The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-11 00:00:00

SEDUCTION.

Mr. MILES then rose to move the second reading
of the Bill for giving a summary jurisdiction to the
Magistrates in certain cases of seduction. He re-
gretted that the Bill, which was one of consi-
derable importance, had not been confided to other hands.
In order to prove that bastardy had increased under the
restrictive system, in the first three years of that sys-
tem the number of cases in ten counties was 8,579,
and in the last three years 9,548, showing an increase
under the new system of 969 in that period.
He found, from a return of the Registry of Births, that
in 500 births 59 had been bastards. At this
time, of children under two years of age there bad died
—of legitimate children 77, and of bastards 35. He had
hoped to have had a similar return from all England
but found it would be impossible to procure it. But
these returns, he thought, showed the necessity of some •
thing being done. Returns of the Poor-law Commis.
sinners, ending Christmas 1833 and 1839, showed an
increase of one-fifth of the illegitimate children admitted
into the workhouses, and a vet, large increase in the
number of mothers of bastards receiving parochial re-
lief, amounting to no less a number than 633, and the
total charge for mothers and bastards amounted to 6631.
The imperfections of the present state of the law were
manifest to every one, and the only question was as to
the best means of remedying it. The remedy which
he proposed did not emanate from himself, but
from a higher authority. The authority to which he
alluded was that of the Commissioners themselves, ..who
expressed the wish which they felt to render justice
accessible to the poorer classes. In that principle he
entirely concurred, and it was insisted on by Mr.
Power in his evidence. It was from that evidence that
he was endeavouring to frame his Bill. (The Hon.
Member here read some extracts front the e%idonce of
Mr. Power in favour of the principle which he advo-
cated.) He would divide h's Bill into two heads. The
one would relate to seduction effected under breach of a
promise of marriage, the other to seduction effected by
any other means. In either case it a birth or pregnancy
should take place before his Bill would come into ope.
ration, he proposed that the Magistrates should have
the power of making Special Sessions for the trial of cases.
He should propose that the damages to be awarded be
fixed at under 80/. The Bill laid it down
that this should be payable in six instalments within
eighteen months. That, however, could he altered
in Committee, and it was to be optional in the Magis-
trates to levy the whole sum at once or in instalments.
In cases of breach of promise of marriage,
he proposed that the action should be. brought by the
woman. In cases of seduction, by the father, mother,
natural guardian, master, or mistress ; and the damages '
paid to the same parties as brought the action—in cases
of seduction to be applied to the support of the illegitimate
children, if any. Ten days' notice of summons was to
be given to the pally. No decision was to be given on
the unsupported testimony of the woman. There might be
some difficulty as to corroborative proof ; but the Bill
once read a second time, these points would all be
adjusted in Committee, with the efficient aid of
legal gentlemen. Of the necessity of speedily
passing some such measure he felt confident. -He
knew that seduction among farmer's work-people
or domestic servants, was most frequent, under
promise of marriage ; and,. generally, after so
long :a courtship, that the poor females had
every reason to believe the party sincere. As to
women in poor-houses, he
,'aelicved the evil of in-
efficient classification was productive of great immo-
rality. With respect to the Poor-law, he theught
it best to repeal all the bastardy clauses,
and leave the question solely to be dealt with under
this Bill as a civil inquiry. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by earnestly asking the House to allow the Bill
to be read a second time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the se-
cond reading of the Bill. He gave the Hon. Member
credit for his motives, and for the great attention which
he had deVoted to the .subject. . The crime of seduc-
tion was a very great one, 4nd productive of the most
lamentable consequences, and any measure calculated
to check it effectually, . should be received with
applause. , The amendment of the ,Poor-laws had
done much to effect that object, and so far,. no mea-
sure had .beenmore beneficial. But the pre3ent Bill
for the first time in the legislation of this country
proposed to give compensation in damages merely for
the loss of chastity., It proposed that any woman
going before a Justice could obtain a summons to
bring a man before the Justices at Petty Sessions,
who, upon the evidence of two witnesses that
the defendant had seduced the complainant under
promise of marriage, would be compelled to sentence
him in the penalty of 30/. He (the Attorney-Ge-
neral) need not dwell upon the difficulty of proving that
seduction by true evidence, and the facilities and tempta-
tions which the Bill offered to the procuring of false
evidence. It was certain that if the Bill became law
the Justices, in many cases, would be compelled to
sentence innocent men to pay that penalty. For these
reasons he felt it his duty to move—That the Bill
be read a second time that..day six months.
Mr. BENETT said that, whether or not this Bill
was the best calculated to remedy the evil for which it
was provided, he would not take upon himself to say ;
but this he was certain of, that a remedy of some kind
or other was imperatively called for. Nothing could
be more cruel and unjust than the present position o:
the female sex in this respect. So tar from the crime
of seduction being, as the Attorney-General had repre-
sented, on the decrease, it was his opinion, founded
upon facts and observation, that the crime had gre.-,tly
increased of late, but that concealment was more stu-
diously practised. That seduction was difficult of
proof there was no doubt, and he himself had been
told by men, some of whom were his own farm-servants.
that they admitted they were the fathers of the chil-
dren, but they stated they knew the testimony of the
mother alone was not sufficient for their conviction.
He knew several instances, and he believed they were
of frequent occurrence, in which seduction had taken
place after the publintion of banns in church ; and for
this, as the law at present stood, it afforded no remedy
to the classes whom this Bill sought to re!ieve. Be-
lieving, therefore, that it was necessary something
should be clone, he should feel it his duty to vote for
the second reading, though there were several respects
in which he thought the Bill might be beneficially
amended.

