S o4 ENGLISH POLITICAL HISTORY 



by 222 to 208, owing to disgust at " militant " tactics, the prospect of legislative action 

 rested entirely with the question of an amendment of the Government Franchise Bill,: 

 which was read a first time on June 17, igi2, by 274 to 50, and a second time on July 

 i2th, by 290 to 218. In other respects this Bill, which abolished plural voting and 

 University representation, made six months' residence by adult males the only qualifica- 

 tion for votes, and did away with existing restrictions as to registration, handing it 

 over for automatic action by the Municipal Authorities, excited comparatively little 

 public interest. There did not seem likely to be time, even if there were inclination, 

 to pass it into law before the session ended. The Unionists, while objecting to details, 

 opposed it mainly on the old ground that Redistribution should accompany Reform; 

 while the Liberal rank and file, who for their own electioneering purposes were princi- 

 pally anxious to destroy the plural vote, felt that a simpler measure with that object 

 would have sufficed. A Bill, to abolish plural voting, introduced by a private member, 

 Mr. Baker, was read a second time on March i, 1912, and it was thought that the 

 Government might well adopt this if their own Bill had to be dropped. 



Mr; Asquith's introduction of the Franchise Bill was, however, not the only parlia- 

 mentary result of the continued blocking of the movement for Women's Suffrage. A 

 TheWhfte desire to prove that measures demanded in the interest of women were not 

 Slave Traf- neglected in the House of Commons, gave useful support to Mr. A. H. 

 fkBiii. Lee , g BiU) aimed at the golfed White Slave Traffic," which in June, 



1912, was adopted as a Government measure. Its object was to give power to any 

 constable to arrest " procurers " summarily on good cause of suspicion without having 

 to delay to get a warrant, to strengthen the law dealing with brothel-keepers and make 

 landlords of such houses liable for their illegal use, to make the law as to solicitation 

 apply to men as well as women, and to penalise more effectually men who lived on 

 the earnings of immorality. The Bill was read a second time and then referred to a 

 Standing Committee, where it met with a good deal of criticism, resulting in some of 

 its provisions being weakened^ the power of summary arrest, in particular, being altered 

 so that it could only be exercised by special officers not below the rank of sergeant. 

 The movement, however, outside Parliament was too powerful to be denied, and in 

 October the Home Secretary promised a deputation of the Bill's supporters to use the 

 Government influence to pass it with the original and more drastic provisions restored. 

 The whole subject had aroused much public attention during 1912 in England as well 

 as in America, and it was widely felt that everything ought to be done, at any risk, to 

 deny facilities in England for carrying on what had become an international traffic in 

 women for purposes of prostitution, accompanied by systematic fraud and outrage 

 which the existing law was powerless to stop. In accordance with the Home Secretary's 

 advice, the House of Commons agreed, on the Report stage, to restore the Bill to its 

 original more stringent form. By a considerable majority, flogging was made the 

 penalty under Clause 2 for a second offence on the part of male procurers, and by a 

 narrow division was extended also to a first offence against the advice of the Govern- 

 ment; under Clause 6 flogging was made a penalty for the second offence, but the 

 proposal to extend it to a first offence was defeated. On November i2th the bill was 

 read a third time without discussion. On December 9, it passed the Lords, with minor 

 amendments, in its most drastic shape; and on December n it became law, coming 

 into operation at once. 



The main problem however before the Government when Parliament met on 

 February 14, 1912, was Irish Home Rule, with Welsh Disestablishment and Disendow- 

 Welsh Dis- ment in a secondary place. The latter measure, keenly as it was opposed 

 establish- j n the interests of the Church of England, may be dismissed in a com- 

 fflezit paratively short statement. The general scheme of the Bill, which was 



introduced by Mr. McKenna on April 23d, had been already explained by him in a 

 speech at the Queen's Hall, London, on January 28th. Its main interest lay naturally 

 in the financial provisions, and their effect may be shown as follows. The income of 

 the Welsh dioceses in 1906 was 556,000 (296,000 representing voluntary contributions, 



