Sitting of 13 August 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment (250).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance*(196); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Local Taxation Returns* (199), and passed.
Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* (195), and passed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 200.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill, which had come up from the Commons, was one of considerable interest as it affected the existing law under the Matrimonial Causes Acts. As the law now stood, the Queen's Proctor or any other person might intervene between the decree Nisi and the making it absolute, and try to set the decree aside on the ground of collusion, or the adultery of the petitioner. If the Queen's Proctor succeeded, the petitioner might be ordered to pay his costs; but if he failed to prove collusion, or the petitioner succeeded, the petitioner could not get his costs from the Queen's Proctor, and it was doubtful whether he could get them from a private intervener. This was unjust, and Section 2 of this Bill remedied the injustice, by providing that the Court might make such order as to the costs of all the parties occasioned by such intervention as might seem just. Again, the Court could not order the husband to provide for the wife, if the decree was not granted. Therefore, first, though an innocent husband could be made to provide for the guilty wife, a guilty husband could not, because his prayer for a decree would be rejected; and, secondly, there was no inducement, but much the contrary, to a wife to allege and prove a matrimonial offence against her husband, because, if she proved it, a decree would not be granted, and no provision could be ordered for her. Thus it was left to the Queen's Proctor to intervene, if perchance he heard of the husband's failings. The Bill remedied that defect also, by giving power to the Court to order provision to be made for the wife when the husband also had been guilty of a matrimonial offence. It had been ruled that the Court had no power to look into settle-
810
ments and make an order for the benefit of either parent, unless there was a child living at time of the decree. There was no good reason for that and the Bill would put the matter right. The Bill had been prepared by Mr. Herschell, at the request of the President of the Court and of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. Both those learned Judges approved it; the Attorney General strongly supported it in the House of Commons, and Sir Stafford Northcote agreed to the 2nd clause, which made a possible charge on the Treasury. If their Lordships passed the second reading, he, in accordance with Notice, would then move the suspension of the Standing Orders, with the view of having the Bill put through its remaining stages at once.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, but he could not assent to the Standing Orders being suspended in order to its being passed through its remaining stages this Session. The Bill only passed through Committee in the House of Commons on Thursday, and passed its remaining stages on Friday and Saturday. It was read a first time in their Lordships' House on Saturday, and was put down for second reading to-day. The Bill was not delivered with the Papers to-day, and on coming down to the House at 3 o'clock to-day, he found it impossible to get a copy of it, inasmuch as it had not been printed. He thought that it would be derogatory to the dignity of their Lordships' House to pass the Bill through its remaining stages under these circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not surprised at the view taken by his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. He had no objection to the Bill—on the contrary, he believed it was one which might well receive their Lordships' assent; but he could not say that there were not other Members of their Lordships' House who, if they were in their places, might take exception to the measure. He believed that, in fact, very few of their Lordships were aware of the nature, or even of the existence of the Bill. He suggested, therefore, that for the present Session the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) should be content with obtaining a second reading for the Bill.
LORD SUDELEYsaid, that after what had been said by the Chairman of Committees and the Lord Chancellor, he would not move the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
Order of the Day for consideration of Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. read and discharged.

INDIA—BOMBAY—THE CHIEF OF PALITANA.—PETITION.
LORD CAMPBELLpresented a Petition from Malloojee Devajee and others, kinsmen of the Chief of Palitana, in the Province of Kattyawar, under the Presidency of Bombay, complaining of certain grievances, and praying for redress. The noble Lord said: There exists a just and very general impression that no new topic, at a period of the Session so advanced, ought to be brought forward, unless practically urgent. Partaking fully that impression, I present a Petition from certain kinsmen of the Chief of Palitana, in the Province of Kattyawar, under the Presidency of Bombay. It may be held that from time to time Indian complaints are in need of Parliamentary attention owing to the magnitude of our dominion, without reflecting on the Viceroy or the Secretary of State, or the enlightened Council who support him. The allegations of the Petitioners are that the Chief of Palitana has imposed a new tax upon his kinsmen; that he has illegally appropriated a number of their villages; that he has imprisoned by force the families of those who have resisted him. With regard to the first point, an official document informs me that the Indian Department have judged the tax to be a legal one; but as the decision was arrived at during the absence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State at Constantinople, it might, on that ground, deserve re-consideration. With regard to the second point, the Bombay Government were adverse to the Petitioners. But a conclusion of the same kind, on the part of the Bombay Government some years ago, was overruled by Lord Halifax, at that time Secretary of State. As to the third charge—namely, that of exposing unoffending subjects of Her Majesty to all
812
the hardships of a prison, the noble Marquess will, no doubt, either explain, or put an end to such a situation. I have nothing more to add, except that the mode in which the subject was presented to me would have induced any other noble Lord to bring it equally forward, however great the inconvenience of coming here to-day, or of attending to the facts which I have shortly brought before your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend was quite justified in stating that Parliament always narrowly watched the acts of the Government and the India Office, if ever they were tempted to neglect to act with justice towards those under their charge. There had been no omission, no negligence, on the part of the India Office, in respect of this matter. When he was at the India Office, in 1866, the affairs of this Chief were under consideration of the Council, and when he came back, in 1874, he found they were still under consideration. Tor some 16 or 17 years this case had been, in one way or other, before the Indian Government; it had been heard in every conceivable form, and the most enlightened Political Agents had given it their careful attention. It had been duly tried and decided, so far as the jurisprudence prevailing in that part of the country would permit. Palitana was not within Her Majesty's dominions, but was a comparatively small and insignificant State, and the conduct of this State was more or less roughly supervised by political officers acting under the Government of Bombay. A claim was made for certain dues; and whether these claims were due or not, was a matter which had been a frequent subject of inquiry. Both Colonel Anderson and Mr. Peile, after careful and prolonged investigation, without any doubt or hesitation, gave a decision against these Petitioners, and in favour of the Chief; and, on appeal, it was confirmed by the Government of Bombay and afterwards by the Secretary of State. It did not appear that anything further could be done. The other point mentioned by his noble Friend appeared to rest on no solid foundation. It was said that the detention of these persons in prison was a very tyrannical act; and it was quite true that he had imprisoned certain people; but it should be remembered