Mr, SLANEY agreed that some alteration in the
existing law ought to be made, but he did not think the
Bill of his Hon. Friend would effect such an alteration
as was desirable. He would suggest to his Honourable
Friend to withdraw the Bill for the present, and put
it into a more perfect shape, so that when it came on
again it night stand a better chance of passing.
Mr. MILES said that if the House consented to
the second reading of the Bill, he should be glad to
listen to every suggestion for the amendment of the de-
tails of the Bill.

Mr. VILLIERS opposed the second reading of
the Bill.

Mr. FRESHFIELD supported the second reading
of the Bill, because he approved of its principles, but
he could not adopt its details. He supported the Bill
on the principle that something ought to be done.
Mr. HAWES opposed the Bill on principle. It was,
in fact, a Bill to legalize seduction on the part of the
rich. If a man could afford to pay 30/., no further
consequences would happen to him. :It did not give to
the poor man the remedy it professed to give him, while
it facilitated seduction on the part of the rich.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared--
For the Bill

Against it

Majority in favour of the Bill
The Bill was then rend a second time.
SALE OF BEER.

Mr. PAK ENGTON moved the further considera-
tion of the Report of the Committee on the Sale of
Beer Bid.
The House then went into a Committee of the whole
House on the Sale of Beer Bill : Mr. FRESHFIELD in
the Chair.
On the qualification clause being read,

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET assured the
Commitee that he rose to object to the proposition con-
tained in the clause with very great reluctance. The
proposition was that in certain districts the person ap-
plying_ for a license to sell beer should possess a house
valued at 151.; in other districts the qualification waP a
house of M.; arid in the third district the house vas
to be of the value of 81. Now it appeared to him tat
that was an arrangement which would materially affect
the interests of the trade, and he would give the Com-
mittee the instance of the town of Pontypool, in which
there was not at present one house which carve under
the first class. Indeed, a great proportion of the exist-
ing beer-houses were all of the lowest class, and, of
course, when the new arrangement came into operation,
many districts would be left entirely unprovided for.
He admitted that evils existed under the present system,
but he doubted very much whether the Bill of the Hon.
Member would effect the improvements which he con-
templated.

Mr. HAMILTON begged to remind the Noble
Lord that the Bill would not interfere with the present
licenses.

Mr. PAKINGTON was sorry to find that the gra-
duated scale he had proposed'did not meet the approval
of the Noble Lord, at the same time he felt they were
not open to the objections which bad been urged against
them. The point which the Committee had to consider
Whetherwas,
ue t hey pnroets,einntdscyasltien ni, the
gwith the culls which had
u
principle of remo-.
delling them by a scale. of qualificat:on was a good Oft
or not, The principle he had proposed was that whie,.
bad been proposed in Lord Chandos'i Bill of I
was the principle which the House had san-''
I (Mr. Pakington's) Bill of last Sc sin-

-A-it

~tioned in his
~1, and it was the