to be excluded from the trial. Consequently, a person who committed an offence could not possibly know whether he would be tried in public or in private. LORD COLERIDGE said, he most earnestly hoped the Government would persevere with the Bill as it at present stood. He doubted whether Courts had any legal rights, although they constantly exercised the power, without any objection being raised, to exclude women, children, and young people from trials for a particular class of offences. The only ground on which women and young men were excluded from such trials was public morality; and why should the Legislature hesitate to give to the Judges a legal power, similar to that which by general consent they constantly exercised, in cases of the kind to which he referred? THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON said, he fully agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Coleridge) that it was desirable that such a power should be conferred in certain classes of cases. LORD BRAMWELL said, he fully agreed with what had been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, as to the power of excluding certain portions of the public from hearing particular cases in open Court. On one occasion his learned Colleagues on the Bench and himself considered that very question, and came to the conclusion that they had no power to hear cases in private. He was sorry to differ from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) on this point; but he could not think that any good was done by hearing in public the class of cases which he had in his mind, of which the details were often of an inconceivably revolting character. He had often seen people in Court gloating over such cases, and he was sure such public trials did infinite harm. He had often charged Grand Juries to the effect that, if they had a doubt about a case of that kind, it was better in the public interest to throw out the bill. The persons who committed those offences were of a kind not to be much deterred by a public trial. LORD DENMAN said, he believed he voted for the power to hear privately cases in the Divorce Courts. No doubt, the Judges were without that power; but boni judices est ampliare jurisdic tionem. EARL CAIRNS said, he hoped that the clauses of the Bill would be clearly arranged, in order to avoid the confusion which often existed in Acts of Parliament when new clauses were introduced. THE EARL OF MILLTOWN said, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. twelve and sixteen years of age). Clause 6 (Defilement of girl between THE EARL OF MILLTOWN said, he thought that the Government was going much too far, and was making that a crime which had hitherto been only considered a moral offence. That clause, moreover, might, and probably would, be made a means of wholesale extortion. Girls of bad character under 16, but looking much older, might inveigle men to accompany them to houses of ill-fame, who, by so doing, although having no intention to do an illegal act, would thereby be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to two years' hard labour, and have no means of escape unless they consented to pay black mail to the girls or their employers. He moved an Amendment limiting the offence to cases of seduction, and raising the age in such cases to 18. Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen.")-(The Earl of Milltown.) THE EARL OF ABERDEEN suggested that summary jurisdiction ought to be given to magistrates in such cases. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that the age of consent was a question of degree. Sixteen was the age adopted by their Lordships' Committee. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the question was one of the balance of public convenience. The punishment named in the clause was the maximum that could be inflicted for the offence named; and, therefore, it would not be inflicted in cases where there were mitigating circumstances. Amendment negatived. Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, leave out ("sixteen ") and insert ("seventeen.")-(The Lord MountTemple.) LORD TRURO said, he maintained | came to be dealt with by magistrates and that, the law to protect girls under 12, juries. If you go beyond what public as it then existed, having failed, it was opinion sanctions, and attempt to enuseless to endeavour to protect girls up force provisions which nature does not to the age of 16. He was convinced that seem to justify, there will be insuperable they would never succeed in increasing objections on the part of magistrates and the morality of the country by limitation juries to enforce the law. It would then of age in the way proposed. He thought fall into desuetude, and all the good you that they must look for improvement may effect by a more moderate proposal rather to more activity on the part of the would fail to come about. police, and to more discreet and careful supervision by parents, than to any legislation of this character. THE EARL OF ABERDEEN supported the Amendment, as he thought that at the age of 17 girls were frequently as much in want of protection as at any other time. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Mount-Temple) would not press the Amendment. It was impossible for the Bill to go further than it did in respect of age; for, otherwise, the Government felt that public opinion would not support the measure. If the Bill went further than public opinion warranted, it would make things much worse than before. EARL CAIRNS said, that it was perfectly true, as the noble (Lord Truro) had said, that the present law with regard to the age of 12 had failed. For THE EARL OF ABERDEEN said, he that reason, it was proposed to increase thought that a vast change had occurred the age, and to make provisions of a in public opinion with regard to this different kind. In the Select Committee matter within the last few years, which on this subject, the evidence given estab-made people realize their responsibility lished a conclusive case of the necessity respecting it. of raising the age. He (Earl Cairns), therefore, was in favour of making the age 17, though the majority of the Committee had decided against him, thinking that 16 was sufficient. THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE said, that a large number of persons had taken a deep