813
that the persons in question had resisted the Chief's authority, and had shot some of his soldiers. For that offence they were tried and imprisoned. Statements were made to the Government of Bombay and the Home Government that the treatment of these persons in prison was not seemly or humane; whereupon a Government officer was sent down to see what that treatment was. His report was that the treatment was proper and humane, and there was no reason to complain of it. Another statement made was that their homes had been destroyed and their female relatives maltreated.; but on inquiry being made those ladies said that they had only two grievances—one of which was that they wanted some new clothes, and that their dinner was not always served in time. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that the greatest attention had been given to the investigation of the ease. The Home Government had come to the conclusion that the Indian Government had acted justly, and there was no ground of grievance which these persons could allege against the treatment which they had received. His noble Friend would agree with him that it would not be desirable to re-try this case.

FACTORY LABOUR IN INDIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYrose to put a Question to the noble Marquess of which he had given him private Notice. Their Lordships would remember that a year or two ago he brought before them the subject of the limitation of the labour of children employed in the various mills and factories in India. The information which he received from the noble Marquess on that occasion was not of a precise character—he hoped the noble Marquess would be able to give him more satisfactory assurances on the present occasion. Nothing could be more contradictory than the statements which reached him in respect of this matter. On the one side it was said that nothing could be worse than the condition of the children employed in the Indian factories; while, on the other hand, he had seen it stated that nothing could be more delightful. But those were exactly the sort of statements made in this country in 1833 in relation to the state of things in our own mills—
  814
  to believe the advocates of the existing state of things, long hours of labour were a specific against every disease to which the human frame was liable. It was said there was a rivalry between the Lancashire and the Indian manufacturers, and that those who showed an anxiety in this matter were endeavouring to suppress altogether the growing factory industry of India. But such statements were very unfair. He believed that the Lancashire manufacturers were able to hold their own. What he asked was that the claims of humanity should be respected alike in every part of Her Majesty's dominions, and as the labour of young persons and women had been restricted in this country, so it should be in India.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend was quite right as to the contradictory statements which were made on this matter. Great difficulties and much prejudice had been imported into the question in consequence of the feeling of the highest rivalry between' Lancashire and Bombay. No one, however, would suspect his noble Friend of being an accomplice of the Lancashire manufacturers. The difficulty was to obtain all the facts of the case. A Commission was appointed some three years ago to examine into the question. That Commission conducted a careful examination. There was a majority and a minority on the Commission; but the majority were in favour of the existing system, and their Report went to show that under it no hardship was suffered by the women and children. Part of the great suffering formerly endured by the children in the mills in Lancashire was due to the close and unwholesome and overheated atmosphere caused by the necessary processes, and in which these children were compelled to live. But in Bombay that cause of suffering did not exist, because the natural atmosphere was suited to the manufactures, and that atmosphere both parents and child could bear. He thought, however, that the children were overworked; but unless in legislation on this matter you could carry with you the sympathy of some at least of the classes of the Indian community, there would be great danger that legislation would be a failure; and certainly they had there at present neither the feelings of the manufacturers nor those of the workpeople, the latter

