Lords Sitting of 29 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.)* (l30).
Committee—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Fraserburgh Waterworks)* (63).
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (73); Criminal Law Amendment (69–134).
Third Reading — Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (67); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3)* (99); Local Government (Provisional Order (Highways) * (103), and passed.
Royal Assent—Lord Alcester's Grant [46 & 47 Vict. c. 16]; Lord Wolseley's Grant [46 & 47 Vict. c. 17]; Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 18]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders [46 & 47 Vict. c. xliii]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxix]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 2) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xlv]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders [46 & 47 Vict, c. xlvi]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xlvii]; Water Provisional Orders [46 & 47 Vict. c. xlviii].

ARMY — STATE OF THE ARMY—RECRUITING AND ORGANIZATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN,in rising to call the attention of the House to the speech of the late Secretary of State for War, delivered at Pontefract on the 13th of March, 1882, in which he stated that recruits and under-age men are unfavourable features in the corps of 12 battalions, of 1,250 men each, which he had organized to meet an emergency or sudden war; and, further, to the necessity which had occurred before the Egyptian operations of transferring inefficient men from battalions who were the first for foreign service, and replacing them by men of the First Class Army Reserve; also, to call attention to the alarming state of the present recruiting organization, said, he was anxious to give expression, with one exception, to the gratitude of all friends of the Army and the country for the wise and manly admission of the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for War, that the short-service without pension—the Civil Minister of War's system—had
  1840
  broken down, and was to be replaced by the long service with pension—the Duke of Wellington's system, which had proved itself triumphant. The exception was, that the measure was only to be temporary. He had, however, to complain of the ever-varying regulations of the War Office, which engendered much distrust and inefficiency; and he considered that, at the present time, the right course was to forget all differences, and unite in a common effort in working out the remedy for the present unsatisfactory state of things. Without any exultation over the fulfilment of the predictions of himself and his Colleagues, there was nothing they would not do to assist Her Majesty's Government in restoring to the Army its efficiency and the prestige and position which it had, by Heaven's mercy, ever held, and would hold, in the estimation of the world. But, on the other hand, there was nothing they would not do, in fairness and honour, to avert the calamity of such an evil as the revival of the short-service system and its adjuncts, which bore the evidence of the omnipotence of a Civil Minister of War, and his profound ignorance of military matters, but especially of the sine quânon of an Army, its recruiting, by his disregard of the opinions and advice of the Commander-in-Chief, and of an official promise made to His Royal Highness in Parliament—he meant the pari passu case upon which the whole question hinged, which, with attraction of pension, would have insured the triumph of long service. The consequences of those errors were desertions from the regiment itself, and from one regiment to another; fraudulent enlistments without a parallel for a series of years, and want of discipline and esprit de corps in peace. And in war, panics, a fearful military massacre, defeats, and humiliations, such as in Zululand and the Transvaal, unknown before in our annals of war. It was the War Minister's complete ignorance of the vital attraction of long service with its pension, an attraction re-echoed by every officer of experience from the Duke of Wellington downwards, which had brought the Army to the brink of ruin. In 1870 a radical change, so vast and comprehensive as to be a revolution in our military organization, took place under the direction of the Civil Minister

