The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-26 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

The origin of these Courts is to be traced as far back
as the time of the Norman Conquest. William granted
to the Church by charter, authority to hold Courts of
her own order. This was done in part payment of
an obligation he owed to Rome, for having mate-
rially, if not wholly, gained him the English throne.
By this fatal concessien, the Church became in this
country, as in other parts of Europe, a sovereign so-
ciety. The mitre was placed on a detached and higher
pedestal than the Crown. Superstition at that time
exeried a giant authority over every part of the com-
munity. Men stood aghast before an impiously cunning
tyrant, priest though he was. Nor could they do other-
wise than quail, when they believed that in one hand
he held the key of the kingdom of heaven, the gate of
which he could open or close at pleasure; and at the
same time knew that, within the folds of his vest, he
had secreted a two-edged sword, sharpened to the
keenest possible point. The philosophy of their origin
is, therefore, to be traced either to the credulity inspired
by superstition, or to the fear induced by apprehension
of danger.
Had it been only one court, concentrated in one place,
it would have been more easily controlled ; but with a
policy peculiarly its own, Rome contrived to scatter them
in every direction. The lord of the manor—the rector
of a parish—the archdeacon of a district—the bishop of
the diocese—the archbishop of a province—were all
allowed to hold these Courts. It is not a little singular
that, at that time, there was not any possessed by the
Crown—so artful was the device of Rome to draw all
other parties towards herself ; and then to drag the
sovereign in their train, and do homage to .‘ the
Servant of Servants." Of their extent and diversity
the reader will form some idea, when informed
that there are Courts styled Peculiars—that is,
wholly exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop,
but:capable of exercising the powers of the higher Courts.
Archdeacons' Courts, having, in some instances, concur-
rent jurisdiction with that of the bishop ; and in others
altogether an independent authority. Diocesan Courts,
in which the bishop is the sole authority ; the judge and
all the other officers in which he appoints and can re-
move at pleasure. Provincial Courts, belonging to the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York. The Arches'
Court, or court of appeal frr m inferior jurisdictions—the
great court of appeal being the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council. These are the designations ; now
for their number :
There are of Provincial and Diocesan Courts 36
„ of Bishcps' Commissaries
„ of Archdiaconal
of Peculiars divided into
Royal 11')
11
Archiepiscopal and Episcopal l4
Deaconal and Sub-Deaconal
Prebendal
/1 88 285
Rectorial and Vicarial 63
1/ Manorial
48
Other Peculiars l7
Total — 372
Such is the array of Spiritual Courts scattered over
England and Wales.

Let us now look at their jurisdiction. This extends
to a great diversity of subjects. Testamentary ques-
tions, with all their varied and important results
are within the scope of their adjudication ; and form
one, if not the chief source of their constantly
increasing revenues. Matrimonial matters they adju-
dicate. Religion, with all its transcendant im-
portance, falls within their province. They
decide what is or is not heresy. They can punish for
immorality. They can cite Churchmen for not having
had their children baptised, or not attending public
worship. Rectors can drag unfortunate men through
their precincts, who may ring church-bells without per-
mission. They can fine, imprison (for the third offence)
for life any person whatever, who shall speak a word
in derogation of the Common Prayer Book, "or any
part thereof."
No inconsiderable portion of these and other powers
have been usurped. That, for instance, relating to testa-
mentary matters. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in
their report say, " that in administering Testamentary
Law, the Ecclesiastical Court exercises a jurisdiction
purely civil, and in name only ecclesiastical." This re-
port is signed by the present Archbishop of Canterbury,
and five bishops. As is invariably the case, usurpation
induces many and oppressive wrongs. Such are con-
tinually arising out of what the Archbishop calls his Pre-
rogative. It is this. If a person dies and leaves 51: in
two or more dioceses—or within two or more peculiars
(and these are sometimes restricted to singleofpthreisprobate or administration, must be takenhoutu
Pre-
rogative Court of Canterbury. Should itttimreo
or the ignorance of the parties be
eh
ombitsatiankeed,
at the
• ht didnot
from any inferior Judge with who.
Theat i N.e ,
receiptacting
be-
long, the probate or administratiomnthweoriulfl be so much
undervb-ast waste psaarechbmaeanttiwErivtyer); aocatldobf
btehevroeipdr.esent
would go for nothing.
money the payment ofde
Nay, debts—the grant girfanat omf
inaorlesaosne
or daughter of the deceased had married by li-
cense with the consent of the executor, such marriage
would be voidable, as having been obtained under an
instrument that was ab initio void. Cases often
occur in which wills are demanded by the
Prerogative Co irth,enaafteii-iottluibeyilia avhavhein, been
been dis-
covered.consequ consequence proved, in
All oft.he expense and trouble are then to
be re-incurred. And this extends to all per-
sons, Irishmen, Scotchmen, colonists. Even foreigners,
having shares in an English rnllway or canal—
having effected a life assurance, a branch office of which
may be in Ireland or Scotland, but the principal
office in England—are all compelled to pay towards
Episcopacy. Is this righteous ? Is it to be endured ?
Would it be tolerated in any other department of
English jui ispr idence ? Shall it remain in the nine-
teenth centu; y, the dishonour of the Church, perpetra-
ting the most mit3ifest injustice, and the reproach of the
nation teleratug the absurd felly7—West Britain.