  815
  being anxious to make a little money out of the labour of their children. That, indeed, was no reason for dropping legislation on the subject, but it suggested caution in attempting to attain the humane object the noble Earl had in view. On the 18th of April he communicated by telegram with the Government of India on the subject. They replied that they had come to the conclusion that legislation was necessary, and promised to communicate further in a subsequent despatch. That promised despatch had not yet reached the India Office. He could assure his noble Friend that the matter would receive every consideration.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROrose to ask, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any and what steps to inquire into the condition and administration of the Metropolitan Police Force. The noble Lord reminded their Lordships that in the present Session he had brought this subject under their notice when putting a Question to the Government on the subject of the Blackheath outrages. He then complained of the robberies that had been perpetrated on Blackheath, and that the police there had not shown sufficient vigilance in the performance of their duties. On that occasion he was replied to rather in a tone of levity. The police authorities endeavoured to make out that the outrages were some freak of students or schoolboys; but it had since been ascertained that the robberies were real, and bank-notes had been traced. Since the occasion to which he referred other outrages had occurred in the same neighbourhood, though not, perhaps, of so flagrant a character. When speaking on the subject before, he hazarded a remark to which the noble Earl who answered his Question (Earl Beauchamp) did not reply — namely, that certain departments of the Police should be officered by men of a better status and higher intelligence. Recent discoveries went far to prove that such a change would be highly expedient. In 1829, when Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police, the principle he adopted was to create two Chiefs, one of whom should be a military man, accustomed to the dis-
  816
  position and commanding of large bodies of disciplined men, and a civil Chief, to whom should be entrusted the discipline and conduct of the Police as a detective body and employed in detail for the preservation of order. That system was adopted and was continued till 1856, when Colonel Rowan died. Shortly afterwards Sir Richard Mayne became sole Commissioner, receiving the aid of two Assistant Commissioners under him. On Sir Richard Mayne's death Colonel Henderson, as his successor, was also appointed sole Commissioner. He believed that Colonel Henderson's experience in prison management in Australia led to his appointment as Chief Commissioner; but it seemed to him (Lord Truro) that Colonel Henderson's defect was that he did not possess, or did not sufficiently exercise, the power of discerning character and ability in the men in the force. He thought that the departure from Sir Robert Peel's system and the absorption of the civil in the military element of the Metropolitan Police was much to be regretted. Colonel Henderson had shown great ability in all that related to his own profession, which was that of an officer of the Engineers; but though the gallant Colonel might possess a large amount of professional knowledge and be well versed in the movement of troops, still something more than that was required. The recent discoveries revealed a state of things that was really discreditable. Either the police system was defective or its administration had failed. Or it might be that the system was bad, and the administration not less so. He hoped the Government would see the necessity of an investigation such as he suggested, with a view of securing for the inhabitants of the Metropolis that protection to which they were entitled.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would, in the first place, answer the Question which the noble Lord had placed on the Paper—namely, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any and what steps to inquire into the condition and administration of the Metropolitan Police Force? It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps, inasmuch as the matter had been determined, and steps had already been taken by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

  817
  ment. The noble Lord had also given Notice that he would move for Returns. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to specify the Returns for which he desired to move. He was sorry that the noble Lord had taken advantage of the Notice on the Paper to go into questions which, the noble Lord would excuse him for saying, would have been better omitted. Nothing could be more inconvenient or more injurious to the public service than to make a question of this kind an occasion for severe criticisms on the conduct of the officer at the head of the great Police force of the Metropolis, or to sit in judgment on proceedings still pending before the Courts of Justice. He would not follow the noble Lord into the charges he had made against Colonel Henderson, whose character stood too high to need any defence from him. On a former occasion the noble Lord stated that his house in the neighbourhood of Blackheath had been robbed four or five times, and he gave instances of the manner in which he had suffered from the negligence of the police. When that statement was made, his noble Friend the Lord Steward (Earl Beauchamp), who answered for the Home Office, was not in a position to make any remarks on the misfortunes which the noble Lord had sustained. Neither would he (the Lord Chancellor) now make any observations on that matter; but he must say that the noble Lord had given to the neighbourhood in which he lived a character which it hardly deserved. Inquiries had been made as to the character of the robberies that had taken place in that neighbourhood, and they were certainly not sufficient to stamp the neighbourhood as being a place where property was insecure. The only traces that he found in the Occurrence Book of the Police force of the neighbourhood were these:— On 30th April, 1874, there was an entry of a black hen turkey having strayed from Shooter's Hill, the property of Lord Truro. It was not stated whether the turkey was found, or why it strayed. On the 16th November, 1875, there was stolen in the night one game hen, the property of Lord Truro; and also 30 eggs from an open shed 200 yards in a wood, and out of the view of the police, also the property of his Lordship. On the 9th September, 1876, there were lost—supposed to have strayed—eight
  818
  white Aylesbury ducks, the property of Lord Truro; and subsequently there was lost—supposed to have strayed—a black and white cock turkey, the property of Lord Truro; and on the 4th June, 1877, two goslings three days old out of a brood of nine strayed away. They must have been very precocious, but there was no doubt they did stray away, because if they had been stolen it was probable the whole brood would have been taken. These were very proper cases for the police to inquire into; but he hoped their Lordships would not think that Blackheath was such an insecure place as the noble Lord would have their Lordships believe.
  LORD TRUROsaid, the police had been extremely ingenious in supplying the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with an account of these trifling robberies. It was, however, very annoying to lose these things; but they had omitted to furnish any information of the number of houses broken into during the period referred to and the jewel robbery that had been committed there. The neighbourhood was without police for hours, and he himself had driven, between two and three o'clock in the morning, without meeting one policeman in a distance of over two miles. He had no desire to make any charge against Colonel Henderson, but to point out, without making any attack on him, that he appeared to be wanting in those special characteristics that were required for the head of a Department which should have under its control activity and intelligence in the shape of good detective officers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Bills which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the day shall have the same precedence which Bills have on Tuesdays and Thursdays.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committees negatived; Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.