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

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

In reply to Mr. Wzes-
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the civil service estimates would be taken on Mon-
day. anti if there was time the militia estimates also.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL
Mr. DRUMMOND said he had opposed the bill from
the beginning, but he had been no party to the attempt
to throw obstructions in the way of what was evidently
the wish of the house. But he Ali.; aoxious to do whA,
he could to make the WI, not such as he thought it
ought to be, hut such as it had'been at fir 4 represented
by its promoters, The court proposed to be constituted

would be such that it would never act. Mr. Drummond
!ben proposed certain clause., omitting 8,9, an:{ 10.
Lo .1 J. MANNERS said, that at the aThurnment a
few n ghts ago, it was on the understand ng that the
learne. Attorney-Ge:lerai was to reconsider the constitu-
tion of the court, He wished to know if the hon. and
learned ventlenisn had done so ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought, upon mature
consideration, that it would be better to a there to the
constitution of the court as at first proposed. He had no
doubt the judges wotsld be able to attend to the business,
which wow(' only occupy them a few days in each year.
At preent the cases in the House of Lords were vie•
tua ly all disposed of by the Lord Chance lor.
Lord JOHN MANNERS contended that it would
be impos-ible for the judges to attend to the busine-s.
Mr. MALINS concurred in the opinion that, if there
were to be only three or four cases a year, the court as
constituted might get through the business. If there
was to be any incre►se of business, it would be impos-
sible for such a court to get through it.
Mr. NAPIER said that if the bill be hereafter ap-
plied to Ireland the difficulty complained of would arise
from the Lord Chief Justice in that country being a
Roman Catholic. He thought, however, when the act
was applied to Ireiand few cases would arise.
Lnrd JOHN RUSSELL said he agreed with the
principle of the bill, and that the Government were
perfectly right in endeavouring to try to pass it
in the state it had come down from the Lords, to pre-
, vent discussion again in that house, in consequence
of any material amendments the House of Com-
MOll4 might make in it. It was necessary
that the bill should be passed in such a state as to pre-
vent parliament having at an early day to again discuss
the question of divorce, and therefore he hoped that the
Government would take care that the remedy proposed
by the bill should be given to the people. He under-
stood from the previous statements of the Attorney-
General that this measure did not propose to chance the
law but to apply it iu a different manner from that at
present adopted (hear, hear), so that it should no longer
be subjected to the reproach that the rich man was
certain of obtaining it, whilst the poor man was pre-
vented—(Hear,hear)—that the law should be open to all,
and on terms within their reach. (Hear, hear.) He
doubted if the clause under consideration was likely to
effect that object, and he hoped to have heard from the
learned Attorney-General sufficient reasons for his main-
taming it in its present form ; but he must confess that
the learned gentleman's statement had disappointed him
in that respect. He was afraid that the Lord Chan-
cellor, with the other judges, would not be able to find
time within the few days to be allotted them at the end
of term to dispose of the increasing business that was
likely to arise under this bill if passed into a law. No.
thing was so bad as to propose to give a remedy and not
give it, and therefore lie thought power should be given
to aggrieved persons of petitioning judges of assize on cir-
cuit. It was necessary, if they determined to grant di-
vorce, that it should be given fairly and freely, and he
hoped that the Atorney-General would look t i the prac-
tical vg orking of the bill, and take care that its provisions
would not deprive the people of this country of the re-
medy they proposed to give them. He could not agree
with many of the doctrines that had been held by hon.
members on the subject of divorce, but he expressed a
hope that it would not be made so easy a matter in-this
country as it was in Prussia. He implored the house to
pass this measure in such a shape as to prevent the pos-
sibility cf their having again to reconsider the subject,
and he expressed his readiness to support the clause if
the Government considered it essential.

