brought.

said, he should vote against the whole clause if this fantastic addition were made to it.

, in moving an Amendment to the effect that a witness whose testimony had been received without oath should be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he or she had been sworn, pointed out that an indictment for perjury was the only Court of Appeal open to a man who had been wrongfully convicted of charges of this nature.

said that, as far as he was concerned, he should be glad to see the words added—not that it was desired to punish the child, but in order that the accused should have every opportunity of establishing his innocence. He would, however, prefer to amend the Amendment, so as to make it run as follows:—"Any witness whose evidence has been admitted under this section shall be liable," &c.

, in moving the following Proviso:—

"Provided on the trial of any person whose age does not exceed sixteen years, if it is proved in evidence that he has, through inability to procure better accommodation, habitually slept in the same room with other persons of both sexes, the court before passing sentence shall take such circumstances into consideration,"

said, he perfectly recognized the feelings which, had prompted the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) in making this proposal; but he was sorry to say he could not support the Amendment, and thus make a different law for the rich and for the poor. It appeared to be a shallow and popular idea among many persons out-of-doors that the Bill would chiefly affect the rich and the profligate seducer of the poor man's child; and it was upon that assumption that an agitation had been got up, and much inflammatory language had been used. That was, however, a mistake. It was the poorer and humbler class that would be affected by the Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying that for one case in which a rich man would be affected there would be thousands, and, he might say, tens of thousands, of cases in which the poorer classes would. At the same time, there was no doubt that the evil of overcrowding was the direct cause of many of the results they all deplored. Still, while sympathizing with the important observations of the hon. Member, they could not decide that the Bill should apply to the rich, and not to the poor; that was a distinction which they could not draw, and he saw no means of making any safeguard of the kind suggested. He, therefore, opposed the proposal of the hon. Member, on the ground that its insertion would make a distinction between classes, and this would infallibly ruin the usefulness of the measure. The greater part of the seductions of poor men's children took place in their own homes and in their own neighbourhood, for many of them were brought up without any conception of purity.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed there could be no doubt that the Court would take into consideration circumstances such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke. He should be glad to see it inserted in the Bill, if only as a protest against overcrowding, and as a public acknowledgment that so long as the present conditions continued, under which the working classes as regarded their dwellings existed, immorality must ensue, and such scenes could not be avoided. He thought it would be well to insert the clause, as soma Judges might otherwise not consider the circumstances in mitigation of punishment.

said, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). One of the main causes for the introduction of the Bill was the deep sense of injustice done by rich debauchees to the daughters of the poor.

said, he entirely endorsed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Stoke with reference to the wretched condition of the surroundings in which the children of the poor in London and other large towns were brought up; and he hoped that before many hours were over the House would be able to advance a Bill whose object was to take a small step in the direction of ameliorating this state of things. He also recognized, and it was a matter of surprise to him, in the course of the inquiry held by the Royal Commission into the Housing of the Working Classes, to find the high standard of morality which prevailed among the population of the poorest parts of London. While recognizing that there was a great deal of misery and the existence of certain moral offences peculiar to an overcrowded population, he did not see what could be done in the matter. He had had conversations with the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) on this point, and it was a matter which he himself had considered with great care. They had to consider, however, the manner in which such a clause as this would work. Take the case of a boy brought up by bad parents amid the worst surroundings. He committed a theft; why? Because he had been brought up to look upon the commission of such an offence as an ordinary occurrence, and in carrying out which he committed no infraction of the law. The same consideration held good with regard to offences of violence, and the fact was that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children. They must begin, as well as they could, by improving the education of the children, with the object of bringing about an improvement in their morals. While he would have been anxious to recognize mitigating circumstances in the Bill, he thought it would be better to leave such matters to the Judge. If he thought there were any Judges who would not receive evidence on this point, and would not consider a condition of overcrowding as a circumstance to be weighed in passing sentence, he would not oppose the Amendment. But he had had some experience as to the motives which weighed with the Judges of the land in passing sentences, and he was convinced that they would take into consideration all mitigating circumstances which could be produced in evidence regarding the commission of these offences, and he was therefore convinced that the clause was unnecessary.

, in supporting the Amendment, trusted that the last word had not been heard with regard to this proposal. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Broadhurst) would take a division on his Amendment, and thus enter a protest which might not be without its effect in the administration of the law.

