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

1844.

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•
seaters as to those of Episcopalians.
Dr. BO WRING 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-
ples 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.—(llear.)
Mr. JERVIS depresated a syst-m 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 lion. 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 nut to
be turned out only but afterwards placed in the stocks.
Dr. BOWRING spoke a few words in explanation.
The Gallant Gentleman had misunderstood his ques:iun.
What he asked Wa3 whethex if a Quaker should act so
injudiciously as to wear his hat in a church, would the
common 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 Irsm Mr.WATSON and Mr. ROE-
BUCK, the galleries were cleared for a division. None,
however, took 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 were 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 Hon. Baronet to instance any case which was
cognizahle by the ecclesiastical courts that was not alio
cognizable by the common law courts. •
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was very pugnacious.—(Laughter.) As the lion. and
Learned Gentleman had appealed to him, he could only
say that jurisdictions had been established fur 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.
Thee SOLICITOR•GENERAL said that his Hon.
and Learned Friend was certainly well acquainted with
ono portion of the law.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 one 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 hini-
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 ifi
such a case by reason of the sacredness of the plac'.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew that for suc
an offence there could be no civil or criminal proceedin e
in the common law courts.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
he had answered the challenge of the lion. and Learned
Member for Bath, by adducing this instance, and he wiis
sure that others must occur to hie ingenuity. With rd-
gard to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale, 116
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 . 109
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 consmit
to the proposal.
After a few observations from Mr. COLLETT mid
Dr. NICHOLL the HoUse divided. on the amendment,
when there appeared
For the amendment

66

Against it
M

:ajority against the amendment --41
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 suck 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 ho
good, though it was considered bad in the court below.
The imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Ecclestastical
Court was a great absurdity. , It decided' only ow the
general question of the validity, of the will; it could not
adjudge any point connected with. separate bequests, the
administration was obligedto be conducted by the Cotirt
of Chancery. This .was a great anomaly, and he hitt!
the opinion of the best property lawyers of the king(l492,
for 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 additiegal
fees,. for persons always entrusted their business to their
own solicitors, who conducted it throitgli a proctor; and
the effect of the monopoly was only, to create a bad bitr,
bad attorneys, anti 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 vka
voce in the equity courts it was taken ia writing. Rut
the ecclesiastical courts had hit on a mode that coin-.
billed the disadvantages of both. without the advantages
of either. There was one defence of these courts which
he must alhide to; it was often said that it was.necessavy
to keep up a folly of civiliansovho, raising, theinselites
far above the mere law: of England, would devote them-
selves
to those • great prinCiples of international law
which sonietitnes came to-be argot d 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 latigh)—and he should wish t 0,410
that in a manner that would be the least disrespectful, to
tht.ir 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 at:d sUp
ported in some kind of school for the purpoie-if it Was
of any use -•ito the country. It was said that
it was . necessary there should be a body ;of
men versed in... the principle of the Roman law.
Now the Spanisli 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 tclesiastical courts in this Roman law, they would
be requiredin the House of Lords when questions ire
yoking its principles came before it. But.was this the
case lie might tipped to the Learned Doctors in the
House to say whether the public did not always trust to
the counsel tiken from the other courts ; they scarcely
ever saw a doctor retained wt appeals before the. House
of Lords.- He need net go into all .the details of the sub-
ject, but should conclude by moving his amendment.
Dr. NICEIOLL, 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 itcould be satisfactorily shown that, up
to, the present time, the business in them had been in-
efficiently conducted, .or that the change would be
attended with • some •singular advantage to the•public.
fle 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 hive 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 as unfortunate deceased, but really he
thought the public had aright 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 atad 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 suegestion.—(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.
'fished of the property for the information of all the parties
concerned ; that, however, was now abolished, in order
that the Chancery lawyers, and the• Couinion lawyors
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 can* 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
Now,
to the. test of erOss-
examination. , Now, -this course might bj, Adopted
any time within nineteen years of death of
the testator; although the estate mightThaVe been gold
four or five 'times over, Xi' ought :to be knoWn by
country .genticreeni. that ,Iyhen they' devised 'their
estates, those'. tlevitieajwargt):4R., Ist: iiiigati9A jot., a.