MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 200.) (Hansard, 13 August 1877)

§ LORD SUDELEY,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill, which had come up from the Commons, was one of considerable interest as it affected the existing law under the Matrimonial Causes Acts. As the law now stood, the Queen's Proctor or any other person might intervene between the decree Nisi and the making it absolute, and try to set the decree aside on the ground of collusion, or the adultery of the petitioner. If the Queen's Proctor succeeded, the petitioner might be ordered to pay his costs; but if he failed to prove collusion, or the petitioner succeeded, the petitioner could not get his costs from the Queen's Proctor, and it was doubtful whether he could get them from a private intervener. This was unjust, and Section 2 of this Bill remedied the injustice, by providing that the Court might make such order as to the costs of all the parties occasioned by such intervention as might seem just. Again, the Court could not order the husband to provide for the wife, if the decree was not granted. Therefore, first, though an innocent husband could be made to provide for the guilty wife, a guilty husband could not, because his prayer for a decree would be rejected; and, secondly, there was no inducement, but much the contrary, to a wife to allege and prove a matrimonial offence against her husband, because, if she proved it, a decree would not be granted, and no provision could be ordered for her. Thus it was left to the Queen's Proctor to intervene, if perchance he heard of the husband's failings. The Bill remedied that defect also, by giving power to the Court to order provision to be made for the wife when the husband also had been guilty of a matrimonial offence. It had been ruled that the Court had no power to look into settle- 810 ments and make an order for the benefit of either parent, unless there was a child living at time of the decree. There was no good reason for that and the Bill would put the matter right. The Bill had been prepared by Mr. Herschell, at the request of the President of the Court and of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. Both those learned Judges approved it; the Attorney General strongly supported it in the House of Commons, and Sir Stafford Northcote agreed to the 2nd clause, which made a possible charge on the Treasury. If their Lordships passed the second reading, he, in accordance with Notice, would then move the suspension of the Standing Orders, with the view of having the Bill put through its remaining stages at once.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
said, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, but he could not assent to the Standing Orders being suspended in order to its being passed through its remaining stages this Session. The Bill only passed through Committee in the House of Commons on Thursday, and passed its remaining stages on Friday and Saturday. It was read a first time in their Lordships' House on Saturday, and was put down for second reading to-day. The Bill was not delivered with the Papers to-day, and on coming down to the House at 3 o'clock to-day, he found it impossible to get a copy of it, inasmuch as it had not been printed. He thought that it would be derogatory to the dignity of their Lordships' House to pass the Bill through its remaining stages under these circumstances.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was not surprised at the view taken by his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. He had no objection to the Bill—on the contrary, he believed it was one which might well receive their Lordships' assent; but he could not say that there were not other Members of their Lordships' House who, if they were in their places, might take exception to the measure. He believed that, in fact, very few of their Lordships were aware of the nature, or even of the existence of the Bill. He suggested, therefore, that for the present Session the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) should be content with obtaining a second reading for the Bill.

§ LORD SUDELEY
said, that after what had been said by the Chairman of Committees and the Lord Chancellor, he would not move the suspension of the Standing Orders.