The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-01 00:00:00

GLASS DUTIES.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER., the Glass and Vinegar Duties' Bill was
committed proforma.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for
going into Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill,
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from
Brighton against the Bill.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the Law
Society of Manchester, praying that a clause should be
inserted in the Bill, consolidating the powers of certain
of these courts.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to move an instruction to
the Committee to abolish all ecclesiastical courts, and
to transfer the jurisdiction of those courts to civil
tribunals. His object was to take away all jurisdiction
from the ecclesiastical courts, and to put an end to the
caprice and. injustice that took place there. To effect
this there could be no doubt that the whole of Doctors'
Commons must be swept away, and that in its place
proper tribunals must be appointed to replace the
mummeries and impositions that not only disgraced the
country, but affected the best interests of religion
He did not believe that 658 gentlemen calling themselves
reasonable men would attempt to bolster up a system so
inconsistent with reason. He wished to see all the doctors
and proctors who infested Doctors' Commons cast out,
and he for one would be prepared to give them all the
compensation they could prove themselves entitled to. In
all the proceedings which had taken place from 1829,
when the Ecclesiastical Commission was appointed, in
all the Bills which had been introduced into Parliament
whether by Whigs or by Tories ; they had but pro-
ceeded from bad to worse till they had arrived at the ne
plus ultra of worthlessness in the present matter.—
(Laughter.) He thought that the Learned Civilian
whom he saw opposite (Dr. Nicholl) would be; obliged
to sit down in despair in attempting to improve
the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, for he would find that his
materials were so rotten and so corrupt that he would
be the tinker perplexed, who in curing one hole created
two.—(Laughter.) It was true the Bill got rid of some
spiritual jurisdictions and offences, such as tithes,
and defamation, and smiting in the church-yard—
(Laughter)—which subjected the offender to the loss of
one ear, and if he had not one he was to be branded on
the cheek with the letter F.—(Laughter.) But that the
health of the souls of her Majesty's subjects
might not be altogether neglected, they left behind
, such offences as simony, heresy, brawling, blasphemy,
perjury, drunkenness, incest, adultery, fornication, incon-
tinence, and other evil habits—(Laughter)—over which
the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was continued.
The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over
Church-rates was continued, though the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners recommended that it should be abolished.
He knew no reason why this jurisdiction should be con-
tinued, except that it occasionally promoted fraud, and that
it brought grist to the mill of the lawyers in Doctors'
Commons. He would give one instance in which the
Rev. Theodore Williams proceeded ag linst Mr. J. Hall,
and upon which a most absurd decision was given by
Dr. Lushington. It seemed that there was a meeting
in the vestry for a church-rate, at which the Rev.
Vicar was expected to be present, but he was behind
time, and a motion for adjourning the meeting was car-
ried. He came after this, and no doubt was very angry.
Some dispute took place between him and Mr.
Hall, who said he was a disgrace to his cloth,
for which he was dragged into the ecclesiastical court.
The House would be surprised to hear what the costs
were in that case. The first was an item " for the
soul's health."—(A laugh.) Gentlemen might laugh, but
the words were pro salute animce.—(Renewed laughter.)
He suppoed that this was something for the soul to
take with it in its travels to the other world—a sort of
viaticum, he supposed.—(Great laughter.) But the fee
had been transferred from the soul to the stomach.
and Peter had been robbed to pay Paul, or rather to
pay Theodore.—(lncreased laughter.) Well, what was
the next charge ? He did not know very well
what the word meant—it was " Sportulage," 3s. 6d.
—(Loud laughter.) He really could not throw any
light upon the subject. He did not know what the item
meant—whether it was Sportulage for the clerk, Sportulage
for the court, or Sportulage for the suitors.—(Laughter.)
The Right Hon. Baronet opposite perhaps might explain
the weaning of these charges ; he did not ask the
reason of them, for there was no reason in them, and he
would not insult the Right lion. Gentleman, by asking
him to find a reason.—(Laughter.) He must come now
to the judgment, and he must say, that he never read
so absurd a judgment in his life. The judgment was,
that Mr. James Hall should be excommunicated from the
parish church for one week of seven days.
The judge said that the words used by the
Rev. Theodore Williams were words of contempt,
and that Mr. Hall spoke under provocation when he
said that Mr. Williams was a disgrace to his cloth, and
he would therefore order that 30/. should be deducted

