The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-11 00:00:00

dueled the charge a ito'y el nee, lace Lessen &ad I'4l
clergymen, was to be summoned to inquire into the ques-
tions of fact. Teeir finding was to be conclusive as to
the facts, but the party mieht still as the', even ad-
mitting the facts, there was no tight to punish him. In
such case be eeuld have the same rielit of appeal as at
present—firet to the Court of Archie, then to the Privy
Council. Toe earue course of proceeding would be fel-
l: wol
uuedngthaitnr
yi it the ca
promoter
ore
fetd,p)oticuitnirsictniiatnultnife;it:nrnc:,:e,,ettfi,a:gle,plsotwtiailiianatdeohreee.
tlinal queetioris. (Hear.) B..fore the bishop took any
stcp, It againl !:e nenified ty a certain number of emi-
nent peronis that there en real Debit, ground for prc-
ceeding. This last out was net eras in a fit state by
on the table, and he had only mentioned its provisions in
trder to meet the abjection that he ought not to inter-
fere with one brarch of these jurisdictions unless be in-
tended to dell with all. He hupcd that ell these mea-
sures would meet eiih the approbation of their lordships,
and that of the other bore Perlieeent ; but if any of
them should be rejected, he e eu!‘! riot adatit it was a ee-
ceseety coneequeewe that because they threw over ore
hill they should not pa-s the othere. In eonclusior, be
had only to th isle their lre,:shipe fir the attention with
11 Web th,y ha l heard hint.
Lord LYNDIIURS r wiehedto say a few words on the
Lit
hbaythtihsenporbol
ande
veryl(eeatrenietsdi vf er
isecnhae,m e
lief legislation iattpi op nrefutrecipis
vsee
posed pl to of testamentary jurisdic•ion wool I not be sa-
tisfactory, and he weulti state rouse of the objections
likely to be urged against it ; but in doing so it was not
to be assumed that he was stating his own opinion, as
he intended to reserve it for a future stage of the bills.
Last session the Attorney-General had introduced a bill
on this subject, which met with 'stung objection ; but
the strongest opposition was on the ground that it pro-
posed to transfer the jurisdiction of the Court of Probate
to the Court of Chancery. In the present bill the noble
and learned lord did not in terms propose to transfer the
jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but he proposed
that the judge of 'the new court should be an equity
judge, for he was to be a Vice-Chancellor, and should
hold the office only so long as he continued to be a Vice-
Chancellor. The orders to regulate the course of pro-
ceedings were to be drawn up by au equity judge assisted
by the Lord Chancellor. Again, the mode of enforcing
its decrees were copied from that of the Court of
Chancery ; and the mode of taking was to be the
same as that of the equity courts, which some of
the judges of those courts had pronounced to be
most unsatisfactory. At the present the appeal from
the Court of Probate was to an eminently popular tribu-
nal, the Privy Council, but this bill proposed to make
the appeal first to the appellate tribunal of the Court of
Chancery, and thence to their lordships' house. Another
objection which might be made to the proposed court
was that, whenever a question arose which required to
be decided by a jury, the court could not entertain it, but
Bhoul,t (-tali in the aid of another court ; so that wherever
a question was to be decided, for example, in Middlesex.,
an ie,ue should be directed to another curt, a record
made up, and the case sent down for trial; such a course
roust produce numeious inconveniences and inconsisten-
cies. An issue might be tried before a judge eminently
conversant with common law and the deity practice of it,
yet it any question arose as to his deci-lou a new trial
might be granted by a judge almost totally unacquainted
with the rules of evidence and the practice at common
law. At present au heir-et-law could not be deprived of
his property witeout the verdict of a jury, which l'e had
a right to insist on; but the proposed bill would deprive
him of that privilege, and place him at the mercy of a
court of equity. He feared that when the bill came to be
discussed, it would not he considered quite so satisfactory
as the noble and learned lord seemed to anticipate. The
noble lord had speen of district cent ts. He (Lord Lynd--
hurst) did nit well understand whether they were new
courts or old ones to be eentieued, out the deputy re-
gistrars were to Fedor' a large aiLount of ministerial
functions, and teeter was no reason whatever why those
functions should not he entrusted to the officers of the
county courts, watch tenuid give the additional advan-
tage that the utlie-re would be aided in itiecharge of their
duties by the :iitedigence and supervision of the judge.
Tue ceeeitioe of compensation ineelvect ie this transfer
was a very important one, and lie thought some data
should nave been given to enable the public to ascertain
what amount of compensation might be claimed for the
abolition ot these 311 courts, and so enable them tojudge
whether they migh. nut be asked to purchase this trans-
fer too dearly. He submitted these points to their lord-
ships' consideration, and it would be for the noble and
learned lord to consider whether his bills were likely to
suecee.l in their present shape. As to the bill relating to
church discipline, he wished to saw a few words on a
point of great importance:). Attention had lately been very
much drawn to the statute of the 16th Elizabeth. Under
that statute the slightest deviation from any of the Arti-
oles of the Church subjected a clergyman to prosecution,
although such deviation might have been saectioned by
the highest authority, by reverend divines, or right rev.
