THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE QUESTION.
_The Laws applying to Street-walkers_—_The Keepers of the Haymarket
Night-houses_—_Present Position of the Police-magistrates_.—_Music-hall
Frequenters_—_Refreshment-bars_—_Midnight
Profligacy_—“_Snuggeries_”—_Over-zealous Blockheads_.
SIX or seven years since, such alterations were made in the laws applying
to nocturnal street-walkers and disorderly persons generally, as enabled
the London magistrates, with the assistance of the police, to reduce the
great Haymarket disgrace to manageable dimensions. To completely abolish
so renowned and prodigious a nuisance at a blow was more than could be
expected; but the public generally were quite satisfied with the gradual
and successful working of the plans adopted for the final extinction of
the infamous “oyster-shops,” and cafés, and wine-shops, that in the olden
time made night hideous from St. James’s-street to Piccadilly. Suddenly,
however, the good work has received a serious check. According to the
usual custom, the keeper of a refreshment-house, on being summoned before
the magistrate (Mr. Knox) for an infringement of the Act, was fined for
the offence; and nothing else was expected but that the fine would be
paid, and, except for its salutary effect, there an end of it. But it
would seem that the fined “night-house” keeper had cunning advisers, who
assured him that the conviction was bad, and that he had only to appeal
to a superior court to insure its being set aside. The course suggested
was adopted, and crowned with success. Mr. Knox’s decision was reversed,
it not being clearly shown that the loose women discovered on the
premises were really assembled for an immoral purpose.
The _Times_, commenting on this, says: “It is matter for general regret,
since its probable result will be that in future the keepers of the
Haymarket ‘night-houses’ will do pretty much what they please, without
let or hindrance. It was decided by Sir William Bodkin and his brother
magistrates sitting at the Middlesex Sessions, on an appeal brought from
Marlborough-street, that no case is made out against the keeper of a
‘night-house,’ unless the police can prove that the women found in the
house were assembled there for an immoral purpose; it was possible they
might be there merely for the legitimate purpose of refreshment, and not
in prosecution of their wretched trade. It is perfectly obvious that
this interpretation of the law, whether or not true to the letter,
utterly violates the spirit. The character of the women who frequent
these ‘night-houses’ is perfectly well known. They have, moreover, but
one possible object in frequenting them. It is clear, therefore, that
they come within the spirit of the law against harbouring improper
characters quite as much as if they visited these houses actually in
company of men; and hence it follows that no new principle of
legislation, requiring long consideration and repeated discussion, would
be introduced if the law were made to reach them. We should, in fact, be
not making a new law, but giving an old law its proper effect—an effect
actually given it, as Mr. Knox points out, for seven years, and latterly
with admirable results. Under these circumstances, we can see no
objection to replacing the law on its former satisfactory footing by the
simple expedient of a short clause in the Habitual Criminals’ Bill. The
Bill already deals with the low beer-houses, which are the favourite
resorts of certain dangerous classes of the community; and the addition
of a few words would enable it to deal with such ‘night-houses’ as those
we have been discussing. This would not interfere with subsequent more
mature and more comprehensive legislation on the subject, while it would
obviate the delay which has driven the police authorities to desperation,
and which threatens to give a fresh lease to a grave national scandal,
just as it was in the way of being repressed.”
The old law alluded to by the _Times_ is the Act of Parliament of the 2d
and 3d Vict. cap. 47, and is entitled “An Act for further empowering the
Police in and near the Metropolis;” being an amendment of Sir Robert
Peel’s original statute, the 10th Geo. IV. Clauses 44, 52, 54, 58, and
63, bear especially on the penalties incurred by disorderly fallen women.
The 44th clause runs as follows:
“And whereas it is expedient that the provisions made by law for
preventing disorderly conduct in the houses of licensed victuallers
be extended to other houses of public resort; be it enacted that
every person who shall have or keep any house, shop, room, or place
of public resort within the Metropolitan-Police district, wherein
provisions, liquors, or refreshments of any kind shall be sold or
consumed (whether the same shall be kept or retailed therein, or
procured elsewhere), and who shall wilfully or knowingly permit
drunkenness or other disorderly conduct in such house, shop, room, or
place, or knowingly suffer any unlawful games or any gaming
whatsoever therein, or knowingly suffer or permit _prostitutes_, or
persons of notoriously bad character, to meet together and remain
therein, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty of not
more than five pounds.”
