Commons Sitting of 25 August 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT FOR MIDDLESEX—v. Lord Robert Grosvenor, Manor of Hempholme.
BEVERLEY ELECTION PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR.
  CRAUFURDsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he has yet considered the Evidence reported by the Committee on the Beverley Election Petition, and ordered to be laid before him by the unanimous Resolution of that Committee, and whether it is his intention to take any proceedings thereon?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALin reply said, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not yet come to any decision on the subject, but the case was under consideration by the Law Officers of the Crown.

ADMIRALTY LIGHT REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to act upon the Report of the Committee appointed under the Admiralty Minute of the 5th day of March, 1856, by issuing any Orders altering the present system of Lights for sailing vessels, in accordance with the recommendations of that Report, made to the Admiralty on the 26th day of March, 1856, and presented to the House on the 2lst day of July, 1857?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the subject was still under consideration by the Admiralty, but as an alteration in the existing Act of Parliament would be necessary to change the present system, no

  2079
  such orders as the hon. and learned Gentleman, alluded to had been issued.

THE TROOPS AT THE CAPE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, accompanied by a few explanatory remarks. His question would have reference to the immense accumulation of troops in British pay now at the Cape. It would appear from the answer given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir De Lacy Evans) that the whole of the German Legion had been, from the day of their arrival at the Cape down to the present day, in receipt of full pay, at the expense of the British Treasury, just as if they had been all the time in front of an enemy. According to the understanding with the Governor of the Cape, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, these Legionaries were not to be put on full pay except in a case of emergency. At the same time they were informed that the colony was in a state of perfect peace—in fact, that, according to the last reports of the Governor, the colony had never been in a more perfect state of quiet, and that there was not the slightest risk of disturbance arising. He thought, therefore, that they ought to be furnished with a little more information upon this subject, and to be told the exact date at which the Legion was put upon full pay, as well as the causes of their being so. They had grumbled and not unjustly—["Order, order!"]. Well, to put himself in order he would move the adjournment of the House. It certainly might be considered a matter of importance that at a moment when the country was being stripped of its natural means of defence the House of Commons should know why so many as fifteen regiments were maintained at the Cape—a force exceeding three times the largest force maintained hitherto even in time of war in the colony. They had grumbled a great deal, and not unjustly, at the mode in which the Legion was disposed of—namely, at a rate exceeding £20 per head—while other branches of their army were dispersed at a rate of £2 per man. However, it was concluded that when the Legion reached the Cape there would be an end of all expense on their account. Nevertheless, from the very day of their arrival they were put on full pay, and they were added to the force
  2080
  maintained in the colony. There were at present stationed there several infantry regiments, the Cape Mounted Rifles, Artillery, and then 2,300 of the German Legion, which was equal to three full regiments. When Sir George Cathcart left the Cape, he said that four regiments were as many as England ought to maintain there even in time of war; and that if the country was put in a proper state of defence before three years elapsed, the four regiments might be dispensed with. Well, then, at the present moment no less than three times the proper complement of troops was maintained at the Cape, but upon what pretest was that done? It was said, indeed, that orders had been sent out for two regiments to be sent on to India. Now he must own that he had very little confidence that any troops would leave the Cape for India, but if there did, that not above one-third of the number that might be sent would be ordered on by the Governor. Why, at the very least, the Governor ought to send on six regiments to India. He (Mr. Adderley) believed, however, that certain ingenious plans of his own with reference to the government of the colony stood in the way of the Governor's forwarding troops to India. Those plans, however, had been previously tried in New Zealand and proved to be utter failures, and he felt sure that the Governor was entirely deceived in his views as to the present disposition of the tribes towards the British Government; but, be his plans what they might, he would ask the House was there not an inconsistency in their at one time granting £40,000 for the civilization of the tribes, and next day granting £200,000 to keep them down with German bayonets. He thought, then, he was asking for very little in saying that before they separated they ought to be told distinctly the date at which the German Legion was put upon full pay, and the cause of their being put upon full pay. He would likewise ask the right hon. Gentleman to state how many regiments had been liberated for service in India in consequence of the embodiment of the German Legion at the Cape.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he did not complain of the hon. Gentleman asking the question without notice, considering the period of the Session at which they had arrived, but he could not but regret that he should have taken the opportunity