from the costs—(Hear, hear)—but even after this de-
duction, Mr. Hal's costs amounted to 3801.—(Hear,
hear.) But what was the punishment upon Mr. Hall,
besides the payment of this money? He was to be
shut out for seven days from the parish church,
into which he would never enter if he had a
spark of spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let them look
to the class of offences to which the jurisdiction of these
courts extended—drunkenness, idolatry, fornication,
incontinence, and other evil practices—•(Great laughter)
—for all of which, any of you (said the Hon. Gentle-
man) may be liable to be cited to tha ecclesiastical
_ _

courts—(Shouts of laughter)—for all these they were
liable to be called on to do public penance, and in any
place which the court might appoint—(The laughter
was so great, that it was quite impossible to catch cor-
rectly the words of the lion. Gentleman)—they might
be called upon to do public penance in the church—(Re-
newed laughter)—and to recant—(Laughter.) Yes, he
was serious; they would bs obliged to recant.—(Laugh-
ter.) He was not speaking of imaginary things, for in
the district a hich he had the honour to repre3ent a wo-
man had lately been obliged to do public penance in the
church, because she had spoken, perhaps, too
lightly of the chastity of her sister.—(A laugh.)
The tbllowing scene occurred in St. John's:—Rebecca,
Cohen, the Jewess, having imputed to Deborah, her sis-
ter, a total want of chastity,a process was commenced in
the spiritual court of the Bishop of London, and after
about 70/. had been run up in fees, Rebecca was allowed
to expiate her offence by going to the church in ser-
vice hours, and then and there, before the church-
wardens, overseers, and ministers, recanting. The re-
cantation was, in fact, a fraud, because, instead
of being done publicly in the church, as had
been ordered, the parties were let in and out pri-
vately at the vestry-door, and hundreds of persons who
had heard that this ceremony for the good of Rebecca's
soul was to take place, were disappoiqted.—(Hear, hear.)
Well might the parochial authorities and the ecclesias-
tical courts be ashamed of such a proceeding ; but that
House ought to be more ashamed if it continued its
sanction of courts from which emanated such an amount
of absurdity. What a hardship was it upon the subject
that this individual had to pay 701 far this process. Now,
with regard to the brawling, what had happened to Mr.
Theodore Williams within the last few days ? He had
been brought before the bench of Middlesex magistrates
for inciting to a breach of the peace one of his own pa-
rishioners, a respectable freeholder. He certainly did
not do this in the church-yard, but on the highway.
The House would recollect the language used by
Hall to Williams : let them now compare it
with that used by Williams to Mr. Smith. He said
to him " You are a thick-headed fellow," and shook his
fist in the complainant's face. The clergyman then said,
" You are a dirty fellow—you are a shabby fellow—you
are a coward," and he added, " You dare not fight."
On complainant saying, "If I am a coward, I will meet
you in any spot you please ;" the defendant exclaimed,
"What, what, we'll discuss the question, Sir."—(A laugh.)
What was the result ? Why that the magistrates in-
flicted the highest fine which they could impose under
the Police Act, namely, 40s. ; so that, in point of fact,
there was one law in the ecclesiastical courts
and another in the civil courts ; whereas 40s.
was the highest fine which could be inflicted in
the one, 180/. for costs, and seven days' banishment
from church, could be imposed in the other. Well, then,
were all these offences to remain upon the statute book ?
He had the authority of a Right Rev. Prelate in favour
of his views. A Bill had been introduced into the other
House of Parliament by the Bishop of Exeter, for the
purpose of putting down incontinency, fornication, and all
those other evil habits ; proving that these courts had
neglected their duty and were not adequate to suppress
the immorality of the age. A Bishop might have better
opportunities of ascertaining the truth than himself. The
Hon. Member was then proceeding to quote the Bill,
when he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who stated that, as the Bill was not
before the House, it could not be quoted.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE proceeded—The ecclesias-
tical courts would do well to confine themselves to the
affairs of their own courts. He could not see why
the courts of assize were not competent to decide
questions that were usually brought before the eccle-
siastical
courts. Such tribunals were founded on com-
mon sense and common justice, and Lord Hale and Lord
Holt had denounced the ecclesiastical courts as tri-
bunals against common justice and common sense.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving the motion of which he had given notice.
Mr. 111JME seconded the motion.
Dr. NICHOLL said that the principle of the Bill had
been affirmed on the second reading, so far as related to
the retention of certain portions of ecclesiastical juris-
diction; but the lion. Gentleman Was not eatiafied With

