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

BILL.

On ihe motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr.;NEWDEGATE, after some general remarks, said
that a petition had been presented to the house from
a number of respectable Roman Catholics, praying
that they might be protected by the house from
the charities of their ancestors being diverted to purposes
different to those for which they were originally intended,
through the interference of Cardinal Wiseman and his
bishops. He contended that this bill entirely set aside the
law of the land with reference to Roman Catholic charities,
and that the residence of Cardinal Wiseman in this coun-
try, in his present character as legate of the Pope, was un-
constitutional. The conduct of that person and his bishops
was most arbitrary, and they desired to divert from legal
jurisdiction a large number of her Majesty's subjects. He
would instance a case in which, after a Roman Catholic,
priest had succeeded in getting a chapel erected, some
pseudo bishop like Dr. Brown might seize it, and two years
must elapse before the priest could get any redress. He
would always resist any attempt like the present to deprive
Roman Catholics of that supervision to which other chari-
ties were subjected, and concluded by moving that the bill
be committed that day three months.
Mr.; SPOONER seconded the amendment.

Mr.IHENNESSY supported the bill.
Mr. BOWYER complained of the unwarranted intro-
duction of Cardinal Wiseman's name into the discussion,
and the abuse which had been heaped on him by the hon.
member (Mr. Newdegate). He had promised to bring
in a bill on the subject, but he was prevented from doing
so before by circumstances which he could not control.
However he was now prepared with a bill, which he hoped
would be read a first time this evening, and which he
trusted would prove satisfactory to hon. members. He de-
clined to follow the hon. member into his statements,
which'were a series of blunders.

After some observations by Mr. V. SCULLY and Mr.
KINNAIRD,

Sir G. C. LEWIS defended the course which he had
pursued in reference to the present measure, and the with-
drawal of the bill he had introduced on the subject in con-
sequence of there not being time for the other house to give
it that full consideration to which it was entitled. That
bill was drawn up in consequence of a petition presented to
the house by a number of Roman Catholics. The bill alluded
to by the hon. and learned member for Dundalk, which he said
was prepared, but which, of course, could not be considered,
till next session, would, he trusted, be of a character to con-
ciliate all parties, and during the recess Government would
direct their attention to the subject.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment, and said
that, while he assured the house there was no intention on
his part of depriving the Roman Catholics of any of their
charitable property, he felt bound to offer the present bill
his most strenuous opposition. The Continuance Bill had
been granted for two years in order to afford Roman Catho-
lics an opportunity of settling the matter at issue between
themselves, but they had not shown any disposition to do
so, and for their sakes he was desirous to bring their trusts
under the beneficial operation of the act. He condemned
strongly the assumption of ecclesiastical titles by the Ro-
man Catholic clergy, and considered the Attorney-General
was neglecting his duty in not prosecuting such assump-
tions. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN opposed the amendment,
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee
Against
Majority.... .... —23
The house then went into committee.
On. clause 1,

Mr. NEWbEGATE appealed to the Home Secretary to
altar the bill into an act for suspending the Superstitious
Usages Act.
Sir G. C. LEWIS declined to accede to the proposition.
He proposed some verbal alterations, and the clause as
amended was agreed to.
The other clauses were also agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

On the motion of Sir G. C. LEWIS, the bill was then
read a third time and passed.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the following addition :—" After
' Judge Ordinary alone,' insert Provided always that such
court does and shall hold a sitting for the disposal of the
business'of the said court for not less than three consecutive
days, at the least, once in every fortnight from the 2d of
November to the 10th of August in every year, except dur-
ing the periods allotted for the attendance of the judges
upon their circuits, or for the ordinary vacations.' " He
said that under the existing act only certain judges
were eligible to sit with the Judge Ordinary in the
Divorce Court, and the consequence was an accumulation
of 180 matrimonial causes. His object was to secure greater
expedition in the proceedings of the Court.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the original clause was
agreed to, as well as clause 3.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that with the con-
sent of Government he proposed to omit clause 4.
In reply to Mr. D. GRIFFITH.,
Mr. DEASY said that the act would not extend to Ire-
land, as both Protestant and Catholic in that country was
opposed to its introduction.
After some remarks by Mr. BOWYER, Mr. V. SCULLY,
and Mr. DEASY, the clause was omitted.

