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

LONDON, TiIIITRSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1853.

The Society for promoting the Amendment of
the Law is proceeding steadily, energetically, and
efficiently in its useful labours. No association
has, perhaps, at any time achieved more signal
success in the objects for which it was established.
It has seen one after the other of its valuable
suggestions and recommendations carried into
practical operation. Its ranks have from time to
time been augmented by some of the most learned
and intelligent members of the legal profession,
and there have been repeated instances of well-
merited preferment being conferred on those who
have taken the most prominent part in its
proceedings. Every report emanating from
the Society comes with an authority that
insure& a respectful and attentive considers-
flan. It is well known that nothing will be
sanctioned by, or even brought before, the

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 remedi_s—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
11,0001. 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 expences 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
without 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. WADDILOVE, 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.
Comara'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 SHEE
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 MADIA 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 86001. 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 Aormw 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-
MODS 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

our readers think is the language in which they
wish Parliament to reply Y Why, then, in the
noble words of HENRY lll.'s Barons, when
the Pope, a foreign Prince and Bishop, wished
them to alter the laws of the realm to his taste—
" We are unwilling to change the laws of Eng-
land." It will seem to the lover of our ancient
history almost profanity so to pervert the spirit of
these manly words, and to convert them from an
expression of English resistance to pontifical as-
sumptions, to the purposes of pettifogging, secta-
rian zeal. But the amusing thing is, that it is a
decided Anti-State-Church journal which thus
perverts them,—a journal, some of whose clerical
correspondents are continually demanding changes
in the lawful public worship of the Church of
England, and whose own leaders are continually
teaching that all the laws which bind Church to
State ought to be repealed ! It is a thorough-
going Dissenter, demanding that the laws of Eng-
land should not be changed ; therefore, that
Church-rates and Ecclesiastical Courts are to re-
main in full vigour, and that the Church (which
he wishes to see on a level with all other sects)
should retain its honours and emoluments—nay,
its MOORES and its CROFTS. HOW marvellous are
the inconsistencies of a blind theological zeal !
To Dissenters, on the contrary, we naturally turn
as religionists whose very existence depends on
the recognition of entire religious liberty, and de-
mand of them, in the name of common sense and
decency, to concede to others the full liberty they
claim for themselves. Those who deny the right
of the State to legislate in religious matters, are
convicted of the most selfish inconsistency if they
require the state to enforce their views of keeping
the Sunday ; and even those who allow of State
support of religious worship, if they advocate re-
ligious liberty intelligently, cannot ask the State
to prevent a man's acting on his own views of
Sabbath obligations, however much lager than
their own.

It appears that a petition is in circulation, and
is obtaining numerous signatures, stating the dis-
approval with which the petitioners have heard of
the attempts to close the Crystal Palace on Sun-
days, and the impossibility of great numbers of
operatives going thither on any other day, alleg-
ing that visiting it would be highly conducive to
their moral and intellectual improvement, and
praying the House of Commons to take steps for
its being opened on Sundays accordingly. The
British Museum and National Gallery are also in-
cluded in the allegations and prayer of the peti-
tion. We rather regret this latter circumstance,
because it mixes up together two very different
questions, namely, whether Government itself
should employ its own servants, and open its own
institutions on the Sunday, and whether any re-
spectable a-Ad orderly subjects should be hindered
in doing the same. The latter is simply the ques-
tion whether Governmont has any right to inter-
fere at all with its orderly and peaceful subjects
in their avocations and amusements. The former
many would think to be a direct slur by the Go-
vernment itself on the views of a very large sec-
tion indeed of the community. Certainly positive
action on the part of Government is one thing,
and non-interference with our reasonable liberties
is another ; the latter is the case, and by far of
course the stronger case, of the Palace at Syden-
ham. Mr. Huns has long had the other in hand.
We wish him a hearty support, but we think
even his object would have been better served
by contending for the rights of the operatives and
the Crystal Palace Company on their own merits.
We can hardly imagine, however, after the manly
declarations of the Earl of DERBY in the House of
Lords, that any legislative difficulties will long be
interposed. To allow the Act which has been so
annoyingly raked up from obscurity to hinder
the operations of so respectable a Company, can
only be compared to the conduct of the Lanca-
shire Magistrates, who, unable to prove a case
against some poachers, specially obnoxious to their
game-preserving worships, actually sent the men
to gaol, under an old, unrepealed Act of ELIZA-
BETH, for absence from the parish church. The
Crystal Palace must not be sacrificed to the acci.:
dental terms of an Act intended only to prevent
offensive and disorderly assemblies..

