plainly contrary to experience, although there may have been some historical reasons for this fear in St. Paul's day. It is to him, principally, that those wishing to attack homosexuals turn, for there can be no doubt as to his recorded views. (See I Cor., 6, v. 9.) His opinions may have been personal ones, however, or part of the accepted Jewish thought of his day. Equally strong prohibitions, for example, that women should not pray with their hats off (I Cor. 11, v. 5), nor speak in church (I Cor. 14, v. 34) tend to be disregarded by most modern Christians, so that St. Paul's views are not, in themselves, final.

Gibbon gives some account of these matters (Decline and Fall, v. 44), “I touch with reluctance, and despatch with impatience, a more odious,vice, of which modesty rejects the name and nature abominates the idea": and, after discussing the laxities which abounded before Constantine, he goes on: "A new spirit of legislation, respectable even in its error, arose in the Empire with the religion of Constantine. The laws of Moses were revered as the divine original of justice... The lovers of their own sex were pursued by general and pious indignation." Justinian, after relaxing legislation concerning heterosexual matters, Gibbon goes on, "declared himself the implacable enemy of unmanly lust, and the cruelty of his persecutions can scarcely be excused by the purity of his motives."

Justinian viewed homosexuality with abhorrence, believing that homosexual practices caused the earthquakes which were especially troublesome in his reign. Painful death, preceded by mutilation and castration, was the punishment for homosexual intercourse and two bishops, among many others, suffered this fate, and their dying bodies were dragged through the streets. "Perhaps these prelates were innocent," Gibbon adds dispassionately.

The Christian Church later also incorporated the ancient Jewish sex codes into ecclesiastical laws which governed medieval Europe, and this provided the basis for the Common Law. In medieval times, when clerical preoccupation with the sins of the flesh was at its height, and sexual pleasure was almost damnable in the strict meaning of that word, many men and also a few women were sent to their deaths for homosexual offences. The Church in general still regards homosexual practices as unnatural and gravely sinful: c.g. "Let it be understood that homosexual indulgence is a shameful vice and a grievous sin from which deliverance is to be sought by every means." (Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Notes, November 1953.)

Sodomy. Sodomy in England signifies sexual intercourse between two individuals involving penetration per anum by the penis. Nothing short of that is sodomy. (American State Legislatures sometimes give the word a wider meaning.) The two individuals concerned need not both be male although obviously one must be. Sodomy is punishable under the statutes concerning buggery: buggery denotes both sodomy and anal intercourse between an individual and an animal, commonly called bestiality. We are here concerned only with sodomy.

Sodomy has been punishable since a statute of Henry VIII passed

mattachine REVIEW

in 1553 (25 Henry VIII c. 6) by which it was punishable by death, It remained so punishable until Peel's reforms. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 provided, by Section 61: "Sodomy and Bestiality. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with an animal, shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life..." and Section 62 punished attempt, or assault with intent to commit buggery, with ten years imprisonment. These clauses were repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Section 51, 4th Schedule) and replaced by Section 12 of that Act. "Buggery... (1) It is a felony for a person to commit buggery with another person or with an animal." The Second Schedule provides punishments of life imprisonment, again, for the offence, and ten years imprisonment, again, for the attempt. It should be emphasised that no matter what the age of the parties, consent is no defence. Also that a boy under 14 cannot be charged with sodomy, and a passive adult partner might under this provision be imprisoned for life for an offence suggested by the boy. Į

It is not widely understood, even among some lawyers, that 1 sodomy, although widely thought not only to be a homosexual, but' the only homosexual act, may be either heterosexual or homosexual; that is, it may be committed between persons of opposite sexes. It may well be in fact more common among married people than between homosexual partners: and there is no evidence that homosexuals are drawn to sodomy more than others. Needless to say there are very few prosecutions against married couples for so undetectable an offence, which usually only comes to light in divorce proceedings, but they do occur. (See Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female, page 370).

Homosexuals as such, therefore, are little more concerned with reform (which may well be needed) of the sodomy laws than others are; the chief legislation which affects them is that against "gross indecency between male persons". Ignorance about the nature and effect of this latter legislation is so widespread that, for instance, in the House of Commons debate on 29th June 1960, the Conservative Member for Cheadle, in attacking the changes in the law proposed by the Wolfenden Committee, said in passing that he would be happy to see the total repeal of the "Gross Indecency" sectionwhich meant going further than was suggested by the Wolfenden Committee.

Gross Indecency. "Gross Indecency" means, in this part of English Law, any sexual acts between male persons (including between | boys) other than sodomy. Any sexual conduct involving the genitals is consequently prohibited, and consent is no defence. The law against "gross indecency" is relatively new, and arose in an unusual way in 1885 when the Parliament appears to have created an entirely new offence unwittingly. It is thought desirable to give some account of the process of enactment as recorded in Hansard, to demonstrate this.

On 6th August 1885, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was going through the Commons on its third reading, when Mr. Labouchère rose to move a fresh clause of which he had given notice on the Order Paper. Before he could say anything Mr. Walton rose on a point of