asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Hastings House, Calcutta, is to be demolished; and, if so, will he explain why the home of Warren Hastings cannot be preserved in the real capital of the Empire of which he was the chief founder?

The Secretary of State for India has received no information from the Government of India as to their intentions with regard to Hastings House, but has made inquiries.

Is not a Government with such large liquid balances in a position to maintain the memorial to one of our greatest national heroes? Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to communicate the question to the Secretary of State or to the Under-Secretary in India?

I have told the hon. Member that information is being obtained.

I have the honour to present a petition, signed by 10,600 residents of Bedford, representative of all classes, creeds and parties in the borough, praying that, as Clause 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill, as amended in Committee, would impair the efficient working of the measure, this honourable House will be pleased to reinstate Clause 1 as originally drafted.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I do not think it requires any argument in its support. It simply prevents a young person under sixteen years of age from being committed for trial under this measure if he is willing to be dealt with summarily. There is one exception, namely, when such a person is charged with a person over sixteen years of age. In that case, if the magistrates desired to commit the older person, they could not deal with the youth summarily. In nearly every case I have no doubt a youth would be dealt with summarily, but there might be cases where the bench, I think injudiciously, would send him for trial at the Assizes, and this Clause would prevent that.

I beg to second the Motion.

The objection to this Clause is two-fold. In the first place, there are cases in which a lad ought to be sent for trial; and, in the second place, there are cases where a lad ought to have the right to demand a trial if he wishes it. For these reasons I would ask my hon. Friend not to press a Clause which would be going quite outside the ordinary procedure of the law.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Clause simply applies the ordinary principle that if proceedings have been taken under an existing Act, and subsequently another Act comes into operation, it is unjust to the accused that the new Act should be retrospective and affect the earlier proceedings.

I beg to second the Motion.

I can only say that this Clause was moved in Committee and negatived; but if nobody objects to it, I do not.

I do not think it matters in the least whether the Clause goes in or not, because the Act is to be retrospective. Power is given to any policeman to arrest people if he thinks they hare in former years committed an offence.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I have three new Clauses on the Order Paper, but I do not intend to move all of them. I have placed them there in order to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the fact that there are aspects of this subject that are not covered in this Bill as introduced, nor as it left the Committee. I trust that these new Clauses can possibly be considered by the Government, with a view perhaps to inserting them in another place, or at any rate in future legislation which they take up.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The second of the three Amendments raises one of the most important questions that can be discussed—that is the age of consent. To many people indeed, interested in this subject, it is one of the most important aspects of the whole question. I do not intend to move my Amendment now, but I wish the House very earnestly to consider this fact, that in passing this Bill even in the strong form in which it was introduced, with any strengthening Amendments on Report, they are not dealing with all the aspects of the question. With regard to this special point of the age of consent, I freely admit that it should be well before the public mind and considered in all its bearings. In view of that fact I do not intend to move my Amendment now. I put it on the Paper to call the attention of the House to it, because of the real importance and urgency of this question, and of the very strong feeling and desire that there is in many quarters—especially I believe amongst women, and women public workers—that the Amendment I have suggested here should sooner or later, and sooner if possible, be brought into effect.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

At present the age of consent in this matter is thirteen; I want to raise it to sixteen. It appears to me that the moral defilement which is involved in an indecent assault is just as great as in the case where an actual offence has been committed. I hope the Government will accept this Clause. There is a very strong feeling in the country about it.

I beg to second the Motion.

I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend has said in support of this Clause, and if it were appropriate that the Clause should be considered for the first time on the Report stage, I think he would get a considerable amount of support in the House. But I do not think it would be right at this stage to reopen the whole of the proceedings on the Bill, which was introduced in order to deal with two or three specific points. The Bill was given a Second Reading in the House on that basis, and has been considered on that footing throughout the Committee stage. Consequently to so greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, however desirable it might be, I think ought not to be done. I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

On behalf of the original promoters of the Bill, whilst having great sympathy with the hon. Member in this matter, to try and introduce it at this stage might lead to the recommital of the Bill and its being lost altogether.

Under the circumstances, and being satisfied with what has been said by the Home Secretary and hon. Member whose Bill this is, I do not propose to go to a Division.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." There is unquestionably an urgent need of this change in the law.

On a point of Order. May I suggest that this Clause has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and that it ought to be added upstairs to the Bill dealing with the feeble-minded?

That is hardly a point of Order, but it might perhaps be more convenient to insert the Amendment in the other Bill.

Is not this aspect of the case under the Lunacy Act? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes it is.

The hon. Member had better ask one of the Law Officers.

I will deal with that point as to what the law really is. In Section 5, Sub-section (2), of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the law to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich refers is this:—

Any person who …. unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of any female idiot or imbecile woman, or girl, under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but which prove that the offender knew at the time of the commission of the offence that the woman or girl was an idiot or imbecile—

shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. All the authorities tell us that that is wholly in- adequate. Let me refer the House to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, 1908. In his Memorandum in that Report, Mr. H. D. Greene, K.C., says:—

"There is no definition of 'idiot' or 'imbecile' in the Statute, but the onus is thrown on the prosecution of proving that the offender knew that the female was an 'idiot' or 'imbecile.' Persons whose defective mental condition falls short of whatever these words may mean are not protected. In an Irish Court the words have been interpreted to refer only to persons congenitally weak-minded. If the prosecution fails to prove the offender's knowledge, the charge fails. Experience shows that this onus is often a difficult one to discharge."

On the next page, Mr. Greene says:—

"I hold that these provisions are totally inadequate."

The fact that these are inadequate is demonstrated by other testimony. Dr. Barclay, General Superintendent of Poor Houses, Edinburgh, testifying in the same Report, says:—

"There are women who have had several illegitimate children, and who are of low mental type and facile disposition. I may cite a case where I had recently to examine a woman of this class. She is known to have had ten illegitimate children. She can neither read nor write. She could not tell me, counting on her fingers, how many children she had had. In this same poorhouse, there is a feeble-minded inmate who has had seven illegitimate children. Another illegitimate woman has had ten illegitimate children, her eldest daughter is following in her footsteps, and two of the young children (twins) shows signs of weakness. In another small poor-house, with nineteen female inmates, thirteen were infirm and sick, four were epileptics and three weak-minded; one of the latter has had three illegitimate children, and all the three women are not allowed out as they are sent there for protection. In another small poor-house there are five women. Two sisters, one weak-minded, have three illegitimate children each —one to a near relative. One woman is a deaf and dumb mute of low intelligence and two are infirm. I may mention the case of a woman now in a small poor-house suffering from disease. She has an ungovernable temper, and is destitute of any feelings of modesty.… Another has six children, and has been prosecuted for neglecting and illtreating them. My experience—"

[Hon. Member: "Agreed"]. I want to emphasise this point, to show the urgent need of this particular change—

"leads me to say that the class of women who come to our poorhouses with more than one illegitimate child are generally of feeble mind."

There is abundant testimony along the same lines. If then the present law is wholly inadequate to protect the feeble-minded, what better opportunity, in view of the urgency, could there possibly be of including this Clause in the Bill? It is admitted by all authorities that the need exists, that the evil exists. Now we have an opportunity of amending this Bill, which is a Criminal Law Amendment Bill! The hon. Baronet opposite has suggested that the Mental Deficiency Bill is the proper one on which to move an Amendment such as this. I maintain it is not, and in support of that I quote the Home Secretary, who in a declaration he made yesterday pointed out that the present Mental Deficiency Bill does not cover all the feeble-minded. This new Clause I am moving does cover all. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday the purpose of the Bill, broadly speaking, was that no person should be brought under its operations merely because he or she was feeble-minded. So there are large classes of the feeble-minded outside the scope of that Bill. All the feeble-minded are roped in under this Clause. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept this Clause, and to take this opportunity, which is a better one than on the Mental Deficiency Bill, to make it the law of the land.

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Clause. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Clause with which I have a good deal of sympathy, but it is far more relevant to the Mental Deficiency than on this Bill. The effect of pressing this matter now would only be to delay this Bill. I appeal to my hon. Friend not to delay the consideration of this Bill by raising a problem which is the very one which is being considered just now by the Committee upstairs, and is being discussed at great length there.

I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Clause. We were actually at the last meeting of the Committee upstairs upon the very point, and we shall be also at the next meeting, of feeble-minded women applying for relief when pregnant. Let my hon. Friend withdraw this Clause now and obtain a place on the Committee upstairs and help us with long speeches.

I hope we may hear from the Government that at the Committee on the Mental Deficiency it may be possible to discuss so much of this new Clause as comes within its scope. I am sure it is felt in all quarters of the House that such protection as the Clause affords should be given.

I would point out that this very point is raised in one of the Clauses of the Mental Deficiency Bill. Anyone who looks at the details of the Clause we are now discussing will see they are absolutely unworkable.

I hope my hon. Friend having heard what has been said, and in view of the fact that it is the intention of the Government to push the Mental Deficiency Bill through—

Their present intention—

He will not consider it necessary to press this Clause.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." This Clause makes a slight alteration of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. There is no alteration in principle, but the ground is more fully covered.

I beg to second the Motion.

The new Clause makes a slight alteration, which is, I think, an improvement upon the Section, and we are prepared to accept it.

This Clause only appeared upon the Paper this morning. I have not been able to look up the Section. Very likely the new Clause may be perfectly unobjectionable, but I think it would be better that the Government should read the Section as it stands now and also as it would read with the proposed words inserted.

Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1885 now reads—

"Any person who"—these are the governing words—"procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere—

And my hon. Friend proposes to add the words "or frequents," so that it would read, "with intent that she may become an inmate of or frequents a brothel else-where."

And Sub-section.

Exactly the same change is made there. Sub-section (4) of the same Act says—

"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."

The words "or frequents" comes in after "inmate of."

I think we are taking rather a dangerous course, at very short notice and without fuller consideration, in putting in these words. We are raising again the whole question of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has considered such a case as Durose and Wilson, recently decided. A number of women lived in a block that had many different flats, and it was proved that men were brought to these flats, although there was no evidence that there was more than one woman in each flat. The magistrate held that that was a brothel, and the judges came to the conclusion that they could not hold that he was wrong in so deciding that that was a brothel. Now you are going to make it a criminal offence for a man to procure or attempt to procure any woman to resort to a flat of that sort because there was some woman engaged in prostitution in that block of flats. It seems to me you open the way for charges against a man not contemplated by those who moved this Amendment. I hope a little more consideration will be given to this matter before we agree to amend the Act in this particular way.

I cannot say that I have read the decision to which my hon. Friend has referred, but so far as I can gather from his arguments his point is whether or not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act it is necessary in order to secure his object to insert the words "or frequent." I think it would be held under the Act of 1885 that a woman must take up her abode if she is an inmate, whereas the House desires that the Act should not be confined to those who have an abode at these places, but should also apply to the cases where a woman visits the house regularly and stays, say, for several hours, and so frequents the house. The offence is the same in both cases. This Amendment is not a large one, but it is valuable because it covers a case which undoubtedly the Act of 1885 did not cover.

I would like to ask whether it is not a fact that these words have a much wider application than has been suggested. If you do not add some further definition and insert the words "for immoral purposes," you may incur the risk of such persons as cooks, maids and domestic servants employed for other purposes being prosecuted for frequenting such places.

That shows the difficulty of these new Clauses being brought forward at this particular time. I think, however, that my hon. Friend may rest assured that the words he desires to insert are already in the Bill.

They are not in Sub-section (3)

I think that applies only to cases out of this country. Although I do not particularly object to this Amendment, as the Law Officers are not present I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.

I think the Committee ought to exercise considerable caution before adopting an Amendment like this, because of the extreme difficulty of construing what the words mean. If it said, "to frequent for immoral purposes," or "for purposes of prostitution," the meaning would be clearer, but I am afraid that the words suggested expose the Section to the difficulty which the hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) has pointed out.

I ask leave to withdraw this Clause, and I hope the Government will endeavour in another place to meet the views which have been expressed on this point.

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause. I recognise that my proposal will raise a considerable amount of controversy mainly because the arguments used in support of this Clause have been unscrupulous and misleading and I regret that persons of considerable reputation should have been so careless in the discussion of this Clause. Generally I am against any increase of police power on this subject, because I think the laws at present on the Statute Book are ample to deal with any public difficulty. I have been in close touch on this point with Clergymen, Nonconformist Ministers, Jewish Rabbis, officials of vigilant societies, people engaged in rescue work, and in the service of the State under the various Acts of Parliament dealing with public morality, and they all say that there is an abundance of laws on this subject, and that there is no difficulty whatever upon this question in regard to any absence of power. The present laws are not enforced. The police have powers now, some of which they do not see their way to enforce, and others which they cannot enforce, because they are so badly drawn. I ask the House to pause before adding another Clause to our Statute Book which, in my opinion, will be a dead letter. The Clause, as originally drawn, did not include the specially deputed sergeant within its scope. I understand that some of the promoters of the Bill take up the position that the ordinary constable who is getting something like 27s. 6d. a week, out of which he pays 10s. for rent in the central district, should become a public protector of virtue. [An HON. Member: "Against crime, not virtue."] I wrote a letter, to the "Methodist Times," which some of those hon. Members who interrupt me are readers of, and even contributors, and the footnote put to my letter by the editor, who is a distinguished public servant and a member of the London County Council, stated that my opposition to police regulation of vice was leading me to extremes, and to oppose police protection of virtue. Let us state the facts. I say some of the best advocates' conception of the police constable is that he should be "a protector of virtue." That is their phrase, not mine. I want to ask whether it is reasonable that a man, living on 17s. 6d. per week, after paying his rent, should be the publicly appointed custodian of virtue in an expensive city like London? My answer is that when I desire to put him in that position I shall be prepared to pay him the same salary as I am prepared to pay to ministers of the Gospel and clergymen. I would therefore urge upon the House that if it is sincere in wishing this constable to have this power, its first duty is to increase his wages. There has been no such suggestion. It is a case of piling duties upon the average constable, for which he is not suited. It is a case of asking him to interpret Acts of Parliament which when discussed in this House always lead to confusion. The ordinary constable is asked to do what may be considered to be the noblest of work; he is asked to be an ethical instructor and director. I ask the promoters of the Bill to be honest and straightforward and propose a proper remuneration for the police constable in this country. An Amendment was brought forward in Committee asking for a specially deputed sergeant. Who introduced it? Thanks to the hon. Member for the Montrose Division (Mr. R. Harcourt), the position was put right in this House. The promoters of the Bill, at their hole-and-corner meetings and in their printed documents and circulars, have repeatedly asserted that the Clause had been weakened on this point at the instigation of the hon. Baronet and myself. I am asked by whom we are specially named. In the circular of the Vigilant Society and of the Conjoint Committee, and not a single promoter of the Bill who knew that was not true, and who was responsible for the Amendment came forward to put the position right. Even this last week the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), in an interview in the "Pall Mall Gazette"—I admit a very excellent interview, and with the motives and a great deal of the views of the hon. Member I am in entire accord—when he came to this point said:—

"As already explained by the Home Secretary, the limiting Amendment was accepted by the Home Office, and the promoters of the Bill owing to an insufficient realisation of the facts."