  1841
  of War, who was its author, and to whom was intrusted, for the first time, the quasi-independence of the War Office of the Commander-in-Chief. He did not even possess the military instincts so frequently found in civilians. His antecedents were unmilitary. He had been Private Secretary — he (Lord Strathnairn) had no doubt a good one—to a very pacific Prime Minister, and had held some such other employment. But so long as British statesmanship countenanced the Civil government of the Army—that was a Civil Minister of War, who knew nothing about war or armies, and who acted, not only without the concurrence, but against the advice and opinions of the Commander-in-Chief, with plenary powers to carry out what reforms he chose, and with carte blanche on the Treasury to pay for them—so long should we have to deplore waste of millions of money, when the expense of short-service wars and reverses were taken into calculation, and a great waste of human life, and young recruits called on to bear trials in the hardship of war which the unanimous opinion of the Medical Department declared they were unable to bear. [The noble and gallant Lord then gave a history of the short-service system, and called attention to the number of desertions and the shortcomings of the system.] Resuming, he said he would call their Lordships' attention to the remarks of Sir Frederick Roberts after his return from India, when, in returning thanks for the toast of his health, he said that it was his duty to tell the country the truth as to his experience in the field of the two systems, which he made perfectly intelligible by saying that when his superior in Afghanistan, Sir Donald Stewart, justly selected for his high merits to be Commander-in-Chief in India, offered him the privilege of selecting his own force, a favour from one brother officer to another, which, as Sir Frederick Roberts said, could not be surpassed, he took all the old soldiers, and left all the young ones behind. He (Lord Strathnairn) himself and his Colleagues entertained the same belief, that it was their duty to tell Parliament and the country the truth as to these two Services; and whatever might be the result of this military crisis, it would always be a consolation to them to do their duty by their Sovereign and their country.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley), who spoke for the Government, seldom failed to justify any deficiencies that might be pointed out in the state of the Army, and it was useless, therefore, for him (the Earl of Longford) to enumerate the acknowledged defects of the Service. The noble Earl was apparently satisfied with the official answers that were given, and content to consider an Army on paper as equal to one ready to take the field. None of the present authorities of the War Office were immediately responsible for these defects; but he might earnestly beg those now in power to consider very seriously some matters to which the attention of the Department might be advantageously directed. Without wishing to throw blame on anyone, it must, he thought, be admitted that the present organization of the Military Service of the country had not had satisfactory results. When short service was established, it was announced as one of the first conditions essential for its success that there should always be a Force, sometimes called a Division, and sometimes called a Corps, ready for service. But no such thing had ever been approached; and on the two occasions when Expeditionary Forces of no great strength had been called for, it had not been forthcoming. First, they had had to draw volunteers from other regiments; and, secondly, it was necessary to begin by using the Reserve. He also doubted whether the enrolling of recruits below the standard was filling up the ranks in a satisfactory manner. The system of linking battalions, too, could hardly be said to have realized the intentions with which it had been adopted—the foreign battalion was to be kept complete, without exhausting the home battalion. Result—the home battalion was exhausted, and the foreign battalion was not complete. And as to the territorial system, they did not find it had been successful in bringing their recruits from every corner of the Kingdom, as it was expected it would do, for it was found that the recruits preferred to go to some other regiments than those of their several districts. In one Militia regiment 120 men volunteered for the Line, on the distinct understanding that they were not to go to the local corps. These facts necessarily had some reference to the opinions prevalent amongst

  1843
  officers; and, although he scarcely liked to say anything about their grievances in that connection, he might point out that the prospects of many officers had been so interfered with, and their expectations so disappointed by the endless changes which had been made, that if the noble Earl had the same opportunities that he (the Earl of Longford) had, of hearing their views, he would consider some improvement in the present arrangements. As a matter of administration, he might ask where the new War Office was which they had been in such a hurry last year to protest against as standing across the Mall? There were no signs that the erection of the building was about to be taken in hand, though the necessity for it had been recognized for the last 20 years. In his opinion, the time had come when these questions should be faced; they were but a few of the complaints usually made as to the Army, but they were, he was convinced, so well founded that the efficiency of the Service largely depended on their removal.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, he felt that there ought to be no politics in military matters, and after the very candid and lucid way in which, three weeks ago, his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) responded to a Question put by the noble Earl below himself (the Marquess of Hertford), who had held the office of Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Longford), he should not feel justified in saying a word which could increase the difficulties of the War Office. But all that had been adduced by the noble and gallant Field Marshal (Lord Strathnairn), who had preceded him, was thoroughly true, and his opinions, and the opinions of the noble Earl who had just spoken, were in effect the opinions of 99 out of 100 of the regimental officers of the Army. They were the last who had been consulted during the last 12 years, and they had scarcely had a word to say about the changes that had been made. The failures, which were being somewhat tardily confessed, arose from the English system of trusting her Army to civilians, which was adopted by no other civilized country in the world. If they were allowed to remain in Office, and to acquire the necessary experience, the Army would have far less to complain of. But the practice
  1844
  was that Secretary of State after Secretary of State was changed, and the moment a man got a smattering of experience in the War Department he was superseded by another. While subaltern Officers of the Army were required to pass very stringent examinations, no steps whatever were taken, by way of examination, to ascertain whether the Secretary of State for War knew anything about Army matters. So long as we went on this way, so long should we have serious failures. He knew he should be told that there were military men in the War Office, who were from time to time consulted; but if they inquired who they were, they would find that there was hardly a regimental officer among them. He was afraid it was now most thoroughly ascertained that, year after year, during the last 12 years, military affairs had been more and more taken out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and placed in those of the Secretary of State for War. The noble Viscount (Viscount Cardwell), whose absence from the House he regretted, he was sure was prompted by the best wishes for the welfare of the Army when he propounded his scheme contrary to the opinions of regimental officers. Twelve years had elapsed, and it had entirely disappointed the expectations that had been upheld as to its success. Our first line of defence was crumbling away, our Reserve was hardly worth the name, and we had about 20,000 men instead of the 80,000 men the noble Viscount promised us. At a cost of £3,500,000 we had erected extensive barracks to carry out the territorial system, which had broken down; and we had given up our grand old regimental system, which the Duke of Wellington and others had considered the best system in Europe. The fact was the barrack was no longer the home of the soldier; the time of service was so short that the officers could not possibly become accustomed to the men, and the drill, consequently, could not be properly performed, for they did not know each other as they used to do; the men could not settle down and feel at home; and the men did not feel the same confidence in their officers as they once did. In the old days of long service, an officer knew that, if he lost his life in the Service, his widow and children would be taken care of; but now, they knew little of each