The 52d clause of the same statute provides:
“That it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Police from time to
time, and as occasion may require, to make regulation for the route
to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for
preventing obstructions of the streets or thoroughfares within the
Metropolitan-Police district, in all times of public processions,
public rejoicings, or illuminations; and also to give directions to
the constables for keeping order and for preventing any obstruction
of the thoroughfares in the immediate neighbourhood of her Majesty’s
palaces and public offices, the High Court of Parliament, the courts
of law and equity, the police-courts, the theatres, and other places
of public resort, and in any case when the streets or thoroughfares
may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed.”
The 54th clause provides, in continuation:
“That every person who, after being made acquainted with the
regulations or directions which the Commissioner of Police shall have
made for regulating the route of horses, carts, carriages, and
persons during the time of divine service, and for preventing
obstructions during public processions, and on other occasions
hereinbefore specified, shall wilfully disregard, or not conform
himself thereto, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than forty
shillings. And it shall be lawful for any constable belonging to the
Metropolitan-Police force to take into custody, _without warrant_,
any person who shall commit any such offence within view of any such
constable.”
The same 54th clause also provides:
“That every common prostitute or night-walker, loitering, or being in
any thoroughfare or public place, for the purpose of prostitution or
solicitation, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers,
shall be liable to a penalty of not more than forty shillings, and to
be dealt with in the same manner.”
And again, that “every person who shall use any profane, indecent, or
obscene language to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers;” and
also “every person who shall use any threatening, abusive, or insulting
words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or
whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned,” may be also so dealt
with. The 58th clause enacts:
“That every person who shall be found drunk in any street or public
thoroughfare within the said district, and who while drunk shall be
guilty of any riotous or indecent behaviour, and also every person
who shall be guilty of any violent or indecent behaviour in any
police station-house, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than
forty shillings for every such offence or may be committed, if the
magistrate by whom he is convicted shall think fit, instead of
inflicting upon him any pecuniary fine, to the House of Correction
for any time not more than seven days.”
The 63rd clause enacts:
“That it shall be lawful for any constable belonging to the
Metropolitan-Police district, and for all persons whom he shall call
to his assistance, to take into custody, without a warrant, any
person who within view of such constable, shall offend in any manner
against this Act, and whose name and residence shall be unknown to
such constable, and cannot be ascertained by such constable.”
The police are, under the same Act, empowered to deal with disorder,
drunkenness, disorderly conduct brawling, loitering and obstruction,
whether coming by prostitutes or others. Habitual loitering upon certain
fixed spots they already keep in check, generally speaking, without
tyranny; and next comes to be considered what can be done in case of what
is called “solicitation” or importunity, a prominent feature in the
general hill of indictment against prostitution.
To a person uninitiated in the law’s subtleties, it would seem that the
clauses of the Act of Parliament above quoted armed the police with all
necessary authority, and that all that was requisite was to compel the
observance of the said clauses, strictly and without favour, to insure a
considerable mitigation of the great evil. Indeed, as has been shown,
believing themselves justified in the course they have been for years
pursuing, the police have undoubtedly effected a vast and important
change in the aspect of the Haymarket and its neighbourhood after
midnight. The result, however, of the Assistant-Judge’s decision appears
to have put the worthy and indefatigable Mr. Knox quite out of heart, as
may be gathered from the subjoined newspaper account of the last case
that was brought before him:
“Rose Burton, keeper of a refreshment-house in Jermyn-street, lately
known as Kate Franks, appeared to answer two summonses for harbouring
prostitutes. The police gave the usual evidence. They visited the
house at night. They found men and women there; the women known
prostitutes, some taking refreshment. There was no disorder, and the
usual signal by ringing a bell had been given when the police
presented themselves at the house. For the defence it was urged,
that the evidence was similar to that given before the Middlesex
magistrates on appeal, after hearing which they quashed the
conviction, and that the magistrate should dismiss the summonses.