I ask hon. Members: Would they gather from that the hon. Member moved the Amendment himself?

I am not ashamed of it.

I know the hon. Member is not ashamed of it3 but hon. Members came to me and told me I was wrong in suggesting that he moved it; and pointed to his interview. I am not suggesting anything except that in his zeal for the Clause there has been a little carelessness which has led to great difficulty on the part of some of us. I submit the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member, not on the ground put forward by the promoters of the Bill at all. I have in my hand a circular relating to Clause 1 by the Pass the Bill Committee. It seems to be an official circular, and they say:—

"Consideration for the liberty of the subject seems to have been the dominating factor in regard to the Amendment to Clause 1."

The subject was never mentioned. The hon. Member did not bring forward his Amendment in favour of the liberty of the subject at all. It was said he brought it forward at the request of Scotland Yard, who were not prepared to give the ordinary constable these powers. The only quotation the hon. Member gave in support of his Amendment was a conversation he had had with Scotland Yard. Now it is put into the literature of the people in favour of the Bill itself as if it was forced upon the promoters or inserted by the advocates of liberty of the subject. I think it is time that was cleared up. I am sure the hon. Member will put it right in his speech. The Amendment was moved at the beginning of the proceedings. It was a new Amendment on the Paper, and there was no discussion at all after the hon. Member's statement, except a criticism of my own. The only Member of the Committee who criticised this Amendment when it was brought forward, and said he was not satisfied with it, was the only Member who was charged with bringing it in. The Clause therefore was amended by the promoters of the Bill with a view of making the Bill work, and it was not at all forced upon them. I prefer it to be restored to its old position. I am not at all sure on reflection and after seeing what is intended by this specially deputed sergeant that he would not go about trying to make work, and I think the Clause restored to its original position is much weaker and less likely to do any harm. I am perfectly convinced it will never do any good. If hon. Members are really desirous of striking at the international traffic this is not the way. If the people are well known to the police, clearly the ordinary constable is not the man. There are definite ways and existing powers to deal with it. I cannot therefore think for a moment that is the object of this particular Clause and of the giving of these increased powers. I gathered from the hon. Member's recent, interview that he wishes it to have some effect on the domestic traffic. Yes, but the agitation in the country has nearly all centred round the question of stopping these foreigners who come here and decoy girls away. It has been chiefly arousing public feeling against a band of foreigners supposed to be decoying girls away. I have said before that this international traffic with its headquarters in London is a myth. I said that on the Second Reading, and, despite all my inquiries—and I have been aided by a distinguished Member of the Opposition who has not spared a considerable amount of time and expense in trying to ascertain what is going on—I have failed to trace these international headquarters. I admit some came through London, but is this Clause designed to cope with that? Can it cope with that? I do not think so. Why does it come through London? Because London is a shipping centre, and there is no registration. In places like Buenos Ayres the police have all these powers you are trying to give them. The traffic comes from places, and the girls are taken to towns where there are ample police powers, and they are held under supervision. They pass through London because there is no registration here, and they are not asked questions as they would be if they were waiting, say at Hamburg. You can divert what little comes through London, little as compared with the traffic of the world. I admit taking the whole world it is a horrible traffic, but the small amount that comes through London does so for that purpose, and it can be diverted. I am not saying that should not be done. I agree with it. I would not have these villians taking girls about, whether they are here temporarily or permanently. It is because I want that done I am against this Clause. I want some real business done, and this is done to put us off the real thing. Men are supporting this Bill who know inspection will expose them, and they are anxious to draw a red herring across the path. [Hon. Members indicated dissent.] I am not bringing any charge against any Member of the House.

You said "some Members."

Oh, no. I was not in the least thinking of this House. My hon. Friends who are against me on this matter say the phrase I used was "supporters of the Bill." There are men supporting this Bill who are in favour of State regulation of vice, which, of course, means an immoral traffic controlled and guided by the police. That cannot be denied. Members have asked me to support this Bill, and I have found they are in favour of State regulation of vice. Journalists who are in favour of State regulation of vice have asked me to support this Bill; and some of the Committee. This Bill, and particularly this Clause, has not been produced by anyone who stands for the position of Mrs. Josephine Butler. She has never asked for increased powers like this. She has sought to free her sex from the control of the police, and has joined the Personal Eights Association. She has sufficient faith in Christian influence to believe her sex would free itself. I am not going to argue the question of police and State regulation of vice, but hon. Members have asked me what I meant and I have told them. I say there are many supporters of the Bill who support it on the ground that it is taking a long step, in their opinion, towards State regulation. I am against that, and I oppose the Bill because I think it goes in that direction. I would ask hon. Members with regard to this great increase of police powers to pause. I do not urge it as a personal attack on the police. I think we have the finest police force in the world. That is largely owing to the fact that it is under the Home Office and not under the London County Council, whom I would not trust. We have got splendid fellows in the police force, and I want to guard the police against being turned away from their duties to do something they do not understand and against making mistakes. What will be the consequences of this Bill? It will, of course, be a dead-letter. I do not care really whether this Clause goes in or not. I think its effect upon public morality will be nil, especially if you make the Amendment and take out the specially deputed sergeant. When you take that out and restore the Clause as it originally stood, then I think it will be a dead-letter. I can quite understand agitators pressing upon us certain principles, but when we take dictation as to the wording of Clauses from well-meaning people outside, who have never read the Act and who do not understand how Clauses are put in or what effect they have upon other Acts, then I think the House is doing something lowering to its dignity and the dignity of the country. I therefore appeal to the House not to insert a Clause the only effect of which would be to weaken the whole of this House in the eyes of the country. If hon. Members are sincere, I ask them to be logical and to have training colleges. Why send divines to train for their office and not ask them to volunteer for service in the police force? If they are going to take up the work of the Churches which are about to be disestablished, and if they are to become the established Church of the country and look after morality and ethics, then they are entering upon a field which will involve training colleges for these people and will necessitate a request that some of the best men of the country, instead of going into the Army, Navy, and the Church, should be induced to go into the police force. It may be in putting this forward I am putting forward an unpopular view in this House. I fully recognise that, and I thank the House for its consideration, but I am not prepared to be intimidated, like some good Radical Nonconformists, by getting a letter from a curate or like some good Church members when they get a letter from a Nonconformist deacon—I suppose on the principle that you are always afraid of the Devil you do not know. I think we ought to have the courage to stand up for our views, even although they are temporarily unpopular. I hold this point exceedingly sincerely, and I, for one, am not prepared to publicly acknowledge, as I should by passing this Clause, that I have lost all faith in Christianity and all faith in ethical movement and in the blessings of the Gospel of Christ and am going to raise the policeman's baton.

I beg to move to leave out the words, "who is not below the rank of sergeant and is detailed for special duty under this Act by the Commissioners of Metropolitan or City Police, or the chief officer of a borough or county police force."

The history of this is very short. The Bill, as originally introduced, was in the form in which my Amendment would leave it. The promoters with the best intentions, acting on advice from Scotland Yard, agreed to the Clause being altered. That Amendment from Scotland Yard is its present form is rather an absurd one, and, even if amended, would be a highly undesirable one. I am therefore going to press the promoters of the Bill to accept this Amendment. It is not an after thought on my part. I put the Amendment down directly the Bill came out of Committee last July, and for some time I had the privilege of being the only Member to give notice of it. Then I was supported by $he hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree), and after that considerable pressure was brought to bear from outside the House and there was a complete rush of hon. Members anxious to put their names below mine. I am not appealing to the promoters to alter their view, which I am sure was an honest view, as expressed in Committee, or suggesting that they altered their views owing to pressure or to people writing to them saying that they would not vote for them. I am perfectly certain that the promoters would not alter their view through action of that kind. It is the last thing I should think of them as doing. I ask the promoters to look calmly at this question, and if they are satisfied that the original form of the Bill is best, simply to treat all thought of outside pressure as outside this question altogether, and to come to the conclusion, after having weighed both sides of the case, that my Amendment is the best. Under my Amendment the power to arrest will be given to all the police. I submit that will be a much better system than a system under which special constables are detailed for this special duty. Those who fear the operation of this Clause have frequently said it might lead to blackmail and such things as we hear of as happening in America. If that were so, the liability to that sort of thing is fifty times greater if you depute this great power to a few picked men, who are continually working among the people engaged in this particular class of traffic. That is so far as London is concerned.

So far as the country is concerned, the Clause, as it stands, is grotesque. In a county or borough like Cambridge, the chief constable is the sole person who can depute anybody to make an arrest. I believe that if you take a strict view of the Clause he could not even depute anybody to make an arrest. If you want to arrest anybody on the Cambridge station, by the time the chief constable had telephoned to the sergeant, and he had got to the station, the person to be arrested might be many miles away, so that the Clause would be a perfect farce. Therefore I am anxious that the power should be given, not to a specially detailed constable, but to the police force at large. The effect of the Clause has been greatly exaggerated, not by Members of the House, but by people outside. I am really sorry for the people of education who have written to me such letters as they have in reference to the Clause. You would really think that the Clause was an enormously important Clause. I have circulars from Vigilance Societies pointing out that the majority of these cases can be perfectly well dealt with at the present moment. A very good instance was given to me where information was received on Thursday morning that a criminal was taking away a young woman on Thursday evening, and he got away. If they got the information on Thursday it was the duty of the society to swear an information before a magistrate in proper form and then to have gone to the station with the warrant, which would then have been effective. There are many cases which can be dealt with under the present law, but at the same time there may be certain cases where speedy arrest is necessary, and for that reason I am anxious that the Clause should go through in the larger form. The police already have powers of arrest in many cases of felony, and have, as a general rule, exercised discretion. Mistakes may occur now and again, but the worse that can happen is that the arrested person is taken to the police station, where he can explain the position. I am bound to add, against myself, that I do not know of any particular case where that Clause would have been of use if it had existed before. I remember a story of a well-meaning lady friend of mine, who was travelling from Ireland to London with an Irish girl, who obviously came from the country. It seemed, although my friend did not know it, that the girl had been carefully coached before she left Ireland. My friend made friends with the girl and offered to put her up for the evening. The girl kept quiet until they reached the station, when she fled as fast as her legs could carry her. Probably if this Bill had been in operation she would have gone to the nearest police constable and given my friend in charge. I agree that no particular harm would have been done, because the policeman would have realised at once that a mistake had been made. I ask the House to deal with this question in a broad way, and not to take an exaggerated view, and to give the police powers they are capable of exercising whenever they have reason to suppose that an offence is likely to be committed.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the House will feel that some explanation is due from me with regard to this particular Amendment. I am quite willing to take upon my own shoulders any blame that may be necessary for the Amendment that was passed in Committee upstairs. I think the circumstances are now fairly familiar to the House. It only shows that it is always unwise to attempt to make a hurried compromise on the subject of an Amendment without sufficient consideration. The Amendment did not represent any deliberate view on the part of the promoters. We became conscious, when the Committee met, that there was a good deal of apprehension, and possibly alarm, with regard to the effect of this Clause in its widest form. We were very anxious to meet it, if possible, without detriment to the Bill, and, as a result of a hurried consultation upon the point with a representative of Scotland Yard and a representative of the Home Office, we were informed that the words which we agreed to have inserted, and which I myself moved, would not really in any way hamper the police. I admit that in taking that action we only had in mind for the moment the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police are in a very different category from any other police force in the United Kingdom, and they have a large Criminal Investigation Department which deals with this particular class of offence. In the case of the Metropolitan Police, I do not think that the words as they now stand would make any material difference. But I admit freely that in receiving that opinion from Scotland Yard neither they nor we took into consideration the different position of the police forces in the provinces and country districts. We now know quite plainly that the words as they stand would not be sufficient to cover the case of the provincial and county police. For that reason the original promoters of the Bill support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. Metaphorically speaking, I stand here in a white sheet, to express my regret that owing to insufficient consideration we did agree to the original Amendment.

There is one other thing I wish to say in regard to what my hon. and learned Friend has put forward. No one will deny that in all cases of arrest by anybody, however experienced, there is a risk that a mistake may occasionally be made. The best answer to that is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission which investigated this and kindred questions in 1906. A table attached to that Report shows that there were 378,000 arrests made by the Metropolitan Police in the three previous years, and out of that number, although every opportunity was given for any person aggrieved to bring his case to the notice of the Commission, only twelve complaints in all were made, and of these only three had any vestige of justification. Even if there is a slight risk this is a class of case in which the police themselves will be very careful not to make a mistake, and it must be remembered that if this Amendment is accepted it is not to be supposed that the last joined young constable, without any experience at all, is going to be turned loose by his superior officers with full powers to exercise arrests on every possible occasion. All inexperienced police are restrained to a certain extent by administrative orders till they have proved their capacity, and the more I have thought of it the more I have seen that it is impossible to lay down any logical dividing line between the wise constable and the foolish constable, and certainly length of service or rank will not necessarily make that line clear. I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that the Amendment should be accepted, because when these cases occur for interference on the part of the police it is essential that the nearest constable should be capable of being appealed to in case of need. The House recognises that the object of this Bill is not merely to arrest an offender and to lead to his punishment, but to save his victim before it is too late. That is really the thing which you are aiming at, and even if there is an infinitesimal risk, in some extreme case, of an innocent person being wrongly accused, that is a risk which we ought to be prepared to run.

I supported the Amendment which eliminated these words from the Bill in the Grand Committee because it was moved by the hon. Gentle- man (Mr. Lee), for whose efforts in this cause I, for one, have great respect, because it was supported by the Home Office, and also because I thought it was a sensible Amendment, and it is just because I still have that opinion that I hesitate at this moment what to do upon this Amendment. But I will not vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson), because the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) has appeared in a white sheet, and I understand my right hon. Friend assents to the elimination of these words. But I will just mention why I thought it was better that these words should be in. I do not like power to arrest without warrant in any case at all. I think it ought to be most sparingly used. In this case, however, the House is asked to give power to an officer to arrest without warrant, and also to arrest solely on suspicion, not because a man has committed an offence, but because a certain police officer thinks he is going to or has attempted to. I cannot forget that many ordinary police officers are men of very little experience. They may even have enlisted a week previously. They are probably drawing about 25s. a week, and they are asked to arrest men who, on the hypothesis on which this Bill has been framed, have their pockets bulging with gold, and who will be tempted, at any rate, to offer to these policemen a sovereign or two to say nothing about it. It was on these grounds that I thought it was a wise provision that only constables specially detailed for the duty, or constables of some rank and experience, should be entrusted with these wide powers. I still have a good deal of that feeling, but I will not vote against the Amendment.

