The Express.
London, England, 1860-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MoWDAT, MLitt% 19.
The Loan Cum:nuns took his seat on the wooleack at 1
6 o'clock.
Petitions were presented by the Loan Camiogswit, pray-
ing the house to restrict Sunday tiediag to articles of
necessity.
THE DIVORCE COURT.
Lord LYNDHURST celled the attention of their lord-
ships to the state of the Divorce Coe* and asked his noble
sad learned friend on the woolen& if there was any ohjec-_
tion to lay upon the table the memorial et the Lord Chief
Justice upon this subject. From the great of lithiretes
in that court much inconvenience been experienced
by the jvgifea,and a Peat suffering by the suitors The
evil arose from au incapacity arising out of the act by which
the Divorce Court was constituted, and which enacted that
es regarded the diesolution of • rourriage the presence of
two judges to assist the indisneable.
Since the Divorce Court liauditen eem4 Tagished, such had been
the pressure of business in the common law courts, that the
Vine of the judges was almost occupied there, andthey could
really afford but little or none to the Divorce Court
without suffering the business of their own courts to get
into Inver. The consequence was, that unless the clause
alluded to in the act was repealed, further and greater in-
convenience would arise—the only alternative being the
appointment of additional Judges According to the opinion
which he (Lord Lyndhurst) entertained, ea well as accord-
iag to the opinion of some eminert persons whom he had
consulted, &angle judge was quite competent to deal with all
cases which arose in that court. A single judge hadpresided
in the old-established Ecclesiastical Court, had discharged
the business of that court, so far as judicial duties were
concerned, ina ostishetely manner. Cams of the greatest
nicety in the common-law courts, as well as the equity
Ca
.Urti, were decided by a single judge ; nay, further, only
• single judge presided in cases of life or death, and there
bad both no complaints that those oases had been unpro-
poly decided, and no representations that a sinzle
judge was unable to discharge such duties. His
own opinion was that the most direct and effectual
way to meet the evil was to repeal the clause in question.
No one could say that the learned judge who presided in
the Divorce Court did not discharge his duty in a most re.
thfactory manner, and no reason could be shown why he
could not continue to do so unaided by any further judicial
hithi. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD onaNCELUMI said he had no hesitation
In saying that he should have great pleasure in laying be-
fore their lordships the memorial of the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, but at present it had the aspect of a friendly or pn.
vat* thathannication. He thought the proposal of hia noble
and learned friend was a vesry necessary one.
As to the other question, he tilt no difficulty in saying that
be deeply regretted the amen which had occurred in the
Divorce Court, and had done his beet to remedy it. He
must observe that when the Divorce Act was passed the
presence of three judges upon • trial in which dissolution
of marriage was at bathe was considered a eine qui non,
but now, having the sanction of his noble end learned
friend, he rot only would pay the greatest at.
tention to hie cheer rations, but undertook to
bring in a bill to remedy the evil of which his noble and
learned friend so justly complained.
Lord LYNDHURST expressed his acknowledgments to
the noble and learned lord on the woolsack.