§ Amendments reported (according to order).
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYMy Lords, I desire to call attention to Clause 5, as amended in Committee, which provides that, instead of an order in pursuance of paragraph (a)—i.e., that the applicant should be no longer bound to cohabit with his wife—the Court may, with the consent of the wife, order her to be committed to and detained in an inebriates' home. It does appear to me to be common sense that this should be done with the consent of the husband. This is a grave matter, reaching down to the very roots of domestic life; and it seems to me your Lordships ought to consider carefully before you insert such a provision without the safeguard I have suggested. It is impossible to imagine a greater curse than a drunken wife, and the Clause is apparently meant to give the husband relief from the curse. I do not speak as an expert, but the common notion is that intemperance in a woman, when once it has taken a hold of her, is an incurable disease. Instead, however, of giving permanent relief to the husband from this hideous companionship, the section merely gives him temporary relief by relegating the wife to an inebriates' asylum, from which she may emerge at any moment, only partially or temporarily cured, and go back to her home and family. Does it seem, under these circumstances, too much to ask that the consent of the husband should be added to that of the wife in connection with the order?
§ LORD BELPERI will take care that what the noble Earl has said shall be brought before the Home Secretary, and the point will be considered. I would point out, however, that the proviso was inserted for the purpose of allowing time to elapse, if the married woman consented, before a decree of judicial separation was issued. It is not for the purpose of taking the place of the separation order, but rather a step to see what can be done to prevent a home from being broken up. It may be that after a year or two in an inebriates' reformatory the woman may be cured, and then, of course, the husband may be able to live with her again. 1334 I do not know if it will meet the view of the noble Lord, but I have an Amendment to propose giving the Court power, where a woman gives her consent, to remove her to a retreat.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUHY)I think the objection made by the noble Earl is not an unreasonable one. Of course, where the application is made on behalf of the husband as against the wife, the magistrate must hear the husband's views. He may then make one of several orders set out in the Clause, and if it appeared evident that the wife was such a habitual drunkard that the domestic home could not continue, the magistrate would be entitled to make a separation order. The policy of the section is to leave it free to the magistrate to make such order as he thinks appropriate to the occasion. In as much as the application has to be made by the husband, it seems to me that, though not removing the objection of the noble Earl, it considerably mitigates it.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI want to make my meaning clear. I cannot quite understand that the noble Lord is justified in saying that this section is only to form part of the general enactment provided in the earlier part of the Bill. I do not think that anything the noble and learned Earl has said would conflict with the words I should like to see introduced. What the noble and learned Earl has said is entitled to the J greatest respect, and I do not wish for a moment to put my judgment against his in such a matter. But it seems to me to give an option—an absolute option—to the magistrate or judge making an order; and I want that option to be made after the statement of the husband and with the consent of the husband. I do not think that anything in the words suggested by the Home Office conflicts with that view, because if the words "of the husband and" were inserted it would make the point more clear, and would guard against the danger which I think is apparent.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDI think there are serious consequences attaching to the suggestion of the noble Earl. He is making the husband judge in this matter. It is very often a contest between the husband and the wife; and 1335 instead of a discretion being exercised whether or not there should be a separation or whether the wife should be sent to a retreat, the noble Earl suggests that the husband should be predominant in the question, and should be able to say, "Without my consent my wife shall not go to a house of retreat." This power may be exercised under a feeling of hostility, and may be most injurious to the interests of the wife. If there is to be this separation it is alone just towards the husband, but it places the wife in a sad position. She becomes an outcast in the world. Who is to look after her future? Her life must become that of an outcast; and in order to prevent this result, this proviso has been introduced.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI would point out to the noble and learned Lord that the suggestion no more makes the man a judge in the matter than he is in the earlier part of the Clause, because, after all, the whole effect of the Clause hinges on the application of the husband, and I am anxious only to put him in the same position with regard to this last sub-section as he is in the first. The noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy expressed his sympathy for the drunken wife. I am certainly sorry for the wife, but I am more sorry, for the husband. Let the wife, if necessary, remain in the inebriates' retreat; she has broken up the home: it is she who should pay the penalty—not the husband.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNSubsection 2 deals with the habitual drunken wife. I should like to ask why there is no similar proviso with regard to subsection 1, which deals with the habitual drunken husband.
§ LORD BELPERI think the answer is that the wife and husband are in a somewhat different position, and it is not necessary in the case of the husband, while it may be desirable in the case of the wife. The point has not been raised before, and I will inquire into it.
Formal Amendment, giving the Court power to remove a woman, with her consent, to a retreat, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI understand the noble Lord will pay attention 1336 to the suggestion I have made between this and the Third Reading stage?
§ LORD BELPERCertainly.
§ LORD BELPERCertainly.
§ LORD BURGHCLEREI desire to put a question on Clause 25, on the section which was added in the Standing Committee with regard to certain privileges to be given to clubs at Oxford. Will the clubs at Cambridge enjoy the same privileges?
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI have made inquiries of the University of Cambridge as to whether they desire a similar Amendment to be inserted applying to that university. I find that they have no such desire, it being the policy of the University of Cambridge to allow the privileges to lapse.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.