The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 22, 1844,

THE WILL FORGERIES.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

two courts would be beneficial to the public ?
As separate courts they had two sets of ministerial offi-
cers, and by the proposed measure one of those sets
would be dispensed with, which would be a great
relief to the public. Ile proposed to do the same
thing with regard to s the courts of the A- o,h-
deacon of York. He -next came to consider
the diocesan courts. In every diocese there was a court
in which probate of wills could he granted, and which
possessed contentious jurisdiction in all ecclesi-
astical matters. Those courts were coeval with the
Constitution. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had
recommendedthe abolition of those courts. It
was said that they - imperfectly performed the
duties that devolved on them, and that they were pre-
sided over by incompetent persons. He, however, pro-
posed to continue those courts: He saw no reason for
abolishing these ancient courts on account of the
existence of abuses which could'be remedied; and by the
Bill he proposed to provide that these courts shoUld be
presided over by competent and efficient persons, either
by advocates, or by persons who had been used to the
practice of other courts of justice; and having
thus remedied the abuses complained of, he
could not consent to abolish these ancient local courts.
He now came to a class of courts of another descrip-
tion—he meant the Courts of Peculiars. There were
three or four hundred of these courts scattered about
the country, some of them possessing such li-
mited jurisdiction, that it was impossible to secure the
services of an efficient Judge, or of efficient ministerial
officers. He proposed to abolish them altogether. In
many instances they possessed the power of granting
probates, and owing to the ignorance of those who pre-
sided over them, injustice to an incalculable extent
might be done. He therefore proposed to abolish them.
The system would then present this appearance :—ln
ever diocese there would be a tribunal for the granting
of probates, and possessing contentious jurisdiction,
and in York and Canterbury there would be ap-
pellate tribunals ; and if these courts were pre-
sided over by able judges he could not see
how any superior system could be established.
He knew that in what he was proposing he was acting
adversely to the opinions of the Commissioners, and to
the authority of the Committee of the House of Com •
mons, and therefore he spoke with hesitation ; but it
was his opinion that even if it were in their power to
abolish the diocesan courts,, it would not be expedient
to do so. He knew that some Noble Friends of his
would support him in the view which he took of this
subject. He knew that his Noble and Learned Friend
at the table was one ; and no man was more con-
stant, firm, and unwearied than that Noble and Learned
Lord, in an opinion which he had deliberately
expressed. When Sir F. Pollock, in the House of
Commons, brought in a )3PI to abolish eccle-
siastical courts, he' was opposed by his Noble
and Learned Friend with great elequence and
learning. His Noble and Learned Friend said that
centralisation might be carried too far—that those courts
were of great advantage to persons in the provinces,
and that it would be most unwise and inconvenient to
bring them to London. He repeated that he knew the
decision of his Noble and Learned Friend, and that he
should have his support. He could refer to another
authority, that of the late Lord Stowell, than
whom there could be no greater authority.
on ecclesiastical law. He (the Lord Chancellor) was
in the House of Commons when that great lawyer
brought in a Bill for the reform of those courts
on the same principles on which the Bill was
founded, that was to abolish the peculiar courts,
and to maintain the diocesan courts. There
was something whimsical in the conduct of those who
called for the abolition of ecclesiastical courts, and at the
same time cried for local courts to bring justice home to
every man's door. Here were local courts established,
and he thought that instead of trying new systems which
generally disappointed the expectations of their authors,
they should endeavour to apply remedies to the sys-
tems which existed, which could be done with
less expense, less trouble, and less risk of fail-
ure. As to the jurisdiction of those courts, he had
already stated that it was not open to his own mind to
determine which was the best system, but he was satis-
fied that the one recommended in the Bill was the only
practical one, and they ought not like froward children
to reject the offered boon, because they could not
get all that they desired. The Bill proposed to
place the donative livings, over which at present the
Bishop had no jurisdiction, under the same ecclesiastical
authority as the presentive. The ecclesiastical courts
had now some jurisdiction in respect to tithes.
This, at the recommendation of the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners, it was intended to take
from them; which was of the less importance, as the
Tithe Commutation duties had greatly diminished their
business in regard to tithes. He had now stated all
that was necessary in this stage of the proceeding. The
main question for their Lordships' consideration would,
of course, relate to the diocesan courts. The extent of
the existing evil in regard to probates, might be gathered
from the fact, that there were no less than 350 courts of
peculiars—no less than 350 tribunals to which a great
and serious difficulty applied. These would be swept
away and confined to 26 courts, each of which would
have jurisdiction over certainly a large extent. Nice
questions of law, it had been hinted, would be intro-
duced into the discussions on this question. He did not
know where those questions were to come from, as, for
his own part, he believed they, had all been pretty well
settled by a variety of decisions. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) admitted that the only mode of getting rid en-
tirely of certain inconveniences connected with the dio-
