The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-25 00:00:00

TUESDAY _EVENFNG

the clauses. On coming to the clause which gives juris-
diction in cases of judicial separation to the judges of
assize and courts of quarter sessions, the noble and
learned lord said that, admitting the principle of local
jurisdiction, he could not conceive any better local tri-
bunal for this purpose than the judges of assize. He did
not believe the practise of postponing cases in c' nse-
quence of the pressure of business by the judges ofassise
was as common as had been represented. He had heard
of such a thing, but after some practice as a judge of
assize he must say he never saw anything of it. Any
difficulty of that kind, however, would be provided for
by the new rules and regulations which it would he in
the power of the court to make ; one of which rules
would no doubt provide that petitions should be pre-
sented in sufficient time, so that the judges might know
what causes of the sort were coming on. With regard
to the court of quarter sessions the feelings of the House
of Commons was, no doubt, this—that the poor should
have a court of easy access as well as the rich for the
decision of these cases. The gentlemen who presided
over those courts were cognisant of the feelings and
habits of the persons who resorted to them No doubt
these courts were open to objection, as any local tribunal
they could constitute would be; but as the principle of
the bill was left untouched, and as something must be
left experimental, he trusted their lordships would not
object to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to the
Gouts of quarter sessions. They proposed the best ma-
chinery at their hands, and if that was found inefficient
they must try some other.
Lord MONTEAGLE said the principle of the bill
was to give a better tribunal for the trial of divorco
cases, but the bill as it now stood not only failed to give
an improved tribunal, but by a most ingenious process
it extracted from the old tribunal all that was worst, and
combined therewith elements of mischief peculiar to the
bill itself. He thought it likely that it would pro-
duce infinite confusion if in addition to the primary
duties of judges of assize this new jurisdiction was
to be cast upon them. But in selecting • the courts
of quarter sessions for determining these questions of
marriage and the support of the children, and the provi-
sion to be made for the wife, he thought they selected
that tribunal which beyond all others possessed every
possible disadvantage. (Hear.) He spoke in the pre-
sence of those who took part in the proceedings of the
proceedings of the courts of quarter sessions, and he put
it to them individually whether they felt competent to
carry the provisions of the bill into effect. Would any
peer rise up and say that he felt competent to do so ?
Would the noble marquis who was so familiar with the
business of the court of quarter sessions (Salisbury). say
that he felt competent t Would you, my, lord, or you?
He made this appeal nominal because he knew if every
peer was to vote in accordance with his personal feelings
how the decision would be I His noble and learned
friend recommended this change because the tribunal was
cheap ; but an article was not cheap at any price if it
was bad, and he believed this tribunal came under that
description. He did not object to the giving of jurisdic-
tion to the recorders, who were learned men selected by
the crown, but he had a strong objection to the giving it
to the courts of quarter sessions, which, he believed,
would not give satisfaction. He therefore moved to omit
the words, " or to the courts of quarter sessions.
The Earl of HAIVOWICKE said that the courts of
quarter sessions per firmed their duties at present with
satisfaction, but that would not be the case if these courts
had to discharge the duties which this bill would cast
upon them. It was ridiculous to expect that the gentle-
men wno dispensed justice in those courts would be able
to decide the nice and delicate questions of law which
they would be called upon to decide under this bill. He
did not think that the distinction drawn by the noble
lord of courts for the rich and courts for the poor would
be received with satisfaction by the people of England.
In times gone by, when Whig gentlemen were out of
office, and were pandering, as Whigs did, to popular out-
cries—(laughter)—they spoke of the magistracy as in-
competent, and that it would be better to have a paid
body of magistrates. If this bill passed it was very likely
indeed that the magistracy would be found incompetent
to rischarge these novel duties, and then there would be
a glorious opportunity of introducing the principle of a
paid magistracy.
Lord WYNFO RD said the principle of the bill, as it
left their lordships' house, was to give exclusive jurisdic-
tion to a particular court ; but if the courts of quarter
sessions were to have jurisdiction, it could no longer be
said that the bill proceeded on the principle of giving
exclusive jurisdiction. The constitution of these courts
and their mode of conducting business wholly unfitted
them for dealing with divorce cases. What would be-
come of uniformity of decision, when judges of assize,
recorders, and courts of quarter sessions all dealt with
these cases I (Hear.)
Earl POWYS said that chairmen of quarter sessions
had a right to protest against an important class of
duties being thrust upon them, as was proposed by this
bill, involving points of law of which they hal no special
knowledge. The business would be chiefly in the hands
of attorneys, not perhaps of a very reputable class, who
would be constantly striving to set husband against wife
in village communities, for the sake of making business.
(Hoar, bear.) Great injury, too, would result from the
public discussion at every quarter sessions of cases of
this kind.
Earl FORTESCUE, while agreeing that the judges
of assize and recorders were as competent as any c tun
could be to deal with questions of divorce, saw great ob-
jection in allowing courts of quarter sessions to decide
upon those cases.
The Duk of SOMERSET also thought it unwise to
delegate this power to the quarter sessions, and hoped
that the Government would give way on this point.
Earl GRANVILLE said that, as the feeling of the
house appeared to be almost universal against this por-
tion of the chime, he would not insist on the retention
of the words " court of quarter sessions for the county or
borough."
The LORD CHANCELLOR altered the clause as
proposed, and intoduced corresponding alterations in
some subsequent clauses.
Lord ST. LEONARDS took objections to the fees
that would be chargeable in the assize courts, and urged
that they would he a hardship on poor men. He also
objected to that part of the clause which authorised the
judges to refer questions of divorce to members of the
bar. _ _