I think the House ought to be very careful lest, in their extreme anxiety to deal with an odious crime, they should at all weaken that security for public liberty which it has always been the aim of the House of Commons to vindicate and maintain. I therefore feel impelled, unless modifying words are added, to point out the very great danger of accepting this Amendment. It will be conceded that this is a very novel departure in legislation, although a very proper one. You are imposing upon the police a most delicate duty. It is not the arresting of a person who has committed an offence, it is also the arrest of a person who, according to the words in the Clause, may, in the opinion of the police officer, be attempting to commit the offence. How is the police officer to form an opinion? He may form the opinion, when he sees a man in conversation with a woman under suspicious circumstances, and he may arrive, very often rightly, at the conclusion that the conversation is intended to carry out something, so far as the man is concerned, in contravention of this Act. That assumption may be wholly unwarranted. The Government, in their wisdom, supported, as I believe, by the general experience of the police authorities so far as they have been consulted throughout the country, have come to the conclusion that that task should not be left to the ordinary constable, but should be placed in the hands of experienced officers selected for the purpose. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) suggested that the experienced officer was more likely, if not to make mistakes, to act perversely than an ordinary constable. That is not the experience. The chief constable has among his officers a number of men whom by years of experience ho can trust. Secondly, the officer who is so entrusted exercises a very responsible function, and he would necessarily be most wary and most cautious in the discharge of his duties. In every constabulary force there are undoubtedly—it could hardly be otherwise—a certain number of men who abuse their power, perhaps for their own gain, or perhaps it might be through excess of zeal. I am speaking as one entirely in sympathy with the main purpose, of the Bill, and I do press the Home Secretary to be cautious lest this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as undoubtedly it will do, should be brought into disrepute by abuse of its provisions through zeal or impropriety of conduct on the part of police officers.

I recognise that there is some cogency in the argument of the hon. Member opposite, and I should be prepared to accept this Amendment—wide as I think it is, and speaking as a person who has had some experience in the administration of the law, dangerous as I think it is—if the Home Secretary would insert the words, "if in uniform at the time." I have consulted a good many people who have experience in the control of the police force, and I do not get up lightly to express merely my own opinion. They say that no more vile opportunity could be given for blackmailing if it is open for anybody, whether in uniform or not, to go, pretending that he is a constable and on some flimsy pretext, to persons who might be innocently together, and to say he saw them committing a crime. I think the records of the Metropolitan Police Force will show my hon. Friend that there are a very great number of cases where people who are not in any way connected with the police force attempt to levy blackmail. I do not call this panic legislation, but although it is not panic legislation, I think the House, in their anxiety to punish those scoundrels who attempt to commit this crime, should afford protection to honest people by not granting powers to the police of the kind proposed. I venture to make this observation on the Amendment, and to ask my right hon. Friend if he could see his way, if we accept the Amendment, to qualify it by putting in the words I suggest. I am most anxious to see this Bill passed into law, but I am still more anxious to secure people against abuse which, if exercised, would be most terrible in its results.

I cordially support the Amendment now under the consideration of the House, because, having been a member of the Committee, I heard all the arguments that unless this Amendment is carried the Bill will be ineffective, and will not accomplish that which we all desire to see, namely, the suppression of this evil and wicked traffic. There was a great deal of opposition to the Bill, and in the Committee I resisted by speech more than once any steps to weaken the powers of the Bill. I am glad that the Amendment has been proposed. I feel that this is a great evil, and that it requires strong remedies to deal effectively with it. The Bill as amended in Committee will fail in that object. The hon. Member says it will interfere with the liberty of the subject. Well, we all entertain the view that the liberty of the subject should be protected, but I would point out that there is at present power to arrest without warrant in cases of petty larceny. Surely, in combating so great an evil as the white slave traffic we are not going to fail to do what we think will be necessary out of fear of interference with the liberty of the subject. I believe the police will perform their duties in this matter with integrity and uprightness as- they generally do. I believe mistakes will very seldom be made, but even if a mistake should be made here and there it is better that that should occur than that this traffic should be carried on as it is at present. My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment spoke rather disparagingly of popular demonstrations in favour of the strengthening of the Bill. I have received many protests against the elimination of Clause 1 from persons who have devoted their lives to advancing the well-being of the people and to promoting morality. When they demonstrate so largely in favour of restoring Clause 1 to its original state I think it is an expression of opinion which is entitled to consideration, and which should influence this House to a considerable degree in supporting this Amendment. I feel that this question is one that very closely touches the family life of English households, and men here who have daughters of their own cannot but feel a strong determination to do all that can be done to prevent the daughters of other people being led astray by this illicit trade which has been carried on, and which is known as the white slave traffic. I am sure that the country demands this Amendment; that justice demands it, and that family life demands it; and I cannot believe but that the House will ultimately, and I hope without a Division, adopt the Amendment.

I only want to say a few words in consequence of what has fallen from the hon. Gentle- man (Sir J. Spear). I think his speech leaves upon us the impression—the wrong impression—that in the Committee of which I had the honour of being a Member he was in favour of keeping the Clause in the Bill as it first appeared. I think the White Paper which I have here conclusively proves that the hon. Member never spoke a word against the Amendment.

This Clause was never divided on. On two occasions, as the Members of the Committee will admit, I made strong speeches against the weakening of the Bill in any department. This Clause was slipped through because of the obstruction manifested and in order to save some part of the Bill.

I am sure the hon. Member knows that I am not bringing any charge against him, but there have been terrible articles in the news-papers. It has been represented that this Clause was emasculated and cut down because of the conduct of the opponents of the Bill in Committee, and I wish to correct that erroneous impression. I deny that that was the case. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) brought in the Amendment, and we all accepted it as the words of wisdom. I am not going to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. I admit that there is some risk in it. It has been admitted that policeman may arrest for pocket picking and may arrest in cases of felony if they have reasonable grounds to be believe that a felony is going to be committed, but not otherwise; but they may not arrest in cases of misdemeanour. Further, we must take some risk. I am as anxious as anyone that the first Clause should be made effective, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment.

On behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. It is only right also to say, in order that all misunderstanding may be cleared up, both as relates to the promoters of the Bill and some hon. Members who opposed it, that the responsibility for having introduced these words into the Bill rests with the Home Office. I have no hesitation in saying that and in taking full responsibility for it. We acted at the time without sufficient consideration of the whole of the country, and with regard only to the condition of London, and it is quite idle to say that this was accepted as a result of opposition in the Committee, because at that time there was no opposition at all, as the Bill had only just been begun. On a former occasion I stated that we were anxious in order to get the Bill through to meet the opponents as far as we could. That is always true of every person who has control of a Bill in order that they may not set up opposition, and, of course, in saying that we had no intention of restoring the Clause to its original form, it must not be supposed that we made a bargain with the intention of retreating. The concession was made honestly and under an honest mistake, and the House would be best advised in restoring the Bill to its original form.

I beg to move, after the word "may," to insert the words "if in uniform at the time."

I think the Home Secretary would be well advised in accepting this Amendment. By giving this power of arrest to a constable not in uniform, you are giving great opportunities for ill-conditioned and wicked persons to utilise the provisions of the Bill for their own private ends. Hon. Members who are so anxious for legislation on this question must not suppose that those of us who criticise some of the details of this Bill are less in accord with its main purpose. But is it or is it not a fact that this power may be abused by ill-meaning and bad people? If this is so, if there are ill-conditioned persons who are desirous of levying blackmail for their own private gain, surely fuller facilities could scarcely be afforded them than are afforded by this Bill. I cannot conceive a more flagrant case of opportunities for levying blackmail on perfectly innocent people being afforded to persons of that class, and they are numerous. We have in previous legislation, in the Children Act, made express provision, because of the delicate nature of the functions which police officers perform, that they should be in uniform when they exercise these functions. I have considered this question very carefully, and I do not think the fact of the police officers being required to be in uniform would in the smallest degree interfere with the securing of people who may be transgressors of this law. I think the facilities would not be in the smallest degree interfered with. Of course an officer not in uniform would still be able to exercise the power of his office, if, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University pointed out, he was applied to. But this is not a question of merely being applied to; it is a question of the officer acting upon his own initiative, and therefore you put it in the power of any person who is not an officer of the police, on his own initiative, on the pretence that somebod3r may be pretending to do something which is wrong, to arrest any person upon any of those charges, or to pretend to arrest him for the purpose of levying blackmail. I think that the Home Office ought not to lend itself to a provision which, while its general purpose is most admirable, might be so abused.

I desire to second the Amendment. The argument of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Atherley-Jones) is very sound. We do not wish to do under this Bill anything which will add to the power of evil disposed persons to levy blackmail. Unless words of this sort are inserted it is very likely that they would attempt to obtain blackmail from respectable people by saying, "We are constables; we think you are going to commit a crime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and therefore we shall arrest you." I have been informed in the course of the last few minutes that if such a thing does occur the person arrested can demand from the supposed constable his authority, and that the supposed constable has to show a card authorising him to do so. That is news to me, and I believe news to a great majority of Members in this House. In the case of ninety people out of a hundred, if tapped on the shoulder and told they were going to be arrested, the last thing they would think about would be to ask to see the police card, and even if they were shown a card they would not know whether it was genuine or not. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will set at rest my doubts on the point. If he can show that there is a well-known custom that these constables out of uniform are compelled to produce a warrant or card to show that they are constables, then I do not know that the Amendment is necessary, but unless that can be shown, I think it is absolutely required.

I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend behind me will not press this Amendment, because I think they are labouring under a misapprehension, and perhaps do not sufficiently realise what the effect of the Amendment would be. I do not hesitate to say that its effect in most cases would be to paralyse the activities of the Criminal Investigation Department, which consists almost entirely of officers in plain clothes. At any rate, in London, where we have especially to deal with this particular class of offence, it is obvious that the difficulties would be increased if the constable had to be in uniform, because that would be exactly giving the warning to the offender which would enable him to escape.

May I point out that I do not put any check upon the powers of investigation of a man in plain clothes. If the person in plain clothes has made investigations and discovered the offender, surely it would be an easy matter to call a constable.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is apparently entirely ignorant of the conditions of this traffic. Let me give a particular case of the export of women from this country: I am sorry to say it occurred in my own Constituency, near Southampton. A few minutes before the ship sailed the girl went on board ship, and how can you, in these circumstances, investigate the case unless you can arrest the man on the spot? The ship has sailed, and the girl has disappeared for ever from the country.

A uniformed officer could be employed.

The presence of a uniformed officer would have the effect of preventing the man from showing himself, and, in most cases, of his evading the danger of his arrest. In regard to the point made by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) as to a man who professes to be a police officer, it is the fact, and I believe I shall be substantiated by the representatives of the Home Office, that every police constable in plain clothes, possibly in uniform also, has to carry on his person his warrant card, signed by the Chief Commissioner of Police.

He is not obliged to produce it unless called upon.

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if a man could produce no proof that he is an officer, and was not prepared to take his victim to the police station to bring a charge against him, that the person would submit to arrest? These officers in plain clothes can be identified; they have to produce proof that they are police constables, and I may say that I have tested the fact myself. Only the other day I was talking to a plain-clothes man belonging to the Criminal Investigation Department, and I said, "How can I tell you belong to the Department?" He at once produced his warrant and showed it to me. I feel certain that under the regulations officers must be in a position to identify themselves, and in these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Durham rather over-estimates the protection which the Amendment would give to an innocent person, because the innocent person will not have read this Act; he will not know that the police constable has to be in uniform, and under this Amendment he would be equally likely to give way to the blackmailer. The criminal, however, would know the Act quite well, and he would not give way to blackmailing. The innocent man would be just as much in danger, and would be just as likely to give way to blackmailing whether you put in this danger signal to the criminal or whether you do not.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "or of attempting to commit" ["or of attempting to commit any offence against"].

This Amendment appears at first sight as limiting and weakening the Clause, but, as a matter of fact, it is nothing of the kind. I really propose the Amendment in the interests of draftsmanship and the English language. The Clause, as it now reads, is to give power to a constable to take into custody any person whom he shall have good cause to suspect of having committed any offence against Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which relates to procuration and attempted procuration. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has running right through its four Sub-sections the words "procure, or attempts to procure." Therefore it is an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as it now stands, to attempt to procure. Under Section 2 of the Act the attempt to procure is an offence, and the effect of this Clause of the Bill, as it stands, would be in connection with the words in the Act, that the police constable could arrest for attempting to attempt to procure.

I beg to second the Amendment. We are indebted to my hon. Friend for keeping an acute eye on legislation by reference, and for having corrected language which would otherwise be redundant and unintelligible.

I do not think it would make any difference really if these words were not left out. The original substantive offence under the Act is attempting to procure, and, with the Bill as it stands, it would be attempting to attempt to procure. I accept the Amendment.

As I understand the words of the original Act, the offence is, "procure, or attempting to procure." The offence now proposed to be limited will be an offence in the past. If the Under-Secretary is prepared to accept the Amendment it should be one which would apply, not only to an offence that has been committed, but an offence in the course of being committed, for I take the same interest in punishing an offence committed last week as I do in preventing one from being committed this week.

I think my hon. and learned Friend must have made his speech without having looked into the Clause of the Act of 1885. The Clause of this Bill says if a constable shall have good cause to suspect a person of having committed any offence against Section 2 of the Act of 1885. The Section of the Act of 1885 says a person who "has committed or who is about to commit," so that is already in the Act.

I really think my hon. Friend is wrong. I was speaking a moment ago from recollection, but what the Act of 1885 provides is that it shall be an offence "to procure or attempt to procure any woman or girl for the purpose, of prostitution." The person who is aimed at by the Bill, as it is proposed to amend it, will be the person who is suspected, whom the constable has good cause to suspect, of having committed that offence—that is, of having procured or having attempted to procure. I am sure that is not what is intended, and I do not think any lawyer can have any doubt about it. The thing is perfectly plain when you consider what the offence is. The offence under the Act of 1885 which is dealt with is an offence in the past, and to have done that is punishable. Now it is to be provided that a constable may without warrant arrest a person who has committed that offence. That is not what the House is aiming at. What the House aims at is the arrest of persons engaged in committing one or other of these offences, either the offence of procuring or the offence of attempting to procure. The effect of what is proposed to be done now will be to entirely frustrate one of the main objects of the people promoting this Bill.

It certainly appears to me, if we allow these words to stand, that we shall be enacting that the constable is to be entitled to arrest if he suspects anybody of having attempted to attempt to procure. As I understand, the case intended to be covered is merely the case in which the constable observes a man making a sign or speaking to the girl, and that then he is entitled to arrest.