  1845
  other. The medical men knew nothing of the rank and file, were less able to detect malingering, and had no opportunity to become acquainted with the constitutions of the men, and to win their confidence. Then the men could have no confidence in new doctors whom they had, perhaps, never seen before, as they could have in the old regimental surgeons. The short-service system was not applicable to a volunteer Army. It might be all very well in Germany or France, where the Army was enlisted by conscription; but with our voluntary system it was not possible to make it work. He would, therefore, appeal to the Government to revert, as soon as it could, to the long-service system, though, of course, it would be a question of time. He was glad to see that the Marquess of Hartington, a short time after he became Secretary of State for War, allowed service with the Colours to be extended to 12 years; but he was afraid the mischief was done. The men who had been three years in the Service would not accept the offer to be made to them. They had not been living comfortably, and they were anxious to get away to their former employments. They would, however, find in many cases that their places had been permanently taken by others, and they would have to begin life again. Thus, the Reserves would become the worst enemies of recruiting, and their complaints of the Service and of their own condition would deter others from enlisting. He had seen in The Times of June 6, a letter from Captain Walter, a gentleman well known to many of their Lordships as the head of the Corps of Commissionaires, in which he stated that, during an experience of many years, he had heard no complaint of the strictness of officers, but the greatest possible dissatisfaction with the many recent alterations, and the total abolition of the old regimental system; that the system of double battalions had destroyed the possibility of the officers taking that personal interest in the men which they used to take. Captain Walter went on to state that, when an officer began to take interest in his men, they were liable to be drafted off to a fresh battalion, where they would never see them again, and that the men felt the uncertainty of a position which they would soon have to give up and start life afresh. The
  1846
  feelings expressed by Captain Walter were, he believed, shared by almost every officer in the Service.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Rules of the House with respect to Questions were not very strict; but, on that occasion, they had been stretched to the utmost limits of laxity. Whilst the Notice of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn) was to call attention to the state of recruiting, he (the Earl of Morley) had had, upon that Notice, a large number of Questions put to him, he was afraid to say upon how many points, few, if any, of which had anything to do with the Question on the Paper. Short service, the building of the now War Office, the constitution of that Office, and other matters, had been brought forward, which he had great difficulty in connecting with the Notice of the noble and gallant Lord. How ever, he had no wish to complain, though he felt at rather a disadvantage in having to face the formidable triumvirate of noble and gallant Lords opposite. He did not know whether the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), or any other noble Lords who had been in Office, would endorse all the statements of his noble and gallant Friends opposite. It appeared to him that the bulk of the speeches was against the Civil constitution of the War Office. That was a question undoubtedly of importance, on which he was not then prepared to enter; and as to the constant change from one Office to another, he must say that he should regret extremely any change at the present time, but he was not so sure that noble Lords on the other side of the House entertained the same opinion. The debate had practically resolved itself into a debate on the merits of long service v short service. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn) had stated that three results had followed the establishment of the short-service system—first, that desertion had increased; secondly, that there was a great deal of fraudulent enlistment; and, thirdly, that there was a deficiency of recruits. He (the Earl of Morley) had already dealt with all those questions over and over again. It had been said that our disasters in South Africa were mainly owing to the number of short-service men. The fact really was that in almost all the actions in South Africa,

