The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-07 00:00:00

mittee was that the clause stand part of the bill, conse-
quently it was not competent for the committee to make
any alteration in it. It was the obj ct of the Govern-
ment and also of Parliament to make the remedy as wide
as possible. He suggested that the committee should
agree to the clause, and pass on to tee others, and in
the event of its being found that the proposed court
would be inadequate for the efficient discharge of the
duties, a new clause with enlarged powers in accordance
with the opinion of the hon. member could be brought
up on the report.
Mr. PACKE said that the best way to carry out the
ideas of the hon. member was to postpone the clause.
Mr. S. WARREN obj-cted to the constitution of the
court, which would throw a great amount of business on
the a'ready ever-taxed common law judges. He also
complained of the doubts that existed under the clauses
of the bill, whether the court was to be a stationary one
or an itinerary one, power being given to it to hold its
sittings in London, Middlesex, or elsewhere, as her Ma-
jesty in council from time to time might appoint. Tee
idea of the Lord Chancellor going to Cornwall to sit in
a case would be contrary to past usage, and not in cha-
racter with his office. The objections raised to the con-
stitution of the court were well worthy the consideration
of the learned Attorney-General to secure the objects
professed by the Government to be aimed at in framing
the measure.
Mr. COLLINS said that if divorce was to become the
law of the land the county court judges ought to be a
portion of the staff to afford relief to the poor man.
With iut it the bill would be a farce.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE suggested that it would be
better to negative this clause, and the Government in-
troduce a new clause at the end of the committee.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the statement of the
Home Secretary indicated that the construction of these
courts was an open question with the Government. By
it he contradicted what had that been said by the hon.
and learned Attorney-General, who also had contra-
dicted what he (the Attorney. General) stated two or
three nights ago, which was indicative of an indistinct
and fluent state of mind on the part of the Government
on that branch of the subject. (Laughter.) He called the
attention of the Government to the provisions of the bill,
which, whilst it would facilitate divorce a vinculo,
would restrain divorce a mensa, the least objectionable
divorce, Lfrom its not being exposed to the dangers of
vice ; divorce a mensa did not a ice from corrupt mo-
tives, but from a desire to be relieved from actual suffer-
ing, or the coniateinatioe of evil connections. He also
expressed his objections to the clause.
Sir G. GREY said it was an inconvenient course to
negative the clause. On bringing up the report he
would bring up a new clause for enlarging the powers of
the court, which the house would have an opportunity
then of discussing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sincerely congratu
lated the committee on the desire of the opposition to
make this bill as extensive as possible. (Laughter.) He
promised the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire (Mr. Henley) the hon. and learned member for
Wallingford (Mr. Means), the hon. and learned member
for Mi lhur,t (Mr. Warren), and the hon. member for
Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), that if they would form
.themselves into an auxiliary sub-committee for the pur-
pose, not of prohibiting the poor man from trying the
question of divorce at the aseze town as he suggested,
but of dsvi-ing a clause for the poor man in the first in-
stance to apply to a judge of a county court to take evi-
dence, and send up to the court in London for judgment,
he would most willingly consider it when prepared, and
also the constitution of the court with their aid. He
contended that the court, as proposed, would be able to
satisfactorily dispose of al the business, and with regard
to expense he stated that in Scotland, where divorce was
easily obtained by the poor, there had been 95 divorces
pronounced in five years, at an expense of about 301. in
opposed cases, and 201. in unopposed cases,. He thought
with the aid of the hon. gentlemen he had named they
might frame a clause that would allow the poor man to
obtain a divorce in England at even less than that.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, in reply to
the Attorney-General,
Mr. LYGON thought the suggestion of a select com-
mittee a good one.
Mr. AYRTON said that he acquiesced in the prin•
ciple of the bill, but objected to its provisions. Re re-
gretted that it was proposed to supersede the simple
procedure of the common law court by this new faagled
and complicated procedure.
Mr. PO WELL said that if this bill was carried, there
would be no difficulty in improving the details.
Mr. DRUMMOND would then show that to send
these matters before the county courts was the only way
to effect the object.
After a few words from Mr. MALIN%
Mr BUTT said they were constituting a new court
which was to give decisions the most important that
could be given, and it was to be dependent on the con-
venience of four other courts. What were the chances of
finding of four judges, whose time was already fully oc-
cupied, two disengaged on the same day! He approved
of the principle of the bill, but wanted to see its opera-
tion brought home to the door of the poor man. They
ought to ;decide the extent of the jurisdiction before
they proceeded to fix the censitution of the court.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood the Secretary
of State and the Attorney-General to say that they would
at the end of the committee introduce clauses to modify
this clause, and on that understanding the right hon.
baronet the member for the University of Oxford ha I
agreed not to move its rejection. He thought, then, it
might he safely left to the Government on that under-
standing. It certainly was no duty of metnb-3ro on the
other side to introduce clauses to improve an act they had
not introduced and did not approve. He hoped th, new
machinery, when proposed, would be such as would
meet the objections.
Lord J. MANNERS did not understand the Attor-
ney-General to say that he would alter the constitution
of the court ; nor was he sure heconld do so in a manner
that would be satisfactory to the committee. Tee consti-
tutional course would be to omit the clause, and let a
new one be introduced subsequently.
Sir G. GREY explained some former observations.

