The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-08 00:00:00

does the noble lord rest this differential measure, if I may
re describe it ? It may bo argued that trials involving ob-
scene matter do not occur before the criminal courts. But
it is notorious that cases far more gross in their literal de-
scription do occur in the administration of the criminal law
than those of the Court of Divorce. I will not pain the
house by any further allusion to such cases ; but it is noto-
rious that they do occur, and the evidence on them is far
more unfit for publication than the evidence given in
divorce cases. In the criminal courts the rule followed
by the judges is, that during the trial of such cases
women and children are excluded. This is accord-
ing to the law of the land, and no woman could
bring an action for being so excluded. But no
attempt was ever made to exclude the reporters or to
carry on the proceedings with closed doors, which the hill
proposes shall be done in the Divorce Court, The Lord
Chancellor sometimes hears cases in. hia private room, the
public being altogether excluded ; hut these cases are purely
exceptionarmatters, and are so heard not so much as a ques.
tion of decency as involving matters that would affect pri-
vate interests. Even this power ie very rarely exerciae,!,.
Under these cirmstances It does )sot appear to me tat any
sufficient case has been. made out for subjectiro--6 the Court of
Divorce to special legialation. We Iti.nw that eases similar to those u this court were formerly tried in the House of
Lords and the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the evidence on
them was reported at great length. Ido not, however, re-
collect that' any peer of Parliament ever took it upon him-
self on those occasions to move the exclusion of strangers
during the reception of evidence, although be it borne in
mind, it would have been competent to him to do so by vir •
tue of a stalidiug order of the House of Lords, and without
having recourse to any special legislation to effect his object.
Under these circumstauees, then, and not deeming it neces-
sary for the protection of public morals to subject the Di-
vorce Court to the operation of a rule which should apply to
it exclusively, T. shall give my vote in favour of the amend-
ment of my hen, and learned friend the member for Maryle-
bone.
_(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS could not consent to arm any judge with
the most unconstitutional power sought to be placed in
him, and which must prove detrimental) instead of being
for the public benefit. He denied that it was in the power
of the Lord Chancellor to close his Court while he adminis-
tered justice, though there were oases as to guardianship
and wardship which, if it were thought desirable might be
heard in private, if the interest of any particular family re-
quired it, though the object of that was to prevent family
differences from being made public. But, in cases of dissolu-
tion of marriage the public had a right to know why the
separation had taken place. The great evil to be guarded
against in the Divorce Court was that of collusion. (Hear,
hear.) If they allowed cases to be heard with closed doors
great opportunity for collusion would be afforded. So far
from the judges wishing to administer justice in private, he
believed the judges felt that It was a security for them that
the public should know what was going forward. On these
grounds he felt the strongest repugnance to the principles
of the bill prowsed by the noble lord.
Mr. K, MACAULAY said that when the clause which
the noble lord sought to expunge was adopted last July no
division was asked for. The noble lord asked permission
to introduce this bill, as much in the interest of suitors as
in that of morality and decency, for. there were many cases
in which suitors would be practically debarred from their
natural remedy if this :relief were not given. Since the
rejection of the clause empowering the judges to close the
court last session, there had been cases in which the suitors
had been materially injured in consequence of the court
being an open one, and for the dist time in. this country,
and indeed in Christendom, a modest woman was made to
speak plainly, and before a public audience, to details to
which he could only darkly allude. He thought it plainly
for the interest of the suitors that the judges should have
the power to close the court in particular cases. The hon.
and learned member for Sheffield had said that the judges
could not tell what the evidence would be, but that was an
' error for they had the petition and counter pleadings be-
fore them, in which the material facts to be proved
were all set out, and beyond that they could make prior
inquiries which would guide them in the exercise of their
discretion so as to avoid a public hearing when it would be
destructive to the interests of the suitors as well as injurious
to the public morals. The hon. member for 'Wallingford
had said, that when the Lord Chancellor examined parties
in private, it was merely for the purpose of determining the
propriety of a change of guardian, or the transfer of a
child from the custody of one person to another; but the
real reason of the private hearing was, that the interests
of the suitors should not suffer by the case being heard
in public, and for the same reason many of the
cases now tried in the Divorce Court ought to be heard
in private. He would not argue the question in
the same way as on a second readirlg, because it was
impossible to know the precise shape which it would
take; but of one thing he felt certain, namely, that a
provision might be Praia to secure that, in certain cases,
there should be a private hearing. He thought the speech
of the Attorney-General last session conclusive in favour of
the course the noble lord recommended, and, entertaining
those views, he should support the motion.
Lord J. MANNERS, in reply, said that it was not the
fact, as 'alleged by the hon. member for Marylebone, that
the question had been already fully discussed in the House
of Commons, for on the the 11th of August, when the
Lords' amendments were discussed, there were very few
hon. members in the house, and he could not help thinking
that if there had been a full attendance, as at :present,
the Attorney General would not have given up the clause
as he did. He felt it extremely difficult to answer the hon.
member for Sheffield, for he (Lord J. Manners) would not
put himself in the mental position of a man who could de-
scribe the existing Court of Divorce as a protection to pub-
lic morality. If that were so he (Lord J. Manners) would
like to hear the definition of immorality. He was at a loss
to conceive how the learned gentleman could regard the
disclosures which had taken place in that court, and which
had been disseminated far and wide, as tending to anything
other than immorality, nor could he conceive how the
Government which last session had permitted the exclu-
sion clause to be carried in the Rouse of Lords, and when it
was rejected had defended it by the mouth of the Attorney
General in this house could now turn round and vote
against it. (Hear, hear.) In reply to the asseetion that
the same reasoning might be urged in favour of closing
criminal courts, he would only say that cases of this nature
were there the exception, whereas in the Divorce and
Matrimonial Causes Court they were the rule. He assured
the house that he had introduced this measure solely with
a desire to improve the public morals, and he left it with the
fullest confidence to their decission. (Hear, hear.)