Mr. Knox said he must send the case to the Sessions in order to get a
clear declaration of what was meant. If the judgment of the Court
was against him, he must wash his hands of the matter. He should
inflict the reduced fine of 10_s._ in order that the conviction
should be taken to the Sessions. Mr. Froggatt asked for a decision
in the second case. Mr. Knox would act in it the same as in the last
case. It was, so to say, a last desperate effort. If he failed, his
honest determination was to take no further trouble in the matter;
but to report to the Home Office that the efforts to reform the
condition of the Haymarket had entirely broken down. Mr. Edward
Lewis, after some consultation with Mr. Allen jun. and Mr. Froggatt,
said that, owing to technical difficulties, it would be impossible to
get an appeal to Quarter Sessions before the 24th July. Mr. Knox
said that would be too late for Parliament to deal with the matter,
as the session would most probably close early in August. There was
no help for it; the nighthouse-keepers must go on in their own way;
the police might give up their supervision and refrain from taking
out summonses, as he certainly should decline to convict. He should
cancel the three convictions that day, and dismiss the summonses; he
was powerless, and therefore disinclined to enforce what for seven
years had been considered as law, but what had been suddenly upset at
Quarter Sessions. Mr. Knox then requested Mr. Superintendent Dunlop
to communicate what had occurred to the Commissioners of Police.”
At the same time, it is no more than fair to lay before the reader the
explanation given by the Assistant-Judge on the last occasion of the
matter coming before him. It should be understood that the case in
question was not that of “Rose Burton,” but of another of the fraternity
who had been fined by Mr. Knox. The party in question gave notice of
appeal, and the police authorities intimated their intention of
supporting the magistrate in his conviction. From some unexplained
cause, however, at the last moment the Commissioners of Police withdrew
altogether from the case, leaving it all undefended to be dealt with by
Mr. Bodkin. The judgment of the learned Assistant-Judge was as follows:
“There are two cases in the paper of appeals against convictions by
Mr. Knox for causing or allowing prostitutes to assemble; and upon
these two cases being called, counsel intimated that the solicitors
of the Commissioners of Police had written a letter to say that they
should not support these convictions. Under those circumstances no
other course was open to us but to quash them. But I mention the
fact now because these convictions have been the subject of
considerable comment and of interrogation in the House of Commons. I
can only say that there is no law in these cases at all. It is
entirely a question of fact, and each case must stand upon its own
merits. On one occasion we quashed a conviction on the hearing, and
upon that decision a great deal has been said. The sole evidence
there was, that a policeman went into the house between twelve and
one and found men and women having refreshment, some of the women
being prostitutes. No question was asked; and there was nothing to
show that the person who kept the house knew they were prostitutes.
There was nothing to show that any warning had been previously given
against harbouring or encouraging them to come. There was no ringing
of any bell to give notice of the approach of the police. In fact,
there was nothing but the mere incident that the police, before the
hour of one, when these houses should be closed, found persons in
them taking refreshments—some of those persons being prostitutes.
Although I do not shrink from taking on myself the chief
responsibility, there were many magistrates present who formed their
own opinion upon the question, which was a question of fact; and it
seemed so clearly not to be a case which satisfied the requirements
of the law, that we did not call upon the counsel for the appellants,
but at once quashed the conviction. Indeed, after all that has been
said, I have no hesitation in stating that if another case came here,
and was presented to us in such a bald and unsatisfactory manner, we
should again quash the conviction. We are as desirous as Mr. Knox to
put an end to any nuisance, whether in the Haymarket or elsewhere;
but we cannot forget that we are in a court of law, bound to act upon
such testimony as is sworn before us, and not to embark upon
inquiries of another kind. There was not a tittle of evidence as to
ringing a bell, or of anything more than persons taking refreshment
within the hours allowed by law, some of those persons being
‘unfortunates.’ I do not think that any bench of magistrates in the
kingdom could, under the circumstances, have arrived at a different
conclusion. If other cases come before us, we shall treat them as we
treated the last, according to the effect of the sworn evidence in
court, and in no other way. I am very sorry if our decision should
have induced Mr. Knox, for whom I entertain a great respect, to
abstain from convicting in other cases, unless those were cases of
the same bald and unsatisfactory character as that which we decided.”
