COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th July.]

HC Deb 31 July 1885 vol 300 cc686-794

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by threats or fraud).

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (1.)—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'By' stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had submitted to the Committee proceeded upon the theory that the offence defined by the sub-section already amounted in law to the crime of rape, and that if the sub-section were passed as it stood the effect would be to convert what was now a felony into a misdemeanour. Several hon. Members seemed to be of that opinion; but some hon. Gentlemen, not following the law of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, rather rested their opposition to the sub-section on the ground that the sub-section would introduce a new offence, which might be the cause of considerable extortion, and possibly of great injustice. What he (Mr. Fowler) wished to submit to the Committee was this. If his hon. and learned Friend was right in the contention that procuration by threats and intimidation already amounted to the criminal offence of rape, then, no doubt, the sub-section ought to be omitted, because the Committee would not wish to convert into a misdemeanour what was already a felony. But there were equally great authorities—he referred especially to the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—who maintained the opinion that there were offences which fell within the four corners of the sub-section, but which did not amount to the offence of rape. Admitting, then, that the offence described was an offence which ought to be punished—and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport did not dispute that grave doubts were entertained by lawyers as to whether the existing law covered it or not—it was surely wise for the Committee at once to deal with it, and put that disputed question beyond all doubt for the future by making a misdemeanour of the offence which did not already amount to rape. He would not trouble the Committee with any arguments on the point; but he believed there were cases of threats, and what might be described as intimidation, which did not in law amount to rape, and upon which no jury would give a conviction if the charge of rape were preferred. There was, however, one thing to which he wished to draw attention. The hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) had spoken satirically of the Government not knowing their own minds about the Bill, and about their own clause. He (Mr. Fowler) wished to point out that the clause was not the clause either of the late or of the present Government. It was introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords by so great an authority as Lord Bramwell, who drew it, and who was, of course, aware of the existing state of the law. The clause was inserted at the instance of Lord Bramwell, and was accepted by the Government, because they were of opinion that there was an offence, not dealt with at present, which this clause could deal with, and ought to deal with. He (Mr. Fowler), therefore, asked the Committee to retain the sub-section, as it dealt with a matter about which lawyers differed, and would make a misdemeanour of a very serious offence.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) had quite grappled with what was before the Committee. It was now conceded that to obtain possession of a woman by threats or intimidation was clearly a rape in law. They had had some trouble to get that conceded; but now it was beyond doubt. But it was further argued that there might be some threats and intimidation which did not amount to rape—in cases, for instance, as he presumed, where the threats or intimidation had not procured the submission of the girl. If they had procured the submission of the girl, he did not see how that could amount to anything less than rape. It was urged, then, that there was something less than rape which it was desired to punish. But the inconvenience in the matter was this. They were now dealing with the Criminal Law, and presumably knew what they meant in proposing those Amendments; but how were other people to gather what they meant when they used involved language of this sort? They first took the offence of rape, and then said there might be some other offence which did not quite amount to that, but which must be provided for; and the result would be, if this sub-section was passed, that in every case in which it was proved on the trial that the prisoner used threats or intimidation the jury would only find him guilty of a misdemeanour. Was that what was really meant? There ought, for goodness sake, to be some attempt to make the law consistent, reasonable, and clear. It was all very well to say they had a legal authority of high standing in "another place" to assist in drawing the Bill; but that legal authority was not here. If they had him here he might possibly be converted, for there was no more candid man alive than Lord Bramwell. The clause as it stood was involved and mischievous. If they chose to make it a little more precise in its definition, well and good; it then might be made to say that on a trial for rape the jury might take a view similar to that expressed by the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), and find the prisoner guilty, not of rape, but of something less, which ought to be punished if the crime of rape could not be established. If the jury thought the milder offence was proved, but not the heavier one, they should be at liberty to convict of the milder offence. He (Mr. Hopwood) would not resist a provision of that sort. But if the clause were passed as it stood, he knew what the effect would be—that the jury in all these cases would jump to the conclusion that only the milder form of the offence had been made out. That might not, perhaps, be a bad thing in itself; but it was not quite in the direction of the severe Code which they were supposed to be trying to set up.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

wished to state exactly what he regarded as the central feature of this clause. There was a form of intimidation which was not only, technically, in law a rape, but it would be held to be rape by any jury who tried the case, and in such a case the indictment ought to be for rape. If a man held a loaded pistol to a woman's head, and said, "Unless you submit I will shoot you," that would be, unquestionably, a rape. But he would give another illustration of what he did not think—and he owned that his opinion on the matter was not of any great weight—would amount to rape, and no jury would convict a man of rape in such a case. Suppose a man had had connection with a woman before she was married, and the woman afterwards married another man, and the first man wished to have possession of her again, and said to her—"Unless you come to my house to-night and submit to me, I will inform your husband as to what were our relations before your marriage." That was not rape—no jury would find it so; but was it a thing which was not to be punished? Were they to let one act of intimidation go scot free because another act of intimidation actually amounted to rape? That was really the whole case. It was said that such a provision would throw confusion into the Criminal Law. Not at all. The person prosecuted would be dealt with according to the facts of the case. If the man was guilty of the first class of intimidation, he would be indicted for rape; if for the second class, he would be indicted under this clause; and the clause would be totally insufficient unless it was adopted in this form?

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he was very sorry that they had not heard from the Attorney General a proposal to substantially modify or else to abandon the clause, for it was outside the scope and purpose of the Bill, and would introduce a new offence of a most dangerous kind into their Criminal Law. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that violent intimidation and threats might constitute rape, and the whole question was for the jury whether the girl consented or not. If there was violence which so overwhelmed her mind that she submitted without consent, that was rape. But the illustration which the right hon. Gentleman gave on the previous night was the case of a girl being induced to consent to surrender herself without resistance to her seducer on his saying that he would dismiss her father from his situation, or give some information to somebody about her own loss of virtue. But a case of that kind was not a matter which that House would over protect by its laws. If such a law were passed, the result would be that where it was discovered that a girl had had illicit connection with a man she would say—"It is true I submitted myself, and accompanied him to a place where he took possession of my person, and that I made no resistance; but then he told me that if I did not allow him to do what he wished, he would tell stories about me, or get me dismissed, or my father dismissed." That was an accusation which no man could combat or defend himself against—an accusation which there was not the least occasion in this Bill for the first time to turn into a crime. There was no difficulty about the matter. If the clause were passed, that which had hitherto been a rape by Common Law would still be a rape, although it might come in the category described by the clause; but the real effect of the clause would be to enlarge the Criminal Law by making that a crime in future which had not been a crime hitherto, and which, as he believed, there was no necessity at all for making into a crime. It would be a crime the accusation of which it would be impossible for people to defend themselves from. Under those circumstances, and as it had nothing to do with the protection of women or children, it would be far wiser for the Committee to hold by the law as it had existed for so many years, and not extend it in the way proposed. The law of false representation and pretences was an entirely different matter. So long ago as the fifth year of this Reign, the late Bishop Wilberforce succeeded in passing that into law. He (Mr. Clarke) did not know that there had been any indictment under it; but there it was, and perhaps it was as well that it should be left on the Statute Book. He hoped the Committee would not dangerously undertake to enlarge the law in the manner now proposed.

MR. WEST

said, he thought there was a deficiency in the law which ought to be remedied. He had frequently heard, as other hon. Members must have done, cases where a girl had resisted with her whole strength up to a certain point, and then, overcome partly by fear and partly by threats, had given way, and submitted to be ravished, and because she had not resisted to the end the prisoner had been acquitted. It had been said that a threat or intimidation might amount to rape; but such a case was very rare, as such threat or intimidation must be of such a character as to deprive a woman of her power of resistance. He was so anxious that the Bill should pass as speedily as possible that he would not propose any Amendment; but he quite agreed with the observation of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the clause should be amended in this particular—that, as in many other criminal cases, it should be enacted that upon a trial for rape it might be permitted to the jury to find the prisoner guilty of a misdemeanour. That was a well-known enactment in many Acts of Parliament; and he thought that if this clause were so altered it would be considerably improved, and would become a very valuable provision for protecting many women who were not protected as the law stood at present.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the reason why he had not risen before to-night was because he expressed his view of this particular point as thoroughly as he possibly could on the previous evening. As to the views advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Clarke), he had never contended that there might not be threats and intimidation which amounted to rape. He was glad to find that two hon. and learned Members whose opinions on the Criminal Law were so much more valuable than his own had repeated the law as he laid it down last night. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth agreed with him that if the offence now aimed at was to be punished, it was an offence which did not amount to rape—that there were, in fact, offences of this nature which were not covered by the law of rape. The simple question was whether they were offences which ought to come within the law or not. He thought they should; and he asked the Committee to declare that they ought to be admitted to the Criminal Law.

MR. HOPWOOD

wished to know how this point could be got over, that where a man was indicted for rape it might be urged that it was procured by threats and intimidation, and a reference to this Statute would be made to show that it was a misdemeanour, and thereupon the Judge would be obliged to acquit the prisoner of the charge of rape?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the safest and the simplest way would be to insert words to meet the case.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

suggested that the necessary Amendment might be made in Clause 8.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that under those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WARTON

said, the question of consent was for the jury to determine—it was for them to say whether the girl had submitted under threats or not. He threw aside all refining arguments about the extent of the intimidation—the real question was whether the woman consented or not. He protested most strongly against putting these words in. He knew the learned Attorney General was distinguished in all other branches of the law except the Criminal Law; and he would ask him whether he would assent to the introduction of some words in the first line of the sub-section to the effect that the offence of intimidation did not amount to rape, or whether it would be wiser to omit the sub-section altogether, and leave to Clause 8 the consideration of what did and what did not amount to rape? He (Mr. Warton) was not going to be bound down by authority; and he would say that whoever drew up the clause, even though it was Lord Bramwell himself, had mixed up three or four things which ought to have been kept separate.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he had no wish to keep up the discussion; but he was bound to say that he was not satisfied with the explanation of the clause which had been given. It was a case of rape or no rape, and in order to punish rape there must be such an over-powering of the will of the woman as to leave her no alternative but absolute submission. They might draw the line as finely as they could about the precise degree of intimidation, but it would be of very little use. It was a great many years since he had been in a Criminal Court; but his recollection was that it was a matter of extreme difficulty to procure a conviction in cases of rape upon adults. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had put two cases to the Committee—one, the case of a threat by a paramour; the other, the case of a threat to discharge the girl or her father from a situation. But no jury would give a conviction in cases of that kind, because they would not consider that the influence on the mind of the person who submitted was of that nature which was necessary to constitute crime on the part of the assailant. In a case of rape it would be necessary to show that the will of the person who submitted had been completely overcome and overpowered. He, therefore, ventured to submit to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that the wording of the clause should be so amended as to make the crime consist, not in the success of the person charged in having overcome the woman, but in the threat and intimidation; and he would suggest that these words should be inserted— Any person who shall threaten or who shall use intimidation in order to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful connection shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. That would make the threat, and not its success, the offence. Such an alteration would cover the cases mentioned by the right hon. Member for Derby. If necessary, he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would himself propose an Amendment to that effect; but in the meanwhile he merely threw out the suggestion to see whether the hon. and learned Attorney General would be willing to adopt it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he quite admitted that there were threats and intimidation which would constitute rape; but there were threats and intimidation which would not, and the question was whether the latter should go without punishment. He was not prepared, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he would now propose the Amendment which he had just mentioned, the object of which was to make it an offence to threaten or to use intimidation for the purpose of obtaining the woman's consent. He proposed to strike out the words "by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure," in order to insert the words "any person who shall threaten to use intimidation in order to procure," &c.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words "by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours," in order to insert the words "shall threaten to use intimidation in order."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the sub-section."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was sure that his hon. and learned Friend would be sorry to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. The words, however, "by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure" were in the clause already, and always had been, and they entirely covered the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. In point of fact, the words of the sub-section, as they stood, were stronger than those proposed in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, his hon. and learned Friend proposed to leave only the threats, without touching the result produced by those threats.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, that if his Amendment were adopted the words "to procure unlawful connection" would still remain; and it was because he believed that the clause would otherwise be a failure that he proposed to make the threat to procure an offence. He believed that that was the only way of giving real life and effect to the clause.

MR. FLOYER

said, he was inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member. He thought it was very important to keep the two classes of offence—rape and procuring—perfectly distinct from each other. In the one case, where threats only were used, and by those threats unlawful connection was brought about, everybody would understand that that was a rape, and, therefore, punishable with a higher sentence. But what they now wanted to secure was that if a person should endeavour by throats to procure either by himself, or any other person, unlawful connection, and connection did not follow, that that should be a punishable offence also. He understood that the Amendment, if adopted, would punish the offence of using threats, and in that way two distinct offences would be created. The higher offence was already punishable, and it ought to be kept quite distinct from the minor offence. He thought that the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very good one, and so far as he understood it at the present moment he should certainly support it.

MR. WARTON

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the object of his Amendment, but not as to the way in which he proposed to carry it out.

Amendment negatived.

CAPTAIN PRICE

wished to ask the ruling of the Chair whether the word "threats" now stood part of the subsection or not?

THE CHAIRMAN

replied in the affirmative.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he would move then the omission of the word "threats" in order to substitute the words "fraudulent means." His object was to simplify the clause, and to make it an offence for any person who "by fraudulent means or intimidation procures." He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, because, if it were adopted, he thought it might be possible to leave out Sub-sections 2 and 3 altogether. It must be quite clear that the word "intimidation" covered the word "threats." Anyone who used threats must be said to intimidate. He did not know whether there was any subtle distinction in the legal mind between the two terms, but he wanted to make it perfectly clear; and, therefore, he proposed to leave out the word "threats." In the 2nd sub-section false pretences and false representations were included in the words "fraudulent means." In fact, it was apparent that that must be the object of the framer of the Bill, because the sub-section said "false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means," clearly showing that both were considered to be a species of fraudulent means.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 22, to leave out the word "threats," and insert the words "fraudulent means."—(Captain Price.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'threats' stand part of the sub-section."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that as this Amendment had been practically discussed for several hours on a previous evening, he hoped the word "threats" would be allowed to stand. He quite sympathized with the object of his hon. and gallant Friend in desiring to simplify the clause, and the second Amendment on the Paper was one in his own name, in which he proposed to insert, after "intimidation," the words— Or by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, with a view of moving afterwards the omission of Sub-sections 2 and 3. The reason why the words "fraudulent re- presentations" were inserted, as well as "fraudulent means," was that they already appeared in an existing Statute, and therefore it was desirable to retain the same words in this instance.

MR. M'COAN

wished to ask a question with regard to the words in line 23. The sub-section read— By threats or intimidation procures, or endeavours to procure, any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection. He had carefully studied the provisions of the Bill during the last fortnight or three weeks; but he failed to understand what was meant by the phrase "unlawful carnal connection," because the carnal connection, in order to be punishable, must be unlawful, illicit connection not being unlawful in itself. He wished to know whether there was any special meaning attached to the word "unlawful?"

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the words which appeared in the clause were words which were used in the old Statute, and they were thoroughly and perfectly well understood. For that reason they had been retained in the present Bill.

Amendment negatived.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would now propose the Amendment to which he had just referred—namely, to insert, after "intimidation, the words— False pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means. His object in proposing the Amendment was to put the three sub-sections into one. As they stood at present, they rendered the clause absolute nonsense, and the object of the Amendment was to simplify it.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 22, after the word "intimidation," to insert the words "or by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GREGORY

