The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-27 00:00:00

had been so long established, and resort to new experi-
ments, of which they knew nothing ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER believed that the praises
bestowed upon those gentlemen who practised in Doctors'
Commons, as to the manner in which they had discharged.
their duties, were well deserved ; but it did not at all
follow that the system of practice in which they were en-
gaged was a good one, and that a better system could not
be devised in its stead. The question was, whether this
was a proper subject of law reform, and if it were, then
whether the reform proposed proceeded upon a principle
deserving the support of the house. He believed there
existed, and had long existed, in the country a feeling
that this subject was a proper one for reform, and he also
believed that very good reasons could be shown for the
opinion that the present testamentary jurisdiction was al-
together a mistake, unworthy of the present state of the
country, and that it required to be very generally revised
and remodelled. (Hear, hear.) Everybody agreed that
they must get rid of and abolish country jarisdiAions, but
in doing so they had to encounter a large mass of difficul-
ties, for very many respectable persons - not less th
those .in London—who administered the system in the
country, would be found with many reasons why they
should not consolidate the system. But the house had to
recast the whole system, and the question was how that
was to be done ? No one acquainted with the present
practice could say that enormous inconveniences did not
arise from the present spit em. Believing that an altera-
tion was necessary, he should vote for the second reading,
as he thought all their efforts should tend to a union or
consolidation of all these separate jurisdictions. It seemed
this bill did all that the commissioners recommended ; it
separated the courts, and transacted all the business in one
court, in order that the new system might be worked to
the best advantage. So far from the bill being revolution-
ary in its character, it was quite possible to import the
whole of Doctors' Commons into it. It seemed to him
that the bill would preserve all that was useful in Doctors'
Commons, without perpetuating that which experience
and common sense had condemned. It was objected against
this measure that it would bring business to the Court of
Chancery ; but it should be remembered that a very I.,rge
proportion of the existing business in the Court of
eery had reference to the construction of wills, and
to testamentary jurisdiction. Now, with respect the
proctors, if it was meant to say that frauds would be more
prevalent under the new than the old system, it would be
necessary to show that forgeries were concocted after the
proctor had to deal with the matter. In point of fact, the
great portion of the proctors' work was done by the attor-
neys, more especially in the country. But if the expe-
rience and caution of proctors was necessary to be retained
this bill would secure them, because it proposed to divide
the business among a body of the most skilful and eminent
officers of the court/ including the proctors themselves.
Then, with regard to the advocates it would be a source
of regret if the learned persons to whom the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Stamford had referred

were to cease; but he believed that the capacity of acquir-
ing knowledge upon the important subjects known to these
persons was not confined to any limited class, but that it
could and would be acquired by a much more extended
body. For these reasons he would give his support to the
second reading of the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that the object of sound legisla-
tion was to keep the public out of Chancery. He confee,ed
that he had been prejudiced against the ecclesiastical
courts until he had experience of their practice in proving
a will, and then he arrived at the conclusion that in sin
other court in the kingdom was justice administered with
so much rapidity and so much economy. He did not,
however, mean to contend that abuses had not crept into
the system ; but the question now wee, what was the Lest
way of remedying them. Here was the report of the
Chancery Commissioners—an important document. On
that commission were two lay members (Sir J. Graham
and Mr. Henley), and without their able assistance the re-
form of the Court of Chancery would never have been ac-
complished, although it had been attempted for more than
forty years. The system recommended by the com-
missioners of a central court of probate was infinitely,
better than that now proposed by the Solicitor-Gene-
ral. The reason why the business was so well transacted
in the ecclesiastical courts was because the proctors
were known to the judge—they acted under a sense of
responsibility, and, consequently, no forged wills were
ever known to receive probate. Who were the supporters
of the bill? Only the Chancery lawyers. (Hear, hear.)
Then the bill was to pay off a staff of men who ought to
be made to work with improved machinery for the benefit
of the public. They were well-trained—they were exoert
—there was no dee bt of that. They transacted a vast
amonnt of business cheaply and expeditiously. The aloes
in the present mode of deciding contested cases was the
manner of taking evidence. It ought to be taken
voce. But it was proposed to pay off the present judge,
who might go and live in Italy, in order that an additional
vice-chancellor might bo appointed. The judges of the
ecclesiastical courts had been most learned and enlightened
men, and the court in which they had presided was now
to be abolished, that some stray vice-chancellor might be
picked up whose judgment might bear no comparison with
those of the great Lord Stowell. He objected, therefore,
to the bill, as neither a measure of reform, nor at all called
for by the public, and as one which was only supported by
the clamour of some very few persons. (Hear.) The re-
form of the court as it existed was, he was persuaded, the
only safe and prudent course which the house could adopt.
Mr. HEAD LAM said it was now upwards of 30 years
that attempts had been made to reform or abolish these
courts. During that period they had reformed the courts
of law, the Court of Chancery., and the House of Commons
itself, but all attempts to reform these courts had signally
failed. Parliament had always adopted a wrong course in
reference to the ecclesiastical courts. It had given them
an opprobrious name, and yet it had inconsistently per-
mitted them to vote for the second reading of the bill, not-
withstanding that it was open to many objections. He cer-
tainly could not see what valid objections the bankers of the
City of London could have to the measure. He must com-
plain of the manner in which the interests of the poor peo-
ple in the country weredisregarded. Men might avoid
tion—they were not compelled to go into the courts of com-
mon law or into the Court of Chancery—but all men must,
some time or other, prove wills. Without referring to the
Court of Chancery, he thought that the Lill would throw
additional trouble and expense on the poor man in proving
A will. At prespnt the farmer went to the next county
town, and prove] a will for about 31. The registrar mana-
ged the whole matter. But, if the plan of the. Govern-
ment were adopted, he would have to go to the county
solicitor, before whom the oath would have to be taken,
and the county solicitor would have to communicate with
his London agent, and thus there would be great addi-
tional expense incurred. He believed that one of the
effects of this bill would be to make the probate of a will
more expensive than under the present system. He did
not think that the course which the Solicitor-General had
taken was the right one. Instead of proposing a new
court, he thought that the Solicitor-General ought to have
proposed to remedy the defects of the present court. Dis-
trict courts of probate ought to be established throughout
the country. This bill would entail an expenditure of
about 750,000/. upon the country for the purpose of com-
pensating the practitioners of the existing court, and liti-
gation would be increased instead of being diminished
by it.

On the motion of Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, the debate
was adjourned.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

On the motion of Mr. HENLEY, the following gentle-
men were constituted a select committee on this bill,
viz. :—Mr. Henley, Sir G. Grey, Sir W. Heathcote, the
Attorney-General. the Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr.
Ewart, Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Wrightson,
Mr. Mullins, Mr. Miles, Mr. Baines, Mr. Deedes, and Mr.
H. Herbert.