From one point of view maybe it is difficult to overrate the importance
of this judgment, especially if, as the _Times_ predicts, it will have
the effect of giving the keepers of the Haymarket haunts of infamy
liberty to do pretty much as they please. Laying too much stress on this
Haymarket business, however, may be harmful in another direction. It may
lead the public to the decidedly wrong conclusion that the well-known
thoroughfare indicated, and the taverns and refreshment-houses it
contains, are the head-quarters, the one main source, from which flows
the prodigious stream of immorality that floods the town with
contamination.
Now this is very far from being the fact. The extent to which the
Haymarket haunts are criminal is equalled, and in many cases far
excelled, in a dozen different parts of London every night between the
hours of ten and one—and that without remonstrance or hindrance on the
part of the police authorities or anyone else. I allude to the London
music-halls. One of the most disreputable was burnt down the other day;
and it would be a matter for rejoicing—for public thanksgiving almost—if
the score or so of similar places of popular amusement, polluting every
quarter of the metropolis, shared a similar fate. To be sure, the
music-halls keep within the letter of the law in the matter of closing
their doors before one o’clock; but in every other respect their
operation is as mischievous as any of the prosecuted dens at the
West-end. And I beg of the reader to distinctly understand that I am not
quoting from hearsay. There is not a single music-hall—from the vast
“Alhambra” in Leicester-square, to the unaristocratic establishment in
the neighbourhood of Leather-lane, originally christened the “Raglan,”
but more popularly known as the “Rag”—that I have not visited. And I am
bound to confess that the same damning elements are discoverable in one
and all.
At the same time it must be admitted—shameful and disgraceful as the
admission is—that it is not the music-hall of the vulgar East-end or
“over the water” that presents in special prominence the peculiar
features here spoken of, and which, in plain language, are licentiousness
and prostitution. He who would witness the perfection to which these
twin curses may be wrought under the fostering influences of “music,”
&c., must visit the west, and not the east or south, of the metropolis.
He must make a journey to Leicester-square, and to the gorgeous and
palatial Alhambra there to be found. What he will there discover will
open his eyes to what a farcical thing the law is, and how within the
hour it will strain at gnats, and bolt entire camels without so much as a
wry face or a wince, or a wink even.
I speak fearlessly, because all that I describe may be witnessed
to-night, to-morrow, any time, by the individual adventurous and curious
enough to go and see for himself. There is no fear of his missing it; no
chance of his fixing on a wrong night. It is _always_ the same at the
music-hall. Its meat is other men’s poison; and it can fatten and
prosper while honesty starves. The bane and curse of society is its main
support; and to introduce the purging besom would be to ruin the
business.
At the same time, I would wish it to be distinctly understood, that I do
not desire to convey to the reader the impression that the numerical
majority of music-hall frequenters are persons of immoral tendencies. On
the contrary, I am well convinced that such places are the resort of a
vast number of the most respectable portion of the working-class. This,
I believe, is a fact carefully treasured by music-hall proprietors, and
elaborately displayed by them whenever their morality is attacked. They
point to the well-filled body of the hall, the sixpenny part, where
artisans and working-men congregate, and not unfrequently bring with them
their wives and daughters; and triumphantly inquire, “Is it likely that
the music-hall can be what slanderers represent, when it is so
patronised?” And it is quite true that a very large number of honest and
intelligent folk are attracted thither in search of harmless amusement.
Let them bless God for their ignorance of the world’s wicked ways if they
succeed in finding it. It is not impossible. Provided they look neither
to the right nor left of them, but pay their sixpence at the door, and
march to the seats apportioned them; and, still at eyes right, direct
their gaze and their organs of hearing towards the stage, from which the
modern “comic vocalist” doles out to a stolen tune feeble jingling
idiotcies of “his own composing,”—if they are steadfast to this, they may
come away not much the worse for the evening’s entertainment. But let
him not look about him, especially if he have his wife or daughters with
him, or he may find himself tingling with a feeling it was never his
misfortune to experience before.
