Lords Sitting of 20 July 1914

LORD D'ABERNON.
Sir Edgar Vincent, K.C.M.G., having been created Baron D'Abernon of Esher in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD MICHELHAM—Took the Oath.

PACK-BERESFORD DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Henry John Pack-Beresford of Kellestown House, in the County of Carlow, Major, with Sybil Maud Pack-Beresford, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes—Presented (on Petition) and a copy of the Proceedings in and of the Decree of Divorce of the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland: Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1ª, and to be read 2ª on Thursday next: The usual orders made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill ought to be dispensed with.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTERN ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCE) BILL.
Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit from the Bill Clause 24—
As to traffic services on work No. 1.
24.—(1) For the purposes of this section—
The expression "the company" shall mean any authority company or person working or running any service of mechanically propelled omnibuses on any part of the new roadway (Work No. 1) by this Act authorised:
(2) The company shall pay to the council a sum equal to three-eighths of a penny per car mile run by any such omnibus over the new

3
roadway (Work No. 1) by this Act authorised towards the cost of the maintenance of such roadway. All sums of money payable to the council under the provisions of this section shall be paid quarterly and shall be deemed to be a debt due to the council and recoverable from the company accordingly.
(3) The company shall keep daily records for the purposes of this section showing in proper detail the number of journeys and the mileage run by each such omnibus of the company on the new roadway and shall furnish statements of such journeys and mileages quarterly to the council and the company shall allow any person duly authorised by the council in that behalf at all reasonable times to inspect and take copies of all such records awl any accounts kept by the company relating to the running of any omnibus of the company.
(4) All sums received by the council under the provisions of this section shall be carried to the general county fund.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment first on behalf of those who, like myself, are interested in the general free user of the roads, and, secondly, on behalf of the Road Board, who have from the commencement opposed this clause; and I ask your Lordships to omit it also on the ground that if this question is to be dealt with at all it should be by general legislation. I do not in any way claim to represent the interests of the particular motor-omnibus companies affected by this clause nor those of motor-omnibus companies in general. They are quite able to watch their own interests. The companies concerned were represented before the Parliamentary Committees by able counsel, and it is not part of my business to-day to argue over again the case which was very well put before the Committees of both Houses when the Bill was being considered in those stages. But there were certain points not mentioned before the Committees and other points which I think were not sufficiently emphasised, and to-day I propose to draw your Lordships' attention chiefly to those points which concern that aspect of the question.
It cannot be denied that there is a general consensus of opinion that heavy motor traffic, including traction-engine traffic, should pay more towards the maintenance of the roads. No one can use the roads to-day without seeing the immense amount of damage done by heavy traffic to roads which are quite capable of carrying the ordinary motor-car and horse traffic, but are not constructed for this heavy traffic. I am one of those who think that we must have general legislation on this question, and I throw out as a sugges-
4
tion that it would be perfectly fair, for instance, to ask heavy motor traffic to forego the rebate of 1½d. on motor spirit and to pay, as we all do who use motor cars, 3d. a gallon, and that amount might be used by the Road Board in paying for special damage or in giving grants in aid of maintenance in addition to the present grants for new work.
This case of the new western road is unlike other cases that come before your Lordships, inasmuch as the Road Board have given £400,000 towards the estimated cost of snaking this new road. I had a conversation on the subject with Sir George Gibb, the Chairman of the Road Board, and he has authorised me to say that when we gave this large sum of money for this necessary western exit out of London we never had it in contemplation that there would not be a general user of the road. When we have given grants we have always insisted that the general public should have the same rights over the particular road as over any other road—namely, the rights of free coming and going; and if we had thought for a moment that this clause would have been inserted by the Committee of the other House and agreed to by the Committee of your Lordships' House we should have taken a different view of the position and probably would not have given so much towards this particular improvement.
The object of constructing this exit is to surmount the great difficulty which many of us have experienced of getting out of London westward. There is the well-known narrow neck at Brentford only thirteen feet wide, and there are other places where congestion occurs between Knightsbridge and Hounslow, and it was to get rid of this congestion that the Road Board made this large grant towards the construction of this western road, and we hoped that as much traffic as possible would be diverted from the old narrow road to this new road, which is, I may mention, being built stronger than other roads especially in order that it may be able to withstand heavy modern mechanically-propelled traffic. Therefore we were naturally very surprised when we found that the Committees of both Houses had passed a clause whereby three-eighths of a penny per mile per motor-omnibus is to be charged over a portion of the new roadway. The anomaly of the position is that there is to

5
be no charge made for traction-engines and heavy lorries. In other words, a traction-engine can go along that road weighing up to sixteen tons and pulling two trucks weighing ten tons each, and motor-lorries can go along the road conveying an amount of heavy material weighing very much more than a motor-omnibus. These traction-engines and motor-lorries are not only heavier than motor-omnibuses, but they are run on steel-tyred wheels and therefore do more harm to the roads than motor-omnibuses, which are run on rubber-tyred wheels. Yet motor-omnibuses are to be charged mileage, whereas no charge is to be made in the case of these other heavy vehicles.
About a fortnight ago the Government announced that they were going to appoint a Joint Committee to go into this question of heavy traffic, and to recommend what alteration should be made in the law or what regulations should be issued by the Local Government Board on the subject. That announcement was, I am sure, welcome news to many of the home counties near London, the ratepayers of which are heavily burdened in the matter of road maintenance for traffic originating outside their borders and from which they get no benefit whatever. The whole question is one which needs careful consideration, and to treat this subject in the piecemeal way proposed in this Bill and make a charge for a particular five miles of road, a new road specially designed to carry heavy traffic, is, in my opinion, to deal with the matter in the wrong way. The Road Board offer no opinion themselves, and I do not pretend to voice their opinion, on the question as to whether or not heavy traffic should contribute. When I say that it should, that is my personal opinion.
In regard to the proposal contained in the clause which I am asking your Lordships to delete, the Road Board thought it wise to put on record in a letter to the Local Government Board some of their objections to the proposal, and on June 15 they wrote setting forth their objections to the clause, the gist of their letter being that—
"motor-omnibus traffic does not injure a road properly constructed and properly maintained."
That, I think, is a self-evident proposition. We have evidence of that fact constantly,
6
not only from surveyors in large provincial towns but from surveyors in London. The opinion of the latter is that none of the great trunk roads of London—Piccadilly, the Strand, Regent-street, and so on—have been damaged by motor-omnibus traffic. I could even quote evidence from surveyors to show that the cost of road maintenance in Westminster and Marylebone has decreased from what it was at the time when horse-drawn omnibuses were on the roads. There is no provision in this Bill which will prevent motor traffic from continuing to use the old road, and therefore one of the objects for which the Road Board gave this large contribution—namely, that the traffic should be diverted on to the new and properly constructed road in order that the congestion which now arises on the old road should be avoided—will be defeated.
Decisions under the existing law given in many cases decided in your Lordships' House and in Courts elsewhere have laid down the general right of user of the roads, subject alone to the question of extraordinary traffic. I believe that every distinguished lawyer now admits that the question of extraordinary traffic is an exceedingly difficult, one, and one of the objects of this Committee which is to be set up will be, I understand, to make clear the law on that point, and, if possible, to lay down more precisely what extraordinary traffic is. At the present moment I cannot do better than read to your Lordships a passage from a judgment by Lord Moulton, in which, in a remit case, he laid down the law relating to the user of the roads. He said this—
"The community have come definitely to the conclusion that absolute freedom of user coupled with common upkeep of the roads is the wisest thing for the nation."
That states in general terms the general right of user of the roads by the public as a whole. I could read other quotations from judgments on that point, but I do not think my argument will be contested by the promoters of this Bill.
I submit that if the Middlesex County Council feel that they ought to make some charge in respect of this user of the new road by motor-omnibuses, it would have been wiser if it had been subject to one or two other conditions. One would have

7
been that there should have been evidence taken after three years user of the road by this class of traffic, and that then some approximate amount should be charged for special damage. Another way would have been to ask the Road Board their opinion on the matter, and the Road Board might have given even more than they have given rather than allow the Middlesex, County Council to make this special charge. I maintain that, supposing the Middlesex County Council are right in their contention, there is plenty of time within the next two years in which to deal with the matter. I may remind your Lordships that this road will take a long time to construct, certainly not less than two years, and before it will be fit for use there will be, no doubt, sufficient regulations on the subject and the difficulties will probably be swept away.
It is a dangerous precedent to set up a special toll on five miles of this new road. When they begin with one kind of vehicle there is nothing to prevent their proceeding with another kind. This proposed charge upsets the whole of our highway law ever since the Act of 1868. Moreover, if we allow these privileges to the Middlesex County Council, which spends a very small percentage of its income on its roads, how can we refuse the same kind of relief to agricultural communities which suffer much more from traffic of this kind? I leave the case there, and I trust that your Lordships will give it your consideration. Speaking both as a student of road matters and as a member of the Road Board, I think this is an ill-advised clause, and I hope your Lordships will agree to delete it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 24.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which has just been moved. This matter is not a local one only; it involves a general principle, and one that I think ought to be very carefully considered. The general principle to my mind is this, that by this clause a special tax is going to be put on a special kind of vehicle. The effect of that will be that these vehicles will either avoid the new road altogether, or the proprietors will recoup themselves by charging higher fares. One of the great problems of the day
8
is how to obtain quick, cheap, and rapid transit from our large towns to the country. We are always complaining of the congestion of population and the difficulty there is of obtaining houses for working people and the lower middle class, and it is therefore of the greatest importance that the poor man's motor-car, which is the motor-omnibus, should be as cheaply run as possible. If a special tax is going to be put on motor-omnibuses, the fares charged must necessarily be higher than is absolutely necessary. It is quite open to argument that heavy traffic ought to be taxed more than light traffic, but I cannot see where the argument comes in if you tax only one particular kind of heavy traffic. Traction engines sometimes have behind them six enormous trucks, almost like railway trucks, which break up the strongest road. Why are not they to be taxed if motor-omnibuses are to be taxed? You ought to go on some general principle and tax all heavy traffic or none at all. Therefore in the interests of the public and in the interests of getting the working people out of our towns rapidly and bringing them back rapidly, I support the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved to omit this clause.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, as chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House by whom this Bill was considered, I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment to delete this clause. This is a Bill promoted by the Middlesex County Council to make a new road which will form a very important outlet from London to the West of England. The new road leaves the main road at Hounslow, and passes through Brent-ford, but not on the route of the present Brentford road, and joins the West of England road on the other side of Brentford. Many of your Lordships know the condition of the old Brentford road. As long ago as the old coaching days this road was condemned as one of the worst approaches to London. Nothing, however, was done. But when motor-omnibuses came into existence a new road became absolutely necessary, and with the creation of the Road Board came the possibility of construction. The Road Board agreed to contribute 75 per cent. of the total cost of construction, the other 25 per cent. falling upon the ratepayers of Middlesex. The length of the road is five miles, and the estimated cost £500,000.

