The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY). •

The LORD CKANczLLoit took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
COUNTY COURTS COMMITMENTS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Llanidkes,
in Wales, complaining of the law respecting county court
commitments. The noble lord said the number of cases in
which commitments had taken place amounted to no less
than 11,000, and a very large proportion (7,000 or 8,000) of
them had been, not for any direct offence, but simply for
non-appearance. The subject had excited a great deal of
attention, and he trusted his noble Mend on the woolsack
would cause some inquiry to be made into it.
Lord CHELMSEORD said when he had the honour of
holding the great seal he directed on inquiry into the sub-
ject, and he trusted the noble and learned lord now on the
woolsack would not let the subject drop.
ITALIAN AFFAIRS.

The Earl of DERBY wished to ask the noble earl opp.:2-
site whether the motion of the noble lord (Stratford de Red-
cliffe) was given with the concurrence of the Government,
and would meet with their sup . e rt? It would be recollected
when the notice was given he . • . been asked whether he
wished for a postponement. He was then under the im-
pression that it was brought forward with the concurrence
of the Government, but if this were not the case it might
alter the course he proposed to pursue.
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble viscount had brought
forware the motion on his own responsibility. He would
therefore reserve all expression of opinion until to-marrow.
The Earl of DERBY wished to know whether the Go.
vernment would support the motion. If a trifling verbal
amendment was made in the second clause, he should feel
disrsed to agree to it.
arl GRANVILLE said the Government would not op-
pose the motion.
THIRD READINGS.

On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following
bills were read a third time and passed :—Newcastle-under•
Lyme Burgesses Lands ; North British and Selkirk and
Galashiels Railway ; and Border Uniou (North British)
Railway.

