The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
Their lordships met at 5 o'clock.
Lord ALBEMARLE moved for copies of two peti-
tions, presented to the other house, respecting the Mili-
tary Knights of Windsor.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought such a
course never was heard of, as a member of this house
roving for copies of petitions presented to the other
house.
Lord ALBEMARLE said he would give notice of
his intention to move for those petitions. While in pos-
session of the house, he wished to make an observation—
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH (interrupting) said
there was no question before the house, and the noble
lord was wrong in saying he was in possess
ion of the
house.
Lord ALBEMARLE (resuming) said if he was out of
order, he must submit. But he took that opportunity
of saying that he deeply regretted the despondent
with
house tone
which seemed to pervade members of this
respect to the approaching war with Russia. (Hear.)
He hoped, if this war did come, itwould not be as
disastrous to us as the American or the French war.
Lord ST. LEONARDS interrupted the
noble lord,
and begged him to remember that there was no question
before the house, and he was therefore clearly out of
order. (Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
LAW OF TESTAMENTAI JURISDICTION.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to call their
lordships' attention, pursuant to notice, to a measure
for the amendment of law relating to the probate of
wills and the granting of letters of administration. There
were no fewer than 386 distinct tribunals scattered
over the country—commissary courts—archdiaconal,
and peculiar courts—all having appeals to the
diocesan courts,
for the purpose of deciding tes-
tamentary matters. Such a number of courts was in
itself a great practical evil. In the first place, owing to
the number of appeals. But that was not all. Very
often there were contentious matters of great delicacy,
difficult and hard to be dealt with even by the
Prerogative and Consistory Courts, and clearly be-
yond the capacity of the functionaries of those little
petty courts in the country. A party dissatisfied
with a decision in the courts of law had now
IF only one course open to him—to come before their lord-
ships for an appeal. Attempts had been made from time
to time for more than twenty years to remedy this evil.
In July, 1330, at the commencement of the reign of
William the Fourth, a oe,nmission was issued to inves-
tigate this very subject, both as to the common and the
ecclesiastical law. They recommended the abolition of
all the ecciesiasticel courts es far as wills were con-
cerned, with the exception of the Prerogative Courts of
Canterbury and Yurk. They made their report in 1833,
and in the seesion of that year Lis noble and learned
friend (Brougham), who had always shown so much ac-
tivity and vigour on these subjects, introduced a bill on
the subject, but that being the year of the Reform Bill,
it was no wonder that. amidst the major eoecerns, the
minor matters of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was lost
sight of. (Hear, hear, and a Lough.) In 1834 Sir F.
Pollock intreeluced a bill to give effect to these recom-
mendatl'ons, but it did not pass ; and in 1836 the subject
was again taken up by Lord Cottenham. Neither was
he .succeSsful, and it was thought that such were the in-
fluences agaiest any bill on this subject from the number
of persons who were likely to be affected that it was con-
sidered useless to introduce the subject again. However,
on the return of Sir R. Peel to power, a new bill was in-
troduced by Sir J. Nicoll. but it did not pass, and subee-
.quent attempts at legislation on this subject were made by
Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Cottenham. His noble and
learned friend behind him (Lord St. Leonard's) laid the
foundation of legislation on thissubject. At the end oflBso
his noble and learned friend, Lord Truro, issued a com-
mission to inquire into the state and practice of the Court
of Chancery. They reported in ].852, and the amendments
made in consequence of the report of that commission
constituted now the law of the Court of Chancery. His
noble friend behind him thought it right to refer to the
same commissioners, who had shown themselves so com-
petent, this vexed question, which no one had yet been
able to solve, and he added to the commissioners a num-
ber of individuals who were connected with the ecclesi-
astical courts. These were Sir J. Dodson, Dr.Lushing-
ton, and the Queen's Advocate. These learned men were
engaged the whole of last year in investigating this sub-
ject. He had been much pressed after he received the
great seal to proceed at once to call attention to this
subject, but as there was a commission then sitting, con-
sisting of so many eminent and able men; he thought it the
better and wiser oourse to wait for their report. They re-
ported in the beginning of the present year, and upon the
receipt of their report he proceeded to frame a bill, not
adhering precisely to their recommendations, but varying
it in some particulars; his reason for doing so he would
state to their lordships. The only dissentient from the
report as a whole amongst the commissioners was the
Queen's Advocate. The commissioners recommended the
abolition of all the existing jurisdiction, and that the whole
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts as to the probate of
wills and testaments should be vested in a new court, to
be called the Court of Probate. This court was to be
a temporal court, and not an ecclesiastical court, and in
it all power as to wills was to be vested. In the aboli-
tion of the existing courts he quite concurred, but he
did not concur in the creation of a new court. His
opinion was that, subject to some modifications, by far
the safest, easiest, simplest, and cheapest course to
pursue, would be to vest the whole of the conten-
tious jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery, in ac-
cordance with the report of the Real Property
Commission. He ought to say that ninety-nine
hundredths of the business of the Prerogative Court
consisted of business of common form, with which
the Court of Chancery would have nothing to do.
