§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, that, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, he trusted that he need not enter at any length into the details of the painful subject which rendered the measure necessary. He was prepared, if need should be, with a detailed statement to make out this case—that there was a great practical evil in existence, which required to be remedied by the Legislature. If he might assume that point for granted, there was no necessity for his entering into details. Such details, in his opinion, had better be avoided in discussions; but if the attainment of the object which he had in view could only be secured by entering into details, then no false delicacy should prevent him from entering into them If, however, the great necessity were admitted, he would not pain the ears of their Lordships by the details of eases which would indisputably establish such a conclusion; unless, therefore, he was compelled to use them in reply, he should abstain from alluding to them in any respect. He had received that day, from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, a letter, in which his Lordship had authorised him to state that he did not intend to oppose this Bill. That was a peculiar satisfaction to him; for last year his noble and learned Friend had conceived it to be his duty to oppose the Bill which he had then had the honour of introducing. His noble and learned Friend, however, had mentioned one alteration, which was the only alteration which he thought desirable in the Bill; he, therefore, understood that his noble and learned Friend would not oppose it if that alteration were made. That alteration, then, he was ready to introduce by inserting in the first clause the provision contained in the second. He did not anticipate that after that alteration any objection would be made to his Bill. The Bill now brought forward proposed to deal with a class of cases which it was difficult to bring within the scope of legislation, and which the common law of England appeared to be unable to reach. Even in the grossest cases, where innocence and youth had been abused by direct fraud, the present law 973 was insufficient for the purpose of reaching the offence. Such a state of things rendered some extension of the law necessary to meet the worst cases. Some faint objections might remain to any legislation upon this subject; but he hoped that their Lordships would pay no attention to such murmurs. They must recollect that it was impossible to frame any legal enactment to which objection could not be taken by acute and subtle men. But if the only objection made to this measure was the suggestion of some hypothetical inconvenience, all legislation must come to a close if such an objection were to be held valid against the removal of great abuses. Without entering into further observations on the subject, he would now move the second reading of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMwas understood to concur in the suggestion made by the Lord Chief Justice, but doubted whether the Bill would produce any great practical effect in preventing the evils against which it which it was directed; but said he would not offer any opposition to it.
Lord CAMPBELLexpressed his approval of the objects of the Bill, but said that the right rev. Mover had not done sufficient justice to the common law of England upon the subject. This was not a case in which the common law was incapable of reaching the offender. Attempts to amend this part of the law had been repeatedly made since the days of the Long Parliament. It had been proposed that the first offence of this description should be treated as a misdemeanour, the second as a felony, and the third as a capital offence, without benefit of clergy. But the severity of such a law on such a subject had defeated itself. Another attempt was now made, and this was, in his opinion, more objectionable than any of its predecessors. Instead of promoting the object of the Bill, the Bill was even calculated to render that innocuous which was now an offence under the common law. Besides, all cases in which illicit intercourse took place, and in which no false contrivance was used, were freed from punishment by this Bill. The Bill likewise enacted that no penalty should be inflicted on third parties except where their improper conduct arose from lucre of gain. There might be many of these abominable conspiracies without money passing. He (Lord Campbell) felt so strongly the evil sought to be prevented, that he would hope against all experience that something might be 974 done to remove it, and would say with the Lord Chief Justice that he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he could not allow it to pass that stage without stating that he thought the existing law had better be relied on.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELwas understood to maintain that this Bill did not go far enough, and would be inadequate to meet the existing evil; and after it should pass, he and others who thought that evil ought to be repressed by law, must persevere in applying to the Legislature for an effective Act. The inadequacy of the existing law was frequently acknowledged by Judges upon the bench; he could mention cases where relatives of noble Lords had been sacrificed, and the highest families in the land were not safe. The Legislature ought to enact such laws as would afford to all Her Majesty's subjects that degree of protection to which they were entitled. The noble Earl concluded by reading a clause, which he had prepared, as more likely to answer the object in view, but which he did not at present intend to propose.
The BISHOP of OXFORDfeared that the introduction of any such clause would be fatal to the Bill. With regard to the only objection made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), he (the Bishop of Oxford) had already stated that he would propose so to alter the Bill in Committee as to obviate that difficulty, and leave the common law as at present, by omitting the second clause, which provided that no person should be punished for the offences mentioned in the first, "unless the same shall have been committed for the lucre of gain;" instead of that, he would introduce the words "for the lucre of gain" into the description of the offences in the first clause to be punishable with imprisonment under this Bill. With regard to conspiracy, to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, the difficulty was to prove it; and the object of this Bill was to deal with the case where a conspiracy could not be proved. The attempt to legislate upon this subject had not failed in other countries; but it really was a reproach upon us, that in France, to which we were not used to go for the pattern of moral exactness, offences of this class were punished, which an English magistrate could not touch. However, this Bill dealt with the one specific crime committed where persons for gain lent themselves to the betrayal of women. At present such offences had to 975 be dealt with under the 9th of George IV., chap. 31; and that Act was held to apply, first, where, in consequence of fraud or falsehood, the girl, however young, went willingly from her parents' house, however ignorantly, and though she might suppose she was going in order to be hired into service; nor, secondly, where she was above sixteen; nor, thirdly, where her parent or lawful guardian consented to her going for any purpose, though lawful; nor, lastly, where the child was without parent, guardian, or lawful protector. It was but natural, perhaps, that one in the position of the noble and learned Lord should look with jealousy upon the attempt of a lay Lord to amend the law—it might seem to go against the craft; but here was really a crying evil to be repressed.
LORD CAMPBELLprotested that he was as sincerely and earnestly desirous to meet the evil as the right rev. Prelate; the question was, how it was to be reached, and care must be taken not to aggravate it. The proposed alteration might remove his (Lord Campbell's) technical objection, but would not touch the principle upon which his opposition rested, namely, that if the parties between whom the illicit intercourse took place were to be considered, that case could not safely be met by legislation; and that if you included a third party employed to enable the sensual person to gratify his illicit propensities, the common law would already meet that case. It was not necessary in a charge of conspiracy to prove that the parties met in conclave and came to a formal agreement to solicit the chastity of a woman; the conspiracy was inferred from acts done, and if it were proved that a person at the desire of another undertook such an abominable task, an indictment for conspiracy would lie.
The BISHOP of OXFORDapprehended that there would be very great difficulty in sustaining the charge of conspiracy under the existing law, where a person making a livelihood by these practices, lent himself or herself with no particular engagement to one particular crime of this sort.
§ Bill read 2a.
§ House adjourned to Monday the 4th of June next.