  1847
  in which we had suffered reverses, the proportion of old soldiers was very much greater than that of young ones. Then with respect to desertion, from what had been said, you would imagine, unless you looked at the figures, that desertion was the result of the short-service system; but he found that there was but little increase of desertion since that system had been introduced. Those figures showed that, during 10 years of long service, there was more desertion in proportion to recruits than during the same period of short service; and it was to be remembered that a large proportion of desertions took place during the first years of service. He knew his noble and gallant Friend sneered at and despised official statistics; but he had no others to give, and his noble and gallant Friend had given no facts or figures at all in support of his statements. If he would tell him (the Earl of Morley) what other figures he could quote from, he should be happy to know. The noble and gallant Lord was equally inaccurate on the subject of recruiting. It was idle to say that the short-service system was shown to be unpopular by the difficulty of obtaining recruits. It was that difficulty which formed one of the reasons why the old system broke down. The fact was, that so far from short service being more unpopular than long service with the recruits, during the last 10 years of long service, that system had been so unpopular that it was never possible in any single year to keep the Army up to its Establishment. On an average, on the 1st of January every year, it was 4,000 below its proper strength, and in those 10 years there was a total decrease of 39,000 men; whereas since the short-service system had been introduced, with one exception—that of last year—there had been no year in which the Establishment on the 1st of January had not been quite full, whilst almost in all cases it had been considerably more than full. He was not speaking on his own authority only with respect to the long-service system. The Report on Recruiting, in 1867, would give the noble and gallant Lord information on the subject, and he would see that it was a question then whether the whole Army was to collapse for want of recruits. How was the fact to be explained, that, up to the present, they had been able to get an ample number
  1848
  of recruits to fill the Establishment, whereas under the long-service system it had been found impossible? He did not wish to quote figures, but would just mention that up to the year 1870 it was barely possible, except on one occasion, to get more than 15,000 recruits for the year, whereas for the last 10 years the number obtained had varied from 25,000 to 30,000 recruits. There was that number of approved recruits, and when the number of men who offered themselves was reckoned, the comparison was still more favourable. Last year, indeed, there were over 45,000 men desirous of entering the Army. He could not see how any noble Lord could say, after that, that short service had rendered the Army less popular. There was another thing he wished to refer to. His noble and gallant Friend, who had given rise to the debate, had put down a most inaccurate Notice, with a reference to a speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) at Pontefract on the 13th of March, 1882. Now, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War could not be in two places at once, and it so happened that he did not speak at all on that day at Pontefract, although he did speak in the House of Commons. If the noble and gallant Lord had read the whole of the speech, he would have seen that his right hon. Friend explained how it was that the 1st Army Corps, at that time, could not be considered in a thoroughly satisfactory state. It was there explained at length that the high establishments of the battalions of the 1st Army Corps—namely, 950 strong, exclusive of depot battalions—had only been sanctioned a few months before, and the Secretary of State for War was not a wizard who, by a stroke of the pen, could bring up every battalion in the Army to its full strength. Then the noble and gallant Lord, not being satisfied with one inaccuracy, went on to speak of certain battalions of 1,250 strong. Certainly, these must have been evolved out of the noble and gallant Lord's own inner consciousness, for nobody ever proposed to have battalions of that strength. The 12 battalions were to be 950 strong, with depots varying from 50 to 150. It was also said that the futility of the system was shown by their having to call out the Reserves to fill up the ranks; but he had already

  1849
  said that the plan had only been in existence for five months and had not had time to be fairly tried. On the whole, only 1,500 men of the Reserve were transferred to the 14 battalions which were sent to Egypt; and, indeed, he believed only 1,300 were actually employed in the ranks out of 10,000 who were called out from the Reserve. He hoped that they would now have heard for the last time that the Army sent to Egypt was insufficient, and that it had to be made up with Reserve men. The noble and gallant Earl opposite (the Earl of Longford) alleged that the territorial system had failed, and asserted that the only way to get men into the Army was to enlist them in regiments away from their depôts. If the noble and gallant Earl would refer to the annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, he would find a table, showing the number of men in each regiment who were born in the district to which their territorial regiment was attached. He was at a loss, therefore, to understand how the noble Earl could justify his assertion. The noble and gallant Earl had said that he would, on a future occasion, bring before the House the whole question of the Civil administration of the War Office. Thus he (the Earl of Morley) was relieved from the necessity of entering upon that Constitutional question at the present time. He must, however, disclaim the compliment paid to the Secretary of State for War, for having replaced the short-service system by the long-service system. They intended to make an experiment in order to meet a temporary emergency; but the allegation that they had returned to long service he absolutely denied. Moreover, he denied that the Government, in the changes they had made, had, in any way, departed from the principle upon which short service was based; and he thought it would be a great misfortune if they did so. He felt perfectly certain that they could not get recruits under the old long-service system; whereas under the present system, recruits were actually obtained. The fact that we had in our First Army Reserve 30,000 men who, on all occasions when they had been called out, had come out almost to a man, showed, he ventured to think, in spite of the opinion of the noble and gallant Lord, that they added a great
  1850
  strength to the military power of this country.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had made an excellent official explanation; but if he would go down to Aldershot he would be able to see for himself the kind of Army provided by the present system. He was glad to find he had been misinformed with regard to the influence of the territorial system upon recruiting, because he himself had belonged to a regiment which had been unable to get any recruits at all in their own district.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNbriefly replied.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Earl of Rosebery.)

