The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 11.
SEDUCTION BILL.

The Bishop of OXFORD moved the third reading 01
the Seduction of Females Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill as going
much further than was intended—much further than Like
Bill which had been sent up from the House of Commons
two ses,ions since.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL supported the mea.
surf.

Lord DENMAN thought that the measure was not
calculated to carry out the object intended, but would
become merely a means of enabling persons to extort
money. The law at present was sufficient to punish
persons guilty of those crimes which this Bill sought to
punish.
Lord CAMPBELL despaired of their Lordships be-
ing able to frame any Bill which would remedy the evil.
To legislate against simple fornication, without any ag-
gravating circumstances, would not be attended with a
good effect. There were cases which it was most de-
sirable to punish, which their Lordships could not in-
clude in any Bill. His Noble and Learned Friend had
referred to Berlin as a pla'ee where they would not suffer
bawdy-houses to exist; but of all capitals for licentiou,-
ness, it was the worst. It was worse than Paris, worse
than Vienna. Ho feared the law could not do more than
it had done.

Lord NELSON thought the Bill was at least worth a
trial.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was with
very sincere regret that he was compelled to express his
assent to the opinion of his Noble and Learned Friends.
He thought that the object of the Bill was impracticable.
If there were any means of meeting the real grievance
without touching that which it was impracticable to
prevent, he would cordially support the measure.
The Earl of HARROWBY thought that juries, being
fathers and husbands, might safely be trusted with the
trial of these cases. If the Bill failed it could only be
for the want of a definition of the word seduction, which
could easily be remedied.
Lord CAMPBELL and other Noble Lords speaking
two and three times over in explanation,
Earl GREY complained of the irregularity of the de-
bate, as their Lordships were not in Committee.

The Bishop of OXFORD said he was anxious to have
a decision of this House upon it, and he would press for
that division. A Bill passed for Birmingham, in 1845,
had proved eminently successful, as well as in many
places on the Continent, particularly in Coblentz, where
it tsnded to lessen the number of illegitimate children—
of patients in the hospitals—and, in point of fact, im-
proved the general condition of morality. He thought,
therefore, that the objections thrown out against the
measure—that it was utterly impossible to carry it into
effect, and would promote the evil it was intended to
suppress—were utterly without foundation.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the th►rd reading
Against it

Majority
Their Lordships then adjourned.

. -7

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 11.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Hall-pa“ Five.
Lord 11. STUART presented a petition in favour
of Parliamentary reform.
Mr.; DUNCAN presented a petition from Aberdeen
to the same effect, and also praying for a reduction in the
national expenditure.
Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition from Middlesex in
favour of vote by ballot.