9
The question of motor-omnibuses is the question which is dealt with by Clause 24. Your Lordships know the enormous damage which is done by motor-omnibuses to country roads all over England. These vehicles have got on to the roads under conditions extremely favourable to themselves. In the case of a tramway undertaking the promoters have to come to Parliament, and Parliament imposes conditions upon the tramways for the upkeep of the roads. It is not so with motor-omnibus companies. All the owners have to do is to obtain a licence, and having got a licence they can establish a line of omni-buses on any of the existing roads without anybody's leave; they may damage the roads as much as they like, and you cannot get anything out of them. We had it in evidence before the Committee that at the annual meeting of the urban district councils held last year, at which 200 councils were represented and 400 delegates were present, the following resolution was passed—
"That this conference is of opinion that local authorities should have the power of laying down defined roads for omnibus traffic, and such traffic should contribute towards the cost of road maintenance in addition to the petrol tax at present levied."
The petrol tax at present goes to the funds of the Road Board, and the motor-omnibus companies claim that, inasmuch as the Road Board has contributed to the cost of this new road, they (the motor-omnibus companies) have contributed in that way to the original cost of construction. That is not disputed. But that does not alter the fact that they will be absolutely free, unless this clause remains in the Bill, from ever paying anything at all for the damage which they may do on this new road. That is the case with all roads throughout the country. It is only when a new road is constructed and before that road is dedicated to the public that the road authority—in this case the Middlesex County Council—can come to Parliament and ask to be given a clause putting some restrictions on this motor-omnibus traffic. That has been done in the present case.
When this Bill was before the Committee of the other House the Middlesex County Council asked that they should have the right to prohibit motor-omnibuses coming on to this road at all. The Commons Committee thought that that was going too far, but they agreed that motor-
10
omnibuses should contribute to the upkeep of the road. That is the history of how Clause 24 came to be inserted in the Bill in the other House, and this clause was agreed to by the Committee of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) is quite right when he says that motor-omnibuses carry a large number of persons belonging to the class of the community who cannot afford any other form of motor carriage. But, of course, the motor-omnibus is not a benevolent institution upon wheels run for philanthropic purposes. All these motor-omnibuses are the property of companies trading for profit, and if you put a charge upon them for the damage they do to the roads you diminish the profits, and that explains the opposition of the motor-omnibus companies to this clause. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment asked why motor-omnibuses should be taxed and not other heavy mechanically-propelled vehicles. The reason is that the traffic of motor-omnibuses is continuous; they pass to and fro frequently. The noble Lord said that he could produce evidence that in Westminster and Piccadilly motor-omnibuses did not do much harm to the roads. When the traffic is congested motor-omnibuses have to go slowly and do less damage. But on open roads they go swinging along at a rapid pace and do more harm. I do not know whether the noble Lord objects to the principle of taxing motor-omnibuses for the repair of roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I stated that I was in favour of some scheme whereby you could make the taxation of heavy vehicles a general principle, but that I was not in favour of dealing with the question in this piecemeal manner.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I understand that the noble Lord does not object to the principle of taxing motor-'buses, but thinks that this is the wrong moment to begin on account of anticipated legislation which is to proceed from the intention to appoint a Committee to inquire into this matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say when we shall get this legislation. It may be three or four years before anything is done. Are we to make no attempt in the meantime to put some charge on this motor-omnibus traffic which damages our roads?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has made some rather remarkable statements about motor-omnibuses and the London roads. May I say, first of all, that no doubt it is against principle to go back to what may be called to some extent the old turnpike system as regards charging specifically the vehicles that use the roads and not throwing the whole of the cost on the general taxpayers. But I think that principle ought to be revised to some extent, because when you have these tremendous changes introduced by new machinery and an enormous cost cast upon the already heavily burdened ratepayers, it is time that you should reconsider the principle of whether you should not put some specific charge on a particular class of vehicle that does a particular amount of damage to the roads. I agree that on principle it would be better that that money should be charged by the Central Government, and that then a larger grant should be given to the local authority by the Central Government in order to make up for the damage. But one has had particular experience in the London County Council of the treatment local authorities get from the Government. The Government are rather fond of laying taxes on specific forms of property that we thought were particularly our own; and they promised us in various cases when the tax was imposed that we were going to get half of it. I am afraid that if they had the taxation in this case we could not accept their promises, and therefore as a pis aller, perhaps, it is better that the money should in the first case go to us.
These motor-omnibuses can not only run on one road but they can run on any road they choose. I am perfectly content that if they are properly controlled they should not have a specific charge laid upon them; and on the London County Council we have again and again asked that we should have, not only for London but for Greater London, a road authority which should control the streets on which motor-omnibuses should run, and that they should not have freedom to run on any road. Lord Montagu, with some temerity, I thought, considering that he is a member of the Road Board, told us that very little damage was done by the running of motor-omnibuses on the London roads, and he cited one or two cases. It
12
is quite true that, as regards the maintenance of the roads, there is some saving to be set against wear and tear; but that is only true of one or two particular places in London. I can give this very strong evidence the other way, that I have been battering at the Road Board to give us in London other improvements, and what is the reply of the Road Board? Their reply is that so much damage is done by this new form of traffic to the roads that for the present they will give us nothing, but will concentrate the whole of their grants on the actual maintenance of the roads themselves, showing that in the opinion of the Road Board an immense amount of damage is done by motor-omnibuses, and I think it is common knowledge that it is so. Therefore although I feel that the principle is a dangerous one and no doubt the matter should be fully examined, I shall support the noble Duke's Committee in this specific instance as a protest against the way in which motor-omnibuses are allowed to roam freely over the whole country without control being exercised over them by any central authority.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, one observation made by the noble Duke opposite was received with rather general applause, and I was not altogether surprised at it. I refer to the observation that motor-omnibuses seriously damage country roads. That is so. In many cases when heavy vehicles like motor-omnibuses are put on country roads it is in no sense a user of the road, but a destruction of the road. In those cases motor-omnibuses should be prohibited from travelling on those roads at all. But that comparison does not apply to this proposed new western road. This road is to be constructed in the most modern way. It is to be an urban road of the most possible urban character, with concrete foundations and wood blocks on the top, and the damage that will be done to it by motor-omnibuses will be very small. A letter appeared in The Times a few days ago from Mr. Shrapnel Smith, an authority on this subject, who pointed out that this proposed tax, if levied on the omnibus services using Piccadilly, would more than suffice for the entire maintenance of Piccadilly and the streets used by these motor-omnibuses.
I think, with the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that there is a great deal to