cesan courts was u holly to get rid of them. The ques-
tion was, whether such a sacrifice was not paying too
high for the benefit. However, let that be as it might,
it occurred to him, that means, by the agency
of this Bill, might be obtained to lessen the evils which
now existed. He was sure the measure he now submit-
ted to their Lordships was a most important one, that it
would tend greatly to the advantage of the country, and
become an:excellent instrument in judicious and able
hands for the faithful administration of the ecclesiastical
law of this country.
Lord :COTTENHAM said he had certainly enter-
tained some curiosity to know upon what grounds the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack proposed to
give his assent to a Bill, the principal portion of which
went to secure the maintenance of all the diocesan courts.
When the Noble and Learned Lord, however, stated it
was impossible to carry any other Bill he was still more
surprised, for they all knew that the present Government
was a very powerful one. He (Lord Cottenham) was
at a loss to find out where the difficulty in carrying the
measure would be ; it certainly would not be for want
of Parliamentary power. either in that or in the other
House. There might be inconveniences which he
(Lord Cottenham) would not further inquire into,
which might induce the Government not to press
the Bill for the abolition of the diocesan courts. Those
courts, it should be remembered, had been condemned
for the last twelve years—condemned by the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners—by the Real Property Commis-
sioners—by the Select Committee of the House of Com-
mons, and by the Select Committee of their Lordships'
House. All these authorities had unanimously advised
the abolition of the diocesan courts. The Noble and
Learned Lord had himself been of that opinion last
session, as he (Lord Cottenham) would prove. What
had changed his opinion it was not for him to divine.
The sub;ect of the ecclesiastical courts was one of the
highest importance to the country. Their Lordships
were aware that the ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction
over matters of the utmost importance to the people of
this country. They had to ,;decide questions between
husband and wife--they had to decide on the validity of
marriages—they had to decide whether wills should be
admitted to probate, and whether they were valid
or not. The whole of these important matters came
under their especial jurisdiction. Now in what
way were these important questions to be
decided? Why. by, as his Noble and Learned Friend
had truly stated, no less than three hundred and forty
different courts. His Noble Friend had stated good
reasons why these minor courts should exist no longer.
But he had not kept in mind that his panegyric ap-
plied to these peculiar courts as well as to the diocesan
courts. Now, he (Lord Cottenham) would show that
the same reasons which his Noble and Learned
Friend had given for putting an end to the peculiar
jurisdiction, applied equally to the diocesan courts.
These courts had jurisdiction, not only on matrimonial
questions, but on all testamentary questions. They had
to decide upon the validity of a will affecting land, and
also affecting money, on which the law, as it now
stood, was most absurd, because, as far as the will
affected money, it was subject of? probate, but, as far
as it related to land, the ecclesiastical court had no
jurisdiction, and there was no means of establishing
that will with respect to freehold property, unless it
contained a trust, and, if it did so, then the Court of
Chancery interfered. Well, then a question of law
arose, what was the ultimate tribunal to decide any ques-
tion that was involved in that.will ? Why, that House
was the tribunal ; but it' any question arose with
respect to personalty, then the Privy Council was the
court of the last resort ; and these proceedings, their
Lordships must remember, related to one and the same '
paper. This subject had often been matter of observa-
vation, and must soon, he would venture to predict, be
matter of legislation. He was therefore opposed to that
part of the Bill which proposed the establishment of
several new courts, or the remodelling of those old esta•
blished jurisdictions, because he was satisfied that sooner
or later it would be necessary to abolish these courts,
and to subject all wills to one jurisdiction. The Bill
was good, inasmuch as it went to abolish peculiars, but
he objected to the continuance of these diocesan
courts. The natter had , been fully investigated
by the Commission which made its Report in
1832. When they considered the time which
had been devoted by those, Commissioners to the
investigation of the subject, the vast body of evidence
which had been collected, and the authority of the Com-
missioners, he thought their Lordships would be inclined
to pay great attention to their recommendations. The
Report was signed by the .Archbishop of Canterbury,
the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, the
Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the Bishop
of Bangor, Lord Tenterden, Lord Wynford, the present
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Sir John
Nicholl, Sir Christopher Robinson, Sir Herbert Jenner,
and Dr. Lushington. Their Lordships would see that
the Commissioners consisted of the highest ecclesiastical
and legal authorities in the realm, and that their recom-
mendations were, therefore, entitled to the greatest at-
tention. Now, all these authorities were agreed in re-
commending the abolition of the diocesan courts. The
Report proposed to maintain the Prerogative Court of
York, but it stated that it had been recommended to
abolish the court. The Commissioners merely threw
out the suggestion, but offered no opinion on the
sullied, Now, with regard to the diocesan courts
and to the peculiars. If a man died possessed of
property in the jurisdiction of any one of these courts,
probate might be taken out in that court ; but, if the
deceased had property to the value of 5/. in any other
jurisdiction, the probate was void—probates could not be
sued out in either of these courts. Now, this was most

