Lords Sitting of 30 July 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Poor Law Relief [No. 239]; Sweating System [First Report] [No. 240].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Companies* (241).
Second Reading—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (86).
Third Reading—Indian Councils Act, 1861, Amendment (224), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Report—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* (223).

INDIA—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE —ALLEGED DEGRADING EXAMINATION OF A HINDOO GIRL AT PATNA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, What steps have been taken by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal with reference to the conduct of Mr. Kirkwood, Sessions Judge at Patna, who was reported to have ordered the examination by a surgeon of a Hindu girl who was complainant in a case of theft of her property by a man recently released from gaol after three years' imprisonment? The noble Lord said, that a Hindu just released from three years' imprisonment had broken into a house at Dinapore and carried off some brass utensils. The occupier of the house, a Hindu girl of 12 years of age, who had left it to fetch some water, returned immediately after the robbery, found the door had been tampered with, and that her brass vessels had disappeared. A hue and cry was raised, and the thief was pursued and captured, and committed to trial by the cantonment magistrate of Dinapore, as he was an old offender. On the 11th of May the prisoner was tried at the Patna Sessions by Mr. Kirkwood. The prisoner had no questions to ask the girl, nor did he set up any defence tending to impugn her character. Nevertheless the Judge, Mr. Kirkwood, thought fit to ask the witness whether she had always been chaste. She said she had, upon which the Judge ordered her to be examined. No evidence against the girl was produced; but Mr. Kirkwood discredited her evidence, and the prisoner, who had made no defence, was acquitted. After this a Punchayat, or committee of five of her caste men, expelled the girl from her caste on account of the outrage put upon her by Mr. Kirkwood, and she had been deprived of her means of subsistence. Now what was the previous record of Mr. Kirkwood's exploits on the Bench? Three cases of his misconduct on the Bench were reported. One of these occurred in 1876, when he was district magistrate in Chittagong, when he wantonly disgraced Babu Lal Chand Chowdhury, honorary magistrate and municipal commissioner, and ordered him to mount guard over a public latrine, the erection

  723
  of which he had opposed, and subsequently instituted a groundless criminal prosecution against him. It was said that Mr. Kirkwood should have been dismissed the service at that time, but Sir Richard Temple simply degraded him, and, declaring his unfitness for executive work, transferred him to the Judicial Bench. It also appeared that Lord Lytton considered the sentence on Mr. Kirkwood too lenient, but declined to enhance the punishment. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) would ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State what redress he would give to the girl for the outrage which she had suffered from Mr. Kirkwood? This, however, was not the only case of judicial misconduct in Bengal; there were complaints against Mr. Posford and four other civilian Judges or Magistrates. There were also great complaints against the political agents, and these had culminated in the Hyderabad scandals. He regretted to be obliged to say that he thought that the Secretary of State for India or the India Office were responsible for increased misconduct on the part of the officials in India. The Secretary of State had done two acts which must have encouraged the hopes of impunity in wrong-doers, and must have discouraged Governors and Lieutenant Governors in their endeavours to check evil-doers. The Secretary of State last year had refused to make any inquiry into the Arnighad case, on the ground that it had not been referred to him by the Indian Government. If a wrong was done and the Indian Government neglected to redress it, why should they report it to the India Office? The noble Viscount lately professed great respect for the High Courts of India; why, then, had he appointed Sir Alfred Lyall to be a Member of his Council, in the teeth of the summing up of the Chief Justice of Allahabad, since promoted to be Chief Justice of Calcutta, in the trial of Captain Hearsey? In that trial Sir Alfred Lyall had been the virtual defendant. The trial turned upon the bad language used by Mr. Laidman on the Bench. Sir Alfred Lyall had shown, by what he had written in The Old Pindarry, that he had no personal predilection for the use of bad language, but he had upheld Mr. Laidman only because he belonged to the Civil Service. Other Members of the India Office
  724
  Council might have the same tendency always to uphold the Civil Service. If he was mistaken in accusing the India Office, the noble Viscount could prove it by stating how many Minutes of dissent had been recorded by the Council in such cases against his views or those of his Predecessors. In the Cambay case, the noble Viscount had administered a rebuff to Lord Reay, the Governor of Bombay; and Lord Reay must be a man of great forbearance if he had not sent to the Secretary of State a despatch containing most voluminous inclosures of criticism on the course followed by the Secretary of State, taken from the whole Press of India. He would make two entreaties to the noble Viscount—one that he should not put too great a strain upon his personal popularity by refusing to inquire into these matters; the other, that he should rely more upon his own unassisted judgment, and less upon that of Members of his Council. Some might say that he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had laid too much stress upon this case, and that things might be done in Patna which might not be done in London. But it was not competent to a Secretary of State for India to say that the female subjects of the Empress were to be less protected from outrage than the female subjects of the Queen; and if the Secretary of State were to show by his actions that he thought so, he would be reminded of the words of the Royal Proclamation of 1858, which were only a paraphrase of the words of an ancient Queen—
  "Tros, Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, in answer to the Question put to me, I must refer the noble Lord to the reply given in "another place" on the 24th instant by Sir John Gorst to Mr. S. Smith. That reply was as follows—
  "Mr. Kirkwood appears to have ordered a girl of 12, who had accused a man of stealing, to be examined. He has been severely censured for this by the High Court of Judicature in Bengal, and the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal has determined to remove him from judicial service. It is stated that Mr. Kirkwood intends to appeal.
  Subsequently information has reached me by telegram that Mr. Kirkwood proposes to resign the Civil Service, if the order of degradation be withheld and the censure restricted to the terms used

