Lords Sitting of 25 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (122); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (123); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (124); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) * (125).
Second Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders * (110); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (111); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (104); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (102); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) * (103); New Forest Highways * (101); Forest of Dean (Highways) * (98).
Committee—Sea Fisheries * (83–127); Criminal Law Amendment (69–128).
Report — Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (56–129).
Third Reading—Lord Alcester's Grant * (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant * (96), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
(NO. 69.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in moving the omission of the clause, which excluded Scotland from the operation of the Bill, said, that he did not admit that the high illegitimacy Returns furnished by that country were any proof of the exceptional immorality which was said to exist there; and, most certainly, they were not proof of the

1383
kind of immorality dealt with in the Bill. He thought, upon the whole, the Scottish people were very much like other people, and that the immorality of Scotland was about on a par with that of other parts of the United Kingdom. On that ground, he asked that Scotland should be included in the Bill. He was one of those who thought it very desirable that legislation of this kind should be made applicable, as far as possible, to the whole of the United Kingdom. If a Criminal Act of this kind were made applicable only on one side of the Border, all that those who wished to evade the law, and carry on the hideous traffic in young girls, would have to do, would be to go across to the other side, and carry on that business from that country with impunity. He would move the omission of the clause.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 2."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) had raised very interesting questions. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) did not feel it necessary to follow him in his speculations, but would confine himself to saying that the Government would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause left out accordingly.
Clause 3 (Procuring woman under age to be a common prostitute).
On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 10, after ("prostitute") insert—
("Or procures or endeavours to procure any woman to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of entering a brothel abroad, whether he shall or shall not inform the woman of such purpose.")
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would propose the insertion of an Amendment, which would have the effect of bringing under the penalties of the Act any person who endeavoured to induce any woman to lead au immoral life, although there might be no fraud.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, before it was accepted, he would point out that such a Proviso would be the cause of unlimited and unbounded extortion in every direction.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that he would, if it were now withdrawn, consider the subject before the Report; but he could not pledge himself to accept the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Procuring by fraud defilement of girl under age).
On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, Amendment made, in page 1, lines 16 and 17, by striking out the words ("under the age of twenty-one years").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Abusing woman under twelve years of age).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved an Amendment, applying the penalties of the Bill to attempts to commit the offence specified, as well as to the actual commission of the offence, on the ground of the great difficulty in proving the completed offence.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23, after ("abuses") to insert ("or shall attempt to carnally know and abuse.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEopposed the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary. Attempts to commit the offence were already dealt with by law, and were punishable by two years' imprisonment, with hard labour.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, in moving an Amendment to empower the infliction of corporal punishment upon an offender, said, that their Lordships would be of one mind as to the undesirableness of unnecessarily augmenting corporal punishments, on account of its demoralizing effect; but, in this case, it was useless to consider that objection, for he thought all their Lordships would agree that it would be utterly impossible to further demoralize those who were sufficiently demoralized to be capable of committing a crime of this kind. They had simply to consider what punishment was most likely to doter those who might be disposed to commit