He proposed, therefore, to give the Court of Chancery
jurisdiction in the case of personal as well as real pro-
perty. He doubted if a new tribunal would deal with
this subject es completely and as well as a court which
had been in the habit of dealing with it. Another great
advantage of transferring the jurisdiction to the Court
of Chancery was that the Court of Chancery alone had
the power of construing wills. He proposed, therefore,
that there should be a court of probate connected with
the Court of Chancery. The power of proving and con-
struing wills would therefore be in the same court. It
was not merely for the sake of making things look
square that he proposed this, but from the con-
sideration that every court of probate should be of
the same extent as the court of construing ; and for
this reason, that when a man made his will, and
afterwards appended a codicil thereto, it might be-
come an important question for consideration whether
that codicil did not revoke the will. That could
only be determined from the language used. A court
of probate must constitute a construing court for that
purpose, and it only got out of the difficulty in an awk-
ward way—that was to say, by putting all the docu-
ments together, and leaving the Court of Chancery to
deal with the question. It would be a great advantage,
therefore, that the court of probate and the construing
court would be one and the same, and that when a will
was construed, it was construed once for all. All this
related to the contentious business. With regard to
the common form business, there was great difference
of opinion. He proposed to get rid of the necessity of
proctors in order to prove the will. It had been thought
that the having an intermediate anent between the party
interested in the will and the solicitor directly employed,
greater security was afforded against improper or dis-
honest conduct, the proctors being a limited body,
consisting of eighty practising persons, whose faces
were well known in the Ecclesiastical Court. The
consideration was not entirely without weight,
but it would be a very great misfortune if
they could not relieve the public from the necessity, in-
convenience, and expense of having a double system of
agents to conduct the same business. 'With regard to
persons dying in the country, leaving a small property
which it was thought might be more cheaply managed
and administered in the country, he proposed to consti-
tute certain district registrars, who would really have to
do little more than to examine the apparent accuracy of
the instruments, which when so examined, whether
proved in London or the country, would have validity
throughout the whole kingdom, whether the property
were large or small. He thanked their lordships for
their kind attention, and trusted that they would give
the bill a first reading.
Lord BROUGHAM conceived that a change must be
made in the present system ; and expressed a hope that
the proposed transfer of the existing jurisdictions to the
Court of Chancery would be approved by their lordships.
Lord ST. LEONARDS approved of the abolition of
the existing courts, but condemned the suggestion for a
new court of probate. He entirely agreed that the
Court of Chancery ought to have the whole jurisdiction
is testamentary matters. The business, too, ought to be
Ithrownopen to the general body of practitioners. But
be object to real estate being made subject to probate.
Lord CAMPBELL strongly approved of the whole
proposition ; but, unlike his noble and learned friend who
laat 2,P°, ke, thought there ought to be a probate of real
as we
well as of personal estate. He was disappointed
boer, at finding that the reform of the ecclesiastical'
courts wen not to be entire and complete, by taking away
their jurisdiction L 1 •
Cons, and brawl'in matrimonial
causes'
gs in church. slanders, defame
The LORD CLIANCELLOR assured his noble and
learned friend that a bill would be brought in on the
subject of the ecclesiastical courts in the course or the
session.
The bill was then read the first time.
RETURNS.
The Earl of POWIS moved for certain returns relative
to
'Univ theersities, which w fees payable upere ordered.on the obtaining of degrees at the
Their lordships adjourned shortly after half-past seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAK ER took the chair a few minutes before four
•'clock.

KINGSTON•UPON-TIIAMES IMPROVEMENT

BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir F. THESIGER said the object of the bill appeared
to be to extend the borough of Kingston to the outlying
districts for the purpose of making them liable to the
borough rate. This, he contended, was a violation of
th• principle which the Legislature had invariably fol-
lowed Under the municipal corporations all the parts
contiguous to a borough could not be included for muni-
cipal purposes. There were only 4 instances in which
laCta had been passed for extending the boundaries of
boroughs with this object, but the circumstances in each
of these cases were entirely different to those under which
tire present bill was introduced. The districts intended to
be included could not possibly derive any benefit by
being brought within the borough ; while, as regarded
paring and drainage in them, no complaint could be