I think it is quite clear that the matter is rather a difficult one and presents some doubts of importance. It certainly would be rash for a layman like myself to intervene with an opinion when two such high legal authorities as my hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Advocate differ. I venture to suggest that that is a reason for not hastily deciding the shape in which the Bill is to remain. It will be admitted that the matter requires further consideration. The point raised is one of those cases where there is perfect agreement amongst all sections as to what it is desired to do, and the only question is what is the language which is most appropriate to secure that end. I suggest it really would be better, under the circumstances, to leave the matter now in the shape in which it has come from Grand Committee, and that between this and the time when the Bill is in another place the Government should consider it very carefully with their legal advisers and draftsmen, and, if necesary, propose an alteration of the wording there. I confess the impression left on the layman's mind is that something between the words which are now in the Bill and the words suggested is required. I think I had better adhere to my original intention, which was not to argue the case, and to appeal to the Government not to prejudge the question, but leave it to be considered in another place.

I certainly think the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is the right one in a case of this kind, recognising that the view of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) is one which cannot easily be ignored, while, on the other hand, anybody who has listened to my hon. and learned Friend on this bench will also recognise that their opinions are worthy of respect. There is a real conflict of opinion as to the words, and before the Bill gets to another place we will have this question considered by as competent legal opinion as we can get. Upon that understanding I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

I do not wish to waste time, and by leave of the House I desire to withdraw the proposed Amendment.

I am very glad the Home Secretary has taken the course suggested by my right hon. Friend. Here is a conflict of eminent legal opinion. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Duke) is right, there is a serious loophole left in the Bill. Therefore the only safe course is to leave the words as they stand, and, if necessary, revise them in another place.

I beg to move to leave out Clause 2.

This is not the first time that the question of flogging has been raised in this. House. The Clause proposes to put again upon our Statute Book the punishment of flogging, whether by the cat or by the birch. I do not think that even the most malignant person — I was going to say either in this House or out of it, but there are no malignant persons in this House— would suggest or insinuate that we who are opposed to the punishment of flogging in any shape or form being in our penal code have any sympathy whatever with the scoundrels against whom this Clause is aimed. On the contrary, we are at one in wishing to see them punished as severely as may be, consistently with the dictates of common sense and reason and with the interests of the community. This, to my mind, is the whole question: Is it in the highest permanent interests of the community to put again upon the Statute Book what I do not hesitate to call the reactionary and discredited punishment of flogging? I hope to make good that description. The objection has been made that this is a sentimental Amendment. I do not quite know the meaning of the word, but I think the word "sentimental" commends itself very much to a class of persons who think that an epithet may be made to do duty for argument because it is vague and indefinite. If "it is to be applied at all, we entirely repudiate its applicability to us who oppose this Clause in this connection. We say that the real sentimentalist or emotionalist is the man whose sole idea, when he hears, of some crime which he holds particularly in abhorrence, is to cry out "Flog the brute." It is an extremely easy thing to say, and it is constantly said by those who have had no experience of the criminal law, and have no knowledge of criminology or the trend of modern thought in regard to the punishment of prisoners. I am sorry to say that in certain sections of society there seems to be a recrudescence of what I can only call "flagellomania." I am not responsible for the origin of that expression; it has already been used. A gentleman wrote to the papers the other day, under the appropriate name of Birchall, noting the various offences for which flogging has recently been suggested. They included the carrying of revolvers, reckless driving by motorists, the breaking of windows by suffragettes, assaults en girls and children, assaults on English girls by foreigners, the neglect of children by parents, the disobedience to parents by children, the illtreatment of animals, and inability to manage a boat on the part of sailors. I say that the real emotionalist is the man who, like a Right Reverend Prelate the other day, after working up his audience to a state of virtuous indignation—and quite rightly— against these abominable procurers, cried out, "They richly deserve flogging, and they shall hare it." Very likely they do deserve flogging, very likely they deserve branding, to have their noses slit, to have their cars cut off, or to have the boot and thumbscrew. I daresay they deserve it; but that is not sufficient. If you are going back to this punishment of torture you have to show that it is in the interest of the community to do so. It was not in the interest of the scoundrels or prisoners or convicted people that punishments of torture, except flogging, which is a form of torture, were abolished from our criminal code. It was in the interest of the community itself. These people also say that flogging will be a deterrent, and they think when they have said that they have said all that is necessary. But all these old discredited torture punishments were supposed to be deterrents. I believe myself that a very distinguished Member of this House, who had a very wide experience in criminal law—Sir Edward Clarke—was right when he said that flogging had not really proved to be a deterrent. At any rate, we know that all these torture punishments have been tried. It is not so many years ago that our penal code was a disgrace to civilisation. We had 200 capital offences, and we flogged everybody, men, women, and children, indiscriminately. Can anybody say that crime has increased since those days? Everybody knows that, whether as a consequence or not, since the adoption of milder, more humane, and more sensible treatment of prisoners, crime in proportion to the population has steadily diminished.

I maintain that the punishment of flogging has all the faults that any punishment could have. Flogging is demoralising, it is discredited, it is unequal, it is uncertain, it is irrevocable. Now let me just very briefly take these points. It is demoralising. I know it is often said, when one refers to this as a degrading punishment: "Oh, but this wretch is so degraded already that it is impossible to degrade him further." I do not want to occupy the time of the House in dealing with that particular argument. But I doubt even that. I doubt that any man is so degraded that you cannot degrade him further. The late Mr. Justice Hawkins, a man with unrivalled experience of the Criminal Courts,, said:—

"If you flog a man you make a perfect devil of him."

When the question was discussed in this House on a previous occasion the present Prime Minister spoke. Perhaps I shall be pardoned for drawing attention to a most eloquent passage in his speech, where he says:—

"You may depend upon it that in most, of them there are latent, hut still present, sparks of self respect, and a sense of human dignity, which, if carefully watched and tended might, in course of time, hum into a purifying glow, which would be in great danger of extinction by such measures as the Bill proposes."

That was on a Bill to permit flogging. He further said:—

"As to the deterrent effect of flogging it is impossible to look upon a punishment as really deterrent, if the question whether it will be inflicted in any particular case is no more a certainty than a chance in a lottery. The majority of judges never award this punishment at all."

The right hon. Gentleman finished a very strong speech by saying:—

"I hope that Her Majesty's Government, will resist this attempt to alter our criminal law in a sense which involves a retrogression to an' obsolete theory of punishment, which is calculated not only to create greater uncertainty, but to introduce additional confusion and inconvenience in the administration of justice."

I believe I may say with some certainty that the right hon. Gentleman has not changed those opinions since. They had great influence with the House at the time. But the real argument is not so much that this punishment is degrading to the criminal as that it is demoralising to the community. What we are contending is that the punishment of flogging not only demoralises the criminal, but that it demoralises the judge who awards it, the officer who has to carry it into execution, and the community which can tolerate it. In fact, it is the very opposite to mercy. "It is twice cursed: it curses him that gives and him that takes." I remember a short time ago reading a story of a South African who saw his Zulu servant flogging an ox. He was very indignant and he proceeded to flog the servant very severely. Afterwards this Zulu servant reasoned it out with his master. He said, "You angry with me, you flog me. I angry with ox, I flog ox." The servant apparently seemed to think that he and his master were on the same level, and that whereas he had been guilty of violence to an inferior animal, his master had been guilty of violence to one accounted of an inferior race. I would state it in the words of the great authority, Dr. Havelock Ellis—I am quoting from his standard work on "The Criminal":—

"Flogging is objectionable, because it is ineffectual (as was shown long since), and because it brutalizes and degrades those on whom it is inflicted, those who inflict it, and those who come within the radius of its influence."

That is the first objection. Again, it is a discredited punishment, because we have tried it and found it wanting. You have only to study past history and you will see that we were at one time always flogging— men, women, and children—over and over again. We gave it up. For instance, in 1843—as long ago as that—the Criminal Law Commissioners said that they did not recommend an extension of the punishment. In 1861, at the time of the consolidation of the Acts relating to the Criminal Law, there were vast numbers of Acts which imposed flogging upon criminals, and they were all swept away. In 1898 the Prisons Act reduced the punishment of flogging even in prisons to very small dimensions, and it never had to be inflicted except under very stringent safeguards. The only case practically in which you can now inflict flogging is under the Act of 1863, where the provision was introduced in a great panic because a Member of this House had been garrotted in St. James's Park. You can flog a prisoner now for robbery with violence if the judge chooses so to sentence him. Under the Vagrancy Act of 1824—which I have always thought a disgraceful Act to allow to stand upon our Statute Book—you can flog a man if he is convicted three times for wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence. I say further that this punishment is unequal. Let me quote a very celebrated lawyer, Lord Herschell, subsequently Lord Chancellor, who said, in a Debate in this House:—

"He strongly objected to the punishment of flogging for two reasons. The first was that it was, perhaps, above all other punishments, an unequal punishment. They inflicted the same number of strokes upon two men, and the chances were that the man who deserved to feel the punishment most felt it by far the least. It was an extremely unequal punishment. In the next place, it was of all punishments the most uncertain, seeing that it was left to the discretion of the judges. There ware some judges who would always flog. There were some judges who would never flog."

These were the two objections that were afterwards enforced in this House in a subsequent Debate by Mr. Morgan Lloyd, the present County Court Judge. When one comes to think of it, it certainly is unequal and uncertain. You take a schoolboy. I have no doubt one has often heard a man of burly physique say that he was very often flogged at school, and that that accounts for the splendid fellow that he is. After having passed nearly seven years in the greatest of our public schools, I know that some boys are really very sensitive as to this punishment. They think it would be degrading to them to have to be punished in this way, and they have the fear of their parents knowing it. The punishment, I say, is absolutely unequal at school, because it depends upon the temperament of the person. It hardens some boys altogether and it breaks the spirit of others. Again, it has been pointed out that it is irrevocable. Under the Criminal Law you flog a man, and then perhaps find out—as is so often found out—that he was unjustly convicted. What can you do? You have inflicted the degrading punishment, which is irrevocable; you can make compensation, but you can never undo the punishment of flogging which has been inflicted! This Bill introduces a new practice in Scotland, and I would ask the Lord Advocate what he intends to do with regard to it. There was an Act passed in 1862 applicable to Scotland, forbidding any adult to be flogged o" whipped, and that has been acted upon up to the present time. "Stands Scotland where it did?" or are the Scottish people anxious to introduce again this punishment of flogging?

I do not know what views Irish Members take, but in Ireland there is no flogging now. It may be that in Ireland they enjoy a blessed immunity from crimes of this description, but there is no flogging practically in Ireland now. This Bill would introduce flogging into Ireland. I believe I am right in saying that no civilised country has this punishment now included in its criminal code. Neither France, Germany, nor Belgium has it now in their criminal code. Surely if those civilised nations of Europe can get on without it, we are not going to go back to what I can only call these methods of barbarism. This question has been debated, and very fully, in this House on two previous occasions. First of all, it was debated in 1885, when this Act, which we are now amending, was before this House as a Bill. On that occasion, Sir Henry Fowler proposed an Amendment introducing flogging, and for what? As a punishment for the crime of rape on a little child. I do not think you could get a more horrible offence than that, and if you are to have flogging at all, surely it would be for such an offence as that. I have gone very carefully through the Debates and I find that all the most distinguished men having experience of the criminal law voted against this flogging Amendment. Mr. Hopwood, who was Recorder of Liverpool, said:—

"Whipping, as a punishment for stealing, had had no effect. Re said there was something debasing about corporal punishment, not only upon the men on whom it was inflicted but on society which was conniving at it or was accessory to the punishment. To operate upon the community by social regeneration they must repress all bnitalising influences."

Then there was Sir F. Herschell, who was a great authority, as we all know, both as a lawyer and as a man of judgment, and there was Sir Henry James, who spoke extremely strongly upon this question. He said:—

"He had never given a vote in favour of flogging, and he hoped he never should. They might as well go back to the times of the thumb-screw and the boot as resort to Hogging, for flogging was torture."

Some judges liked to use it as a punishment. Mr. Justice Day would give the cat lavishly, but the majority of judges refused to inflict this punishment at all. Sir Thomas Chambers, the well-known Recorder of London, spoke to the same effect. He said:—

"He earnestly hoped the Committee would not pass this Amendment. He did not suppose that any alteration of their criminal code was debated with more deliberation than the abolition of punishment by flogging, and he should be sorry now, if for any reason, they should revert to it again and take this retrograde step."

Then a late respected Member of this House, Mr. James Stewart, "would be no party to the infliction of this terrible punishment." Sir Horace Davy referred to the fact that

"it was on the Statute Book, and he, with many others, regretted it. It was because of that regret, because he believed the placing it there was a retrograde step, and a recurrence to a state of feeling in which society thought itself entitled to administer the law in a revengeful spirit, that he objected to an extension of what he regarded as a revengeful and brutal punishment."

It was not a party question. Members on both sides of the House spoke against it. Sir Edward Clarke said:—

"It was never shown that flogging was a, deterrent.…He did not believe this barbarous punishment-was any deterrent at all. He was glad to join the late Solicitor-General in the protest he made."

There was an absolute consensus of opinion in this House at that time amongst men to whom we would all look up. It did not rest there. Is the Home Secretary going to say that this punishment will deter procurers, although it would not deter a man from the crime of rape upon a child? I think there is no logic whatever in arguments of that kind. In the year 1900, Mr. Wharton brought in a Corporal Punishment Bill with a view to inflicting the punishment of flogging and whipping. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Colonel Lock-wood) is in his place. I see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said on that occasion that with the opinion of the judges and six Home Secretaries against the effect of flogging, he found the weight of argument was against the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill.

I am afraid I shall now have to stand in a white sheet also.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not possibly improve upon his appearance by putting on a white sheet. I should like to refer to an excellent speech also made by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, who is now a learned County Court judge. He said:—

"It seems to me to be a rather regrettable incident that at a time when so much is being done by the Government as well as by philanthropic agencies throughout the country to improve and elevate the criminal classes, an attempt should be made to revert to an old and discredited system of punishment which has been almost entirely eliminated from the Statute Book nearly half a century ago."

I say, therefore, this is a retrograde step, and it is opposed to the stream and tendency of modern legislation. You have your Borstal system and your more humane methods of dealing with criminals, trying to humanise them, and you find that crime does not increase, but decreases under such a system. I say I am absolutely ashamed that in the face of all this we should find a Liberal Government against, I am sure, the better views and opinions of the Prime Minister, coming forward now and trying to pass a Glause permitting this punishment. I hope the party Whips will not be put on so that the House may be free to vote as they desire, and that Members may not be coerced to support the Government on this matter. In the debate of 1900 Mr. Lloyd Morgan said:—

"It is strange if this form of punishment is so highly beneficial that it is not adopted in other countries, hut there is scarcely a country in Europe where flogging is allowed. I am not referring to prison discipline. I believe it is not allowed in America, and our Colonies have never taken to it."