1385
the crime, or would be most painful and disagreeable to those who had committed if. These who were acquainted with the administration of the Criminal Law were of opinion that no punishment was more feared or disliked by criminals than corporal punishment. If that was so, it was the best possible reason for attaching this punishment to this most atrocious offence. At present, it might be inflicted for robbery from the person with violence, and it was credited with having diminished the crime of garotting some years ago. But the crime in question was one that far more deserved that punishment than knocking a man down and stealing his watch. Not long ago, in his diocese, a man attacked a little girl and flung her away in a state of insensibility; and, if that man was scourged to the bone, would it not servo him right? There was, unfortunately, among the lowest class, a superstition as to an advantage to be gained by committing this offence; and that superstition rendered it still more desirable to prevent the commission of the crime by corporal punishment. It was emphatically a poor man's question, as the children of the poor were most liable to become the victims of this crime. For these reasons, He proposed that the Court might adjudge an offender to be privately whipped, "and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence."
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 2, after ("hard labour") to insert ("and the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted may, in addition, adjudge such offender to be privately whipped, and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence.")—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he fully sympathized with the intentions of the right rev. Prelate; but he thought it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, seeing that, beyond importing what would be an entirely novel proposition as regarded the law into the clause, persons who were convicted under it would be, as the clause now stood, liable to a longthened term of imprisonment, or penal servitude for life. Nobody would dream of flogging a man first and hanging him afterwards, no matter what offence he
1386
might commit. Yet this Amendment was really a proposal of that nature, inasmuch as by it a man might first be flogged and then sent to penal servitude for life. Perhaps the Amendment might be more acceptable if it had some limits as to the ago of the prisoners to be so punished, and as to the number of strokes to He inflicted.
LORD DENMANsaid, that that very morning a case had been reported in the newspapers of a boy having been sentenced to six strokes from a birch rod for stealing young ducks; but if the punishment were authorized, it would be necessary to fix the number of lashes to prevent the power being abused. He would, therefore, suggest that the punishment should be limited to 25 lashes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. He should like to know the reason why? The offence was one of the most horrible that could be conceived, the most defenceless class of the community was 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 a 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.
EARL STANHOPEremarked, that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had said that—
"Perhaps the Amendment might be more acceptable if it had some limit of age of the prisoners to be so punished."
He thought that this qualification was most unreasonable; the punishment of flogging was inflicted on persons convicted of garotting, without any limit as to age; persons convicted of an unnatural crime were also punishable by flogging, without any such limitation. Here was a most horrible crime on a defenceless class, which should be punished by flogging; and he sincerely trusted that the right rev. Prelate would divide the Committee on his Amendment, and he, for one, would cordially support him by his vote.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he fully agreed in the Amendment; but he must object to the suggested limitation of age, because flogging was not only more deserved, but was more felt, by a hardened ruffian than by a boy.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he did not think the Amendment imported anything novel into the law, because the punishment of penal servitude for life and a flogging could already be inflicted for highway robbery with violence. If their Lordships only knew, as well as he (Lord Bramwell) 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.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he also believed that flogging would have a more deterrent effect than any other punishment. He once took the opportunity to put the question to a number of the criminal classes, and he found that they preferred months of imprisonment to one flogging.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that, seeing the great unanimity that prevailed among their Lordships, the Government were only too glad to be coerced in this matter, and would accept the Amendment.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, before the Amendment was agreed to, he must remind the Government and their Lordships of the difficulty which was experienced in "another place," with respect to flogging in the Army.
Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed, as an Amendment, to omit the last paragraph of the clause, which empowers the magistrates to exclude the public from the Court during the hearing of a charge.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, leave out from ("labour") to end of Clause.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD FITZGERALD, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed that publicity and the pressure of public opinion were necessary safeguards to the administration of the Criminal Law.
1388
Women and children could, of course, be excluded, and the Press would not report indecent details.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he freely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) that they ought to be extremely careful before they sacrificed the great benefits which arose from the publicity of our Courts. At the same time, this was a matter which had been very much considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and they came to the conclusion that, in these cases, the injury which would be caused to public morals by the publicity of the proceedings would be greater than any benefits which could be gained by such publicity. It appeared to him that nothing but evil could result from allowing a general concourse of men and women to be present in Court; and if the public were admitted, reports of the proceedings would be published that must be injurious to public morals. He regretted that there were newspapers which published cases that had better be left unreported.
LORD TRUROsaid, he fully agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns). He (Lord Truro) was of opinion that reports of indecent cases tended to suggest to the minds of uneducated people offences which they would otherwise never think of committing.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in supporting the Amendment, said, He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the deterrent effect that would be produced on many persons in a superior station in life, contemplating a crime of this kind, by the knowledge that there would be a public trial. It was not an uncommon thing for persons of the upper and middle classes to entreat a magistrate to hear their case in private, because they did not wish their names to be exposed. And the magistrate was often highly praised for refusing that request, on the ground that the dread of a public trial had the effect of seriously deterring a person who contemplated committing an offence. This consideration might be fairly set against the injury to public morals of which the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) had spoken.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it should be remembered that the Bill only empowered the Court, if it should think fit, to order the public