The house then divided, when there w
. ere—
For the previous qu.estion ............. 268
Against it .......................... 83
Majority ............. ... . . .... —lB5
was lost.
The previous question having been thus carried, the b

MASTERS AND WORKMEN.
Mr. MACKINNON obtained leave to bring in a bill to
establish equitable councils of conciliation to adjust the dif-
ferences between masters and workmen.
WINDOW CLEANING.
Mr. CAVE (for Sir C. Burrell) obtained leave to bring
in a bill to diminish the danger incurred by servants and
others in cleaning and repairing windows.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS.
Mr. CROOK moved for leave to bring in a bill to place
the employment of women, young persons, and children, in bleaching and dyeing works, under the regulation of the
Factory Act.
Sir G. GREY said that a bill having a similar object had
been condemned by a select committee; but as the subject
was an important one, and there might be something new in
this bill, he would not oppose the introduction of the measure.
Lord J. MANNERS said it was not correct to say that
the select committee referred to by the right hon. gentleman
had condemned this or any other bill having a similar
object. What the committee did was this : they recom-
mended that time should be given to the masters to see
whether they could not themselves do something to arrange
the disputes between themselves and the employed. (Hear,
hear.) Two years had elapsed since that recommendation_a
was given. He had not heard whether the masters
eu
Il
during that period done anything in the matter ; and
before n
r
had
during
these circumstances he was glad to find that the bill
the house would be allowed to come on for a second reading
in order that the house might have an opportunity of learn-
ing how things stood. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. TURNER thought he would, on the motion for a
second reading, be able to show valid reasons for the rojeo-
tion of the measure.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
CHARITABLE
ve USES.
Mr. HADFIELD obtained lea to bring
ofrh a bill
fo to
amend the law relating to the conveyanceland
r
charitable uses.
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.—MARRIAGES.
Mr. MELLOR moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend
the acts relating to marriages in England and Ireland, and
extending certain provisions thereof to persons professing
with the Society of Friends, called Quakers. The hon. and
learned gentleman said that the object of the bill was to
extend privileges hitherto enjoyed bymembers of the Society
of Friends to persons holding the same views and desirous
of being married according to their usage. When the bill
was printed and laid upon the table it would, he thought,
be found to be one to which no hon. member could have any
objection.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH).
Mr. BLACK moved for a return of the amount of an-
nuity tax collectedr in
Edinburgh each year for the last ten
years; of the clear revenue
derived each year during the
same period frome the seat rents of the fifteen city churches;
of the clear revenue derived each year during the same
period from all sources for the support of the city clergy ;
and of the amount of stipend paid each year during the same
period to each of the clergymen.--Agreed to.
JERSEY COMMISSION.
Mr. HADFIELD moved for a return showing the names
of the commissioners, secretary, and of all other persons em-
ployed on the Jersey commission, and in what capacity they
were employed; of the number of days on which the com-
missioners met, distinguishing those days on which they
met in Jersey front those days in which they met in Lon
don ; and of the entire expense of the commission in detail
up to the present time.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the present Government had no
nt in recommending gthe commission. He had, therefore,
ar
o personal interest in opposing the return ; but it was un-
usual, in the absence of allegations of some neglect or mal-
practice, to accede to a motion that might seem to imply an
accusation or a censure. When the estimate for the charges
of the commission was brought forward that would bo the
time to object to the expenditure; and it was premature to
call for the recommendations of the commissioners at pre-
sent. Those recommendations would appear in their
re-
port.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought it was time the house
should hear what these commissioners were doin
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, g.
The motion was withdrawn.
PACKET AND TELEGRAPH CONTRACTS.
Mr. LAING, in the absence of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, moved the appointment of the select committee
on packet and telegraphic contracts, and expressed his be-
lid that no opposition would be made to the motion.
Mr. SPOONER said that
the hon. and gallant member
for Berkshire (Captain L. Vernon) who had given notice of
a motion upon that subject, had postponed it in consequence
of the indisposition of the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and he did not thir.k it fair that
under those circumstances tha present motion should be pro-
ceeded with at that moment.
Sir G. C. LE WIS said that the motion of the hon. and
gallant member for Berkshire had reference exclusively to
the inquiries of the committee of last session, and could in no
Way affect the present motion.
The motion was then agreed to as follows : —That the se-
lect committee on packet and telegraphic contracts do con-
sist of 19 members. That the following members be mem-
bers of the committee—Sir Francis Baring, Sir Stafford
Northcoto, Mr. Henry Herbert, Mr. Corry, Mr. Scholefield,
Sir Henry Willoughby, Mr. Dunlop, Captain Leicester
Vernon, Mr. Baxter, Captain Gladstone, Mr. Hubbard, Mr.
Robert Crawford, Mr. Hope, Mr. Laing, Mr. Bagley, Sir
Edward Grogan, Mr. Howes, Mr. Edward Ellice, and
Colonel Greville. Power to send for persons, papers, and
records; five to be the quorum.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTERS' PATENT.
On the motion of Mr. BAINES,
The select committee to inquire into the nature and ex.