, in supporting the insertion of the Amendment, said, that in the ease referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the young lad was really not responsible at all, as what he did was the result of the evil circumstances in which he was born and in which he lived.

wished to remind hon. Members that the primary object of this Bill was the protection of women and girls, and that the clause now under consideration dealt with the punishment of odious crimes. Parliament was surely not going to stultify itself by withdrawing the protection intended to be given on the ground of the unfavourable conditions under which the perpetrator of the crime might have lived.

said, he felt a certain amount of difficulty in looking at an offence as excusable under any circumstances; but, on the other hand, he recognized that they were taking a step just now for the protection of the daughters of the poor, and he did not wish to shut his eyes to the circumstances under which the poor lived. He was prepared, therefore, to support the Amendment as an addendum to the clause. There could be no doubt that the miserable condition of the housing of the poor was the great cause of this evil; but he must say that the amount of guilt was also very unequal between the rich and the poor in this matter. When a man, fully educated, well instructed, and comfortably brought up, preyed upon little girls of the poor, he considered him an offender of a different character from the men who were indicated in this discussion, and whose offence they were endeavouring to extenuate in some degree by such a clause as this.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that, if adopted, it would, as standing by itself, make the Judges think that the circumstances of it were the only circumstances present to the minds of the Legislature, shutting out all others, and making that the sole case in which the House declared that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the Court, and would tend to disturb the balance of justice as between one class and another; for it would not apply equally to the sons of rich persons who were misled, as well as to the sons of the poor. He thought that in all cases the Judge should take into account whatever mitigating circumstances might arise in the case before him, therefore it was far better left to him.

said, he protested against this clumsy and haphazard mode of reforming the law, which, he maintained, was discreditable to their intelligence.

said, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment.

, in whose name several subsequent Amendments stood on the Paper, said that, after the extraordinary action of the Government in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomasson), with regard to a clause with which it had nothing whatever to do, he (Mr. Warton) would move no further Amendments.

said, he feared that detention in a reformatory might utterly ruin young men who chanced to make a mistake.

said, he objected to the Amendment.

said, that as the Amendment was objected to be had no wish to press it.

, in moving an Amendment to leave out the Proviso, which stated that it should be a sufficient defence if the person charged reasonably believed the girl to have been above the age of 16, said, that by such a Proviso they were legalizing a breach of the law, and giving express encouragement to immorality. It was saying to a person who took his chance of breaking the law or not—"We will protect you in case it should turn out that you have broken the law." There was no instance of such a provision in any other case of the kind where age was a material fact.

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. It would be most dangerous to pass the clause without the Proviso.

said, he was in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon).

(for Mr. MORGAN LLOYD), in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, after "years," to insert—

"Or that the girl at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was a prostitute,"

in opposing the Amendment, said, the ground of the Bill was that the girl was to be protected. The House had raised the age from 13 to 16, and the meaning of that was that a girl of 16 should be protected in the same way as it was before proposed to protect a girl of 13.

supported the Amendment.

said, that the House and the country would understand that, if they inserted the age of 16 in the Bill, not only would girls under that age be prevented from pursuing the trade of prostitution, but they would also be prevented from pursuing other trades. No man who had young sons would ever employ in his house any girl under 16. They ought to understand the bearing and operation of the Bill.

said, he should not regret if the operation of the Bill had the effect indicated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), because he believed that girls were sent into service very much too early.

said, that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to protect young girls who were chaste, and he thought a distinction should be drawn in this connection between prostitutes and chaste girls.

said, that the remark of his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) would apply to the age of 15 as much as to the age of 16. It was not simply because girls between 13 and 16 years of age could not, in every case, protect themselves, that they wanted to do what they were doing today. What they contended was, that it was against the interests of morality, against the interests of society, and against the interests of the State, that juvenile immorality and prostitution should exist. He, and those who thought with him, were prepared in their minds to go a step further, and say that a girl of such years should not be entitled to consent.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that if it was not adopted some provision ought to be inserted in the Bill with the object of clearing the streets of juvenile prostitutes, and sending such girls under the age of 16 to industrial schools or reformatories.

said, he was given to understand by the police authorities that, if the Contagious Diseases Acts were properly worked, there would not be a girl under the age of 16 on the streets.