1389
to be excluded from the trial. Consequently, a person who committed an offence could not possibly know whether he would be tried in public or in private.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he most earnestly hoped the Government would persevere with the Bill as it at present stood. He doubted whether Courts had any legal rights, although they constantly exercised the power, without any objection being raised, to exclude women, children, and young people from trials for a particular class of offences. The only ground on which women and young men were excluded from such trials was public morality; and why should the Legislature hesitate to give to the Judges a legal power, similar to that which by general consent they constantly exercised, in cases of the kind to which he referred?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he fully agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Coleridge) that it was desirable that such a power should be conferred in certain classes of cases.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, He fully agreed with what had been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, as to the power of excluding certain portions of the public from hearing particular cases in open Court. On one occasion his learned Colleagues on the Bench and himself considered that very question, and came to the conclusion that they had no power to hear cases in private. He was sorry to differ from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) on this point; but He could not think that any good was done by hearing in public the class of cases which he had in his mind, of which the details were often of an inconceivably revolting character. He had often seen people in Court gloating over such cases, and he was sure such public trials did infinite harm. He had often charged Grand Juries to the effect that, if they had a doubt about a case of that kind, it was better in the public interest to throw out the bill. The persons who committed those offences were of a kind not to be much deterred by a public trial.
LORD DENMANsaid, he believed lie voted for the power to hear privately cases in the Divorce Courts. No doubt, the Judges were without that power; but boni judices est ampliare jurisdictionem.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he hoped that the clauses of the Bill would be clearly arranged, in order to avoid the confusion which often existed in Acts of Parliament when now clauses were introduced.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Defilement of girl between twelve and sixteen years of age).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he thought that the Government was going much too far, and was making that a crime which had hitherto been only considered a moral offence. That clause, moreover, might, and probably would, be made a means of wholesale extortion. Girls of bad character under 16, but looking much older, might inveigle men to accompany them to houses of ill-fame, who, by so doing, although having no intention to do an illegal act, would thereby be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to two years' hard labour, and have no means of escape unless they consented to pay black mail to the girls or their employers. He moved an Amendment limiting the offence to cases of seduction, and raising the age in such cases to 18.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen.")—(The Earl of Midtown.)
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsuggested that summary jurisdiction ought to be given to magistrates in such cases.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the age of consent was a question of degree. Sixteen was the age adopted by their Lordships' Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question was one of the balance of public convenience. The punishment named in the clause was the maximum that could be inflicted for the offence named; and, therefore, it would not be inflicted in cases where there were mitigating circumstances.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
LORD TRUROsaid, he maintained that, the law to protect girls under 12, as it then existed, having failed, it was useless to endeavour to protect girls up to the age of 16. He was convinced that they would never succeed in increasing the morality of the country by limitation of ago in the way proposed. He thought that they must look for improvement rather to more activity on the part of the police, and to more discreet and careful supervision by parents, than to any legislation of this character.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsupported the Amendment, as he thought that at the age of 17 girls were frequently as much in want of protection as at any other time.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that it was perfectly true, as the noble (Lord Truro) had said, that the present law with regard to the age of 12 had failed. For that reason, it was proposed to increase the age, and to make provisions of a different kind. In the Select Committee on this subject, the evidence given established a conclusive case of the necessity of raising the age. He (Earl Cairns), therefore, was in favour of making the age 17, though the majority of the Committee had decided against him, thinking that 16 was sufficient.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after reading the evidence on the subject, I confess that I cannot think it would be wise to recommend the House to extend the proposal of the Government in this matter. It is not abstractedly a question of what we should wish to accomplish, if it were in our power to determine absolutely what should pass and what should be enforced. In that case, there would be a great deal to be said for the ago of 17. But we should have to face a vast mass of silent, tenacious, immovable opinion. As it is, we have had many difficulties in framing a Bill of this kind, and it is certain that it will meet with very great difficulties in the House of Commons. The higher you raise the age, the greater the difficulties will be of enforcing the law, and the greater will be the dangers of extortion on which so much stress has been laid, and which, I think, would excite very considerable attention. But it is not the difficulties which would be raised in the House of Commons that we must alone consider. There would be much greater difficulties when the Bill
1392
came to be dealt with by magistrates and juries. If you go beyond what public opinion sanctions, and attempt to enforce provisions which nature does not seem to justify, there will be insuperable objections on the part of magistrates and juries to enforce the law. It would then fall into desuetude, and all the good you may effect by a more moderate proposal would fail to come about.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Mount-Temple) would not press the Amendment. It was impossible for the Bill to go further than it (lid in respect of age; for, otherwise, the Government felt that public opinion would not support the measure. If the Bill went further than public opinion warranted, it would make things much worse than before.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, He thought that a vast change had occurred in public opinion with regard to this matter within the last few years, which made people realize their responsibility respecting it.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that a large number of persons had taken a deep and self-denying interest in this matter; and it would be a great disappointment to them if the higher age of 17 were not adopted in the place of 16.
LORD NORTONsaid, He also, from the evidence he heard on the Select Committee, supported the Amendment, being in favour of the age being raised from 13 to 17. The question was at what ago a girl should be considered capable of consenting to her ruin, so as to exonerate the man from the guilt of criminal injury in taking advantage of her ignorance. In other countries it was a much higher age than here.
On Question, "That the word ('Sixteen') stand part of the Clause?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 140; Not-Contents 23: Majority 117.
CONTENTS.

Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hertford, M.

Northampton, M.

Salisbury, M.

Grafton, D.

Northumberland, D.

Ashburnham, E.

Richmond, D.

Bradford, E.

Somerset, D.

Camperdown, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Cathcart, E.

Bath, M.

Cowper, E.

Bristol, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Exeter, M.

Dartrey, E.

Devon, E.

Congleton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Conyers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Crewe, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Crofton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Delamere, L.

Granville, E.

de Mauley, L.

Harewood, E.

Denman, L.

Ilchester, E.

Derwent, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Dinevor L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Jersey, E.

Ellen borough, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Fitzgerald, L.

Kimberley, E.

Forbes, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Lucan, E.

Greville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Haldon, L.

Milltown, E.

Hammond, L.

Minto, E.

Harlech, L.

Morley, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Hatherton, L.

Powis, E.

Hopetoun, L.(E. Hopetoun.)

Ravensworth, E.

Houghton, L.

Redesdale, E.

Howard de Walden, L

Saint Germans, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Keane, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort)

Strafford, E.

Sydney, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

Cranbrook, V.

Lawrence, L.

Eversley, V.

Leconfield, L.

Halifax, V.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V.

Lyveden, L.

Hereford, V.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Melville, V.

Mostyn, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Sherbrooke, V.

Strathallan, V.

Ormathwaite, L.

Penryhn, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Poltimore, L.

Aberdare, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Abinger, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Reay, L.

Auckland, L.

Rodney, L.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Romilly, L.

Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

Rowton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Beaumont, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Bolton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Boston, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Brabourne, L.

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Bramwell, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Thurlow, L.

Braye, L.

Tollemache, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Trevor, L.

Carlingford, L.

Truro L.

Carrington, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Waveney, L.

Churchill, L.

Windsor, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

York, L. Archp.

Colchester, L.

Cairns, E.

Coleridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormer L.

Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Mount Temple, L. [Teller.]

Norton, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

London, L. Bp.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Oxford, L. Bp.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Rochester, L. Bp.

Tweedmouth, L.

Blantyre, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Consent no defence to charge of indecent assault on young person).
LORD TRUROmoved, as an Amendment, the addition of words providing that, where a solicitation to immorality could be proved against a girl, she should be required to enter into security for good behaviour, or be liable to fine or imprisonment. He observed that solicitation as often came from a girl as from a man, and said that it would not be just to punish a man with severity, and to allow girls who were equally guilty to go scot free.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 24, after ("indecency") insert ("and in cases where the solicitation to immorality can be proved against the girl she shall be required to enter into securities for good. behaviour or be liable to fine or imprisonment at the discretion of any court, justice or justices, or magistrate.")—(The Lord Truro.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid that the Amendment did not appear to him germane to the clause. He could not, therefore, accept it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEmoved, as an Amendment, after Clause 7, page 2, line 31, to insert:—
"Any person who, being the guardian of a girl under the age of eighteen years, or having the care and charge of her, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, or a manager, foreman, or lodger, or other person whose lawful commands in such service or employment she is bound to obey, unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to have unlawful and. carnal knowledge of, or indecently assaults such girl with or without her consent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted

1395
thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."
This was intended to prevent masters from using their power for the moral degradation and ruin of their dependents with impunity.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would accept the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the ago on the Notice Paper had been originally printed as sixteen, and now it was moved to make it eighteen. The proposal might be right; but it seemed a very strong measure to start suddenly on the House so large an alteration of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the age of sixteen had been put in by mistake, where eighteen was intended.
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, He would withdraw the clause, and bring it up again on the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour).
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEmoved an Amendment, with the object of enabling other persons than Inspectors, Superintendents, or officers of police to initiate proceedings.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 6, after ("rank") insert ("or other person.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he thought it would be objectionable to give this power to the common informer.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that under the Act of George II. any two householders had it in their power to lay information, and thereupon the police constable was required to proceed with the case before the magistrate. But the clause, as it stood, proposed to repeal that portion of the Act of George II., and confined the power to the police alone. It was, in his opinion, of great importance that the power which the two householders had should be retained.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he differed from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough). He believed that the Act of George II. would still remain in force.
1396
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following new clause was agreed to, and inserted, to follow Clause 8:—
(Abduction of a girl under eighteen years of age.)
"Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl, being under the age of eighteen years, out of the possession or against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour."
Clause 9 (Summary proceedings against brothel keepers, &c.)
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that these clauses, taken together with the rest of the Bill, constituted an attempt to squeeze immorality out of existence. The only effect of thus shutting the safety-valve on a force which would find some exit would be to defeat the chief objects of the Bill. On the one hand, it would produce clandestine brothels, disguised as shops and places of business; on the other, it would drive vice into the streets, and defeat the provisions of the Bill against street vice. If they had to make a choice between brothels and street vice, there could be no doubt as to which should be chosen; for the one exposed the innocent to temptation, and the other did not. He was not, however, in favour of repealing the existing Acts against brothels, as such places would tend to become nuisances if the whip of the law were not suspended over them.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 9."—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the law, as it stood, was wholly inoperative to suppress houses of ill-fame. He was perfectly well aware that the clause gave large additional powers to the police; but it seemed impossible to enlarge their powers at all without going thus far. He did not suppose the police would endeavour to stamp out all brothels, which it was impossible to do; but they would, by this clause, be able to deal more efficiently with disorderly houses.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the comparative security of the houses was in itself as great a temptation as lads were exposed to in the streets; and, therefore, the argument for diminishing temptation in the streets might be applied to the suppression of the houses. A Bill of this kind had been forced on the Government, and its object was to improve morality as far as legislation could do it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his experience was that successful proceedings against houses, when they had been taken in that part of London in which he himself resided, had materially diminished the nuisance of street-walking; but the law, as it stood at present, was unique, and far too cumbersome and irksome to secure its uniform administration.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had stated was confirmed by what had been done in the City of Glasgow, where the suppression of the nuisance in one form was followed by its mitigation in the other form of street-walking.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsupported the Amendment, contending that the clause was utterly foreign to the object of the Bill. He thought that the testimony adduced showed that the law was sufficient if it were enforced.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the speeches against the clause amounted to this—that brothels were half desirable, and, therefore, they should not interfere with them too much; and half undesirable, and, therefore, they should preserve a law which did not interfere with them at all. ["No, no!"] Of course, authors did not like other people's abridgment of their works. But the argument involved the logical conclusion that in the interests of morality the houses ought to be licensed, and distinguished by some conspicuous sign. These who took practical pains in this matter knew that the existing law was utterly futile and insufficient to cope with the evil, and they ought either to repeal it, or else make its provisions efficient.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, He must be allowed to express some doubt as to whether the clause would have all the effect its authors imagined or desired it would have. The noble
1398
and learned Earl on the Woolsack had remarked that our position with regard to brothels was unique; but he seemed to forgot that, in almost every Continental country, they were not only restricted, but tolerated and licensed. Efforts made in other countries and in other times to suppress them had singularly failed. The only result of bringing the police into close administrative connection with these houses would be that a system of toleration and licence would spring up, which, while repressing the more open and disorderly brothels, would encourage clandestine ones. He was also afraid the power conferred by the clause was one which might be used for purposes of private malevolence or extortion. He did not, however, recommend his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Pembroke) to go to a Division.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Power to owner of promises to determine tenancy of occupier convicted of keeping brothel) agreed to.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 10, page 5, insert as a new clause—"Every lease or agreement for a tenancy of any premises shall be deemed to contain, if under seal, a covenant, and if in writing not under seal or by parol, an agreement, by the lessee or tenant for himself and his assigns with the lessor and his assigns, that the premises shall not, nor shall any part thereof during the term, be used as brothel or disorderly house; and any power of re-entry contained in such lease or agreement on breach of any covenant or agreement therein contained shall be deemed to apply to such covenant or agreement as aforesaid."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the clause lost sight of under-leases and mortgages.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as he understood the clause, it would be at the landlord's option whether the lease should be voided or not. But it was not clear whether it was the immediate or superior landlord who could exercise the power.
LORD BRAMWELLthought that, if Clause 11 were examined in connection with the section under discussion, it would be seen that the landlord had but little option in the matter.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, that, with regard to the criticism of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he would amend the clause, so as to make it