13
be said for the proposal to control the routes of these vehicles and prevent them using streets which are unsuitable, but the proper way to do that is not to proceed by piecemeal legislation with regard to particular bits of thoroughfares here and there when opportunity arises and to propose a sort of local tax or octroi. I admit that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his petrol tax the general principle was, to some extent, departed from, and it may be that there is a general opinion now that heavy traffic ought to pay more in respect of the roads. I think the same thing might apply mulatis mutandis to light traffic. But are you to have a London borough, when it brings up a General Powers Bill or something of that kind, or when it comes to Parliament for some gas undertaking, imposing a special tax on, say, a portion of Piccadilly or King's-road, Chelsea, and saying that no motor-omnibus is to travel over that half mile without paying a local tax? If you once admit this principle of local charges, where are you to stop? I am not interested in this personally, but I am interested in seeing some sensible principle applied to the matter.
It seems to me a rather serious thing, as we learn from the noble Lord opposite, that this large contribution was obtained from tire Road Board from funds to which motor-omnibuses have been a rather heavy contributor without any intimation, that the Middlesex County Council were going to propose on this new road made with this money to levy a special and obnoxious tax of this character. But if you are going to tax motor-omnibuses why not tax other heavy vehicles? The noble Duke said the reason was that the other heavy vehicles only used the roads occasionally, but I venture to assert that they use the roads with great frequency. London is very much disturbed with large traction-engines drawing sometimes very heavy trailers, and these with their iron-tyred wheels must do a great deal more damage to the roads than motor-omnibuses with their rubber tyres will do in this case running on a road which is supported by concrete.
When the Bill was passed which constituted the Road Board, there was a principle enunciated to which the proposal in this clause is directly contrary. I was at that time in favour, and I am still, of the Road Board limiting the use of a portion of a road to special vehicles for which it
14
may be fitted, say, for instance, a cycle track by the side of a road. It is no use the road authority providing a certain part of a road for ordinary bicycles—I mean push bicycles—if that is going to be cut up by the wheels of carts. I thought it might be good to do what is done in the Champs Elysées in Paris and limit one portion of the road to motor traffic. But at the time the Road Board was constituted all these proposals were put on one side, and the opinion of Parliament was declared that all roads to which the Road Board contributed should be public highways, and by that I think Parliament meant that they should be open to the public as all our highways are. The power of levying taxation of this kind will not have a good effect, because the traffic may go through the old Brentford road and may continue the congestion, or it may go through by-roads and cut them up. Bat if it goes through this new road, then those for whom motor-omnibuses cater will have to pay more in fares. To motor-omnibus proprietors it is a matter of dividends; that is the ground of their opposition. But there was also opposition, which unfortunately owing to the rules of your Lordships' House was not admitted to a locus standi, on the part of the Roads Improvement Association, totally disconnected with the motor-omnibus agitation, and I think we could have placed before your Lordships' Committee figures which would have gone very far to rebut the evidence of the Middlesex surveyor as to cost. In all these circumstances I hope your Lordships will think fit to await the result of some general legislation, and will not begin by cutting up the country piecemeal into little toll gate districts.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I ask permission to say a few words on this subject, because I have this session been chairman of a Select Committee which inquired at considerable length into a Bill dealing with a very similar subject to that which is now under your Lordships' consideration. In case you might be led to think that this is a singular or isolated instance, I should like to remind the House generally that there are no less than 20 Acts of Parliament—they have already passed, or are in course of being passed—dealing with this very subject.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: This case differs from all those in that the Road Board have given a contribution of £400,000.
LORD BARNARD: The Committee of which I was chairman had the greatest difficulty in coming to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject because there were no general principles laid down which could guide them, and I would urge upon His Majesty's Government to lose no time in appointing some proper body to inquire into the subject with a view to laying down some satisfactory principle which can be applied to all Bills of this description. With regard to what the noble Duke has said about motor-omnibuses being run for private profit, may I supplement that by stating that the clause with which my Committee had to deal bad nothing whatever to do with motor-omnibuses running for private profit, nor have many of the other cases. They are cases where corporations are seeking to run motor-omnibuses outside their own borders.
I sympathise entirely with Lord Meath's suggestion that motor-omnibuses are the motors of the poorer and humbler classes and I think they are entitled to have roads on which they can be rim, but the question as to who should pay for the damage which these motor-omnibuses do has to be considered, and some satisfactory solution ought to be found before it goes any further. We were told in the evidence that was given before us that a motor-omnibus when loaded weighed nearly six tons, but a peculiar circumstance in connection with it is that four tons are on the hind axles and two tons on the front axles, the result consequently being that there is a considerable knocking action which damages roads far more than any other kind of action. But I do not suppose the damage in this particular case will be so great. Another point to bear in mind is the frequency with which motor-omnibuses run. A heavy traction-engine, even if it goes once a day each way, is nothing compared with this continual knocking action of motor-omnibuses in the case, say, of a quarter-hour service from eight o'clock in the morning till nine or ten o'clock at night. I hope that before this debate closes your Lordships will hear from the Government Benches what steps they propose to take to deal with this very great difficulty. As to the proposed contribution of three-eighths of a penny, our Committee heard a great deal about that but declined to put it into the Bill because nobody could tell us the principle on which it was based. The explanation,
16
no doubt, is that a half-penny had been suggested by one side and the other side had suggested a farthing, and they split the difference.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the representative of the Local Government Board the House would, perhaps, like me to intervene for a few moments in this discussion. It has not been the practice of the Local Government Board, as your Lordships are aware, to interfere with the decisions of Private Bill Committees as regards details of this sort. Their practice has rather been to point out to the Committees what the objections to, or the advantages of, any proposals of this sort may be. I disagree with Lord Montagu in his statement that this case is entirely different from other cases because of the fact that the Road Board has given a very large grant. If this were a national question it would rather mean that no charge at all ought to fall on the local rates for the maintenance of this road, but although a large sum has been given to the Middlesex County Council towards the cost of the construction of this road, yet the cost of its maintenance will fall entirely on the county rates. Therefore there is a precedent for the Middlesex County Council asking that some such clause as has been inserted in other Private Acts should be put into this Bill in order that the ratepayers of the district through which this traffic, which is not a local but to a large extent a national traffic, passes, should be relieved of some part of the cost of maintenance. Again, it seems to me that there is a good deal of difference between motor-omnibus traffic, which is excursion and pleasure traffic to a large extent, and that of heavy motor traction; not that I wish to say one word against heavy motor traffic paying a fair share towards the cost of the roads, but it seems to me that motor-omnibus traffic stands by itself. For if you put a tax upon heavy motor traffic, which is trade, you may be fairly said to be to a very large extent putting a tax upon trade, whereas, as I have said, motor-omnibus traffic is largely a pleasure traffic. Motor-omnibuses go out ten, twenty, or thirty miles into country districts on pleasure, and are no advantage at all to those localities.
The noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause did not refer to the

17
circumstances attending a similar Motion in the other House. I think he, like myself an old member of the House of Commons, will admit that it was very remarkable that when a Motion was actually made on Report in another place that this should be considered "this day three months," mover could not even get a seconder, which shows the strong feeling there is in the House of Commons on this question. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord will be endangering this Bill very much if he makes any alteration in it. It would be much better, I suggest to him—and this is the view of the Local Government Board—that this question should be hung up until the matter has been thoroughly threshed out by the Joint Committee of both Houses which is to consider the whole question of the use of the roads by motor-omnibuses, and, incidentally, whether they should pay anything towards the cost of maintenance.
I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord whether it might not be desirable to amend the clause so as to provide that, it any general legislation should Subsequently be passed altering or abolishing this proposed charge, it should apply to this Private Act. A provision of this kind in a Private Act can only be altered by a Public Act when specific direction to that effect is given in the Public Act—that is to say, general legislation by itself would not apply to Private Acts which had been passed giving local authorities a right to make a charge upon motor-omnibuses using the roads; but by adopting my suggestion the noble Lord would protect his friends on this particular point, and, at the same time, his action would not prejudge, as I think we ought not to prejudge, what is going to be the decision of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of whether or not motor-omnibuses ought to be made to contribute to the cost of maintenance. We are all agreed that this is a question which ought to be threshed out. But if your Lordships were to strike out this clause it might be very well held that one House had considered the matter already, and had prejudged any decision at which the Joint Committee might arrive.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, after the very full discussion that has taken place upon the merits of this
18
clause, I do not feel that I ought to take up much of your Lordships' time with reference to it. Your Lordships are in a certain difficulty, because whilst we are discussing a clause of a particular Bill applying, as has been said, to a road merely five miles long, we are at the same time very much more than on the verge of the far greater question of principle, and that question, already a very great one, is increasing in urgency every day. Those of your Lord ships who read the Sunday newspapers will have noticed a column advertisement of a prospectus which opens up a tremendous vista of motor-omnibus traffic far greater than anything we have yet dreamed of. In this prospectus London, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, Hastings, Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Ramsgate, and Margate are referred to as one system. There are others mentioned, and it is obvious that we are on the brink of very great developments in this matter.
I should regret very much if your Lordships did not support the Committee which heard the full details in this particular case. The noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board has suggested that general legislation will probably result—I do not think I am putting it too high—from the labours of the Joint Committee which we are looking forward to seeing appointed, but I suggest to him that if general legislation does result from the proceedings of the Committee, as I hope it may, there will be no difficulty in inserting in the Bill which carries out that general legislation a clause to the effect that it is to apply to any case such as this which your Lordships are considering and such as the twenty or so cases which have been already referred to by Lord Barnard as existing. I think that would be a more convenient course than inserting in this one Bill out of the twenty odd an Amendment to that effect. I think we can trust the general legislation to take care of itself in a case like that, should such general legislation result. In this particular case, I feel that the matter of principle has been carefully gone into by a Committee of your Lordships' House; they heard all the evidence, and I say, with all respect to the speeches which have been made this afternoon—I have, of course, read all the evidence—that I find all the points that have been raised in the discussion this afternoon mentioned in the

19
evidence, except the points referred to by Lord Russell—the points which, as he said, owing to the question of locus standi, which was perfectly correctly decided by the Committee, were not put before them.
And may I point out this. The principle we are discussing this afternoon is not whether certain heavy vehicles should make a contribution to the rates. The principle we are discussing is whether vehicles which make a profit out of the roads should pay a contribution. I do not wish in any way to prejudice the decision of the Joint Committee. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has kindly consented to serve as chairman of the Joint Committee when it is set up, and I am sure he will not be prejudiced by any thing that is said this afternoon. But I feel that in this case, where a Committee of your Lordships' House have heard all the evidence fully and have come to this decision, your Lordships would be unwise not to support them in their decision, more especially as no facts have been brought forward which were not before the Committee. I should therefore regret it if your Lordships did not decide to allow Clause 24 to remain as part of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I should like to answer briefly one or two of the points that have been raised in this discussion. I stated that I agreed with the general principle that heavy motor traffic should pay more, and I am not surprised to find that the noble Duke and the other members of the Committee who considered this Bill agree with that idea. The noble Earl the Lord Chairman said that there was a special case for this charge in regard to motor-omnibuses because they made a profit, but I would point out that every commercial van—the vans of Maples, Harrods, and so on—which conveys the articles of the great London firms also makes a profit indirectly, and therefore should be considered.
LORD BARNARD: Municipal corporations also run motor-omnibuses to make a profit.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Just so. I do not wish to detain the House further, but I have made what I think is a good protest against this clause. None of my objections to it have been removed, and I regard this as a bad piece
20
of legislation. But I have been to some extent convinced by what the noble Earl the Lord Chairman said, that when this question is being considered, in view of the Report of the Joint Committee which is to be appointed, there will be a convenient opportunity to insert a clause which will deal with all these cases of London, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, and other places. I assume that it is the general opinion of the House that that is the most convenient course, and in those circumstances I shall not press my Amendment. But I still think that this is a dangerous precedent, and it is only because I am convinced that before this road is fully constructed this point will be considered by the Joint Committee that I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.
GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 178.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CAMBS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

UPPER MEDWAY NAVIGATION AND CONSERVANCY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
YORK CORPORATION BILL.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Onslow be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Braye; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 15th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Adjustment of Married Women's Transfer Value) Regulations, 1914;
2. Provisional Regulations, dated 11th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Essex and Southend Insurance Committees) Regulations, 1914;
3. Provisional Regulations, dated 18th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Order Inquiry) Regulations, 1914:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 179.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL. (No. 180.)
EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL. (No. 181.)
Read 1ª, and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
Read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Thursday next (The Lord Strachie). (No. 182.)
POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 183.)

