The Press.
London, England, 1854-01-28 00:00:00

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

A RUMOUR is prevalent that the Lord Chancellor is
prepared to bring forward a measure for the transfer
of the business of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the
Court of Chancery, a proceeding which appears pre-
cipitate, considering what took place last session.
Then Lord CRANWORTH reminded the House of
Lords that, as a Commission from the Crown had
been issued for the purpose of inquiry, it would be
but decent to await their report before legislating on
the subject.
In the Commons a struggle was carried on between
Mr. COLLIER and the Solicitor-General for the trans
fer of the business in question to the courts in which
they respectively practise. But the Chancellor's bill
is preparing, and it is said that the removal of the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty, which
was a part of Mr. COLLIER'S scheme, will not be an
ingredient in it. But all the testamentary business
is to be absorbed in the Court of Chancery. The
question then arises, how was the compromise
effected by which Sir RICHARD BETHELL has charmed
the Chancellor and prevailed against the might of
Mr. COLLIER?

In 1853 it appeared that about 12,900 probates
and administrations annually pass the seal of the
Prerogative Court, conveying property (personalty)
to the value of about fifty millions sterling, without
fraud or error. Hence the routine of the courts it is
proposed to merge must certainly be well organised ;
and machinery which so deals with interests of such
vast amount should not be hastily or need-
lessly interrupted. It is a NATIONAL ques

75

tion, and, if it be one that has occupied the attention
of Commissions from the Crown and Committees
of both Houses of Parliament during the last quarter
of a century, it is not to be sported with by such
men as the present Chancellor and his Solicitor.
General. Mr. COWER, we are persuaded , will be
no party to that.
There is more in reserve. From a Cabinet of compro-
misers no measure of mature wisdom and practical be-
nefit to the country can be expected. But extremes
meet, and it is possible that points of harmony and union
may be found in the Cabinet and in the Commission.
There are in both ultra Churchmen and extreme
Radicals—Mr. GL ADSTONE and Sir WILLIAM MOLES
WORTH, Sir PAGE WOOD and Sir R. BE THEI.L.
The point of union is this, and it is well worthy of
attention. The former party desire the severance of the
Church from the State, with a view to her indepen-
dence. The Radicals equally desire the same sepa-
ration, because they object to all endowments and
hate all ecclesiastical establishments. Without
expressing any opinion on a measure the existence
of which at present rests only on rumour, we will
observe that it is wise to watch with a jealous eye
any change that emanates from sources so discordant
on important points, yet united on this, aided by meu
so astute in their profession as the law officers of the
Crown, and so accommodating as the Solicitor-
General of Lord MELBOURNE, or the Lord Chan-
cellor of Lord ABERDEEN.

ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS BY JOINT-
STOCK COMPANIES.
A DEPUTATION of " gentlemen from the Incorporated
Law Society " this week waited on the Lord Chan-
cellor in reference to a proposal which will soon
come before Parliament to enable joint stock corn
panies to undertake trusts and to administer trust
estates. The deputation strongly object to the mea-
sure, and urge against it many reasons, all of which,
it appears to us, can be disposed of by one answer—
viz., that the statute would enable and not enjoin,
permit and not compel ; and that it would only be
giving a testator or settler power which he does not
now possess. Every one who has had any experience
in the settlement of property or the enforcement of
a settlement is aware of the many difficult and un-
pleasant circumstances that generally attend these
ordinary events of life. The parties to them are
almost inevitably relatives or intimate friends, so
that feeling intervenes in that, which ought to be
rigidly and strictly a matter of business. Except in
rare instances, a trust relationship never terminates
without leaving a sense of injury rankling in the
mind of one of the parties to it.. Again, the office is
so thankless that there is often much difficulty in
finding persons willing to undertake the office. These
evils would be at once removed if the proposed mea-
sure were to become law.
The objection that trusts ought not to be a source
of profit we consider untenable. All men are likely
to discharge their duty better if they are paid for it,
and we believe the present system is infinitely more
costly than that which it is proposed to introduce,
as, under the existing law, if a trustee is very strict
he can generally put the estate to the expense of a
Chancery suit; if he is imprudent, yielding, and
obliging, and swerves from the rigid path of duty,
he and his children may be ruined. We believe the
lower the charges of the companies the greater their
profits would be. They would neither have the
rashness nor the timidity of individuals, and in time
they would acquire so much experience and such a mass
of precedents that a recourse to Chancery would be an
exceptional event: under the present system, if trustees
are strict, it may almost be considered the rule. The
Lord Chancellor remarked that the subject was
one of great importance ; and, unless stronger argu-
ments than those adduced by the deputation are
urged against it, we think we may justly add, that
the proposed measure is wise and convenient, and
ought to be adopted.