1399
applicable only to immediate lessor and lessee.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Coleridge) should withdraw the clause, and bring it up again, in an amended form, on the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 11 (Power to court on second conviction in respect of same premises to make owner give security) agreed to.
Clause 12 (Search warrant for detection of brothel).
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 12."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid, he thought that the clause was too wide in its scope, and could hardly pass through the other House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would point out that the clause was most objectionable, as it gave the police power which might be abused, and cause the most terrible injury and outrage to innocent persons, while it would prove useless against those whom it was intended to reach.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would consent to the omission of the clause.
Amendment agreed to; Clause left out accordingly.
Clause 13 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Viet. c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an Amendment, with the object of rendering men as well as women liable to punishment for loitering for immoral purposes in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, said, that hundreds of thousands of poor girls who were employed in factories, and who were obliged to be out late, asked their Lordships for protection in this respect.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("common prostitute and night walker") and insert ("person.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He greatly sympathized with the object of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftes-bury); but he was afraid that the form of words proposed by the noble Earl
1400
was open to serious abuse, and that it would enable any woman of bad character to bring charges for the purpose of extortion against male passers-by of having importuned her for an immoral purpose. It would be better, perhaps, if the noble Earl would bring up, upon the Report, a fresh clause calculated to secure his object.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The Lord Archbishop of YORK, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("loiters and importunes passengers for the purpose of prostitution") and insert—
("Loiters for the purpose of prostitution or importunes or solicits passengers for the purpose of prostitution.")
On the Motion of The Lord COLERIDGE, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 33, after ("discretion") insert—
("Either sentence her to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding six months with or without hard labour, or may (if in the judgment of the court she is under the age of sixteen years) in addition to or in substitution for any such punishment.")
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERmoved, as an Amendment, that the age during which a girl might be retained in a reformatory or certified home should be raised from 16 to 18.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen.")—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest to the right rev. Prelate that it would be more in order to deal with the point on Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 (Certified homes for girls under sixteen convicted of prostitution) agreed to.
Clause 15 (Prohibitions of exclusion from trial, &c., of persons interested).
LORD COLERIDGEin moving, as an Amendment, to provide that any girl or woman who might be concerned in any trial should be entitled to have present thereat any three persons she might

1401
name, and should be informed of this right, said, his belief was that, if tried in a Court without any of their own sex present, girls would often be at considerable disadvantage.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 29, after ("other proceeding") insert ("and any girl or woman who may be concerned as complainant, defendant, or otherwise, any such charge, trial, or other proceeding shall be entitled to have present thereat any three persons in attendance she may name, and shall be informed of this right.")—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, He must object to the provision. It could not be worked, and it was now in the discretion of the Court to allow any friends to be present.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 (Definitions), and Clause 17 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule), agreed to.
Schedule amended, and agreed to.
House resumed.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 112.)

  REPORT.
  (The Earl of Dalhousie)
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister not void or voidable).
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He would now move an Amendment, to give effect to what he considered to be the wish of the House, on the occasion when the Bill was up for second reading. He proposed, with that view, to omit the words "heretofore celebrated or contracted at any place whatsoever within the realm or without." The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Bill having any objectionable retrospective effect.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from ("sister") to ("which") in line 7.—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  1402
  Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He should next propose an Amendment to meet the objections expressed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) at a former stage of the Bill. The effect of it, while excluding the Church of England from the scope of the Bill, was to legalize marriages performed in Roman Catholic or Dissenters' chapels, or before a Registrar.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, after ("Ireland") to insert ("or in any building registered for the solemnization of marriages at which the presence of a registrar is necessary by law"); and leave out from ("elsewhere") to ("shall") in line 13.—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted and left out accordingly.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, He proposed to add words to the Amendment which their Lordships had just assented to, the object of which was to give to these marriages, if celebrated in Roman Catholic chapels in Ireland, the same validity as when they took place in English Catholic chapels. He must explain to their Lordships that Irish Catholic chapels were not registered for marriages, and yet were not places where the presence of the Registrar was required.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, after ("Ireland") insert ("or which shall be celebrated in Ireland by any Roman Catholic priest.")—(The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, Amendment made, in page 1, line 14, by leaving out ("the") and inserting ("such").
  THE EARL Or DALHOUSIEsaid, that, in deference to the views expressed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack on the second reading of the Bill, he would now move an Amendment giving validity, from the date of the passing of the measure, to every marriage already contracted with a deceased wife's sister, and legitimatizing the children of such marriages already born. If any person in the past had contracted marriage in a manner which