and self-denying interest in this matter; and it would be a great disappointment to them if the higher age of 17 were not adopted in the place of 16. On Question, "That the word ('Sixteen') stand part of the Clause ?" THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after reading the evidence on the LORD NORTON said, he also, from subject, I confess that I cannot think it the evidence he heard on the Select would be wise to recommend the House Committee, supported the Amendment, to extend the proposal of the Govern- being in favour of the age being raised ment in this matter. It is not ab- from 13 to 17. The question was at stractedly a question of what we should what age a girl should be considered wish to accomplish, if it were in our capable of consenting to her ruin, so as power to determine absolutely what to exonerate the man from the guilt of should pass and what should be enforced. criminal injury in taking advantage of In that case, there would be a great deal her ignorance. In other countries it was to be said for the age of 17. But we a much higher age than here. should have to face a vast mass of silent, tenacious, immovable opinion. As it is, we have had many difficulties in framing a Bill of this kind, and it is certain that it will meet with very great difficulties in the House of Commons. The higher you raise the age, the greater the difficulties will be of enforcing the law, and the greater will be the dangers of extortion on which so much stress has been laid, and which, I think, would excite very considerable attention. But it is not the difficulties which would be raised in the House of Commons that must alone consider. There would be much greater difficulties when the Bill we Their Lordships divided:-Contents 140; Not-Contents 23: Majority 117. CONTENTS. Selborne, E. (L. Chan- Hertford, M. cellor.) Northumberland, D. Ailesbury, M. Northampton, M. Ashburnham, E. Camperdown, E. Carnarvon, E. Cathcart, E. Dartmouth, E. Dartrey, E. Henniker.) Clause agreed to. Morley, E. Mount Edgcumbe, E. Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Powis, E. Ravensworth, E. Redesdale, E. Saint Germans, E. Shaftesbury, E. Strafford, E. Sydney, E. Hatherton, L. Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7 (Consent no defence to charge Hopetoun, L.(E. Hope- of indecent assault on young person). toun.) Houghton, L. LORD TRURO moved, as an AmendLment, the addition of words providing that, where a solicitation to immorality could be proved against a girl, she should be required to enter into security for good behaviour, or be liable to fine or imprisonment. He observed that solicitation as often came from a girl as from a man, and said that it would not be just to punish a man with severity, and to allow girls who were equally guilty to go scot free. Kenlis, L. (M. Head- Lyveden, L. [Teller.] Leinster, V. (D. Lein- Monteagle of Brandon, Amendment moved, In page 2, line 24, after ("indecency ") insert ("and in cases where the solicitation to immorality can be proved against the girl she shall be required to enter into securities for good behaviour or be liable to fine or imprisonment at the discretion of any court, justice or Dal-justices, or magistrate.")—(The Lord Truro.) L. Rayleigh, L. Ampthill, L. Reay, L. Auckland, L. Rodney, L. Balfour of Burley, L. Romilly, L. Barrogill, L. (E. Rowton, L. Caithness.) Saltoun, L. Beaumont, L. Sandhurst, L. Shute, L. (V. Barring- ford.) Trevor, L. Any person who, being the guardian of a girl under the age of eighteen years, or having the care and charge of her, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, or a manager, foreman, or lodger, or other person Tyrone, L. (M. Water- whose lawful commands in such service or emford.) Truro L. Waveney, L. Wrottesley, L. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Winmarleigh, L. ployment she is bound to obey, unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to have unlawful and carnal knowledge of, or indecently assaults such girl with or without her consent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted Clause agreed to. thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Amendment (by leave of the Comcourt, to be imprisoned for any term not ex-mittee) withdrawn. ceeding two years, with or without hard labour." This was intended to prevent masters from using their power for the moral degradation and ruin of their dependents with impunity. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he would accept the clause. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that the age on the Notice Paper had been originally printed as sixteen, and now it was moved to make it eighteen. The proposal might be right; but it seemed a very strong measure to start suddenly on the House so large an al teration of the law. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the age of sixteen had been put in by mistake, where eighteen was intended. LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE said, he would withdraw the clause, and bring it up again on the Report. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause 8 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour). LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE moved an Amendment, with the object of enabling other persons than Inspectors, Superintendents, or officers of police to initiate proceedings. Amendment moved, in page 3, line 6, after ("rank") insert ("or other person.")-(The Lord Mount-Temple.) THE MARQUESS OF BATH said, he thought it would be objectionable to give this power to the common informer. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH said, that under the Act of George II. any two householders had it in their power to lay information, and thereupon the police constable was required to proceed with the case before the magistrate. But the clause, as it stood, proposed to repeal that portion of the Act of George II., and confined the power to the police alone. It was, in his opinion, of great importance that the power which the two householders had should be retained. