The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-29 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE DILL.

Lord REDESDALE entered into a justification of
the course taken by him on Friday last in proposing
that the consideration of the amendments of the
Commons to the Divorce Bill should be postponed
for six months, and denied that he had intended
taking the Government by surprise.
Lord GRANVIU.L.: accepted this assurance, but it
was not until further observations by Lord St.
Leonards, the Duke of Argyll, the Lord Chancellor,
ani Lord Campbell that their lordships proceeded to
consider the amendments of the Commons to the
Divorce and Ma►rimonial Causes Bill.

Lord REDESDALE opposed taking them into con-
sideration. He objected to the introduction of local
jurisdiction, and considered that the lour new causes
fur which, by the Commons' amendments, a wife
might sue fur a divorce, were essentially erroneous,
and that the remedy devised as a substitute for an
action of crim. con. was, in fact, nothing but a
revival in a new torm of that action itself. A
fine on the adulterer might be imposed without
any such action. He also disapproved the clause
which required clergymen who conscientiously ob-
jected to marry the divorced parties to surrender
their churches for the performance of the ceremony.
The parties might go before the registrar and then
proceed to any parish in the kingdom where the
clergyman was willing to perform the ceremony. It
was evident, he observed, that the people were only
just becoming sensible of the probable effects of the
bill, and to precipitate the measure was not doing
justice either to the country or to Parliament. He
moved to defer the consideration of the Commons'
amendments for six mouths.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said tho arguments of
lArri 11-di-Aide did not refer to the question
whether the amendments should be taken into con-
sideration then or that day six months, but whether
those amendulects were or were not iniproveMOM4

THE PRESS, AUGUST '29, 1857.

of the bill. The merits and demerits of those parts
of the hill to which Lord Redesdale had adverted
were discussed by their lordships Wore the bill
was sent down to the Commons. He admitted
it would be more expedient, in the first instance, to
confine the jurisdiction to a centrai court; but with
that point their lordships were competent to deal.
There was much difference of opinion as to the aboli-
tion of the action of crim. con. Great pecuniary loss
might be caused by adultery, and he thought it not
altogether sale to abolish that action without giving
a substitute. This the House of Commons had done.
After briefly adverting to the other amendments in-
troduced by the Commons, the Lord Chancellor
urged that those amendments were all such as their
lordships were competent to deal with at once, and
that the argument of Lord Redesdale for delay pro•
ceeded upon an entire fallacy.
Lord Sr. LEONARDB said he should support the
amendment, because the only alternative open to
their lordships was either to accept or reject the
Commons' amendments without consideration. No•
body might be to blame for the protracted discus-
sions in the House of Commons, but that did not
alter the fact that the time at their lordships dis-
posal did not admit of that attention to the amend-
ments which their importance required. Dwelling
upon the great difficulty which had been expe.
rienced during the discussion of this measure to
determine upon an adequate tribunal before which
cases of divorce should be brought, be declared his
confident belief that the part of the bill which con-
stituted the court of quarter sessions such a tribunal
would break down. He suggested, therefore, that
the clause relating to local jurisdiction should not
be pressed. He strongly objected to the clause
making adultery upon the part of the hus•
band when it took place in the conjugal resi-
dence a ground entitling the wife to obtain divorce,
and believed it would be found productive of great
mischief. He regarded the clause which allowed the
husband to petition for a divorce and to claim
damages against the adulterer as a most monstrous
one. With regard to the clause relating to the clergy,
he could not approve the principle of placing the
clergy above the law. He regretted the introduction
of such a clause, but, respecting the consciences of
the persons as a concession to whom this provision
had been introduced, he was not prepared to vote
against the amendment.
Lord GRANVILLE did not complain of the course
which had been taken by the noble lords who had
gone so fully into the consideration of the amend-
ments of the Commons, but suggested that the
intimate knowledge they had shown of those
amendments disposed of the charge that the Go-
vernment were asking the house to adopt provi-
sions the value of which it was impossible for their
lordships to understand. Should the amendment of
Lord Redesdale be carried, there would be an end
of the bill for this session, but, if not carried, the
proper time for conskLring the amendments was yet
to arrive. _

Their lordships divided—
For the motion .. 46
Against it • • •• 44

Majority .. —2
Their lordships then proceeded to consider the
Commons' atnendrnents.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the clause es.
ablishing a local jurisdiction in cases of judicial
separation be agreed to.
Lord MONTEAOLE opposed the clause. The judges
of assize would have no time to perform the addi-
tional duties which this clause would impose upon
them, and the court of quarter sessions would be
utterly incompetent to deal with the questions that
would be brought before them. He therefore moved
the omission of the wonls from the clause giving
power to the court of quarter sessions.
Lord HARDWICKE supported the amendment,
and was of opinion that the gentlemen of England
would not thank Parliament for asking them to
attend to duties they were so ill-qualified to
perform.
Lord WYNFORD, Lord POWIS, Lord FORTESCUE,
and the Duke of SOMERSET having expressed similar
opinions as to the impolicy of conferring on the
platter sessions a jurisdiction on these matters,
Lord GRANVILLE consented to the omission of the
words, and the clause, with that omission, was then
agreed to.
The words "Or of adultery committed in the
conjugal residence " were disagreed with by a
majority of 17—the contents being 27; non-con-
tents, 44.
On the motion of the Bishop of OXFORD, the words
"guilty of adultery" were reinserted fot the purpose
of providing that when the husband had been guilty
of adultery the court should dismiss his petition—the
contents being 89; non-contents, 33.
The clergy clause and the other amendments of
the Commons were, after a division, agreed to, and
their lordships adjourned at ten minutes atter one
o'clock,