The honest believer in the harmlessness of music-halls would, if he
looked about him as he sat in the sixpenny “pit,” discover in more
quarters than one that which would open his innocent eyes. If his vision
were directed upwards towards the boxes and balconies, there he would
discover it. Brazen-faced women blazoned in tawdry finely, and curled
and painted, openly and without disguise bestowing their blandishments on
“spoony” young swells of the “commercial” and shopman type, for the sake
of the shilling’s-worth of brandy-and-water that steams before them, and
in prospect of future advantages. There is no mistaking these women.
They do not go there to be mistaken. They make no more disguise of their
profession than do cattle-drovers in the public markets. They are there
in pursuit of their ordinary calling, and, splendid creatures though they
appear, it is curious to witness the supreme indifference to them of the
door-keepers as they flaunt past them. It makes good the old proverb
about the familiarity that breeds contempt; besides, as a customer in
simple, the painted free-drinking lady is not desirable. I should not
for a moment wish to impute without substantial proof so dastardly a
feature of “business” to any spirited music-hall proprietor in
particular; but I am positively assured by those who should know, that on
certain recognised nights loose women are admitted to these places
_without payment_. I know as a fact, too, that it is no uncommon thing
for these female music-hall frequenters to enlist the services of cabmen
on “spec,” the latter conveying their “fare” to the Alhambra or the
Philharmonic without present payment, on the chance that she will in the
course of the evening “pick up a flat,” who will with the lady require
his services to drive them to the Haymarket or elsewhere. How much of
extortion and robbery may be committed under such a convenient cloak it
is not difficult to guess. The evidence not being quite so
unobjectionable as it might be, I will not mention names; but I was
recently informed with apparent sincerity by one of those poor bedizened
unfortunates—a “dress lodger” possibly—that a certain music-hall
proprietor issued to women of her class “weekly tickets” at half-price,
the main condition attaching to the advantage being that the holder did
not “ply” in the low-priced parts of the hall; that is to say, amongst
those who could afford to pay for nothing more expensive than pints of
beer.
But it is at the refreshment-bars of these palatial shams and impostures,
as midnight and closing time approaches, that profligacy may be seen
reigning rampant. Generally at one end of the hall is a long strip of
metal counter, behind which superbly-attired barmaids vend strong
liquors. Besides these there are “snuggeries,” or small private
apartments, to which bashful gentlemen desirous of sharing a bottle of
wine with a recent acquaintance may retire. But the unblushing immodesty
of the place concentrates at this long bar. Any night may here be found
_dozens_ of prostitutes enticing simpletons to drink, while the men who
are _not_ simpletons hang about, smoking pipes and cigars, and merely
sipping, not drinking deeply, and with watchful wary eyes on the pretty
game of fox-and-goose that is being played all round about them. No one
molests them, or hints that their behaviour is at variance with “the
second and third of Victoria, cap. 47.” Here they are in dozens, in
scores, prostitutes every one, doing exactly as they do at the infamous
and prosecuted Haymarket dens, and no one interferes. I say, doing all
that the Haymarket woman does; and it must be so, since the gay patroness
of the music-halls does simply all she can to lure the dupe she may at
the moment have in tow. She entices him to drink; she drinks with him:
she ogles, and winks, and whispers, and encourages like behaviour on his
part, her main undisguised object being to induce him to prolong the
companionship after the glaring gaslight of the liquor-bar is lowered,
and its customers are shown to the outer door. If that is not “knowingly
suffering prostitutes to meet together” for the more convenient
prosecution of their horrible trade, what else is it? And yet the
cunning schemes and contrivances for misleading and throwing dust in the
eyes of the police are not practised here. There are no scouts and
“bells,” the former causing the latter to chime a warning on the approach
of the enemy. The enemy, the police, that is to say, are on the spot.
In almost every case there will be found in the music-hall lobby an
intelligent liveried guardian of the public peace, here stationed that he
may take cognisance of suspicious-looking persons, and eject improper
characters. Should he happen, as is most likely, to be a policeman whose
“beat” is in the neighbourhood, he will by sight be quite familiar with
every loose woman who for a mile round in the streets plies her lawless
trade. He recognises them, as with a nod of old acquaintance they pass
the money-taker; he saunters to the bar, where the women gather to prime
their prey, and he witnesses their doings, but he takes no notice, and
never complains.
