BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 31 May 1883)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
, in presenting a Bill providing for the better protection of young girls, said, he had to call the attention of their Lordships to a subject of a very distasteful nature; but there was a popular feeling about the Bill he desired to submit to their Lordships which made him anxious to introduce the measure without delay. He should not then enter into a detailed statement of it, but would simply allude to the foundations on which the Bill rested. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in 1881, in consequence of certain facts which were brought under public notice, it was deemed necessary to appoint a Select Committee of that House in reference to the protection of young girls, and that Committee was presided over by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns). A great mass of evidence was taken, and it had been carefully analyzed; and the Secretary of State, in preparing this Bill, had followed as closely as possible the recommendations of the Committee. He had, in fact, embodied in the measure all the recommendations of the Committee, except the one which suggested that the limit of age for illegal forcible abduction should be raised from 16 to 21 years. After giving the matter full consideration, the Secretary of State had not seen his way to adopt that recommendation. Much regret had been expressed in the districts where the Contagious Diseases Acts had been in operation because it was alleged that the abolition of those Acts would relax the hold which the police had over young girls in deterring prostitution. But he wished to point out that if this Bill became law the local police of the districts 1295 referred to would in future be able to exercise all the powers in those respects that the Metropolitan Police had exercised under the Contagious Diseases Acts. He was aware that the Bill contained provisions of great and peculiar stringency; but their Lordships would have the opportunity of discussing and, if necessary, of modifying them; and he hoped they would recognize in it an honest attempt to carry out the recommendations of their own Select Committee.

§ EARL CAIRNS
said, he was quite sure the Bill was one that would be received with much interest and with very general satisfaction by the House and the public. He should reserve the remarks he had to make in reference to one or two clauses in the Bill until he knew more of the reasons which had led to their introduction, and should be glad, when the proper time came, to hear some detailed explanation why the Government had not adopted the recommendation of the Select Committee in regard to the maximum age in cases of abduction. It was the one point about which the Committee had the least doubt, and it was adopted on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), from his long and wide experience in the administration of the Criminal Law.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
rose, in order to continue the debate, when——

§ EARL GRANVILLE
, interposing, said, he must deprecate any discussion on the first reading of the Bill. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had only made a statement in introducing the Bill; and there would be ample opportunity of discussing the Bill at a later stage.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he had no intention of debating the Bill; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) went through the clauses of the proposed Bill; and he was, therefore, entitled to an explanation on one or two points. He would like to know if the term "procuring" was used in its technical sense; and, also, whether there was any power in the Bill for removing young 1296 children from the custody and care of their parents, or so-called parents, living in unwholesome and demoralized atmospheres?

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, there was nothing in the Bill which would enable interference to be made between a mother and her daughter, even though she were living in a house of ill-fame; nor was there any power of interfering between parents and children. Certain stringent powers had been taken to remove children under the Industrial Schools Act; but they could only be enforced if the children were found wandering in the streets.