The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-07 00:00:00

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE AMENDMENT

OF THE LAW.

Last night a meeting of this society was held at the
rooms in Regent-street, for the purpose of taking into
consideration the proposed report of the committee on
ecclesiastical courts. Vansittart Neale, Esq., took the
chair, and after some preliminary business,
Mr. ALFRED HILL rose to move the adoption of the
proposed report of the committee on ecclesiastical
courts. The report, however, he stated, was not really
the report of the committee, but of himself, an indivi-
dual member of it. The committee was appointed the
summer before last. They had had many meetings.
Two reports were brought forward, but neither of them
was adopted, they had been sent back for re-considera-
tion. Other gentlemen joined the committee and gave
their valuable assistance, together with some gentlemen
of practical experience in Doctors'-commons. The com-
mittee were divided into three or four sections, each
bolding different views. He had, therefore, drawn up
this report, and as the committee had ceased its labours
and as his report had not the concurrence of the ma-
jority of the committee, he took the liberty to
bring it forward for consideration that evening. The
learned gentleman proceeded to lay before the meeting
his proposed plan, which was published in November
last in the Law Review, and concluded by moving that
the said report be received and adopted as the report of
the committee.

The points maintained in the report are containedin
the following resolutions agreed to by the committee on
ecclesiastical courts :

" 1. That the present jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical
courts, so far as testamentary matters are concerned,
is unsatisfactory, and requires extensive reform.
"2. That this reform should consist of a transfer of
their present jurisdiction in testamentary matters to a
court clothed with jurisdiction as well over real as per-
sonal estate.
" 3. That to create a new court for the purpose would
not be advisable if any existing court can be found to
which such enlarged jurisdiction may be properly en-
trusted, and to which complete powers can be given.
"4. That the existing courts of common law and
county courts, not having an equitable jurisdiction or
power of dealing with trustees, or with equitable mat-
ters arisinc, in the construction of wills, should not, as
at preseneconstituted, be entrusted with such enlarged
jurisdiction.
" 5. That the existing courts of equity not having
any power of empannelling a jury, or of conclusively de-
ciding issues of fact, are under a similar disqualification.
" 6. That in order to do complete justice in testa-
mentary matters it is necessary that the court to which
they are entrusted should possess the full and enjoined
powers of a court of law and equity.
" 7. That no thorough or satisfactory settlement of
the questions pending with respect to the testamentary
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts can be come to
except by its being exercised by a court of conjoined law
and equity, having jurisdiction over wills of real and
personal estate."
Some discussion arose as to the motion being confined
to the mere reception of the report, the chairman hold-
ing that if the motion was merely as to the reception of
the report, that would not pledge the society to adopt it.

Mr. BELL said if the question was merely as to re-
ceiving the report, he believed it would be carried
unanimously.

Mr. PRITCHARD said it was only that day the report of
her Majesty's commissioners had appeared. That com-
mission had been engaged in a solemn inquiry into the sub-
ject, and he hoped the report of the learned gentleman
would not be adopted as the result of this meeting. The
Lord Chancellor had given notice that he would to-
morrow (this day) bring in a bill to settle the whole
question at issue. It would, therefore, be ill-judged to
decide on this report at once. He was disposed to pro-
pose to adjourn the discussion till they saw what the
Government measure was, and they would then have
the whole required information before them.
Mr. BELL said if the hon. gentleman would move the
adjournment of the discussion till the next general
meeting, he would most willingly second it.
After some conversatian, the Chairman put the ques-
tion that the report be received, which was carried
unanimously.
Mr. STEWART then proposed that the jurisdiction in
testamentary matters be referred to the Court of Chan-
cery, with all the powers of equity and common law
courts, which having been seconded,
Mr. PRITCHARD moved an amendment, that the dis-
cussion be adjourned, which having been seconded by
Mr. BELL, the amendment was put and negatived by
a show of hands.
Mr. STEWART'S motion was then put again.
Mr. DAVID POWER moved an amendment, arming
courts of common law with the same powers as those
suggested in the original motion to be vested in the
Court of Chancery.
Mr. ROGERS seconded the amendment, and, after a
long discussion.
Mr. STEWART having consulted with Mr. Power,
withdrew his motion, Mr. Power consenting to with-
draw his amendment, and Mr. Stewart reconstructed
his motion, which was put in three distinct questions,
which were eventually carried—" That the jurisdiction
in all testamentary matters ought to be transferred
from the ecclesiastical courts to the superior courts at
Westminster ; that for this purpose the Courts of Chan-
cery and common law should be respectively clothed
with all the powers, as well of courts of law as of equity,
and that it be optional with the plaintiff in which
court he shall sue ; and that the county courts be con-
stituted ancillary to these courts for this purpose."
An amendment to leave out all the words after " West-
minster Hall," and another for an adjournment, were
severally negatived.