pointed out that there was a Proviso to the 2nd subsection providing that it should not apply where the woman or girl knew that the connection brought about by means of false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, was unlawful. There was also a distinction in the two offences defined by the 1st and 2nd sub-section. The 1st sub-section made any person punishable who, by throats or intimidation, procured, or endeavoured to procure; while the 2nd sub-section made it a punishable offence for any person, by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, to procure.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he thought that the whole case was covered by the words he proposed to insert, which provided that it should be punishable for any person, by threats or intimidation, or by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, to procure, or endeavour to procure.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he had some difficulty in knowing what was actually going on in the Committee. So far as he could understand, it was proposed to make the offence of endeavouring to procure a punishable offence; but it would leave the offence of procuring untouched. ["No!"] That only showed the difficulty of knowing what was going on. He warned the Committee that it could make no difference whether fraudulent means, or false pretences, or false representations were used, so long as the person principally interested was not deceived.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, that before the Amendment was accepted, the Committee ought to know that the effect of it would be to repeal the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. That section, which had been in operation for many years, limited the age of a person upon whom false representation could be imposed to 21 years; and the effect of the alteration now proposed was to repeal that limitation of 21 years, and to strike out the clause from the Act of Parliament, 24 & 25 Vict. He confessed his own opinion was that when they had a clause already in operation in an existing Statute, and which had been in operation for a considerable time, it would be a great pity to repeal it in order to substitute something that was substantially the same in a new Act. He thought it would be far better to leave the old Act in force.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was quite true that there was a clause to that effect in the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict., making it an offence to procure improper connection with a woman under 21 years of age by threats. It was now proposed to add to the offence intimidation; and he did not see why procuring by means of false representation should not be an offence in regard to a woman of 25 or 30, as well as to one under 21 years of age. In all other respects the existing law would remain. He thought that the proposals of the Home Secretary were right, and he hoped the Committee would adopt them.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would like to know precisely what those words meant. For instance, supposing a man were to promise a woman £100, which, in the case of a Member of that House, would probably not be considered very much, and then were only to give her £50, the question might be raised whether, in such a case, there had not been a fraudulent pretence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, that the words "fraudulent pretence" were very well understood in law by those who administered an Act of Parliament. He seldom differed from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Clarke) in regard to a matter of Criminal Law; but in this instance he could not quite agree with his hon. and learned Friend, who expressed his disinclination to repeal a section of an old Act of Parliament, in order to put it into a new one. He (the Attorney General) thought it would be more convenient to repeal the section of the existing law, and to place it in the new Act. Sometimes a difficulty arose from having a number of sections contained in different Acts of Parliament; and it was much better, when they clearly knew what they intended to do, to put the section in a new Act.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he thought that this Amendment, coupled with the observation of the Home Secretary, that he intended to propose the omission of Sections 2 and 3, made the proposal a somewhat dangerous and difficult one. The Proviso, as it stood, enacted that where a woman consented, no matter by what means that consent was brought about, the false pretence was not to apply; but it was now proposed that where a woman was induced to consent by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, although she knew perfectly well what it was she was consenting to, the clause should apply. As he read the Proviso and the clause together, it made it punishable for any deception to be resorted to, like a mock marriage, or something of that kind, where a woman was induced to sacrifice her virtue by means of fraud or deceit; and any man who took advantage of such false representation or deceit to obtain connection with a woman who was not married to him would, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for two years. It was all very well to say that the words proposed to be added in reference to fraudulent pretences and fraudulent representations occurred in an existing Act of Parliament; but he was not aware—and perhaps some Member of the Government would inform him if it was so—that any judicial interpretation of those words had been given, or whether any case had been decided. He knew that in the ordinary Criminal Law the obtaining of goods by false pretences was open to a variety of interpretations; and knowing that fraudulent means and fraudulent devices were liable to be interpreted in an extremely wide sense, he wished to know how those words were likely to be construed in this particular instance? Would conspiracy, for instance, be construed in the same manner as an ordinary indictment for false pretences? The case put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would not be one of ordinary false pretences, but was a promise of something in the future which was not performed in its entirety. Was it intended under the clause that a man who promised marriage to a woman, and by that promise secured possession of her, if he did not afterwards marry her, might be accused of having obtained possession of her by fraudulent means? That was a very serious point, for he believed that in this country it had not been uncommon to obtain possession of a woman under promise of marriage. Was it to be set up that in such cases, in future, there would be the prospect of an indictment for procuring a woman under false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means? He thought there ought to be some illustration given to show what kind of false pretences would be punishable. It would be too much for a woman to induce a man knowingly and willingly to go with her, and then to turn round and give him two years' imprisonment on the charge that she had been influenced by the false representations made to her. He thought that would be carrying the Criminal Law to a dangerous length.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he entirely agreed with the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He saw great danger in the clause, especially as there was to be no limitation in regard to age. He also concurred entirely with the view of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Clarke). When the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asked what fraudulent pretences meant, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General gave a very vague and indefinite answer. He simply referred to some provisions in other Acts of Parliament; but he did not inform the Committee that they were in any way analogous to the clause it was now proposed to insert. He could not, for the life of him, understand why, if a man obtained possession of a certain thing on the promise to pay a certain sum of money, and then did not pay the whole of it, he should be found guilty of having made a fraudulent representation. The case of a mock marriage instanced by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was one that was quite to the point; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would add another which had been brought to his recollection by an observation which had been made by the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). He referred to the case of marrying a deceased wife's sister. It certainly appeared to him that if they passed this clause every man who married his wife's sister would run the risk of being tried for misdemeanour. He had supported the validity of such marriages ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He believed that a large number of such marriages were contracted by women who did not know that they were in every way illegal; and the adoption of this clause, in its present shape, might affect the persons who contracted such marriages, not only whether they were contracted in England, but abroad. He knew that there were many cases where a man who desired to marry his deceased wife's sister, and knowing that he could not be legally married in England, thought that by going to another country where such a marriage was not unlawful he rendered it legal so far as this country was concerned. Of course, that was done in ignorance of the law; but marriages of that kind did take place abroad, and, having been consummated, the persons who had contracted them came back to England, when the woman found that, according to the law of England, she was no longer her brother-in-law's wife. In such a case, would it be held that he had obtained possession of her person by fraudulent misrepresentations? He recollected a case which came under his cognizance a few years ago, where a highly respectable Roman Catholic priest discovered that he had rendered himself liable to a charge of felony by having performed the marriage ceremony in one of these cases, and when the Registrar was not present. It might not be known to all Members of the House that marriage with a deceased wife's sister, in the event of certain formalities being complied with, were valid in the Roman Catholic Church. If a man was desirous of contracting a marriage with his deceased wife's sister, and was told that he could not do so lawfully, he had only to go to his priest, and, having obtained the formality of a dispensation, the marriage, according to the regulations of the Roman Catholic Church, was lawful. A woman, therefore, under such circumstances, would be induced to believe that on receiving a dispensation the marriage was perfectly lawful, and that she was the genuine wife of her brother-in-law. But, under this clause, if the brother-in-law discarded her, as he would be entitled to do, seeing that the marriage, according to the law of the land, was unlawful, he might find that he had placed himself in a position to be indicted for the criminal offence of misdemeanour. At present the law limited the age at which a woman could be deceived by fraudulent representations to 21 years; and he was astonished to hear a man of the experience of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) declare that the age of the women made no difference, but that the provisions of the law ought to be extended, no matter what the age was. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knew that there were constant instances of extortion where a woman sought to obtain money by bringing charges of an improper character against a man. Almost every day cases of that kind were to be found in the newspapers. Not more than three days ago he saw a report of the case of a woman of 17 years of age who was tried at the Durham Assizes on seven distinct charges of extortion. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary talked about the purity of their homes being invaded; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he regarded that question in reference to the male sex? Were they to have no care of their young men? By raising the age of protection for women, were they to throw the door open to every species of extortion against young men? He failed to see why they should extend the present limit of 21 years. He had certainly heard no serious objection to that limit being retained.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, bethought the Committee ought to bear in mind two things—namely, the offence with which they were dealing, and the necessity of giving no facility for trumping up false charges. This sub-section, as had been pointed out, was nothing but the re-enactment of the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict., except in regard to the limit of age. The clause, as it stood, contained a Proviso in Sub-sections 2 and 3, which took away the benefits of the old Statute of 24 & 25 Vict. as to age. Therefore, in extending the limit of age it was desirable, on various grounds, to prevent, as far as possible, the possibility of false charges being made. Under the words "false representations or other fraudulent means," if a designing woman were prepared to say "the man promised to give me 20s. and only gave me 10s.; and that was all he had to give me," that would be a false representation. It was necessary for the Committee to see that they had to steer their course between two difficulties; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, inasmuch as he understood the right hon. Gentleman intended to move to strike out the Proviso in Sub-sections 2 and 3, if it would not meet the difficulty, to some extent, by saying that those two sub-sections should not apply to women of known immoral character? [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS replied in the affirmative.] If that were so, the man would be protected from any false charge made by a woman of known immoral character. He did not know that that would meet the difficulty altogether; but he thought it would meet the danger of those false charges being made.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he was glad to hear from the late Attorney General the suggestion that the Committee should, to some extent, modify what might be a dangerous course in the matter. He certainly objected to repeal old Statutes in order to put them into new ones. The Act of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, was an Act to consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to acts against the person. It was proposed to repeal the 49th section of that Act, and supplement the Code by inserting the present clause in the Bill; but he did not see why they should take a section out of that Statute, repeal it, and then put it into another Statute. So far as false pretences was concerned, he saw no reason why there should be any limitation of age. A man might just as reasonably impose upon a woman of 30 as upon a girl of 15; but the difficulty was in rendering a young man liable to two years' imprisonment if he coerced a woman of 30, who was certainly not likely to be overawed by any menace or representation a youth might make. The result might be that a woman who willingly gave herself to the embraces of a man might afterwards come forward and say that she had done so in consequence of having been intimidated. Of course, there would not be much danger in the case of women of known immoral character; but the danger would arise in dealing with women whose previous immorality could not be proved.

MR. R. T. REID

remarked, that the words "false representations, false pretences, and other fraudulent means," were taken from the Act of 1860, and they were perfectly well understood. He did not understand, for a moment, that the case which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) of offering a particular sum of money, and then paying less, would afford any ground for an indictment under this section. He therefore failed to see what practical object would be attained by adopting the suggestion of the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James).

MR. GREGORY

was of opinion that something should be done to prevent extortion on the part of persons of immoral character. He was, therefore, of opinion that the clause should give protection to all whom it was desirable to protect within the scope of the Bill. If a man had connection with a woman under a promise of marrying her, and it turned out afterwards that he was married, was that to be considered a fraudulent pretence?

MR. LABOUCHERE

wished to know if the late Attorney General intended to move the Amendment he had suggested? They were told by the present Attorney General that the words "fraudulent means" could not in any sense apply to the offering of a certain sum to a woman, and then not giving it to her. As a layman, he (Mr. Labouchere) was certainly not acquainted with the refinements of the law; but he understood that that was exactly the reverse of the view which had been expressed by the present Attorney General. He was afraid that a great deal of black mail might be levied unless the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) were accepted, and he hoped the Committee would divide upon it.

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the word "endeavours," in order to insert the word "attempts."

Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper in the next line of this sub-section to insert after "girl" the words— Not being a common prostitute or person of known immoral character. He proposed to insert those words for the reason given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the late Attorney General. The Amendment would deal with the case of a man who, accosting a prostitute who had no wish to have anything to say to him, succeeded in overcoming her scruples by offering her £5, and then only gave her £1. He was afraid that by the clause as it stood that might be held to be false pretences.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 33, after the word "girl," to insert the words "not being a common prostitute or person of known immoral character."—(Captain Price.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he could not accept the Amendment. In the first instance, the effect would be to alter Section 49 of the Act 24 & 25 Vict., and, therefore, to change the existing law. Why should a woman—even although she was a woman of loose character—be subjected to intimidation and violence against her will? The existing law protected her, and he saw no reason why the law should be altered.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he understood the object of the present Bill was to prevent defilement, which was entirely opposed to the notion of dealing with common women in any sense. He thought the fault rested with the words in the clause, which were not altogether applicable to the offence the clause was intended to deal with. The terms— False pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, were very wide, and would afford an opportunity to women to trump up cases. In cases of breach of promise, in future the woman would only have to bring forward a charge of this kind to enable her counsel to ask for very substantial damages, and to suggest that this measure had been placed at the woman's disposal for that very purpose. The law with regard to "fraudulent devices" had never yet been judicially expounded, and no lawyer he had ever met with could give an instance of a case in which the old Act had been put in force.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he had suggested that Sub-sections 2 and 3 should not apply to women of immoral character. They were not dealing now with threats and intimidation only, but also with false representations, false pretences, and other fraudulent means, which might mean not representing falsely a fact, but something that was to come hereafter. What was it that the Committee were engaged in doing? They were aiming the Bill indirectly at prostitution; and if they did not accept these words they were favouring prosti- tution. He did not see why a prostitute should not be protected by law in regard to such rights as she had; but by employing the words "false representations" they were going beyond the law, and might drive a man into a police court and ruin his future prospects for life unnecessarily. The present law did not go beyond the protection of women under 21 years of age; but they were now extending this protection to a much larger class of women, and were giving them an opportunity of making false charges for purposes of extortion. He really felt that this was a matter which ought to be carefully considered, and he would ask the Government to allow an Amendment to be brought up in a different form on the Report.

MR. JAMES STUART

strongly objected to so much being left over for Report. There was yet ample time for arguing the matter. He appealed to the Home Secretary to retain the clause without the addition now proposed.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the clause as it stood would not carry out the views of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart); and he thought they might extend the protection even beyond what the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) suggested. The right hon. and learned Gentleman instanced the case of a man who promised £1 and only gave 10s. A man in such a case as that ought certainly to be protected against being prosecuted for procuring the commission of an unlawful act under false pretences. Were they going to protect any woman who sold herself for money, and who did not happen to belong to that class of women known as prostitutes? Take the case of a woman who sold herself for £100, and only received £50. Was that the class of woman, whether she was of known immoral character or not, that they wished to protect? His opinion was that they only desired to protect virtue and morality, and they ought to define fraudulent means so as to exclude all cases of the promise of money. It would not be sufficient to confine the matter simply to street walkers; no woman who sold herself for a promise of money should be able to take advantage of this clause in the event of the man not paying her as much as she expected. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should put in the Interpretation Clause some Proviso limiting the words "fraudulent means," and excluding all cases in which a promise of money or reward of any kind was made.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he would not press the Amendment; but he wished to ask the Government if they would bring up on the Report, or move now, a Proviso to the sub-section to this effect— That the sub-section should not apply to any woman or girl being a common prostitute, or a person of known immoral character.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK moved, after the word "girl," to insert "under the age of 21 years," which would have the effect of limiting the protection afforded by the sub-section to any woman or girl under 21 years of age. If he received any assurance from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that some such words would be introduced by the Government in accordance with the suggestion which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) he would not insist upon the Amendment; but otherwise he should be compelled to do so.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 23, after the word "girl," to insert the words "under the age of twenty-one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he proposed to agree to the insertion of some such words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the word "unlawful."

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS) moved the omission of the following sub-sections:— (2.) By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, procures any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with himself or any other man: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where such woman or girl knew such connection to be unlawful; or (3.) By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, endeavours to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection, cither within or without the Queen's dominions, with himself or any other man: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where such woman or girl knew this connexion to be unlawful. He proposed to strike out those sub-sections altogether, because the effect of them had already been introduced into the 1st sub-section, and he presumed that the Amendments which appeared on the Paper in reference to those paragraphs would practically disappear.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that that course having been taken, he proposed to move the omission of the 4th subsection, which read as follows:— (4.) Induces a girl under the age of twenty-one years, with intent that she shall have unlawful carnal connection with himself or any other man, to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel nor being a party to the intent.

MR. M'COAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to notice that he had placed an Amendment on the Paper for the insertion of a sub-section after the 1st sub-section to include any person who Procures, or endeavours to procure, any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, when under the influence of any intoxicating liquor, opiate, or narcotic, to have unlawful carnal connection with himself or any other man. In framing that Amendment he had certainly entertained some doubt whether the offence he proposed to deal with did not really amount to rape. In that case it might not be properly dealt with by a new Proviso which reduced the offence to one of misdemeanour. He was, however, encouraged to persevere with his Amendment, because he saw that there were two Amendments on the Paper to a similar effect in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), and the Home Secretary also proposed to deal with it himself. He believed that it was an offence to administer drugs; but it was not an offence to have improper connection with a woman when she was under the influence of the drug. He, therefore, thought that the Bill would be improved by that being made a distinct offence.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

proposed the omission of Sub-section 4, on the ground that it amounted to a fraud which had already been dealt with.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, to omit Sub-section (4).—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (4) stand, part of the Bill."

MR. STANSFELD

remarked that he had an Amendment on this sub-section, and if it were omitted it would be necessary that he should move his Amendment in the form of a new sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved the insertion of a new sub-section to follow Sub-section (1), the effect of which was to make it a misdemeanour to apply, administer to, or cause to be taken away by any woman or girl any stupefying or over-powering drug, matter, or thing, with intent thereby to enable himself or any man to have unlawful connection with such woman or girl.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 14, after the word "intent," to insert—"(5.) Applies, administers to, or causes to be taken by any woman or girl any stupefying or overpowering drug, matter, or thing, with intent thereby to enable himself or any man to have unlawful connection with such woman or girl."—(Sir S. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation of the necessity of this sub-section. It was asserted that in this country it was possible to do these things, and that the law could not touch the offender. He maintained that the offence was touched by the existing law in various ways. In the first place, if anybody were to get possession of a woman by means of administering a stupefying or overpowering drug, the woman being reduced thereby to a state of insensibility, or wanting the power to express her will in regard to the act, it was rape. Then, in addition to that, there was an Act of Parliament in existence which declared that any person who administered chloroform, or a drug or opiate, or any other matter or thing to anybody with the intent to commit a felony, was guilty of a felony, and was already punishable by law. There were a good many mystifications in the Bill throughout, and there were repetitions of a good deal that was already law. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some good reason why it was necessary to insert this sub-section. The word "intent" was precisely the same as the word "attempt" in the Criminal Law. If a man gave a woman a glass of grog, or a pinch of snuff, or anything else with the intention to commit a rape, he maintained that that was an attempt to commit a felonious act, and was already dealt with by the law. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to say what reason he had for believing that these cases were not already sufficiently dealt with by the existing law.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the real question with regard to this Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was whether or not it went beyond the existing law. They were all of one mind—that it was undesirable to include in the Bill a number of superfluous provisions; but it would appear, from Mr. Justice Stephen's Digest of Law, that the law, as it stood, dealt with cases where there was an intent to assist or enable any other person to commit an indictable offence, or an attempt to render any person insensible or unconscious by administering any overpowering drug. As the law now stood, that applied only to persons who assisted another to commit an indictable offence; and, so far as rape was concerned, that was a case which was also dealt with. The Amendment, however, of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went further. In the first place, there was no limit of age; and, in the next place, it made it a misdemeanour for any person to administer to any woman or girl any stupefying or overpowering drug with the intent to enable any other person to have unlawful connection with such woman or girl. There were cases which might not amount to a rape; and if something were done by a third person, or by anybody in connection with a third person, which led to the commission of an offence, he maintained that it was a matter which ought to be brought within the Criminal Law. He quite recognized, with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that the existing law dealt with these offences to a certain extent; but it did not go as far as his right hon. Friend proposed to go.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was not satisfied that this Amendment would meet the whole of the case. The Act of 1860 went much further than the proposed Amendment, and was much more comprehensive; but even the provisions of that Act did not, to his mind, grapple with all the difficulties of the case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

remarked that that Act was not repealed.

MR. M'COAN

said, that, as he read the Amendment, it provided for the punishment of the person who administered a drug, but not for the person who committed the offence of violating the woman who was the victim of the drug. It might be that connection with a woman under the influence of a drug would be held to be rape; but there might also be degrees of unconsciousness produced by the administration of a drug which would not be held to be rape. He would instance the case of a half-drunken woman, neither drunk nor sober, to whom improper overtures were made, and followed up by the commission of an unlawful act. That would not be held to be rape, and yet a morally criminal offence would have been committed. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would not meet that case. It did not punish a man who profited by the administration of the drug, but only the man who administered it. He should be glad if, by any alteration in the wording of the sub-section, the case he had pointed out could be met; because he certainly thought that, as it was at present drawn, it would have very little effect, and he should be glad to see it made quite perfect.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that his objection to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was that it did not cover every case. For instance, it left out the administration of intoxicating drinks.

MR. HORACE DAYEY

said, there was one observation which, had fallen from the Attorney General which he thought was worthy of consideration. His hon. and learned Friend pointed to the fact that by the Amendment it must be a stupefying or overpowering drug. He thought the words "stupefying or overpowering" restricted the operation of the clause, and that the word "drug" alone would be quite sufficient. There was another observation which he wished to make with regard to the clause as it stood at present. He wished to know if it was to apply to any person, or to any man?

THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

Any person.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

disagreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), and thought that there should be words inserted in the clause to show that the offence was to stupefy or overpower. Otherwise a man might take a woman into a public-house and give her a glass of sherry, and she might turn round upon him and accuse him of having given it to her with an unlawful intent. Unless the Committee carefully guarded these words, so as to show that it was a deliberate attempt to stupefy and overpower the will of the woman for an unlawful purpose, there was a danger that it might be used for purposes of extortion.

MR. STANSFELD

suggested that it would be better to include "liquor" with "drug." The words of the Amendment would not cover all the cases which were contemplated. Nobody could say of intoxicating liquor that it was a stupefying or overpowering drug. If it were taken in excess, it might become overpowering and stupefying; but its nature was not, as was that of some drugs, to be overpowering. He thought it would be necessary to introduce some words to cover intoxicating drinks.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he had understood, from what the hon. and learned Attorney General said, that the clause would cover the administration of ordinary intoxicating liquors, if they were administered with an unlawful intent.

