The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-08 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

Mr. COLLIER, in pursuance to his notice, moved
for leave to bring in a bill to transfer the testamentary
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the superior
courts of common law and to the county courts. He
said those courts were condemned more than twenty
years since, and which had been confirmed by subse-
quent commissions and committees, and the unanimous
voice of public opinion, and yet they had been allowed
to continue in their present stab. Fifteen bills bad
since then been introduced to transfer the jurisdiction of
these courts, yet they had all failed, and he must confess
he approached the question with some superstitious feel-
ing that these courts wire destined to live for ever.
Three years since he called attention to this question,
and was induced to leave it in the bands of the Go-
vernment to remedy the evils complained of. In the
ensuing session a bill was brought in by the Govern-
ment to transfer the jurisdiction of these courts
to Chancery, but some how or other it failed ; in
the following session another bill was introduced, giving
the jurisdiction not exactly in Chancery nor out of
Chancery, but which also failed. In the third session
he proposed to re introduce the original motion he pro-
posed, and which would deal only with a portion of the
jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, that of testa-
mentary jurisdiction—letting the jurisdiction of these
courts in matters of divorce and of church discipline
stand over for the present; but he would observe that
the law of divorce was a disgrace to the country, and
ought no longer to exist. It was, in fact, a law for the
rich, and not for the poor. The testamentary jurisdic-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Courts was an usurpation from
the old county courts of the country. The ecclesiasti-
cal courts numbered 372, and were as motley, gro-
tesque, and disgraceful a lot of courts as could belong to
a civilised country ; and so were their judgments. In
the change he contemplated no new tribunals would be
required, the existing tribunals of the country being suf-
ficient. Ile would give jurisdiction to County Courts
in matters under 501. In Scotland, 30 years ago, the
Consistory Courts of that country were transferred to
i;he Sheriff's Court, and he had not heard of any incon-
venience arising therefrom. In America and India
there were no Ecclesiastibal Courts, yet men in each of
of those countries made wills, and their property passed
without any trouble or difficulty. He would have
each County Court a district for registering those
wills, appointing some of the present regis-
trars to the office of registrars, and that a will
should be proved in the district where the tes-
tator died. No attorney nor proctor need be em-
ployed in proving undisputed wills ; any man going
there should be furnished with a form which he
could fill up with the assistance of the registrar,
and all those wills should be deposited in Somerset
House. When the property was under 3001., and any
disputes arose, the county court should have legal and
equitable jurisdiction ; but where the property was
above 3A01., jurisdiction might be referred to the
Chancery Courts, Common Law, or a New
Court. He thought there was no necessity for new
tribunals to bo established, because the Crown Law
Courts had been relieved of some of their business,
owing to the establishment of the County Courts,
and could well undertake this. If it were
transferred to the Chancery Court a new Vice-
Chancellor would be required, but he thought
that expense need not be gone to. At present, the Com-
mon Pleas had not sufficient business to fully occupy its
time, and he thought this jurisdiction might be given to
that court. He was in favour of the jurisdiction being
removed to the common law courts. These courts should
decide the validity of wills. After some further remarks
on the details of the bill, the hon. gentleman moved for
leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. Ile referred
to the scandalous conduct connected with the patronage
of these courts, and also to the oppressive working of
those courts, and the number of proctors, surrogates,
&c., connected with their machinery. He said there
were but ICO proctors in the kingdom whose interests were
so anxiously watched over by the upholders of the present
courts. He regretted the Government had not brought
forward a similar measure to this, Had they dome AU