that, and wanted to have the ecclesiastical courts abolished
altogether ; but at the end of his speech the Hon. Gen-
tleman said that he was prepared to maintain an eccle-
siastical jurisdiction for the discipline of the clergy. It
was absolutely essential for the maintenance of the Esta-
blished Church, that it should possess a criminal jurisdic-
tion. With regard to the case alluded to by the Hon. Gen-
tleman, he begged to remind him that where there were
two litigious persons, a caso would be attended with
large costs in any of their courts of equity or common
law ; but the case alluded to by the Honourable
Gentleman would be put an end to by the Bill, if
the brawling did not take place in:the church ; but if it
took place in the church surely the Hon. Gentleman
would not, for decency's sake, wish that there should not
be a means to prevent it. The Hon. Gentleman had
alluded to a Bill brought in by the Bishop of Exeter.
He had never heard of it, and it would not meet with his
approbation if it came to that House. The Hon. G en-
tleman alluded to him as being personally connected
with those courts. Now he had ceased to have any
connexion with them since 1841, and he would not for
the future have any interest in them directly or in-
directly. There were two Commissions appointed, the
Real Property Commission and the Ecclesiastical
Courts Commission. The Real Property Commission
made their report in 1833, and they recommended the
transfer of testamentary matters to the Chancery Court.
Both these reports were afterwards referred to a Select
Committee, before which persons of the highest eminence
were examined, and they arrived at the conclusion
that it was not desirable to act on the report
of the Real Property Commissioners, and accordingly
Bills had been brought in, both under Lord Grey's Go-
vernment and under the Government of his Right llon.
Friend, leaving matters of testamentary jurisdiction to
the ecclesiastical courts. He thought, upon the whole,
that the Bill was one of the best which could be devised,
and he hoped the motion of the lion. Gentleman would
be rejected by a large majority.
Sir G. GREY said that the question had been sub-
stantially decided by the House as stated by the Right
Hon. Gentleman in the second reading, but as he (Sir
G. Grey) was in the minority on that occasion, he was
not precluded from speaking now.—(Laughter.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman said that a criminal jurisdiction
was absolutely essential to an established church. He
(Sir G. Grey) did not wish to deprive the ecclesiastical
courts of such jurisdiction with regard to offences against
discipline, but he objected to their retaining the criminal
jurisdiction which the report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners said they ought not to have. He understood
from the Right Hon. Gentleman that, with regard to
brawling, he intended to repeal the statutes of Edward
VI., and to leave untouched the common-law jurisdic-
tion. With regard to incest and adultery, it appeared
from the report that offences of such description were
brought before the court for a series of years,
and they were of opinion that they ought to be abolished
altogether. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that no
Bill. which had been introduced into that House went the
length of abolishing all the ecclesiastical courts. But
every Bill had proceeded, on the assumption that there
she uld be only one court to exercise jurisdiction, although
that court should be one which exercised the jurisdic-
tion which now belonged to the ecclesiastical courts.
They had now the option either of abolishing these
courts altogether, or of submitting to about five-and-
thirty ecclesiastical courts, not merely retained but
reorganised. Under these circumstances, and looking at
the altered circumstances in which they were then
placed, he should support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had listened
with great attention to the speech of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, and derived from it great entertainment ;
but his reasoning seemed to him rather inconclusive. He
was not there to justify the course of proceedings in the
ecclesiastical courts in all particulars ; but it did not
follow from that admission that all the powers possessed
by the ecclesiastical courts should be abolished. He
was quite sure that the Hon. Gentleman had not consi-
dered the utter impossibility of the civil courts, as at pre-
sent constituted, exercising the powers of the ecclesiasti-
cal courts. Now, he had had some experience of the
ecclesiastical courts, and he saw no reason to complain of
the mannerin which they exercised their jurisdiction. He
could not see that the slightest benefit would result from
transferring their powers to the civil courts. He did not
understand the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Devonport to be disposed to do more than abolish a part
of the powers possessed by these courts. He thought no
case had been made out for the course proposed the Hon.
G en tleman.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Rouse divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ll5
Majority
_ _ —45
_

