The Express.
London, England, 1859-08-12 00:00:00

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

The bows theaersaTiaTo oomalitee oitris bill.
Cleave 1 wee speed to.
Oa clams 2,
. . .

Mr. E. Jan; moved u an intendment to insert the fol-
lowing proviso :—.• Provided situp. that such court dose
and shall hold a sitting for she disposal of the husband of the
raid court for not leas then two consecutive dap, at the lest,
coos in every fortnight from the 2nd of November to the lOtit
at August in every year, except daring the periods allotted
far A. atteeduce of the judges upon tied: awaits, or for
the ordinary vacations."
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL objected that the proviso
would impair the stringency of the clause, end therefore
would nut carry out the hon. and learned member's object.
The simendmisat was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
Chem i was also agreed to.. . . .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the omisaion of
than 4, which he mid had been introduced in the other
house without the consent at the government, end contrary
to his own view.. The object of the clause warn to live Julie-
diction to the court in bleb cams.

After a !ma coaverseuon, in the oozy.' of which Mr. ger-
leant Dugs vied that the clause would ben Infringement
upon the joripthation of the Irish courts. by introducing
what ovoid not bat be regarded as a foreign tribunal. the
clear was struck out.

Mr. E. JAMES mood to strike out claws 5, which em-
powers thejadges to bold their sittings with closed doors,
which he held to be contrary to the Bret principle of English
legal edinialstration, which wee publicuy. He knew that
the judges were incorruptible and the bar independent, but
that they &odd remain so it wee neceseary that the proceed-
leg. of our court, should be public. Besides, the object in
vow would not be effected—e prurient curiosity would he
excited, and garbled reports of whatever disgusting details
might be brought forward would appear' more injurious to
the came of public mordity than would be published If the
matters were open to the good mass of the public and the
discretion of the prem.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL held that the whole prin-
ciple of the enactment was public benefit, and the point w.is,
whether that principle would ant be beet advanced by making
the exoeption to the ordteary practice of our law courts
which the clause proposed to establish'? There mad be me
doubt that • morbid curiosity was excited by themes'', ; and
the fact that the proceedings mem open would often prevent
sensitive women from seeking for juetice, because of the
necessity of detailing in open court the piii ticulms of the
cruelties to which they might have been subjected. Though
the doors would be closed, there would be the check afjudge, '
mad jury, and advocates to prevent abuse of that secrecy
which public morality, as well as the ends of jostles, rep-
dated necessary. He cntended that they might safely, with
the checks of advocates and jury, leave it to the discretion of
the judge to say whether, to my particular owe, the pro-
ceedings should be public or not.
Mr. AYRTON opposed tbo clause. It was impasible that
any law or any system of jurisprodence could be free from lo-
cate's:6mo, in some few exceptionel cases. if the system of
=with closed doors wire adopted In these cases, why
it not be extended to criminal cams, end ems civil
ISIM, when evidence of an objectionable nature was adduced?
The awe, la such came ass for the judge to direct females
end Demons to leave the court, and the seas practice
to tbe followed in the Divorce Court. The object of the
dams was to enable the judge to exercise a censorship over
the public mese, which was unneteseary, se the pram seer-
deed its duties to moiety with discretion end judgment. Tbie
ems not the time, at the close of a session, and in
se thin • house, to propose to alter • recog-
nised lied well-eatabliebed principle of public justice.

Publicity in til,7tJtiti;i;t7iif operate- to oop;rttt domestic
misconduct, and especially in the case of the tyranny of the
Meehan* because it wouid be known that, although min-
conduct was oartied on is secrecy at home, these was a
tribunal where it would be disclosed, and the offender*
branded by the contempt of society. The court was not in-
tended to encourage but repress divorces, and publicity
would aid is the attainment of that object, while seamy
weld tend to encourage domestic misconduct. This clams
was naturally brought in in the Home of Lords, when thews
was a clessof persons who did not like publicity—(order, oh!)
—but as the How of Commons waa the guardian of the
public morels, they ought not to assist such a class in snob
an object, but striae out the clause.
Mr. B. COCHRANE was sorry that the hon. and learned
gentleman had concluded his able speech by an observation
on another piece, and an saanion that the upper classes
were less liberal than others. (Oh, oh 1)
Mr. HADFIELD said the strength of our laws wan in
public opinion, which supported the law. He could say that
there were persona in this country whom names could in-
duence the bench in granting secrecy which a poor man
could not obtain. (Oh, oh l) He would remind the hoe.
stentlemsn who said oh—(laughter)—that when a man went
into a court of law in this country hews. on so equality with
any man of any clam. He hoped the House of Commons
would prevent such an enactment es this.
Mr. BRADY Naked if the clause was weed whets was
the liao to be drawn f Must not the principle be extended
to otbsr courts f He could not sanction any amendment
which did away with the principle of publicity in the pro-
ceedings of our courts of law.
Mr. H. BERKELEY bad often heard a word seed In
that hones—namely, the word us-English. That word, he
thought wee peculiarly applicable to this clime, which was
opposed all the principles of English law. He swished to
ask the Attorney-General how the judge was to be in-
formed when a cam was of such a nature se audit ought to
he hand with closed doors or not, unless ha was privately
informed of the fort. (Neer, hear.) That objection
aloes was fatal to the claws.
Mr. BOWYER was one of thews who opposed the Divorce
Act on the ground that it would injuriously affect the
morality of the country. It had only been • short time in
operation and they saw the Attorney-Oeneral proposing a
perfectly new principle in the law of England, that of siths
power to • jodge to shut up his wort ; that is, that the pro-
ceedings had become so scandalous to morality that snob a
step was necessary.
The ATTORNEY-ORNERAL said it mutt not be sup-
• that this clause wee pointed against the public. press.
No Inca thing. It only pointed to the prevention of that
denial of justice which the present Mate of things mused,
which be bad endeavoured to point out. The boa. issabwr
for Meted was mistaken in supposing that the jail anid
receive information privately.—(Mr. BIIIIIIIET : 1 ald tot
say so.)—The only communication made to hies would be
by mussel of the motors of the evidence, and on that state-
meat the judge could exercise hie discretion on his responsi-
bility. The chum was the result of the s xperience of tie
Judge Ordinary, and at hie suggestion it had been tumid