Lydia Sanders, the wife of Sanders, and the fictitious
Emma Slack, with whose name the public have been so
long acquainted in connexion with the will forgeries,
has, as well as her husband, been apprehended, through
the able instrumentality of John and Daniel Forrester,
the officers. They will be placed at the bar of the Man-
sion-house on Saturday, together with Barber, Fletcher,
Mrs. Dorey, and Griffin, when the depositions against all
the prisoners will be read over preparatory (according to
the general expectation formed upon the evidence pub-
licly adduced against them) to their commitment to
Newgate for trial, at the ensuing session, at the Central
Criminal Court. _ _ _

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 21.
Tho LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.

CORN-LAWS.
The EARL of STRADBROKE presented a petition
from certain landowners in the county of Suffolk, against
any alteration in the corn-laws.

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Mor-
peth, and some other places in the county of Northum-
berland, with a similar prayer.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from a cer-
tain corporate body in Shropshire, which was
threatened with the loss of certain privileges which
it had enjoyed from the time of Queen Elizabeth,
by the Ecclesiastical:Courts Bill, and praj ing to be heard
by Counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House against
that Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that he should
at a future time move that the petitioners be heard by
Counsel against the Bill.
REDUCTION OF THE THREE-AND-A-HALF
PER CENTS.
Lord CAMPBELL considered it his duty to call their
Lordships' attention to what he considered an unjusti-
fiable delay in giving the Royal Assent to a Bill which
had passed their Lordships' House and the other House
of Parliament. On Tuesday their Lordships had read
the Bill for the reduction of the Three- and-a-Half per
Cents., a third time. The amount of the stock to be
reducd was 250,000,0001., and by that Bill certain terms
were offered to the stockholders, and a right
was reserved to them to express their dis-
sent, 4nd to be paid off at par. By a clause
in that Bill the dissentients were required to express
their dissent on or before the 23d of this month.
He had expected that the Royal Assent would
have been given to that Bill on Wednesday, which
would have given Thursday, Friday, and Satur-
day to the dissentients to express their dissent ;
but there had been no Commission on Wednesday—there
had been no. Commission to-day. The Bill could not
possibly become law before four o'clock to-morrow,
which would only give a few hours to the 100,000 stock-
holders, many of whom resided a great distance off; to
express their dissent. The terms the Government offered
were liberal, and possibly there might be no dissentients,
but it might become a precedent for a future Minister
who might wish to reduce the National Debt, and who
might offer terms which the stockholders might not be
disposed to accept, to force them into acquiescence. It
might also expose us to misrepresentation among foreign
nations. We had always prided ourselves in preserving
our faith with the national creditor, and if we wished
to maintain that character, a proper opportunity ought
to be afforded to dissentients to express their dissent.
This had happened very unfortunately and very unne-
cessarily. There might have been a Commission yester-
day, or to-day. He wished for an explanation of the
delay, as it rendered the powers of dissent quite futile.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he intended
to have had a Commision yesterday, but he received
an intimation from the other House that it would be
more convenient to have the Commission- to-morrow.
There had already been given three notices of dissent,
and he did not think there would be any more. Al-
though in point of law there could be no dissent until
after the Bill had received the Royal Assent, yet practi-
cally the dissent in these cases had been given, and on
all other occasions had been given before the Bill be-
came law.