  2081
  of entering into subjects not necessarily connected with it, and should have reiterated statements formerly made by him with respect to the general policy of Sir George Grey in dealing with the native tribes. He (Mr. Labouchere) would not follow the hon. Gentleman's example in that respect, beyond saying that he altogether differed with him in opinion. He believed that the policy Sir George Grey was pursuing at the Cape towards the native tribes would prove as wise and as successful as it was able and energetic. With regard to the German Legion, it had been called out and embodied very soon after its arrival, and Sir George Grey's motives in taking that step were twofold, partly to maintain the discipline and military character of the men themselves, and partly because at the time of their arrival the state of the Cape, with reference to the Kaffirs, was not so tranquil and peaceful as it had since become. He had stated on a previous occasion that as it had turned out, it was extremely fortunate that the German Legion had been sent to the Cape, and were ready on their arrival to take the place of the regular troops, because it enabled Sir George Grey to remove a considerable portion of the latter to India. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the Governor of the Cape would, in breach of his duty, unnecessarily detain troops that were wanted for active service elsewhere. He (Mr. Labouchere) was under no such apprehension. It was true he had not the pleasure of personal acquaintance with Sir George Grey, but he had had occasion to observe his public conduct in very responsible positions for some years past, and had ever found him actuated by a high sense of public duty and great public spirit. He had no doubt, therefore, that he would in the present emergency fully obey the instructions sent to him, and readily afford to the Indian Government all the assistance in his power by sending out any men he could spare, and who were not, in his opinion, absolutely necessary for the protection of the colony for whose safety he was responsible. The first order given to Sir George Grey in reference to sending out troops to India was to send out two regiments immediately. Since then the Government had been made aware that the Governor of Bombay had applied to Sir George Grey for reinforcements. He had not yet heard what answer had been given to that application, but instructions had been sent out, expressing the confi-
  2082
  dence of the Government that the Governor of the Cape would comply with the request of the Governor of Bombay, as far as it was in his power, and that it was the wish of the Government at home that he should afford as much assistance in sending on troops to India as he could consistently with the safety of the colony. The communication with the Cape was not very regular, and he had not as yet received any report of what Sir George Grey had done in consequence of those instructions and requests, but he had no doubt that he would furnish all the assistance to the Indian authorities in the present emergency that was in his power. It was a most fortunate circumstance, as it appeared to him, that there was this large body of troops collected at the Cape when the outbreak in India occurred, for apart from the opportunity it afforded of detaching a considerable force immediately to the point of danger, it was to that circumstance, he believed, that they had not at this moment to meet a Kaffir war superadded to the mutiny in India. He believed that Sir George Grey was perfectly right in saying that the colony was never more tranquil than it was at the present time, and that state of tranquility would enable him to afford valuable aid to the Indian Government by sending out immediately a body of most efficient troops. He might mention that a high military authority had lately assured him that a regiment that had served at the Cape was of more value for the Indian service than two regiments sent out from this country in the ordinary course.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSremarked, that they had yesterday been informed that these 2,300 German Legionaries had only recently been added to the military forces of the country; now it appeared that they had been a long time embodied. How was it that the House had not been made acquainted with this addition to the military charges of the country, of which no account appeared in the Estimates?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the information in the possession of the Colonial Office on the subject was not very precise at first, and it was deemed desirable to have fuller details before laying the matter before Parliament.
  MAJOR WORTLEYsaid, that he would beg to remind the House that about two months ago he had put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to three regiments which had