There has been some talk that in Australia procuration was put down by flogging. I believe this is a mere chimera because I am informed they have not the punishment of flogging in Australia at all. I have alluded to the case of Scotland and to the speech of the Prime Minister. The old fallacious argument at that time was repeated that garrotting was put down by flogging, but that was exploded in the Debate for the reason that it had been put down by the administration of the ordinary law. On that occasion the Prime Minister was followed by Sir Matthew White Ridley, who corroborated him and said it was proved that garrotting had been put down by the ordinary law and not by flogging. Sir Matthew White Ridley said:—

"I doubt very considerably whether it is desirable to inflict this punishment, or to give the judges power to inflict it. I know that a very large number of judges are unwilling to inflict it."

The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke very strongly upon this question, and expressing the opinion of his colleagues as well as himself, he said:—

There is no difference of opinion as to the offences. The question of the lash is one altogether of principle, of experience and also really of science. I hold that to propose at this time of day such a retrograde measure is a survival in the minds of hon. Members of antiquated prejudices, and a love of a system which I had hoped humanity and civilisation had completely swept away. I, for my part, and I speak the minds of all my colleagues in this respect, shall never be content until we see the punishment of the lash completely wiped out of the Statute Book of the country."

This was supported by the hon. Member for East Clare, who said:—

"I must say that it does not say much for the progress of civilisation in this country, that there exists among us a certain class of society of such a savage spirit as to hold that you are obliged to seriously consider whether you are not obliged to go back to the old methods of torture used in the Dark Ages."

The result was that Mr. Wharton's Bill was defeated by 195 votes to 72, the majority against it being 123, so that in recent times this House came to the conclusion after a long discussion that this question of flogging is discredited, and that it belongs to a form of punishment by torture which ought not to exist on our Statute Books. In the interests not only of the criminal but also of the community and of our own human nature, I ask the House not to put again this discredited punishment on the Statute Book, and I strongly appeal to the Home Secretary and to the Government not to put on their Whips in this Division.

I rise to second this Amendment.

We have listened to a very exhaustive speech from the hon. Member opposite on this subject. I do not propose to trouble the House with any quotations at all, but I wish to bring home if possible vividly to the minds of every man here what these punishments really consist of. It has been said, and it is indeed a counsel of perfection, that every magistrate should endure something of the punishments which he inflicts. I think it would be an excellent discipline and highly educative for every judge to spend a certain portion of his time in prison. I know that in the case of flogging that would be too much of the heroic to expect, but with the permission of the House I would like to bring home vividly one instance of flogging related to me by a native of Australia where flogging used to be extremely common, and where it never had any good effect. The man I allude to was not a town-bred man, but lie was a man who had faced life in various quarters of the world with the utmost stoicism of spirit. He was one who would not be swayed by any mere sentiment. He saw a man flogged. It so happens that I spoke to this man in London twenty-five years after, and he told me that the impression of that flogging had remained in his mind so vividly that it had been his invariable nightmare. The unfortunate victim of this flogging had his arms fastened up, and the common hangman was brought in to flog him, and he laid on the lash with such vigour that at every stroke, although this man had braced himself up to resist the punishment his whole frame quivered with agony, his eyes rolled and his muscles started out as though they would burst from the skin. His face turned livid, and every doctor, warder, and man present, who were accustomed to see punishments of all kinds, and whose hearts had been inured to ordinary forms of agony, turned almost sick at the sight, and were unable to face what is was their duty to behold. In the old days in Australia flogging was so common that severe punishments with the lash were decreed and the payment for floggers used to be 1s. 2d. per day. Even with this salary the men came to love their work so much that sometimes a man would pride himself upon flogging another to such an extent that he could peel off the skin in four separate fringes with only one drop of blood on each fringe. These are the kind of "artists" the Home Secretary wishes to—

It is outrageous.

But it will be so under this Bill.

That is a most outrageous statement.

I leave that matter to the judgment of the House. Having given a description of what flogging really consists, I proceed to the question whether it is a deterrent. At the time when a thousand strokes of the lash were ordered for offences against discipline those offences were much more frequent, and the offences against discipline gradually diminished as the flogging diminished. I challenge any hon. Member as to whether he is in favour of a resumption of the brutal floggings of the past. In the old days, in Australia again, where men were often transported for such minor offences as killing a hare or, as I know in the case of one famous bushranger, for stealing a pie, floggings were so common that the prisoners themselves, goaded to revenge, formed a plot for mutiny and actually murdered the Governor who had ordered the flogging. Although they had stirred up men's minds to such an extent, and although the agony had been endured and felt by these men as though the "iron entered their souls," yet even to those very men who had endured that punishment it was never a deterrent to crime, for it was the experience, not only of that country, but of every country, that men who were flogged committed the same crime and underwent the same punishment perhaps two or three times over.

The hon. Member for Peterborough cited many authorities, and he referred to Germany as a country where flogging was nonexistent. I do not propose to quote authorities, but I will refer to Germany. I have here a book, written in 1908, called "Acht Jaehre Zucht-haus" ("Eight Years in Prison"), written by a man who had endured—for an offence which he said he had never committed—eight years' imprisonment in Germany, and who had studied the system from top to bottom. He speaks in one chapter of flogging. He speaks of the horror of it, and mentions explicitly that in no case was it a deterrent, for in those prisons where flogging was most common offences against discipline and assaults upon warders were most common. He said it had a double effect. It was never a deterrent, and it evoked, in spite of the man's crime, sympathy with the criminal throughout the whole prison. There was a man who advocated even more drastic, though not more severe, punishment—that is death. He has left his name on history—Draco—as a symbol of all that is futile in this kind of legislation. The failure is evident.

If you can repress crime by this brutal punishment, why stop at offences of this kind? Why not flog for every offence that may be committed, and why not increase your punishment until at has reached the very extreme of brutality? It has been tried in the history of the world again and again, and it was found, even in the time of Draco, it was not a deterrent. Human nature is so constituted that crimes are not repressed by the violence or the barbarity of punishment. Crimes are repressed by the certainty of punishment. When reading an Army Book the other day, I found that principle had been incorporated in the legislation of the Army, where flogging has been abolished. I challenge any representative of the Army to say he would like to reintroduce flogging in the Army. One who is opposed to flogging is supposed to be tainted with some kind of sympathy with the crime to which it is to be applied. Let us carry that argument into the enemy's camp. If you refuse to apply flogging to such offences as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough, are you in sympathy with those crimes? If not, and you think flogging will stamp out those crimes, why are you not logical and consistent and apply flogging to those crimes, also? Flogging is itself a crime. The whole tendency of our civilisation has" been to remove these cases of barbarity and brutality from our legislative methods, and the whole history of the last 100 years proves that every fresh successive step towards a better understanding of human nature, and even towards more sympathy, not with crime, but with what is left of the man in the unfortunate criminal has been marked by a diminution of crime. I should be sorry to see at this age, when we have so many evidences of progress by a Liberal Government, an Act promulgated which would place the State in competition with those brutal criminals—an Act which would seek to stamp out crime by the adoption of their own methods of barbarity and brutality.

I am in total disagreement with the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. As to the outrageous speech to which we have just listened, I can only say we all know the Home Secretary, and are prepared to repudiate what has been said about him.

I said nothing against the Home Secretary. I was only speaking against the system which this Bill proposes to introduce.

I am prepared to leave the hon. Gentleman's speech to the judgment of the House. I recognise there is much depth in what the Mover has said. It is contended by those who are in favour of this Amendment that flogging is degrading, but, notwithstanding what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment, the question we must ask ourselves is, is it possible further to degrade the man who lives upon this monstrous traffic? There can be but one answer, and that answer is "No." The only other question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not flogging is a deterrent, and, notwithstanding the long extracts produced just now, I maintain that experience tells us that it is a deterrent in such cases as those of men whose natural instincts are merely animal instincts. The Mover said just now we should demoralise the men who are guilty of these crimes.

No; I said we should demoralise the community by adopting this policy.

I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. But when hon. Members are inclined to find fault with this punishment, they should remember the terrible ease with which the ruin of these girls can be brought about owing, as I think, to the criminal state of ignorance in which girls in all classes in this country are kept in regard to sexual matters. They can be lured into houses by these monsters, and their ruin can be effected before they know what is going on. We have in the past prided ourselves on setting an example in these matters to the whole world, but surely it is a reflection upon our national honour that this terrible state of affairs should have prevailed in the past, and it will be a still greater reflection upon our personal honour in the future if we do not, this afternoon, make it, so far as we are able, absolutely impossible for this state of things to continue.

No one could have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend behind me without feeling there is great force in his general argument, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I agree with the general trend of that argument. Indeed, I have very frequently been called over the coals because I have not permitted flogging when ordered by the justices. But having said so much I wish to make it perfectly plain that, in this case, there are the strongest arguments in favour of retaining this Clause in the Bill. I am, in a matter of this kind, acting on the expert advice which I receive from the police, and I can only give the House the case as it is represented to me. Take London at the present moment. There are, I am informed, quite a number of young men almost entirely of foreign origin who live, not merely to the extent of making an income, but who live upon young women to the extent of £15 or £20 a week. They really accumulate fortunes in this way. An individual young man will have five or six girls working for him, and in most cases everyone of these girls has been ruined by the man himself. He watches them at their work. He has procured them in fact. He has been responsible for the girl's ruin in the first place, and he has ruined them with the intention of procuring them to work for him in the streets. The police tell me that in nearly every case the men who carry on this trade in London are of foreign origin. They ask for two things. First of all, that what has hitherto been a defence in cases against men charged with living upon the earnings of prostitution, namely, that they have got means of their own, should no longer be accepted. That is provided for in the latter part of this Bill. Again, they say that the temptations for carrying on this trade are so great to men of no moral character, and the trade is so easy that, unless you have some power beyond the ordinary power of imprisoning them, you cannot hope to put a stop to it. The police advise me that, after a conviction has been obtained, if there is power to flog there will be nobody to flog. Flogging can only be administered after a second conviction, and, after a first conviction, not one of these men will remain in this country any longer. The police speak from experience, and I can only give this House such experience as they have reported to me. They say that after the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 there was a general exodus of these bullies, or procurers, or ponces, whatever professional terms they may be known by— there was a general exodus, and for a long time after that Act came into operation there was tolerable freedom from this curse. But it has been discovered of late years that these men can escape the meshes of the law, and once again, consequently, London has become the dumping ground from countries all over the world for this particular class of individual. We believe that, with this power of flogging, we shall 'be able once more to get rid of them. My [hon. Friend's fears as to the demoralisation of the community, and of judges and police, are, to my mind, wholly illusory. If there, were really any danger of flogging being extended to crime in general throughout the country, I should regard his arguments with more sympathy. But we are dealing with a particular class of persons that have recently come into this country, and who can be driven out of it, as the police advise me, because in fact they will be intimidated by the fear of flogging.

I should like to explain in a few words the reason why I have entirely changed my opinion on this subject. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend on any question of humanity. I know well what good work he has done in that direction. I think I know as well as any man in the House what are his convictions on the subject of humanity. I remember the Debate to which he has referred perfectly well, and I believe one of the reasons that changed the course of i hat Debate was that Mr. Wharton, who brought forward that measure, relied greatly on the argument that flogging had proved a cure for the crime of garrotting. That is one of the few occasions on which I changed my opinion in consequence of the speeches I listened to, and I must say that I have heartily regretted having done so ever since. I believe now that the skilled opinions on the point arraigned against me were better than my own opinion. I gave way, however, because I was convinced by the speech of the present Prime Minister who relied for his great argument upon the inequality of sentences, and on the impossibility of withdrawing the punishment or pardoning after it had been once inflicted. But I cannot help thinking that there are certain? offences for which it is worth while running that risk. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), and I confess I cannot agree with what he said. I have seen six cases of flogging—four in the Army and two in prison—and, though no doubt the punishment is seven.-, I cannot recognise it from the description given by the hon. Member. It may be said that flogging is a degrading form of punishment. In my opinion it ought to be, and on these occasions, when we are debating questions like this, we are apt to think too much of a man on whom the punishment is inflicted and too little of his victim. A man who is found guilty of a crime of the description mentioned in this Bill is not a man; he is an animal. His moral instincts and his man-like instincts have vanished, and he becomes an animal, and should be treated as an animal, in my opinion. Punishment inflicted upon his back is one of the few things that will make an impression upon him. I thoroughly agree with the Home Secretary when he says that the mere fact of its being known that this punishment exists for the crime will act as a deterrent, and that it will not be found necessary to inflict the punishment at all. I would go even further than the Bill goes— and I am now in my old age; I was a younger man when I voted against this before—I should like to see flogging inflicted for all offences against women and children, especially helpless children of five or six, who have this offence committed upon them which soils them for life. The House would do well to remember them. The man who commits the offence is not a man but a beast and a brute, and should be treated as such. I hope the House will not allow sentiment and feeling for the man who commits the offence to outweigh the hideous offence committed against women and children, especially children.

I have a difficult part to perform after the eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lock-wood). Ho has deprecated any appeal to sentiment, but I think he has appealed to sentiment very strongly. I am going to take an unpopular point of view. Here is a person who has been convicted of an offence, an offence with which we do not sympathise, and which we know to be wrong. It is easy to say, "Why don't you flog him, it is an easy thing to do." Let us deal with this apart altogether from the sentiment my right lion. Friend has thrown into it, and let us deal with the Home Secretary's speech merely as a business matter. He says he is acting (not on his own opinion, but upon the advice he has received from the police. We have had one example to-day of the result of following police advice too closely. Are we equally sure we are not going to make the same mistake again?

The hon. and learned Member is incorrect. I did not say I was acting on police advice. I said the police advised me as to the facts which I have quoted. They were facts that could not be denied.

Let us sec whether the facts are not as inaccurate in this case as in the other. The defence which the police put forward is that there is a crime going on which is increasing or not abating, and they cannot deal with it properly. I agree that in certain cases flogging is the proper punishment for an offence when there is no other means of stamping it out. It is therefore important to see what are the figures which may be affected by this Clause. If, according to the police report during the past few years this kind of crime has been constantly increasing, it may possibly be right to use violence to prevent it after a second conviction. I took the precaution of asking the Home Office some months ago to give a Return of the number of people who would come under this Clause, the omission of which I support. The people who would come under this Clause, or who have been convicted of the crime of procuring under the particular Section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, upon a second conviction may be sentenced to be flogged. I wanted to find out how many people had been convicted for a second time during the past few years, and whether there was sufficient to justify us in taking the extreme step of ordering this punishment to be inflicted. I took a period of three years, and asked the Home Office how many such offences there were. The Home Office answered me, that there had not been one single case under Section 2.