  (NO. 128.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he trusted that, as the measure had now been made applicable to Scotland as well as England, it would be carefully examined by the Law Officers for Scotland, with the view of making its phrases applicable to the Scottish Criminal Law. There were certainly some terms which required alteration, in order to adapt the Bill to the new state of circumstances.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the matter had already been before the Government; and, with their Lordships' permission, he would insert Amendments which had been approved of by the Lord Advocate, with the view of adapting the Bill to Scotland.
  Clause 2 (Procuring woman under age to be a common prostitute).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 8, to insert after the word "woman," the words "under twenty-one years of age," said, this was originally stated in the Bill, but it had been struck out, and as the clause now stood in the amended Bill, it was made a misdemeanour punishable with two years' imprisonment to procure, or endeavour to procure, "any woman" to become a common prostitute. It seemed preposterous to make it a high misdemeanour to endeavour to induce a woman of mature years to become a common prostitute. Prostitution was not a crime. It,

  1851
  to a certain extent, resembled drunkenness. It was a moral offence, of which the police only took notice when it became a public nuisance. He believed that it was originally intended to make the Bill applicable to women under age, and he trusted that the Government would see their way to leave the Bill as it was originally framed.
  Amendment snored, in page 1, line 8, after ("woman") insert ("under twenty-one years of ago.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in opposing the Amendment, said, he would remind their Lordships that they had already discussed and decided the subject in Committee; the limit of age had been struck out, and the clause amended as it now stood. The Government, therefore, saw no reason why they should accept the proposal of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown), and depart from the alteration then made. He must deny that the original intention of the Bill was that described by the noble Earl. Although prostitution was not a crime, yet to induce other people to commit it might properly be made an offence.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he trusted his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) would press his Amendment, and that it would be accepted by the Government. The object of the Bill would be defeated, if this matter was left in such a general shape.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it would be well if something like uniformity could be introduced in the Bill with regard to the question of age. As the Bill stood, in one clause one age was mentioned, and in other clauses other ages. He would ask whether it would not be advisable to make them alike as regarded the point of age? By accepting the Amendment they would make the want of unifomity still greater.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: Contents 60; Not-Contents 28: Majority 32.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Hertford, M.

  Richmond, D.

  Salisbury, M.

  Somerset, D.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Bath, M.

  Brownlow, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Camperdown, E.

  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause further amended, and, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Defilement of girl between twelve and sixteen years of age).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out, in page 2, line 15, the word "being," and insert "who may reasonably be supposed to be," said, he did so with the object of carrying out the agreement expressed by Her Majesty's Government when the Bill was in Committee—