separate
a victim
tesystem” to the
stringency
admi-
nistered o t la
of e r convict
thestras fa
An
at Milbank Prison. In
the present in-
stance the unfortunate lad—only • t nine een years
of age--laid violent hands on himself
during the
temporary absence of a warder. It appeared
that in consequence of his docile
and general good conduct, he was entrusted
with the " shaving tackle" in order
to shave
himself. The moment, however,
that the
warder left the room he turned the • instrument
against himself, and with too steady a hand
inflicted the fatal blow. Several other fatal
cases
have, recently occurred, varying in the manner of
death, but all arising from the same pred. •
isposing
cause—the stringency of the mind-dest • roymg,
separate system the newly-invented capital
punishment, which, although slow, is very Bars in
its operation.
On the present occasion, we find the chief
authorities of the prison—the Governor, the Phy-
sician, the resident Surgeon, and the Itchgu •
ms
Instructor of the establishment—all stating the
results of their experience, and concurring in the
opinion that the long-protracted solitary confinement
materially aggravated the diseases of prisoners, and
produced mental infirmity. Man is naturally a
gregarious animal—" It is not good that he should
be alone." But we endeavour to destroy or alter
nature—to produce a new state of affairs. Why
should we rail at capital punishments when
theorists are permitted to play their experi-
mental pranks upon their fellow-men—to destroy
their intellectual powers, and degrade them below
the brute creation. Far better the quick and
sudden death-blow than the lingering and pro-
tracted agony that permits the mind to brood over
its sufferings till it bends and breaks under the
trial.
What is the object of secondary punishment ?
Is it vengeance ? Or is the reformation of the
criminal at all thought of ? The prison discipline
quacks will all scout with horror the notion of
vengeance. They will tell you that their sole
object is the reformation of the culprit. But
what will be the use of this reformation when the
man is no longer an accountable being—when he
has been reduced to helpless and disgusting idiotcy
by the slow, soul-consuming torture. We have no
morbid sympathies for criminals. We do not
desire that prisons should be made places of ease,
where the convicts are to enjoy every comfort.
Let them be punished according to their deserts ;
but let us not babble about the humanity of the
British laws, and the abolition of capital punish-
ment, when we subject persons to such lingering
agonies for mere acts of dishonesty, or trifling
offences against property. Seven, fifteen, or
twenty years may be but a slight term in the
mouth of a Judge anxious to make a striking
example ; but when we consider what a fearful
inroad it makes on any, even the strongest, man's
expectation of life—what a time it is to be
secluded from his kind--we cannot help think-
ing that we are arrogating a little too much when
we boast of the humanity (!) of our criminal code ;
and this feeling of doubt will be changed into cer-
tainty as to the groundlessness of the assumption
when we consider the regulations established by
Inspectors and Visiting Justices.
In the present instance, Captain GROVES, the
Governor, declared, on his examination, that he
had made two lengthy Reports on the injurious
effects of the system, which " seriously affected
the health of the prisoners." It was much better
for him, relieving him from considerable responsi-
bility ; but he still deemed it right to state his
objections to the practice. Dr. BAIN', the Phy. '
sician, was equally, decided. He declared that,
" from his representations to the authorities on
the subject, the term of separate imprisonment in
Millbank had been much mitigated, and reduced
to six months, instead of twelve or eighteen
months, as at most convict prisons throughout
the country. Even on a recent occasion, he re-
commended the removal of some prisoners to
Portsmouth, and, it not having been done as
quickly as he wished, he ordered them all into
association, feariing for their minds."
After this decisive testimony, what doubt or