The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-09 00:00:00

COURT OF PRIVY COUNCIL

Lord BROUGHAM said he wished to make some
observations with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Court of Privy Council. Important questions relating
to colonial and Indian matters were decided by the
Privy Council, and therefore it was absolutely necessary
that every possible assistance should be given to that
Court. If it was such an important Court with
respect to our distant possessions, how much more
important must it be to our British subjects at home ?
He felt confident in asserting, and he was sure he would
be borne out in that assertion the more that matter was
considered, that nothing could be more unfair, or more
unsatisfactory than the present law of divorce, and that
they were also bound not only to act upon their own
judgment and reflection, but that they also should avail
themselves of the experience of other countries to try
and devise some mode of amending those laws. This
was one of the reasons inducing him to bring forward
this measure, and he trusted it would meet with the
assent of their Lordships. The expense of a divorce
made it a remedy only to be obtained by the rich. A
poor man never could avail himself of the remedy of
divorce under the existing state of the law. Was there
any example for this state of the law? No, we were
the only Protestant country in which such a state of the
law existed. Even in Scotland the law was different to
what it was in this country with respect to the remedy
of divorce. But this difficulty and partiality of the law
as it at present stood would be obviated by providing
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the
power of disposing of applications for divorces. In
Scotland the cost of procuring a divorce was from 30/. to
35/, while in England to obtain a Divorce Bill—unop-
posed the cost was from 500/ to 600/. ; if the Bill
should be opposed it would amount to from 1,0001. to
2,000/ No one could say that this was a proper state of
the law. By the present law too, a person proceeding
in the Consistorial Court on account of adultery by his
wife, had to pay both his own costs in prosecuting his
suit, and the costs to which his wife might be put, in
prosecuting her defence. Persons were frequently
ruined by proceedings in the Consistorial Court, even be-
fore they could be in a position to apply to their Lord-
ships' House for a divorce. This, then was the state
of the law on this important subject. If a man of
limited means went to the expense of getting a verdict
in an action for trim. con., he would not have suf-
ficient means to apply to the Ecclesiasttcal Court to get
a divorce afterwards. He thought that it would be be-
neficial if this tribunal were to take cognisance in con-
junction with the Consistorial Judges of those matters.
In conclusion, the Noble Lord said he should support
the second reading of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had always ex-
pressed himself strongly of opinion that there ought to
be a fixed President of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, and therefore he thought this Bill ought
to be allowed to be read a second time, and afterwards
referred to a Committee up stairs. He would, however,
caution their Lordships not to part with their judicial
authority ; for, if they did so, he could assure them
that their political authority would soon follow.
Lord COTTENHAM said his Hon. and Learned
Friend (Lord Brougham) had not adverted to ono clause
which, if it became law, would refer all matters
of a judicial nature from that House to the
Committee of the Privy Council. He alluded to
the 9th clause, which provided that any matter or thing
might be referred from that House to the Privy Coun-
cil. There was no limit to this clause. If that clause
were to become law it would strip that House of all
its authority. He (Lord Cottenham) was of opinion,
that the law with respect to divorce was very unsatis-
tory, but he did not believe that the proposition of his
Noble Friend would furnish any redress at all. The
expenses in such matters were of course referred to as
the chief grievance. 'Why there were heavy expenses
in all cases tried before the Judieial Committee of the
Privy Council. There were the expenses of counsel,
agents, and witnesses, the same as in proceedings before
that House. It was true, that there were fees to be
paid in cases heard before that House, but those fees were
paid into a fund, called the Fee Fund, and were the pro-
perty of the public. Now if these fees so much increased
the expenses in cases to be heard before that House
it was obvious that the proper course to be pursued
would be to abolish those fees rather than refer all such
cases to another, and, perhaps, equally expensive tri-
bunal. Ile thought it would be better if some jurisdic-
tion were to be established by which this remedy would
be available generally. He also approved of dint portion
of the Bill which related to laws of divorce and of patent
rights, although there were other points in it which he
thought ought to be considered in Committee.
Lord CAMPBELL said the question before them was,
whether this law was to be administered by the Legisla-
ture or by a judicial tribunal. It was also proposed that
Parliament was to have a control over the Committee ;
but how was that to be effected unless all the evidence
was laid before them. He should support the second
reading, but, at the same time, he should, when the Bill
was in Committee, propose many alterations in it.
The Bishop of EXETER complained that the rights
and privileges of the Church would be materially affected
by this Bill, because, in many cases, there might be an ap-
peal from the Court of Arches brought before them, in
which the rights of the dignitaries of the Church would
be involved, and it was well known that some of those
on the Council might be persons not of the communion
of the Established Church. He found fault with many
of the principles involved in that portion of the Bill
which related to the subject of divorce.
Lord BROUGHAM, in reply, said that the Right
Rev. Prelate had no just cause for the fears be expressed
on the part of the Church.
The Bishop of EXETER explained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought his Noble and
Learned Friend had better divide the Bill into two parts,
making that part relating to the law of divorce a separate
Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM said he would move that it be
an instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill into
two parts if they should think fit.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be referred to a Select Committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.