  1853
  that they would assent to the insertion of words in order to protect persons from charges of offences which they had no intention of committing, and to mitigate the danger of extortion.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 15, to leave out ("being") and insert ("who may reasonably be supposed to be and is.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he objected to the Amendment. It would reduce the elements of the Bill to an absurdity; and, further, he wished to know who was to be the judge of age? His Amendment was, that, before a man could be convicted of seducing a girl, it must be shown, not only that she was under 16, but also that she might reasonably be supposed to be under that age.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsupported the Amendment.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, the question of ago was one which would have to be left to a jury.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that this was a matter on which it would not be possible to adopt any steady standard of justice. In his idea, something was necessary in order to guard against and prevent grossly absurd or unjust prosecutions; and, with a view to give that provision, he would suggest that the assent of the Public Prosecutor to the proceedings should be required. If the question went to a division, he should not be able to vote for the Amendment, which did not seem to meet the difficulties of the case.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment, as it would make the clause unworkable. According to the Amendment, the jury would have to decide what was the opinion that the offender held as to the girl's age. That was a question which a jury ought not to be asked to decide. The suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), with regard to the Public Prosecutor, should be considered before the third reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he also thought that the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) would make the clause unworkable; but that the suggestion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was worthy of consideration.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill; but he thought that, unless they took care not to go too far, they might defeat their own object as regarded it. It had been well remarked, that they must take care not to go too much in advance of public opinion on a matter of this kind. He said nothing as to what might be the fate of the Bill in "another place," because he did not think that that was a matter that should weigh with them much; but the consideration that he would like to press upon Her Majesty's Government was, whether they were not running a very great risk of defeating a most laudable object, and of turning public opinion against the Bill, by keeping it so drastic as it had been made on a previous stage.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), that the Public Prosecutor should have to give his assent before prosecutions of this character were instituted, was one that was worthy of consideration.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, as the clause stood at present, a wholly innocent person might be convicted, and that was a terrible possibility. As to the Amendment making the clause unworkable, all the better; for, perhaps, that would be the best thing that could happen.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Non-Contents 52: Majority 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Selkirk, E.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Cairns, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Derby, E.

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

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Ducie, E.

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

  Granville, E.

  Braye, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Morley, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Reay, L.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Wrotteseley, L.

  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Consent no defence to charge of indecent assault on girl under sixteen).
  LORD FITZGERALDmoved, as an Amendment, to reduce the ago from 16 to 14. The age mentioned in the clause was 16, and if it were allowed to remain it would completely revolutionize the law, by making it possible to commit assaults with the consent of the person assaulted.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 27, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("fourteen.")—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the Select Committee had recommended that the age should be raised from 13 to 16, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) now suggested that it should be reduced to 14. It was, therefore, a question of degree, and he hoped that the decision of the Select Committee would be upheld.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he wished that a Bill on so unplea-
  1856
  sant a subject could have been sent to a Select Committee. He supported the Amendment, on the ground that great injustice might not improbably be done by the Bill as it stood; while, if experience showed that the Amendment made an inadequate provision, the age might be raised on another occasion. He should like to ask noble and learned Lords, whether, as the clause stood, it would not affect a marriage with a girl under 16? Would not the husband of a young girl married at that ago be liable to two years' imprisonment under the operation of the law?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, in answer to the question of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), he did not think any noble and learned Lord in the House would confirm such a proposition as that advanced by the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, at any rate, the word "unlawful" was not contained in the clause, everything approaching it having been struck out; so he thought it was open to the objection he had raised. It would be an act of wisdom to accept the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that few questions had produced more Petitions to their Lordships' House than this, and the majority of them asked that the age of consent should be fixed at 18. It would be a grievous disappointment to the persons signing those Petitions if their Lordships reversed the decision to which they had already come on the previous stage of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he should like to know whether the Petitions mentioned by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) did not really refer to Clause 5, and to an offence more serious than indecent assault, against which only the present clause, as it originally stood, was directed?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was true that some misapprehension had arisen, because they had introduced into the present clause, which said that consent should be no defence to a charge of indecent assault, an Amendment making consent no defence against the more serious charge under Clause 5; but the present discussion related solely to the offence of indecent assault and the age of consent.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that the only question was, the age at which a girl should be supposed capable of consenting to an indecency which, if she was not considered responsibly consenting, would amount to an assault. The existing law would be unaltered, except as to the raising of the age requiring such protection to 16.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, it was extremely inconvenient that a question fully discussed in Committee should be raised without Notice, and in the absence of Peers who were specially interested. He would remind their Lordships that, on the former occasion, the Committee were perfectly unanimous upon the point as to raising the limit of age to 16. Anomalies might as easily arise with regard to the age of 14, as with that of 16. Be·yond that, the danger of abuse would be averted, as well as a protection against extortion given, by the consent of the Public Prosecutor being required to a prosecution; while, if the age were not lowered, the public would not think their Lordships were serious in dealing with admitted evils.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that, in his opinion, their Lordships were perfectly justified in moving Amendments at any stage, particularly as the Bill contained provisions foreign to its main object. He was not sure whether, in the interests of morality, this clause was necessary, seeing that due protection was already given by an earlier clause of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE,in opposing the Amendment, said, that, in his opinion, it would allow a girl of 15 to consent to the sacrifice of her honour.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, although he should support the Amendment, he thought it was unfortunate that it had not been placed on the Paper.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he should support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald). He deplored the introduction of the age of 16 instead of 13; and he believed, when the Bill went to the House of Commons, the latter would be the ago fixed. He had ascertained by inquiry made among managers of reformatory and reclamatory institutions and the clergy connected with them that in the great majority of cases—say 99 out of 100—the girls were themselves the seducers
  1858
  and the parties from whom the temptation came.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he understood the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack to say, on Clause 5, that he would take into consideration the question whether it was not desirable that the assent of the Public Prosecutor should be required in all cases under that clause. Would the noble and learned Earl also consider the propriety of requiring that such assent should be obtained in regard to all offences under this clause?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) had stated that the Government would consider the suggestion made by the noble Marquess. He had no doubt his noble Friend would agree with him that the Proviso, if adopted, might be extended to the other clause as well.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in his opinion, it would be more convenient for their Lordships to reserve their decision on this point until the third reading. They would then go to a Division, knowing much better what they were about. In the meantime the Government could consider whether, in every case prior to a prosecution, the consent of the Public Prosecutor should not be obtained. On that understanding, he would recommend the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) not to insist upon the acceptance of the Amendment at present.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would assent to this suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEproposed a penalty to deter men from using their authority and trust for the ruin of their dependents, and moved, after Clause 6, page 2, line 35, to insert as a new clause—
  "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 any 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 in-