On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. BORTHWICK bringing forward the motion o,
which he had given notice. He said the lion. Member
for Finsbury should have made his motion as an instruc-
tion to the Committee, and not on the motion that the
Speaker do leave the Chair, so that now, even if his
(Mr. Borthwick's) motion were carried, it would not go
to the entire rejection of the Bill, which might still be
committed again on another craning. He (Mr. Borth-
wick) had voted for the second reading of the Bill
merely because he wished to affirm the proposi-
tion that these Courts needed reform, but as the
present Bill was not such a reform as was re-
quired, he should oppose it at every opportunity.
He objected to this Bill upon two grounds, -first,
that it was in itself a bad Bill ; and, secondly,
that it did not come before the House with the sanction
of the convocation of the clergy, the only proper autho-
rity, to which the subject ought to have been submitted
in the first instance, and not to a Commission, which
was an anti-constitutional body. No one could dispute
tha right of the convocation to meet, although they re-
frained from the exercise of that right, as it would not
be pleasing to the Crown that they should do so. They
were as much a constitutional body as that House, and
had as good a right to meet. Now, if the present Bill
were carried, what, he would ask, would become of the
principle of the Bill of last year ? Either the entire
fabric of these ecclesiastical courts should be swept
away or they ought to be maintained. The advice of
the clergy ought not to be shut out on a question of this
nature, especially as they were not allowed represents-
lives froza their body in that House. It was no answer
to say that they were represented in the House of
Lords by the Bishops, for that was not the case. The
Bishops sat in the House of Lords, not as the represen-
tatives of the clergy, but they sat as Barons for the con-
venience of the Crown. He feared that all Ministers of
the Crown were adverse to the meeting of convocation,
because of the possibility:of their interfering with party
questions and interests, and this was one reason for not
calling the clergy together, or consulting them. He
should oppose the pre.sent Bill as far as it was possible
consistently with the forms of the House. If a reform
of the law were wanted, let it be proposed in a proper
and constitutional manner, and not attempt to pass an
ill- digested and incomplete measure of this sort. He
should oppose it in every shape, and would divide the
Hou-e against the motion for the Speaker leaving the
Chair.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion 62
Against it _ _ 25

Majority for the Speaker leaving the Chair —37
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Sir G. GREY moved that the criminal jurisdiction of
he ecclesiastical courts should be abolished, and also
,heir jurisdiction with respect to church-rates.
Dr. NIC ROLL opposed the motion.

Mr. JERVIS trusted that the proposition of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonport, would
be re-considered by the Government. •
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said a very strict jurisdic-
tion existed in the Scotch Church.
Dr. ELPHINSTONE said it would be far better to
carry into effect the recommendation of the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the other Commissioners, that offences
of this nature should be taken before civil tribunals.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought the recommendations of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops, in-
cluding the late Bishop of Durham, ought to be carried
into effect.
Mr. ESCOTT said he should vote for the clause as
amended.

Dr. NICHOLL said ho considered the recommenda-
tion of the Commissioners was a hasty recommendation
in this respect.
Lord J. RUSSELL was surprised at the statement of
the Right Hon. Gentleman that this was a hasty recom-
mendation. The Commission was appointed in 1830,
and their report was made in 1832. Tho recommenda-
tion was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishops of London, Lichfield, Bangor, St. Asaph, by
Sir N. Tindal, by Sir J. Nicholl, Dr. Lushingtou, and
other Commissioners, and he certainly would be rather
guided by the opinions of those persons on a Church
question thus solemnly expressed, than the opinion of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, who now said it was a hasty
recommendation.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Bill, in its present
form, had come down from the House of Lords with the
sanction of the heads of the Church. The question was
not now whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were
right in changing the opinion they appeared to have en-
tertained in 1832. They had changed their opinion, and
it was a very grave question whether the Ch
Church should
not have a power of correcting abuses within itself. He
thought the Church should possess a power of repul-
sion. The question was not now whether the present
tribunal was the best to try those offences, but the ques-
tion was, whether it was not right, that till such a tri-
bunal was established, the power here claimed for the
Church ought not to exist in the Church.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the amendment.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 44
Against it
Majority against the amendment —lB

On the adinission-of strangers we found
Mr. WARBURTON contending against the clause
which gave to the ecclesiastical courts a criminal juris-
diction in cases of what was called brawling in churches.
Mr. JARVIS insisted that brawling in churches
ought to be dealt with as other breaches of the peace.
Dr. NICHOLL said that the sacredness of the house
of worship required peculiar protection.
Mr. IVATSON thought it was a great offence against
morals and decency to interrupt any congregation of
worshippers in divine service. But the criminal law of
the country was sufficient to repress any such outrage,
without the necessity of extraordinary powers to the
ecclesiastical courts.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the whole object of the clause
was to obtain costs, and such was the object of the sole
remnant of the old gigantic
papal power in this coun-
try—costs—money. Those old monkish superstitions
about it:, being a greater offence to knock a man down in
a churchyard than on the highway-, Ind been long since
exploded, at least in a moral sense ; and it was too bad
in this enlightened age to perpetuate such a legal absur-
dity and injustice. He was one of those who did. not
think that the enunciation of a few words from a human

being like ourselves, made that spot the more sacred ;
and he, therefore, considered that the punishment for
assaulting a man on the highway should be as great as
for the same offence in the churchyard, and that
there was no reason why it should not be tried in the