The hon. Member will forgive me, he is making a mistake. The case of the police is twofold: first, that they cannot get a conviction now under Section 6, and, secondly, that when we have got a first conviction we shall never be troubled with the second.

I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman putting it m that way, but I do not think I am incorrect in what I say. By a Section of the Act of 1885 it was made an offence to procure or to attempt to procure people in England or out of it. It is not confined to the white slave traffic abroad, it is the offence of procuring in England. That offence exists, and convictions have been obtained under it from time to time. It applies to-procurers or procuresses, and they are liable to considerable terms of imprisonment and can be brought up a second; time. There is no sort of reason why such offences could not be proved as they have been, and if they are largely on the increase there would have been large increases in the convictions in that connection. No sort of case has been made out by the Government, because for the last three years there has not been a single second conviction for the offence of procuring. I am in a somewhat difficult position, because I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch), who made such an exhaustive speech in favour of the omission of this Clause. Although I am going to act contrary to the opinion of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House I am willing to support him. I hold that in certain cases flogging is a necessity, and nobody objected more than I did during the last ten years to abolishing it for certain crimes inside prison. In the case of the Children Bill I remember I had an altercation with the then Home Secretary as to whether boys who smoked cigarettes should pay a fine of 5s. or should be birched. I had not the slightest objection to that, but the Government were horrified at the idea and would not put the Clause in the Bill, yet the same Government is coming down here and supporting what is a totally different punishment, that is the punishment of the cat. No one can doubt it is very different from the punishment of the birch. It is a very serious, and I doubt that my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood) agrees that up to a certain point it is a very degrading punishment, both for the man who receives it and the man who inflicts it. It is said that we ought not to think of the prisoner but of the unfortunate victim. When a man is put in a dock, the man who has had his purse stolen, says, "There is the man, flog him, it is cheaper."

I only suggested it for a certain class of offence.

Why?

Because the offence is committed by a man who is an animal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that is the experience we have of this offence1? We know that the bulk of this traffic is done by women.

No.

You said so upstairs.

No, I did not.

A good deal of it is done by women.

A good deal is sufficient for my purpose. If there is any doubt about it I can certainly tell my right hon. Friend that a great amount of it is done by women, by procuresses. It is done for the sake of money undoubtedly. In many cases, revolting as the crime is, it is introducing a willing purchaser to a willing buyer. In a moment of virtuous indignation you will say a person making money out of someone else's weakness ought to be punished, and so he ought, but does it justify it to say it is such a different offence from many other bad offences—that it is the offence of an animal rather than of a human being? Take the case of an ordinary procuress. Does the hon. Baronet really say there is anything so extraordinarily different in the offence from many others? Of course, it is a deterrent. One wishes to prevent furious driving on the high road, but would you flog a motor driver for running over a child?—One always introduces children and widows. Why not flog him? It is a dangerous argument for anyone who has to sit to administer justice, and I appeal to the House not to be led away by it.

People are, under these circumstances, actuated by the best motives. They are carried away, more or less hysterically, very often by horror of the crime. We know the extraordinary hysterical emotion which this Bill has aroused throughout England. We get letters from all sorts of people, chiefly women, "flog them, crucify them," and anything else you like. It is a cry we have had through the ages. It is more dangerous when it is an offence likely to arouse the righteous passion of people against any particular offence, and you must look carefully before the House of Commons passes such a power and gives it to people who, acting from the best of motives, have to administer the Bill, but think rather too much of the person who is injured rather than of the interests of the community. There are only two things which justify you in inflicting the cat. The first is where the offence is so continuous that it is impossible to eradicate it without this extreme means. There is no case of that sort here. You may have it in the future, but you have not got it at present. The second is where violence is used. It is conceivable that in that case, or a case of fraud amounting to violence, the cat may be justified. There is the case of burglary with possession of arms. You ought always to try to distinguish between persons who use violence and persons who do not in crimes of that kind, but beyond that you ought not to go. Personally, I have another great fear, even apart from the two real canons I have laid down, of where the evidence rests, as it would in this case, very largely on the uncorroborated testimony of a woman and her accomplice. The procurer here would be convicted on the evidence of the man and the woman—a very easy thing to do. In a case of that kind I should go particularly steady on the question of flogging, because once the punishment is inflicted you cannot put it right. I have the greatest belief in the way in which our criminal law is being administered. I have a boundless admiration for it and a deep jealousy for keeping it pure and strong, as it is at present; but if there is any case where I have the slightest doubt as to whether justice is always done, it is where charges are made mixed up with this class of case where the evidence rests upon women and men of doubtful character and where no decent man dare stand up really to protect or say a word in defence of the accused. It is in those cases where justice ought to come in.

I will try and follow the example of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the tone in which he has discussed this terrible and most difficult problem. No one who has heard the speeches on both sides can fail to agree that this is one of those grave matters on which the most sincere and most thoughtful men may legitimately take different views. When it passed through the Committee upstairs, I, like many other Members, felt bound to consider very carefully whether we could support this proposal when it came back to the House, and after prolonged consideration I have come to the conclusion that, while the proposal of the Government is a novelty and does involve the extension of a very rare and peculiar form of punishment in matters which are not connected with violence, yet under all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the careful limitation of it to a second offence, I am bound, on the whole, to support the Bill as it stands now. I would deal with two most powerful considerations which have been put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Greenwood) and others against this proposal. One is the general argument—general in scope, but most particular in exposition—that this is torture. I do not think that the word "torture" can be confined to physical chastisement, and, in contradistinction, taken away from the mental agony which is involved in long terms of imprisonment. It depends entirely on the temperament of the individual which form of punishment is to him the greatest torture, and we ought to decide this bearing in mind that the alternative form of punishment may well be even greater torture to certain types of criminals who are properly called upon to suffer. The other consideration is that this particular form of punishment ought necessarily to be connected with crimes of violence. Here I am fortified by a remark made by the late Lord James of Hereford, when he was opposing this proposal to add flogging under the Criminal Law Amendment Act for offences against women and children— what I may call direct offences. He said:

"It was possible that flowing might, be regarded as a useful punishment if they were dealing with crime the result of deliberate premeditation, when the offender might calmly contemplate that lie might have to suffer flogging."

I agree to that dictum. Sir Henry James went on to say that the proposal there was to inflict flogging for direct offences on women and children, and though saying these might be due to strong momentary passion, no doubt of the vilest kind, he did not think flogging ought to be applied to them. There was great weight in this remark from a very experienced criminal lawyer, that this kind of punishment may well be adapted to crimes of premeditation and crimes committed in cold blood. The particular crime here, particularly when it is limited to the second occasion, is almost the only crime that we can easily conceive which combines the maximum of premeditation with the utmost sexual depravity, and therefore I, for one, am unwilling to take the responsibility of opposing a proposal of this kind made by the Government after considerable discussion upstairs, and made with knowledge of the very important facts which the Home Secretary has laid before the House. I do say, I own not without hesitation, that I attach the greatest importance to the expectations which have been expressed on both sides of the House, that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the knowledge of it may act as a great deterrent. The experience which I have had of criminal courts for twenty years leads me to believe that this type of criminal has a fear, and a very wholesome fear, of corporal punishment, and therefore while I should be opposed to any further extension of that form of punishment at the present time, and while T admit that this is a great and novel departure, I ask, what are we here for except to face the necessity for grave and novel departures if we believe, as I believe, that the gravity of the circumstances really require that they should be made.

It is no easy matter to stand up and oppose the Government in this matter, but it is precisely because I am afraid that we, who are supporting the Amendment, are in a considerable minority that I cannot give a silent vote. I feel strongly that this House under stress of feeling against an odious crime is indulging in retrograde action, and going back upon the progress which has been made during the last 100 years. I am bound therefore to protest against the passing of this Clause. We have had important speeches in support of the Clause as it stands from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Both of these speeches were loudly cheered by the supporters of the Clause, but they were absolutely contradictory as regards the arguments used. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping? It was that you are dealing with brutes—animals—and that you ought to give them punishment only suited to animals. That was the whole of his argument, and on that he justified the Clause. That is not the argument of the Home Secretary. He is as strongly opposed as ever to flogging, and he does not withdraw one of the arguments he has ever used against flogging, but he is in favour of the Clause, not because that punishment is to be inflicted upon these men, but because he believes it is going to prevent them from committing the crime for which it is the punishment. He is riot going to administer flogging at all. There is no question with him of dealing with an animal. He is dealing with astute and clever men who have been ingenious enough to get through the Act of 1885. He is putting in something to frighten these men. He is not going to administer flogging for a first offence. When the first offence has been committed he is going to let the man out without administering this punishment, and then the argument is that because the man is afraid that ho is going to have it for the second offence he will leave the country, and so we will be delivered from his presence.

I desire that our society should be purified of these scoundrels, but what is there to prevent the Home Secretary from having a Clause in the Bill forbidding men coming back to this country when they have committed this crime. You have the Aliens Act. The offenders are nearly all men of foreign extraction, and so far as they are aliens, they can be deported. I would rather support my hon. Friend in doing something which would banish these men from our shores. I would insist upon their leaving this island, and I would not allow them to get back except on pain of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman has given away very easily all the arguments which were put before him against flogging. I am very much afraid that the motive of most, or, at all events, of many Members of the House, is not that of the Home Secretary. They believe that the punishment will be inflicted, and that it will be severely felt by those men on whom it is going to be inflicted. What is the real motive for inflicting this brutalising punishment? What is the object? Not deterrent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Deterrent for others or for the criminals? [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] I think experience is very much against those who believe that flogging is going to be deterrent. I do not see anything in the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). If you actually believe that flogging is a deterrent, why limit it to this particular class of offences or offenders? I really do not see any answer to that argument. If it is a deterrent, why not use it more freely? In the days when they believed it was a deterrent they did use it freely, and they took care that the punishment should be inflicted in public, because it was intended to be not merely a punishment for the man who suffered it but that it should inspire fear in those who witnessed it. I would point out that all the offences for "which it was formerly inflicted were far more common than they are now when it is not the punishment.

No case has been made out for the Clause. If I believed that you would have a deterrent by inflicting this punishment, I should not be opposing it, but no evidence has been adduced that that is the case. I think the historical evidence is all the other way. I do not think that hon. Members who support the proposal can, judging from past experience, get up and say that the infliction of violent punishments of this kind has operated as a deterrent with respect to the crimes against which they were directed. I hold the opinion held by Members on all sides of politics that flogging has failed when intended as a deterrent. In 1885 the case was regarded as proved, and it does seem to me a great pity now that in a Bill dealing with this class of offences, as to which the feeling of every right-minded person in the community is aroused, you should not be content with making detection easier, and making it easier to bring the criminal to justice, but that you should go further and mix it up with the question of flogging. I do not believe that it is a deterrent. I believe it is brutalising to the criminal. It is said that you cannot brutalise the brutes with whom you are dealing. I doubt that. No one knows that depths to which human nature may fall or the heights to which it may rise. I think the feeling that flogging is a suitable punishment for these offences is unworthy of the House and the community. It not only brutalises the man who suffers the punishment but the man who inflicts it. I wonder how many hon. Members would take the "cat" in their hands and inflict this punishment. [HON. MEMBERS: "I would."] I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would never ask anybody to do anything he is not willing to do himself. I say, in spite of that, that it is a punishment which is brutalising both to those who indulge in it and those who witness it. That is admitted when you say that the punishment is to be inflicted privately and not in public. It most of all tends to lower the tone of society which allows flogging to go on. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not put the Whips on on this Amendment, but whatever he may do I shall not be deterred from voting against it.

I rise to support the Clause in the Bill. May I remind the hon. and learned Member who spoke about sentiment that after all this punishment is voluntary. If they do not commit the crime they will not get it.

The hon. Member pays a great compliment to the administration of the criminal law when he cannot even conceive the case of an innocent man being convicted.

Not twice. You will not get up the same class of witnesses against a man the second time whom you have allowed, because of your maudlin sentiment about hurting his skin, not only to ruin the person against whom he has committed the offence, but the whole of her connections. We are trying to pass a law to be a deterrent. We do not want to punish anybody; but if they commit the offence, I cannot imagine anything bad enough to punish them. If you ask, "Who will do it," all I can say is you can ask me. The hon. Member has very properly said, "Why not punish the clients as well?" I agree that if you stop the procurer, the other should come in and take a share of it as well. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. But why are we always pleading for the "civilising influences" and all the rest of it, when you allow these people to go on committing this crime and boasting of it? There are men walking the streets of London to-day who say they have ruined as many girls as would stretch from Victoria Station to St. Paul's, and yet you talk sentiment about the punishment of these people. Have you any children of your own? It is wonderful how philosophically you can bear other people's troubles. You want to prevent this and all kinds of brutality where they exist, but you say, "Don't hurt the man's skin. You brutalise him; you demoralise the whole community." We are not to be charged with want of sentiment, but what greater sentiment is there than the love of purity and honour? We want to secure it for all time. We want that our young women shall be pure; and is it not worth a sacrifice to do that? Everyone of you will agree that it is worth making a sacrifice for—a sacrifice of these people. I am glad that they have got a skin that can be tanned. There would be very little sentiment about me if it were my sister or my daughter who had been ruined, and there would be very little sentiment about any other hon. Member. We are out for the protection of these girls, who, it has been said, are not so well brought up as they might be. Speaking as the father of a family of girls, I do not want my girls to be broken in to be old women until they reach the age of maturity. Why should I be talking stuff to them that I do not want them to understand until they get to be sufficiently old; and are they, then, to be left to these villains to be ruined because of their sweet innocence? I am not wanting to punish these people. I think an English jury should decide what punishment is to be inflicted. It is only if they commit the offence a second time. They are asking for it. Why should we deny it? I will not say another word. I am going to support the Clause.

I find myself as a rule privileged in following my hon. and learned Friend below me, and I regret extremely on personal grounds that I am unable to do so this afternoon, because I conceive this to be the most admirable Clause in the Bill. If I may compare great things with small, I think one of the hon. Members who spoke on the other side gave a personal experience. A good many of us can give personal experiences. I know very well that when I was at school —and I suppose it is true of a good many of us—I often was compelled to experience the whip for offences which were slight, but, as I think, it had a most valuable effect. I know that I was once whipped three times before breakfast, and I do not think I was the worse for it. I can honestly say that it had an extremely deterrent effect in my after career. That, to compare great things with small, is really the whole question at issue this afternoon. In reply to what has been said as to this being a retrogression upon our civilised ideas which I think has been absolutely dispelled by the hon. Member for Woolwich, is it not at least conceivable that those who urge that, with all the strength with which it is urged in their respect for civilisation, are inclined to forget that why we are so particular at this moment about this Clause in the Bill is because we are concerned with our civilisation in one of the other spheres in which it is attacked? You have got those two forces in operation: one the sentiment concerned for the man who may get into trouble under this Bill and the other the sentiment that is concerned with preserving the purity of our life in another direction. I cannot hesitate as to the side on which my support will lie. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. G. Greenwood) charged us earlier in the Debate with using this punishment for this offence on the ground that it is a deterrent, and said that to be logical we should introduce it for all offences. The hon. Member for Peterborough said, "You will not even introduce it for such a horrible offence as the rape of a child. Why, then, should you introduce it here?" My answer is simple. The one crime in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred is the result of a momentary passion. I do not minimise it. I only point out that it is due to a very momentary passion. This other crime is the result of a kind of diabolical deliberateness for which there can be no excuse, and which, least of all, can be excused on the ground of momentary passion. The hon. Member opposite urged that we should try the advantages of the Borstal system.