THE KING'S CONFERENCE.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, before your Lordships take up the important public business which is down for discussion to-day, I wish to ask two Questions of my noble friend the Leader of the House with reference to a matter of extreme importance which has arisen only to-day. I do not ask the Questions with a desire to initiate a discussion; on the contrary, I rather hope there will be no discussion on the general policy of the step which has been announced to us. But there are two considerations in connection with it to which I desire to call my noble friend's attention, and with respect to which I should like to be relieved by his assurances. The first is the question of the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for the step which has been taken in calling together the Conference which is to assemble to-morrow. The announcement of this consultative body was made in two or three organs of the Press—I saw it myself in The Times—but not generally made this morning; and, of course, it was made with no real authority as to the conditions on which the consultation was summoned.
I have been told that in another place a statement has been made by the Prime Minister, but this House has no official knowledge of what has been said there. I understand that the Prime Minister was silent on the question of Ministerial responsibility for the step which has been taken. His Majesty has commanded certain persons to attend to consider certain questions to be put before them. Nothing was said of the concurrence or the advice of His Majesty's Ministers in respect of the step so taken. I think it will be generally conceded that no act of State of this kind could have been taken without not merely the concurrence but without the advice of His Majesty's Ministers. It is not sufficient that His Majesty's Ministers should acquiesce in such a step, and by acceptance of the summons signify approval of the act. It is their act, whoever initiated it, inasmuch as it is an act of the Crown done on their responsibility. I am sure my noble friend will reassure us on that point, and settle this doubt as to the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the step taken.
The next matter on which I should like to be reassured is as to the appointment of

23
this body. I am afraid this step will be viewed by the world at large as something like a supersession of Parliament. Of course, that cannot be. But it is true that it looks a little like a slur on the ability of Parliament at all events to lead to a successful issue the difficulties which have arisen. Seeing how badly some of us here talk occasionally of the House of Commons, and what the estimate of this House is as expressed sometimes in the other House, it is perhaps not surprising that there should get about a notion that Parliament is a body which has lost its efficacy and its powers, and this act of bringing into existence this consultative body may be regarded by the ignorant as a supersession of Parliament itself. I am sure my noble friend will tell me that whatever this body may do is, of course, subject to the limitation that the authority of Parliament remains supreme, and that the last word which will be spoken will be spoken by Parliament. These representative parties interested in the subject under dispute, with Mr. Speaker at their head, will constitute an important and authoritative body, and their conclusions will command the greatest respect and almost demand acceptance. Still, the right of Parliament to re-examine every conclusion arrived at, and, still more, the right of Parliament to pronounce a final opinion of its own with respect to the matters deliberated upon, must always be reserved. These are the two points which I think it is desirable should be made clear at once. If I am rightly informed, nothing was said on either point elsewhere, and the other House is reduced to that position that it is impossible there to discuss anything. But here we have that liberty, and with a plea for forbearance for exercising that liberty I put my Questions to my noble friend.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sure my noble friend behind me will forgive me and I am confident that my action will be approved by the House generally if I only reply in the very briefest terms to the two Questions which he has put to me. I entirely agree with him that it cannot be necessary in a matter of this kind to engage in anything like a general debate on these two points which my noble friend, as a faithful guardian of constitutional practice, desires
24
to bring before our notice. As regards his first Question, I can say simply that there has been no abrogation whatever of Ministerial responsibility and no departure whatever from constitutional practice, in the circumstances in which His Majesty has summoned representatives of various parties and interests to meet and consider these supremely important questions. And on my noble friend's second Question, I can assure him with equal confidence that there has not been, and, as he himself admitted, cannot be, any intention to supersede the authority of Parliament in this matter, and no such result can conceivably follow. The noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) will remember the former constitutional conference in which he and I were both concerned. It was then, I think, equally understood and made clear in that case, too, that there could be no suggestion that those who took part in it claimed any rights or made any pretensions contrary to the supreme authority of Parliament. Precisely the same, no doubt, will be the case in this instance; and I hope, therefore, that the short answer which I have given to my noble friend will be completely reassuring.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3ª on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Age of consent to be sixteen years in cases of indecent assault. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 45.
1. Section two of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1880, shall be read and have effect as if there were inserted therein the word "sixteen" instead of the word "thirteen."
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE) moved to leave out Clause 1, and to insert a new clause. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the effect of the proposal in the Bill, if it were to pass, would be that carnal knowledge of a girl under eighteen would be a criminal offence, and I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the position in which the matter stands. But before I do that I wish to say a word about the manner in which the Government have approached the consideration of this Bill. Unquestionably we are face to face with great social evils, which have existed for long, which have been imperfectly dealt with, and with which the time has come, with the rising standards of public opinion, when we should make further efforts to grapple. That I say not on any mere ground of sentiment. The progress of knowledge is showing us that venereal disease and promiscuous relations between the sexes unrestrained are the cause of much of the misery which afflicts a large number of people in this country, misery of which the worst feature is that the innocent suffer—the children suffer, the mothers suffer, the public suffers—and consequently the whole of the questions which are touched here and many other questions which are not touched here are attaining to a prominence which they have not had before. The Government have therefore felt that this Bill is one which deserves sympathy and support wherever they could give it sympathy and support.
On the other hand we have, of course, had to watch these matters very closely. There are a large number of people who feel these things very strongly, who get a particular case on which they are entirely right, and who, ignoring the fact that besides that particular case there are ninety-nine other cases which are equally likely to happen, legislate for that one case regardless of the grievous injustice that they do in other instances. Now what is proposed by Clause 1 of this Bill is this. If a girl under sixteen consents to an act of sexual intercourse or even instigates it, that still is to be taken to be an offence committed without her consent, and therefore to be treated as an indecent assault.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Not intercourse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is one case of it. But the difficulty is still more glaring where there is no intercourse and where the girl has herself instigated what has taken place. There you are calling that an indecent assault which is not an indecent assault at all, but something which has taken place with the assent, and, it may be, at the instigation of the girl herself. When you pass laws of that kind, if you do pass them, there is one result which invariably follows. Human nature being what it is, juries decline to convict and your law becomes inoperative, and I think one of the most, lamentable features is that you should find that the tribunals will not enforce your law.
Consequently we have looked at this question as raised by the right rev. Prelate from a more general point of view. We cannot agree with him that it would he right to make that an indecent assault which is not an indecent assault at all. It is an indecent assault, in the case of a girl under thirteen, to have intercourse or to have something less than intercourse, because it is presumed that she is a child and does not know what she is doing. But with a girl nearly 16 the state of things is quite different. The precocity which some girls at that age exhibit who are habitual prostitutes is very remarkable. I have not thought it right to confine myself merely to the valuable advice that I have received from the Home Office, but I have been in communication with one of the most experienced London magistrates, before whom an enormous number of these cases have come. I have

