The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-20 00:00:00

DIVORCE BILL.

Several petitbos were presented against the Divorce
and Matrimonial Clauses Bill.

The amendments to the Divorce, &c., Bill were con-
sidered.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to leave out
clause 18 and substitute the following :

" Applcation for judicial separation or restitution of
conjugal rights on any one of the grounds aforesaid may
be made by either husband or wife, by petition to the
court, or to any judge of assize at the assizes held for the
county in which the husband and wife reside or last resided
together, or to the court of quarter sessions of the peace
held for the county or borough in which the husband and
wife are or were last resident, and which judge of assize and
Courts of Quarter Sessions respectively are hereby
authorised and required to hear and determine such
petition according to the rules and regulations which
shall be under the authority of this act, and the court
or judge to which such petition is addressed, on being
satisfied of the truth of the allegations therein contained,
and that there is no legal ground why the same should
net bi granted, may decree such judicial separation
accordingly, and where the application is by the wife,
may make any order for alimony which shall be
deemed just : Provided always, that any judge of aasize
to whom such petition 'shall be presented, may refer the
same to any of her Majesty's counsel or sergeant-at-law
named in the commission of assize or nisi pries, and such
counsel or serjeant shall, for the purpose of deciding upon
the matters of such petition, all the powers that auy such
judge would have had by virtue of this act or otherwise."
Agreed to
•

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved a clause to
follow the last, providing for carrying out its provisions,
and for fixing and regulating the tees of the court.
• Agreed to.

Clause 19 in the original bill was struck out.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL brought up a new
clause relative to the separate earnings of married
women when judicially separated.

Sir W. HEA.THCOTt thought the provision should
be made to prevent collusion between the husband and
wife in getting a judicial separation, and the wife's
earnings protected, and their afterwards coming together
again, and the property under the decree being held
against the subsequent creditors of the husband.
Mr. HENLEY asked the Attorney-General if he
thought the clause gave sufficient protection to the
earnings of a wife as against the husband or his creditors.

The-ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in case of seizure
by the husband himself, the magistrates' order, making
the wife a femme sole, would be a sufficient pro-
tection ; but there was a technical objection against
giving the wife the right of proceeding against her hus-
band by action. In case of attack by a creditor or as-
signee of the husband, the wife could take an action for
the recovery of her property, if under 501., in the
county court, and, above that sum, in the superior courts.
Mr. MACAULAY asked how the wife was to be pro-
tee:tad by the criminal law ; it was provided that if any
law, of the. h.usbund acted in contravention of the
tawratoer wife might sue as a femme sole. He wished
!It reference to the technical obstacle to know
hew the:4l
The
wife
would get her remedy against the husband.
the right otuRNEY-GENERAL said that at present
:aerate property in the wife was a matter
of contract
afterwards ; e:tirriage, or of the husband's consent
4wae a case in which the legislature
for the first thee
sitive enactment gave her the
same right of propene",
f she were a femme sole, and
for that reason he thongael
the criminal law. Re coutil.nte would be a remedy by
taut clause, and was opeu—Z;te_ti it the most impor-
improvement. "ele suggestion for its
After some discussion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL %ore.,
follows :—" Provided also, that if the h 41:" clause as
Lion of any suet) order shall possess hireetefll in viola.
earnings or property "
of the wife, he shall on such
before ju.tice of police or quarter sessions
not exceeding sessions be 1 • u6l"etion
committed to prison for a peneeeding he
calendar months unless he shall restore
the same or vd,r,
the full value to the wife and all the costs and expenses
incurred by her.
Sir 1). NORREYS said that the objection would still
remain if the husband chose to remain in prison for two
months he would be able to deprive the wife of her pro-
perty. Hear,
RY shear.)
Sir E.( PERlid that on the husband's release
under the clause the wife would be able to sue him under
the common law.
Mr. CRAWFURD suggested that the imprisonment
should be " with or without hard labour," according to
the discretion of the magistrate. (Hear.) -
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause
would not interfere with the wife's civil remedy against
the husband if he made away with the property. The
clause was to put a pressure on the husband if he re-
fused to give up the property, and it would not hate: •
fere with the wife's civil rights.

Mr. AVRTON said, that giving a married woman,