The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-30 00:00:00

I MAY 80, 1857. Vrottetrinp x Varlinnunt. HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. Lord LYNDHURST, before the order of the day was read for going into committee on the Divorce Bill, called the attention of the house to the state of the law as regarded actions for criminal conversation. lie hoped that as the bill passed through committee a sufficient substitute would be provided for that dis graceful form of action. The subject was one of grave importance, and the feeling both in the house and among the public was stronly in favour of its abolition : Whenever a case of that kind is introduced into a court of justice we generally find that not only the learned judge, but also the advocates in the case themselves, reprobate the action in which they are engaged, and no one has ex• pressed himself more strongly than m noble and learned friend who sits at the table (Lord Campbell). lie has more than once stigmatised this form of action as a scandal to our law, and has a 6(1, and said truly, that in no country upon the continent of Europe is siich a proceeding tolerated, and that it has been mentioned as a mat er of reproach by legal men from across the water with whom he had con versed I believe I can corroborate that statement of my noble and learned friend. I havo conversed with able and learned foreigners, and never found any different opinion. Iu a work recently published I find these words : The husband pockets the money without shame. The pub licity which su•h prosecutions necessarily occasion, and all the proofs and details of the intrigue, are highly indelicate and scandalous. The testimony, for instance, of servants- -of young chambermaids who are brought Into open court to tell, in the face of the public, all they have heard, seen, or guessed at, is another sort or prostitution more indecent than the first. Such is the opinion entertained on the continent of Europe with respect to these scions. 1 may say, in reference to that passage, that it is no exaggeration, but, on the con - trary, falls short of the reality. 1 can only describe the reality by referring your lordships to a case which was heard in this house last year—the Talbot case, which lasted three days, in the course of which most indecent and im• proper details were given, which were subsequently printed and circulated throughout this country, and indeed through. out Eurcpe. That, indeed, was not an action for criminal conversation, but the evidence given was of the same character as that usually given in actions of that kind. No sober, no sensible man can hesitate as to the propriety of terminating such proceedings. The noble and learned lord supported his views by quoting several opinions of eminent legal authorities upon the propriety of abolishing such proceedings among them—that of Lord Erskine, who said that he always felt himself the difficulty of dealing with the subject when asking damages for the sufferer from a jury, "for the man who would consider any sum as a satisfaction for such an injury, deserved no damages at all." But this was only part of the evil of this species of action. The state of the woman demanded consideration : To her the result is far more important than to any of the other parties concerned; yet she is not allowed to appear, she is not allowed to examine a witness, she is not allowed to empioy counsel—the whole proceedings take place behind her back. The woman has everything at stake—her character, her fair fame, her home, the society of her children, her position in the worn, all her future prospects of happiness ; and yet, as I have stated, though she has such a stake in the result, she is nut allowed to take any part whatever in the action. Can anything be more scandalous or more inconsistent with the principles of justice? My noble and learned friend on the woolsack has said that the woman in these cases is generally guilty. I have known many instances during my professional career where a verdict of acquittal has been pronounced, and where I nresiime, therefore, the woman was innocent. I have known cases of another description, where a verdict of guilty has been returned, but where I think that verdict was not supported by the evidence. I remember that a noble and learned friend who is now absent enjoying the charms of a southern climate stated a case within his own knowledge of a very singular character. An action was brought for adultery anJ a verdict obtained against the adulterer. The character of the woman was sacrificed and lost. She had, from an accidental circumstance, which is of very rare occurrence, an opportunity of investigating the case, and it was proved to demonstration, not only that she was not guilty of adultery, but that she never had any inter• course with her husband. I therefore ask you, my lords, as far as the woman is concerned, is it proper that this species of action should continue ? The noble and !earned lord on the woolsack, in the observations to which I have alluded, said that the woman was