The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

Mr. COLLlol.rese to move for a select committee for
the purpose of inquiring whether the Ecclesiastical Courts
might not be. advantageously abolished, their jurisdiction
over all matters not purely ecclesiastical transferred to other
existing tribunals, and new courts established for the pur-
pose of dealing speedily and effectually with matters purely
ecclesiastical ; and whether the jurisdiction of the court of
Admiralty might not be advantageously transferred to local
tribunals. He had not given this notice until the inten-
tions of the government, with reference to the ecclesiastical
courts, had been announced en the highest authority. Had
their announcement been satisfactory he should not have
interfered, but he was sorry to say it was not so, as govern-
ment proposed to wait for the report of the commission, and
then or ly to interfere with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the
courts ; whereas, in his opinion,the better way would be to see
whether they could not be abolished altogether. (Hear,
hear.) With respect to the commission, he had this to
say, that it was to a great extent composed of civilians
practising in these court., and it was not unnatural to sup-
pose that they would be inclined to favour the
courts in which they themselves practised. (Hear,
hear.) The distinction between law and equity was
bad enough, but here, what with their civilians,
their registrars, their doctors, proctors, and surrogates,
these Ecclesiastical Courts were the greatest abuse that had
lasted down to modern times. They had over and over
again been reported against and condemned. In 1830 a
commission containing judges of the courts themselves,
after examining thirty or forty witnesses, reported against
them, but recommended an inadequate remedy—the aboli-
tion of all the courts except those of York and Canterbury.
A committee of the House of Lords fully considered
the subject in 1845 and reported fur the aboli-
tion of the testamentary jurisdiction, and • bill
passed that house substituting a central tribunal,
but it was thrown out in the Commons. Subsequently the
Irish courts wore subjected to an investigation, and they
were equally condemned. The general concurrence of
opinion was for the abolition of the courts, and his belief was
that nothing sbortof that would meet the exigency. One word
on the subject of vested interests. He was by no means dis-
posed to deny the claims of vested interests. Compensation,
of course, would have to be given to those who held °flees in
these courts, and the bar and the proctors who practised
there should be allowed to practise in the ordinary courts as
baribters and attorneys, or solicitors. With regard to the
Court of Admiralty, that was not open to the same com-
plaints as the other courts of civil law. In many respects
that court worked beneficially, especially in cases of
collision, salvage, &c., wherein it possessed powers
which the courts of common law had not. The
practice of that court of consulting the Trinity
masters was also highly useful. It was, however,
felt in seaports such as that he represented that a local ad-
ministration of the Court of Admiralty was desirable in
order to avoid the expense and delay of sending to London
for the trial of Admiralty cases. It would be worth the
consideration of the committee whether the county court
judges of the district in which such towns were situated,
or the recorder of such towns, might not be safely entrusted
with the jurisdiction in such cases. If a precedent was re-
quired for what he proposed, they had it in Scotland, where
the jurisdiction of the Court of Commissaries and the Court
of Admiralty' had been transferred to the Courts of Session.
After speaking of the slow progress made in law reform,
and the multitude of statutes over which the laws were ex-
tended, he observed that he feared much blame was due
to the profession who had too much neglected the legal
maxim eessanle rations emat
. . _