DIVORCE COURTS.
Lord CHELMSFORD rose to draw the attention of the
house to the state of the divorce courts. He hoped their
lordships would excuse his proceeding with his motion,
but he had given notice before he was aware the noble and
learned lord (Brougham) intended to bring the sub-
ject under the attention of the house. As the court
was at present constituted, there were many
causes which it was absolutely necessary should be tried
before the full court, and others in which a jury was re
quired. This state of things created great difficulty, as cer-
tain eauses requiring full courts might have precedence of
those to be tried before a jury. The result of this
was that the business was accumulating. In cases
where it was necessary to decide upon a fact,
such as whether adultery had or had not been
committed, it might be the best tribunal, but in others,
whore delicate questions of alleged cruelty had to be dis-
posed of, he thought the worst consequences arose from the
whole story being dragged publicly before inquiry. There
was another anomally that at present existed, and that was
that the judge ordinary, in cases where a full court assem-
bled, actually became a nonentity in his own court. He
(Lord Chelmsford) must say that the business of the court
had been admirably conducted by his right hon. and learned
friend Sir Cresswell Cresswell, and he believed a new court
could not have been launched under more favourable
auspices. His right hon. and learned friend, with whom
he had communicated on the subject, had sent him areturn
made up to the 27th of last month, from which he ascer-
tained that the number of petitions for the dissolution of
marriage now on the file was 275, and the number now
ready for trial was 150. The number of petitions for judi-
cial separation now on the file was 77, and there were
eight petitions for nullity of marriage. The learned judge
now calculated that sixty days would be required for the
trial of the divorce petitions, and an equal number for the
cases of judicial separation, besides twenty days for the
motions which the Judge Ordinary had to decide. This
would make about 140 working days in the course of the
year. Such an amount of business would hardly warrant
the appointment of judges confined to that duty, and some
additional employment might be suggested for them.
He thought two judges who might be appointed, along with
Sir Cresswell Cresswell, to constitute the Court of Divorce,
should be made members of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council—a most important court of appeal, which
absolutely required additional strength. Another sugges-
tion that had been made was to have some person ap-
pointed to watch the proceedings in order to prevent collu-
sion. He was as desirous as his noble and learned friends
to prevent all collusion, but he believed that when they
came to grapple with the question and to suggest a mode
which would prevent collusion by the appointment of a per-
son with an official character, it would be found impossible
to effect the object. In applications for letters patent the
Attorney-General was always called en to assist the Privy
Council by watching those cases on behalf of the public,
but the case of divorce was not a parallel one, for in .the
case of patents there was a monopoly, which it was the
interest of the public should not be extended, and there
the Attorney-General was properly introduced—but
even in those cases the superintendence of the Attorney-
General was not found very satisfactory. He was certain
that his noble and learned friends would be foiled in any at-
tempt to introduce a person clothed with an official charac-
ter, and who must have very considerable powers, into these
proceedings. There was one other subject to which he
wished to advert,:and that was the view taken by his noble
and learned friend with regard to the procedure of the court.
His noble and learned friend seemed to think that the pre-
sent simple form of petition might be varied and extended,
so as to prevent collusion. The petition now was of the sim-
plest description, but he understood that it was sought to
extend it, so as to give the whole history of the married life
and the circumstances of the adultery of the parties. He
was not aware how that would tend to prevent collusion.
But supposing that such a form of petition were adopted,
each statement mightbe made the subject of adistinct issue,
and the consequencewould bathe revivalof the multifarious
and voluminous proceedings which used to exist in the
Ecclesiastical Court. There was one factto which he wished
to call the particular attention of his noble and learned
friend on the woolsack. When he (Lord Chelmsford oc-
cupied that place his noble and learned friend was in the
habit of putting questions to him as to whether it was pro-
posed to extend the Divorce Court to Ireland, and when he
(Lord Chelmsford) stated that there was no such intention,
his noble and learned friend expressed his deep regret that
it was not done. His noble and learned friend was now
placed in a situation to carry out the desire of his heart. He
supposed that the regret which his noble and learned friend
expressed was sincere, and that he had at heart the exten-
sion of the Divorce Court to Ireland, and he begged to ask
his noble and learned friend whether in the amendments and
improvements in the act relating to the Divorce Court, one
of them was to make it applicable to Ireland ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no difficulty in
answering the question of his noble and learned friend, by
telling him that he held in his hand a sketch of the bill
which he proposed to lay on the table, and that bill was
confined to England. He still thought that a bill similar
to that might be fitly extended to Ireland, and he hoped
yet to lay such a bill on the table. But he would rather
continue experimentally in England before he proceeded to
institute a similar court in Ireland. But for the question
so pointedly put by his noble and learned friend he should
not have troubled their lordships, because he had already
stated all that was necessary before introducing the bill. He
could not, therefore, enter into the question of the extension
of the form of the petition and so on to which his noble and
learned friend had adverted, which might be discussed when
the bill was brought forward. But he entirely differed from
his noble and learned friend as to the part which Parliament
ought to have taken when the measure relating to the
Divorce Court was first introduced. It would have been
indiscreet and mischievous to have established an indepen-
slent court without knowing what business was likely to come
before it. It was better to try experimentally what would
be the business of the court before it was constituted perma-
nently. He WEIS still of opinion that the time had not yet
come when it could be permanently constituted. There had
no doubt been a great influx of business, but that was because
there had been hitherto no such court, and it had to deal
with the divorces of 20 years; but it was not yet known
whether it would employ any more permanent judges who
might be appointed, and it might happen that they could
have no sufficient business to transact. His noble and
learned friend said that they might be added to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. He agreed that that was a
most valuable tribunal, but it wanted no addition to its
strength, and,it would be highly injudicious to add two or
three judges to the present establishment with the rank of
privy Councillor. He had a bill on the subject in prepa-
ration, and he would give it still further consideration.
Lord CRANWORTH did not regret that his noble and
learned friend had again brought forward that subject, for he
was surdthat the more it was considered the more it would
be felt that it. had beenproved that there was a want of such
a court for the purpose of affording redress to a large class of
the community. He took no shame to himself that the court
had not been made more extensive as regards judicial strength.
It was easy to add to a tribunal, but very difficult to remove
judges when once they were appointed. Whether it was
necessary to make any further addition to the judicial force
of the court, he agreed with his noble and learned friend in
thinking that there were not yet sufficient data to decide. He
had said the other night that his right hon. friend Sir Cress-
well Cresswell had said to him that if they could constantly
get the judges to make a full court it would be possible to
wart through the year's business in a year. Since then his
light hon. friend had stated that he had modified his opi-
nion and was now doubtful whether that would be the case.
If it was shown to be necessary he was sure there would be
no hesitation in granting an accession of strength to the
court. He doubted, however, whether the judges should be
members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
He rose chiefly to offer a suggestion to his noble and learned
friend on the woolsack in reference to the prevention of col-
lusion. He agreed that there were grave difficulties in in-
sstituting a preliminary inquiry. He did
not see the advan-
tage of two inquiries instead of one. But there was a mode
by which collusion might be made difficult or brought under
the cognisance of the court. It was well known in the pro-
lure of other courts that decrees were made " nisi "—that
is, were to take effect unless cause was shown why they
should not--and if decrees in divorce cases were made
'" and then made public, and notice given that cause
mig tt be shown against them, that would be a course likely
to r ander collusion more difficult than a preliminary inquiry.
Ho did not see why the Judge Ordinary should not hat
eoareplete jurisdiction to grant divorces as well as judicial
se tolerations, and not be bound to call in the aid of other
jut tees, though he might be at liberty to do so. That would
ado 1 to the judicial efficiency of the court.
,ord BROUGHAM pointed out that it was not intended
that 'the Attorney-General should make a regular preliminary
inqu into, .the circumstances of each divorce case, but
i_ry
should be such a party to the proceedings that any informa-
tion i elating to them which might be obtained could be corn-
" naimic led to him and by. him brought to the notice of the
court. Several divorces in that house had been stopped in
conseqls ence of circumstances connected with them being
known some peers, and by them communicated to others.
It was x Levi& Suppose that the proposed step would put an
end to CA allusion,- but that aid and assistance should be given
to the et ,urt.
Lord 1 tEDESD.ALE said that one of the advantages
which wt :re held out as proceeding from the constitution of
this tour t was that that house would be relieved from the
hearing ,f divorce cases. But that had not been the case.
They h a(2 had one. this year from India, and there were
others I tending, and cases might still come from the colo-
nies an d fr, An Ireland to that house. He could not see
why th s nes,- court could not take cognisance of these cases.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it had been decided
that an r subject of the Queen domiciled in England might
sue in t he stew court for a divorce, though the marrriage
might h he
be,en solemnised and the adultery committed in a
foreorn, tat entry. The court had not been called onto deal with
any Inds e a ease. He was not aware whether any objection
had been,: made to the introduction of a bill into that house
to dissolm e a marrie.ge, but it was in their lordships' dis-
credal ito refer such a case to the Divooce Court.
Lon i I
•{,EDESDALE was glad that the court could en-
tertain I ndian divorces in the cases of persona domiciled in
Englauj 1. But that was not the case as regarded Ireland,
and he did not see why that house should any longer be