  725
  by the Bengal High Court—namely, conduct reprehensible in high degree. This proposal is now under the consideration of the Government of India. Whatever decision they may arrive at will be reviewed by me in the usual way when the facts of the case are fully brought to my knowledge. The noble Lord has referred to other cases of alleged misconduct on the part of judicial officers of the Civil Service, and to the apathy of the India Office and of the Government of India; but nothing of the kind, however, has been brought to my knowledge to show that any of the Judges have not behaved properly. Since I have been in Office I have taken care to appoint no judicial officers who are not adequate to perform their duties. I was rather astonished to hear the speech of the noble Lord attacking these officials, because the Notice on the Paper simply referred to one particular case, and I have little to add to the answer given the other day in "another place."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not in the House when this matter was mentioned, but he understood that some attack had been made upon a very distinguished person. He wished to say that during the time he was connected with Indian administration there was no Governor regarded with more confidence than Sir Alfred Lyall.

OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—THE SPACE AT THE LAW COURTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that a sum of money has been placed at their disposal by an anonymous donor for the purpose of defraying the expense of laying out as a public garden the open space adjoining the Law Courts, not at present required for building purposes; and, if so, whether it is true that they propose to carry out the wishes of the donor?
  LORD HENNIKERin reply, said, their Lordships would remember that the other day, in reply to the noble Earl, he stated that the First Commissioner of Works had come to the conclusion that whatever was done should not be done out of Imperial funds, but that he was prepared, if any scheme for laying out as a public garden the land
  726
  in question was proposed, to carefully consider it. He was glad to say that a gentleman, who was not for the first time a benefactor of the public in this direction, had proposed to the First Commissioner to put this piece of ground in order at his own expense. The First Commissioner of Works had consented to the arrangement, and it would be carried out forthwith. He thought it right that he should repeat what he said the other day, so that there should be no misunderstanding. Their Lordships knew that this was a most valuable site, and that it would probably be required by the Lord Chancellor for the extension of the Law Courts. The First Commissioner of Works had allowed the ground to be put in order temporarily; but he had reserved to himself to take back the whole of the ground, or any part of it, at any time that the ground might be required for the Public Service. He should like to add that the ground would be laid out in accordance with a plan prepared by Mr. Street, the architect of the Law Courts.

FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 86.)
(The Lord Macnaghten.)
FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 86.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to remedy a defect in the existing law with respect to prohibiting trawling within a given area. The Bill provided that if two-thirds of the registered owners of fishing boats in a given area made a representation to the Fishery Inspectors with the view of having trawling prohibited within that area, the Fishery Inspectors might make an order prohibiting trawling there if they thought fit, and in case the Fishery Inspectors refused to comply with the prayer of the representation, the registered owners might petition the Lord Lieutenant, who might himself make the order.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, the object of the Bill

  727
  was wholly unobjectionable; but he should suggest that in Committee on the Bill the appeal should be, not to the Lord Lieutenant, but to the Lord Lieutenant in Council.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he was strongly opposed to the Bill on the ground that it would empower the Fishery Commissioners, without any inquiry, to make an order on the representation of two-thirds of the owners of fishing boats in a given district, which might seriously affect the interests of others. Unless important Amendments were made in Committee he should strongly oppose the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDthought the Government were responsible for selecting the best men to fill the position of Fishery Inspectors. That being so, he believed it was an objectionable thing to provide by this Bill that the Lord Lieutenant, without any inquiry, should be empowered to set aside any decision they might arrive at on the subject if a representation was made by the fishermen of the locality with regard to the prohibition of trawling.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he was unable to think that the noble Lords who objected to this Bill could have fully acquainted themselves with its provisions. At present the Lord Lieutenant could over-rule the decisions of the Fisheries Inspectors, and there was, therefore, no change in that respect.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.