I never said anything of the kind. I only instanced the Borstal system of dealing with criminals generally.

Unless the hon. Member did apply the Borstal system to this kind of offence, I fail to see what relevancy his observations had. I wish merely to record my conviction that all the arguments which have been advanced against this Clause seem to proceed on the false supposition that the men who would be convicted of this kind of crime will be the accidental dinner who has fallen into crime by mistake or misfortune. That is a complete delusion. These men are not accidental first offenders; they are hardened sinners who have set themselves to corrupt one portion of society, and to get women into their clutches. I submit that in these circumstances it cannot be contended that the penalty to be imposed is too severe. A point has been raised as to the object of punishment. The object of punishment is to effect its purpose as far as possible in preventing crime, and the Home Secretary's observation was that the object was an absolutely practical one. Certain hon. Members have discussed this punishment from the point of view of sentiment, and from a great many other points of view, but the one point to which we must always come back is that this punishment will be judged, examined, or approved by the extent to which it will practically succeed. I cannot for the life of me suppose that hon. Members have been for one moment misled by the argument that in introducing this provision into the Bill we are introducing something which exceeds the general principles of the administration of the law, because it is clearly laid down in the Bill that it is optional, and also that it is to be applied in the case of a second conviction. I noticed with interest what my hon. Friend said just now, that there has been no case of a second conviction in three years. I do not know why we should not inflict this punishment for a first offence, but that is outside this Amendment. I only urge with all the force I can that the Committee should insist upon keeping this most valuable Clause in the Bill.

An argument was used a few minutes ago by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) which has been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that for the past three years there has been no second case of conviction for an offence of this kind. That would appear for the moment to be a rather effective argument against the retention of the Clause. It has no validity at all, because it will not apply in the future. The whole case for this Bill is that the police authorities have been unable to get convictions where they ought to have obtained them. They have not obtained them in the past because the law has been too weak.

This Section deals with procurers only. This Bill does not alter in any way that I am aware of the means of getting evidence against procurers.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable the police to bring these criminals to justice, and the measure is not worth supporting at all if it does not effect that purpose. It is because it will effect that purpose that there will be many more cases of first conviction during the next few years than in the last few years. This is indeed the very case in which nothing could be more effective as an argumentum ad hominem than the lash to their backs. Several hon. Members have said that they are opposed to the use of the whip in any circumstances as being degrading, and they have remarked over and over again, why not apply it to other cases 1 I know of no offence so cold-blooded as this one with which we are dealing. It is an offence peculiarly atrocious. I do not suppose there are half a dozen men who would vote for the re-imposition of the lash in the Army and Navy as a means of enforcing discipline, and I maintain that there is a radical difference between that and the offence with which we are dealing. We have had a great deal of irrelevant matter imported into the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) recalled the wretched state of the penal laws in days gone by when people were whipped. Yes, and they were hanged for stealing five shillings' worth.

It has nothing to do with the question before us that the lash was cruelly and unjustly administered for small offences or that capital punishment was wrongly meted out to criminals for small offences in days gone by; but that is not to say-that we are not to use this special punishment for this special offence. I do not believe that public opinion will be in any degree brutalised by the knowledge that the lash may be imposed upon this class of men, who certainly deserve it more than any other class I know. I only want to support the giving of power, and I do so at the risk of some misunderstanding outside. I am afraid I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who would not have the lash in any case. I may say that I am a thorough disbeliever in the lash for the mere offence of stealing or for offences against discipline in the Army or Navy, because there are other methods of dealing with (hem. But I am perfectly certain, that there is no argument of that kind which could apply to this class of criminals, who are cowards and bullies combined, and I support the infliction of this punishment as a strong deterrent against this atrocious offence.

I could not allow this Clause to pass without expressing my strongest aversion to this method of punishment. I have just as much aversion as any hon. Member here to the kind of crime that has been described and which has formed indeed the large staple of the argumentative capital with which this Debate has been carried on. We all have the same horror of the kind of offence which is aimed at here. It is a question of the method of punishment, however, whether it is a wise method or a justifiable method, and whether it has been a successful method in the past. The voices of hon. Members, whose characters and opinions I hope I respect as much as anyone, have been lifted in favour of this method of punishment, and I really hoped that support of this kind of punishment was dying out in the mind^* of thinking men. I would just by way of bringing the argument home point to tin words of this second Clause, "Any male person." Why use those words? It is just because there is not a single Member of this House who would apply the lash to the back of a female. Why not? The Clause goes on to say that this is to be in addition to any term of imprisonment, but if that was as effectual as has been pointed out, what is the necessity for this provision as well? The method of flogging is a mere survival of revengeful ideas. I would respectfully suggest that that-form of punishment has disappeared from the minds of all men who are students of criminology, and all those who have tried to study methods of punishment scientifically absolutely disapprove of the use of the lash. I confess I am perfectly amazed that the Home Office should have responded in this way. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman would certainly not for a moment have sanctioned the recrudescence of the flogging method, and neither would his predecessor. Somehow or other the Home Office appears to have got into the hands of men who do not study and do not realise what the progress of thought has been upon this subject. I maintain we are going back on civilisation. I would as soon have expected to see my clock going back as that the Home Office of a Liberal Government should adopt this. I implore the House to consider and think on this question before going to a vote. The right hon. Gentleman used the argument that he did not approve of flogging the ordinary criminal, but that in this case they were animals or human brutes. No doubt they are, but there is not a Member of this House, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman himself, who would treat any brute in the way in which he wants to-treat these human brutes. Gentlemen have called in their dogs from the hunting field or on the moors, and I have witnessed them flogging them, and I thought it was rather cruel. Is there an hon. Gentleman opposite who would like to see his dog beaten in the way in which it is proposed in this Section—not one, and the dog has fur on its back to protect it. You see a horse being flogged by an angry carter because be will not draw a load up a hill. You send an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and you bring the carter up to Court and punish him, perhaps with flogging. The thing is so inconsistent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] As far as the House is concerned it can divide directly so far as I am concerned. I say if the State in its majesty employs men to lacerate the flesh, the delicate flesh of a human being, however brutal he may be, it is doing that which it ought not to do. It is doing that which no individual member of it would do willingly, and to employ an officer to do it as the representative of the State is a degradation. It degrades the man who is already degraded still more, it degrades the warder or officer who is called upon to inflict the punishment, and it degrades the House of Commons which sanctions it, and it degrades the State and every member of it.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

While I entirely agree with the principle that the State has the right to inflict the punishment of the lash when it considers it expedient for the protection of the citizen, in many instances I have experience of its use—-I will not say of its value. These criminals have been described as animals, brutes, and degraded beings, and that nothing-could degrade them further, and that therefore the lash ought to be thoroughly-well used. It struck me while that argument was being used that it could also be applied to those women who have been stated by the Home Secretary to be the chief and the most numerous of the offenders. I think we ought not to put this on the Statute Book without further experience. We could very well wait for that experience, and we could then see whether it should be applied. In the meantime, how are you going to check this trade] It is all very well to argue that because it is so difficult for the police to check crime recourse should be had to more severe sentences. I do not think that that is the right way to deal with the matter. With this Bill the police will have more opportunities, and by putting on more detectives and in other ways they will be able to secure more convictions. I shall therefore vote against this-proposal to introduce flogging in this Clause.

I would not have risen had not the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) thrown out a challenge to the old soldiers in this House. He asked, "Would you wish to see flogging reintroduced into the Army?" My answer is: Thank Heaven, the crime in the Army is not of the sort that requires flogging. In all my service I have never known a British soldier ply this vile, nefarious, loathsome trade. If a British soldier had done that, I should say that the only punishment to meet the crime was a good sound flogging. [An HON. MEMBW: "Why not shoot him?"] No, I would not shoot him. But, thank Heaven, the British soldier is made of different stuff from that! My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University said that the trade, is carried on mostly by foreigners. It is a great joy to hear that, and to feel that our fellow countrymen are not. in it to the same extent as foreigners. He said that you could deport them. I am very glad you can. But when you do deport such a man I should like him to have the hallmark of some British muscle on his back. I shall certainly vote against this Amendment, and do everything in my power to protect the womanhood and childhood of this country.

I want to appeal to-the Government to take off the official Whips and allow us to vote according to our conscience. I do so with the more confidence because I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present. I find that so recently as 1900, when there was introduced a Bill to inflict corporal punishment for disgraceful assaults upon women and children, the Chancellor of the Exchequer voted against that brutalising punishment being applied in cases of that kind. He was supported in that view by many Members who now occupy positions on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister spoke strongly against the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, the-Chief Secretary for Ireland, the President of the Board of Education, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Secretary to the Board of Education voted against it, as also did the senior Member-for the City of London. I can hardly think that humanity has gone back so far as to make all those distinguished Members recede from the point which they had reached at that time in the direction of the highest humanity. Scotland since 1862 has done without flogging, and she has done very well. Not one single word has been said in favour of Scotland's reverting to this brutalising and degrading punishment. For these reasons, so

I beg to move to leave out the words "of a second or subsequent offence."

As the House has finally settled the principle in regard to flogging, I do not propose to deal at any length with that part of the case. The point of this Amendment is that once the House has decided that flogging is a means of meeting this evil it shall deal with it at the very start. To give a second chance is almost inviting the procurer to try again, and in that I think we are forgetting altogether the effect of his action upon the victims he may ruin. I have listened to this Debate with very great interest, and I yield at once in the fullest degree, to those who are opposed to flogging, that they are entirely sincere. But I think they make a mistake when they say that owing to the absence of flogging and very severe punishments from our social code our social condition is better. I think they fail to realise that this in really owing to the gradual elevation of the whole social tone. When we are dealing with people whose object is to drag down the community to a very low level, I think we are entitled to apply ancient and rougher methods to defend ourselves.

You cannot help a feeling of sentiment coming into this question, and I agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Colonel Lockwood) that in questions of crime against women and children we ought to harden our hearts, and apply a punishment which we would not apply in other cases. The man who attacks you with violence is a gentleman in comparison with the pimp and procurer. The hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out the danger of a man being wrongly accused, and I agree that it is only after these people have been proved guilty after a full and fair trial that the severe penalty should be enforced. I cannot see why we should flinch in this matter. We may be sure that we shall never catch the offender in his first offence, because they serve apprenticeship in crime, and before the police are able to get evidence against them we may reasonably assume that they have been practising this crime for a considerable period. You are dealing with hardened scoundrels, and I am sure that the infliction of this very wholesome Clause will drive them from our shores. Even if they are Englishmen I think we are right to beat them, and beat them hard, because they are a class we do not want to have anything to do with. I think the advocates of leniency are apt to forget the sufferings which the deluded victims of these men endure, and I think it might be well if some modern Richardson were to write a new "Clarissa Harlowe" to demonstrate the sufferings that women have to endure to-day at the hands of these people. I would remind hon. Members who speak with horror of the lash that the highest authority in the world used the scourge to clear the Temple of those who were committing a crime, much less than this now under discussion. Supposing these pimps and procurers adopt the new fashion of hunger strike, are you going to let a man like that out in a week? If we are to let him out in a week, we ought at least to let him out with the hall mark of British muscle on his back, so that he will carry away some appreciation of the sentiment of Great Britain towards procuration. It is my firm conviction that if a man like that, at any rate, carries away this visible sign of his absolute want of inward and spiritual grace it will act as a wholesome deterrent and be a stimulating form of retributive justice.

Some reference has been made to the Act of 1863, which was passed to stop garrotting. The Act made flogging the penalty for the first offence, and on an Amendment moved in this House that it should only be the penalty for the second offence it was retained as a penalty for the first offence by a large majority. I hope the House will proceed to do what to my mind is really the logical corollary of the conclusions to which it has just arrived.

There are two-considerations I would submit why we cannot accept this Amendment and why we think flogging ought to be reserved as the punishment for a second offence. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Eawlinson) said on the other Amendment, you must first be satisfied the ordinary law is not a deterrent. When a man is convicted a first time he is subjected to ordinary imprisonment with hard labour, but when he is convicted a second time it is clear ordinary imprisonment with hard labour will not deter him, and therefore he is subjected to this further penalty. There is a second consideration we ought not to neglect. There is some risk—I think it is almost a negligible one—that a man who is innocent might be convicted a first time, and, if flogging is a punishment for the first offence, you might be flogging an innocent-man. However negligible that risk is, it has been mentioned in the course of the Debate. I think it is practically impossible that a man should be convicted twice of this class of offence and remain innocent. Under these circumstances and for these reasons the Government are not able to accept this Amendment, that flogging shall be inflicted on the first conviction.

I have voted in favour of flogging, but I am not sure that I can support the hon. Member if he presses this Amendment to a Division. There is a great deal to be said for the view of flogging for garrotting and robbery with violence; but we are now, for the first time, deciding that a person who commits one of these offences shall be liable to be flogged on the second conviction. Would it not be a wise course on the part of this House, having instituted a novel procedure, to wait and see how it will act, and whether or not the knowledge that on a second conviction a person will be liable to be flogged will act as a deterrent. If it is found later on that the punishment of the lash is not a deterrent, and that these offences are committed as often in the future as in the past, it might be possible to bring in a Bill to deal with the point, but is it wise to say at once that the penalty of flogging shall apply on the first offence. I think on the whole it would be wise to proceed cautiously in this direction.

