SECOND READING. (Hansard, 26 February 1861)

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that the object of the measure was of the simplest possible character. It did not propose to alter the aspect of the law with regard to those places in any respect, but merely to make the existing law more easily effectual than it was at present. By the existing law houses of this kind could be indicted, and upon the order of the Judge the expenses thereby incurred could be charged upon the county fund. But the proceedings, which must be taken under an old Act of Parliament, were of such a description that it was exceedingly difficult to carry the law into effect. For example, it was necessary that two householders should prosecute, and they could only do so as common informers, receiving a reward of £10 each upon obtaining a conviction. Of course, this gave a character to the proceeding of a very different kind from that which ought to be attached to it, and a strong and general objection was entertained to undertaking any such prosecution. The offence was, indeed, one of a series of misdemeanours in which the costs were allowed by statute, and the law had provided ways by which when an evil of the kind became unbearable the parties should be indicted. He, therefore, proposed to add no new ground of indictment, but only so to simplify the process that the existing law should be carried out and made more practically effective, and the costs allowed by proper authority be recovered. He need not enter into the general question which was dealt with by the Bill. Hitherto the law had regarded these wretched houses as evils which were in one sense "necessary evils"— that was to say evils that could not be altogether suppressed. Our Legislature, however, had avoided the great moral evil which attends in other countries the licensing of those houses and bringing them under the direct shadow of the law; but it had considered that since those houses could not be altogether suppressed they should be discouraged to the utmost, and that the law should be ready whenever those houses pressed themselves on public notice to bring its penalties to bear upon them. He did not ask them to make any difference whatever as to the status of those houses, but merely to simplify the mode by which the majesty of the law should be properly upheld. As he had no reason to anticipate any objection would be made to the second reading of the Bill he had only briefly stated its details.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
was sure that the House felt greatly indebted to the right rev. Prelate for having directed his attention to this question with the view of suppressing what was undoubtedly a serious evil. The existing law did not deal with these cases effectually, and it was desirable that it should be amended. But whilst there was no objection to the principle of the Bill, he apprehended that as it would involve a charge upon the public revenue, it would be considered a taxing Bill, and the House of Commons would decline to receive it if it originated in this House. He would, therefore, recommend its withdrawal: if not, he should feel it his duty to move that it be read a second time that day six months.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
said, be had not been aware that there was any such technical objection against the measure; but if it was the opinion of the House that it ought not to originate there he would accede to the request of the noble and learned Lord and withdraw it.