same manner.
Sir G. GREY wished to be understood. He wished
to take away ecclesiastical jurisdiction altogether in
criminal matters—to leave such matters for the decision
of the common law courts.
Mr. WARBURTON wished to know why the same
regulations should not apply to the churchyards of Dis-
senters as to those of Episcopalians.
Dr. BOWRING put the hypothesis to the House, if a
man who wished to hear the tenets of the Established
Church, and yet from religious and conscientious scru•
pies would not take his hat off, was such a man to be
punished by the ecclesiastical court ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said such a man should
stay away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) If he committed
any indecency or indecorum in a house of Divine wor-
ship during Divine service he certainly was punishable
according to the ecclesiastical law.—(Hear.)
• Mr. JERVIS deprecated a system which at present
existed in rural districts where the clergymen of the
parish turned out sheep and other cattle to graze in their
churchyards.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in reply to the question from
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bolton, as to what
would be done to a person, such as a gentleman who
wore his hat in a church from conscientious motives,
stated that it was his opinion such a man ought not to
be turned out only but afterwards placed in the stocks.
Dr. BO WRING spoke a few words in explanation.
The Gallant Gentleman had misunderstood his question.
What be asked was whether if a Quaker should act so
injudiciously as to wear his hat in a church, would the
oommon law reach him, or was that Bill necessary to
punish him?
Mr. BULLER could see nothing in an offence com-
mitted in a churchyard which should prevent it being
dealt with by the common law of the land.
After a few words from Mr.WATSON and Mr. ROE-
BUCK, the galleries were cleared for a division. None,
however, too place, and on our return to the gallery,
we found
Sir R. PEEL addressing the House. He was under-
stood to say that there were undefined offences, which
could only be dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts.
Mr. HUME said it was then to be understood that
the offences which wore to be left in the hands of
ecclesiastical courts were offences which could not be
described.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was no offence cognizable
by the ecclesiastical courts which was not also cognizable
by the common law courts of the realm. He challenged
the Solicitor-General to point out a single instance in
which this was not the case, and he also challenged the
Right lion. Baronet to instance any case which was
cognizable by the ecclesiastical courts that was not also
cognizable by the common law courts.
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was very kiugnacious.—(Laughter.) As the Hon. and
Learned tsentleman had appealed to him, he could only
say that jurisdictions had been established for the
purpose of maintaining order, independent of the courts
of common law. Now, for instance, the Speaker of the
House of Commons exercised a jurisdiction for main-
taining order—(Hear, hear,)—and he (Sir R. Peel) had
never heard that a court of common law could punish a
Member for a breach of order in that House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his Hon.
and Learned Friend was certainly well acquainted with
one portion of the lair of the land, and that was the
law of peremptory challenge.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon.
and Learned Friend had challenged him to instance a
case which could not be made the subject of an indictment
at common law, but which could be brought before the
ecclesiastical courts. He had already given ono instance,
which was that of a man sitting with his hat on in church
during Divine service, and he would have thought that
many other instances would have suggested them-
selves to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman him-
self. Why, there was the subject of brawling itself.
That offence might occur when no congregation was
assembled, and it was only an ecclesiastical offence in
such a case by reason of the sacredness of the place.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew that for such
an offence there could be no civil or criminal proceeding
in the common law courts.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
he had answered the challenge of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath, by adducing this instance, and he was
sure that others must occur to his ingenuity. With re-
gard to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale, he
had dealt with him in all courtesy, but he must, of course,
be allowed to retain his own opinion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment 6l
Against it
Majority against the amendment —4B
Sir G. GREY proposed an amendment in the clause,
taking from the ecclesiastical courts the power of impo-
sing church-rates.
Dr. NICHOLL said he could not accede to the amend-
ment. At present there was no other jurisdiction what-
ever to decide the question of the validity of church.
rates except the ecclesiastical courts, and, at any rate,
until that objection were removed, he would not consent
to the proposal.
After a few observations from Mr. COLLETT and
Dr. NICHOLL the House divided on the amendment,
when there appeared—
For the amendment ....
Against it

