The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-13 00:00:00

general body hastily or inconsiderately, that is
not the result of mature deliberation, by those
who are thoroughly acquainted with the nature
of the abuses and grievances for which they are
endeavouring to provide adequate remedies—men
who will not in shunning Scylla fall into Charybdis,
but who have experience and judgment sufficient
to prevent them from plunging into opposite ex-
tremes, and thus producing consequences no less
injurious to the parties immediately concerned,
and to society in general, than those that they
were desirous of avoiding.
The subject chiefly discussed at the last
General Meeting of the Society, on Monday
last, was one to which the public attention has
been directed for some time past, viz., the testa-
mentary jurisdiction of the different Ecclesiastical
Courts throughout the United Kingdom. The
exposures that have recently taken place respect-
ing the enormous emoluments of the " Leviathan
Sinecurist" and his brother registrars, who receive
almost princely incomes, for duties at best care-
lessly—but in the majority of instances, not at
all performed—has produced considerable excite-
ment, and led to the very natural inquiry "for
whose benefit are these things maintained ?" It is
not, surely, for the sake of the widow and orphan,
whose funds, too frequently inadequate to their
wants, are materially diminished by the extrava-
gant and almost ruinous expenses of proving, "in
due form of law," the will of the deceased husband
and father, and who are compelled to submit to
stringent privations in order to make up the
11,000/. per annum of the Rev. Mr. MOORE. If
there were any question to be discussed—if the
validity of the testamentary document were in any
wise disputed, then, indeed, a stringent investiga-
tion by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction would
be essential, and certain moderate expenses should
be submitted to by the parties interested. But
there could be no possible reason adduced why
the same tribunal should not adjudicate as
well upon real as on personal estate, or
why a person who had succeeded, as to the
personal property, to the money and securities
for money, should be compelled to enter upon a
new scene of expensive and protracted litigation
in order to establish his right to the broad acres,
both questions depending on the authenticity of
the same document (!), but frequently decided
different ways. It was, in fact, neither more nor
less than a trap for new litigation, to bring new
grist to the mill in the shape of extra suits before
the different tribunals.

There appeared considerable difference of opinion
as to the nature of the substitute that should be
provided, although there was all but perfect unani-
mity as to the necessity of abating the nuisance,
by the total abolition of the testamentary jurisdic-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The resolutions
prepared by the Committee proposed a transfer
of the jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, at
the same time giving that Court the additional
power necessary to enable it to adjudicate upon
wills both of real and personal estate, with or
mahout the aid of a jury, it being clothed with all
the power and jurisdiction which the Ecclesias-
tical and Peculiar Courts at present have, and
a subsidiary jurisdiction being conferred on the
County Courts. On the other hand, Mr. JAMES
STEWART, the respected, intelligent, and learned
Treasurer of the Society, to whose indefatigable
and efficient exertions its present proud position
is mainly, if not altogether, attributable, looking
to the vast benefits that would follow a perfect
amalgamation of the legal and equitable jurisdic-
tions, brought forward an amendment, which we
published in, extenso in our impression of Tuesday
last, to the effect that "no thorough or satisfactory
settlement of the question can be come to, except
by the establishment of a court of conjoined law
and equity, having jurisdiction over wills
of real or personal estate, and " that it is the
bounden duty of the Government to provide such
a Court for the proper adjudication of all testa-
mentary matters." The learned gentleman justly
conceived that the country would not approve of
the establishment of a new Court while there were
old ones in existence capable of dealing with the
subject ; so that it would be by the proposed fusion
of the legal and equitable tribunals that his plan
would be carried out.
Mr. R. COLLIER, M.P., introduced another
amendment, which appeared to strike at the root
of the existing grievance, and to provide a simple
but efficient remedy. He would avail himself of
the local machinery afforded by the various County
Courts, and transferring the jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical Courts, on probates and letters of
administration, to these tribunals, except in dis-
puted cases, where the property exceeded a cer-
tain specified amount, and where it should be
removed to one of the Superior Courts, at the
option of either party.
This sound and excellent suggestion was
followed by another from Dr. WADDILOYE, who
wished that all the Ecclesiastical Courts should
be amalgamated into a single tribunal, with
jurisdiction over both real and personal estate,
to be styled " Her MAJESTY'S Court of Probate
and Succession for England and Wales." These
propositions are all good in their way, and the
worst would be a vast improvement on the existing
system. We confess that we prefer Mr.
COLLIER'S view of the subject, which would be
most economically carried into effect. Much,
however, may be said on the other propositions ;
and we shall, therefore, await the further discus-
sion, which will be resumed at the next meeting,
and from which we anticipate much information
and instruction. One thing, at least is certain—
the Ecclesiastical Courts are doomed. So much
was announced by Lord DERBY'S Administration ;
and we trust that the present Government will
not hesitate about following in the footsteps of
their predecessors on this important topic.

Shortly after the late election we were all amused
by the apparent inconsistency of Roman Catholics
raising the cry of Religious Equality, and com-
mencing an organisation to obtain it. We were
bound, however, to confess that the manly and
Christian sentiments uttered by Sergeant Suss
and Mr. KEOGH redeemed the movement from the
disgrace which Mr. LUCAS'S savage reply to Sir
CULLING EARDLEY, justifying the barbarities
inflicted on the MA-DIA IS for Protestantism, had
brought upon it. We were almost as much
amused the other day by stumbling upon a pas-
sage in a journal of very high religious pretensions,
and which is the chief organ of the CULLING
EARDLEY school of Dissenters. The religious
paper we refer to has always been most bitterly
hostile to the New Crystal Palace—hostile, at
least, to the people's visiting it,. if it suited them
best to do so, on the Sunday. It has run many
a tilt at the project, and at the Directors, too, in
the most approved ANDREW AGNEW style, and has
summoned all available memorialists—even Sun-
day School committees and teachers—to the
battle against these uncircumcised Philistines.
Just now, of course, it is rejoicing, though with
many misgivings for the future, in the disinter-
ment of the clause in an old Act of Parliament
which interferes with the liberty of recreation
desired by the people and by the Directors of the
Company. The question must now be agitated in
Parliament. Lord DERBY could not legally
authorise the Company to open the Palace for
profit on the Sunday ; and neither the Company
nor Lord DERBY wished to do the thing illegally.
It is confessed, and was stated by his Lordship in
his place in the House of Lords, that the Act in
question was passed for quite another purpose.
Still, there it is, and no Englishman would wish
to break the clear letter of the law, but demand
rather its immediate repeal. Not being aware of
it till too late, the Company appears to have been
unable to comply with the standing orders of the
Houses sufficiently early to obtain the Act they
desire this session. It is, we think, much to be
regretted that when they have been hindered
by the mere practical obsoleteness of the un-
known or unremembered Act, Parliament should
not readily dispense with the orders, and
allow the case to come before the House of Com-
mons on its merits, especially since there is nothing
in the whole project of the reckless spirit of- ad-
venture which those standing orders were chiefly
framed to discourage. The journal we allude to,
however, foresees that come before Parliament
ultimately the question must ; and what would