Mr. HENLEY contended that it would be impossible
for the proposed court to discharge the business the
mea,ure would create.
Sir G. GREY said that the motion before the com-
mittee was tbat 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 toe 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 objected to the constitution of the

court, which would thro; a great amount of business on

the already over-taxed common law judges. He also
comp!ained of the doubts that existed under the causes

of the bill, whether the c inrt was to be a stationary ono
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. Tag
idea of the Lord Chancellor going to Cornwall to sit in
a case would be contrary to past usage, and ❑ot in cha-
racter with his office. The ohjectioni raised to the con-
stitution of the court were well worthy the consideration
of the learned Attorney-General to secure the objects
profes,ed 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 ,tit it the bill would be a fare?.

Sir W. HEA.TIECOTE 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. GLtDSTONE said that the statement of the
Home Secretary indicated that the construction of these

courts wan an open question with the Government. By
it be contradicted what bad 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 thesubject. (Laughter.) Ho called the
attention of the Government to the provisions of the bil►,
which, whilst it would facilitate divorce a vinculo,

would restrain divorce a mensa, the least objectionable
divorce, !from its not being Exposed to the dangers of
vice; divorce a mensa did nut it.iee from corrupt mo-
tives, but from a desire to be relieved from actual suffer-
ing, or the contamination 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 f)r Ox-
fordshire (Mr. Henley) the hon. and learned member for
Wallingford (Mr. Malins), the hon. and learned member
for Mi 'buret (Mr. Warrer), and the hon. menalsr fur
Knaresborough (Mr. C, Lies), that if they would form
themselves into an anx.liary sub-committee for the pur-
pose, not of prohibiting the poor man from trying the
question of divorce at the assze town as he suggested,
bat of deviAng a clause for tho 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 Lender. for judgment,
he would most willingly consider it when prepared, and
also the constitution of the court with their aid. He
contended that the clue, as proposed, would be able to
satiefectorily diepote of a,l the business, and with regard
to expense he stated that in ScotTand, where divorce was
easily obtained by the p)or, there had been 95 divorcfs
pronounced in fire years, at an expanse of about 301. in
opposed cages, and 201. in unopposed caseq. 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 be acquiesced in the prin•
ciple of the bill, but objcted to its p-ori-ions. He re-
gretted that it was proposed to sup.rBede the simple
procedure of the common lav court by this new angled
and complicated procedure.

Mr. POWELL said that if this bill was carried, there
would be no difficulty in improving the details.
Mr. DRUNIMOND would theta show that to send
these matters before the county courts was the only way
to effect the object.
After a few words from Mr. MALINS,
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 constitution 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 bad
agreed not to move its rejection. He thought, then, it
might he safely left to the Government on that under-
etanding. It certainly was no duty of members on the
Other side to introduce clauses to improve an act they had
not introduced and did not approve. He hoped the 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 woul alter the constitution
of the court ; nor was he sure he could do so in a manner
that would be satisfactory to the committee. Tile consti-
tutional course would be to omit the clause, and let a
new one be introduced subsequently.
Sir G. GREY exelained some former observations.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that what had fallen from
the Secretary of State was clear enough, but he was
puzzled by those observations when taken with the cos-
anent of the Attorney-General. Then the noble lord the ,
member for London had slipped in, and, with the hand
of an artist, bad 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 in the same way, and take it as *see-
the eighth elan ,
Pgi:ille..a. by the noble lord, that would be a point
"a° But, even in that case, if they affirmed
itsewas tvheeryy
iwrnopuelrdf e
td, o a n sdo
was under
onlyer the
tto
impression that
fix that su
y
perior machinery which was to be used by
fashionawblheich wagpeople .a
o and leave unsettled the coarser ma-
chinery
t do the business for the bulk of the
STANLEYLord said the question whether the jnrir.
Community.
diction of the courts in Lon
lirhoovliind be confined to
London or should extend to the
p nevcettr think have
might be set'led hereafter. Re "N.:ens%
objection to
one that
already Courts.their the
countyfully o
„ccounpritedj.udßgees,
did sot
any great evil would be done if, in the present complete
local
ignorance
of the amount of businesetbat would be done,
they passed the measure in such a form that in a fAture