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON said, that he differed from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough). He believed that the Act of George II. would still remain in force. Lord Mount-Temple On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following new clause was agreed to, and inserted, to follow Clause 8: (Abduction of a girl under eighteen years of age.) "Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl, being under the age of eighteen years, out of the possession or against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour." Clause 9 (Summary proceedings against brothel keepers, &c.) THE EARL OF PEMBROKE said, that these clauses, taken together with the rest of the Bill, constituted an attempt to squeeze immorality out of existence. The only effect of thus shutting the safety-valve on a force which would find. some exit would be to defeat the chief objects of the Bill. On the one hand, it would produce clandestine brothels, disguised as shops and places of business; on the other, it would drive vice into the streets, and defeat the provisions of the Bill against street vice. If they had to make a choice between brothels and street vice, there could be no doubt as to which should be chosen; for the one exposed the innocent to temptation, and the other did not. He was not, however, in favour of repealing the existing Acts against brothels, as such places would tend to become nuisances if the whip of the law were not suspended over them. Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 9."-(The Earl of Pembroke.) THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the law, as it stood, was wholly inoperative to suppress houses of ill-fame. He was perfectly well aware that the clause gave large additional powers to the police; but it seemed impossible to enlarge their powers at all without going thus far. He did not suppose the police would endeavour to stamp out all brothels, which it was impossible to do; but they would, by this clause, be able to deal more efficiently with disorderly houses. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK said, the comparative security of the houses was in itself as great a temptation as lads were exposed to in the streets; and, therefore, the argument for diminishing temptation in the streets might be applied to the suppression of the houses. A Bill of this kind had been forced on the Government, and its object was to improve morality as far as legislation could do it. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, his experience was that successful proceedings against houses, when they had been taken in that part of London in which he himself resided, had materially diminished the nuisance of street-walking; but the law, as it stood at present, was unique, and far too cumbersome and irksome to secure its uniform administration. EARL CAIRNS said, that what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had stated was confirmed by what had been done in the City of Glasgow, where the suppression of the nuisance in one form was followed by its mitigation in the other form of street-walking. THE EARL OF MILLTOWN supported the Amendment, contending that the clause was utterly foreign to the object of the Bill. He thought that the testiadduced showed that the law was mony sufficient if it were enforced. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the speeches against the clause amounted to this-that brothels were half desirable, and, therefore, they should not interfere with them too much; and half undesirable, and, therefore, they should preserve a law which did not interfere with them at all. ["No, no!"] Of course, authors did not like other people's abridgment of their works. But the argument involved the logical conclusion that in the interests of morality the houses ought to be licensed, and distinguished by some conspicuous sign. Those who took practical pains in this matter knew that the existing law was utterly futile and insufficient to cope with the evil, and they ought either to repeal it, or else make its provisions efficient. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he must be allowed to express some doubt as to whether the clause would have all the effect its authors imagined or desired it would have. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had remarked that our position with regard to brothels was unique; but he seemed to forget that, in almost every Continental country, they were not only restricted, but tolerated and licensed. Efforts made in other countries and in other times to suppress them had singularly failed. The only result of bringing the police into close administrative connection with these houses would be that a system of toleration and licence would spring up, which, while repressing the more open and disorderly brothels, would encourage clandestine ones. He was also afraid the power conferred by the clause was one which might be used for purposes of private malevolence or extortion. He did not, however, recommend his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Pembroke) to go to a Division. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 10 (Power to owner of premises to determine tenancy of occupier con-. victed of keeping brothel) agreed to. Amendment moved, After Clause 10, page 5, insert as a new clause-"Every lease or agreement for a tenancy of any premises shall be deemed to contain, if under seal, a covenant, and if in writing not under seal or by parol, an agreement, by the lessee or tenant for himself and his assigns with the lessor and his assigns, that the premises shall not, nor shall any part thereof during the term, be used as brothel or disorderly house; lease or agreement on breach of any covenant and any power of re-entry contained in such or agreement therein contained shall be deemed to apply to such covenant or agreement as aforesaid."-(The Lord Coleridge.) LORD BRAMWELL said, that the clause lost sight of under-leases and mortgages. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that, as he understood the clause, it would be at the landlord's option whether the lease should be voided or not. But it was not clear whether it was the immediate or superior landlord who could exercise the power. LORD BRAMWELL thought that, if Clause 11 were examined in connection with the section under discussion, it would be seen that the landlord had but little option in the matter. LORD COLERIDGE said, that, with regard to the criticism of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he would amend the clause, so as to make it |