§ 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.
§ 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.)
§ 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.
1865§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)