MR. STANSFELD

said, his point was that the words "stupefying or over- powering drug, matter, or thing" implied that those drugs, matters, or things were in their very nature stupefying or overpowering. Now, everyone knew that that was not the case with intoxicants, because taken to a moderate extent they did not overpower or stupefy, but, on the contrary, they stimulated. Let the Committee remember what followed. It was always understood that the drug, matter, or thing, was administered with intent, &c. He therefore put it before the Committee that whenever intoxicating liquor should be administered to a woman or girl with that intent, the person who so administered it ought to bear the punishment provided by the clause. He should, therefore, move an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) which would meet the case of administering intoxicating liquors.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "thing," to insert the words "or intoxicating liquor."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, if the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) were adopted, the giving of one glass of sherry would be sufficient. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman to the extent that the thing need not be in its nature stupefying or overpowering, but that it should be so in its effect. But that he denied was the meaning of the words as they stood. They might put in "any drug, matter, or thing to the extent of stupefying or overpowering," or words that would mean that the thing must be given to the extent that would produce stupefaction or overpowering.

MR. E. T. REID

suggested that the words "to an extent which causes any woman or girl to become intoxicated" should be added.

THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he thought the more sensible course would be to take the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and say "any drug, matter, or thing so as to stupefy or overpower."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he understood that the proposal was to withdraw the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), in order to insert the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). He pointed out that those words would only apply where something had been given or administered to an extent that caused the subject to be overpowered or stupefied. So that, however wicked the intention might be, unless the thing were administered in a sufficient quantity to produce that effect the person who administered it would not come within the reach of the clause. That, he said, was reducing the clause to a nullity. What they wanted to do was to prevent the administration to any woman or girl of anything which would so derange her reasoning power as to make her become the victim of the person who administered it. He would suggest that before the words "stupefy or overpower" they should insert the words "with the intent to." That would place the meaning of the clause in a clear light, whereas he thought that the wording recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would leave the matter so vague that the application of this portion of the Act would be made impracticable.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he ventured to think that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had suggested the proper way of dealing with this matter, by proposing words which would make it clear that the intention to stupefy or overpower, and so on, would be punished by the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out "stupefying or overpowering," and insert after "intent," the words "to stupefy and overpower so as."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Defilement of girl between twelve and fifteen years of age).

MR. THOMASSON

said, he would ask for an explanation of the term "unlawfully" used in this clause.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, it had been customary to describe the offence dealt with by the clause in that way. The word "unlawfully" was used in old indictments. There might have been, but he did not think that any special meaning was, attached to the word. He would point out to the Committee that the whole section was simply an expression of the law as it now existed. The clause had been paraded in some of the newspapers as if it were the introduction of now law; but it was nothing of the kind—it was simply a re-enactment of existing law.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he did not think the existing law was strong enough on the point of age; and he rose to move that the word "twelve," in line 25, be omitted, and "thirteen" substituted. He observed that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had proposed to make the limit of age in this case 14 years; but he preferred his own Amendment for these reasons. He thought, on consideration of this matter, that they could not altogether eliminate the question of consent. Now, consent might be given by a gild of tender age from several motives; in the first place, it might be given because presents were offered to her, and, to some extent, because the girl did not actually know what would happen. It was obvious that the consent he had alluded to could not be held to be an excuse. But consent might be due also to natural causes, and in that case, although it would not constitute an excuse, it might be held to be something in the nature of extenuation. Up to the age of 13, which he proposed to insert in the clause, he did not think it possible that the natural cause could operate to the extent of justifying the term "consent" being applied. Therefore, for the reasons he had given, he thought the clause in respect of age did not go far enough; and, on the other hand, he considered that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon) went a little too far. In order to place this matter on a reasonable basis, he commended the Amendment standing in his own name to the favourable consideration of the Committee and Her Majesty's Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the word "twelve," in order to insert the word "thirteen."—(Captain Price.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he had an Amendment to move which would substitute 14, as the age of the girl, for that named in the clause. This was no question of creating a new offence—it was simply a question of punishment. He would not go into the question of passion, which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price). But he would point out that there was this distinction between the felony and misdemeanour—that in the former the female was immature, both in body and mind, and the man guilty of it must be of brutal nature. He believed, even at the age of 15, a girl was not always able to understand the consequences, because she was deficient in mind; and the same reason applied in a stronger degree to the age of 14. Although there were some females prematurely developed, yet it was no uncommon thing for development to be deferred to between the ages of 15 and 16. But at the age of 14 the girl was but a child, and he said that at that age there was neither knowledge nor passion; if there were, it was the result of unusual precocity. It was true that the conditions of life in which a large proportion of the population was placed brought young girls into contact with vice, and gave them experiences to which women of 20 in a higher class of society were strangers. So far as mental development, vice, and vicious practices were concerned, it was very well authenticated that many young girls under 12 were exposed to example and habits of the most vicious kind. But that being so, let it not be said that if a girl of 14 knew what she was about, a girl of 10 or less knew equally well. He said that they must go beyond the particular-cases mentioned. He asked any hon. Member who heard him now whether, in his heart and conscience, a girl of 14 was not in respect of sensual passion a mere child, as she was not sufficiently mature in body or mind to apprehend such matters? It was not necessary for him to say that the savage who debauched a girl of that age was undeserving of any sympathy whatever, and no argument should induce them to look on him as guilty of an of- fence of only a venial kind—he was corrupt in heart and mind; he had committed rape, and should be dealt with by law. It had been said that there was no distinction between the ages of 12, 14, and 16. He contended that if a girl was to be protected at all, it meant that she was incapable of knowing the meaning and consequence of what was done—that was why she ought to be protected, and why the man ought to be severely punished. In the case he had put of a girl of 14 years of age, he thought the cruelty and moral viciousness of the act ought to be punished with the severest penalty which the law could inflict. He should therefore move that "fourteen" be substituted for "thirteen."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in Order in moving that Amendment, because it would have the effect of altogether nullifying the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price). The way to meet the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was to divide against it.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, in that case he would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, in reply to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could only state that if his own Amendment were not passed, he should be glad to vote for the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member proposed to move.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought that, on the whole, they might safely take the age of 13 which stood in the clause. No doubt the age of 12 was the age recognized by the existing law, and what governed it was very much this—that it was the law of marriage in England that a boy of 14 could marry any girl of 12 years of age. The law was remarkable in that respect, because at the age of 12 binding consent could be given. If the boy were under 14, and the girl under 12, it would not be valid. Either of them on becoming of age might disagree, and the marriage might be declared void. That, he said, disposed of the question that had been raised as to the meaning of the word "unlawfully" used at the beginning of the clause. They must have that in the Act, because there was no limit of age in marriage—that was to say, if the boy and girl did not disagree the marriage would be binding. No doubt there was great difficulty in dealing with these matters, because they were dealing with ages which were recognized in the marriage law of the country. He thought the age should be taken at which a man must himself know what would be clear at the age of 12, but doubtful at the age of 13. To judge of age correctly was a matter of difficulty. When asked the other day as to the age of a girl, he found that he was wrong by two years in the judgment he formed. His opinion was that in these matters they ought not to carry the thing to an extreme; and he thought in this case they would be taking a sensible step in the direction they wished to go if they fixed the age at 13 instead of 12.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, no doubt the reason why the age of 12 was the law of England in regard to the crime dealt with in this clause was because of the law of marriage, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and he thought they ought to be very careful in extending it. He was not unwilling to go as far as the age of 13, because a child at that age was certainly not able to have full knowledge; and, on the other hand, it must be known to anyone dealing with her that she was a child. But at 14 years of age the case was very different, and he did not think it safe to go as far as that. There did not appear to him that anything was to be gained by dwelling on this subject at great length, and he hoped the Committee would think with him that a decision should be come to with regard to it as soon as possible. It should be remembered that this clause was making the act felony, and that when the age of 12 or 13 was settled there was still the offence of misdemeanour to fall back upon.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not understand why they should be asked to alter the existing law. No one had shown that it was insufficient. Where were the cases between 12 and 13 years of age that had not been properly punished? He did not think that any pressing necessity had been shown for the change; certainly he thought there was none, and he believed he knew as I much about the law on this subject as anyone. But someone had cried out for severity, and it was replied—"Yes. We cannot give you the whole; but we will give you the half." Hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke of the debauching of girls; but he pointed out that this section contemplated something different. The course hitherto followed in these matters was to have gradations in the law. Between the ages of 10 and 12 the offence was a misdemeanour; but, taking the law as it existed at the present time, up to 12 it was a felony. What was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Simon)? Why, he said, without authority, that no girl was ever mature, or anything like it, at the age of 12 or 13 years. He (Mr. Hopwood) could only contradict him with the personal observation that he himself had made. He saw many young women that he believed were not older than 13, or who, at all events, were debauched as early as 13. He supposed it was not intended that an extra punishment should be inflicted in a case of this sort—because a girl of bad character with whom a person had immoral relations happened to be a year older than the age fixed at present for the protection of young females. His hon. and learned Friend on his right (Mr. Serjeant Simon) contended that such girls were immature, and that it was impossible to suppose that such children felt passion. Why, all the evidence before them contradicted that. In evidence before the House of Lords it was stated by the chaplain of a gaol that in many cases children began a life of immorality at the early age of seven or eight years. Let them imagine the careers of those girls from the age of seven or eight to the age of 12, and remember that they were now called on, without necessity for it being shown, to attach a special punishment and a special infamy to this class of offence if the subject of it was only one year older than 12. Those who came to this subject for the first time attached enormous importance to the words, writ large, "punishment by imprisonment" staring them in the face, for this breach of the moral law. He did not. He believed that after this law was passed it would have no more effect than the old law—unless, in some few cases, it had the effect of bringing about an increase of punishment. They must remember that in all these cases the Judge would have the power of giving a small amount of punishment. The Amendment was illusory, then. What was the use of raising the point? It could only be for the sake of identifying the offence with the name which, in the olden time, was supposed to strike terror into the hearts of their forefathers'—namely, "felony." They knew that a great deal of that terror had been wisely diminished, and that there was now very little difference between felony and misdemeanour. Though there might be a difference, it was a very fine one; and it seemed to him they ought not to make the change for mere change's sake.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the section before them was for the purpose of protecting young girls, and if they did not protect them he failed to see what object they could have in view. If any hon. Gentleman knew girls of 14 who seemed to be marriageable their experience did not accord with his. No doubt there were cases amongst the lower classes whore girls married at 14; but they were very few. He remembered seeing a boy of 16 who was 6 feet 2 inches high; but that was not a common occurrence. It seemed to him that their Common Law as to the period when boys and girls were marriageable was founded on the Roman Law. Well, the Romans lived in a much more Southern latitude than we, and their children—as was the case with the children of the South of France, Spain, and Italy at the present time—were much more precocious than our children. However, if he had a preference, it was for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price), who proposed the age of 13. It seemed to him that that age would give much greater security. It was said that the age of puberty was between 13 and 15. The average between those ages was 14; but to avoid being unable, in many cases, to tell the difference between 13 and 14, he thought it would be wise to adopt the younger age—namely, 13.

MR. SAMUEL MORLEY

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) spoke about the public calling for greater severity. Well, he believed that was precisely what the people were calling for, and he believed that the large majority of the public would sympathize with the proposal to adopt the age of 14. He (Mr. Morley) could, however, only speak for himself; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) pressed the matter to a division he should support him.

Question, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the word 'thirteen' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 58: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 261.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he wished to move an addition to the clause to place offences under the clause in the category of offences dealt with under the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 44, entitled—"An Act for the further securing of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from personal violence." Under that Act, if any person committed a robbery and accompanied it with personal violence he was liable, at the discretion of the Court, to have the punishment of flogging inflicted on him; and what he (Mr. Fowler) was asking the Committee to do was to place the offence of rape on a little girl in the same category as robbery with personal violence. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), when he made his powerful speech on the first night of this debate, had made a special reference to him (Mr. Fowler) in regard to this clause, and had seemed to think it an inconsistent and improper course in him to move it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given, by anticipation, two reasons against the clause, one with reference to a special case which he had quoted, where great injustice had been done to a reverend gentleman named Hatch; and the other in general illustration of the administration of the law. He should like to point out to the Committee, as to the evidence of girls of tender age, and the evidence on which this punishment of flogging might be inflicted, that the case of Mr. Hatch would not be brought within this clause, and was no precedent. That was a case of indecently assaulting young girls; but the cases he was proposing to deal with were not cases of indecent assault, but cases in which the complete offence wag committed—cases of felony; and, of course, no conviction would be obtained of such cases, except on medical proof that the crime had been committed. With regard to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman that innocent persons might be subjected to this punishment, that was an argument against all Criminal Law whatever. Innocent persons had, to the sorrow of all right-minded people, been convicted again and again. They had been sentenced to imprisonment, and had sometimes even lost their lives. But the remedy for that, if it were owing, in any way, to the unsatisfactory state of their law, was not the relaxation of punishment for gross crimes, but rather the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal, which he thought was a necessary reform in their Criminal Law. What he wanted to impress upon the Committee was that the character of this offence was so horrible, and the injury done to the victims of it so great, and the degraded character of the man who committed it so revolting, that no punishment could be too severe for him, and that, in the interests of society, any punishment that would best deter from the commission of the crime was a punishment they ought to adopt. The hon. and learned. Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) had drawn a very powerful picture of a man suffering this punishment; but the hon. and learned Member had drawn the picture on too broad lines, and the record which they had of the infliction of this punishment, subject to the restrictions of the Act of Parliament that he had referred to, would not justify that picture. The injury done to little children by this off once was an injury for life, and one that it was impossible to estimate the consequences of; and, unfortunately, the crime and injury were those to which the children of the working classes were especially subjected. The children of the rich were protected, to a great extent. There were servants constantly looking after them; but the children of the poor were constantly at the mercy of the public, and it was the duty of the public, so far as they could, to protect them from these offences. During the Assizes at Stafford, which were taking place that week, there had been one or two most horrible cases of outraging little children—one of these being a case in which a stepfather took advantage of his position to outrage the child of his wife under circumstances of most disgusting brutality. Now, he had no compassion or pity for such scoundrels. He should like to see them flogged. He thought flogging would not only be the proper punishment for the offence, but would have a great deterrent effect on the crime; and in this matter he was not going altogether on his own opinion. He would not rest the matter on his own opinion—he would give them one or two high authorities. In the first place, take the opinion of a well-known Judge, a person no one could charge with being a sentimental Judge, but one of the strongest Judges who had ever sat on the English Bench, and who had had, perhaps, a larger experience in the administration of the Criminal Law than anyone else—namely, Lord Bramwell. What did he say? Why— If their Lordships only knew, as well as he did, who the persons were who committed these offences, they would find that, in all probability, the anticipation of a flogging would have a far greater deterring influence upon such persons than anything else; and particularly upon those who committed it on defenceless children under the influence of a detestable superstition."—(3 Hansard, [280] 1387.) The Earl of Shaftesbury, in the same debate, said— He had put the question to a number of the criminal classes, and he found that they preferred months of imprisonment to one flogging," and that he "he believed flogging would have a more deterrent effect than any other punishment."—(Ibid.) The Amendment had been accepted by the House of Lords without a division. Then, the present law inflicting the punishment of flogging for robbery with personal violence had never been complained of as in any way working unjustly or unfairly. The Judges ordered that punishment according to their discretion; but it was never ordered except in cases of robbery and violence of great atrocity. That punishment, he was satisfied, would meet with the concurrence of the public opinion of the country. If it had been abhorrent to it in the case of crimes of robbery with violence, it would have been long since swept out of the Statute Book. He would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to a still higher authority than any he had quoted yet, and one which, he thought, would have weight with the right hon. Gentleman, and which ought to have weight with his Colleagues. He was about to quote from the Prime Minister—and he could not put the arguments for the clause more tersely or more unanswerably than the Marquess of Salisbury had put them when this clause was passed by the House of Lords. What did he say? Why that— He deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. The Government had declined to accept it on the ground, principally, that they would have some difficulty in passing it through this House; but they afterwards withdrew from that position— He should like to know the reason why. The offence was one of the most horrible that could be conceived, the most defenceless girls of the community were especially exposed to it, and a widely-spread superstition made it far commoner than it would be. The men who committed it were unable to foresee what was involved in penal servitude for life; but they understood the pain arising from corporal punishment. If ever corporal punishment was a just instrument to be placed in the hands of the law-giver, for the purpose of repressing odious crimes, it was in the present case. Therefore, if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote for it."—(3 Hansard, [280] 1386.) He (Mr. Fowler) appealed to the Government not to run away from the decision and the action of the Prime Minister on this matter; and on the lines and arguments with which the noble Marquess had advocated this most desirable change in the law he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to consent to the introduction of these words.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 30, after the word "labour," to insert the words "and, in addition to any such punishment, the court before whom such person shall be convicted may direct that such person may be whipped, to the extent mentioned in and in the manner prescribed by the Act of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh Victoria, chapter forty-four, entitled 'An Act for the further securing of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from personal violence."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD

said, he regretted that he was not in the House when his Amendment was reached to leave out the words "for life, or for any term not less than five years." He warned the Committee, in registering its decision against persons guilty of the offence named in the clause, not to lose sight of cases where numbers of children herded together in one room, and young boys might become guilty. He thought that to pass a clause requiring a sentence of penal servitude for life, or for a minimum period of five years, regardless of the tender ago of a prisoner, would be a mistake. In the case of boys, whipping was the proper punishment, and nothing but it.

MR. BARING

I rise to Order. I think the point the hon. Member is dealing with has been settled.

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD

said, he was only speaking on the clause generally. If the clause passed as it now stood, children would be liable to be sent to penal servitude, and he asked that children under 14 should be punished with nothing but whipping—certainly not with penal servitude.

