The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-02 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

investigation of ecclesiastical offences. It is
notorious that all these reforms were loudly
called for. The mode of procedure, and more
especially the rules of evidence adopted In
the Ecclesiastical Courts, have been long, and
we may say universally condemned, as being
calculated to lead to the perversion of justice,
and to involve the unhappy suitor in ruinous
costs. Cases may be cited without number,
some of them of very recent occurrence, in
proof of what we now put forward. How did
the LORD CHANCELLOR propose to deal with
this important question ? By means of a
remedy which would have proved morein-
tolerable than the disease. He would have
established a court of a hybrid nature which
was to be something between a Court of
Common Law and a Court of Chancery, but in
which the latter element was to predominate,
inasmuch as it was to be presided over by an
Equity Judge. We need not dwell on the
details. Suffice it to say that with every dis-
position on the part of the judicial authorities
in the Upper House to support any rational
scheme for the reform of the Ecclesiastical
Courts, they unanimously expressed their dis-
approbation of Lord CRAN WORTH'S plan. The
Divorce Bill, as we pointed out to our readers
at. the time, was open to objections of an
equally serious character. It allowed the
utmost facility for married parties to separate
with more than the rights now incident to a
legal separation, while the marriage tie still
subsisted. It still practically confined to the
husband the privilege of obtaining a divorce
it vinculo, while it denied it to the wife ; and it
made no provision whatever for the abolition
of that most anomalous and indecent process
which we call an action of trim. con. The
Church Discipline Bill escaped criticism
through the sudden dissolution of Parlia-
ment ; but if it is again brought forward,
it will be found upon examination to be no
less liable to objection than the two measures
with which it was introduced.
Are we to have a revival of Lord CRANWORTH'S
failures in the new Parliament? We presume
we must. The abuses of the Ecclesiastical
Courts, and the state of the Law of Divorce, are
a disgrace to any Civilised country; and even'
though nothing may be done, something must
be attempted. We need hardly say that we
are not sanguine as to the result The LORD
CHANCELLOR has so clearly proved his incom-
petence as a law reformer, that it would be a
waste of time to argue the point. We give
him all credit for sincerity of purpose, but it
is his misfortune to occupy the woolsack at a
time when abilities of a higher order than
those which he possesses are required to
work out the necessary changes in the ad-
ministration of the law. We want a clear
head and a strong hand to accomplish this
great task. We want, while removing proved
abuses with an unsparing hand, carefully to
preserve whatever is sound and just in the
great fabric of English jurisprudence. This
is the law reform which the country wants ;
but it will look for it in vain at the hands of
the present advisers of the Crown.
Mr. DISRAELI told his constituents in Buck-
inghamshire the other day, that more had
been done fer the reform of the law during
the ten months that Lord DERBY was Premier,
than in the long interval that has since
elapsed. This is a fact beyond dispute, and
it is very easily accounted for. The legal
advisers of the Crown under Lord DERBY, with
Lord ST. LEONARDS at their head, were
thoroughly up to the work they took in hand,
and they proposed nothing therefore which
they did not carry. Their success was as
uniform as has been the failure of those who
have since attempted to follow in their foot-
steps. No man has dealt more largely in
promises of law reform than the present
Attorney-General. Whether in addressing
' the House of Commons, or his constituents,
or the students of Lincoln's-inn, he is equally
eloquent in denouncing abuses, and in his
pledges to amend them. But, what has he
(lone? During two different sessions of Par-
liament a committee of the House of Com-
mons sac for the purpose of inquiring into the
expediency of appointing public prosecutors
in England, as they are already appointed in
Scotland and in Ireland, for the better detec-
•
tam of crime. The committee unanimously

SATURDAY,

recommended the adoption of a similar plan
in this portion of the kingdom, and the Govern-
ment, nearly a year ago, pledged itself to bring
forward a plan in accordance with that recom:.
mendation To Sir RICHARD BETHELL, as public
prosecutor ex officio, we have looked, and
looked in vain, for some announcement re-
specting this important measure. But both
he and his colleagues have maintained an
ominous silence out the subject. We believe
that nothing has been done, and that nothing
will be done, regarding it during the present
session. If the Attorney-General aspires to
the reputation of a legislator he must change
his tactics. To earn that title ho must do
something more than declaim at the Law
Amendment Society, or raise a cheer from his
Radical supporters at Aylesbury.
Upon the whole, the prospects of law reform
for the present. session are by no means
blight. The legal advisers of the Queen have
been weighed in the balance and found want-
ing ; and it is to the Opposition that the
country must look for sound and practical
measures of improvement. The plan for con.
solidating the Statute Law proposed by Sir
FITZROY KELLY and Lord STANLEY, it is satis-
factory to know, is being *steadily carried out,
and the successful accomplishment of this
gigantic undertaking is now only a question
of time. Let the leaders of the Opposition
persevere in this wise and patriotic course.
Let them, as their opponents have shown
themselves unequal to the task, continue to
mature and bring forward measures of prac-
tical utility, and the country will take care
that the Legislature adopts them.