  1859
  decently assaults such girl with or without her consent, shall he guilty of a misdemeanor, 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."
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Mount-Temple) would not press the clause. It seemed to him that the Bill was already suffrciently weighted without it.
  Clause (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 7 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanor).
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in moving, as an Amendment, to insert words, providing that the clause might be put in operation by—
  "Any parent, relative, or guardian of any such girl, or any other person, who, in the opinion of the justice, was bonâ fide acting in the interest of any such girl,"
  said, there was no reason for excluding the friends of the girl from giving evidence to the magistrate.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 6, after ("rank") insert ("or any parent, relative, or guardian of any such girl or any other person, who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ.fide acting in the interest of any such girl.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would accept the words now proposed, and would propose to add to them, "or any two householders."
  Amendment (The Earl of Dalhousie) disagreed to.
  Amendment (The Lord Mount-Temple) agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of MILL-TOWN, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 20, leave out ("committed") and insert ("charged"); and in line 21, after ("trial") insert ("and may also order such girl to be sent to a Certified home within the meaning of this Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, with further Amendments.
  Clause 8 (Abduction of a girl under eighteen years of age).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion of words providing that such girl should be taken
  1860
  away for immoral purposes to constitute it an offence. As the clause stood, a person who made a runaway marriage would be subjected to the punishments mentioned in the Act.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 33, after ("take") insert ("away for immoral purposes.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Summary proceedings against brothel keeper, &c.).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH,in moving the omission of the clause, the first of those which dealt with brothels and brothel keepers, said, they were an attempt to go beyond what legislation could usefully attempt, and to deal with questions which should be left entirely to the sphere of morals. The effect of those clauses would be to drive prostitution into our streets. The attempts to put down brothels had, by driving women on the streets, already made our streets a scandal and reproach to all civilized countries. They might, by law, suppress the exhibition of vice and immorality, but suppress it altogether they never could, for it never had been done. They would, most likely, make it more general; and, in addition, they would make the annoyance of respectable householders more likely. In countries where outward decency was preserved vice and immorality yet prevailed to a great extent. He asked their Lordships to consider whether it was wise or prudent to legislate in the manner proposed by these clauses. There were ample means provided, under the existing law, for suppressing the evils aimed at by them.
  Moved," To leave out Clause 9."—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, that the noble Marquess who had last spoken (the Marquess of Bath) did not seem to remember that the object of the Bill was not only to suppress brothels as dens of immorality, but also to put some check on tyrannical proceedings to which some wretched girls about the town were subject. At present, a parent whose

