The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-31 00:00:00

JANUARY 31, 1857. ample funds for the redemption► of the two millions of Exchequer 13( lids falling due this year, if such redemption should be thought desirable. There can be little doubt that the immediate reduction of the Income Tax from ltld. to 5d., together with the abolition of the war duties on tea, sugar, and coffee, would p_•oduce a most beneficial effect on the industry of the empire, and stimulate other sources of revenue A tax on income or property in any shape be comes sooner or later a tax on labour, and diminishes or dries up the springs which set industry in motion ; and for this reason the abolition of the tax must indirectly benefit the class who are not primarily subjected to it. LAW REFORM.-THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. THE anomalies and abuses attendant upon the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts are already sufficiently well known. The old, expensive, and complicated mode of proce dure still prevails in these tribunals, while the courts, both of common law and equity, have within these few years undergone a variety of improvements, to the manifest ad vantage of the public. The following extract from a letter, lately addressed by Sir FITZROY KELLY to Lord BROUGHAM, shows the mode in which business is conducted at Doctors' Com mons, and of the urgent necessity that exists for altering a state of things so disgraceful to the administration of justice : Instead of the most simple and concise statement of the will to be propounded on the one side, and of the objection to the grant of probate on the other, the cause proceeds upon an endless succession of verbose and com plicated libels, articles, personal answers, and allegations, until what may be called the record is completed. Then, as to the evidence—instead of a personal cir•a core exami• nation of parties and witnesses in open court as soon as the issues of facts are ascertained, the whole evidence is made to consist of written depositions and answers to interrogatories. The examination in chief being often taken on one side before the case upon the other side is known; the cross interrogatories exhibited on the other side in utter ignorance of the evidence in chief; and the witnesses on both sides giving their erideuce in private, tin• seen and unheard by the uppoide parties, who have to deal with, and perhaps to contradict, their testir_►ony, and by the judges who have to pronounce judgment upon it when the cause is to be decided. The results of this vicious system are beyond calculation. The late case of Pyce Sombre affords an opt illustration of the magnitude cf these evils. It was a simple and ordinary case of a will set up by the executors and legatees, and opposed on the ground of unsoundness of mind in the testator by the widow and the next of kin. The suit was made to last for live years ; the pleadings and evidence were all in writing, and tilled two of the largest size folio volumes contd . • ig together 1,>0) pages. and the expense of print ing which atone was over 2,0001. The costs altogether were upwards 36,0001. This may seem an extreme case, but it differs only from the most ordinary cases in the amount of the property at stake. If the estate of the deceased had been no more than 1,0001., the pleadings, the evidence, and the costs, must have been the same, unless, as would probably have occurred, the immensity of the expenses had driven the parties to a compromise. We need not enumerate the many abortive attempts that have from time to time been made with the view of remedying those gigantic evils, nor need we dwell upon the causes of their failure. Suffice it to say, that in the course of last year three distinct plans for the remodelling, of the Ecclesiastical Courts were brought before the public. The first, by the present Attorney-General, proposed that all proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts should in future be regulated by the rules of the Courts of Chancery, and that a new tri bunal should be established for the purpose. Mr. COLLIER. on the other hand, would have solved all difficulties by throwing the whole of the business into the courts of common law at Westminster. Lastly, Sir Firzßoy KELLY proposed that a new court should be created, which should have exclusive jurisdiction in testamentary causes, and that in connection with, and subordinate to, this tribunal, district courts, superintended by registrars, should be established throughout the kingdom for the transaction of local business. He further pro posed, that all suits and disputes of every kind that might arise should be referred to the metropolitan court, which in its procedure should be bound by the simple and intelligible THE PRESS. rules of the common law. Thus all the parties concerned would he subjected to the whole some test of examination in open court, instead of giving their evidence in private, as is now the case. A question, for example, such as that which arose in DvcE SOMBRE'S case, would be referred at once to the decision of a jury, thus saving a world of expense to the parties, and of scandal in th." administration of our laws. The first of these three schemes was re jected because it proposed, in effect, to throw the testamentary business of Doctors' Commons into the Courts of Chancery, and we need hardly be surprised that this proposal found no favour in the eyes of the public The second was rejected simply because it was impracticable; but we understand that the main features of the third plan have been approved by the Government, and that a mea sure will be very shortly submitted to Parlia ment in which these will be embodied. It is said, however, that several important altera tions of the original scheme are in contempla tion, and to these we shall now shortly refer. The Loan CHANCELLOR, it is stated, while conceding the principle that the new Testa mentary Court should be regulated in its pro cedure by the rules of the common law, is still of opinion that it should be presided over by an Equity Judge. Should this prove the case, and an act be passed accordingly. we feel per suaded that the project will fail in its most essential point. It is of the first importance that in any plan for the reform of the Eccle siastical Courts the rules of pleading and evidence should be wholly abolished, and those of the common law substituted in their stead. But how can we expect this to be effectually done unless we have a judge in the new court who