  1403
  the Bill would legalize if it were contracted after the passing of the Act, such marriage should be lawful.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 18, leave out ("have been") and insert ("be"), and after ("celebrated") add ("and any such marriage heretofore celebrated or contracted, shall, from and after the passing of this Act, he and be deemed to be from thenceforth valid in the same manner as if it had been duly celebrated or contracted on the day of the passing of this Act according to the provisions thereof, and all children of any such marriages whether celebrated or contracted before or after the passing of this Act, shall, subject to the provisions herein-after contained, be held to be legitimate.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must protest against marriages solemnized in defiance of the law being given, on the day of the passing of the Act, exactly the same validity as the marriages of the parties who had conscientiously waited for the permission of the law would get when theirs were solemnized hereafter. To do that would be directly sanctioning wilful violation of the law. He agreed that innocent children should be treated as legitimate; but he did not see why the parents should not be compelled to be married again, and thought their disliking it no objection. With that object, He would move an Amendment to strike out all the words of the proposed Amendment down to "and all children," and leave that portion of it intact which legitimatized the children.
  Moved, to amend the said Amendment by striking out all the words down to the words ("and all children.")—(The Earl For fescue.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he looked at the question from the opposite point of view to that taken by the noble Earl who had just spoken (Earl For-tescue). In the Committee He had ventured to call the attention of the House to the dangerous principle of the Bill as it originally stood; and he thought that his objection in that respect had now been removed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie). He must confess that he could not see any difference between an Act which itself married people on the day when it was passed, and a measure which would say that the same people might go on that day to the Registrar's Office and get married. In either case the marriages were civil mar-
  1404
  riages, and no more. He, therefore, fully approved of the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie), as it would have the desired effect of taking away the retrospective character of the Bill.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to consider that the Bill favoured the right, and was not contrary to it.
  Amendment (The Earl Forteseue) negatived.
  Amendment (The Bart of Dalhousie) agreed to.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Excepted cases).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, add—
  ("Or where there has been a declaration of nullity of marriage by any court of competent jurisdiction whether before or after the passing of the Act of the fifth and sixth year of King William the Fourth, chapter fifty-four, or where proceedings are pending at the time of the passing of this Act for a declaration of nullity of any such marriage, or where the parties have been separated and are living apart at the time of the passing of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provision for saving rights).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, Amendment made in page 2, line 13, at end of clause, by adding—
  ("Nor any legacy duty, succession duty, or other duty paid or payable to Her Majesty in consequence of the death of any person before the passing of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Proceedings against clerk not affected by this Act).
  EARL FORTESCUE, in moving the omission of the clause, in order to insert instead a provision taken from the Divorce Act, 1857, said, that his only object was, as learned men came to opposite conclusions with regard to the passages of Scripture bearing on this subject, to leave clergymen free to act according to their consciences, without imposing on them restrictions inconsistent with Christian liberty, which was not done by the clause as it stood. Surely those who made a marriage which many divines thought innocent, and

  1405
  most Christian Churches did not absolutely forbid, were entitled to as much consideration as those who had done what not only all Christian Churches, but the Jews and most enlightened heathens, considered unquestionably immoral.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out Clause 4, and insert as a new clause:—("No clergyman in holy orders ox other minister of religion shall be compelled to solemnize the marriage of any sister of a deceased wife, or shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solemnizing or refusing to solemnize the marriage of any such person.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he most earnestly hoped his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) would not press this Amendment. It was in direct antagonism to the spirit of the clause, which, as it stood, had been passed by a Committee of their Lordships' House, after full consideration; and, therefore, he (the Earl of Dalhousie), although he was in sympathy with the views of his noble Friend, could not possibly assent to it now.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following new clause was agreed to, and inserted, to follow Clause 5:—
  (Valid marriages not affected.)
  "(6.) Nothing in this Act shall affect any marriage which, by the law of England and Ireland, and of Scotland, respectively, was valid at the time of the passing of this Act."
  Bill to be read 3a upon Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he would give Notice that, upon the Order for the Third Reading of the Bill, he should move its rejection.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.