MR. BARING

said, the hon. Gentleman was a little late in his proposal. It would, he thought, be wise to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The punishment of flogging, they might rely upon it, would never be inflicted unless it were well deserved.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not know that the Prime Minister had any more experience in this matter of the prevention of crime than a great many hon. Members; therefore, however powerful might have been the language employed by him in expressing his views, and however well worthy the speech might have been of hearing, or was now worthy of reading, too much weight should not be attached to it. He (Mr. Hopwood) opposed the Amendment, believing that if they wanted to suppress crimes, increasing the severity of punishment was not the best way to do it. They knew the heavy punishments their forefathers had attached to a great many crimes, and how little they succeeded in that way in suppressing them. They knew how often verdicts of "not guilty" were returned because of the extreme severity of the punishments which would follow convictions, and every tyro in the science of law knew how little effect extreme penalties had exercised on the criminal classes, even where the inducement was so little as stealing 1s. in a dwelling house, and a multitude of similar offences. Some of those offences were so small that it would have been thought that whipping would prove a sufficient deterrent, and yet, as a matter of fact, even death had not been. He would remind his hon. Friend that in the olden time whipping had been a punishment for stealing. It was only superseded some 40 or 50 years ago by the introduction of the House of Correction system, which was introduced by those who were philanthropists, and not only by them, but by those who were convinced that this whipping business was a mistake, and really injured those who inflicted it. It injured those who heard the sentence given; it injured the Judges who gave it; and reduced the feelings of mankind to a lower level of sensibility. That was the only ground on which they could try to convince or impress those who were advocates of this brutal system. Those who were now in power must be brought to understand what the objection was to this punishment. They must be taught that there was something debasing about torture punishments not only on the men on whom they were administered, but on society, which was conniving at, or was accessory to, the punishments. The enormity of the offence was spoken of. He granted it. They pictured a child and a grown man, who was old enough to know better, and they were shocked at the baseness of the act. But his contention was that they were not to fix their eyes alone upon the offence as being so enormous that they must punish it in this way. They must look to see what was the object of punishment, and how punishment operated. For his own part, he was bound to say he had little belief generally in laws of this kind. He admitted that in their society it was necessary to have laws; but he believed that, with regard to crime in the country, they might go on the dead level of averages. The same crop came up at the Assizes, the same crop at the Sessions, probably, of late years with a few diminutions—diminutions which had begun to be marked, and which he hoped might go on—but all this improvement was entirely irrespective of the question of the punishment they inflicted. To operate upon the community by social regeneration, they must repress all brutalizing influences. Public opinion was anxious for the re- pression of these influences, and that a section of the public were crying out just now for the enactment of these cruel punishments was, he thought, attributable rather to inexperience of such matters than to a thirst after reprisals and revenge against those they thought or felt had inflicted on them an irreparable injury. He wondered his hon. Friend had not said that this punishment of flogging had put down garotting. The House had dealt with garotting by adopting this punishment. When one of its Members was stricken down and robbed the House ran into a panic, just as it had done now, and had declared that it must have whipping and flogging. A horrible, selfish feeling was aroused in the House, and it passed an Act to legalize this punishment. The Minister of the day—Sir George Grey—did his best to resist it; but the House passed it over his head. That was the measure they were asked to admire—a measure which was opposed by, probably, one of the most intellectual men in the House, and opposed by him because he was doing his duty. That was the punishment they were now called on to add to. What had happened? Why, the Act was passed; but before it came into operation, a number of men—the specialists, he might call them—were arrested, and were tried and sentenced. Those facts had been related in that House 20 times by his hon. Friend the late Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor); but the same thing went on, the same ignorance was shown. "Oh! it put down garotting!" it was said. It did nothing of the kind, as could be shown on irrefutable evidence. The Bill was passed; it was to come into force in the following November. The men who composed this gang, and who, by the way, had been taught this garotting by a prison warder, who put on the hug, as he called it, on board one of Her Majesty's convict ships, when he wished to reduce refractory convicts to submission, showing how severity of punishment and cruelty on the part of the representatives of the law re-acted to the injury of society—this gang was arrested in London, and tried by that very Lord Bramwell whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to, at the Old Bailey, and; punished under the then existing law. They were condemned and sentenced to long terms of penal servitude; but there was not a flogging given amongst them; and Mr. Russell Gurney, the Recorder, when he met the Grand Jury the following month, was able to congratulate them on the punishment of the garotters and the cessation of the crime of garotting. Nothing in the form of garotting—of that scientific form of garotting—had occurred since. They had robberies with violence which were sometimes treated with this punishment, but their number had not diminished. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to some of the Judges. Well, a good many others, as the hon. Member was aware, had expressed their opinion against it, and had always refused to adopt it. Lord Bramwell was quoted, but many of his Lordship's learned brethren and friends took a very different view of this subject to that which he himself took. No doubt Lord Bramwell was very thorough in all he did—and it might be at times a little stern and a little severe—but they were not called upon to support him in all he did and in all he thought. He (Mr. Hopwood) preferred to call into court the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who had probably had more experience in connection with matters of this kind than any man living. His hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. H. H. Fowler) did not remember that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), when he came into power in 1874, was called on, by a strong expression of opinion behind the Ministerial Bench, and perhaps on the Opposition side of the House, to apply flogging as a punishment in cases of violent offences, among others of brutality on the part of husbands towards their wives. The right hon. Gentleman thereupon, in his position as Secretary of State, gathered the opinions of all manner of Judges and all manner of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, agree with him that the majority were in favour of the punishment. It was very amusing to notice that the Scotch Judges, who, avowing that they had no experience in the matter, declared in favour of the punishment of flogging, saying they had no doubt it was an excellent practice. What had the right hon. Gentleman done when he came to dissect all the evidence and consider what course was to be taken in the matter? Why, he came to the conclusion that it would be unwise—he (Mr. Hopwood) submitted that the right hon. Gentleman did, for his acts showed it—to go back upon their legislation in the matter; that it would be a retrograde course; and that the result would be ineffective, and injurious to the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman had declined to take the course suggested to him, and dropped the Bill which he had brought in. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry was to be found in a large Blue Book. It comprehended the opinions of an immense number of persons competent to say what they thought; but it had remained undusted on the shelves of the Home Office from that day to this. The country had been freed from this barbarous importation into its Criminal Code. He (Mr. Hopwood) resisted—he should resist to the utmost—every such effort to brutalize the law, for if fitting torture was to be inserted in the Bill they would have to resort to the cognate or correlative tortures of ancient days which were applied to these offences. He objected to torture of every sort, and he especially objected to it in cases where, as his hon. Friend said, "there was no danger, because you always have medical testimony to prove whether the offence has been committed or not." He (Mr. Hopwood) did not think so much of medical evidence in these matters. The important question always was—"Is that the man who did it?" not whether the thing was done. They might have a man convicted on the evidence of two children—or of one, the other not being old enough to give sworn testimony—and sentenced; and afterwards it might turn out that he was not guilty. In the meantime, before his innocence was established to the satisfaction of everyone, the unfortunate man would have his back flogged and scarred and indented to gratify this notion of strengthening the Criminal Law. He thought the Committee would act wisely in rejecting the clause.

MR. MONK

said, he hoped that when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was seated on the Judicial Bench—as he trusted, before many years, he would be—that he would find this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on the Statute Book; and he was quite sure that, whatever present Judges might think of the punishment of flogging in cases of garotting, and whatever construction might be put upon it, the hon. and learned Gentleman, on finding persons guilty of this abominable offence, would order flogging to be inflicted on the criminals. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that years ago the punishment of death had been inflicted for very small offences. That might have been the case—no doubt, it was the case; but this was not a small offence that they were now discussing. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that flogging was not a deterrent in cases of garotting he would ask him could be suggest himself any greater deterrent than flogging in a case like this? Flogging, however, had been a deterrent in the case of garotting, and he was certain that persons who might be guilty of an offence of this nature would think once, and twice, and thrice before they committed the offence if they believed they would have their backs scored, even in the cruel manner which seemed to raise the susceptibilities of his hon. and learned Friend. He hoped the Committee- would accept the clause of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because he was satisfied that flogging would be found a great deterrent against these abominable crimes.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) drew a very interesting analogy between hanging and whipping. There was this about the two punishments—that neither could be recalled; if a man was flogged no process of law could relieve him from the disgrace attending the punishment. But there was one observation he wished particularly to make, and it was that this horrible offence—and he could conceive no offence deserving of severer punishment than that now under consideration—this offence was, unhappily, committed by persons in various classes of society, and he was afraid it was the practice of Judicial Tribunals in this country to award whipping to persons of one class of society only. He had no confidence that if whipping were provided as a punishment for this horrible offence it would be administered to persons of considerable social standing if they should happen to be brought within the meshes of the law. The Committee had not yet heard the opinion of the highest authority in the House on the subject. They had some right to look for "light and leading" from the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had referred as, perhaps, one of the most experienced authorities upon this very important question.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, that as no one on the Ministerial side of the House had as yet spoken upon this matter he rose to say if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) pressed his Amendment to a division he would be happy to vote with him. A good deal had been said about the deterrent effect of flogging. He wished to say this as regarded the Navy—and he was not one who wished to see flogging re-introduced into the Navy—that ever since the abolition of flogging in the Navy the cases of assaults on superior officers had very largely increased. During the last eight or 10 years before the abolition of flogging, and whilst flogging was, so to speak, dying out in the Service, the cases of assaults upon superior officers increased in the proportion as the cases of flogging decreased. There were Returns in the Library which bore out exactly what he said. He was perfectly satisfied that flogging did most decidedly act as a deterrent in the case of garotting.

MR. HASTINGS

was desirous of saying a word or two upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because it carried out a suggestion which he made to the Grand Jury of his county about a year ago, that it was absolutely necessary that in these cases a more severe punishment than the law provided should be given. He made the suggestion for the reason that during the 15 years that he had had the honour of being one of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Worcestershire this kind of offence had been continually increasing. He found, on looking through the Calendars, that now there were usually seven or eight of such cases out of a total of 30 or 40 cases. Within the last 10 years there had been upwards of 200 assaults upon children by adult men, tried at Assizes and Sessions in his county. He had never passed a lenient sentence in any one of those cases, and therefore he could only come to the conclusion that the present punishment of imprisonment was not sufficient to prevent an increase of those abominable offences. What the state of things was in the rest of England he did not pretend to know; but he believed the judicial statistics would show that this crime had increased in the country generally. It was a crime which Parliament would do well to deal with with the greatest severity. He was not at all in favour of the punishment of flogging as a rule; but he thought that with regard to particular offences it was necessary to take into account their nature, and to see what was best adapted to check them. What was this offence of assaulting innocent children? It surely was one of the most brutal offences in the world, and, therefore, one which might very well be met by a certain amount of brutality in the punishment. He should be very glad if Parliament would try whether the punishment of flogging would not act as a considerable deterrent in regard to offences of this kind. He was afraid that while certain kinds of crime in this country were fortunately on the decrease, there had not been a decrease, but, on the contrary, a considerable increase, in the offences which sprang from brutal passion. He believed the best thing the Committee could do was to adopt this Amendment, and see whether flogging would not prove effectual, especially as the crimes aimed at by this Bill were peculiarly heinous.

MR. HOPWOOD

inquired if it was customary in Worcestershire, a division of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hastings) represented, to try cases of this description which were not triable at Quarter Sessions?

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

regretted that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) moved his Amendment there were very few Members present, because he was sure that if there had been a large Committee it would have been very much moved by the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman in his very excellent speech, arguments with which he (Mr. S. Smith) entirely agreed. Some of the cases which came before the public were almost too horrible to mention. He would read a line or two to the Committee with regard to one case well known in the City of London, and ask hon. Gentlemen if flogging was too severe a punishment to inflict upon the offender. This was what one of the gaol chaplains in London had written— There is a monster now walking about, who acts as a clerk in a highly respectable establishment, who is 50 years of age. For years it has been his villainous amusement to decoy and ruin children. A very short time ago 16 eases were proved against him before a magistrate on the Surrey side of the river. The children were all fearfully injured, possibly for life. He (Mr. S. Smith) believed there were 80 cases of injury proved against the man. [An hon. MEMBER: Rubbish!] He could give the name to the hon. Gentleman who said this was rubbish. To show the frequency of this offence he might say that it was only that day he had cut out of a Liverpool paper another case, in which no less than 80 instances of injury to children under 13 years of age were charged against one man. A great many cases of the most dreadful kind had come before him in connection with the various benevolent Societies in which he was interested—some of them were almost incredible. The men who committed those offences seemed to have such a propensity to commit thorn that it almost amounted to insanity, and he did believe that no punishment would restrain that class of brutes so effectually as flogging. He believed flogging would act as a much greater deterrent than any amount of penal servitude. It was the only kind of punishment that those brutal natures could feel, and he was convinced of this—that throughout the country there was growing a very strong determination that far more severe punishment should be meted out to those offenders. If he was not mistaken they would before long see a very extensive application of the law of lynching in this country. ["Oh!"] Yes; he believed they would see the application of the lynch law to the monsters whose whole lives were devoted to this detestable occupation. He believed that in no country except England would such men be allowed to go about unharmed; certainly in the United States brutes like those would soon receive a taste of the lynch law. Flogging was a lenient punishment for cases of that kind. He would ask hon. Gentlemen who objected to the infliction of flogging what would be their feelings if their own little daughters were assaulted? What would they think if their little girls of four or five were injured for life, as he had known several young children to be? Would they consider flogging too severe a punishment to impose? He held there was nothing in the last degree cruel or barbarous in flogging for such offences. Punishment was the expression of the righteousness of justice, and the conscience of the people demanded a severe punishment in these cases. He believed that if the question were put to the vote of the millions not one man in 1,000 would be found to say that flogging ought not to be a part of the punishment. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. He was sure that by so doing they would give satisfaction out-of-doors. He had received many resolutions from meetings asking for flogging. This was essentially a working man's question, and the working men were crying out that flogging should be the punishment of the men who went about ruining little girls by the hundreds.

MR. FINCH-HATTON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) appeared to produce a considerable impression upon the hon. Members who sat near him by the reason he gave for the failure of the very severe punishments which were known at the beginning of this century. Surely it could not hav8 escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection that at the beginning of the century there was great inequality in the punishment meted out to offences against the person as compared with offences against property; that the punishments in the latter case were such that the conscience of the nation revolted against them; and that juries could hardly be found to convict, or Judges to pass sentence, because of their severity. It really became a regular system amongst criminals to take the chance of whether they met with a hanging Judge, as he was called, or one who would not pass the capital sentence. But in the present case it could not be contended that the punishment which it was now proposed to inflict for this villainous offence was otherwise than one which ought naturally to follow it. The offence was such that if the offender were to walk up the floor of the House there was not an hon. Member who would not be inclined to apply a whip, supposing he had one, to the fellow's back. There was a great difference between these cases and those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) had alluded. He (Mr. Finch-Hatton) intended to vote for the Amendment, and had felt bound to point out how false the historical analogy of the hon. and learned Gentleman was.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the question had been discussed pretty fully, and he did not know that they would gain very much by discussing it at any greater length. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) asked if he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would give his opinion on the subject. Of course, he was bound to do so, quite irrespective of any appeal which might be made to him in the matter. There was one thing he regretted about the question of flogging, and that was that it was brought forward every now and again in certain individual cases, and never dealt with as a question of principle. However, he was called upon to deal with this Amendment, and in dealing with it he had to ask himself two questions. First of all, was this punishment known to their Criminal Law? About that there was not the smallest doubt. And the next question he had to ask himself was, if it was known to their Criminal Law, was it applied to offences of a higher or lower character to the one under consideration? Well, so long as the punishment existed he could not imagine an offence of a graver character, or one which was more deserving such a punishment, than that of an assault upon a child. If he were asked why he was in favour of flogging his answer would be that he believed that it was a deterrent. Hon. Members remembered the debate which took place not many years ago as to whether flogging was proper in the Army. One of the strongest arguments then advanced in favour of the abolition of flogging was that it deterred men from entering the Army. But if it deterred men from going into the Army it must also have deterred men from committing offences in the Army. He, therefore, thought it could not be said that the chance of having such a punishment inflicted was not a deterrent. He quite agreed that in this particular case the Committee ought to be very careful what they did. They ought not to legislate in a panic. They ought to act calmly and judicially, and that was the reason why he put the two questions he had mentioned to himself. As far as he could see, there was no offence of a worse character than the one they contemplated. The consequences were so grievous, and the mind of the man who could commit such an offence must be so brutal, that there was hardly any punishment for it severe enough. Do not lot them be led away by the thought that the Judges would always impose this punishment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had said very truly that whipping when once administered could never be taken back. A man might be imprisoned and then released, but a man could not be relieved of the disgrace which whipping entailed. But it might be depended upon that that would make a Judge extremely cautious how he acted; if there was the smallest doubt in his mind as to the guilt of the accused he would assuredly not order flogging. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) went to a division, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would, for the reasons he had given, vote for the Amendment.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, he had long entertained so strong and decided an opinion with respect to the punishment of flogging that he felt he should do wrong if he did not express that opinion now. He yielded to no one in his horror and detestation of this crime. He quite agreed that no punishment could be too severe for it; but he strongly objected to the punishment of flogging for two reasons. The first was that it was perhaps above all other punishments an unequal punishment. They inflicted the same number of strokes upon two men, and the chances were that the man who deserved to feel the punishment most felt it by far the least. It was an extremely unequal punishment. And, in the next place, it was of all punishments the most uncertain. They had to leave the punishment, as they must leave it, to the discretion of the Judges. There were some Judges who would always flog; there were some Judges who would never flog. Whether the punishment was inflicted or not depended, not upon the gravity of the offence, but upon, the particular Judge who might chance to go that particular Circuit. He quite agreed that if men could be certain that flogging would always be inflicted it might act as a great deterrent; but wherever a particular punishment was uncertain, wherever it was doubtful whether a man would receive it or not, a man always gave himself the benefit of the doubt, and the punishment was not a deterrent to the extent it would be if the punishment were a certain punishment. He (Sir Farrer Herschell) knew it was the prevailing opinion that this punishment acted as a great deterrent in cases of crimes of violence—that it put down garotting. He invited anyone who entertained that belief to be good enough to peruse a Return which was laid on the Table of the House at his instance, because by that Return it was shown very clearly that garotting had been put down before the Flogging Act was passed. He obtained a Return of the number of crimes of violence at the Central Criminal Court and at every Assize for the two years before the flogging was introduced and for every year subsequently; and if anything was proved by that Return it was proved to conclusion that the offence of garotting had been substantially put down before the Act imposing flogging was passed. And how was it put down? He believed the suppression of garotting was due very much to the action of one Judge who sat at the Central Criminal Court. A number of these cases came before him, and he dealt with them with very great severity. From that time the cases in which this cruelty to persons was inflicted ceased. If hon. Members would read the Return to which he alluded they would find that if a Judge went Assize and flogged a number of men for a particular offence, the number of such offences at the next Assize did not diminish. If they could prove anything from it, it would be this—that a flogging Judge was followed by a number of garotting cases, and that a non-flogging Judge by a great diminution of that crime. He did not say that was the result; but he did maintain that if anything was conclusively proved it was that flogging had not the deterrent effect it was commonly believed to have, There must be uncertainty in the punishment. They could not say that every man who committed a particular offence should be flogged; and unless they did that they left the punishment uncertain. He had these strong objections to the punishment, and therefore he was opposed to any attempt to extend it. He knew the offence with which this clause dealt was one about which people felt most strongly. He knew that the inclination of everyone, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Finch-Hatton) had said, would be to inflict personal chastisement; but, after all, that was not the calm state of mind in which the Committee ought to deliberate as to whether punishment of this sort should be awarded. He had felt bound to make these observations to the Committee. This was with him a matter of principle which he had put before the House on previous occasions, and in relation to which he moved for his Return. Although he should be glad to see the most severe punishment inflicted upon these offenders, he could not consistently support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)