27
also had the personal advice of the Public Prosecutor, and I have seen several individuals who are engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law in London and who have had special experience with these matters, one or two of them men of very great authority as well as very great experience. They all advise me to the same effect, that there is a real evil to be dealt with but that it should be dealt with in a different fashion from that which the right rev. Prelate proposes.
I therefore propose to leave out Clause 1, and to insert the new clause which I have put on the Paper and which I will explain very briefly to your Lordships. First of all, we hold it plain that if you are going to make it an offence to commit an act of indecency with a girl just under sixteen, the offence is one which ought not to apply to a boy under sixteen. Remember, this is not a case of consent at all; it is a case in which the mere act is in itself an offence; and as a girl at that age is presumably more precocious than a boy—she very often is—to make it an offence irrespective of the age of the person who commits it would, we think, be wrong. We therefore take the age of sixteen under which, as I suggest, a boy should not be convicted under the Statute. Then we do not use the term "indecent assault" at all. We say, "Any person over the age of sixteen who commits any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen," etc. We say "thirteen or over" because under thirteen it is already provided for by other Statutes, notably the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. But between thirteen and sixteen we are creating a new offence to meet the case which the right rev. Prelate has made, and which is a real case with which we think we are dealing in the right way. The offender will have a defence that he had reasonable cause to believe the girl was of or above the age of sixteen, but the limitation of that is that if the girl is under fourteen that defence will not avail hint. We think that if she is under fourteen he ought to know it, and should take the risk of it. Therefore if the girl is under fourteen, as I say, the defence of her appearance being misleading will not avail.
We put in a proviso that "No person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one person only, unless that witness is corro-
28
borated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused." Those of your Lordships who have had experience of Quarter Sessions know what corroborative evidence is and how it is forthcoming, and you also know the danger there is in those cases of imaginative charges. Then we put in a proviso which is meant to have this effect. Suppose a girl turns out to be under thirteen, then you cannot convict under this law but you can convict under the old law and its following analogies, notably the analogy of the Incest Act. We enable a conviction to take place if it is proved that the offence comes under the existing law although it is not the offence charged in the indictment. That, as I say, is a subject on which there are a good many precedents. Then there is this further safeguard. It is quite right that a man should be arrested when he is seen committing an offence of this kind, and it is quite right that he should be arrested if the charge is brought on the belief that the charge is true. But when you get further I am advised by those of great experience that the danger of this class of case is so great that it is expedient that, after the case has come before a justice of the peace, the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney-General should be consulted and that his consent should be given to further proceedings taking place. That is obviously put in to deal with the danger of blackmail, and the large class of dubious cases which always arise in connection with this legislation. That is the substance of what we propose, and, if I may venture to say so to the right rev. Prelate, I think it is likely to be a much more effective clause for attaining the object he has in view than the clause in his Bill as it stands. I therefore move to leave out Clause 1 with the view to substituting the new clause which I have just described to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
Acts of gross indecency with girls between 13 and 16.
—(1) Arty person over the age of sixteen who commits any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, unless he proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years, and that she was, in fact, of the age of fourteen or upwards.
Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one person only, unless that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.
(2)—(a) If, upon the trial of any indictment for an offence under this section, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of an offence under this section but is guilty of indecent assault, they may acquit the defendant of the first-mentioned offence and find him guilty of indecent assault; and
(b) If upon the trial of any indictment for indecent assault upon a girl, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of that offence but is guilty of an offence under this section, they may acquit the defendant of indecent assault and find him guilty of an offence under this section;
and in every such case the defendant shall thereupon be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for the offence of which he is so found guilty.
(3) If any person is charged before a justice of the peace in England or Ireland with any offence under this section, no further proceedings shall be taken against that person without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, except such as the justice may think necessary, by remand or otherwise, to secure the safe custody of that person.
(4) The second column of the First Schedule to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall include the offence constituted by this section, and there shall be inserted accordingly in that column the words "committing any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I must first thank the noble and learned Viscount for the great care and trouble he has undoubtedly taken over this matter. I understood from him at the Second Reading that he was entirely friendly in spirit to my object; and I am not only grateful to him for the trouble he has taken, but I wish I could see my way to accept the Amendment which he has brought forward. However I must state one or two points on the other side. In the first place, I want to remind your Lordships of the great prevalence of these cases. I quoted one or two facts in moving the Second Reading which I would like to recall to your Lordships' memory. It is not, perhaps, fully realised how distressingly common these cases of criminal assault on children and young girls are. This is what I said on the Second Reading—
"Mrs. Bramwell Booth speaks of the Salvation Army receiving 316 girls under 16, who had been
30
so assaulted, in twelve months. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has for the last six years had an annual average of 400 cases of criminal and indecent assault reported to them. In the Church of England we ourselves have many homes full of them. From many other sources and from the reports in the newspapers it is clear that these figures cannot be doubted, and that they do not in any sense give an adequate idea of the prevalence of such assaults."
Then I take the strong consensus of opinion which there is in support of the actual Bill as it stands. I think the Lord Chancellor will admit that the Amendment which he has proposed does not raise the age to sixteen, whereas in support of the Bill as it stands I have received resolutions from all over England. I have laid on the Table a petition from Peeresses and wives of Spiritual Peers. Here are petitions from 400 associations, some representing 100,000 women and girls, one alone consisting of 25,000 factory girls, all supporting the Bill as it stands.
The Lord Chancellor's Amendment, waters my clause down, and by mentioning the age of fourteen I fear that its result will be to raise the age of consent only to fourteen. Then I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether the definition of "gross indecency" is not vague. The meaning of an indecent assault on a child has been understood for a long time. I hope the Lord Chancellor will later on explain what "gross indecency" means. Then with regard to the defence of ignorance. I have taken counsel with others on the other side of the Atlantic, and I find that the defence of ignorance is not admitted in the United States, nor, I believe, in any other country. Are not our juries to be trusted as much as are the juries in other countries Therefore on the ground that the great number of these cases makes a more stringent clause than the Lord Chancellor's essential, on the ground that I have a vast amount of public support for the clause as it stands, and on the ground that the excuse of ignorance is not allowed in other countries with regard to this offence, I feel bound, I am sorry to say, to resist the clause which has been moved by the Lord Chancellor, although I am certain of the friendly spirit in which it has been so brought forward.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the subject-matter with which we are dealing is one of the most difficult and anxious

31
with which Judges have to deal when they are trying these criminal cases. I am bound to say that in my opinion the Bill as it stands would create great difficulties, and I am going to explain to your Lordships in a few words why in the main I hope that the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor will be adopted. I wish to say this at the outset in reference to what the right rev. Prelate has said. I think that amendments in our Criminal Law should always be made in relation to those who have experience in its administration, and not in reference to outside resolutions got up by various bodies who may very well be carried away by sentimental notions but who do not appreciate the real underlying difficulties. One of the underlying difficulties in dealing with crimes of this character is not only, as the Lord Chancellor has said, lest you should not get convictions when convictions should be given by juries, but there is another incident, a very painful incident, and that is the incident of blackmail, particularly blackmail levied on very young people under conditions which either make their lives a torture or wreck their whole future.
All the conditions which the Lord Chancellor proposes to introduce in order to have a proper safeguard are absolutely essential, and I make that statement from having had considerable experience in administering this side of the Criminal Law, which is always a matter of great difficulty. In the first place, I think the age under which no young male person should be found guilty under the Act is properly the age of sixteen. It would be a very bad principle and I do not believe it would afford the real protection that is desired if you were to bring young boys into Court charged with offences of this kind who themselves might be only eleven or twelve years of age. I deprecate, and I know it is a matter which grand juries deprecate, the unnecessary discussion particularly in reference to young people of these sexual matters, which are undoubtedly difficult in themselves but which we do not want to bring unnecessarily before the minds of young children.
The second point is corroboration. I think it is essential that the principle of corroboration should be inserted, and I hardly see how you can administer a law of this kind unless you introduce the principle of corroboration. Without corro-
32
boration you would merely have the statement of some very young girl which would be denied, of course, on the other side by the person charged. In those circumstances I think it would be grossly unfair to blight, perhaps, the whole future of a young fellow thus charged unless there is some corroboration of the charge made against him. It is, of course, a common place in all crimes of this kind that it is very unlikely that any third person is immediately present, and therefore you may merely have oath against oath, or opinion against opinion. But before you convict a young man who is only about the age of sixteen of a crime which may blight his whole future, I think it is essential for the fair administration of the law that some corroboration should be rendered necessary.
The next point is one of rather wider meaning. Personally I am not in favour of what is called the method of private prosecution in this country. I prefer, for instance, the methods in most other countries, certainly the method in Scotland where you cannot have any private prosecutions at all; because very often private prosecutions are conducted for indirect motives which bring discredit upon the administration of our Criminal Law. I think the Lord Chancellor is quite right when in cases of this kind he makes it a condition—I think I am right in this, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—that proceedings shall not be carried to the point of prosecution without the assent of the Attorney-General or of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that way you do introduce a safeguard.
This matter is to my mind a very complicated one. I submit that if you are making changes of this sort in the law you ought to make them so that every one can understand what the law is. I have taken very great care to study the Lord Chancellor's proposed new clause, and to my mind it is not clear, particularly having regard to the law as it stands at the present moment. In substance "gross indecency" is a new phrase at the present moment. One does not wish, of course, to go into matters of this kind, but at the present moment that phrase is only applied where there is indecency between males. In the Criminal Law as it stands it is applied to that class of case and to that class of case only. Therefore as applied to the conditions of

33
this Bill the term "gross indecency" is undoubtedly new, and I feel very doubtful whether a Judge who had to explain to a jury whether they ought to convict or not could say what is implied in this term "gross indecency." It would be very difficult to do and to hold the balance quite fairly between the complainant on the one side and the person charged on the other. Therefore I hope that before the Report stage the Lord Chancellor will carefully consider whether the term "gross indecency," which is introduced for the first time in an Act of this sort, is a term which is properly appropriate having regard to the existing condition of our Criminal Law.
This leads me to what, in my mind, is a curious anomaly in the Lord Chancellor's clause. In subsection (2) (a) it is provided that if, upon the trial of any indictment for an offence under this section, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of an offence under this section but is guilty of indecent assault, they may acquit the defendant of the first-mentioned offence and find him guilty of indecent assault. Now I want to put this to the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me that an indecent assault necessarily implies gross indecency; but the suggestion here is that a person might not be guilty of gross indecency but yet can be guilty of indecent assault. That appears to be a contradiction in terms, which I mention in order to emphasise the difficulty that I feel with regard to an express on of this character.
But I want to say something more, looking at it again from the point of view of a Judge trying to direct a jury. A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this clause, if I understand it rightly, is liable to imprisonment for six months; but if a person is found guilty of indecent assault, he is liable to be imprisoned for two years. Therefore a young fellow charged with an offence for which the maximum penalty is six months might find himself under this clause found guilty of an offence for which he is subject to the penalty of two years. I do not think that can be intended, but as the Lord Chancellor's clause stands it would have that illogical and impossible result. I call attention to it because, in my view, these questions of Criminal Law amendment want careful attention. Although I am, speak-
34
ing generally, in favour of what the right rev. Prelate proposes, I should always oppose a private Member's Bill, because I do not think that amendments to our Criminal Law ought to be introduced, either in this House or in another place, without the expert assistance which the Government have at their disposal.
Then under subsection (2) (b) of the Lord Chancellor's clause we get the alternative proposal— namely, that a person charged with indecent assault may be found guilty of gross indecency. There, again, I am not satisfied whether that is right. We all know what is meant by "assault." A young fellow is charged with indecent assault, and he brings forward evidence and proves to the jury that there is no case of indecent assault at all. In those circumstances he ought not to be liable to be convicted of some other charge which is not made against him. In dealing with juries in these cases, even if you have a simple issue, it is a very important matter to be certain that they are acting fairly and justly in a certain case; but if you have a system under which you can tell the jury that they may find the prisoner guilty of some offence with which he is not charged, I think that introduces an unfair complication into the administration of our Criminal Law. There is one point which I do not overlook, and that is that subsection (2) (a) and (b) may be merely meant to cover a ease where the particular charge is shown to be in connection with a girl who is under thirteen, which might be the case. If it is only that the Lord Chancellor wishes to make that point clear, I should assent to it. But, as a matter of fact, the actual clause goes a good deal beyond that point. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long a time, but I feel that these matters of criminal administration are of the greatest possible importance, and I am sure that while your Lordships, on the one hand, want to give protection against these offences, you desire, on the other hand, to give protection against young fellows being blackmailed or unfairly convicted of offences of such a character.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a question, as I think there appears to be some misunderstanding. As I understand it, there is no difference of opinion, as far as the question of indecency is concerned, between the Lord

