Chapter XII: The Morality Bill, Accession and Coronation Declarations and Oaths

I. THE MORALITY BILL

The Morality Bill, so designated because of its peculiar provisions, contains some instructive reading. The most questionable provision in the Bill is formed by a portion of sub-section (1), section 9. “If any woman, who is a prostitute or a reputed prostitute, shall permit any boy to have connection with her ... such woman shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years.” “Boy” for the purposes of the Bill means a male under the age of nineteen years.

Such a provision could scarcely be conceived in any country other than England or America. No doubt it is well-meant, but in the complex state of society in towns, it is almost incapable of being put into practical effect.

That part of subsection (1), section 19, which makes it punishable for any person to favour or encourage the connection between a boy and a prostitute, is quite above reproach. The Bill in its other provisions is largely protective and meritorious. Its punitive side is also justified: indeed, it is scarcely harsh enough towards the man who lives on the immoral earnings of a woman: “Any person who knowingly lives, either wholly or in part, upon the immoral earnings of a woman (subsection (1), section 13), shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable, if a male, to be imprisoned upon summary conviction for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour, or upon conviction on indictment for any term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour.... Where a person is convicted on indictment of an offence under this section, it shall be lawful for the Court to direct that he be subject to the supervision of the police under section eight of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, notwithstanding that he has not been previously convicted of crime.” The summary conviction limit of six months is inadequate: so, likewise, is the limit of twelve months fixed for the punishment on conviction on indictment. The offence is one of the worst under the criminal law from the human standpoint; it is not only _mala quia prohibita_ but _mala per se_ in the public mind. The scoundrels who traffic in prostitution well deserve a greater punishment than the Bill suggests. “Prostitutes” in this sense does not mean the street women of the West End so much as those girls who are lured from the Continent, on a promise of high wages in London milliners’ shops, and then forced for a time at least by the women who import them to frequent certain so-called theatrical resorts. Many of these girls are not naturally vicious; they are merely the prey of the older women who work in conjunction with male supporters, some of whom take as much as thirty or forty pounds a week from the earnings of one of the victims. The men in question advise on and direct matters through the older women: as a matter of business, when the necessity arises, they also supply persons to perform illegal operations. To give an illustration of the _modus operandi_, generally, it will be necessary to narrate a passage from the history of one of these atrocious enterprises. _A_, a Paris shop-girl, aged 19, good-looking and well-formed, was induced to come to this country by _B_, a South American harlot established in London. The inducement was a very good wage at a West End shop where the English language could easily be picked up, according to report. _A_, a perfectly respectable girl, agreed to come to London with _B_, and shortly afterwards she found herself in a flat in Oxford Street (the rent of which was about £7 a week). She was kept at the flat until some evening dresses had been obtained, and then she was taken to a certain variety theatre by _B_. The girl could speak no English and her character was not self-assertive or strong. She knew nothing about French consuls or the English police, and, then, too, her ordinary wearing apparel had been taken from her by _B_. She, therefore, found herself on this first occasion, in the brightly-lighted promenade of a “music hall,” with many well-dressed men and women in her immediate vicinity. _B_ was near at hand to keep a watchful eye upon her. A patron of the place, one who was fluent with his French, soon made off with her to the flat in Oxford Street, to which he had been directed by _B_. (_A_ was herself incapable of supplying the address to the cabman). The girl then explained that she had had her ordinary clothes taken from her by _B_, that _B_ kept a man in the background, and that she, _A_, was entirely helpless. At a subsequent meeting, _A_ explained that _B_ took possession of about forty pounds a week, from her, and that the pretext was that it was being banked! The only clothes to which she, _A_, had access were evening gowns; she was kept without money, too, under constant surveillance, amid conditions which she did not like. The final scene was enacted a few months later, when the person, to whom _A_ had confided her story, went to the flat and found her missing. Her place had been filled by a newly-arrived _girl of fifteen_, procured by the same process from a Paris shop. On persistent enquiry, _A_ was found in another room suffering from the consequences of an illegal operation, which had been forced upon her by the joint efforts of _B_ and the male director of affairs.

A maximum penalty of twelve months’ hard labour for a scoundrel of the stamp of _B’s_ “lover” is most disproportionate to the offence. Of course, such a man would be liable to a greater penalty, if a girl of fifteen years of age were brought into the case. But on the other facts alone, the law should be less merciful.