SECOND READING. (Hansard, 12 March 1878)

§ LORD SUDELEY,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had to ask their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, which was one of some importance as amending the Matrimonial Causes Act; but, at the same time, it was one of so simple and brief a character that it would, he trusted, at once commend itself to their Lordships' favourable consideration. The object of the Bill, shortly stated, was to remove certain practical injustices which had proved themselves in the working of the present Act. By the 2nd clause, the system of allowing costs was placed on a footing fair to both parties. As the law stood at present, if the Queen's Proctor or any other person intervened against the decree nisi, he could, if successful, obtain costs; but, on the other hand, if unsuccessful, the petitioner had no power of recovering costs from him. That was manifestly unjust, and the Bill proposed to give the Court full power to make such order as to costs as might seem just. The Treasury agreed to the possible case of the Queen's Proctor being mulcted of costs, and provision was made by the Bill that such expenses should be deemed part of his office charges. The principle was the same as was introduced many years ago in Revenue cases, and which had been found to work well. By the 3rd clause, power was given to the Court to order provision to be made for the wife, notwithstanding that the husband had been 1137 proved guilty of a matrimonial offence and that no decree had been granted. The law, as it stood at present, was in rather an anomalous position. If the Queen's Proctor or any other person intervened between the rule nisi and the decree and proved collusion, or that the husband had been guilty of a matrimonial offence, no provision could be made for the wife. Thus it acted as an absolute bar against the wife making any attempt to prove the husband's guilt; because she knew that if she succeeded, she would lose all prospect of a provision being made for her. The result was, that while an innocent husband could be made to make provision for his adulterous wife, the guilty husband could not be made liable. It was clear that this placed the wife in a wrong position, and threw the burden of intervening entirely on the Queen's Proctor, if, perchance, he might have heard of the husband's failings. Under the 4th clause, increased power was given to the Court to look into settlements. At present, if there was no child living at the time of the decree, the settlement could not be touched, and considerable injustice consequently frequently occurred. For instance, a husband might have made a considerable settlement on his wife; but, as the law now stood, provided there were no children living when the decree was made, the money could not be restored to him, and he must be content to see it used, in all probability, in maintaining his wife's adulterer. The Bill gave power to the Court in their discretion to look into settlements in all cases, and to make an order for the benefit of either parent, as they might consider desirable. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that this Bill passed a second reading last year; but that owing to the lateness of the Session when it came up from the other House, there was no opportunity of advancing it another stage. The Bill had this year passed through the other House without amendment; it had the warm approval of the Judge of the Divorce Court, and the Law Officers of the Crown gave it their assent in the other House. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would now give it a second reading.