It would appear from the records that there has been no such thing as a second conviction for the offence of procuring. If that should be the case then the punishment which is suggested for the second offence will be wholly ineffective, because it will never be brought into operation. I would ask the House to consider this: that whilst a man might possibly be convicted a first time of procuring, it is extremely doubtful whether it would be his first offence, and it would be well for the House to consider, seeing that we have a law which enables garrotters to be flogged for the first time at the discretion of the Court, whether procurers of girls should be allowed, to use the imagery of an hon. Member, a "first bite": that they should be allowed to commit the offence of procuring a girl once before they incur the penalty of flogging. I think this punishment should be a deterrent. I wish to deter anyone committing the offence a first time as well as the second time, and therefore I cannot help thinking there are very good grounds for supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

I very much regret the decision announced by the Government to oppose this Amendment, and all the more so because it appears to me that the reasons given by the Under-Secretary for doing so are really reasons in support of it. He admitted it was likely to prove a deterrent against a second offence. If so, why should it not prove a deterrent against a first offence? If it is a deterrent against the first offence, why should it not be inserted in the Bill? As to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) that second convictions for offences of this character are very few, that may be a good reason for opposing the Clause as it stands, because, if it were only in cases of second offences that the Clause is applicable and there are no such cases of second offences, the Clause is an absurdity. Having already come to the decision that the Clause is a good one, and that in a few cases flogging would be a deterrent against this abominable offence, let us act logically and make it a deterrent against the first offence. If there is a peculiarly atrocious case of this class of offence which comes before a judge, the House will be well advised to give the judge a discretion, knowing that it will be properly used, to impose the penalty of flogging in addition to the other penalties provided.

I desire, after considering the Amendment, to support it. The Under-Secretary says there is a possibility of an innocent man being subjected to this very severe punishment. There are two bulwarks against that fear. First, there is now a Court of Appeal, which works very swiftly and effectively. It is inconceivable that in any case this punishment would be inflicted until sufficient opportunity had been given for a person to appeal, if he were minded to do so. We ought to have regard to the fact that we have now a very effective system under which, if there is any doubt at all, the case can be brought very swifty before the Court of Appeal. It is almost inconceivable that the discretion of the Court would be exercised in any doubtful case to inflict this punishment. We can therefore put aside the possibility of the penalty being inflicted upon an innocent man. We are all trying to put a stop to a crime which is dealt with under Section 2. The success of a prosecution and the procuring of a conviction is very often not easy. It is not in every case that a conviction can be secured. What you really want is to give a discretionary power to the Court, in a case where a prosecution has been successful and you have a really bad man before the Court, to make an example of the case that will deter the commission of other crimes of a similar nature. If we are to postpone it, as has been suggested, till another time when we may pass another Bill, we are putting it off a great deal too much. We have an opportunity this afternoon, and while the matter is fresh in our minds we ought to deal with it. If we want to stamp out this crime, what can be more effective than using the deterrent—for by our last vote it is admitted that it is a deterrent—immediately upon a person being brought before the Court. The sooner the criminals who are engaged in this class of crime learn from the fate of those who are convicted that there is a serious danger, not merely to their liberty but also to their skins, by having committed this class of crime, the more effective will this weapon be to put an end to crime. That is our object, and upon the whole, giving due weight to the considerations which have been urged by the Home Secretary and to the humanitarian feelings which have been expressed in many parts of the House, I think it would be wise to pass the Amendment. The question of garrotting has been referred to. The power which was given in that case was much more stringent—it may be said much more brutal. It was that for a single offence—not on several convictions —the convicted person should be once, twice, or three times privately whipped, and I think it is quite likely that a great number of Members, perhaps every Member in the House, would say that for one conviction it is a little hard that a man should be flogged successively at different periods of one, two, and three months. That was the penalty that was thought good in those days. We are asking for a great deal less. We are only asking that discretion should be given immediately to bring into effect this punishment, and I feel confident it would only be used in proper cases where a really bad man had been convicted of this abominable crime.

I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude. If the Amendment goes to a Division I shall certainly vote for it, and I think a considerable number of my hon. Friends will do the same. The Home Secretary told us that, in his opinion, no really innocent person has ever been convicted. However that may be, and I think it is more than likely, the cases of innocent men being convicted of this offence must be extremely rare. Apart from the general question of flogging, this provision in the Bill is purely at the option of the Court. I do not know that magistrates in this country are particularly bloodthirsty. I imagine they would be chary of putting this power into operation. In any case, let us suppose for a moment that there is any doubt about it. The convicted person has the right of appeal, which is put into operation very speedily, and in all the circumstances of the case you make it almost impossible that an innocent man should be made to suffer. The third point which I would like to put is one that weighs strongly with me and my Friends. It is not easy to obtain convictions in these cases. On the contrary, it is very difficult. I am under the impression, and other people are also under the impression, that when persons are found guilty it is not the first case in which they have perpetrated the offence. I am certainly not in favour of giving these persons their "first bite." I think every possible deterrent should be used to prevent them from indulging in their loathsome operations. In my opinion the stronger the penalty that is imposed in these cases the better it will be for the interest of the community.

I hope the Government will stand firm in their attitude to this Amendment for this reason. The House has already decided to take a very novel and weighty course, and it is surely of the greatest importance that that should be taken with the maximum of support behind it, both in this House and outside. There are two arguments which should be put before the House. One is-that the tendency of modern legislation has been towards greater leniency of sentences generally, but it has also-been to mark most precisely the difference between first and subsequent offences, and to reserve for the subsequent offences the more extreme penalties. An Act was passed three or four years, ago which enables judges, in passing a sentence of two years, or, it may be, three years' penal servitude, to couple it with a period of preventive detention after the term of penal servitude. That was the most important amendment of the criminal law in recent years. I think hon. Members who have thought it their duty to become familiar with what occurs in the Courts of Criminal Justice will agree that the passing of that Act, and the knowledge of that being possible, has had a beneficial effect. In this case knowledge on the part of criminals that for the second offence they will run the risk of receiving the whip will have an effect on those who have not been convicted at all. To increase the punishment of flogging as proposed in the Amendment will greatly diminish the public support which is behind this Bill. It is of the greatest importance that the Bill should have-behind it not only those who are prepared to develop the penalty of flogging, but also those who are with the greatest reluctance willing to acquiesce in its being allowed by this Bill for the offence with which the measure deals.

I rise to support the appeal by the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde) to the Government. The House has been discussing this question to-day in an entirely non-party spirit, and the Divisions have not run at all on party lines. There is such a Division on the subject now before us. I think it would be an advantage if the Government would leave the question to the free decision of the House. I make that appeal, and hope that it will be considered. I think that the House would like to express its opinion unhampered by any ether consideration whatsoever. I do not believe that there is a Member of this House who has a greater abhorrence of flogging or physical punishment of any kind than I have. I have never given a vote in this House in favour of flogging until this day, and I hope that I may never have to give such a vote again. This class of offence is the only one in which I could bring myself to vote for it, but I do think that for this class of offence it is an apt and proper punishment. It is not one which a man commits in a moment of passion without premeditation. The class of man with whom we are dealing is a man who is trading on the shame and degradation of the weakest and most defenceless among us, who is doing it for profit. He must be a bully and a coward, and I think for such a man the best deterrent, perhaps the only deterrent, is the actual infliction of physical pain on himself; and if the infliction of that physical pain on a few of these men has, as I hope it must have, a deterrent effect on all of them, then the suffering, small in extent, though great in individual cases, thus caused, would be as nothing compared to the infinite misery that we shall have prevented.

As one who voted in the minority the last time, I wish to say that in my judgment those who are responsible for this particular Amendment have all the logic upon their side. We heard before that the penalty of flogging was only to be imposed for the second offence. Now we are told that the second offence is very infrequently committed, and there are practically no second convictions. In the circumstances, if you are going to make anything at all of flogging, it seems to me that this Amendment must be carried. I am not going to vote for it, and I merely wish to point out the true position of the matter. A great deal has been said as to flogging being a deterrent for this particular offence, and this was said in such a way as to lead me to believe that those who said so were not at all particular as to discriminating between one offence and another, but that in future they would apply this penalty to other classes of offences. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] You all say "No" now. You all voted for the retention of the Clause on the plea that it would only be applied for the second offence, and therefore would not be applied at all. But you are already driven by the logic of events to go further than that, and apply it to the first offence. But I have the fear in my mind, which is intensified by what I have heard this afternoon, that having gone so far as to apply flogging to the first offence with regard to this particular crime, other crimes will be added, and it will be applied to those also.

I am afraid of that. It is going back on the best traditions of this House, and against the lessons of experience. Have you ever found that brutalising a man has in any way cured him? I do not believe you can cure or reform a man by flogging him. Would anyone say that you could convert a man by throwing a hatchet at him? The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) said we must keep our women-folk pure. Do not we all want to keep our women-folk pure? Is not that a mere platitude? I do not think this method of punishment is going to make anybody purer; you are not going to achieve anything by further brutalising persons already brutalised. Therefore I object to the whole thing. It has been said that these men prey upon and make profit out of unfortunate women. There are other men who prey upon women and children—men who sweat pool-innocent women and children; and the economic position has to be dealt with before you can cure this evil which: we are now discussing. I do not at all say that a man who sweats women and children is as bad, according to the moral code, as a man who commits this particular offence, but I do say that our system at present leads to the sweating of women and children, and therefore hands them over as more or less unwilling victims to-the evil with which we are now dealing. I am going to vote against the Amendment if I vote at all. I do not believe any good can be done by it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that flogging is about the worst thing you can do to a man. It revolts me. I only once saw a prize fight, thirty years ago, and the sight of it made me sick. I can imagine that seeing a man flogged would also make me sick, and I cannot think that anything which: raises these feelings in a sensitive man, is going to do any good either to the criminal or to the person who is going to inflict the punishment. Therefore, I shall vote against the Amendment or anything which, to my mind, would tend to spread what I cannot help but think is something which would degrade everybody all round, from the criminal at the bottom right up to this House at the top.

I gather from what I heard from the Front Bench opposite, that the Government are endeavouring to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds; at all events we have been told by the hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill that it is quite- unlikely that this offence will occur a second time. By a huge majority we have voted in favour of flogging. Are we going to make an absolute farce of that particular Vote, because it is perfectly obvious that this filthy crime ought to be dealt with in a manner no other crime can be dealt with? Yet the Government are now going to vote against this Amendment, when they know perfectly well that these cowards—for they are cowards—adopt this trade for profit, knowing they have a chance of getting off the first time. The whole attitude of those men is loathsome and cowardly. There is talk of flogging for other crimes, but the men who commit other crimes, such as burglary, are not cowards, and in a great many cases they are far from being so. Flogging would not deter them, but in this case the men are cowards. If you are going to make this a real Bill and get at the bottom of things, better do away with what I consider to be a great deal of sickly sentiment and face the facts. You do not catch these men the first time, and when you do they ought to be well marked for what they do. I am surprised at the attitude of the Government, and I hope even now they will change their minds and allow this Amendment to be put in.

I desire to support the appeal made by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the hon. Baronet from the Irish Benches, and to point out that while it was a consistent position for the Government to say that flogging should be inserted for the second offence, whan the House has shown by an overwhelming majority that they are in favour of that, surely it is fair to appeal from these benches to the Government to leave this question open as regards the first offence. Some of us feel very strongly on this Bill, and public opinion has manifested itself on this question as it has seldom been manifested. We think that the crime is sufficient to justify flogging for a first offence because we believe it would be a deterrent. For that reason I appeal to the Government not to put on the Government Whips, but to leave it an open question to the House, which surely can be trusted to come to an unbiassed decision.

I certainly hope that the Government will see their way not to put on the Government Whips. This seems to me to be a question which the House might be allowed to decide without any Government or party pressure. While I say that, personally I shall vote against the Amendment. I voted in the majority last time. I think it was right to provide that flogging might be inflicted for this shocking crime if it is quite clear that nothing else will deter a man. That seems to me a sound principle. But may I remind the House of the great importance of preserving due proportion in punishment. If you take almost any crime and consider the worst form it can take, you may say that it is almost as bad as anything can be, and therefore a very severe penalty must be inflicted. After all, you have to consider what is the actual state of your jurisprudence now. Consider the crimes upon women and children for which you cannot flog. I agree that a determined bad case of this kind of crime is so bad that it is worse than any other crime on women and children. But it is only in an aggravated case of this kind that that can truly be said. Can you say that a first offence of this kind is necessarily, or even probably, of a more serious character than a rape on a child? I think it is going very far to say that. But you cannot flog for a rape on a child. You must consider carefully not only what your moral indignation would prompt you to exact, but what is in accordance with the general system of legislation that you have. Speaking as a great friend of this Bill, and as one who voted against the excision of this Clause, I think the House will make a mistake if they come to what will probably be regarded as a somewhat emotional decision in favour of allowing flogging for a first offence of this kind.[An HON. MEMBER: "A first conviction."]I am not one of those who think that flogging is necessarily a terrible and outrageous form of punishment. A good deal of nonsense is talked about torture and that kind of thing. All punishment is torture. Imprisonment with hard labour is in some cases a very severe form of torture. We do torture prisoners in the sense that we inflict pain upon them by way of punishment. Flogging is a very severe punishment, and is so regarded by the public. I have seen criminals in the dock burst into tears when sentenced to be flogged. They regard it as a severe punishment, and that is why I think it is a very valuable weapon in the hands of justice as a last or almost last resort. But to enact it for anything except the most serious form of crime seems to me to be a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. If a man after having been convicted and punished for a crime of this kind again commits it, he is a very bad criminal indeed, and flogging is a legitimate and proper punishment, which is likely to act as a deterrent. But to enact it for a first offence will be a mistake, and I shall vote against the Amendment.

I have seen no reason to depart from the conclusion I arrived at when I last spoke on this Bill. I entirely agree with what the Noble Lord opposite has just said. Without going into the merits of the controversy, an appeal has been made to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite and behind me as to the way this question ought to be left to the House. The object of the last Division was to establish flogging as a punishment for offences of this character. The Government took the view that that was an important principle; that these were offences where flogging should be a punishment under certain circumstances. The House, by a very great majority, agreed with the Government in that view. Now there seems to be a feeling that the House should declare its own view as to whether that punishment is to be admitted in the first or second cases. After consideration we have come to the conclusion that this is a matter, non-controversial, and a question on which the House should be allowed to declare itself free and unfettered. I am sure that announcement will be welcomed by the House. I agree with the Noble Lord that it is a very severe punishment; and that it should not be included in the first offence, but in the second. At any rate, the course the

I am not in the least surprised at the course taken by the Government. The appetite grows by what it feeds on. Now that we have admitted this form of punishment into our criminal code I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be asked again and again to extend its use to other offences. Many of the hon. Members who have spoken against our position seem to be unable to comprehend what that position is. The hon. Member for Woolwich thundered, I might almost say roared, against the horrible nature of this offence. His observations and those of other Members might imply that we do not appreciate the horrible nature of this offence. They say we sympathise with the man who is to be flogged and so on. But put out of consideration if you like the man who is to be flogged. It is in the interests of the community that we object to this punishment. We must punish a man rationally and within the bounds of reason and common sense. We object to this form of punishment altogether. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin has said that a great deal of nonsense is talked about, torture. The term torture is well understood. When we speak of torture we are not alluding to mental torture, but to physical pain inflicted. We know what we mean by torture—the rack, the thumbscrew, the boot, the slit nose, cutting off the ears, and so forth. We shall carry our opposition further until we abolish this disgraceful punishment of flogging.