said, that after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Farrer Herschell) he felt he ought very shortly to express the opinions he held upon this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the punishment of flogging was unequal. That was perfectly true; but surely all punishments were unequal. A term of imprisonment would have a very different effect upon an educated man than upon a man who had passed all his life in the slums. That argument, therefore, failed. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this punishment was uncertain. In answer to that, he would simply say that all punishments were uncertain so far as the Judges were concerned. It was perfectly well known that some Judges were in the habit of dealing with certain offences in a very severe manner, and that other Judges were inclined to deal with the same offences more leniently. But he might observe that the uncertainty was not in practice really so great as was supposed from the accounts in the newspapers, because the special facts, either in mitigation or increase of the offence, often were not stated, yet it was by those that the Judges were influenced. Therefore, he could not agree with the objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised to the infliction of flogging. In his opinion, this punishment would not be more unequal than any other punishment, neither would it be more uncertain than any other punishment. Then they had to see whether the punishment was a fitting one for the offence. If the offence was a very degrading one, a degrading punishment was a suitable punishment to inflict. A man who could commit this offence must be of so degraded a mind that he would not be further degraded by the punishment. But the punishment being a severe one might deter a man of a less degraded mind from committing this offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were not in a judicial frame of mind to settle this question, because they each felt they would like to inflict a flogging upon any man who committed this offence. But was not that very good proof that the punishment of flogging was a proper one? They each felt that flogging was a punishment that they would inflict, and willingly inflict, upon a man who committed this offence; and surely that feeling was not an unfair test of the fitness of the punishment to be imposed. He had ventured to state his views before the Committee because he felt as strongly in favour of flogging for such an offence as that under consideration as the hon. and learned Gentleman felt against it, although he must admit that he generally felt great diffidence in his own opinion if it ran counter to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Farrer Herschell) had fully exposed the delusion so widely prevalent that flogging put down garotting. He (Mr. Jacob Bright) remembered having a talk on the subject some years ago with Lord Aberdare, at that time Home Secretary. Lord Aberdare told him that he had gone into the whole question, and had found that garotting was not put down by the lash, but by other causes. The late Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had shown that there were other punishments that might deter garotting and deter any other crime—punishments which were not brutalizing to the individuals who received them, and not brutalizing to the general public. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) called the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1874 the Home Secretary (Sir B. Assheton Cross), although greatly pressed to extend the practice of flogging, had the strength to resist the pressure. He (Mr. Jacob Bright) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not had the strength to resist the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he could not help joining in the protest of the late Solicitor General against this clumsy mode of dealing with the subject. He was greatly surprised at the speech of the Home Secretary. The Committee ought to be guided by the Home Secretary; but, instead of giving them his advice, the right hon. Gentleman waited until several speeches had been delivered, and then he got up and made a speech in which he said he had asked himself two questions—first, whether this punishment was already recognized by the law; and, secondly, whether the offences for which it was now inflicted were more or less serious than offences under the Bill. That was not a logical way of dealing with the subject. There might be a good deal to be said on both sides of this question. If the punishment was a good and justifiable one, then let it be extended. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) argued that the punishment existed at present on the Statute Book for lighter offences than this, and that therefore it was a proper punishment in this case. It had never been shown, however, that the punishment of flogging was a deterrent. Some hon. Gentlemen said that flogging in the Army deterred good men from entering it, and, therefore, it would deter men from committing this offence. That did not seem to him to be logical. Then his hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) said that the punishment was unequal and uncertain; and the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) said that all punishments were unequal and uncertain. That might be so; but in the ease of imprisonment there was a Court of Appeal—there was a Secretary of State who might be appealed to in regard to the sentence given—whereas in the case of flogging that security disappeared. The Judges, moreover, were not to be trusted with the power of inflicting a punishment of so cruel and humiliating a character without the chance of reversal. He did not believe this barbarous punishment was any deterrent at all; and, speaking as one who was anxious for the efficacy of the Bill, he believed hon. Members were damaging it by putting in a provision of this sort. He was glad to join the late Solicitor General in the protest he had made.

MR. LABOUCHERE

remarked, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Clarke) was surprised that he did not receive any guidance from the Government. Was he not aware that the Government always waited to see which way the cat jumped before hinting which way they were going? He was himself altogether against the punishment; but why did the Amendment say "may?" Why not "shall?" Either a man ought to be flogged or he ought not; and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) ought to have the courage of his convictions, and make flogging obligatory on the Judges, so that if it were inflicted in one case it would be inflicted in all. The Amendment would have the effect of setting class against class. The opinion of a working man in Manchester was that flogging should not be introduced into the Bill, because, while it would be inflicted on the poor man, it would never be inflicted on the rich. His hon. Friend should certainly have made it obligatory on the Judge if he had determined to introduce the Amendment.

MR. PICTON

wanted to say one word in justification of the vote he was about to give. He was distinctly opposed to the flogging of men. It might be a suitable chastisement for boys. That was one thing, but the flogging of men was another. The sentiment of the whole country was against it, because it caused a man to lose all his self-respect. They could not meet brutality with brutality without, to some extent, lowering the public sentiment, and therefore he was strongly opposed to the adoption of the Amendment.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he regretted very much that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had moved this Amendment, and still more the speech which had been made by the Secretary of State in support of it. He would urge an argument which might have some effect. They were endeavouring to pass a Bill which was not passing very rapidly; and he would ask was it tactical or prudent to introduce Amendments upon which the strongest differences of opinion existed in the House? He must say for his part that, although deeply interested in this Bill, he would oppose this Amendment to the utmost extent in his power. It was not only the raising of a question that it was most unwise to raise, but this was precisely a subject on which the question ought not to be raised. He did not believe in the lex talionis. He did not approve of excessive legislation. What he did want, and what he did sympathize with in regard to this measure, was the legislation which was an exposition of the public sentiment of the country, and which was required by public opinion at that moment. They were dealing with a moral question, and it was not enough to say that the offence was a degrading one, and that the punishment for it should be degrading too. What they wanted was to pass a law which should be a declaration to the community that they had opened their hearts and their eyes to the subject, and that they were determined to discourage vice, and to repress with a firm hand the crimes which were the consequences of vice. It did not follow, however, that it was wise, as far as punishments were concerned, to legislate in excitement. He therefore submitted to the Committee that it would be far wiser not to raise questions which were altogether outside the scope of the measure, but, in the interest of passing the Bill, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

said, he would not detain the Committee long; but he wished to explain the vote which he was about to give, because he took a different view to those which had been expressed. He did not take a sentimental view of this question, and he was not in the same state of excitement as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith). He (Mr. Warton) believed that flogging might in itself be a useful punishment, and yet he should vote against the Amendment, and for this reason—that they had by this clause extended the age from 12 to 13. The late Home Secretary admitted that a girl of 13 might well appear to be 15; but it was not now, however, a girl who looked 13, but a girl who was 13; and in these cases there were societies who would resort to every artifice to insure a conviction. The punishment of flogging once inflicted could not be made the subject of reparation; and, although he approved of the practice of flogging, and would extend it in certain cases, he should, for the reasons he had given, vote against the Amendment.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he thought that it was a little hard that an Amendment such as this, and re-opening so important a question as it did in the general law, should be brought forward without being proposed upon the responsibility of the Government. He agreed that the criminal they were dealing with was one of the most animal criminals in the world, and, if they regarded the criminal only, society might be all the better if they hanged him. If they did not hang more worthless people than they did, it was not out of regard for them, but because they were satisfied that cruel and severe punishments did more harm to society and the administration of the law; and because they were afraid that a great many of the philanthropists would develop into a most bloodthirsty class. The philanthropy of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith) seemed to be degenerating into ferocity, and there was nothing so bloodthirsty as philanthropy on the war path. The hon. Member was a peaceful man, identified with many efforts for reclaiming the poor and wretched, and yet he actually wished to lynch people. He expressed his regret that they were so lukewarm that they did not proceed to lynch people; but he seemed to forget that the persons who were lynched by mobs in America were accused, but might not be always guilty. The reason why they objected to these cruel punishments was not for the sake of the criminal, but for the sake of society. In the state of panic in which the House had been for the last two nights, he thought that they were rather inclined to pander to the brutal propensities of the people. He objected to flogging, because it encouraged the brutal and savage sentiments of the people, and because it would have the effect of rendering them ferocious and cruel. In the interests of the general tone of humanity and civili- zation, he objected to legislation which carried them back to the time when punishment was degraded into torture.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he should go into the Lobby against this Amendment. He objected to flogging, because it was vindictive, and vindictive-ness in punishments ought to be avoided. The other day, when Lord Wolseley was congratulated on the high discipline of his soldiers, he attributed it entirely to the abolition of flogging. They had abolished the pillory, they had abolished the stocks, and all other kinds of physical punishments, and he thought there was no reason whatever why they should introduce this brutal punishment into this clause.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he was sorry to detain the Committee; but he felt so strongly on this matter that he could not refrain from saying a few words upon it. He had never given a vote in favour of flogging, and he hoped he never should. It was possible it might be regarded as a useful punishment if they were dealing with crime the result of deliberate premeditation, when the offender might calmly contemplate that he might have to suffer flogging. But there was no such possibility when the crime proceeded from passion, from mere brutality which suddenly impelled a man to commit an offence. Under such impulse, the offender did not stop to consider what the punishment would be. Of course, the crime now being dealt with was a brutal crime, and the man who committed it would have the heaviest secondary punishment in penal servitude for life. One object of heavy punishment was to prevent the man from repeating the crime, and to deter others from committing it. Was it likely that the mere addition of flogging to penal servitude for life would operate as a deterrent? Even in penal servitude there might be some hope of a convict becoming a better man; but would flogging, in the slightest degree, help to humanize him? If flogging were not a deterrent, if it would not prevent crime, was it worth while to be revengeful, and to subject a man to this punishment? It was a retrograde motion. They had to deal with their criminal offenders, as with their lunatics, on different principles from those formerly recognized. They used to ill-treat and torture lunatics, but now they took a higher view of their duty. They might as well go back to the thumb-screw, the boot, and other old modes of torture, as to revert to flogging, for flogging was torture. The punishment of flogging once inflicted could never be recalled, and yet conviction might be obtained on evidence which afterwards turned out to be false; but, like capital punishment, they could never recall flogging. He would not trouble the Committee with other arguments, except to say that he objected also to enlarging the discretionary power of the Judge in respect to punishments. There were Judges who would never inflict, and there were Judges who would always inflict, flogging. Therefore, whether a man was flogged would entirely depend upon whether he was tried by Judge A or Judge B. For those reasons, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS (The RECORDER)

earnestly hoped the Committee would not pass the Amendment. He did not suppose that any alteration of their Criminal Code was adopted with more deliberation and after a longer public controversy than the abolition of punishment by flogging, and he should be sorry indeed if for any reason they should revert to that and take this retrograde step. He took a very great interest in the Bill, and therefore desired that the Amendment should not be carried, for if it was carried it would not increase the chances of the Bill passing. Very strong language was used as to the enormity of the offence the clause dealt with; the strongest epithets of reprobation were uttered, and everyone was strong in the desire to promote morality; but what said the clause to which the Amendment was proposed as a rider?— Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows any girl under the age of thirteen shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life. In passing that clause they had turned immorality into crime, they had turned fornication into a felony, making an offence punishable by the second highest penalty of the law in future of what before that was immorality only. He had voted for the clause, thinking it right to raise the ago, as they had, to 13 years. It was immorality now that by the passing of the clause into law would be turned into crime. When speaker after speaker got up and naturally, he would not say improperly, denounced the men against whom the clause was directed, let there be fairness to both sides. It might be that a girl of 13 looked much older than she was; it might be that she was not the seduced but the seducer; such things had been, and must be considered by men of common sense when converting a moral offence into a felony punishable by penal servitude for life. Amid the use of this strong language of abuse, let it be remembered that a man might be more sinned against than sinning; it would be unfair to assume that the man was guilty in all cases, and surely it was enough to make a man liable to penal servitude for life. He did not believe that the addition of flogging would have a real deterrent effect; if it ever had an effect, it was only in case of habitual criminals convicted of robbery with violence. He desired most earnestly that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, or that the Committee would negative it.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, he came into the House after the Motion was made, and his first impulse was to vote in favour of it, for he conceived that flogging was a most appropriate punishment for the person who in his person had so sinned. But the course of the debate had convinced him that he ought not to vote for it, for he observed that the punishment was acumulative punishment, for on the first conviction a man would be liable to the sentence of penal servitude for life, and if added to that was the punishment of flogging, he did not see that it could have any deterrent effect. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would promise not to occupy more than a minute or two. He thought if anyone had heard without reference to date the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he would imagine that this was a proposal for the first time to introduce the punishment of flogging, and therefore was open to the view his right hon. Friend might fairly urge against a retrograde step. But let the Committee consider for a moment what the Amendment proposed. It proposed that men who outraged—completely outraged—little children, should be placed in the same category with the highway robber who knocked down his victim and robbed him with violence. The cumulative punishment would be the same in both cases. A Judge had the power to inflict the punishment of penal servitude for life and also of flogging. Lord Bramwell, in the House of Lords, dealt with that point, and showed that this was introducing no new principle, because the law admitted the infliction of the punishment of penal servitude for life and also of flogging. He asked the Committee to consider how much they had heard to convince them that these horrible crimes against little children were increasing. The hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) gave his evidence of that as Chairman of Quarter Sessions. The crime of criminal abuse of little children under 12, he repeated, was increasing in the country. Then it was a reasonable inference to draw that the existing punishment was not severe enough to deter men from these crimes. He rested his case upon the deterrent point of view, and repudiated the idea that the Amendment was conceived in a revengeful spirit. He did not ask it in that spirit. A great evil, a great crime, was increasing, enormously increasing, in our midst, and if the existing punishment was not severe enough to deter men from such crimes, it was the duty of the Committee to increase the punishment. It was no new punishment; it was already on the Statute Book and known to the administration of the Criminal Law, and he believed that if the Committee sanctioned the Amendment, it would do more to put down these horrible crimes than any other clause in the Bill.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, no one had taken more lively interest in the Bill, no one felt more indignation at the crimes against which this clause was directed, than he did; but assuredly he would not be a party to introducing a brutal punishment into the Bill. It was a Bill directed against brutality, and he would not meet that with brutality. That flogging existed on the Statute Book he knew; he wished it did not, and, as a punishment for any offence, he hoped some time to have an opportunity of voting against it. He should vote against the Amendment; but he greatly hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would withdraw it on this ac- count—the Bill went very straight towards dealing with the subject in hand, and this, perhaps, was the only Amendment introducing extraneous matters on lines quite across those on which they could decide any question germane to the Bill.

MR. CROPPER

said, it appeared to him that speakers against the hon. Member for Wolverhampton's Motion seemed to think that his Amendment was "shall," and not "may," inflict the punishment. It was not "shall;" it would only leave the punishment for cases of brutality, when a Judge "may," under extreme circumstances, use the whip. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London (Sir Thomas Chambers) spoke of a man tempted by a girl as one who did not deserve severity, and the punishment would not apply in such a case, it would only be inflicted upon monsters who under the influence of brutal passions committed the crime. In the past eight weeks there had been 30 such cases, and he did not think that anyone who read those cases over would think that the Judges could go far wrong in the sentences. In one instance, in Guernsey, they did inflict the lash; and he was inclined to think it would have a deterrent effect on natures insensible to anything but physical pain. Such men would be induced to think twice before criminally assaulting little children. If flogging was to be administered to an offender of 16 years of age, was he to be excused from that punishment the moment he passed beyond that age? He should give his vote for the Amendment, guarded as it was by giving the Judge discretion to apply the punishment in extreme cases.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down, which he advanced in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, seemed to him (Mr. Davey) one of the strongest arguments against the Amendment. It went to show that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had not the courage of his opinions, and had framed his clause in such a way as to vest the responsibility in the tribunal. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had used the word "shall," instead of "may," he would, to a certain extent, have got rid of one of the objections that had been urged against the punishment. It was notorious, as hon. Members had pointed out, that Judges took totally different views as regarded the infliction of the punishment—that there were Judges who flogged, and Judges whom nothing would induce to inflict the punishment. The punishment, therefore, was one most uncertain in its operation, while being most unequal, for reasons that had already been pointed out. Some of those who had spoken against it said the Amendment would be a retrograde step; and how was that answered by saying the punishment was already on the Statute Book? It was on the Statute Book, and he, with many others, regretted it. It was because of that regret, because he believed the placing it there was a retrograde step, and a recurrence to a state of feeling in which society thought itself entitled to administer the law in a revengeful spirit, that he objected to an extension of what he regarded as a revengeful, brutal punishment. He also joined in the regret expressed that this question should have been introduced in connection with the Bill before the Committee. With differences on points of detail, every quarter of the Committee was at one in the endeavour to make the Bill as efficient and useful a measure as it could be made; and he was quite sure the Home Secretary would acknowledge—though, no doubt, there had been criticisms upon the wording of the clauses—that there was a general desire to assist him in making this a useful measure. He regretted that a question of this kind, raising a question of principle upon which hon. Members felt very strongly, should have arisen in the course of the debate.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he only wished to ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton if he would accept an Amendment to his Motion, to insert, after "convicted," in the second line, the words "for the second offence of this nature?" That would insure that the case was an aggravated one for which the punishment was inflicted.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the Amendment was not done with yet. The proposal had now taken up two hours of valuable time at that period of the Session; and he must say it was a reckless thing on the part of the Minister who gave it his sanction—it was reckless of consequences, regardless of the passage of the Bill, that the hon. Member's Amendment was adopted. Both the hon. Member and himself had spoken at an earlier hour in the debate, when the House was not so full, and the hon. Member had availed himself of that opportunity to appeal to the Committee to hear him for a minute or two, and he (Mr. Hopwood) might make a similar appeal. An hon. Member (Mr. Hastings), who spoke from his experience as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, referred to the number of cases he had tried. Now, he would ask the hon. Gentleman if there was a single case coming under this clause that he had tried? No; he would have no jurisdiction over such. [Interruption..] The Committee was impatient now; but there was a later stage of the Bill upon which they would be heard, if necessary.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 125: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 262.)

MR. M'COAN

I desire to say, Mr. Ritchie, that, by mistake, T voted in the wrong Lobby. My intention was to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolver hampton.

MR. ACKERS

said, he would move the Amendment at the end of the clause which stood in his name.

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. Owing to the way in which the Amendments were arranged on the page, Notices appeared after this one which should come first.

THE CHAIRMAN

I see nothing irregular in the hon. Member moving his Amendment now.