, in objecting to the Amendment, said that, if adopted, it would have the effect of invalidating the Bill in one of its essential features, by giving a legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, which it was one of the objects of the measure to repress. In that event the Bill would not deal with juvenile prostitution at all. If the evil had been reduced by the Acts referred to, it had been reduced by immoral means; if it were chocked by this clause, it would be cheeked by moral means. Those iniquitous Acts would be repealed by the wave of public opinion, which insisted on dealing with the beginning of the evil rather than with the outcome of it. The law should deprive these children of their means of living, and society should, at the same time, come to their rescue.

said, he must warn the House against striking a serious blow at the objects nearly every hon. Member had in view by passing clauses which, by their very stringency, would make the measure stink in the nostrils of reasonable men. He believed that the danger in the way of rendering legislation of this kind unsuccessful arose from the enacting of too stringent provisions.

said, that the clause, as it stood, would operate unequally in the case of two men committing the same moral offence, if one girl was under age and another not.

urged that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with the main objects of the Bill.

said, that if this Amendment were accepted it would have the effect of giving a kind of legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, and defeat one of the primary purposes of the Bill.

, in opposing the Amendment on the part of the Government, said, it was against the whole policy of the Act. The clause was practically one of the most important in the Bill, and without it it would in many cases be a failure.

said, he would accept the Amendment.

said, he thought the matter ought to be left to the ordinary law. He saw no reason for an exceptional provision of this kind.

supported the Amendment.

, in moving to omit in page 4, line 32, the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice," said, the section related to the power of search; and the object of his Amendment, taken in connection with the next Amendment which stood in his name, was to place the law with regard to search in the case of offences under this Bill on the same footing as in cases of ordinary larceny. As the clause stood at present, the search warrant must be obtained from a Justice who had jurisdiction in the place where the girl or woman was suspected of being detained. If his two Amendments were agreed to, the search warrant might be granted by any Justice whatever.

said, he thought it would be dangerous to confer such a wide jurisdiction upon any Justice of the Peace, and, therefore, opposed the Amendment. It would practically give a Justice of the Peace jurisdiction over the whole of England. Beyond that it involved a considerable change of principle, and with Justices of peculiar views might be productive of considerable inconvenience, by leading to the searching of a great many houses.

said, he was also opposed to such a sweeping alteration of the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. He did not think it would be prudent to give any Justice of the Peace, having peculiar views, the power to issue any number of search warrants to search any number of places.

said, he was of opinion that, judging by a recent case, great delay in the execution of jus- tice might arise unless the proposed power were given. He would call the attention of hon. Members to the case of a woman who had applied to a magistrate the other day for assistance to enable her to regain possession of her step-daughter, alleged to have been spirited away by a "wicked Baronet," and who was informed by the magistrate that he had no jurisdiction. This distribution of jurisdiction was calculated to delay justice.

pointed out that the proposed change in the law was not needed, and could not be effected without breaking down our whole magisterial system. All the magistrates in the Metropolis had jurisdiction throughout the county; but, for convenience, to each was allotted a district.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 20, after the word "police," to insert—

"Who shall he accompanied by the parent, relative, guardian, or other person making the information, if such person so desire, unless the justice shall otherwise direct,"

, in urging the Government to accept the Amendment, said, he thought it would be most useful that someone should accompany the police to identify the person. He was very sorry to hear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart) that they were likely soon to have this question again before them.

said that, as a matter of fact, the police always took some person with them to identify the person sought for, otherwise there would be no use in their going to a house. The addition, therefore, made such a little difference in the actual practice that he had no objection to accept the Amendment. After giving the police enormous powers, discredit should not be thrown on them.

said, he objected very much to this clause, on account of the enormous powers it would give to the police. It would give an Inspector of Police the power to permit another person to break open the doors of any house in London at any hour of the night in order to make a search for some person or other in regard to whom there was a suspicion that something wrong was going on. He was bound to say that it was not desirable to give such a power. As to the difficulty of finding magistrates, he had been in communication with the Chief Magistrate in London since the Bill was in Committee, and it had been arranged that the names and addresses of all the magistrates should be scheduled and published, so that those gentlemen might easily be found when required. Any person desirous of obtaining a warrant would know where to find a magistrate, and would readily secure what he desired. He thought, that would be quite sufficient, without giving these very large powers to the police.