66
107

Majority against the amendment —4l
On our admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. BULLER on his legs moving an amend-
ment to the clause, that all testamentary matters
should be taken from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiasti-
cal courts and given to the civil courts. As a specimen
of the necessity of such a provision, he would refer to
the will of Mr. James Wood of Gloucester. The question
upon that will, after going through the prerogative courts,
went to the Privy Council, where the will was held to be
good, though it was considered bad in the court below.
The imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Court was a great absurdity. It decided only on the
general question of the validity of the will; it could not
adjudge any point connected with separate bequests, the
administration gas obliged to be conducted by the Court
of Chancery. This was a great anomaly, and he had
the opinion of the best property lawyers of the kingdom
fur saying that it ought to be abolished. These Courts
kept -up a limited bar, a legal monopoly of the business
of attorneys, under the name of proctors, who were
alone allowed to practise in them, and which had
merely the effect of loading clients with additional
fees, for persons always entrusted their business to their
own solicitors, who conducted it through a proctor; and
the effect of the monopoly was only to create a bad bar,
bad attorneys, and bad judges. The mode of taking
evidence by these courts was also very objectionable;
there were many modes of taking evidence in this
country ; in the common law courts it was done viva
voce ; in the equity courts it was taken in writing. But
the ecclesiastical courts had hit on a mode that com-
bined the disadvantages of both without the advantages
of either. There was one defence of these courts which
he must allude to; it was often said that it was necessary
to keep up a body of civilians, who, raising themselves
far above the mere law of England, would devote them-
selves to those great principles of international law
which sometimes carne to be argued before the Court of
Admiralty. Now, he did not wish to speak disrespect-
fully of the doctors; he merely wished to put an end to
them altogether —(A laugh)—and he should wish to do
that in a manlier that would be the least disrespectful to
their feelings.—(Laughter.) But he really thought it
monstrous that this body should be kept up for this pur-
pose at the expense of the suitors in these courts. .It
would be better that they should be salaried and sup-
ported in some kind of school for the purpose—if it was
of any use to the country. It was said that
it was necessary there should be a body of
men versed in tho principle of the Roman law.
Now the Spanish law involved the principles of the Ro-
man law to a great extent ; so did the Scotch law. Now
if there was this great proficiency among the doctors of
the eclesiastical courts in this Roman law, they would
be required in the House of Lords when questions in-
volving its principles came before it. But was this the
case ? He might appeal to the Learned Doctors in the
House to say whether the public did not always trust to
the counsel taken from the other courts ; they scarcely
ever saw a doctor retained on appeals before the House
of Lords. He need not go into all the details of the sub-
ject, but should conclude by moving his amendment.
Dr. NICIIOLL, in opposing the amendment, said,
neither the House nor the public would consent to trans-
fer the jurisdiction of these courts to the courts of com-
mon law, unless it could be satisfactorily shown that, up
to the present time, the business in them had been in-
efficiently conducted, of that the change would be
attended with some singular advantage to the public.
He believed that their business had been well con-
ducted, and conflicting decisions between the ec-
clesiastical and common law were extremely rare.
The ecclesiastical courts merely decided the question as
to whether the will propounded was the real will of the
deceased. The construction to be placed upon that
will was decided by other courts, and it certainly was
convenient that these questions should be decided by
different tribunals. He therefore thought that it would
be well that this jurisdiction should be reserved to the
ecclesiastical courts.

Mr. WATSON thought they ought to have some
mercy upon the public at large. It was all very well
for ecclesiastical lawyers, common law lawyers, and chan-
cery lawyers to wish to have a share in the plunder of
the estate of an unfortunate deceased, but really he
thought the public had a right to expect that all these
questions should be decided by one tribunal.—(Cheers.)
Now he would put a case. Suppose the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman opposite made his will in these terms, " I
give and devise all my estate, real and personal, to A. 8."
Lord STANLEY—To Mr. Watson.—(A laugh.)
Mr. WATSON was much obliged to the Noble Lord
for the suggestion.—(Cheers and laughter.) Well, the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman was gathered to his
fathers, and then the will was to be proved in Doctors'
Commons. Then commenced the most expensive part
of the most expensive system known in this most expen-
sive country. Formerly, there was an inventory pub-
lished of the property for the information of all the parties
concerned ; that, however, was now abolished, in order
that the Chancery lawyers, and the common lawyers
might get their share of the plunder. Well, the will was
disputed—the sanity of the testator was called
in question. Then another system of law came into
operation. The common law lawyers came in. In this
stage of the proceeding the only legitimate mode of
getting at the truth of a question was adopted. They
examined witnesses who gave their testimony viva
voce, and were subjected to the test of cross-
examination. Now,. this course might be adopted
Pny time within rill, t- n -1,0
.1
or
the testator, although the estate might have been sold
four or five times over. It ought to be known by
country gentlemen, that when they devised their
estates, those devises were open to litigation for a