MR. ACKERS

said, in moving his Amendment, it would be necessary to make a consequential Amendment, because the Committee had already decided that the age should be 13, instead of 12. He had also been asked to strike out the words "justices, or justice, or magistrate," and to that he had no objection. The Amendment would then read— Provided, That it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the court before whom the charge shall be brought that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of thirteen years. He hoped it would not be thought that he was against the strongest possible measures that might properly be taken, in a reasonable spirit, against these abominable crimes. If these crimes were increasing, it was right Parliament should be alive to the matter, and take earnest measures to put them down. But, in that determination to put them down, let not injustice be done; let them not do something that would prevent the administration of the law being what all desired it should be—an even measure of justice earnestly carried out. This was, to his mind, a case of what might be called pitfall legislation. If they agreed to have the Proviso at the end of the next clause, he could not understand why a similar Proviso, altered to suit the particular case, should not be added to this clause, which dealt with a much graver offence. He was of opinion that it was most undesirable in legislation that persons should not know the punishment which was put before them—that they should believe that they were committing one crime or misdemeanour, and that they should find out that, by no special fault of their own, they were committing a crime which at the time they did not know they were committing, and that they would receive a punishment wholly out of proportion to the offence which they believed they had committed. He asked the Committee to consider that point, and to listen to the reasons which he had to urge in support of his Amendment. There were, doubtless, persons who would be glad that the heaviest punishment should fall on those who were guilty of what they considered to be the most heinous of offences. They might be right from a non-judicial point of view; but there were other persons who thought that only righteous judgment should fall on those who committed this most grievous fault. He thought that they in the House of Commons should approach the subject in that spirit; that they should approach it in the spirit of endeavouring to ascertain what would make the law best observed and prevent the offence as much as possible. They knew how easy it was to be mistaken as to the age of young girls. They knew that one of the highest authorities in that House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—with all his great faculties, was not long ago deceived with regard to the age of a girl whom he saw walking across a lawn, and that he conceived her to be two years older than she was. That was not a case of infrequent occurrence. It was the principle of this Amendment, and, as he had said, it had already been adopted in the Bill. Now, as regarded the question of age, he ventured to think that inasmuch as this Committee had in its wisdom extended the age originally proposed by the clause from 12 to 13 years—and he was one of those who cordially supported that extension—it was all the more reason why they should insert the Proviso which he was about to move. With regard to the question as to the appearance of girls, he had a strong opinion upon that subject, because, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, he was not always able to judge correctly of the age of every person he saw. When he was a lad of 13 he was always mistaken for one of 18; he was then nearly 6 feet in height and had whiskers, and as everyone took him to be many years older than he was he heard a good deal more than was desirable. It had been asked what would be said by an hon. Member if his own child were to meet with this terrible injury? But even there he would say they must remember that there were cases of early precocity; that there were cases where it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to say what was the age of a girl. He said that with the strongest desire that this measure should be carried out in such a way as would most tend to deter people from the commission of these abominable offences; but he urged upon the Committee not to put a pitfall in the way of persons—not to allow a man to believe that he was committing one offence while he was committing another, and to suppose that he was liable to imprisonment when he was really liable to get penal servitude for life. He hoped that as the principle of his Amendment had been adopted by the Government with reference to the next clause, it would also be adopted with reference to this much more important clause, where it was not merely a question of penal servitude, but of penal servitude for life.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end, add—" Provided, That it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the court, justices, or justice, or magistrate, before whom the charge shall be brought, that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of thirteen years."—(Mr. Ackers.)

Amendment negatived.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, the Amendment which he had to move was of great importance in its bearing upon the case of offences against young children. The object of it was to allow the statement of children to be received by the Court without oath in corroboration or explanation of any other evidence which might be given in support of the charge. There were many charges of gross outrage on children which fell through owing to the ridiculous law which required the evidence of the child to be given on oath, and which compelled the Court to refuse the evidence of a child unless it understood the nature of an oath. A child might give the clearest possible testimony as to the nature of the offence, leaving no reasonable doubt in any sound mind that she was telling the truth; but at the trial, perhaps two months afterwards, she was required to take the oath, and then it was discovered by counsel that she did not know the nature of an oath. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members, by their impatience, seemed not to be aware of the gravity of this point. He had in his hand a report of three cases of assault on children whose parents would not be able to prosecute because the children did not know the nature of an oath. He asked the Committee and Her Majesty's Government to say that in those cases the Judge should take the statement of the child quantum valcat with the other evidence in support of the charge. With the permission of the Committee, he would move the first part of his Amendment only, as he proposed to move the second part at a subsequent stage.

Amendment proposed, In line 30, at end, to add the words—"(1.) When a girl by whom or on whose behalf a charge is brought under this Clause is, in the opinion of the court, justices, or justice, or magistrate, before whom the charge is brought, too young to understand the nature of an oath, such court or justices, or justice, or magistrate may receive any statement she may make without oath, in corroboration or explanation of any other evidence which may be given in support of the charge."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he quite sympathized with the wish of the hon. Member for Liverpool that in no cases of this kind should inquiry be avoided or the offender escape punishment, and he was ready to go as far in that direction as was consistent with the course of law which, in his opinion, ought to be followed. But there was one point which they must not lose sight of, and that was that people were not often wrongly convicted. The Amendment proposed a total change in the existing law, which he, for one, would be very sorry to see introduced. There was no doubt that the evidence of many children was admitted by magistrates after very small inquiry; but he thought it very much better to leave the responsibility to them of saying whether children were fit to be examined than to run the risk of miscarriage of justice from the admission of the evidence of children who did not know the nature of an oath. The Amendment of the hon. Member involved a very important change in the law, the admission of which would require much longer consideration than they could possibly give it at that time; and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because, although he had sympathy with its object, he should be obliged to vote against it if it went to a division.

MR. EDWAED CLAKE

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to address a few words to the Committee, because he thought the proposal of the hon. Member was a useful one. He had had a certain amount of experience in the conduct of cases of this kind, and he had always found that there was a difficulty with regard to the examination of the child. About 12 months ago a man was brought before the police magistrate at Lambeth; the magistrate did not think fit to allow the child to be sworn, and not having the child's evidence, the magistrate doubted that there was sufficient evidence to convict upon. But he thought it safer to commit the man for the assault on the child; and when the case came before the Surrey Sessions Court the evidence of the child was taken, and it was given in such a manner that it left no doubt in the minds of those who heard it that the prisoner at the bar had committed the offence. That man had nearly escaped punishment in consequence of the judgment formed by the police magistrate that the child was too young to understand the nature of an oath. With regard to young children, it seemed to him that the requirement that they should understand the nature of an oath was all nonsense. The questions asked of a child in the examination really produced no effect whatever. A child might be taught to answer two or three questions. Eorinstance—"Do you know what will be done to you if you tell a lie? "And the child would answer—"God would be angry with me." Upon that the evidence would be admitted. But the nature of an oath, which was a thing of great solemnity, could not, he believed, be understood by or be conveyed to the mind of young children. He should be glad that the statement of the child, should be heard for what it was worth by the magistrate, and by the Judge and jury who would have to decide upon the charge; and, subject to one qualification, he had certainly anticipated that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith). One qualification was certainly necessary, because, as the Amendment stood at present, the statement of the child would be received; but there was no provision for any cross-examination of the child by the representatives of the prisoner or defendant. That, of course, could easily be arranged by the introduction of a few words providing that where such statement was admitted there should be the fullest opportunity of cross-examination by the prisoner or his advisers. He thought that with such a qualification the Committee would be well-advised to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool. He quite agreed that it made an alteration in the practice of criminal trials. This crime was, unhappily, committed on children of very tender age. They knew that in country districts there was a strange idea entertained that led to its commission. As the law stood now, the evidence of a child of five or six years of age could not be taken; but he thought that on the particular point on which she could testify, her evidence should be taken for what it was worth. He did not say that it should be conclusive without corroboration; but, with that corroboration, he did not see why the story of the child should not be accepted, although unconnected with theological considerations affecting the nature of an oath.

SIR HENEY JAMES

said, that he had always thought that where a heavy punishment was awarded for a grievous offence they ought to be very careful that it should not be inflicted improperly. His hon. and learned Friend was willing to leave the Law of Evidence where it stood in respect of every other crime but this. [Mr. EDWARD CLARKE: No.] The hon. Member for Liverpool had said he should be content to move this Amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill. Now, let the Committee consider the case of a man standing on his trial for this offence. It was easy enough to make a false charge with the possibility of getting the man penal servitude for life. That false charge might have sprung into existence from the mistaken judgment of the child. Then the safeguard of corroboration of that evidence meant nothing at all. Of course, there would be some other evidence in the case; he presumed the case could not stand without it; but they were to allow the child to state its childish prattle, and say—"Yes, that is the man;" and the jury were to listen to it, and would be asked to convict upon it. His hon. and learned Friend said they might subject the child to cross-examination. But he asked if anyone would dare to cross-examine that child? His hon. and learned Friend thought there was some charm in an oath. But they were dealing with the case of children who were not intelligent enough to understand the nature of an oath at all; and it was because they were so young that they were asked to say they would accept the statement of the child. He did not object to the evidence being received because the oath, not being understood, was not taken, but because when there was not intelligence enough to understand the oath, in most cases there would not be intelligence enough to give evidence. If safeguards could be introduced so as to cause the intelligence to be found to exist before the evidence was received, much of his objection to the Amendment would be removed. If this alteration was to be made in the law, let them not say they would not receive this childish prattle in a case where a shilling was involved, and that they would receive it where a man's liberty for life was at stake. In his opinion, it was better to let 40 such cases go unpunished than have one wrong conviction of this kind. He urged the Committee to take care that they did not err on that side.

MR. FIRTH

said, if the change in the law which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) in his Oaths Bill was made, a child would be able to make an affirmation. He had seen a number of children examined as to whether they knew the nature of an oath, and he absolutely agreed with everything that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) as to the administration of the oath to children. He thought that a child was as likely to give as truthful evidence with as without an oath. The argument in favour of the Amendment was that the statement of the child could be used by counsel, and the case itself settled on its merits.

MR. GBEGORY

said, they were dealing with a distinct class of crime, and it was now proposed to alter the Law of Evidence for that special purpose. He thought that this was not a fair proposal, or one that they could entertain. The case might be one of conspiracy; it might be a case of extortion; and very likely it might be got up by the parents. They were asked to allow the child to be put into the witness-box almost without the possibility of testing its evidence by cross-examination, and without the administration of the oath. He did not think the proposal could be entertained. It was one of very doubtful character, and altogether alien to the Bill before the Committee, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that there was considerable danger, in connection with this subject, of false charges being made for the purpose of extortion; and that being so, the Bill was, of all others, one with respect to which they ought not to alter the Rules of Evidence, which would be a protection against charges of that character. He thought it would be a most dangerous thing to make this Bill the means of an alteration in the Law of Evidence, and therefore he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith) would not be adopted.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, as a lawyer, he objected to the proposed Amendment being adopted. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had spoken of its being a farce to question, a child to see whether it understood the nature of an oath. He (Mr. Hopwood) had no defence to offer for that particular mode of procedure. It was the nature of the Amendment before the Committee that he had to deal with. The question was, it being confessed that certain witnesses were not admissible bylaw to give evidence, whether this Amendment was to enact that their evidence should be admitted for what it was worth. He had known witnesses of this kind who had won upon the Court and jury with very doubtful results; and he had given one case, that of Mr. Hatch, in which the young witnesses gave the most childlike and innocent answers, which, upon subsequent inquiry, were established, beyond doubt, to be a pack of falsehoods. He thought the danger of a child's evidence was that it too readily persuaded Judge and jury; whereas the child might, after all, only be acting upon its impressions. It might be mistaken as to the person, and even as to the fact; and yet it was suggested that in all those cases they should make a record of what the child said, and then seek corroboration in some other quarter. Usually the mother came on the scene, and, finding the child injured, asked who had committed the assault. She asked if it was Harry, or Dick, or Tom, and thus put the words into the child's mouth. It was impossible that, in a civilized Court of Justice, governed by Rules that were the result of experience, they could adopt anything so loose, so informal, and so unreasonable as that which was now proposed.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, the logical outcome of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was, that no child should give evidence except on oath. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who objected to the taking of oaths at all, should insist that when a child did give evidence it should give it on oath. He hoped the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) would stick to his Amendment, and, if necessary, go to a division. He could not understand this squeamishness about children giving evidence in cases where that evidence was absolutely necessary. These cases were of a peculiar character. They dealt with crime in connection with young children; and, therefore, the evidence of children might be wanted for what it was worth. Surely the Judge and jury could decide what the value of the evidence was. He certainly thought children should be allowed to give evidence, and that their evidence should be taken for what it was worth.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he hoped the Committee would forgive him if he added a few words upon this subject. He thought that if the matter were thrashed out, that which seemed to be the prevalent feeling of the Committee would be greatly changed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had spoken of the case of Hatch, which he detailed to the Committee yesterday, as an instance of the improper and wicked accusations which might be made against innocent men. But the children in that case were sworn. They were children of 10 or 11 years of age, and their evidence was taken upon oath. Though he was as anxious as the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) could possibly be to put anything in the Bill to protect innocent men against unfounded accusations, what he would point out was this—that when a false accusation was about to be made, the natural and easiest instrument of that accusation was rather the child of eight or nine years, than the child of four or five years, because the little child of four or five could not be so easily tutored. Let him also point out that if the parents were making the child the instrument of a false accusation for a wicked purpose they tutored the child to answer questions, and so it was the evidence was accepted upon oath. Supposing a child of four or five or six years had been violated and injured, and that they got evidence that the man whom they suspected of committing the offence had been seen going and coming to the place, and had been heard to say something' which was consistent with his guilt, they could not, as the law now stood, ask questions of the child. If any hon. Members knew that a frightful atrocity of this kind had taken place, and desired to find out who had committed it, they would ask the child, of course, with great care, and they would be as careful as they could to ascertain whether anybody had been tutoring the child. Sometimes the child was the only witness they could take, and these offences must go absolutely unpunished in many instances, unless something like the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) were adopted. He was afraid the Committee, having swallowed a camel, was now straining at a gnat. In one clause passed that evening they had given a larger opportunity than the Criminal Law had ever given before for false charges for purposes of extortion. In this case he did not believe the Amendment proposed would facilitate extortion; it would simply give a Criminal Tribunal exactly the same means of ascertaining the truth as every Member of the House desired to have, if he were called upon to decide a particular case. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool would agree to add to his Amendment the words, "provided that there shall be the fullest opportunity for cross-examination," he (Mr. E. Clarke) would be very glad to go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman, however few there might be with them. With regard to cross-examination, let him say this, and he said it from experience, that cross-examination addressed to a very young child was by no means wasted. A careful and kindly cross-examination of a young child would as certainly discover the truth as the most severe cross-examination of a very much older witness who had been tutored would.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), that if this question were argued out as they argued out the question of flogging a little while ago, the Committee would come to a very different opinion to that which seemed to prevail now. The object of the oath was that there should be some security that a person, by fear of the consequences either here or in a future state, would tell the truth. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had cited the case of Mr. Hatch; but in that case the children were sworn, and although they were sworn they committed perjury. What greater security could they have of the truthfulness of a child than a careful examination by the Judge as to the credibility of the child? He quite agreed that it would be a sad thing if an innocent man were convicted solely on the evidence of a child. A child could be tutored as to what it should say, even if it were sworn. In his opinion, a child of tender years was far more likely to tell the truth than a child of five or six years of age who had been tutored as to what it was to say when brought into Court. Cases had been brought to his attention in which there could be no doubt whatever of the truth of the statement of the child; but there had been a failure to put the law in force simply because the child did not understand the value of an oath. The change proposed was very desirable. It was quite true they were not legislating for a change in the Law of Evidence; but without such a change there would be no protection for young children, and that being so, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.

MR. PICTON

said, that unless this Amendment, or something like it, were passed, they might as well pass no Act at all on the subject, so far as little children were concerned. The crimes which had most revolted them, which had so kindled the anger of hon. Members that they were ready to resort to brutality to put them down, were the assaults upon little children of four, five, and six years of age. Those little children could not understand anything about Hell, and very happily too; they were not supposed to understand the nature of an oath, yet they were the most truthful, oftentimes, of all witnesses, if only they were examined in a kindly manner. Unless the testimony of those children might be taken for what it was worth, these crimes would continue to go unpunished, as I they were doing by thousands at the present time. He earnestly hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) would persevere with his Amendment.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he was quite willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), and add to his Amendment— The child may, as in the case of other witnesses, ha subject to cross-examination.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, I there was no necessity to add the words, because, if the Amendment were carried without them, the child would clearly be subject to cross-examination.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

desired to say that, if the Amendment were carried as it now stood, there certainly was no provision in it, or even in the clause, that a child should be cross-examined. He would suggest, however, to the hon. Member for Liverpool that he should withdraw the proposal to add words relating to cross-examination, and if it should happen that the clause were carried, he, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, would move the addition of words to meet the point.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman move to add the words?

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

No, Sir.

Question put.

The Committee divided;—Ayes 120; Noes 123: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 263.)

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

begged to move the second part of the clause which stood in his name—namely, And the court may, for the same purpose, allow a similar statement made by her before the committing justice or magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used for the same purpose at the trial.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he succeeds in carrying the second part of his clause, Clause 4 will not read.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

Then I will move it on Report.

MR. PICTON

said, that in a word or two he could explain why he wished to move the addition to Clause 4 which stood in his name. At present no punishment was provided but that of penal servitude or imprisonment. The whole spirit of legislation had been against the imprisonment of young boys, and the law had provided that boys might be moderately chastised and saved from the disgrace of imprisonment. It was to make this clear that he asked the Committee to add the words he had placed on the Paper of Amendments.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 30, at end, to add the words—"Provided, That in the case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any term of imprisonment, order him to be whipped, as prescribed by the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighteen, intituled 'An Act to amend the Law as to the Whipping of Juvenile and other Offenders,' and if, having regard to his age and all the circumstances of the case, it should appear expedient, the court may, in addition to the sentence of whipping, order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for a period of not less than two years and not more than five years."—(Mr. Picton.)

Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought it was very desirable to accept this Amendment, because offences by boys were by no means uncommon. He knew a case of a boy, 15 years of age, who misbehaved himself with three little children—one was 10, another 11, and the third 12 years of age. He was sorry to say that the girls were more or less consenting parties. The boy was tried at the Lewes Assizes in the year 1884, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. In his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) opinion, whipping would have a considerable deterrent effect in such cases.

MR. HOPWOOD

(who was received with cries of "Agreed!") said, they were not agreed, and he would move to report Progress if hon. Gentlemen desired it. He objected to the placing before the Committee of personal experiences. The illustrations which were given were, of course, given by hon. Members in perfect good faith, but with just such a touch of memory as to make them unreliable. They had had that night one hon. Member saying there were 40 of such cases somewhere. In how many years they were not told. Someone said eight years, while someone else said eight weeks. He did not believe it. There were societies which vamped up these things because the stronger appeals they made in the cause of charity, the more money flowed into the exchequer. His hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) brought forward this suggestion as one of which he was very much enamoured. He (Mr. Hop-wood) desired to hear what his hon. Friend would do in a correlative case. This clause applied to a boy under 16. What was to be done with a girl under 16? Was she not on equal terms of guilt or innocence with the boy? Was she not to be whipped, or sent to a reformatory, or imprisoned? Why not? She was as guilty as the boy. Was it not absurd for grown men to sit there and talk of flogging and whipping children? He wished to hear men speak out about these things. There must be some hon. Members who felt as he did, and he only wished they would give the Committee the benefit of their experience. This was an Amendment which should not be accepted. He should certainly divide against it, and do more against it if he could.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he did not see any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He wished to point out to the Committee that by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 13, s. 14, whenever a boy who was under the age of 16 was convicted on an indictment of an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, and sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment or longer, he could be sent to a reformatory. Therefore, he thought the proposal as to reformatory schools unnecessary. As to the whipping, he agreed with it.

MR. FIRTH

said, he had a short time ago read a statement by an East End clergyman, which went to show that if the Bill were carried without this alteration—supposing the rev. gentleman's statement to be true, and he had no doubt it was—it would make criminals of half the boys of between 12 and 16 years of age in that district.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

Will the hon. Member (Mr. Picton) stop at the words "other Offenders?"