said, that the real grievance which was felt in regard to this subject was that it was much easier to recover stolen goods than it was to recover a stolen child. If hon. Members learned in the law would assure the House that that was not the case, but that it was just as easy to recover a little child seven or eight years of age who happened to have been stolen from her parents as it was to recover a set of silver spoons, undoubtedly a considerable amount of the objection entertained to the clause in its present shape would be met. But, certainly, as it stood in the Bill at the present moment it assumed that form. If a man lost his silver spoons he could get a warrant without the formality of going before a police magistrate, and could get a police officer to go with him and search the promises where the stolen property was supposed to be concealed. But if a man had a little daughter of seven or eight years of age who had been stolen, and was detained for immoral purposes, the parent could do nothing of the kind; and if a magistrate did not happen to be at hand at the moment it would be impos- sible for him to obtain a search warrant, and, in the meantime, the injury might be committed. He thought that it was only right for Parliament to remedy so great a grievance, and with that view he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

also supported the Amendment. He thought the Government were bound to find out some other way to enable a parent, who had a child stolen at night, to get that child restored to him without the delay, and possibly the danger, which might result from being compelled, in the first instance, to obtain a search warrant from a Justice of the Peace. If the Government could point out any other way by which a child so taken away could be restored his objection to the clause, as it stood, would be removed; but if they could not suggest any easier way to secure the recovery of the child, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted by the House as the only means which hon. Members, not connected with the Government, could think of.

denied that there were any greater facilities for recovering stolen goods than there would be to recover a stolen child if the clause, as it now stood, were agreed to without the suggested Amendment. If it could be shown that it was a case of a stolen child, then there was a remedy under the existing law, just the same as in the case of stolen goods. He believed that under the Explosives Act, if circumstances of great emergency could be shown, the assistance of the police could be called in; and certainly, in the case of a stolen child, he could not conceive that there would be any difficulty under the clause as it stood, but that the powers of the police would be just as large as those now possessed in regard to a search where a felony had been committed.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would extend the operation of the clause to cases which the hon. Member could hardly have contemplated. The proposal of the hon. Member went a very great deal further than the speech which the hon. Member had delivered in that House. If it only proposed to give effect to the sentiments I which the hon. Member had addressed to the House, the House would probably have been disposed to entertain it; but the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would certainly make it a criminal offence if a person should on any occasion permit any room in his house to be used for an immoral purpose. If the law were made so stringent that any person who should, on a single occasion, allow an immoral act to take place in his house be rendered amenable to a criminal charge, it would be a change in the law of a most important character. He took it, however, that such places as the hon. Member described in his Amendment would in reality be brothels, because the Amendment extended the operation of the clause to tenants, lessees, or occupiers of premises used for lawful business who might "knowingly permit such premises to be used for such purposes." If they "knowingly permitted" the premises to be used for immoral purposes, he (the Solicitor General) took it that they would be held to be brothels; and, therefore, the kind of places which the hon. Member asked them to include were already included in the Bill, and the introduction of these words would not effect what the hon. Member desired.

said, that it would be in the memory of hon. Members that, when this question was brought before the House in Committee upon the Bill, he was the Mover of the Amendment; and on that occasion there was, of course, as was constantly the case with regard to any attempt to improve the law, a conspiracy between the two Front Benches to defeat the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary went across the floor of the House, and he heard the right hon. Gentleman say—"Of course, you will oppose this." He could not mention the name of the Gentleman to whom the remark was addressed, because it would be against the Rules of the House. He did not know what the legal definition of a place of this kind was, and the House had not been favoured with a definition. They had now to rely upon the assertion of the Solicitor General that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith) was already covered by the provisions contained in the Bill. He (Mr. Rogers) had long distrusted the assurances that were given by Gentlemen learned in the law, and there was nothing which he less trusted than an assurance that a particular Amendment of the existing law was already covered by the existing law itself. If hon. Members would believe the Law Officers of the Crown, there was hardly ever any necessity for making any amendment in the law at all. He took a totally different view of the matter. It would be a very serious thing, for instance, if a man who kept a draper's shop, and made use of a number of rooms in his house for the purpose of letting them to a woman who had the key of the door, and who admitted male visitors—it would be very awkward to charge the owner of the premises with keeping a brothel. He did not believe that anyone would ever attempt, to make such a charge, and yet at present it was said that there were numerous premises of that kind which were made use of in that way. Of course, everybody know what a place was that was generally called a "disorderly house"—one of those places where the churchwardens were called on to interpose in order to prevent immoral practices from being carried on. What they were now dealing with was a much more insidious evil. He had received a letter from a clergyman of great experience and knowledge. The writer said that "this was the most insidious and most mischievous way in which young girls were debauched." The Solicitor General informed them that this kind of mischief was already provided for by the existing law; and although it would be certainly necessary to take a division upon the Amendment, he presumed that those who were in favour of it would be defeated and have to grin and bear the consequences. Upon the heads of Her Majesty's Government those consequences must rest. It was stated that there was a great deal of severity in the Bill; but his opinion was that it contained a great deal more of hypocrisy in the way in which the repressive clauses of the Bill were proposed to be carried out.