The LORD CaANCELLOR said that in every
commission of assizethere were associated with the judges
all the Queen's counsel and sergeants who went the cir-
cuits ; and the clause only provided that the same course
should be pursued with regard to these causes. It was
extremely unlikely that an important divorce cause would
be left to be tried by a Queen's counsel; the proviso was
s to.
only introduced to meet an emergency, and to preserve
the form of the commission the same as at present.
After a few words from Lord ST. LEOPARDS, his
amendment was negatived without a division.
The amendment of the Commons in the clause consti-
discussed, but in a
tone
On clause 25,
Lord ST. LEOPARDS moved the omission of the
words "adultery committed in the conjugal dwelling."
t u consti-
tuting
go Some
couldptheur court
furtherenot e
' was
na
b v amendments
gathered.ersn thenaatm ennagreedatlthat were
the purport
of
the
dis-
cussion
The Duke of ARGYLL, though he retained his predi-
lection for the Scottish rule of the equality of the sexes,
was fully prepared to admit the difference as to crimina-
lity between adultery committed by the husband and
adultery committed by the wife. In Scotland they never
found a woman suing simply on the ground of adultery,
unless that adultery was coupled with desertion.
Lord MONTEAGLE supported the motion. In cases
like these it ought to be the object of the Legislature to
guard against collusion, which was, in point of fact, a
fraud upon the law. But could they imagine anything
more likely to lead to collusion than the proposal of the
House of Commons! The proposer of the words under
consideration had entirely misunderstood the enactment
of the French law which he had attempted to copy. The
French law gave a woman a right of divorcs in case her
husband obtruded his mistress into the house ; but as the
clause stood a man might bring his concubine home, and
the wife would have no remedy unless she could prove
an act of adultery actually committed under her roof.
What -could be more easy than for the adulterous
couple to live together to all intents and purposes in
the coujugal residence, and yet evade the law by
actually committing elsewhere the offence which
would give the wife a remedy ? In fact the
clause, as it stood, was absolute nonsense. There
was a case in the " State Trials" in which a member of

their lordships' house, a long time ago, was convicted of
one of the niost'hurrible offences ever heard of—of having
aided another man to commit a raps in his own house
upon his own wife. Yet even an offence like that would
not entitle the wife to a divorce as the clause was now
worded. (Hear, hear.)

Lord RE DESDALE pointed out the further objection
that a divorce might be granted on the ground of rape,
and after wards a jury might decide that no such offence
had been committed.

Tho Earl of HARROWBY said it would no doubt be
better to replace with general words the words under dis-
cussion. But what general words could they adopt ? The
truth was, that because they could not find terms that
would meet every case, they were asked to refuse the
wife a remedy in the cases to which the clause would apply.
Lord PORTMAN suggested that the word " con-
victed" should be inserted. _ _

The Bishop of OXFORD—WouId the words "adul-
tery accompanied in the opinio❑ of the court with cir-
cumstances of disgraceful exaggeration," meet the views
of Lord Harrowby ? (No, no.)

The house divided—:
Con tents 27
Non-contents
The Commons' amendment was thus rejected.
Lord ST. LEONARDS next moved to leave out the
word "rape" and the words that followed.
Toe LORD CHANCELLOR said it would no doubt
be more agreeable to omit the words referred to; and the
view the Government originally took of the matter was,
that as these cases would be extremely rare, the injured
wife might very well be left to the remedy of a private
bill. Nevcrtheless, after the opinion expressed by the
Commons, he hoped their lordships would retain the
words.

After some conversation the house divided—
C mtents
Non-contents 29-16
The C.Antnons' amendment therefore stand.
On clause 28.

The Bishop of OXFORD moved to disagree with the
Commons' amendment, striking out that portion of the
clause Nhich provided that the busband guilty of adul-
tery should not be enabled to one for divorca. He moved
that the house disagree with the amendment, by which
the words, "guilty of adultery, or has been," were
struck out:
The house divided—
Contents
Non-contents
The clause, therefore, remains as amended by th.
Commons. _ _

-----
Lord Sr. LEONARDS moved to disagree with the