order. He asked whether the clause about to be moved, which dealt with a class of offence totally different from that against which the bill was directed (protection of women and girls, and suppression of brothels) was within the scope of the bill. The Speaker ruled that anything could be introduced at this stage by leave of the House. Mr. Labouchère then proposed his clause:

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of any act of gross indecency with another male person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour." Hansard continues, "That was his Amendment, and the meaning of it was that at present any person on whom an assault of this kind here dealt with was committed must be under the age of 13, and the object with which he had brought forward this clause! was to make the law applicable to any person, whether under the age of 13 or over that age. He did not think it necessary to discuss the proposal at any length, as he understood Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept it. He therefore left it for the House and the Government to deal with as might be thought best." (Italics not in Hansard). Mr. Hopwood pointed out that under the existing law "the kind of offence indicated could not be an offence in the case of any person above the age of 13," but "he did not wish to say anything against the clause." Sir Henry James suggested two instead of one year's imprisonment. Mr. Labouchère had no objection. "Clause, as amended, agreed to." This clause was repealed and re-enacted in Clause 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which provides as follows: Clause 13: "Indecency between men-It is an offence for a man to commit an act of gross indecency with another man, whether in public or private, or to be a party to the commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man, or to procure the commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man."

Firstly it should be observed that consent and privacy are immaterial. Secondly, the Victorian legislature was so sure that indecency meant sexual behaviour that it was induced to prohibit "gross indecency" as such, without troubling to define it. So reluctant also have lawyers been to disturb this attitude that there is no recorded case of a defendant admitting acts as charged but denying their indecency. (It is hoped that it will not be thought frivolous if it is observed that Lord Curzon thought eating soup before lunch grossly indecent; it would have startled him if two men doing it together violated this Act.) It is not the least remarkable factor of this legislation that it is supremely vague. This has led to difficulties in its application: actual contact between the parties involved, for example, has been held unnecessary. Accordingly, under the law as it now stands, gross indecency is used to signify any sexual behaviour, including mutual exposure of the genitals, but more usually such acts as mutual masturbation. It was under the 1885 clause that Oscar Wilde was tried in 1894, and under which' most of the celebrated homosexual convictions in the early 1950s

1950s

mattachine REVIEW

were obtained. It will be noticed that when Mr. Labouchèrc explained his clause, he seemed to be thinking in terms of assaults The Rt. Hon. Sir Travers Humphreys, P.C., said in his preface to The Trials of Oscar Wilde by H. Montgomery Hyde: "It is doubtful whether the House fully appreciated that the words "in public or private' in the new clause had completely altered the law... The reluctance of juries to convict in such cases is notorious, while no-one having experience in such matters would deny that the words 'in private' have naturally assisted the blackmailer in his loathsome trade."

Most men prosecuted under this clause are convicted on their own confession, or that of an accomplice turning Queen's evidence, and it has been suggested that no less than 90 per cent of cases of successful blackmail involve a threat to disclose such an offence.* There are even cases where a man has come forward to disclose blackmail by criminals, yet prosecution has followed against him for gross indecency. Thus a man cannot confidently expose a blackmailer without the possibility of incurring prosecution, perhaps for an entirely private act with the blackmailer himself.

Recent Developments. In the House of Commons debate on the Wolfenden Report, 29th June 1960, Mr. Anthony Greenwood drew attention to the fact that the Home Secretary holds meetings of Chief Constables in the course of his duties and that prosecutions are generally their responsibility. He hoped that it might be put to them that prosecutions in future would be confined to cases where public decency or the morals of minors were violated. Mr. Butler gave no such undertaking, but did not dissent from the suggestion.

It seems that the Government's present attitude to reform has been that the time is not yet ripe for legislation, the chief reasons being that:

1. (As is the case) the majority of M.P.s are not. in favour of early legislation, and

2. The present Act is on the statute book (even if it would not now be passed in its present form) and to remove it might seem to give moral approval to the acts prohibited.

A private Member's bill to reform the law was introduced in March 1962 by Mr. Leo Abse, M.P. for Pontypool. It was talked out, but public comment was far more sympathetic than that which followed the 1960 debate.

Most English-speaking countries have followed England in having legislation similar to this "gross indecency" section. Continental and other countries have never had similar legislation. Austria has recently provided by statute for an age of consent of 18 years. The Wolfenden Committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, reported in 1957 as its principal recommendation on homosexuality that acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence. It also recommended inter alia that questions relating to "consent" and "in private" be decided by the same criteria as apply in the case of heterosexual acts between adults; that except for some

* (Medicine and the Law: Journal of Mental Science, 1954 100, 35: Rt. Hon. The Lord Jowitt.)