period of nineteen years, 164 days, and some hours.
At length the matter was carried into Chancery, where
the trusts of the will were to be litigated. At this time of
a day an end ought to be put to this expensive, tedious,
and unmeaning sort of jurisdiction. The Right Hon.
Gentleman admitted that the jury was the proper tri-
bunal in one case ; then why should there not be one
tribunal to legislate for all ? At present the ecclesias-
tical court had one opinion about a will, the courts at
Westminster-hall another, and the Court of Chancery
the Lord knows what ; so that the suitor was in a con-
stant state of perplexity and doubt.
Mr. JERVIS opposed the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard, who he could not think
was serious in introducing it on this occasion with any
hope of carrying it.
Mr. HUME wondered that those persons who ex-
claimed so much against Popery should cling so tena-
ciously to this abomination. No sane man could object
to the ecclesiastical courts being deprived of this species
of power.

br. ELPHINSTONE supported the amendment, and
said that he thought the Bill would do more harm than
good.

- Mr. ROEBUCK thought a system of registration
would be very salutary, but he doubted that such could
be rendered compatible with the present constitution of
the ecclesiastical law. He would support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Liskeaid.
Mr. C. BULLER replied.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —63
On our return to the gallery we found that it had
been moved by Mr. Brotherton, that the Chairman do
report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was the first day of
their meeting after the recess, and ho thought the Go-
vernment ought to be allowed to congratulate themselves
upon having passed one Bill.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared,
For report of progress
Against it BB
Majority
Dr. BOWRING then moved, that the Speaker do
leave the chair,

The Committee divided, when there appeared,
For the motion
Against it

Majority against the motion ... —43
The CBAIR3XAN then reported progress by consent,
and the House then proceeded with the other Orders of
the Day.
Mr. HUME said that as several bills: had been post-
pened, he wished to know what measures would come on
next week, aid when the Bank Charter Bill would be
proceeded with.
Sir R. PEEL said it was most inconvenient to men-
tion any time, but he would say the lath.
The other Orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.
George Scott, apprentice to his father, appeared before
the Lord Mayor to answer the complaint of James Ed-
ward Cutler, beadle of the Watermen's Company,
charging him with having, in a skiff, in the river Thames,
on Sunday, the 26th of May, at London• bridge, eight
passengers, the. said skiff being licensed to carry six
passengers only; and John Williamson was sum moned
by the same party for allowing his skiff to be worked in
the river Thames, on Sunday, the 19th of May, without
first having obtained a license from the Court of the
Company of Watermen and Lightermen.
Mr. Cooper, the solicitor to the Companyeattended for
the prosecution in each case, and Mr. Wolff, from Mr.
Flower's office, appeared for the first defendant.
The subject caused great interest in consequence of
the late loss of life in the river.
In the case of John Scott, which was first heard,
Mr. Wolff took a technical objection to the summons,
which, he contended, was in the form of an indictment,
and ought to be as accurately worded.
The LORD MAYOR—The precise charge ' against Scott
is that he carried eight persons instead of six. All I
require is evidence to that fact.
Mr. Cooper proceeded to call witnesses, without mak-
ing any comments.
W. E. Hone, beadle to the Company deposed, that on
the day specified in the summons, between 7 and 8 in the
evening, he saw Scott row four men and four women in
the skiff, No. 3,524 ashore. The boat was not licensed
to carry more than six. Witness saw those in the boat
pay the lad who acted as waterman.
The witness, upon his cross-examination, stated that he
had seen the boat for about three minutes, and that the
ages of the passengers varied from 14 to 18 years.
Mr. Wolff now would she not carry fourteen passen-
gers comfortably? Witness—Certainly not ; neither
comfortably nor safely.
Mr. Banyon, the clerk of the Company, stated that the
boat was licensed on the 12th of May, 1842, by George
Scott, the elder, to carry six passengers. She was li-
censed to carry six, as that number was the most she
could carry safely.
Cross-examined—lt was by measurement the boats
were regulated as to the numbers they were allowed
to carry.
Mr. Wolff—Have you never known a boat able to
carry eight licensed to carry no more than six? Wit-
ness—No; I think not.
Mr. Cooper—That is my case.
Mr. Wolff submitted that there was no case at all to
go to the Lord Mayor, as it at least ought to have been
proved that the father of the defendant was a freeman
of the Waterman's Company.
The LORD MAYOR—It has been proved to be a licensed
boat, and the Waterman's Act says that the occupier or
occupiers shall be liable to penalty for breach of the
regulations. The penalty attached to transgressions in
this case is stated not to exceed forty shillings. Nothing
can be more clear than this case.
Mr. Wolff trusted that his Lordship would treat the
young man leniently, as the violation of the Act was
certainly committed in ignorance of the law. The boat
in question was large enough to hold eight or ten per-
sons, and that number, he understood, had gone up the
river in her, and returned in perfect safety.
The LORD MAYOR—That is an instance of excessive
violation. The state of the water might have been such
that a large number could have gone in the boat. Now
that the river is in almost perpetual agitation by the
passing of steamers, the danger to life is imminent. I
dare say that in Chelsea Reach many a life has been lost
in consequence of over-lading. Some of the boats in
use are so slight that a man's foot will actually pass
through them. It was but the other day a person who
fell overboard was drowned, because the other person in
the boat could not offer assistance to him without en-
dangering his own life by overturning her.
Mr. Banyon observed that the Watermen's Company
had no authority over wager-boats, which were made of
the most flimsy materials.
Mr. Cooper—There are bye-laws now before the Court
of Aldermen, which are calculated to remedy the evil
arising from the use of boats which cannot be safely
used in the present coniition of the river.
The LORD MAYOR—AII cases of this description, in-
volving the hazard of human life, must be looked to in
the spirit of the most searching investigation. As
this is the first offence of the defendant I shall be satis-
fied with inflicting the penalty of ten shillings and six-
pence. In every other instance proved I shall inflict the
full penalty of forty shillings and costs.
The defendant paid the penalty, and said that nothing
should ever induce him to break the law again.
The LORD MAYOR mentioned to Mr. Cooper that the
reckless manner in which those who had the manage-
' merit of the steam-vessels which plied in the river from
London to Gravesend called' aloud for prompt inter.
ference. On one of the late holidays a steam-vessel was
crowded, and a shower having come on many of them on
deck crowded into the cabins. Fine weather having re-
turned a great many more rushed into the vessel, which
then became crowded to suffocation. The consequence
was that another vessel was obliged to relieve the over-
burdened vessel of about 150 of her passengers.
Mr. Cooper said the bye-laws to which he had alluded,
and which he trusted would immediately pass, were cal-
culated to remedy that evil, as well as the other mis-
chief to which his Lordship's attention had been called.
John Williamson, the man in whose boat the children
were drowned at London-bridge on Sunday, the 19th of
May, was then charged.
Mr. Cowper stated that in this case the penalty was
twenty shillings for working or allowing to be worked a
boat not licensed. The difference bete em the two
cases was, that in the former case the occupier or occu-
piers of a licensed boat were made liable, in the latter
the owner or owners of the boat not being licensed were
liable, and the difficulty was to find the owner. As a
coroner's inquest was being held on the bodies already
found, the proprietor became known.
The defendant made a rambling unintelligible set of
excuses in which he endeavoured to throw the blame
upon the officers of the Watermen's Company for not
having interfered with other people, whose boats were
constantly crowded, as if the servants of the Company
could be present at all points where the public are in
the habit of embarking.