prelates ; and the only judgment which cool t be pro-
n )unced was a sentence ot deprivation. That was a very
hard state of things, and what is worse, that any of those
offences might also be dealt with under the general eccle-
siastical law, in which case the judgment would not be
deprivation, but ceusure or admonition, or other punish-
ment adapted to the offence. He thought it would be
desirable to provide that such offences should always be
dealt with under the general ecclesiastical law, and
nut under the provisions of the statute. There was only
one difficulty in the way, which, however, he did not
think would prove insurmountable ; it was that the sta-
tute of Elizabeth had been incorporated in the Act of
Union with Scetlend. It had, however, been introduced
then merely fur thu protection of the English, and if
they wished to modify the provisions, as they had done
ehietveodrLiydlynotthink th e 'Scotch
others affecting themselves, be
hdirectad a"
their rg right
attention remainedimportant sfuorbjhecimt to
f
divorce ; but he would only say a few words, as the bill
oi nf
addition.s e f t o tw o
Thealterations
omission
wason
had been before them during the last session, and con-
othfaatdoraf itshsieoclnatubsee
ofi tuhee rh
introduced last eetAion in committee by a right rev, pre-
late, to the effect that parties convicted of adultery
should not be alloyed to intermarry, the of of which
was to prevent any previous understanding or conspi-
racy. The clause was not in the present bill, but he
thought that as it passed the house last session it ought
to have been retained. He regretted the noble and
learned lord did not propose to du away with that scan-
dalous and disgraceful proceeding, the action for crimi-
nal conversation. It could no longer be defended on the
ground that it wasia necessary foundation for a bill iu
that house, as a divorce bill would be no longer obtain-
able. It was a disgrace to the manhood of the nation
that a man should attempt to satisfy himself for loss of
honour and degradation by a pecuniary recompence, and
he would bring the matter before them at a future stage.
The addition to the bill was the proposal that a married
couple should be enabled to separate by consent without
the intervention of any legal tribunal, but by a mere
deed to be registered in some office, weich would give
the wife a right to all future acquired property. He was
old enough to remember how deeds of separation had
step by step crept into use, but they had always been re-
pudiated by the courts, and this was the first attempt to
give theme legislative sanction. He feared that a system
of separation would have a tendency to produce illegal
cohabitation, and he trusted their lordships would give
it full consideration before they adopted it as a law. He
did not mean to say that something of the kind, under
proper restrictions and regulations, would not be advis-
able but a question of so grave a character—so
deeply affecting all domestic rera.tious, required the
meet amine consideration. He had made these observa-
tions for the purpose of enabling their lordships to form
an opinion of the questions which wooed be raised during
the progress of these bin,.
Toe Bishop of EXETER considered that. the very im-
portant question in the statute of Elizabeth to which the
noble and learned lord referred had better be made the
subject of a substantive enactment than be included in
the bill now proposed to be introduced.
Lord CAMPBELL had heard with astonishment and
dismay the proposal that a married couple should be en-
abled any morning, either on account ot some temporary
disagreement, or in pursuance of some previous misun-
derstanding, to get what was a divorce for all practical
purposes except marrying again. From the report of
Mr. Maqueen, they were aware that there was a pro-
ceeding in France called "separation des corps," which
produced the sante effect; Lut that would only be ob-
tained after a long investigation. Under the sanction of
the solemn judgment of the tribunal, it could not be ob-
tained at the pleasure of the parties, but good reason
should he shown, and the judge was bound to attempt
to reconcile them. In no Christian country were parties
allowed to separate themselves,and , to all practical
pur.
poses, dissolve the marriage. The common law courts
always looked with suspicion in that respect on deeds of
separation, but these would be as nothing compared
with those judicial proceedings which would altogether
do away with the marriage. The foundations of domes-
tic peace and the security of married life in En ,la d
implore
would be shaken by this proposal, and he would 6n
of his noble and learned friend to re • ' • consider this subject.
He should offer no opposition to the fir
et reading of the
bill, which he hoped, when properly amended, would
pass into a law. He hoped his
noble
and learned friend
would be able to surmount the d,fficu
Lies which lay in
his way, but he felt powerfully the observations of his
noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). He
had sincere respect for the Court of Chancery, but did
not think that it was the tribunal to which jurisdiction
in the matter of wills should be delegated. He thought
it world be much more agreeable and satisfactory to the
parties that the appeal in the matter of wills should be.
to one of the courts of common law—the Court of Queen's
Bench or the Exchequer Court, for instance—than to a
single Vice-Chancellor. These objections would be
raised against the bill, and he trusted his noble friend
would reconsider the subject, and avoid them by amend-
ing the measure in these respects. (Iles'', hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM said that his first difficulty with
regard to the measure of his noble and learned friend
was that it proposed.
to create anew court If this of equity to
exercise a common law jurisdiction. jurisdic-
lion was to be entrusted to a Vice-Chancellor he did
not know what occasion there wasfor taking it out
of the hands of the present judges of Doctor's Com-
mons. A Vice-Chancellor being as little of a common
law judge as the judges who presided, in Doctors' Com-
mons, he wanted to know why J. Dodson could not
exercise
• the sawe jurisdiction which this measure pur-
ported to vest in the new Vice -Chancellor. Of course
it was not to be supposed from this that he was opposed
to the abolition of the ecelseiasticed courts. With regard
to
the Church Discipline Bel he agreed with the right
-e v, prelate that it would be better to make the repeal of.
the 13th of Elizabeth a separate measure. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council bad been recently occu-
pied for two days with the hearing of a cause relating to
aeurch discipline,.and he believed it would occupy one or
two days more. And when that cause was concluded he
feared that the other cause (the case of Archdeacon Deni-
son), so much to be lamented by ail friends of the Esta-
blished Church—of its peace and harmony—would ulti•