MR. PICTON

Yes.

The House being cleared for a division,

THE CHAIRMAN

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 80, at end, to add the words— Provided, That in the case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any term of imprisonment, order him to be whipped, as prescribed by the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighteen, intituled 'An Act to amend the Law as to the Whipping of Juvenile and other Offenders,' and if, having regard to his age and all the circumstances of the case, it should appear expedient, the court may, in addition to the sentence of whipping, order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for a period of not less than two years and not more than live years.

MR. PICTON

You have read the whole of the Amendment, Sir. I withdraw all after the words "other Offenders." I wish to drop the latter part of the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member at one time proposed to do that; but when it was objected to, he assented to the retention of the words.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 24: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 264.)

MR. PICTON

I would propose now to omit all the words after "other Offenders."

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot do it now.

MR. WARTON

said, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 4. He had put that Amendment on the Paper for the reason that the law, as it would be under the clause, was precisely what it was at the present moment, and what it was before the Bill was introduced at all. He had thought it unnecessary to have a declaration of the law twice over. Now, however, that alterations had been made in the clause which would change the existing law in two respects, he no longer thought it necessary to put the Amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Defilement of girl between twelve and fifteen years of age).

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he proposed to move to add, after "who," in page 2, line 31, "being of mature age, or eighteen years at the least." He had expected that before they had proceeded so far with the Bill they would have had some general information from the Government as to the age at which a youth would come under the penalty of this clause, and as to the age of protection adopted on the Continent. Pending some information of that kind, he moved his Amendment simply to raise the question. What he found in Foreign Criminal Codes was, that according to the age of the delinquent the punishment rose, or the offence became nil. He assumed in his Amendment that the age of responsibility should commence at 18—he was in somewhat of a difficulty, no doubt, because he did not know what the age of protection for girls would be; but he assumed it would be considerably above what it was at present. They would probably have the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary detail reasons for his own conversion in the matter when they came to the question of the age of the girl. Meanwhile, he proposed to fix the age of the male delinquent at 18–16 might more readily meet with the approval of the Committee; but he had put down 18 in order to obtain some expression of opinion from the Committee on which he could act.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 31, after the word "who," to insert the words "being of mature age, or eighteen years at the least."—(Mr. Hopivood.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

opposed the Amendment. The Government had had no opportunity of saying what they had determined upon in the matter of the age of consent; but as to this Amendment, affecting the age of the person committing the offence, to accept it would be to introduce a complete innovation into their Criminal Law. The present law was well known, and, according to the clause— Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to hare unlawfully carnal knowledge of any girl being of or above the age of twelve years and under the ago of fifteen years shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, &c. It seemed to him that, without very good reason for it, no such change as that proposed should be effected, and he had not heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport any good reason for it.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, there was no difficulty in supplying reasons. The new clause would effect a material change in the law, and the age of consent being raised to 15 or 16 would make the girl against whom the offence could be committed three or four years older than under the present law. That was a considerable addition, and was. at any rate, reason for some investigation—some inquiry—into the relative merits or demerits of the two parties to the delinquency. If he was to assume that all girls of 16 were to be protected in an Act of Parliament, he had a right to assume that some girls at 16 were as advanced as others at 20, and that a boy of under 16 might be whipped and imprisoned for an act for which a girl of much greater power of continence and much greater maturity was mainly responsible. There was nothing clearer in physiology than that a girl of 16 was two years older, in power of understanding and taking care of herself in this respect, than a boy of the same age. As to his reasons, he had many—they were obvious; and the Attorney General, in asking for them, was treating him with an off-hand air that he was not disposed to pass by. He and those who thought with him were determined to be heard upon the Bill, and they had by their criticisms justified, to a large extent, the position they had taken up. They had not been successful in all they had attempted; but if they had succeeded in introducing a calmer spirit into the discussion, they would, at any rate, have done something to benefit the country.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the last Amendment which had been carried, which applied the punishment of whipping to boys under 16 years of age, really met the case he wished to meet. Everybody admitted that these offences were very often committed by juveniles who really knew very little about what they were doing. It would be, no doubt, a very serious thing if boys were sent to prison in large numbers. The last Amendment, however, as he had said, would meet the difficulty. It would be extremely dangerous to provide immunity from punishment in the case of a youth of 17 or 18. The Amendment could not, he thought, be allowed.

Amendment negatived.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I now move to strike out "twelve," and insert "thirteen," in line 33.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

I beg to propose the next Amendment standing in my name—to fix the age at 14.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member cannot move his Amendment, the age of 13 having already been decided upon.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, there was a series of Amendments on the Paper dealing with the age of the girl to defile whom it would be a mis- demeanour, and it would be but right that they should be put from the Chair in numerical order. If that were not done, they might have the extraordinary exhibition of Members taking different views being in the same Lobby. He would ask the Chairman to deal with the Amendments numerically, commencing with the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Atkinson), that of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pieton) following.

THE CHAIRMAN

I see nothing to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) moving his Amendment.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he had to move in page 2, line 34, to leave out "fifteen," and insert "sixteen." The object was to raise the age from 15, as it now stood in the Bill, to 16. He was bound to say that when he first drew up the Amendment he had proposed to raise the age to 18; but, on considering the matter, it had appeared to him that he would have a much better chance of carrying his present proposal, especially when he bore in mind the view which the House of Lords had expressed on the matter. At the same time, he was bound to say that if the Forms of the House would allow an opportunity of voting in support of a proposal to raise the age above 16 he should avail himself of it. Now, why did they extend protection to girls of the age of 15? It was because they were not in that state of mind—in that advanced condition of mind—as to be able to foresee the consequences of the act they were about to commit. Well, girls of the age of 16 were in the same position. A girl of 16, as a rule, was comparatively a child. They did not allow such a girl to part with her property, and he thought they ought not to allow her to part with her person. He did not refer to cases where young people formed an attachment, and in an unfortunate moment allowed their passions to get the better of them. He referred to eases in which a man deliberately laid siege to a girl with the set purpose of ruining her—and he was sorry to say that such oases too often happened—cases in which a man used all the arts which his experience of life furnished in order to get a girl into his power and then take advantage of her. He contended that an act of that kind with a girl of 16 was a most serious one, and should be seriously punished. He, therefore, proposed this alteration of the age.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 34, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "sixteen."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, it would, perhaps, be just as well that he should state the opinion of the Government on this matter, because there were a great number of Amendments on the Paper to this part of the Bill, some proposing the age of 16, some 18, some 20, and some going as high as 21. He entirely appreciated the motives of all the hon. Gentlemen who had put down Amendments for altering the age; but this matter was one in which they were bound to be cautious what they were about. This was one of those particular parts of the Bill with regard to which public feeling out-of-doors had probably gone a great deal further than hon. Members should go, sitting there as legislators, in a cairn and deliberate spirit to pass a law which should be carried out, and should not break down in consequence of their yielding to pressure from outside. It behaved them to be very careful. There was one consideration they should look to in this matter, and that was to the number of marriages which took place amongst young girls. It was rather extraordinary to see how different the numbers were at these various periods. Some would wish them to fix the age in this clause at 21; but if they took the records of the past five years, they would find that something like 18,000 persons had married under the age of 21. It would be impossible, therefore, to go to that age. To come to under the age of 20, the number of marriages was between 13,000 and 14,000; between 18 and 19, 7,000; and between 17 and 18, 2,000. When they came to under the age of 16 they came to a great drop, for the number was only 37. Between 16 and 17 the number was 100. It was evident from these statistics that the great gap was before the age of 16. Below that age very few marriages took place, and they might, therefore, assume that girls under that age were looked on as immature, and as having not arrived at the age of puberty. These, then, were the girls they desired to protect in the Bill. On the part of the Government, he urged the Committee to accept the figures he had quoted in the spirit in which he had made these observations. He trusted they would accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) fixing the age at 16.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he should vote for leaving out "fifteen," and when the subsequent Question was put he should vote for leaving out "sixteen," with the view of endeavouring to get some higher age substituted. If he could obtain what he most desired, it would be that they should insert "eighteen." He knew it might be said that the Committee was yielding to clamour. [Mr. WAETON: Hear, hear!] But in spite of the cheer of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, there were many who desired the age to be raised to 18—and who would now, if they got the opportunity, vote for it—who had desired that age long before there was any clamour, and long before there was any expectation of a reasonable kind of their being able even to get the age of 16 accepted. If hon. Members looked at the various Petitions and Memorials which had been presented to that House on the question, they would not only find that the great majority spoke of the age of 18, but if they looked at those which spoke of 16 they would find that a great number—certainly many of those that he had had the honour to present—had mentioned the age "sixteen at least." Now, he knew it would be said that they would run the risk of false accusations being made, there being so many young girls on the streets under the age of 18; and that men might have to do with girls believing them to be over the age of 18, when it turned out afterwards that they were under it. Poor man! he should be very sorry for him indeed if he made a mistake of a day; but, on the other hand, did they not think that such an Act of Parliament as this, when it was passed, would have the effect of greatly clearing the streets of the prostitution of these young girls? He did not wish at all to delay the Committee on this matter; but he thought it might, perhaps, be worth the attention of the Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) was, unfortunately, not able to be present that evening, if he road a letter that right hon. Gentleman had addressed to him. It was—

"1, Richmond Terrace, Whitehall, July 31.

"Dear Mr. Stuart,—I find that Mr. Morley has inquired whether I object to its being known that in my opinion the protective age might properly be advanced beyond 16 in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I cannot consider that much weight is due to my judgment in this important matter as compared with that of others; but I have considered it as well as I could, and I personally should have been glad if this Government had found it consistent with their views to name 18 rather than 10 as the protected age.

"Believe me, most faithfully yours,

"W. E. GLADSTONE."

He hoped the Committee would adopt the age of 18.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he had more than once invited the Secretary of State for the Home Department to tell them by what process he had been converted from the views he held on this subject seven or eight years ago. What was the reason that the Government had adopted the age of 16? He did not know that there was any other country on the Continent where people over the age of 14 had a special Act to protect them. No Member answered that point. If the Government had no response to that question, there was another thing he would like to ask them. Had they consulted the Judges who had to try these cases upon the question? No response. They had nothing to comment upon but the right hon. Gentleman's sudden conversion. There were no reasons given for it. Some hon. Members said 18 years ought to be the age, others said 16, and so they went on; but he warned them that they would be destroying the moral responsibility of the population in proportion to every year they raised the age of these protected girls. He contended that these girls who went wrong from an early age were just as familiar with the result of their actions as those of an older age. ["No!"] It was all very well to cry "No!" but those Members who did so were judging by their own families, who were carefully nurtured and preserved from contamination; but girls who went upon the streets came from a different class. They were not carefully nurtured; they had a familiarity with these things from an early age, and were quite able to take care of themselves. It was a monstrous thing to raise the age in this manner, and he did call upon the Government to rise in their places and give them some reason for what they were doing. Except in some of the more eccentric of the United States they could find no parallel for this Act, and he should like to hear reasons for it apart from mere declamation.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, his hon. and learned Friend had talked of sudden conversion in regard to this subject. As far as he was concerned, he had not been suddenly converted to the age of 16, because when the Bill was first introduced into the House of Lords two years ago the age was fixed at 16, and he had always approved of that limit. That was the age that was originally adopted, and he did not know why it had been altered to 15 this year. Sixteen was the age which was suggested by the Committee of the House of Lords, and the reasons for adopting it were given in the Report of that Committee. Now, the reason for raising the present age was because he thought it was necessary. Against the other proposal to raise the ago from 16 to 18 he had no difficulty in giving a reason. At 16 a girl was manifestly a child, a person of tender years; but when they came beyond that, and grow to 18, they were women. If they raised the age to 18, cases such as the following might arise. A girl of 17 having been seduced by one man might then become the mistress of another, who would be liable to an indictment for misdemeanour for living with her. Surely the Committee would not contemplate with equanimity such an application of the clause as that. Then it was the opinion of those who had had to deal with these matters that they would be running very great dangers of extortion and misrepresentation, because nothing was easier than for a girl of 17 or 18 to represent that she was 20. It was quite plain also that the dangers of black mail were very much greater when they advanced the ago than they would be if it were left at 16. These were, shortly, the reasons which had induced the House of Lords to adopt the age of 16.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)

said, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Tames Stuart) seemed to anticipate that the passing of this Bill would put a stop to juvenile prostitution; but he wished to point out that it was all very well for the House to legislate, but the important thing was to have the legislation carried out by the police. They would certainly carry it out in the City, and he believed that if they carried out the law in the other parts of London as they did in the City, the streets would not be in the same disgraceful state as they were now, as any prostitute soliciting men was liable to 40s. fine or one month's imprisonment. He quite approved of raising the age considerably.

MR. ATKINSON

thought the Committee ought to remember that they were there in a representative capacity, and must, therefore, judge outside feeling as well as the feeling in the House. If they were to judge of this matter from that point of view, they would find that the majority of the people were in favour of raising the age to 21. He could speak for Lincolnshire, for he had presented Petitions in favour of that age; and since he had been sitting there listening to the discussion he had received a telegram from a meeting at null, at which there were 4,000 persons present, stating that the people there were unanimously in favour of the ago of 21. He thought those people were entitled to be considered, and therefore he should like to see that age adopted. If the Forms of the House allowed it later, he should certainly propose the Amendment to that effect standing on the Paper in his name.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

pointed out that 16 was a most impressionable age. Between 16 and 17 girls had the constitution of women, and were much more likely to become the prey of men than they were a few years later. If this Bill was to be passed so as to raise the age at all, he certainly thought it ought to raise it to 18. No woman could marry on her own responsibility at 18 or 19. She was obliged to turn to her parents or guardians, and if she could not dispose of herself in honest matrimony at 18, she ought not to be able to dispose of herself in iniquity.

DR. FARQUHAESON

said, that girls often came to maturity at 14½, and if they took 16 they would cover all exceptional cases. If, however, they extended the age to 17, women were then perfectly well able to protect themselves; and if they were to go beyond that, there was no reason why they should not go to 30, 40, or any other age at once. He concurred in the Amendment which had the support of the Government.

Question, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he was desirous of moving an Amendment to the word "sixteen."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was a rule of Committee that no Amendment could be moved on an Amendment which simply consisted of one word.

Question put, "That the word 'sixteen' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 71: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 265.)

MR. COURTNEY

, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who had given Notice of the Amendment, moved to insert, in page 2, line 34, after the word "years," the words "not being a common prostitute, or of known immoral character." He thought the proposal deserved, at least, some consideration.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "years," to insert the words "not being a common prostitute, or of known immoral character."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HOPWOOD

, who entered the House while the Question was being proposed from the Chair, said, he should like to support his own Amendment; and he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) for his courtesy in coming to the rescue. He would state the proposition involved as simply as he could. Was there any Member of the Committee who was prepared to say that any son or relative of his should be brought under this law because he was inveigled, or enticed, or decoyed by a woman who was a woman of the town, because she happened to be under the age of 16 years? He thought the absurdity of this was so self-evident that he counted on a very considerable amount of support. The Amendment was absolutely necessary to protect people from the consequences of rash legislation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

thought the Amendment ought not to be accepted, because it seemed to him to be wholly inapplicable to the clause. He quite agreed that every step should be taken to give proper protection; but he would ask the Committee to consider what they were doing with the clause. As it stood at present, it provided that any person who unlawfully knew or attempted to have connection with a girl above the age of 13 years, and under the age of 16, should be guilty of a misdemeanour. A great temptation would be placed in the way of men who committed this offence if the words "not being a common prostitute, or of known immoral character," were inserted. Every attempt would be made to get the girl to be a common prostitute, or to be one of known immoral character; and the result would be that, instead of there being exceptions, it would be all the other way. There was no reason to suppose that there would be many girls under the age of 16 who would be prostitutes; and so long as a girl was under that age, even if she were a prostitute, at least they might hope that she had not been a prostitute for a very long time—certainly not one in the sense of a permanent street-walker. He thought Parliament might well allow that there ought to be protection for a girl up to the age of 16, even though she might, to a certain extent, have injured her moral character. He asked the Committee not to accept the words proposed.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he had arrived at the same opinion as his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and he hoped these young prostitutes would be kept off the streets. If men knew that it was an offence to speak to them the trade would come to an end. Such girls would be shunned, and would be driven from the streets. For the sake of those children whose deplorable trade would thus come to an end he opposed the Amendment.

CAPTAIN PRICE

thought that if they did not accept the Amendment proposed the result would be very serious indeed, especially in certain towns. He represented a largo borough, where there was a large garrison, with many soldiers and sailors; and there were many girls of this hind on the streets, many of them being very young girls. Now, it was the trade of these very young girls that Parliament wanted to put a stop to; but the result of legislation of this sort, without proper safeguards, would greatly increase juvenile prostitution, because young girls would not only receive solicitations from men, but would solicit themselves, with this knowledge—that if they did not receive the presents they expected they would always be able to fall back upon extortion. He did not think that any legislation of this kind would destroy juvenile prostitution in their garrison towns. If there was one thing which would discourage juvenile prostitution there, it would be the putting in force again of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Those Acts had a very great effect in those towns in putting a stop to juvenile prostitution; but legislation of this sort would not do it.

MR. HOPWOOD

could not accept the view of his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) as to the benefits of the Contagious Diseases Acts, for he (Mr. Hopwood) maintained that they had done much to debase the people, and to place persons in jeopardy from the police.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss the Contagious Diseases Acts on this Amendment.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he had no intention of doing so. He was simply answering the remark of the previous speaker, who was allowed to speak without interruption. With reference to the observations which had been made as to driving juvenile prostitution, off the streets, he must point out that while many of these girls, who would pass for young women, were much older than they looked, nothing was more common than for those who were really young to put on the simulated appearance of being older. There would be the same number in the streets under this Bill—they would only have to disengage thorn-selves from every remnant of innocence, and they would tramp the streets just as freely and uninterruptedly as before. This would be an extremely dangerous clause. He would ask the Committee to take the case of a young man who had been accosted and decoyed and carried off by a prostitute, and she turned out to be under the age, although she had simulated the appearance of being over it. Were the Committee prepared to say that the girl in such a case should have power to give the young man up to the police, and that he should be sent to gaol, to please a number of people who had raised this outcry, and who believed that purity could be evolved from legislation of this sort? He (Mr. Hopwood) did not believe anything of the sort.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

thought that any magistrate before whom such a case came would judge as to whether the person accused had reasonable cause for believing the girl to be above the age. If she walked the streets and regularly accosted people, inducing them to believe that she was above the ago at which it would be a criminal offence to have intercourse with her, there should be no conviction. If that was not so, there ought to be another clause inserted in the Bill, making it criminal for any girl under 16 years of age to ply the trade of a pit-fall.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, nothing could be more scandalous and terrible than the number of very young prostitutes who were upon the streets; and anything that could be done to put a stop to that the Committee would be most desirous of doing. He believed that if the present Amendment were not accepted, the clause would do something to bring this state of things to an end. He did not believe there was any real fear that such cases as had been mentioned would happen.