said, that if he had followed the hon. and learned Solicitor General rightly, the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, appeared to express sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but thought that in its terms it was too vague and wide. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman also to express an opinion that places where prostitution was habitually carried on might be brought within the clause. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went further, and asserted that such cases were already covered by the existing law, seeing that they would be regarded as brothels. Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) did not feel satisfied that a place of this description would technically be a "brothel" under the existing law; and he thought the case might easily be met if, according to the view of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, instead of making this addition to the clause, they added after the word "brothel" the words "for purposes of habitual prostitution." He thought an Amendment of that kind would answer the purpose which his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) had in view.

said, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in favour of the words suggested by his right hon. Friend, if the Government would accept them.

said, the Government had no objection to the words it was proposed to substitute.

said, he had been somewhat surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General say that the word "brothel" was covered by the words which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) proposed to insert. He held it to be very questionable whether the word "brothel" would, in law, cover premises ostensibly used for another purpose, and actually used for another purpose, although occasionally used for the purpose of allowing immoral practices to be carried on. Notwithstanding the high authority of his hon. and learned Friend, he ventured to doubt whether the word "brothel" would cover, in an Act of Parliament, premises of that kind; and he was afraid that if the case were argued out in Court, the Court might decide that a brothel did not mean premises such as those which were intended to be struck at by the Amendment. At any rate, the question admitted of so much argument, and so much doubt as to whether the word "brothel" was intended to include such premises, and to prohibit them under the existing law, that the words ought to be inserted so as to place the matter beyond all doubt.

said, he did not think there could be any objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). With regard to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), he thought his hon. and learned Friend had omitted to look at the 2nd subsection of the clause in the Bill, which included the tenant, lessee, or occupier of premises used as a brothel, and also any part of such premises. He should have thought that if part of any premises was used for lawful purposes, and another part of the same premises was used as a brothel, the whole of the premises would be covered by the clause.

asked whether the word "lessor" would be sufficient for the purpose? It might be the landlord of the premises without being the lessor. He would suggest that the words should be "lessor or landlord of any premises," and he would move an Amendment to that effect if the Home Secretary had no objection.

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment.

said, it would be necessary to add the same words after the second word "lessor."

pointed out that it would also be necessary to insert, after the word "lets," the words "or let."

said, that this was the only sub-section in the Bill which dealt with the owner. The landlord of any premises, or the agent of such landlord, who knowingly let the premises, or any part of them, for use as a brothel, was to be punished on conviction. What he wished to see was the inclusion of the owner, as well as the landlord and lessor. Experience in London often proved that the greatest delinquent was a person who lived at a distance in a fashionable villa, and conducted the business of a brothel-keeper through another person, who acted as his agent. The Home Secretary would do well, he thought, if he would propose some means by which they would got at the owner; and he would, invite the attention both of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Solicitor General to that point—namely, to what extent did they propose to interfere and punish the owner? They proposed to punish the owner, according to the Amendment of the Home Secretary, if he let his property with a knowledge that the premises, or some part, were or was to be used as a brothel; but he (Mr. Storey) undertook to say that they would never get a conviction in such a case. No owner let his property with a knowledge, such as could be proved, that it was going to be used as a brothel. He would give an illustration of what had really happened in an important town in the North of England. A person occupying the position of Alderman of the borough, and also Justice of the Peace, had a house which was let as a brothel. He let it for a term, but he took good care, through his agent, to collect the rent weekly. The rent commenced at the beginning of the tenancy, and because it was let as a brothel he got twice the amount of rent regularly every other Monday morning which other landlords were able to get for similar property in the same locality. If they had brought that Alderman up, as they ought to have brought him up, before his brother Justices, they would have to prove that he let the premises with the knowledge that such premises were to be used as a brothel. His answer would be—"When I let the premises I did not know they were going to be used as a brothel;" and how much further could the case be carried? He asked the Home Secretary most respectfully, but urgently, to add words which would enable the law to punish such an owner as that. There were already in the Bill, in the 2nd sub-section, the following words referring to the tenant, or lessee, or occupier:—

"If he knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel."

