SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 August 1859)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said 993 that this measure, as originally brought in by the Government, was intended simply to improve the procedure and facilitate the transaction of business in the Divorce Court. The Act of Parliament provided that the power of dissolving marriages should not be exercised except by a full Court, composed of the Judge Ordinary and two of the Common Law Judges, taken from the Chief Justices and Chief Baron, or the three senior puisne Judges. The amount of business transacted in the Court had turned out to be more considerable than had been expected, in consequence of the previous non-existence of any such tribunal, and the accumulated cases of many years had therefore been brought before it owing to the facilities it afforded. It had therefore been found that the duties of the six Judges who were available to form a full Court prevented them from acting with sufficient regularity in that capacity. The result had been a great increase of expense to suitors; and the Bill therefore provided that all the Judges in Westminster Hall should be competent to preside as members of the full Court. This was the principal object of the present Bill. The 4th clause of the Bill, which extended its operation to Ireland, did not form part of the measure in its original shape, and had been introduced into it at the suggestion of a noble and learned Lord in the other House, and with the almost unanimous concurrence of the noble Lords who represented that country in that branch of the Legislature. The next clause gave the Judge of the Court a discretion to sit with closed doors in those cases in which public decency seemed to him to render the adoption of such a course expedient. The experience of the Judges in these cases had induced them to recommend the clause, while the interests of morality recommended it to the House; a subsequent clause extended the power of the Court so as to render it competent to interfere for the protection of the children of persons seeking for a dissolution of marriage as well before as after the decree for such dissolution was pronounced. The remaining clause of the Bill had for its object the providing of still greater safeguards against collusion than at present existed; for it was found that in undefended cases the Judge was unable to ascertain anything relative to the antecedents of the parties to a suit, or the position of the witnesses, beyond that which the counsel for the petitioner might think proper to furnish from his instructions. The 994 subject of preventing collusion between parties to a divorce was much discussed when the Bill was originally before Parliament; but it was thought better to wait until some experience was gained of the working of the Court; and it had now been thought desirable to take some steps for the appointment of an officer—the Attorney General—not to make a preliminary inquiry, but to see that no collusion existed. A suit of that description always suggested the possibility of collusion, and the Bill therefore armed the Court with power, whenever such a cause arose, to direct inquiry to be instituted out of doors into the circumstances by which it was surrounded. The object of the Bill was, in short, to render more certain, more definite, and more expeditious the administration of justice in the Divorce Court, and he hoped the House would consent to read it a second time, reserving the consideration of its details until it went into Committee.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, In rising, Sir, to move the rejection of this Bill, I am ready at once to acknowledge the general accuracy with which the learned Gentleman has described it. He says, very truly, that it is a Bill which tends to facilitate and to render more extensive in its action an important Act of Parliament. Believing that such is the case, but believing also that the Act thus to be rendered more powerful is the worst Act of Parliament which Her Majesty has ever sanctioned—believing it to be an Act which, on political, social, moral, and religious grounds, should never have been passed, I cannot hesitate about moving that this supplementary Bill be read this day three months. I do not think it necessary to go at any length into the general question involved in the Bill. In its present shape I object to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh clauses. The fifth clause, which states that the Court for the sake of decency may hold its sittings with closed doors, is a fair indication of the character of the Court. The sixth clause gives to the Judge a power of controlling the education of the children of divorced parties, which may, under certain circumstances, be most objectionable. The seventh clause provides what seems to me to be a most inadequate and delusive check on collusion. But it is to the fourth clause I am most anxious to call the attention of the House. That clause says, "All per- 995 sons domiciled in any part of the United Kingdom (except Scotland) may sue in the said Court for a dissolution of marriage on the grounds stated, and according to the rules laid down in section 27 of the original Act." This is an indirect and covert way of getting Ireland under the action of the Bill. I hope the Government will not venture to support this clause. Not a single petition was ever presented from Ireland praying for divorce. Not a single Irishman ever expressed any desire to have this Court exercise any jurisdiction at the other side of the Channel. The Lord Chancellor when he prepared the Bill inserted a clause relating to Ireland. On the urgent representation of Lord Monteagle he withdrew it. Unfortunately he was subsequently induced to place Ireland again in the Bill. The vacillation with which his Lordship's movements on this point were characterized indicated the dangers he foresaw. I can assure the Government that a storm of indignation will be raised in Ireland when this unprecedented transaction is made known, and when the people learn how an attempt to bring them under the action of this Bill was promoted by the Ministers of the Crown. Even if my urgent request that the Government will strike the fourth clause out of the Bill be acceded to, I shall still feel it my duty to divide the House. I shall under all circumstances and on every occasion be prepared to protest against the principle that Parliament can sanction the dissolution of marriage. I know no more unequivocal method of entering a protest on the subject than by going to a division.

COLONEL DUNNE
seconded the Motion, on the ground that the Bill was equally objectionable to the Protestants as to the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

§ MR. CARDWELL
hoped the presence of the clause would not induce the hon, Gentleman to divide. He thought it exceedingly open to the attention and consideration of the House. He did not think it at all advisable that the Divorce Court should be extended to Ireland, or that this was the best way of doing it; but that was a question which could be discussed in Committee, and therefore need not delay the second reading of a measure for the better management of the Court of Divorce in England.

LORD NAAS
was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had not made a more distinct declaration on the subject of the 4th clause, extending the Bill to Ireland. If the Government did not express their willingness to consent to the expulsion of that clause, he (Lord Naas) and hon. Members on his side of the House could not consent to the second reading.

§ MR. CARDWELL
intimated his willingness to consent to the expulsion of the clause.

MR. SERJEANT DEASY
said, that he agreed that the provision was especially objectionable to Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, and he believed that the Government would not press it.

MR. LYGON
regretted that the original Act should have been so hurried through the House as to require every succeeding year a Bill to amend and explain its provisions. The law was in an anomalous state. There had been two private Bills for Divorce from India, but no application for the last two years from Ireland. It was proposed to extend the Act to Ireland, but he thought it should be extended to India and not to Ireland.

MR. M'EVOY
hoped that the Motion for the rejection of the Bill would be pressed, feeling, as he did, the strongest objection to a measure which he believed would be detrimental to the interests of morality.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that he had anticipated that great public evils would arise from passing the Act constituting the Court, and experience justified his anticipations. When they saw, day after day, that marriages were dissolved quicker than they were solemnized, they might well look with alarm at the institution of the Court. It would, however, be exceedingly wrong of the House, unless they were prepared to repeal the original Act, to put any obstacle in the way of passing the clauses of this Bill, so far as it increased the number of Judges who might sit in the full Court.

CAPTAIN ESMONDE
said, he would oppose the Bill, unless there was a pledge that the clause extending it to Ireland would be struck out in Committee.

§ MR. CARDWELL
repeated that he was willing to give an assurance that the Government would not advocate the clause in Committee for extending the Bill to Ireland.

MR. WHITESIDE
appealed to his hon. 997 Friend not to divide the House, but blamed the Government for bringing forward the Bill in its present shape. If the 1st and 2nd clauses only had appeared, there would have been no opposition.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would press his Amendment to a division.