35
Chancellor and the Bishop of London with respect to the age, but from the right rev. Prelate's speech your Lordships would have gathered that there was a difference between himself and the Lord Chancellor with regard to this particular offence. I understand that they are both agreed as to the age of sixteen.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is that there are two offences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The particular offence with which this Amendment is dealing is not seduction.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I point out, with regard to the age of sixteen, that it is quite true that in one case you have the same age in the two clauses. But by the Lord Chancellor's clause no one can be convicted who is under sixteen, whereas under the right rev. Prelate's clause he can be convicted if he is of any age.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of the age of the girl in respect of indecency. The Lord Chancellor, no doubt, deals with it in a slightly different way, but so far as the age is concerned the right rev. Prelate and the noble and learned Viscount are agreed.
LORD GORELL: Is that so? I understand it is not so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will make the point clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will endeavour to make it clear. According to the clause that I propose, the law will stand as it does at the present time under which an offence committed against a girl under thirteen is a very serious offence indeed. That is intact. The new offence begins at thirteen and goes to sixteen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Like the Bill itself does?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; just as in the right rev. Prelate's Bill. The only difference between the right rev. Prelate and myself as regards that age is that he calls something an "indecent assault" when there may be consent. I call it an "act of gross indecency" and make it a new offence. I think I have made that quite clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, that is quite clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Marquess desire that I went on with the further points?—or perhaps I will deal with them later.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to get this point quite clear. At the present moment the law knows no such offence as "gross indecency."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to deal with that later.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The offence which the law does know is indecent assault; and the law about that is that it shall be no defence to a charge on indictment of an indecent assault on a young person under the age of thirteen to prove that there was consent to the act of indecency. The right rev. Prelate proposes to raise that age from thirteen to sixteen; he proposes the same, that it shall be no defence to a charge of indecent assault on a girl of sixteen or under to prove that she consented to that act. Now if the Lord Chancellor has his way and Clause 1 of the Bill is omitted and his Amendment substituted, that change in the law will not take place. A man could not be convicted if he was able to plead that the indecent assault was committed on a girl between fifteen and sixteen and that she had consented.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He would be convicted of "gross indecency" then.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, but the offences are not the same obviously, because the penalty for gross indecency is to be six months whereas the penalty for indecent assault may be two years. Therefore there is a very material difference between the two offences. The Lord Chancellor has proposed to constitute this new offence of "gross indecency" because he thinks there is a gradation in the crime, and I do not wish to say a word against his proposal. I am not competent, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, to discuss the merits of such a proposal. What I protest against is the effect of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which will be to prevent raising the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen. We

37
want the age of consent to be raised from thirteen to sixteen in these cases of indecent assault. There really is a very strong case for so raising the age, because the law does not allow the plea to be made that a girl of under sixteen consented to an attempt at carnal knowledge. That is not allowed as a plea. But, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out just now, the line between an indecent assault and carnal knowledge is often very hard to draw. He actually used the word "intercourse" himself when he was describing an indecent assault. I say that if the law does not allow a girl, who after all is only a child, of sixteen and under to consent to an attempt at carnal knowledge, neither ought it to allow her to consent to an indecent assault; or, rather, the man should not get off because she consented in the case of an indecent assault any more than in the case of an attempt at carnal knowledge. I say this without any difference of opinion from Lord Parmoor as to the great importance of corroboration, and also as to the distinction which he drew between the case of a man and the case of a boy who is himself a mere child.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP CANTERBURY: My Lords, only want to say a word with regard to a phrase which fell from the Lord Chancellor and from Lord Parmoor about corroboration. As far as I know, no one who is advocating the raising of the age and the changes that we desire to see has the slightest objection to the Judges insisting upon what they think right in the way of corroboration of the charges in the indictment. That is not our point at all, and I am particularly anxious that it should not be mixed up with the other side of the matter. With regard to corroboration, we have not a word to say about the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. We do not want your Lordships to be prejudiced by that point which is pressed upon us by high legal authority, because it is a point upon which we do not require any pressure at all.
*LORD GORELL: My Lords, may I add one word with regard to the question of gross indecency As I understand, that expression is only known at present in the law as relating to an offence between male persons of a graver character as far as the indecency is concerned than an indecent assault; and I think I am right—the noble and learned Viscount will correct me
38
if I am wrong—in saying that it is a question for the jury as to whether the indecency is gross or not. I think, somewhat on the lines raised by the right rev. Prelate and Lord Parmoor, that there are possible difficulties in the use of this expression, and I should like to know whether it would not be possible to describe an offence such as the noble and learned Viscount contemplates without using words which are at present used in a technical sense in connection with an offence such as I have referred to and which may possibly raise difficulties in that direction. There is one other point, emphasising what has fallen from Lord Parmoor, with regard to the importance of the third subsection of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment if the third proposal in the Bill of the right rev. Prelate is adopted. I venture to think that the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount, if that proposal is admitted, might be made even more important. It would be useful in preventing applications for prosecutions which are really fraudulent, or which are only used to enforce bastardy proceedings and not with a bona fide intention of assisting the Criminal Law. I venture to think that if the proposal of the right rev. Prelate is adopted, this provision in the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would be extremely useful in that connection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will endeavour to deal with some of the points which have been raised, and perhaps it will be convenient if I first deal with the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. His question was whether the clause as I propose it does not somewhat narrow the scope of the existing law, and he pointed out quite truly that at the present time intercourse, for example, with a girl under sixteen is illegal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or attempt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Intercourse with a girl under sixteen is illegal under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. We are dealing now, not only with cases of intercourse, but with something else. We are dealing with cases of indecency, which may be a shorter thing. At the present time, if a girl under thirteen has an act of indecency committed towards her, her consent is inoperative in law to justify the defendant. She is treated as a child, as what it fact to a great extent

39
she is, as one not knowing what she is doing; consequently the defendant cannot take any advantage of her assent. When you come to the age between thirteen and sixteen you are dealing with a very different class of case. Just under the age of sixteen there are a large number of prostitutes on the streets, deplorable as it is. The noble Earl opposite shakes his head, but I have had on this subject some of the most competent advice in London from people who are not only looking at one phase of the evil but at all phases. If you say that a thing is an indecent assault when there has been no indecent assault, when it has been the subject of invitation, do what you will, juries and tribunals will not convict in cases of that kind. That is why we have changed the character of the offence; but we have preserved all that is substantial, because we have made an act of indecency committed on a girl between thirteen and sixteen something which is itself an offence. We have made a difference, no doubt, between what is done to a girl under thirteen, which is very gross, and that which is done to a girl between thirteen and sixteen which is less gross, because it may be very fully consented to in the ordinary sense of the word. But still we have made it an offence, and at the same time we have met the point of which the noble Earl spoke and given a chance of redress against the evil which the right rev. Prelate has brought forward.
The next is the point about the phrase "gross indecency." My noble friend Lord Gorell suggested that it was a technical phrase, and that it was unfortunate to use a technical phrase here. He also said that it has been used in regard to offences between males in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is not really a technical phrase at all. I have had the advantage of the very best advice in using the words. What I am told is this, that indecency is something well understood, and that a jury as a judge of fact will quickly distinguish between indecency and indecency which is gross. There are other things which are obviously on the other side of the line. Nor is "gross indecency" a technical term. It is an expression which those who have had the most experience in administering this branch of the law consider best enables them to get a grip of the kind of evil which is to be dealt with.
40
The right rev. Prelate spoke of the introduction of the age of fourteen, but, if he will forgive me for saying so, that is not a good point. Fourteen is only introduced in this way. If a girl is under fourteen it is no defence for a person who committed the offence to say that he thought she was, and that she looked as if she were, over sixteen. If in fact she is under fourteen he cannot take advantage of the plea that her appearance was calculated to deceive. I do not think there is any danger of the expression "fourteen" cutting down the beneficial operation of the clause from the point of view of the right rev. Prelate.
Now I come to the other point which Lord Parmoor took. Lord Parmoor, if he will permit me to say so, made a speech which was of a particularly valuable kind, not merely for what he said but from its tone, and not merely from its judicial tone but the administrative tone which he brought to bear in examining the difficulty of this question. He spoke with knowledge of Quarter Sessions, and also with the knowledge of a man of the world; and he also spoke as one who seeks to amend the law in this direction but to amend it in a practical way. I entirely agree with what he said about hasty amendments of the Criminal Law. You have to go very carefully in making these amendments. Lord Parmoor pointed out that under my clause as it is drawn a boy, say, may be charged with an act of gross indecency, and yet the jury, acting under the alternative which the clause gives, can convict him of indecent assault. I gathered from the noble and learned Lord that he did not object to that if, for instance, it came out that it was really a case of a girl under thirteen and that the offender would have been prosecuted for an indecent assault upon a girl under thirteen if her age had been known. I gathered from the noble and learned Lord that he considered the subsection a good one if it covers that.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, that only.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see the ambiguity to which my noble and learned friend pointed. I have already been in communication with the Government draftsmen, and I will see that at a later stage an Amendment is put down to make it different. The noble and

41
learned Lord meant the same as I did, but I think his criticism is a good one. That is, I think, all the assistance I can give your Lordships on this matter. We are dealing with topics which are difficult and obscure, but we are dealing with a very great evil, an evil with which we wish to cope, if possible, and the anxiety of the Government is to give such assistance
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is it competent to move an Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's clause?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, not now; it ought to have been done before the new clause was accepted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then it must be done at the next stage?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Clause 2:
Defilement, &c., of girls under eighteen. 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69.
2. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall be read and have effect as if the word "eighteen" were inserted instead of the word "sixteen" in section five, subsection one, section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve of the said Act.
42
as they can to the right rev. Prelate, within the limits of prudence, in framing a clause which will really have the effect that he desires.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12. Not-contents, 52.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bryce, V.