On clause 5, giving the judges of the court power to sit
with closed doors,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of the clause. He
said the power proposed to be conferred was not
possessed by any other judges in the country. It
was true that in the Court of Chancery, where there was a
case involving delicate family details, it was suggested by
the judge that it should be heard in camera, but he had
the authority:of a learned friend, in extensive practice in the
Equity Courts, for asserting that the practice was
I.objectionable. Having adverted to the case of
1 the trial of Home Tooke, when Mr. Perry, the proprietor
of the _Morning
i Chronicle, was taken inte custody for con-
tempt of court n publishing from day to day the proceed-
ings in that memorable trial, after an insruction by the
judge to the effect that the evidence should not be
published until the close of the trial, and to the
conduct of the press, which, at the request of Lord Camp-
bell, abstained from making any comments during the trial
of Palmer, he contended that the effect of sitting with
closed doors would be attended with most injurious
effects. In the first place it would excite a prurient
curiosity on the part of the public, and perhaps, as
had taken place in other cases, garbled accounts
of the proceedings would be published, and for which no
one would be responsible. He called on the Attorney-
General not to press the clause, and he was sure the house
wsuld not sanction its adoption. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the clause, as
being calculated to repress morbid curiosity, and to act
beneficially in regard to suitors in the Divorce Court.
Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment, and strongly
denounced any secret tribunals in this country, which he
characterised as being suited only to the chancery of
Austria or the Court of the Pope of Rome.
Mr. BRADY and Mr. H. BERKELEY supported the amend-
meat.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the eommunication
to the judge would be made by the plaintiff. He was sorry
for some of the observations which had been made in the
course of the debate, as, for instance, when the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets in-
sinuated that a difference would be made between the rich
and the poor. (Hear.) Let the house decide the matter as it
thought proper, but he hoped that such remarks as that
would be avoided. As the clause was inserted at the sug-
gestion of the learned judge, he should be obliged to trouble
the house to divide on the subject. It was not asked that
the Court should sit literally with closed doors ; for the pro-
ceedings would take place in the presence of the bar, of the
jury, and of the solicitors of both parties.
Mr. J. LOCKE opposed the clause, and said that while
the words of it gave the Court power to sit with closed doors,
if public decency demanded it, the Attorney-General had
supported the clause on quite another ground, viz., the
annoyance which publicity would cause to individuals. He
hoped the house would not pass such a law ; for if they did
they could not stop there, but must extend it to all the other"
courts, to some of which, in fact where the pleadings would
show what the case was to be, it was far more applicable
than it was to this court.

At the suggestion of Sir M. PETO the ATTORNEY •G}Erna •
RAL eventually withdrew the clause;
Clause 6 was agreed to.

On clause 7,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of the clause which
proposed to give the Attorney-General the power of insti-
tuting a preliminary inquiry in undefended causes, so as,
to prevent collusion. It would create a great deal of de-
lay and additional expense, and it did not give the Attor-
ney-General the power to ask the petitioner, or any one
else, a single question to be answered upon oath. (Hear,
hear.) The clause was altogether useless. The judges
of the court had the power now to call the petitioner and
co-respondent before them, and examine them as to whether
there was colluston.,_. but the Attorney-General had no
power of the kind, and this clause did not give him any.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said many cases where
the petition was based on a charge of adultery were unde-
fended, and the court only anew what it was told by the
petitioner. Great danger therefore existed that divorces
would be obtained on fictitious evidence, and also by means
of collusion. Many persons thought, therefore, that some
officer should be appointed to assist the judge in undefended
cases where there was no one to contradict and defend the
case. Such cases it was proposed to refer to the Attorney
-
General. In many of these cases it would be easy for the
Attorney-General to • see whether it was a sincere and true
case or not. He thought that in this class of cases the help-
less position of the judge, of which every one was conscious
who had heard one of those undefended cases, would be
greatly relieved by such assistance as it was now proposed
to give him. This clause was considered particularly valu-
able by the House of Lords, and especially by those mem-
bers of it who had been engaged judicially in inquiries of
this class, and who were consequently well aware how fre-
quently these cases were got up by means of collusion. He
thought this arrangement would frequently prevent the
judge from being imposed upon, and he hoped the commit-
tee would adopt it.
Mr. MELLOR said the clause provided for the reference
of these matter to the Attorney-General, but it made no
provision for any regular course of procedure before him,
and he was not aware the Attorney-General at present had
the power to examine witnesses upon oath, or to obtain any
other information than that which they obtained from the
witnesses willingly.
Mr. AYRTON explained that what he had intended to
say at an earlier period of the debate was merely that per-
sons of distinction were more opposed to publicity than
persons in humbler spheres. To that opinion he still
adhered. (Hear, hear.) The double investigation now
proposed would be costly, and in many other respects ob-
jectionable. The Attorney-General would be obliged to
delegate the powers now proposed to be conferred upon
him to some one else, as it was impossible he could make
these inquiries himself. The Court had the power to exa-
mine parties, with the view of preventing collusion, and
when the Court had tried to do this and failed, it would be
time enough to ask the house for further powers.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. E. JAMES moved to insert after clause 6, the fol-
lowing clause :—" The Court, after a final decree of nullity
of marriage, or dissolution of marriage, may inquire into

the exiftence of ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements
made !rit the parties whose marriage is the subject of the
decree • and may make such orders, with reference to the
1 applic 'Hon of the Whole or a portion of the piOperty settled;,
either or the benefit of the children of the marriage, or of
their spective parents, as to the Court shall seem fit."
Th ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered there would
be di culties in vesting such powers in the Court, but he
thong, t, if an arrangement as proposed could be made, the
result ust work beneficially.
Aft some conversation, the clause was agreed to.
Mr. CRATJFURD moved the following clause, which
was agreed to :—" The right of appeal to the House of Lords,
given y the fifty-sixth section of the recited act, shall ex-
tend t all sentences and final judgments on petitions under
the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858."
The bill was ordered to be reported as amended.
The house haying resumed, the report was made, and the
bill read a third time and essed.