  2083
  already served at the Cape some years beyond the usual period of service. Well, he was told on that occasion that the state of affairs at the Cape rendered it absolutely necessary that the three regiments in question should be kept at that station beyond the usual period of service. It was now said, however, that excessive tranquillity reigned over everything at the Cape, and that ample reinforcements could be spared thence for India. Well, that being so, he hoped that in the instructions sent out to the Governor orders would be given to forward on to India the 45th, the 91st, and the 73d regiments, all of which had spent some years beyond the usual time at the Cape.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it rested with the Commander in Chief, and not with the Governor, to designate the regiments to be sent.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would ask how many regiments the Government of Bombay had asked for from the Cape?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Bombay Government had asked for two regiments, and he believed a large number of horses would be sent from the Cape.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSasked, whether the expediency of adding to the Company's European regiments had been taken into consideration?
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that this point had been considered, but at present it was not thought desirable to add to the European regiments of the East India Company.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSE BILL.
  Message from the Lords,—
  That they do return the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, with some of the Commons' Amendments agreed to; some agreed to wit Amendments: and one disagreed to; together with their Reasons for disagreeing to the said Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was desirable to know whether the Amendments were to be taken into consideration then or what course the Government meant to take. The Amendments during an interval in which nothing had been done had been carried out of the House and considered by hon. Members outside of the House, and those on the other side knew nothing about them. He was speaking on behalf of the decency of their proceedings. As soon as the Clerk had announced that the Bill had been brought back from the Lords
  2084
  with Amendments, instead of its being moved in the ordinary way that they might be read, there was a pause in the business of the House while the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) went out of the House to ascertain what the Amendments were. He thought this not a decent mode of conducting the business of the House.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the pause in the business of the House was caused by their waiting for the Bill to come down from the other House, and when it came he looked over the Amendments and found that an important Amendment, which was said to have been made by the Lords, was not in; and he accordingly sent to the Clerk of the House of Lords, who stated the announcement of the division in the Lords in the newspapers was wrong. It was stated that by a majority of four, an Amendment that "a single act of adultery on the part of a husband should be a bar to a divorce" was agreed to by the Lords; whereas the majority was the other way, and it was disagreed to. The only Amendments of the slightest consequence which had been made by their Lordships were in the clause which gave a local jurisdiction in matters of divorce to the Court of Quarter Sessions, in that they had made an Amendment, leaving such jurisdiction in the hands only of the Judge of Assize, or a Commissioner appointed by him. The Lords had also disagreed to the Amendment made on the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) "that adultery by a husband in the conjugal residence" should give a right of divorce to a wife. Those were the only two material alterations made by the Lords; the others being merely formal and verbal.
  Ordered,
  That the reasons assigned by the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by this House to the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Reasons read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthen moved that the House should not insist upon the Amendment, which it had introduced into the Bill giving the Quarter Sessions a local jurisdiction in questions of judicial separation.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should offer no objection to the House agreeing to the Lords' Amendment, as it involved no principle. The Government having consented to the establishment of local juris-

  2085
  dictions in matters of divorce, that was just as well provided for by the clause as it was amended by the Lords. He thought the Assizes and the Quarter Sessions both highly unfit tribunals to deal with such questions; and if, as he believed, the plan could not work, the Government would have to make some other arrangement. He was glad, however, that the Quarter Sessions were struck out.
  MR. SPOONERinquired, at what times the Commissioner appointed by the Judge of Assize would sit?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it was only when the business of the Assizes was pressing that the Judge might appoint a Queen's Counsel or Serjeant whose name was on the Commission to sit for him. He could not sit at other times.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that inconsequence of the omission of the words "Quarter Sessions," it would be necessary to omit them in another part of the clause which related to fees, the House of Lords having purposely not struck them out in that part of the clause on the ground of the privilege of that House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House doth agree with the Lords, in the Amendments made by their Lordships to the Amendments made by this House, as far as the Amendment in p. 7, 1.7, with a consequential Amendment in Clause E."
  The Amendment of the Lords, striking out the clause giving a right of divorce to the wife on the ground of adultery by the husband in the conjugal residence, was read, together with their reasons for doing so—namely, that the words were indefinite, and would give rise to questions of fact and law, and that the enactment was calculated to lead to collusion.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should move that this Amendment be accepted by the House.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was of but little use for him to express any opinion on this matter, but he must remind the House that this Amendment was inserted in the Bill with the full concurrence of the Government, and none of the reasons which were now alleged against it were brought then forward by the Government. Undoubtedly the withdrawal of the clause would very much augment the injustice which the Bill inflicted upon women. A profligate man may now seduce his lady's maid, his governess, or any of his domestics, in the con-
  2086
  jugal residence; he might, in fact, convert his house into a brothel, and the poor wife would be without any remedy. He could not conceive any state of things more intolerable for a woman than to have a husband living in open adultery with one of his domestics. He was sorry to see the Government departing from the principle which it had set out with, and thus inflicting additional cruelty and insult upon woman. He would not himself press the point to a division; but, certainly, if any other hon. Gentleman should move the rejection of the Lords' Amendment he would accept the opportunity thus afforded him of placing his opinions upon record with reference to this clause.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his recollection when he said that the objections and reasons given by the Lords for striking out the words in question were not stated by the Government when the proposition was discussed, for he (Lord Palmerston) stated the words "adultery in the conjugal residence" might open the door to a good deal of collusion; but at the same time he said, that on the whole, and on the balance of reasons, it did appear to Her Majesty's Government that the Amendment was one to which it was proper to agree. For no one could disguise from himself the fact which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, that such a state of things was calculated to outrage the feelings of a wife, and strengthened her claim to a separation. On the other hand, it might be said that such a proceeding was so contrary to the feelings of a man and a gentleman, that public opinion and the opinion of relatives and friends, except in cases of extreme profligacy tended to prevent such a state of things. However, the Government would have been glad to have had the words retained, and were still of opinion that the balance of reasons was in favour of the Amendment, as it stood before it went to the other House. The right hon. Gentleman must however remember that the Motion for striking out the words in the other House was made by a noble Lord connected with the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged; it was made by the Opposition and not by the Government; it was resisted by the Government and carried against them on a division by a large majority, 44 being for the omission of the words, and 27 against it. Under these circumstances it appeared to the