"Or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel."

"Or being the lessor or landlord of any premises, or the agent of such lessor or landlord, lets the same, or any part thereof, with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel, or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel."

intimated that he would accept the Amendment, with a Proviso that the landlord should have power of determining the tenancy.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). The landlord, when he let the premises, might have no opportunity of knowing that it was intended to make use of them as a brothel; but if he afterwards learned that they were so used he ought not to permit it. They could not, however, punish the landlord until he had had the power of determining the tenancy; and an hon. and learned Friend behind him was endeavouring to draw up some words which would meet that point—some words of this kind—

"Knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel after he has had the power of resuming the premises."

said, there would be enormous difficulty in proving what the tenant was. Very often a charge of this nature would fail, and sometimes the person who made it would render himself liable to prosecution.

thought the House had some right to complain that it was asked to treat as a crime a state of circum- stances covered by an Amendment which had not been printed on the Notice Paper. He strongly protested against the continuance of a practice of that kind. He would, however, in this case suggest words which seemed to him to carry out all that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired. The words he would suggest were these—

"Or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel."

asked whether the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) withdrew his Amendment?

said, he should like to know, before the Amendment was withdrawn, what the Government meant? Did they mean to drive out every one of the inhabitants from these places, or what was their policy? Was it their object to provide more decent houses and more decent rooms with the intention of debauching more of the population? He did not understand his hon. Friend to advocate strong measures. He presumed that his hon. Friend had in his eye some disorderly place which was a source of annoyance and inconvenience to the neighbourhood. He wanted to know from the Government what their policy in the matter really was, or whether their anxiety to deal with these questions was pure hypocrisy? Were these wretched people to be driven from pillar to post, and to be hunted out, rendered fugitives, and to have black mail levied upon them wherever they went? Was it proposed to imitate the course which had been pursued in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the authorities had no mercy, but drove all these people out by having recourse to the most extreme measures; sending them out, in all their wickedness and sin, upon their neighbours until they could find, in the course of time, some surreptitious mode of returning back? He did hope hon. Members would bear in mind the nature of the case they were dealing with, and see whether they could not moderate their extraordinary rage for securing an impossible virtue.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of replying to the charge which his hon. and learned Friend had brought against the authorities of Edinburgh, but for an entirely different purpose. He thought the Government might lessen the evil by framing the Amendment in a different way. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired to reach the owner as well as the lessor of the premises; but in very few cases would the owner or lessor allow the premises to be taken as a brothel. As the clause now stood the first two sub-sections were practically the same, and were directed against any person who kept or managed, or acted, or assisted in the management of a brothel, or who, being the tenant, lessor, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permitted such premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel. These two sub-sections were practically taken from the Edinburgh Local Act. But the remainder of the clause was different, and he would explain how they attempted to deal with the owner or lessor. Upon a first conviction, any person against whom such an offence was proved was liable to a money penalty, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour, with an increased pecuniary penalty; or three months on a second or subsequent conviction. Then, in case of a third or subsequent conviction the offender, in addition to the penalty or imprisonment, might be required to enter into recognizances to the amount of £50 that the house should not for six months be used for a similar purpose; and if he failed to find such security power was given to the Local Authority to shut up the house for a period not exceeding six months. In that way they secured a remedy for the undoubted evil which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and were able to get eventually at the owner or lessor, besides providing effectually for the cessation of the nuisance. He suggested to the Government that that was a better way of dealing with the evil than that which was proposed by the Solicitor General.

said, he would like to address a question to Her Majesty's Government. He wished to ask, as the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had asked, what the policy of the Government really was? Was it intended that a house where a woman lived by herself and received visits was to be designated a brothel, and that the owner of that house was to be subjected to the penalties proposed by the clause? He had asked a similar question when the Bill was passing through Committee—namely, why, if they were anxious that all houses called "brothels" should be put down, they were also desirous of closing houses where a prostitute happened to live by herself and received visitors? He was of opinion that houses of that kind ought not to be prosecuted, and ought not to be treated as brothels. He trusted that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would consider that question and give an answer to it. Some explanation would certainly afford satisfaction to those who wished to see the question settled in a satisfactory manner.