rarely innocent. Be it so. Are we entitled on that account to treat her with injustice ? A man, however suspected, however strong the evidence against him, is never condemned without being heard. He has a right to defend his character, to offer anything in mitigation or palliation of the charge against him, anything to soften the opinion of guilt which may be entertained to his prejudice. Well, my lords, I pass from this to another consideration. An action may be instituted, and the woman know nothing of it before judgment is obtained. A man brings an action against a person whom he alleges to be an adulterer. Judgment is given in default. No evidence is required, and it is not till after judgment is pronounced that the woman knows anything of the proceedings. The house then went into committee on the bill, when en amendment was moved by the Duke of NORFOLK to refer the bill to a select committee. On a division this amendment TM rejected by amkjority Tilt PRESS. of 07. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were agreed to without opposition. Clause 0, which specifies the tribunals to which divorce cases should be referred, was opposed by Lord GREY on the ground that the time of the judges who were to constitute the highest court was already fully occupied, and that the expense would place a separation out of the reach of the poor. The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the clause, which was ultimately agreed to, as were all the clauses up to 14. On clause 14 Lord Sr. LEONARD'S proposed an amendment to protect women who having been deserted by their husbands became possessed of property. In such cases it often happened that the husband stepped in and claimed the property. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the bill gave women in this position sufficient protection, but promised seriously to consider tl , .e point. The committee divided on the clauses as amended, when the numbers were : Contents .. .. 5:2 Non•contents .. 44 Majority -R Upon clanse 16 Lord WESTMEATH moved a clause to precede it, giving powers of re-marriage in cases where the husband and wife had been separated for twenty years and upwards. He then entered into a matter personal to himself, but was called to order by Lord REDESDALE and Lord DERBY, who advised him to defer this vindication of his character to a more fitting opportunity. He accordingly withdrew his motion. On clause 111 Lord DONOUGHMORE proposed an amendment, placing married women in the same position as their husbands with regard to divorce a vinculo matri monii. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amendment, which, though primi-facie reasonable, was practically inexpedient. L .rd LvspuunsT declared his intention of sup porting the amendment. Lord CAMPBELL thought the law ought not to be relaxed in this respect. The committee then divided:— .. 20 71 -51 For the amendment .. Against . .. Majority Lord LYNDHURST moved an amendment to the clause, to the effect that wilful and malicious desertion for five years should be a sufficient ground for dissolving a marriage. All the great authorities of the Church went one way in this matter, and by the existing law of Scotland desertion for four years was sufficient to annul a marriage. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amendment as one which would lead to the greatest difficulties. Their lordships divided, when the numbers were : Contents .. .. 8 Non contents .. .. 07 Majority against the amendment.. —B9 The remaining clauses down to clause 43 were then agreed to. On clause 43, giving parties liberty to re-marry, The Bishop of OXFORD opposed it on the ground that the scriptural argument against such re marriages was plain. He felt that the glory of the people of England, the happiness of their homes, and tile chastity of the people would be much endan gered by this measure, and especially by this par ticular clause, which he moved he expugned from the bill. The Lord Primate, on the recommendation of the Earl of Derby, moved his amendment, de barring the guilty party from marrying again. After considerable di,icussion the committee divided on the question "that the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the clause." Contents.. .. 47 Non-contents .. .. .. .. 53 Majority .. .. .. The amendment was therefore carried. Lord CAMPBELL then moved that the house re sume. This was carried, and their lordships then adjourned at one a.m. till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS-110NDAY. LEGAL EDUCATION. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to Mr. Warren as to whether the Government would introduce any measures founded on the report of the commission issued to inquire into the subject of legal education, said that her Majesty's Government had expected that the inns of court would have voluntarily adopted the measures recommended by the commis sion for securing the great object of providing fur the effectual education of students for the bar. To pro vide such an education was one of the trusts im posed upon those societies, and they had large revenues at their disposal to discharge that trust. He vbts sorry, however, to say that there was a division between the different inns of court upon the subject. The Inner and Middle Temple were desirous of carrying out the plan proposed by the commissioners, but Lincoln's-inn and Gray's-inn 525 were opposed to such a course, a resolution to that effect having been passed by a majority of one vote. If that state of things should continue it would be the duty of Government to introduce a bill on the subject, but they did not intend to do so until next session. THE KING OF OXIDE. Sir F. KELLY presented a petition on behalf of his Majesty the King of Oude, and from the Queen, Princes, and Royal Family of that kingdom, setting forth that they have been unjustly deprived of their dominions, revenues, palaces, and property, and praying that this hon. house will take the premises into their full consideration and redress the grievances complained of; and for the establishment of their rights, the fulfilment of justice, the mainte nance of treaties, and the preservation of the honour and dignity of the British nation. The hon. and learned gentleman gave notice that he would, on an early day after the recess, bring the above petition under the consideration of the house. (The brother and uncle of the King of Ou,le, with a numerous suite, were present in the strangers' gallery during the early part of the sitting.) TARIFF OF CUSTOMS' DUTIES. Mr. W. EWART said that it appeared from a return made on the 20th day of January last that there were in the table of Customs' duties 60 articles producing to the revenue not more than 2001. year'y each, 53 articles producing not more than 1001., 30 producing not more than 201., and 13 producing only 5/. or less than 51. yearly each. He wished, there fore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to consider the expediency of abolishing any of those duties, in the interests of commerce, and for further simplifying the tariff of Customs' duties. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that there was no objection to the introduction of a bill to abolish some of the small duties to which the hon. gentleman had referred. There were, how ever, some articles, such as playing-cards, which were included in the excise, and which were taxed for a specific object ; and it would require great con • sideration to determine those articles upon which the duty could be abolished. • PRINCESS ROYALS DOWRY. On the bringing up of the report of the Committee on the Annuity to the Princess Royal, Mr. CONINOHAM objected to the vote on principle and as a precedent for other votes hereafter, and also to the amount or the vote, which he moved to reduce from 8,000/. to 6,0001. a year. Lord PALMERSTON expressed his regret that Mr. Coningham should have again raised this question, and trusted that the house would abide by the vote of the committee. The house divided, when Mr.Coningham's resolu tion was rejected by 328 to 14. The resolution having been agreed to, a bill was ordered to be brought in founded thereupon. On the report of the Committee of Supply, Mr. NlxatitßE objected to tho vote of 4 ),000/. for the marriage portion of the Princess R)vil, con sidering that the annuity of 8,0001. was sufficient. Mr. CoNtsGit tm and Sir J. TaErAwsey likewise opposed the vote. Upon a division the vote was affirmed by 361 to lb. ARMY ESTIMATES. On the order for going into a Committee of Supply upon the Army Estimates, _ _ _ Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved to refer the estimates to a select committee. He characterised these esti mates as extravagant, observing that from the manner in which they had been prepared he was unable to compare them with those of former years. If the Government were convinced that they were in accordance with the requirements of the army they could not, he said, object to refer them to a committee, which, he was sure, would make enor mous reductions in them. This motion was not seconded. Upon the original question, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY inquired who was responsible for the outlay of this expenditure. He thought there was a want of responsibility in this matter, and that the law was much neglected. He also asked why the number of heads of expenditure had been reduced. Mr. SPOONER put various questions with reference to the Government manufactory at Enfield and supply of arms. Sir J. RAMSDEN, in reply to Sir J. Willoughby, stated that the Secretary of State for War was responsible for the expenditure of these votes, and that the alteration of the forms was made with a view of affording fuller information to the house. The returns Mr. Spooner inquired for of the Enfield accounts would shortly be laid before the house. The house then went into a Committee of Supply upon the Army Estimates, when Lord PALMERSTON rose to move till explaining the unusual course he was fact that Sir John Ramsden had but come into office to do more than master iese estimates, taking by the t too recently k • 'ter the dotal r- •