  2087
  Government that it was not likely that the Lords would see any reason to reverse their decision; and it was not a question of such importance as to justify a conference being held with the other House. He hoped, however, that it would be borne in mind that the omission of the words was not proposed by the Government, but by those who were opposed to the Bill; that it was resisted by the Government in debate, and carried on a division against the Government.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he perfectly concurred in everything that had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The noble Lord at the head of the Government announced that he thought the balance of reasoning was decidedly in favour of the proviso. Well, if that were so, he hoped an opportunity would be allowed to the noble Lord of placing his views on record, and of having the sincerity of his opinions tested. He would like, however, to know whether proxies had been used in the division with regard to this Amendment, and if not, why not? With regard to the Bill itself, he must once for all declare that it completely failed in one great act of justice, namely, in not giving the injured and innocent wife as full, easy and complete a remedy as was offered to the injured and innocent husband. He hoped his right hon. Friend, the Member for Oxfordshire, would divide the House against the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that I stated in the latter part of my observations the reasons why, notwithstanding the retention of our opinion on this question, we thought it expedient to agree to the Amendment of the Lords.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that he thought Mr. Henley right in saying that a man living in adultery in the same house with his wife was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, outrages he could commit on his wife. He would remind the House, however, that when the Amendment in question was made in that House, a suggestion was made by the hon. and learned Attorney General that the words should be "habitual adultery," but that was refused by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the clause was retained as it stood, so that a single act of adultery by a man in his house, perhaps in a moment of intoxication, was sufficient. If, therefore, a hardship on the wife was continued, it was in a great measure the
  2088
  fault of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it was competent to the House to do so he should be glad to see the Amendment with those words added re-introduced into the Bill, but if the question was between no clause and the clause as it stood, he should prefer it as it stood.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, if he remembered rightly, the term "habitual adultery" was rejected in that House on account of its indefiniteness. He deeply regretted that the Lords had rejected this proviso; and now, more than ever, he deeply regretted that a discretionary power to determine with regard to what might be considered "aggravating circumstances" had not been vested in the Court. Indeed he thought it was scarcely yet too late to insert a proviso of the latter description in the Bill.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSremarked, that it would have been monstrous to have allowed a wife to have petitioned for a divorce on the ground of what might be termed an accidental adultery, and to have prohibited her from seeking it for adultery habitually committed in perhaps the next house to her own.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment at page 7, line 7, to which the Lords have disagreed."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 11; Majority 32.
  Resolved,
  "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the other Amendments made by their Lordships to the Amendments made by this House to the said Bill, without Amendment.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock, till Friday.