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_.