Amendment negatived.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 2, line 34, after the word "years," to insert— Or (2.) Unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of, any female idiot, under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but which prove that the offender knew at the time of the commission of the offence that the woman or girl was an idiot.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ONSLOW

said, he was not quite sure that this Amendment would cover the whole of the cases that ought to be covered. There were many women and girls who ought to be protected who were not exactly idiots. He thought the words "or imbecile" ought to be added. Imbecility was not the same as idiotcy. He proposed that those words be inserted in the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In lines 2 and 4, after the word "idiot," to insert the words "or imbecile."—(Mr. Onslow.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved the omission from the clause of the following Proviso:— Provided that it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the court, justices, or justice, or magistrate before whom the charge shall be brought that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of fifteen years. If any person is charged before a justice with any crime under this section, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person without the consent of the Attorney General, or by the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, except such as the justice may think necessary, by remand or otherwise, to secure the safe custody of such person. He pointed out that the object of the clause was to protect very young girls against corruption, and to preserve young children from falling into snares which led to their ruin. If any help or assistance were given to those who were the seducers of these young girls, and they were thereby encouraged in criminal practices, the object of the section would be entirely defeated. In an ordinary case of rape there was no provision that would exempt a man from the consequences of his acts, because the person with whom he committed the offence had the appearance of being above the age. It would be a novelty to introduce into the law the proposal contained in the Proviso. He also objected to the provision that no prosecution should be undertaken without the consent of the Attorney General; and he therefore begged to move the omission of the whole Proviso.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from "Provided" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the Committee would not part with the Proviso, or otherwise a girl and her father might induce a man to take the girl into his keeping by persuading him that she was 18 years of age, while she was in reality under 16. It was quite possible that that might be done. Many girls of 16 appeared to be of the age of 18. There might, then, be a deliberate plant, and a girl and those about her might take every conceivable measure to induce a man to believe that she was 18 years of age, and then, when the man had lived with her, she might turn round upon him and say—"I took you in about my age. You can be proceeded against under this section; and unless you pay me £500 I will do it." It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that this protection should remain; and he hoped the Committee would keep it in.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

pointed out that if the Proviso were retained the age of 15 would have to be altered.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir P. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the necessary alteration would of course be made.

MR. ALBERT GREY

contended that the Proviso ought to be omitted; because if a man were able to say that he believed the girl was over the statutory limit, that defence would be made in every case. He hoped the Committee would agree to strike out the Proviso.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he should have accepted the Proviso but for the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey). But, as it was, he thought they were taking too much pains to guard the man. They seemed to be providing that when a man went about vicious practices he should be as free from the liability of punishment as possible. Therefore he desired to see the Proviso struck out from the Bill. He thought that what they were trying to strike at was juvenile prostitution; and if their intention was to protect children of tender ago he thought the best course would be to make the offence a distinct misdemeanour, and let the man take his; chance. For those reasons he should; support the proposal for the omission of the Proviso.

SIR FARRER HERSCHELL

said, he thought that hon. Members and others looked at this Bill as likely only to affect those in their class of life. But he would point out that it dealt with the existing social conditions and circumstances under which the vast bulk of the population were compelled to live, and in which it was almost impossible that immorality should not occur. Unfortunately, the people who he referred to herded together in such a manner that, unless human nature were changed, there would always be these cases. He said they must not look at the question solely from the point of view of well-to-do persons. This Bill did not deal with cases of prostitution only; it dealt with every other case of this kind of immorality which might take place with persons in whatever station of life they might be. Unless this safeguard, which the hon. Member for Hackney supposed was only for the protection of men, w7ere retained, they would have this clause operating in the direction of making criminals of those whose only criminality consisted in being compelled to live in the state of society he had described.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he must point out that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken were, so far as his Amendment was concerned, quite beside the mark; because the Proviso referred to persons who were unable to distinguish between the true age of a girl and the age they supposed her to be. But in the case of the poorer classes, living, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, herded together, it was pretty certain that the age of one would be fairly well known to the other, and the part of the clause they were now dealing with would not affect that class. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore rather against the whole clause, which might operate in the manner he had suggested, than against this particular Proviso, which he (Mr. J. Stuart) said would operate in another direction.

MR. WARTON

said, he regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General was not in his place, because he had to refer to a point of considerable importance. He wished to call attention to what the law had decided in relation to this particular question of ago. There had been a case of abduction, where the men was told by the girl that she was 18; the girl looked 18, and yet the man was convicted under the Abduction Clause of the Act of 1881. The very argument was used that there was reason to believe that the girl was 18, and the Judges ruled that, no matter whether the girl looked 18, or said she was 18 years of age, she was not so; and the man was convicted under the clause. The Committee had before them a clause corresponding to the Abduction Clause of the Act of 1881, and he wanted to hear from the Home Secretary whether it was intended to apply the same principle to this case where the age was 16 years.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ALBERT GREY

I distinctly challenged the decision of the Chairman.

MR. JAMES STUART

I also challenged it as loudly as I could.

THE CHAIRMAN

I can only say that the challenges of the hon. Members did not reach my ears.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 38, after the word "under," to insert the words "sub-section one of."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 40, after the word "magistrate," to insert the words "or jury."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he should like to know exactly what the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) meant. According to the clause the Court was to have a veto. Was it intended "that the jury should have" a veto also?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Yes. We agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 42, to leave out the word "fifteen" and insert the word "sixteen."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

Question proposed, "That 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

MR. ALBERT GREY

I propose to move that "fifteen" be omitted, and "eighteen" substituted.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment now. All the hon. Member can do is to support the Amendment to leave out "fifteen."

Question put, and negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) can now move his Amendment to insert "eighteen."

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, his object was to make it impossible for a man charged under this clause to come before the Court and say that he believed the girl was over the age mentioned. If they were to allow him to do that it seemed to him that they might as well give up the Bill altogether. But if they were to have anything of the kind he proposed that the man should be able to come forward and say that he believed the girl was 18 years of age.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 42, after the word "of," to insert the word "eighteen."—(Mr. Albert Grey.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eighteen' be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not wish his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland to be under the impression that the Proviso neutralized the clause. His hon. Friend had spoken of it as if a man could come forward and say, "I believe so and so," and that there would then be an end of the case. But there would have to be something shown far stronger than that.

MR. JAMES STUART

asked if the words "any reasonable cause" meant that the girl said that she was of or above the ago mentioned?

Amendment negatived.

Question, "That the word 'sixteen' be inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, as many objections had been made to the first paragraph on page 3 of the Bill, he proposed to leave out the whole of it and insert other words.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought it would be best to have the Vexatious Indictment Clause applicable to the whole Act, which provided that a prosecutor should be bound over to prosecute.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 1, to leave out from "if" to the word "person" in line 6, inclusive.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he had no objection to make the Vexatious Indictment Clauses apply to the whole Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 1, to insert—"Every misdemeanour under this section shall in England and Ireland he deemed to be an offence within and subject to the provisions of the Act of the Session of the twenty-second and twenty-third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventeen, intituled an 'Act to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanours.'"—(Sir It. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he should like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in a few words, to explain the operation of the Vexatious Indictment Act.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he was about to move a Proviso which he had taken from the Act of the Home Secretary—the Dangerous Employments Act—and which was strictly applicable to this Bill. It would be preposterous to require, in any such case as was contemplated by the clause, absolute proof of the age of a child apparently 13, 14, or 16 years old. He therefore proposed that where, in the judgment of the Court, the girl was apparently under the age mentioned, it should be with the person charged to prove that she was over that age.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, after the word "years," to insert—"Provided also, That where, in the judgment of such court, justices, or justice, magistrate, the girl is apparently under the age of sixteen years, it shall be on the person charged to prove that she is of or over that age."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the Government could not assent to the Amendment of the right hon. Member.

MR. WARTON

pointed out to the right hon. Member for Halifax that as several alterations had been made in the clause, among others the addition of the word "jury," his Amendment could not possibly be added in its present form.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under fifteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour).

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he had an Amendment to move to this clause, the object of which was to make the offender liable to punishment for the graver offence, in the same manner as they had made the offender under the 2nd clause liable for the lesser offence. He hoped his Amendment would commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 9, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "induces or knowingly suffers any girl under the age of thirteen years to resort to or be in or upon such premises for the purposes of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally, shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and any such person who."—(Captain Price.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was not sure that the words at the end of the Amendment, "any such person who," were not wrong. It would seem that they referred to any person who did one thing at one time and another at another time.

MR. TOMLINSON

suggested that the words "owner or occupier" should be inserted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought that those words would meet the difficulty.

THE. ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the clause would run thus—"Any person who "—then would come in the first sub-section proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, and it would follow— And any such person who induces or knowingly suffers any girl under the age of fifteen years to resort to or be in or upon such premises for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular men or generally, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and so on.

MR. COURTNEY

It would be desirable to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "and any such person who."

Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had now to move to leave out in page 3, line 10, the word "fifteen," in order to insert "eighteen." Prostitution would always exist; but he did not see why they should not punish a man who harboured them over 21 years of age. Why limit it to 16? They were not protecting young girls, but young women—infants at law. Girls just under 21 had the same right to be under the care and guardianship of the State as girls of 16; and he, therefore, thought it undesirable that they should be able to live in a house with the consent of the proprietor or be prostitutes in the streets.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "twenty-one."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he could not think that the hon. Member was serious in making this Amendment—in fact, he did not think the hon. Gentleman's action altogether with regard to this Bill was serious. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was anxious, in this singular way, to show the Committee the absurdity of the whole of the Bill, and in that view he (Mr. Hopwood) sympathized with him. This, however, was a serious matter. They were dealing with a friendless class. Surely hon. Members did not desire that those girls should have no place to abide in—that they should have nowhere but the workhouse or the streets to go to, unless it were some hole or den where someone more, charitable than that House would let them rest for the night, and let them rot in their diseases. Were they going to say that in the ease of a girl above the age of 16 who was already a prostitute no man or woman should shelter her? ["No, no!"] Yes! He would read the words— Induces or knowingly suffers any girl under the ago of sixteen years to resort to or be in or upon such premises for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour," &c. Where were those girls to go? Would the hon. Member take them into his house, or would any other charitable person rind some place of refuge for them? Why not take to flogging them out of society at once, as was formerly done?—let hon. Members assert their sanctimoniousness to the full. He could not understand what had come over the House of Commons that it should insist upon such hard provisions as these. They would not get these people into the Courts—it would be a question of hiding, and they would have to prey more on the public to get a safe resting place.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) did not understand the purpose of the clause. It was not intended to operate against prostitution in women of adult age; but it was intended to interfere with persons who procured and got to those houses girls of the class, immoral relations with whom had boon made penal in a previous clause. It had been made a felony for a man to have to do with a girl under 13 years of age, and a misdemeanour for a man to have to do with a girl under 16 years of age. As a complement to that they must deal with those persons who kept these young girls for purposes of prostitution.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not wish to make the profession of saintliness that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood) spoke of. His hon. and learned Friend did not understand the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was so indignant with the Bill that he opposed every clause in it, whether right or wrong. He asked whether they intended to let girls under 16 years of age who were living immoral lives die in the gutter? The hon. and learned Gentleman said the object of the clause was to prevent anyone from giving these girls shelter whilst they were pursuing or continuing the profession of prostitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had suggested why he (Mr. Labouchere) should not press his Amendment; and as the Committee would, no doubt, agree with the right hon. Gentleman, he would not go on with the proposal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he hoped the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, so that he might move to add after the word "girl," "being of or above the age of thirteen years and under the age of sixteen."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 10, after the word "girl," to insert the words "being of or above the age of thirteen years and."—(The Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "sixteen."—(The Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he desired to move the following Proviso to this clause:— Provided that it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge shall be brought, that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen. If this were the proper place for the insertion he would move it—a similar Proviso to that at the end of Clause 5.

MR. COURTNEY

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) wished to move an Amendment which would come before that. It was in line 14, after "generally," to insert— Or shall detain the clothes or other property of such girl, or use any threat with intent to compel, or induce her to remain in and upon such premises. This was to meet the case whore a girl wont to a house and the people kept her and fed her and refused to let her go, detaining her clothes or using threats to prevent her leaving.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he should accept the Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, however desirable those words might be, he was afraid they could not possibly come in here.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, those words were entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the clause. The clause made it an offence to let a girl be on the premises at all.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he had assented too readily to the Amendment.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he quite saw the point raised by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Clarke). He would not propose the Amendment here—it would come in in another place.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would move the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), only for "twenty-one" he would substitute "sixteen "

Amendment proposed, In page 3, after line 17, to insert—"Provided, That it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge shall be brought, that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen.":—(Sir William Harcourt.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "under," to insert the words "the second sub-section of."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he did not think that the Proviso applied with equal force to this clause as to Clause 5. Clause 5 contemplated the case of a man who met a girl and might have no proper means of observing what her age was; but Clause 6 contemplated the offence of the procuress. He thought the procuress should be required to take every means to ascertain what the age of the girl was.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that in the case he had put to the Committee the relatives were supposed to desire the prostitution of the girl, and would induce the woman keeping the house to believe that the girl was above the age of 16. The relatives might induce a woman to receive the girl into her house, and then turn round on her afterwards and charge her with having broken the law. The meaning would be the same in the present clause.

Amendment, as, amended, agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he wished to move the omission of the following words from the clause:— A justice of the peace, if satisfied by information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any such girl, or any other person who in the opinion of the justice is bona fide acting in the interest of any such girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect any offence under this section to have been committed in or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of such justice, may grant a warrant under his hand authorising a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, to enter, With such assistance as may be necessary, and if need be by force, and make search in or upon such premises and every part thereof, with a view to the discovery of any offence under this section; and any such superintendent, inspector, or other officer so authorised, may apprehend and bring before two justices, or a police or stipendiary magistrate, any person guilty of an offence under this Act whom he may find upon such premises, and also any girl in respect of whom such offence is charged; and if the justices or magistrate so think fit, they or he may bind over any such girl to appear as a witness on the trial of any such person. He desired to omit those words in order later on to move the insertion of the following Amendment:— If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes by any person in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice, such justice may issue a warrant authorising any person named therein to search for, and, when found, to take to and detain in a place of safety such woman or girl until she can be brought before a justice of the peace; and the justice of the peace, before whom such woman or girl is brought, may cause her to be delivered up to her parents or guardians, or otherwise dealt with as circumstances may require. The justice of the peace issuing such warrant may, by the same or any other warrant, cause any person accused of so unlawfully detaining such woman or girl to be apprehended and brought before a justice, and proceedings to be taken for punishing such person according to law. A woman or girl shall be deemed to be unlawfully detained for immoral purposes if she is so detained for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally; and—

1. (a.) Either is under the ago of sixteen years; or
2. (b.) If of or over the age of sixteen, and under the age of eighteen years, is so detained against her will, or against the; will of her father or mother or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her; or
791
3. (c.) If of or above the age of eighteen years she is so detained against her will:

Any person authorised by warrant under this section to search for any woman or girl so detained as aforesaid may enter (if need be by force) any house, building, or other place specified in such warrant, and may remove such woman or girl there from. His object was to alter the Search Clause in the Bill. The effect would be to enable a parent or guardian who thought that a girl was detained in a house for an immoral purpose to obtain a magistrate's warrant in order to get her out—not so much for the purpose of punishing those who detained her as for the purpose of getting her back. He would move the Amendment pro formâ.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, to leave out from "a justice," to "persons," in line 36.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should not, of course, take any specific objection to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He merely wished to point out that under the existing law, notwithstanding the incorrect statements made out-of-doors, the magistrates had ample power, in the case of a girl of 14, to send to a house and have the door broken open, if necessary, to have such girl rescued on the ground that a felony had been committed. And when a misdemeanour had been committed in the seduction from her home of a girl between 13 and 16, the magistrates would have ample jurisdiction and could issue a warrant at present. In all these cases, in spite of the great deal that had been said, his contention was that the present law was amply sufficient. Though the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might have no choice but to yield to the popular cry, yet he thought they were putting on the Statute Book a heap of matter that they could do very well without.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he had Amendments to move to the words the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposed to insert.

THE CHAIRMAN

Those Amendments will be considered when we come to deal with the Search Clause. The Question before the Committee is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he wished to point out that the words the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert had no reference to the clause the Committee were discussing. No doubt they could be moved as a new clause; but they had nothing to do with the clause before the Committee. This proposition about searching for girls under the ago of 16, or over the age of 16 and under the age of 18, or above the age of 18, had no reference to Clause 6 as drawn. It was matter for a new clause—very proper matter.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I am willing to bring it up as a new clause. I put it down as an Amendment in order that the two proposals might be road and compared together. I am willing to separate the clauses, or to bring my proposal up as a new clause.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, that under the clause if a search were made for one girl, and she was not found on the premises, but another girl were found, that would be an offence under the clause, and she could be brought up together with the persons who had detained her. Under the proposed Amendment only the one girl for whoso search the warrant was issued could be brought up. At any rate, that was how it appeared to him.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

I understood the Home Secretary to say that he proposed to bring up his Amendment in the form of a new clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; but I think the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his proposal to leave out these words.

Question put, and negatived.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)

The following words, according to the understanding arrived at, should also be omitted:— Every misdemeanor under this section shall in England and Ireland be deemed to be an offence within and subject to the provisions of the Act of the session of the twenty-second and twenty-third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventeen, intituled 'An Act to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanors. I think we had better strike out all these.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out from the word "Every," in line 37, to the word "misdemeanours," in line 41.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Abduction of girl under eighteen with intent to have carnal knowledge) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Power, on indictment for rape, to convict of indecent assault).

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) moved, in pursuance of the arrangement which had been arrived at, to insert after "guilty," in line 11, the words "of a misdemeanour under this Act or."

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 11, after the word "guilty," to insert the words "of a misdemeanour under this Act or."—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict., c. 89, s. 28).

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, it would, perhaps, be well that he should make a statement as to the feelings of the Government in regard to this clause. This clause certainly went into very thorny questions. The object of the Bill was to protect young girls; and although he quite admitted that the law was not in a satisfactory state at the present moment, he was convinced it would take a very long time to argue the points raised by this clause. He therefore hoped the Committee, without argument or a word at all, would allow him to strike the clause out of the Bill. He proposed to raise the question by moving to leave out the words "sub-section, eleven."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out the words "sub-section eleven."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would now move to omit the rest of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out from the word "of" to the end of the Clause.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Power to exclude women, &c.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, he might be allowed to make a statement in reference to this clause similar to that the Home Secretary had made upon the preceding clause. By this clause also they entered upon difficult matter, and even upon something foreign to the Bill. The law as it at present stood gave powers sufficient to meet tire ends of justice; and, therefore, he begged to move that the clause be struck out of the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Clause struck out.

Clause 11 (Prohibition of exclusion from trial, &c. of persons interested) struck out.