  1861
  daughter was concealed in a brothel had no efficient legal means of recovering her. Brothels were illegal; and they ought either to repeal that law, or else to provide efficient means for carrying it out. The Bill enabled the authorities to carry out the existing law more efficiently. Quite enough would still escape to satisfy the most liberal demand.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he also agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) in objecting to these clauses, and he did so, because they went a great deal further than the Report of the Select Committee of their Lordships with reference to the protection of young girls. By putting these clauses into the Bill, and sending them to "another place," he believed that they would be giving a proof that they had given way to good feelings at the expense of common sense. he believed the Government proposed to do more than they could, by any possibility, carry out, for it would be found very difficult, if not almost impossible, to enforce the provisions of these clauses, or to attempt to put down immorality by legislation, such as was proposed. In the other House, the Government had given up the Contagious Diseases Acts; yet now, in these clauses, they were interfering in the most decided manner with the liberty of people.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he must ask their Lordships not to agree to the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Bath). The law already made brothels illegal, and said that they should be put down. But, as a general rule, the law was not put in motion, because "what was everybedy's business was nobody's business;" and the object for which these clauses had been inserted was to enable it to be worked effrciently.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he would support the Motion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath), because he believed that legislation of this character was always ineffectual and undesirable.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that brothels and disorderly houses were a nuisance by law and by public opinion; but the existing enactments failed in their execution. These temptations to vice and disease ought not to continue unchecked in spite of the law. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Motion, for, in his opinion, it
  1862
  would be a great pity not to increase the powers of the law, so as to enable these improper houses to be put down.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the supporters of these clauses desired to see them adopted, not because they wished to do impossible things, but for the purpose of suppressing those dens of vice which the law already stigmatized, but to cope with which the means now provided by the law were insufficient.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he felt himself compelled, after much hesitation, to support the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Bath). He thought it would be advisable to strike the clause which was under consideration out of the Bill; for, if it were omitted, the chances that the measure would be well received in the other House would be greatly increased. In his opinion, it was very objectionable that the places described in the clause were to be put down, not at Quarter Sessions, but in virtue of the powers contained in the clause.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had often heard from one of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Agents that legislation similar to these clauses had once been carried out at Berlin; but that it had caused such great disorders and risks to respectable women, that in about 10 days after the law had been put in force it had to be repealed.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that, according to the evidence before the Select Committee, there had been much difficulty in rescuing girls from foreign brothels. He thought the police ought to have power to enter them at the instance of parents of girls; but, even if the Bill were deprived of power over brothels, it would still be a good Bill for England.
  On Question, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 28; Not-Contents 26: Majority 2.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, B. Archp.

  Bangor, L. Bp,

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Blantyre, L.

  Morley, E.

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

  Northbrook, E.

  Redesdale, E

  Braye, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Norton, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Denman, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Bath, M. [ Teller.]

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Ashburnham, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Powis, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Norwanton.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Truro, L.

  Hill, V. V

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Chesham, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNgave Notice that he should move the omission of the clause, as also Clauses 10 and 11, on the Motion for the third reading.
  Clause 12 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving an Amendment for the purpose of extending the operation of the clause to the case of every man who, in a public thoroughfare or public place, "importunes or solicits girls or women for immoral purposes," said, it was most unjust to leave one class at liberty and the other not. If this was a Bill for the protection of young women, this Amendment was absolutely necessary. A number of young girls were sent out to work in factories and workshops, and having to return home late at night were exposed to every kind of danger, solicitation, and annoyance. If their Lordships would listen to the cry of tens and hundreds of thousands of mothers, and to the representations of the girls themselves, who knew the risks to which they were exposed, they would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 6, line 7, after ("prostitution") insert ("and (2) every man who in any such
  1864
  thoroughfare or public place importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), for the reason that it was too dangerous to introduce into the Bill, and would lead to too much abuse.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it was impossible not to sympathize with the object of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury); but the effect of the acceptance of the Amendment might be that if any man—one of their Lordships themselves, for instance—spoke to a woman in the street, even from a charitable motive, he might be liable to be charged, by a designing or unscrupulous person, with the offence of importuning or soliciting.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Not-Contents 28: Majority 17.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Winchester, L. Bp,

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Blantyre, L.

  Braye, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Denman, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Norton, L. [Teller.]

  London, L. Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Bath, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Camperdown, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Morley, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Shuute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Powis, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Thurlow, L.

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

  Truro, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Clinton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 13 (Certified homes for girls under sixteen convicted of prostitution), amended, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BUSINESS—STANDING ORDER No. 128.

  RESOLUTION.
  Moved, That in the Journals for the 26th of Juno the following passage be omitted:
  "Then it was moved, That it is not desirable to alter Standing Order No. 128., or to substitute for Standing Order No. 128. a new Standing Order (The Lord Auckland); after debate agreed to;"
  and that in substitution thereof the following words be inserted:
  "Then it was moved That the further consideration of the proposed alterations in Standing Order No. 128. be not proceeded with; agreed to."
  The said Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past, Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.