intimated that he would accept the words of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and would withdraw his Amendment.

contended that the words proposed by the Solicitor General did not carry the matter one whit further than the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), nor could the landlord be wilfully a party to the use of the premises as a brothel.

asked what was the Question before the House?

said, the Question was to insert the words—

"Or is wilfully a party to the continuous use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a "brothel."

said, that anyone might write a letter to a landlord and say that his premises were being used as a brothel; but he might not become wilfully a party to such use of his premises, because he might not believe the statement which had been made. Therefore, the words suggested would have no effect, and no indictment or punishment would lie. He would suggest these words—

"Or having power to determine the existing tenancy declines to do so after having Become I aware that such premises are used as a brothel."

said, he had purposely made his words less strong than those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he left it to the person prosecuting to prove—

"That the landlord or lessor knowingly permitted the house to be used as a brothel,"

objected to the proposed Amendment, and hoped the Government would adhere to the words they had placed upon the Paper.

asked what would be the effect of the penalty? Would the cases be triable summarily, or by jury?

said, that after the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), he thought the Government would have little difficulty in acceding to another which he (Mr. M'Coan) had placed upon the Paper, the object of which was to provide that the penalty should be increased. They punished the keeper of a brothel who let his upper rooms for a misdemeanour; but he might simply be carrying on a lawful business as an hotel keeper, who happened to let a bed-room to persons who conducted themselves reasonably while on the premises, and yet they scrupled to inflict an adequate punishment on the worst offender of all—the man who lived by this immoral traffic. What did they do to him after having made it a punishable offence to use a room in a coffee-house for immoral purposes? They let off the regular brothel keeper with a penalty of £20. Why, it was only 20 pence or 20 farthings to a man who was carrying on a prosperous business. It was in the discretion of the public to give him two months' imprisonment; but the punishment in the two cases was altogether unequal, and was much less severe upon a brothel-house keeper who employed the whole of his time in the business, than in the case of the coffee-house keeper who quietly lent a room.

remarked, that the Amendment to which the hon. Member was addressing his remarks had been withdrawn.

said, his object in addressing the House was to move that the word "£20," in line 31 of Clause 10, should be omitted in order to substitute "£50."

It is not competent for the hon. Member to move an Amendment which would have the effect of raising the penalty.

said, he was not aware that there was any Rule in existence which precluded him from doing that; but the ruling of the Speaker would dispose of two or three other similar Amendments which he had intended to propose on this clause. [A laugh.] It was not so much a laughing matter as some hon. Members seemed to think. He did not at all see the logic of the clause. They imposed a heavy penalty on the offender who was the least culpable; and they dealt very lightly with the person who employed the whole of his time in this immoral traffic. They merely imposed a twopenny-halfpenny penalty, which was simply ridiculous.

said, there was no Question before the House. It was not competent for the hon. Member to propose an increase of the penalty, or to discuss the propriety of increasing it.

said, that he wished to move an Amendment upon Clause 11.

We have not yet disposed of Clause 10.

said, that in line 33 the punishment was two months' imprisonment. He wished to know if the Government had any special reason for making it two months, because the effect would be to make the Bill practically inoperative?

pointed out that there was no Question before the House.

said, that he had simply asked a Question.

said, he would propose his Amendment in Clause 10, to leave out from "Nothing in this section," inclusive, to the end of the Clause, and insert—

"The enactments for encouraging prosecutions of disorderly houses contained in sections five, six, and seven of the Act passed in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King George the Second, chapter thirty-six, as amended by the enactment contained in section seven of the Act passed in the fifty-eighth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter seventy, shall he deemed to apply to prosecutions under this section, and the said enactments shall, for the purposes of this section, he construed as if the prosecution in such enactments mentioned included summary proceedings under this section as well as a prosecution on indictment."

said, that he had an Amendment which took precedence of the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was proceeding to move it when he was interrupted. His Amendment had been on the Paper when the Bill was in Committee; but he had been accidentally prevented from moving it. He proposed to supply a deficiency which existed in Clause 11.

rose to a point of Order. They had not yet got rid of Clause 10. He had an Amendment upon that clause, which he would move in order to afford an opportunity for discussion. He proposed, in page 5, line 33, to strike out "two," and insert "three," which would increase the term of imprisonment on conviction from "two" to "three" months.