Mr. HUME congratulated the house on the accession of
the hon. and learned member who had just sat down to •
seat in it. He had shown an intimate acquaintance with
the details, and great power in dealing with the principles
of the question he had brought forward, which must always
commaad attention in that house. (Cheers.) He hoped
the government would sanction the committee, from which
be anticipated beneficial results. He had much pleasure in
' seconding the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was glad the subject had
been introduced to the attention of the house as it had been
by the hon. and learned geatleman, for all must agree that
a more vivid and striking account of the evils of the present
system could not have been presented. (Cheers.) He was
sorry to be compelled to admit that, in the whole of the
hon. and learned gentleman's representations, he re-
eollnised nothing but admitted truth, long ascer-
tained, and about which inquiry therefore was not
aeeeusary. But while the evil was admitted there
remained to be considered the mode in which a remedy
should be applied so as to make it effective, and to provide
that that remedy should extend not :only to anomalies of
mixed jurisdiction, but to those equal anomalies consequent
on :the establishment of -so many discordant and anta-
gonistic jurisdictions. (Hear.) Would it be believed that
m a country like this, justice was administered on a prin-
ciple confessedly opposed to all justice—the remedy to the
evil being that, when the ene court had proceeded in wrong,
another court was to arrest that wrong and avert the evil
if it could ? he evil was not confined to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, but extended to the other, and before soy re-
medy could be devised there must be a consideration of the
two jurisdictions that justice might not be administered in
different degrees, and unequally by different tribunals, but
from one common point on one uniform andjsimple principle.
The existence of these evils, and the necessity of applying
a complete and general remedy, was felt and acknowledged.
and he trusted that the existing administration would act
upon this feeling. (Hear, hear.) But whilst the evil was
acknowledged, and the necessity for a remedy was acknow-
ledged, they should proceed to apply that remedy not in a
tasty but in an effective manner. (Hear, hear.) And,
though he should be exceedingly reluctant to interpose any
delay, and unwilling to suggest any course that might seem
to savour of a desire to put off investigation, yet he was
obliged to remind the hon. and learned gentleman that
there were at that moment three inquiries pending on this
subj. et ; and he was afraid that, if the hon. and learned gen-
tleman obtained a committee of inquiry, it might lead to clie.
cordant suggestions with regard. to the remedy to be applied.
He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned gentleman,
to whom the house was so much indebted, and from whom
they might still hope for important services in the cause of
legal reform, would be satisfied with the assurance which
the Lord Chancellor gave in the other house of parliament
when he stated that he would bring forward, after the in-
quiries now going forward were completed, a remedy which
he hoped would be a complete cure for existing evils.
(Hear.) Ilaviug reminded the house of that assurance and
that the necessity of a remedy was deeply felt by the exist-
ing administration, he begged of his hon. and learned friend
to allow the subject to remain for a short time in abeyance.
He did not think that any further inquiry was necessary ;
and, therefore, he should prefer, if an effective reform
was not presented to the house within a reason-
able time, that his honourable and learned friend
should bring in a bill which might at once be discussed.
Another reason for delay was that a committee of the
House of Lords was now sitting on the sehjcct of marriage
and divorce. Under these circumstances, he thought that
his hon. and learned friend would do well not to press his
motion. (Hear, hear.)
Sir 13. HALL was satisfied with the assurance thus
given, and urged the withdrawal of the motion.
Mr. IRE described the state of the cccle. iastical
courts in Ireland—where they were doubly odious—and he
hoped that they would he included in any measure for re-
form.

Dr. PIIILLIAORE, on the part of himself and the pro-

fes•ion to which he belonoed, without agri.cin; to the aboli.
dun of the courts, expressed himself cagi,r for their cc.
fora.

Sat A. COCKBURN hoped before long to see all the
courts under one common procedure ; but he was for cau,
tious measures; end on the part of the government asked
for a short time for deliberation.

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, addressing himself to the
Irish part of the quastion. wished to be informed so to the
intention of the government.
Lord PALMERSTON assured the hon. member that
Ireland would not be omitted from any le3islatton upon
the subject.•
Mr. WRITZSIDE and Mr. But:rmitz contributed some
observations, and
Mr. COLLIER was contented to withdraw his motion,
and leave the question in the hands of the goveramen:.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY moved that the evidence taken on
the Bridgnorth Election Committee be Dilates', mid .the
writ suspended until the 4th of April.
Mr. W. PATTEN considered that the motion involved
an unwise precedent.
Sir J. GRAHAM was in favour of the principle, but
thought that the writ need not be suspended for more than
a fortnight.
Sir J. TROLLOPE pointed out various inconveniences
which would result from the practice of printing petitions
and suspending writs.
Sir B. HALL and Mr. COBDEN approved of the motion.
In the course of some further conversation,

Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion, iwlievintt that
strenuous measures were necessary for the correction of a
system which had caused so many members to be turned out
of the house wider such humiliating eircumPtanc:b, sad
which made the position of many mamba:, still in the house

- .
extremely uncomfortable.
Mr. PEACOCK moved the adjournment of the debate.
After a fsw words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM, 10 support
of the motion, the debate was adjourned accordingly.
The report of the committee of supply was received.
The Inland Revenue-office Bill was read a third time
and passed.
Tne Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were read
a first time.