The Lon]) MAvoaL-Have all the bodies of the chil-
dren been found?—Mr. Cutler (the officer of the Com-
pany) said that three had been found, and that one fe-
male was still missing.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall in this case inflict the full
penalty, and costs.
The defendant threw himself upon the mercy of the
Lord Mayor, and declared that he had a wife and six
children to provide for, and little or no em ployment.
The LORD MAYOR having been informed that the in-
quest was still sitting, said, that as in all probability the
defendant would be a sufferer by the verdict of the jury,
in the shape of a deodand, he should limit the penalty to
ten shillings and costs; atid his Lordship ordered that if
the amount was not immediately paid, a distress war-
rant should be issued against the goods and chattels of
the defendant.

Mr. Banyon—Fer seventeen years the Watormen and
Ltghtermen's Company have been endeavouring to ac-
complish the object of regulating the numbers to be re-
ceived on board the steamers, and we trust that we shall
receive your Lordship's assistance to effect so great a
public good.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall certainly bring forward
the question at the next Court of Aldermen.
An experienced old smuggler, named Thomas Myers,
was charged by the solicitor to the Customs with having
been found in possession of five pounds of tobacco.
The defendant, in a whining tone, pleaded guilty.
The solicitor to the Customs informed the Lord
Mayor, and Alderman Thomas Wood, who sat in jurisdic-
tion with his Lordship, that the smugglers were under the
inapr:;s:3lott tIo if thLy I%cre witl3
tobacco iu their possession at onetime than five pounds'
weight, the Act of Parliament could not touch them for
a heavier fine than 51. The consequence of such an im-
pression was that they sometimes made, each of them, a
dozen visits to steamers and other receptacles, • and