PROTECTION OF FEMALES BILL.

HL Deb 11 July 1848 vol 100 cc380-4

Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.

The BISHOP of OXFORD moved the Third Reading of the Bill for the Protection of Females. In doing so, he considered it unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with any remarks as to the great evils the Bill was intended to remedy, as the existence of those evils had been fully acknowledged by all who had spoken on the subject. There had been an objec- tion, however, raised to one part of the Bill, which deserved the most serious consideration, and on that he would make a single observation or two. The objection was, that by the first and second clauses taken together the Bill would not only punish those persons whom it was the real intention of the measure to punish, namely, the class of procurers and procuresses, but that it would extend beyond this, and put down by punishment those persons who kept houses for vicious indulgences, Now, it certainly was not the intention of the Bill to put down those houses by direct legislation, though he admitted it was possible its provisions might, in their strict letter, be taken to apply to the case of such houses. He believed it to be impossible to frame any measure to meet so great and admitted an evil, that would not be liable to such misapprehension. He bad on the Committee the assistance of the Lord Chief Justice, and other noble and learned Lords, and they concurred in thinking that there was no better way than that which was provided in the Bill to meet the evils complained of. The object of the Bill was, to punish those who were guilty of furnishing infamous houses with victims, and, if possible, to make the act of supplying those houses more difficult and dangerous than at present. Such practices were prosecuted bylaw in Prussia, where, indeed, the houses were prohibited altogether; and he really thought that little delicacy need be observed as to the manner in which the Act for suppressing so gross an evil was framed. The Bill had now passed through all its stages but the last. He hoped, therefore, there would be no opposition to the third reading.

LORD BROUGHAM

was glad that some objections which he entertained to the Bill had now been removed; but still, with the very best feelings for such a measure, it must be admitted that great difficulties lay in the way of legislation. The object of the Bill was to protect simple and innocent females; but, as it now stood, it would go far beyond that, and would punish those who harboured in their houses women of the town for improper purposes. Such a thing was not now illegal, unless public decency was violated; but by this Bill It would be made an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment. The whole object of the Bill was to punish seduction and those engaged in it; but in its terms it went further, and made that a penal offence which was not intended to be one. He certainly did not approve of the course pursued in certain countries, where houses of the description alluded to were recognised and regulated by law. It might be wrong to countenance them in that manner; but it did not follow, on the other hand, that they were to be put down by severe punishments. This was a matter that required grave consideration, and he would suggest, though he was not prepared to move it, that the Bill should be read a third time that day six months, in order to give time for fully considering the question.

The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL

said, objections had been taken to the measure as being imperfect, but he believed it would be impossible to bring in any Bill on such a subject that was not imperfect. For the sake of religion and good morals, trading in seduction ought not to be tolerated. The Society which had taken the matter up had taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in preparing the Bill; and he trusted that their Lordships would be convinced of the necessity of passing some law in order to protect innocence and the peace of families. Some discretionary power must be given to magistrates and judges; for it was not to be expected that they would act as mere automatons.

LORD DENMAN

said, that, notwithstanding all the talent which had been applied in the preparation of this Bill, he thought it would, if passed, not only be ineffectual for its purpose, but fraught with greater evils than it was intended to remedy. In the first place, it would lead to attempts to extort money by accusations of the commission of the offence; and, in the next place, he felt pretty sure that an attempt to enforce a measure of that kind would fall in a court of justice, after very offensive and scandalous exposures, and a triumph would be given to those whom it was desired to disgrace and punish. The difficulties of the case were such as could not easily be overcome. Under the law as it stood, there was no difficulty in inflicting punishment when it had once been proved that a party had been decoyed into a house of ill-fame: the difficulty was to procure the necessary evidence. The injured party came before the court, already polluted, to give an account of the manner in which she had been led astray, and was not likely to be very scrupulous in her statements. He had a great respect for the zeal of the noble Earl; but it was not zeal alone that would enable him to accomplish his object. It was the difficulty inherent in the case which made legislation on such a question almost impossible. Notwithstanding his objections, if there were any likelihood of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, he should deprecate the rejection of the Bill that evening.

LORD CAMPBELL

felt it his duty to state, that he despaired of the framing of any Bill which, if passed, would accomplish the object in view. He believed, in fact, that no legislative measure against simple fornication would be attended with a good effect. There were many aggravated cases of fraudulent seduction, which, though it was most desirable to provide against them, could not be included in an enactment. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had spoken of Berlin as a place in which houses of ill-fame were suppressed by law. Now he (Lord Campbell) believed that amongst the capitals of Europe there was none so licentious as Berlin; it was worse than either Paris or Vienna.

EARL NELSON

expressed a hope that the right rev. Prelate would persevere with the measure. He knew that it was difficult to legislate in cases of this description, because, while one party was punished, another, though undeserving of it, was rewarded, as was the ease under the bastardy laws. But the outrage on society by seduction was so great, that he thought it at least worth the trial whether this Bill would work well or not.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

sincerely regretted that he was obliged to express his concurrence in the opinions delivered by his noble and learned Friends who had addressed the House. The noble Lords who had spoken in favour of the Bill were naturally carried away by their desire to effect a most laudable object; but they had not addressed themselves to the real objection to the Bill, namely, the anomalous nature of the abuse, and the impossibility of providing a remedy. There being no legal definition of the term "seduction," words were introduced in the Bill for the purpose of defining the offence, which would include a very different description of offence from that contemplated by the framers of the Bill. He feared that under the provisions of the Bill the object thus aimed at could not be secured.

The EARL of HARROWBY

said, that notwithstanding the opinions which had been expressed by noble and learned Lords, he thought there would be no difficulty in carrying the Bill into effect. The jury, acting as fathers and as husbands, would know very well what was meant by seduction; and even though the word had not obtained a legal meaning, a very few verdicts and sentences would give it one. Even if the Bill failed on account of the want of a definition, it would be easy to apply to Parliament to define the offence more distinctly.

LORD CAMPBELL

observed, that no judge or jury would be at liberty to accept any other definition of seduction than the definition given by the indictment, which would, of course, follow the words of the Act. Now, the Bill defined seduction to be "the soliciting of any female to have carnal intercourse or connexion with any man to whom the said female shall not be married."

The BISHOP of LLANDAFF

thought the discussion would prove that the difficulties in carrying out this measure were more imaginary than real; and he hoped their Lordships would give effect to a Bill, the intention of which was to give relief to a large class of the community from some of the greatest evils to which they could be exposed.

The EARL of MINTO moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

The BISHOP of OXFORD

, in reply, said he had well considered the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, but was unable to acquiesce in it, and must therefore press for the decision of their Lordships on the Bill. Notwithstanding what had fallen from some noble Lords, he could say that legislation on this subject, on the Continent had not produced the evil effects which were represented to have arisen from it; but had, on the contrary, tended to check immorality in the towns there. He had, however, no objection to insert the word "fraudulent," according to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, as it would remove one of the main objections that were urged against the measure. And he besought their Lordships to pause before they rejected such a Bill as this, and expose that House, which depended upon its high standing in the moral and religious sympathies of the country, to the charge that they strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Their Lordships then divided:—Content 21; Not-Content 28: Majority 7.

House adjourned.