The Press.
London, England, 1855-04-28 00:00:00

TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL.

The second reading of this bill stood for Thum -
day, when Mr. Mkuss moved that it be read a
second time that day six months. He argued, in the
first place, on the small proportion—not above two
per cent—of the whole number of wills registered
about which there was any dispute, or which, in con.
sequence, had anything to do with the Court of
Chancery. He then referred to the commissions
which had inquired into the subject, and the evi-
dence of many of the most experienced solicitors, all
concurring in the opinion that the business was ex-
tremely well done in Doctors' Commons; that mat-
ters of such delicacy ought to be confided to a small
number of practitioners immediately under the con-
trol of the court, and that it was highly inexpedient
to transfer the business to the Court of Chancery.
He then adverted to the practical details of working
the proposed scheme. It required new buildings,
but there were no new buildings ready. He re.
gretted that the Solicitor• General had not taken a
less extreme course. He might have turned the
ecclesiastical court into a temporal court, giving the
appointment of the judge to the Crown instead of the
archbishop; and many other improvements might
have been introduced, but there was no excuse for
the entire abolition of a system which had worked so
well, and at such moderate charges. There was a
popular cry that Doctors' Commons was a sink of
iniquity, but had not the selfsame cry been raised
against the Court of Chancery. He appealed to his
hon. friend to try the principle of amendment instead
of abolition.

Mr. COLLIER was for abolishing the ecclesiastical
courts. They bad survived many assaults, but he
hoped they would now receive their coup de grace.
There was nothing in the disposition of a man's pro-
perty after his death that required a separate tribunal
more than the disposition of his property during his
lifetime. He thought that wills for a small amount
could be left to the machinery of the county courts,
and if cases of dispute arose they could then be tried
at a cost which would not be ruinous to the poor
man. Where the amount was large the cause might
be tried at common law; where the courts now ad-
judicated on the question as to whether a man was
sane or insane at the time of disposing of his pro.
perty. Although these were his views he would not
insist on them, but would accept the bill as a vast
improvement on the present system, though he
should propose some modification in committee.
Sir F. THESIGER said that the last speaker in-
tended to support the bill, after objecting to every
part of it. He asserted that, so far from there having
been any general and universal censure passed upon
the testamentary jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical
courts, wherever a strong opinion had been ex-
pressed it had always been in favour of it. He
dwelt long on the reportof the commissioners, which
had so emphatically decided against the transference
of testamentary business to chancery. This was not
the first time the ecclesiastical courts had been
attacked, and he read a squib, written two hundred
years ago, purporting to be the will of Doctors'
Commons, which bequeathed its registrars, proctors,
and so on, to the Court of Common Pleas, to be
admitted attorneys, and its decrees to the Court of
Chancery. He believed that he had here accidentally
brought to light the source whence his learned friend
had derived his bill. He argued against the admis-
sion of the entire body of attorneys, containing, of
course, many unworthy members, to the delicate and
dangerous business of the management of wills.
He detailed the perils that might arise from such a
course. As to the present management, no
complaints were ever heard of the judgment of
the judge of ecclesiastical courts on testamentary
matters. Many of the counsel there practising
were among the most learned members of
the profession. He saw no reason for this experi-
ment; he thought it rash and untried, and for which
the public would have to pay enormously in the
shape of compensatin. He recommended a modified
plan—let the Prerogative Court and the Arches
Court be blended in one, to be called the Queen's
Court; they would retain the whole of the present
machinery, which would give more satisfaction than
the Court of Chancery, where the rule and practice
of taking evidence were so cumbrous and expensive.
This was far better than the entire sweeping away
of courts so free from reproach, in favour of which
so many opinions had been expressed, and which
had stood so long for the benefit of the public at
large.
Mr. R. PALMER said that it was admitted that the
present testamentary jurisdiction was in a state un-
worthy of the improvements which had taken place
in other branches of the law. It was absurd to say
that the existing system satisfied the country. That
system must be recast. It appeared to him absurd
to say that chancery should determine how an estate
should be distributed, without having control over
the instruments of distribution. At present, in dis-
putes respecting the validity of a will, first there was
a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, then a bill filed in
chancery for the management of the estate, and then

■

gi