➢Zr. GLADSTONE said that what had fallen from
the Secretary of State was clear enough, but be was
puzzled Ly those observations when taken with the com-
ment of the Attorney-General. Then the noble lord the
member for London had slipped in, and, with the hand
of an artist, had taken a bit of one and a bit of the other,
colouring and blending them into a harmonious whole.
If they could consider the Attorney-General and the Se-
cretary of State-welded into one man, and their decla-
rations welded fp the same way, and take it as ex-
plained by-the'noble lord, that would be a point
gained. But, even in that case, if they affirmed
the eighth clause, they would do so under the
impression that it was very imperfect, and was only to
fix that superior machinery which was to be used by
fashionable people, and leave unsettled the coarser ma-
chinery which was to do the business for the bulk of the
community.

Lord STANLEY said the question whether the juris -
diction of the c iurts in London should be . confined to
London or should extend to the provinces, was one that
might be set led hereafter. He saw no objection to
local courts. The county court judges, however, bare
already their time fully occupied. He did not think
any great evil would be'done if, in the present complete
iznorance of the amount of business that would be done,
they passed the measure in such a form that in a future
session the oonsti,ution of the court might have to bo
amended. He would support the clause ad it stood.
Sir W. HE ITHCOTE said the observations of the
noble lord who had just sat down had reordered it impos-
sible that any one could support the cause who did not
approve of the constitution of the court.
Mr. EWART objected to the composite character of
the court. It would be better to have only one julge ;
but if they were to have three, fet them be app Muted
specially. It was quite clear the clause must be
amended. _

Mr. BOWYER said the discussion would open the
eyes of the people to the true character of the bill. If
it was be a poor man's bill it could not stop short of
the county court. Let them lo .>k to the facilities they
would give tor divorce. If a husband and wife disagreed
they would have to qualify themselves in some way or
other for a divorce, go to the county court, and get a
decision which would enable them to marry another
man and another woman. He complained of the intro-
duction of new terms in law, such as "judge ordinary"
and "judicial separations."
Mr. MILCAULAY said the Government had laid
themselves open to the observations made about bring-
ing justice home to the poor by the injudicious use
they themselves had made of that clip-trap expression.
The poor were not so much interested in the matter as
was represented, for though he wished to speak of the
poor with all proper respect, he thought that in nine
cases out of ten a poor man whose wife was unfaithful to
hire was not entitled to the relief which this act
would give. He voted for the clause on the principle
that the court so established ought to be of the highest
capacity and dignity. Nall regard to the court being
in London a grievance, no man could now contest a
rood of land without coming to the Court of Queen's
Bench or the Court of Common Pleas in London ; there•
fore that could he no grievance at all.
Mr. DRUMMOND wished to know, if the clause
was carried as it was, could it afterwards be amended ?
Mr. FITZROY said it would be competent to pro-
pose an amendment when it was proposed that the clause
as amended should be considered. _

Mr. BUTT wished to know when they came to the
end of the bill, and had appended that the Lord
Chancellor and the three Chief Justices ehonld • the
judges of the court, whether it would be co'npetent
for them to introduce a lause to alter that arrangement I