The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 14, 1857.

repugnant to the national habits and feelings.
The remedy, and the only efficient one, for
this state of things we pointed out on a former
occasion. It is to establish a new Court of
Probate which shall have jurisdiction in all
testamentary courts, and which shall be guided
in its rules of procedure by the common law
of the land. This was the main feature of the
scheme proposed last year by Sir FITZROY
KELLY, and approved by the most eminent law
authorities in tl►e Upper House. We are per-
suaded that until it is adopted, there will be
no efficient reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts.
To return to Lord CRANWORTH'S plan. We
remarked, on a former occasion, that the judge
of his proposed new tribunal would hold a
mere sinecure appointment. And such, indeed,
appears to be the opinion of his Lordship ;
for it is his present intention to cast upon one
of the Vice-Chancellors the duties of the
office in question, whatever these may be. But
in fact the court intended to he created would
have no judicial business, properly so called,
to transact at all. It would not decide upon
questions of facts, for these would be tried
before a jury and a ccmmon•law judge. It
would not decide upon questions of law, for
these, it appears, would be tried elsewhere.
What, then, would be the functions of the new
court? Simply, so far as we can comprehend
them, to attend to mutters of routine, while
the real testamentary business of the country,
involving the most important questions of law
and fact, would be transacted elsewhere.
Another grave objection to the Chancellor's
scheme is the mode provided for appeals from
his proposed court. At present there is but
one appeal from the Court of Probate, and that
is to, perhaps, the most efficient tribunal in
the kingdom—namely, the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council. Lord CRANWORTH iS
dissatisfied with this simple process, and
therefore he proposes to have two Courts of Ap-
peal in place of one, both of them equally ill-
adapted for his purpose. Au appeal is to lie,
in the first instance, to the Lords Justices,
and thence to the House of Lords. Mark the
strange jumble of inconsistencies involved iu
the entire scheme. The new court is professedly
to be a court of common law; yet it is to be
precluded from trying issues of fact, and it is
to be presided over by an Equity Judge, whose
decisions are to be reviewed by an equity
court of appeal. No wonder that Lord
LYNDHURST declared, with his accustomed
penetration, that the scheme in question would
substantially transfer the jurisdiction of the
present Court of Probate to the Court of
Chancery. In a word, it is only Sir RICHARD
BETFIELL'S rejected measure of last session in
another and an equally objectionable shape.
It is satisfactory to us to perceive that the
views we formerly expressed upon this sub-
ject are entertained by the highest legal
authorities in the Upper House. To Lord
LYNDHURST'S opinion we have already referred.
Lord BROUGHAM expressed himself still more
forcibly as to the inconsistency of appointing
a Vice-Chancellor to preside over a court of
common law, which, after all, was not to exer-
cise the functions which invariably devolve on
such a tribunal. Lord CAMPBELL entreated
his noble friend on the woolsack to avoid tl►e
Court of Chancery, and to make the new tri-
bunal a court of common law. If, in spite of
all these warnings, the Chancellor insists on
proceeding with his impracticable scheme, the
Ecclesiastical Courts are safe for at least
another session.

We shall, on a future occasion, consider Lord
CRAW oram's other schemes—the Clergy Of-
fences Bill and the New Divorce Bill. We
must repeat our deliberate opinion that the
Ec,.lest astical Courts had infinitely better re-
main as they are than that the Chancellor's
plan of reform should be adopted. In these
courts there is at least no risk of any conflict
of jurisdiction ; and from them there lies a
single appeal to the Privy Council, which, as
at present constituted, is as perfect a tribunal
as any in the world.

LORD PALNIERSTON'S LEADERSHIP.
"A CARELESS, coarse, and over-familiar style of
" discourse, without sufficient regard to per-
" sons or occasions, and an al►noet total want of
" political decorum, were the errors by which