is thoroughly conversant with the principles and the practice of the common law? It is true that the power is now given to the judges of the Equity Courts to examine ' witnesses viva voce in certain cases, but every body knows that practically it is never done. The consequence would probably be that wherever questions of disputed facts arose in the Testamentary Court, they would be re ferred, as they now are from 'Chancery, to a common-law judge and jury. What, then, would be the duties of the new li judge? That is a question which we believe Lord CRANWORTH will find it somewhat difficult to answer. According to the plan of Sir FITZROY KELLY—and upon this point the Attorney-General agreed with him—the pro• posed new court was to be invested with com plete jurisdiction in all questions of law as well as of fact in regard to matters testa mentary. It was to decide all disputes as to the construction of wills and devises, as well as to administer every species of estate. But it appears that Lord CRANWORTH does not intend that it shall have jurisdiction in ques tions of construction, but that these shall be determined as they are at present. The objec- tions to the creation of a court of such limited powers are manifest. Being precluded in effect from deciding any questions, either of fact or of law, it would have no judicial du ties, properly so called, to perform at all. It would only have a certain amount of routine business to get through, while testamentary disputes of every description were settled elsewhere. The judge in point of station and emolument would rank, we believe, with his brethren at Westminster, but his office would be a sinecure; and if Lord CRANWORTH sup poses that the public would be satisfied in the present day with a court of this description, he will find hiliself most grievously mistaken. This scheme. in fact, would complicate, in stead of simplifying, the present mode of proce dure. That system, although liable to nume tons abuses, has at all events the advantage of being thoroughly understood by a large and intelligent class of practitioners to whom the public now look for assistance and advice in all testamentary matters. But who would venture to offer advice to a client in the event of the Loan CHANCELLOR'S scheme being CAC tied into effect? It would be the duty of the advocate, in that case, to inform the perplexed suitor in questions of any difficulty that he would require to resort to three different tri bunals. For the disposal of all matters of routine he must go to the new Ecclesiastical 99 Court; for the decision of questions of fact ho must go to a court of common law ; and for the decision of points of law he must go, we presume, to a court of equity. Whether this would be any improvement upon the present system is a question so doubtful that we shall not attempt to answer it. What, then, is the true remedy required ? It is clearly the establishment of a single court, invested with the most ample jurisdic tion in all testamentary matters, and bound in its procedure to follow the well-known maxims of the common law. In this court all disputed questions, both of fact and of law, ought to be disposed of without the interveation of any other tribunal. It is only by this means that we can hope to see an end of the abuses of which the public have so long complained. We trust, therefore, that the simple and compre hensive plan originally proposed by Sir F. KELLY will yet be carried into effect. We are convinced it is the only one that will satisfy the country. An appeal would, of course, lie from the new court to the House of Lords, as the tribu nal of ultimate resort: and we cannot refer to the latter without expressing our surprise and regret that no effectual means have yet been taken to restore it to that high place in public estimation %Oriel' until a recent period it tn.- questionably held. Various abortive schemes were attempted last session with the view of improving the court of last resort, which has unfortunately lost repute from causes which we need not now enumerate. But, with the exception of the elevation of Lord WENSLEY.. DALE to the peerage, nothing has been done. We by no means underrate the abilities and learning of that eminent person, but it is no disparagement to him to say that a still fur ther infusion of legal talent and experience is required to restore the judicial reputation of the House of Peers. The Government have been much to blame for their neglect in this important matter, and we have yet to learn whether they have matured any measures of improvement more practicable than the failures of last session. MR. ROEBUCK. Sin JAMES GRAHAM'S defence of a bishop has usually been considered a masterpiece of maladroit. advocacy. But we think Mr. ROE. arcit's tactics in his great cause of the middle class versus the aristocracy, are now entitled to rank with the happiest efforts of the Right Hon. Baronet. As Cnairman of the Adminis trative Ref :yin Association, Mr. ROEBUCK comes forward as the especial denouncer of the aristocracy, and by implication as the especial patron of the middle classes Give us practical men is his cry ; men who know something about mills, and bills, and tills ; men who, in his language, have " made them selves :" let them supersede the petty little birds or corrupt tyrants, as the case may be, who now oppress the country, and we shall soon see the dawn of a better era. " A man as is a good judge of a horse," said old Mr. Wel ler decisively, "is a good judge of anything ;" and even that expert logician, his son, was unable to controvert the argument. By a similar process of reasoning, Mr. ROEBUCK arrives at the conclusion that a man who is a good judge of cotton is necessarily the best judge of all high questions of political philo sophy. So far, so good. Every man has a right to his own opinion. He may be as blind as he likes, or as deaf as he likes. And it is open to any man to adopt the theory that English traders are Nature's aristocracy, without incurring the charge of absolute fatuity, or anything worse than a little harmless, if pre judiced eccentricity. If Mr. ROEBUCK, there fore, had confined himself to this, we should not, probably, have seen any necessity for alluding to the subject. The question at issue is so very stale, and so little likely ever to be satisfactorily solved, that we might be ex cused for wishing to keep clear of it. But when the Hon. Member, after abusing the aristocracy to his hea show that the middle u•t's content, goes on to classes area thousand.