Braye, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

London, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Manners, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Halifax, V.

Glenconner, L.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Gorell, L.

Devonshire, D.

Haversham, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Heneage, L.

Bath, M

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Camden, if.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lansdowne, M.

Addington, L.

Lucas, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lyell, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Avebury, L.

Parmoor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Balfour, L.

Pirrie, L.

Bathurst, E.

Barnard, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Beauchamp, E.

Barrymore, L.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Charnwood, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Russell, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Sinc air, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Allendale, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Strachie, L.

Churchill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Erskine, L.

Wynford, L.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so that it would read—
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall be read and have effect as if the word "eighteen" were inserted instead of the word "sixteen"

(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and

(b) in section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve,

of the said Act.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I regret to see the Amendment which stands later in the name of the Lord Chancellor, in which he seeks to strike out what is, after all, the main object of the Bill—namely, the raising of the age of consent in the case of carnal knowledge from sixteen to eighteen. He, in fact, strikes at the most important part of the right rev. Prelate's Bill, and I cannot support the Lord Chancellor in that Amendment. It seems to me that public conscience demands the raising of the age now.

43
It is, of course, a very dangerous thing in matters of this kind to go in front of public opinion, but public opinion has been very pronounced about things of this kind, and I think it would justify the raising of the age from sixteen to eighteen. Therefore I regret that the Lord Chancellor has put down an Amendment by which he proposes to deal with the right rev. Prelate's Bill in the way I have indicated.
I realise that there will be hard cases which will have to be dealt with, and the Amendment which I am now moving is intended to deal with one particular class of hard case. Of course, the case which the right rev. Prelate particularly wishes to hit is that of a fully grown man who uses his influence over a girl who is little more than a child in order to rob her, of what is the most priceless possession she has, and the right rev. Prelate is asking Parliament, very rightly, to stop that. That is a case where it may be held that the aggressor is in such a position as to have so much influence over one who is much younger and more ignorant than himself, that they are not upon an equal footing, and that she consents really not knowing the extent of the evil which is being inflicted upon her. But the whole thing turns upon the fact that she is so young as not to be fully responsible for what she does when she consents. I do not say that she is not in one sense responsible, because when she has reached the age of sixteen she must know to some extent what she is about, but she is not aware of the tremendous loss which she is incurring by consenting to the attack of this aggressor. That is true.
But if it be true that you ought to protect her in the case where she is assailed by a man in this way, it does not follow that you ought to deal out the same measure when the aggressor is not a man but a boy. Every one of us knows that where it is a case of a boy, the boy may not be more responsible than the girl; indeed, he may be the less responsible; she may be the one who tempts and not he; therefore he requires to be protected just as much as she does. Take the case which must be present to your Lordships' minds, the case of a young prostitute who persuades a boy no older than herself to have intercourse with her. Well, it is the boy who is to be pitied. Is he to be made criminally responsible for that? I think your Lordships
44
will agree that justice demands that he should be protected just as much as the girl in the other ease ought to be protected. If we are to be logical, the person who ought to be sent to prison is the girl and not the boy, or both of them, but certainly not the boy only. It does seem to me that in a case of that kind we ought to introduce a saving clause. I have put the Amendment on the Paper, but I need not tell your Lordships that I am not particularly proud of the form in which it is drawn; it might easily have been drawn better. But I do not care in the least about that if the Lord Chancellor will accept this policy which we suggest to hint, that in the main the age should be raised to eighteen but that the hard cases should be saved by any form of words which either he or the right rev. Prelate prefers in order to carry that out. I would willingly accept any such form. But substantially I think that if the age is raised to eighteen, protection ought to be inserted in the case of boys under age. I have put it at under twenty-one, but in regard to that, of course, I should be quite willing to defer to your Lordships' better judgment. In the main, however, I submit this Amendment to your Lordships with some confidence.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("sixteen") to the end of the clause and insert:

("(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and

"(b) in section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve,

of the said Act.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel great sympathy with what is in the noble Marquess's mind, and I am quite prepared myself at some stage in the proceedings to move a clause which would safeguard against the blackmailing of young men. But I ask the noble Marquess to consider whether his Amendment does not go much too far. It seems to me that if it is accepted as it stands we should almost by Act of Parliament be saying that any one under twenty-one years of age is free to do practically what he likes. I was prepared myself to meet this difficulty by a clause—I will bring it up on Report—to the effect that when both are under the age of eighteen they might be dealt with under the Children Act, which

45
would put them on probation. I see, of course, the objection to sending young fellows of eighteen or under eighteen to prison for two years. But nothing is such an educator as the law, and if they find out that the law does touch them, even with a light hand, nothing will raise the moral standard of our country more. If the noble Marquess's Amendment is accepted it seems to me, although that is not his intention—he would be the last person to suggest it—that an impression would get abroad that any one under twenty-one could do as he liked.
Might I say a word here about blackmail. The Lord Chancellor in his speech did not produce, and I do not think he can produce, any case of blackmail that has occurred since the age was raised from thirteen to sixteen. I am told that the whole case against the raising of the age from thirteen to sixteen was based on blackmail. This was the bogey that was brought out at every stage of the proceedings. At last, however, the nettle was boldly grasped and the age was raised, and no one has produced a single case of blackmail arising in consequence. Therefore while I am perfectly ready to admit the force of what the noble Marquess has said, I would ask the House not to be frightened too much by this bogey of blackmail. With regard to Lord Salisbury's Amendment, I am quite prepared, as I have said, to move a clause at a later stage of the proceedings by which when both are under eighteen they could be dealt with under the Children Act, which would put them under probation.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I hope very much that the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess will be accepted. I have looked very carefully into the words of the Amendment—I was not in any way responsible for them—and they appear to me to carry out what his evident desire is. Of course, as to the drafting, as the noble Marquess has said, that is a matter which might be considered hereafter; but I hope that the principle involved in his Amendment may be accepted.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as one who has been occupied for many years in social work, may I say one or two words. I entirely sympathise with Lord Salisbury in his desire to protect young boys, and I should be ready to vote for his Amend-
46
ment, as I think the right rev. Prelate said he would, if he would substitute eighteen years for twenty-one.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I venture to hope that the Amendment of the noble Marquess will be carried. I have had considerable experience, not, like the noble Earl who has just sat down, in social work, but in regard to the Criminal Law both on circuit and in petty sessional courts, and I have come to the conclusion that social reformers, with the best intentions in the world, do not approach this question from the right side. They sometimes forget that the girl is very often the greater offender of the two. I have known an enormous number of cases in recent years where that is entirely the fact; and before you make criminals of young boys for an offence into which they have been led by the wiles of girls, who do not, perhaps, actually realise the harm they are doing, you should give the matter very earnest consideration. I really wonder in my own mind whether some forty or fifty members of your Lordships' House, sitting here on a hot summer evening, is the proper body to make such enormous changes in the Criminal Law as we are doing. I should have thought it would have been better to move for the appointment of a Commission or a Select Committee and ask them to draft a measure for our consideration. But I suppose we have to do the best we can now under the circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, too, think that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is important, and I entirely agree that some unfortunate person may get entangled in the law under the right rev. Prelate's Bill unless there is some protection given to him. But my doubt is whether the Amendment of the noble Marquess goes far enough. The proposal of the right rev. Prelate is to raise the age under which it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of a girl from sixteen, which it is at present, to eighteen, and that is a change which he proposes without limitation. The Amendment of the noble Marquess is that nobody who is not over twenty-one can be convicted of an offence under the section as amended by the right rev. Prelate. The noble Marquess put what is always a telling case, the case about which we are all agreed, the seducer who seduces a girl under eighteen. We all feel that we could not deal too hardly with him; he has ruined a girl in the worst way