To be sure, the man is not to blame; were he ordered to disperse
congregations of prostitutes wherever he found them, and to warn the
persons who dispense liquors to them—just as is expected of him in the
case of the ordinary public-house—that they are harbouring bad
characters, and must cease to do so, undoubtedly the policeman would
perform his duty. Until he receives express orders on the subject,
however, he is helpless, and very properly so. Although one would desire
to see ample powers for the suppression of prostitution placed in the
hands of the police, it is highly necessary that the said power, in the
hands of ordinary constable X, should be scrupulously watched by those
who are set in authority over him. Policemen make sad mistakes at times,
as witness the following monstrous instance, furnished by the
police-reports not more than a month since:
At Southwark, Mrs. Catherine C—, aged twenty-eight, the wife of a
respectable man in the employ of the South-Eastern Railway Company, but
who was described on the charge-sheet as a prostitute, was charged by
Jas. Benstead, police-constable 17 M Reserve, with soliciting
prostitution near the London-bridge railway terminus. The constable said
that about ten o’clock on the previous night he was on duty near the
railway terminus, when he saw the prisoner accost a gentleman. Believing
her to be a prostitute, he went up to the gentleman, and from what he
said he took her into custody for soliciting him. The prisoner here said
she had been most cruelly used. She was a respectable married woman, and
lived with her husband in the Drummond-road, Bermondsey. She had been to
see her sister at Peckham, and had a return-ticket for the Spa-road; but
when she arrived at the London-bridge terminus, she was too late for the
train; consequently she determined to walk home, and as soon as she
turned into Duke-street, a gentleman stopped her and asked her whether
there was an omnibus left there for Whitechapel. She told him she did
not know, and as soon as he left, the constable came up and took her into
custody. She had been locked up all night. The prisoner here produced
the half of a return-ticket for the magistrate’s inspection. The husband
of the prisoner said he was in the employ of the South-Eastern Railway
Company, and resided at No. 190 Drummond-road, Bermondsey. His wife left
home on the previous afternoon to visit her sister at Peckham, and he
expected her home at ten o’clock. He was surprised at her absence, and
as soon as he ascertained she was locked up, he went to the
police-station, but was not permitted to see her. He could produce
several witnesses to prove the respectability of his wife. Mr. Burcham
ordered the prisoner to be discharged immediately.
And so terminated the case as far as the magistrate was concerned; but
one cannot help feeling curious to know whether no more was done in the
matter. The outraged and cruelly-used woman was discharged, but was
Reserve-constable James Benstead permitted to retain his situation in the
police-force? How did the monstrous “mistake” arise? It is evident that
the poor young woman spoke the truth; Mr. Burcham settled that point by
ordering her immediate discharge. From any point of view, James Benstead
showed himself utterly unworthy to remain a constable. In interfering
with a decently-dressed woman, who must have been a stranger to him,
simply because he saw her “accost a gentleman,” he exhibited himself in
the light of an over-zealous blockhead. If the woman’s statement is to
be believed, he told a wicked and malicious lie when he said that he took
her into custody “on account of what the gentleman told him.” Where one
is left in the dark, to solve a mystery as one best may, it is not
impossible that one may guess wide of the mark; but it will under such
conditions occur to the recollection that before now “unfortunates,” new
to the life, have given deadly offence to policemen by not “paying their
footing,” as black-mail of a certain abominable kind is called; and
blundering James Benstead may have sustained a pecuniary disappointment.
It is to be sincerely hoped that that secret tribunal before which erring
policemen are arraigned (where is it?) will not let so flagrant a case
pass without notice; and if, after close investigation, policeman James
Benstead is proved to be the dangerous person he appears, that he may be
promptly stripped of his official uniform. Even supposing that James
Benstead is nothing worse than a blundering Jack-in-office, he is just of
the sort to bring the law into contempt and ridicule, and the sooner he
is cashiered the better.