At the same period Margaret Clap, commonly called Mother Clap, kept a house in Field Lane, Holborn, which was a noted resort of the homosexual.  To Mother Clap’s Molly-house 30 or 40 clients would resort every night; on Sunday there might be as many as 50, for, as in Berlin and other cities today, that was the great homosexual gala night; there were beds in every room in this house.  We are told that the “men would sit in one another’s laps, kissing in a lewd manner and using their hands indecently.  Then they would get up, dance and make curtsies, and mimic the voices of women, ’Oh, fie, sir,’—­’Pray, sir,’—­’Dear sir,’—­’Lord, how can you serve me so?’—­’I swear I’ll cry out,’—­’You’re a wicked devil,’—­’And you’re a bold face,’—­’Eh, ye dear little toad,’—­’Come, bus.’  They’d hug and play and toy and go out by couples into another room, on the same floor, to be ‘married,’ as they called it.”

On the whole one gains the impression that homosexual practices were more prevalent in London in the eighteenth century, bearing in mind its population at that time, than they are today.[88] It must not, however, be supposed that the law was indulgent and its administration lax.  The very reverse was the case.  The punishment for sodomy, when completely effected, was death, and it was frequently inflicted.  Homosexual intercourse, without evidence of penetration, was regarded as “attempt” and was usually punished by the pillory and a heavy fine, followed by two years’ imprisonment.  Moreover, it would appear that more activity was shown by the police in prosecution than is nowadays the case; this is, for instance, suggested by the evidence of the detective already quoted.

To keep a homosexual resort was also a severely punishable offense.  Mother Clap was charged at the Old Bailey in 1726 with “keeping a sodomitical house”; she protested that she could not herself have taken part in these practices, but that availed her nothing; she could bring forward no witnesses on her behalf and was condemned to pay a fine, to stand in the pillory, and to undergo imprisonment for two years.  The cases were dealt with in a matter-of-fact way which seems to bear further witness to the frequency of the offense, and with no effort to expend any specially vindictive harshness on this class of offenders.  If there was the slightest doubt as to the facts, even though the balance of evidence was against the accused, he was usually acquitted, and the man who could bring witnesses to his general good character might often thereby escape.  In 1721 a religious young man, married, was convicted of attempting sodomy with two young men he slept with; he was fined, placed in the pillory and imprisoned for two months.  Next year a man was acquitted on a similar charge, and another man, of decent aspect, although the evidence indicated that he might have been guilty of sodomy, was only convicted of attempt, and sentenced to fine, pillory, and two years’ imprisonment.  In