47
he could ruin her. That is the case we should like to deal with. But my difficulty is that that is one case as against ninety-nine cases.
The real case which will occur in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred which will come within the Amendment will be this. A prostitute is going along Piccadilly, a precocious prostitute very likely looking over eighteen years of age, and she meets a young fellow, say, up from Oxford for the Boat Race; perhaps he has dined, and perhaps he is in a condition in which he is easily amenable to temptation. But she is the temptress; she leads him into mischief; and when we talk of ruin, just let us remember that what he will be indicted for will be a crime which carries with it the liability for two years imprisonment with hard labour. You do not ruin that young man so badly as the young girl is ruined who is seduced in the hundredth case, but you are providing ninety-nine cases of ruining young men for one case in which a girl is ruined. Therefore this is an extraordinarily difficult matter to deal with. So difficult is it that I think if this clause is passed as the right rev. Prelate proposes to pass it, you will not only give a wholly new field for the scientific practice of blackmail, which is already bad enough, but you will give rise to a class of prosecution where really the offence is on the part of the woman and not on the part of the man. It is all very well to say, "She is under eighteen"; but under eighteen a girl of that class may be just as bad and dangerous as if she were twenty-eight or thirty. In that condition of things we have to consider what we are doing. It is not easy to get the right Amendment. Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied that the noble Marquess has met the evil by making the age twenty-one. I think there are plenty of young fellows of twenty-one and twenty-two years of age and over who would be worthy objects of commiseration if, after having been approached by a prostitute who was near the age of eighteen, they found themselves indicted and convicted.
There are two classes of cases, I agree. There is the case of the cold-blooded offender. I do not know how to get at the hundredth case on which the noble Lord spoke without sacrificing the other ninety-nine; but I do know how to get at a number of other people—those, for
48
instance, who keep brothels or rooms for the purpose of permitting prostitution or clandestine relations of this kind. These are people who might well be put upon careful inquiry, and if the result of the restriction put upon them was that they could not have any people there at all who did not look so old that they were obviously clear of eighteen I think no harm would be done. The same is true with search warrants when there is reason to believe that a girl is being detained for immoral purposes. The same is true of another class of case, seduction of girls that has been favoured or encouraged by their parents. All these things are dealt with by the Criminal Law as it stands at present, but the age is only sixteen. I am quite prepared to raise the age in those cases to eighteen. I think good would come of it, and I am advised by those who are experienced in these matters that that would be the proper course to take. I have therefore put down, as an alternative to the proposition which is now before the House, a proposition which we shall come to in a moment, and which I only mention now because of its bearing upon that with which we are dealing. I have put down a proposition to omit "Section 5 (1)," but to leave the clause so that the right rev. Prelate's proposal would raise the age of consent in these other cold-blooded cases of which I have spoken. Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied with the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite. I would much prefer not to attempt to deal with the proposition to raise the age from sixteen to eighteen under which it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of the woman, not because the hundredth case, as I have described before, is not one of the utmost gravity, but because in endeavouring to deal with that you deal with ninety-nine others which are infinitely more likely to occur and under which you may inflict very grave injustice.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to safeguard, in case this Amendment is not carried, the Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor which comes afterwards, I suggest to your Lordships that the question now should be whether the word "in" stand part of the clause. If that word is left out, the rest will follow. If the word is not left out, it leaves it open to the Lord Chancellor to move his Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I accept the principle of what the noble Marquess has said in moving this Amendment, and if I may, on Report, I will move words more satisfactory in form.
LORD PARMOOR: Would the carrying of the noble Marquess's Amendment exclude that of the Lord Chancellor?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Not in the form in which I propose to put it. The question is that the first word after "sixteen"—namely, the word "in"—stand part of the clause.
On Question, resolved in the negative.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The natural course now would be to leave out, as moved by Lord Salisbury, the remainder of the clause. The noble Marquess would then move the insertion of his proposed paragraphs (a) and (b). But I understand the Lord Chancellor desires to move to amend the Amendment.
On Question, That the remainder of the clause stand part, resolved in the negative.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move the insertion of paragraph (a)—
(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to amend the clause by leaving out the words "section five, subsection one" and subsequent words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All those words have gone out of the clause now.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Marquess has moved his new paragraph (a).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I oppose that. I move a new subsection.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the noble Marquess desires to insert his new paragraph (a)?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Lord Chancellor desires to oppose that. The question is that Lord Salisbury's new paragraph (a) be inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Lord Chancellor will let me put my Amendment in. I am afraid as it stands his will not read. Your Lordships have just consented to strike out from Clause 2 all words after "sixteen." All the remaining words in the right rev. Prelate's clause are gone from the Bill. If the Lord Chancellor opposes my Amendment then the right rev. Prelate's clause will end with the word "sixteen."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question between us is a single point. I am afraid of limiting the protection to twenty-one years of age in these cases, and the noble Marquess desires to so limit it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. Let me say one word on another matter of detail in respect of this. We shall be only too delighted at a later stage to listen to any suggestion from the right rev. Prelate or other noble Lords, but at present, in spite of the great authority of the noble and learned Viscount, I must insist on asking your Lordships to support me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess said he did not regard the form of his words as final.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he will consider another form of words and propose it on Report I am ready to take this as his principle, in which I agree with him in the main. When we come to Report I shall move to omit his clause unless he has another clause himself and will move it himself. But I must not be taken, in not dividing the House, as assenting to it as it is on the Paper.
On Question, the new paragraphs (a) and (b), moved by Lord Salisbury, agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the next Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor—Page 1, line 10, leave out ("section five, subsection one")—falls out?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that Amendment falls. But I propose to add a new subsection to provide that it shall not be a defence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, to prove that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years if, in fact, she was under the age of fourteen. Under Section 5 of the Act it is at present a defence to prove that the defendant had cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen. There was reason for putting that in, because a great many girls who are under sixteen look over that age. But I think we might advance a step. The Bill proposes to repeal the schedule making that defence available. I think it would be a very dangerous thing altogether to deprive a person of that defence; he might have very reasonable cause for so believing. It is felt that great injustice might be done if this defence were taken away. On the other hand, such defence should not be open to a man who says he thought a girl, who is in fact under fourteen, was over sixteen. My present Amendment will limit the defence in that direction. That is to say, if the girl is in fact under fourteen it is no defence for a man to say that he thought she was over sixteen.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("Act") insert as a new subsection:
(2) It shall not be a defence under section five of the said Act to prove that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years if, in fact, she was under the age of fourteen, and accordingly at the end of the first proviso to that section there shall be inserted the words "Unless she was, in fact, under the age of fourteen years."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Do I understand that eighteen still remains in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; and for that reason I am afraid the Lord Chancellor's Amendment will not quite do, because he has gone back to sixteen. As the Bill stands eighteen remains. The Lord Chancellor's Amendment will have to be recast, and I would suggest that he should not press the Amendment at this stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I withdraw it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 3, the following new clause:—
Power to send young prostitutes to rescue homes.
.—(1) Where a girl is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment without the option of a line, Or of any offence mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, and

(a) it appears to the court by which she is convicted that she is under eighteen years of age; and

(b) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that she is a common prostitute;

the court may, in lieu of imposing any other punishment, order her to be sent to a rescue home approved by the Secretary of State, the managers of which are willing to receive her.
(2) Any such rescue home may be certified as a reformatory school, and where it has been so certified the provisions of the Children Act, 1908, shall apply in the case of such a girl as if she was a youthful offender in respect of whom an order had been made under section fifty-seven of that Act, subject however to the following modification, namely, that twenty-one years shall be substituted for nineteen years as the age to which the period of detention may, and that of supervision (if any) shall extend.
(3) Where a girl having been discharged on probation under the powers conferred by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, on her entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour and to appear for conviction or sentence when called on during the period specified in the order of the court, commits a breach of any condition of her recognizance and in respect of such breach is brought before the court before which she is bound by her recognizance to appear for conviction or sentence, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as if she had been convicted by that court of such an offence as aforesaid.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like, before moving this new clause, to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he wants to reduce the age at the Report stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The age is already fixed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I presume I can move this clause on Report?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I would like to explain to the House that my Bill was perfectly coherent to my mind, and this new clause entirely fitted in. If we were dealing with the man and the age was raised from sixteen to eighteen I was quite prepared to deal with the woman and see that she was sent to a home of refuge, as is set forth in this new clause, but the justice of that very much depends on what happens at the subsequent stage of the Bill. If I am not able to deal with the man, I am not going to punish the woman. I shall hold this clause over, with your Lordships' consent, in order to see what your Lordships decide as regards the man before I ask you to deal with the woman. It seems to me that we have had a good deal too much legislation on one side in this matter. This clause I hold to be only just, on the understanding that we have adequately dealt with those who lead away girls between sixteen and eighteen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is irregular for me to speak upon this Amendment as the right rev. Prelate has not moved it, but I wish to say that his clause seems to me to be a most admirable clause. It does not punish for any new offence; on the contrary, it only applies in cases where an offence is proved and there is a conviction and it then substitutes a rescue home for imprisonment. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will not omit to bring this clause up on Report.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I am very glad to hear what the Lord Chancellor has said.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Schedules:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we had better leave the Amendments on the Schedules until the Report stage.
This was agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 184.)

REGULATION OF PARTY FUNDS.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if they will obtain, through His Majesty's Representative in the United States of America, and will publish information as to the provisions of the law which has of late years been passed by Congress for the regulation of Party funds, as to the administration of this law, and as to the effects which it has so far produced, together with similar information in regard to similar laws which have been passed by the Legislatures of any of the States of the Union; and further, if they will in like manner obtain and publish information in regard to the laws regulating election expenses in His Majesty's self-governing Dominions, in the United States of America and the several States of the Union, and in the principal countries of Europe in which such laws may exist.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the Government have no objection to the collection and publication of information as to the laws in force on the subject to which the noble Lord has referred in the self-governing Dominions and in the principal foreign countries, and they will take steps to that end. But I think my noble friend will see that they could not properly publish anything beyond the laws in force and any reports which may have been made by the Governments concerned as to their working. It would be clearly impossible for us to ask our agents abroad to give their opinions on the working of the laws, and for the Foreign Office to publish them. But in so far as any Government documents exist commenting on, or giving information on, the working of those laws, we shall be very glad to meet my noble friend.

NURSES (CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, the Bill to which I had intended asking your Lordships to accord a Second Reading this afternoon is one to give powers to local authorities in Ireland to make contributions towards local nursing associations, but I have been informed that this Bill, if it were passed by your

55
Lordships' House and went down to another place, might be there considered a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. In those circumstances I do not proceed with the Bill, and I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according Order): Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3ª on Wednesday next.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off till Wednesday next.—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I beg to move that, except for Judicial business, the House do adjourn until Wednesday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, hall-past Ten o'clock.