After much activity and tact of investigation exhi-
bited upon the part of the officers employed by the pro-
secutors, it became apparent that Sanders and his wife
were both secreted at Edinburgh, or in the immediate
neighbourhood of that city. John Forrester was, upon
the receipt of such information, dispatched to Edin-
burgh, and, after considerable difficulty, he ascertained
that persons answering the description of the two ac-
cused individuals had been lodging, under assumed
names, from the middle of January until within the last
three weeks, at a small lodging in an unfrequented part
of Edinburgh, but that, in consequence of some dis-
turbance between two of the inmates of the houso, on
account of which a threat had been held out that the as-
sistance of the police should be claimed, they had de-
parted, but whither, the occupiers of the house were un-
able to afford any information.
Forrester, however, through the medium of the Post-
office, learned that when Sanders and his wife left the
above-mentioned lodging, the former requested the post-
man of the district to leave the letters addressed to him
at a grocer's shop, where it appeared they had been in
the habit of dealing since their arrival, and during their
stay in Edinburgh. The people of the shop, it would
seem, did not know Sanders's place of residence, but
they knew him from the calls he had made to purchase
various articles, and to receive his letters. Having ascer-
tained so strong a fact, Forrester forthwith obtained
permission to have two of the Edinburgh police stationed
at the back part of the premises from morning till
night for the purpose of pouncing upon Sanders when
he should call for his letters. This course was pursued
for several days, until at last, at about nine o'clock in
the evening of Wednesday, the 13th instant, the hus-
band of the notorious Lydia Sanders, alias Emma Slack,
made his appearance at the shop, and purchased a small
quantity of tea. The desirable visit was instantly com-
municated to the police stationed on the premises, and to
Forrester,.who, dreading that he might lose Sanders in
tracing him to his home, considered that the best plan
he could adopt was to secure the prisoner he had so long
sought for on the spot.
Sanders refused to state where he resided, what his
name was, or to answer any questions put to him by
Forrester, who, of course, could not guess amidst such
exclusive caution as that exhibited by him and his wife.
The law of Scotland does not, it appears, authorise the
committal of a person apprehended under such circum-
stances as those above described to prison, and Forres-
ter was, in consequence of so remarkable a difference
between the English and Scotch systems, obliged to keep
Sanders at his hotel, in custody of two men, night and
day during his stay in Edinburgh. where he was delayed
in the hope of finding Emma Slack. With this view
the officer remained in Edinburgh during the whole of
Thursday and Friday, but without success, when San-
ders ultimately requiring that the warrant should be
complied with, viz. that the prisoner should be taken
before the Lord Mayor, there was no alternative, and
Forrester was obliged on Saturday to leave Edinburgh
with the individual named in the warrant, after having
given strict injunctions to the Edinburgh police to pur-
sue the inquiry, and apprehend the female they sought,
if she was to be found. He arrived in town with the
prisoner at six o'clock on Monday morning, in the mail.
At twelve o'clock on the same day Sanders was taken
before the Lord Mayor, and, after a short examination,
remanded till Saturday next, when her final examina-
tion is to take place. Forester, having deposited his
prisoner in safe custody, left London again for Edin-
burgh on the same night, to renew his search after
Mrs. Sanders, alias Emma Slack. It seemed to be
next to impossible that she should escape, as it would
appear that she had little or no money in her possession,
and her friends had no means of sending her any assist-
ance, except through the former address, where, of
course, she would be apprehended, if she went to receive
what might be necessary to her existence.
A dispatch was, we understand, received yesterday
morning, from the chief of the Edinburgh police, an-
nouncing that they had discovered Mrs. Sanders in the
course of Tuesday, and that she had been apprehended,
and was then in custody; and it was proposed to send
her to town on Wednesday night in the care of a male
and a female guard.
Forrester, it is conjectured, arrived at Edinburgh
on Wednesday last, and will, no doubt, accompany the
prisoner, who is to be attended by a female to town,
where they will arrive in the course of this day.
We have been given to understand that before it be-
came known to the prosecutors that Mrs. Sanders was
the party who personated the fictitious Emma Slack,
suspicion attached to various females who were in any
degree connected with, or known to either Barber or
Fletcher ; and in fact we have reason to believe that at
one time Emma Slack was supposed to have been a man
in female disguise. Daniel Forrester contrived, with
great ingenuity, that Mrs. and Miss Neville should ob-
tain interviews, under the most extraordinary pre-
tences, with these parties, they little suspecting at the
time the object of the mission. Ultimately, however, it
appeared that Mrs. Dorey had been seen to kiss the
female who personated Emma Slack, and that kiss at
once suggested to the prosecutors the utility of looking
more closely to the connexions of the former. The
description of Emma Slack was accordingly ob-
tained with the greatest precision and accuracy, in-
cluding her manners, her habits, her mode of 'singing,
of which she was represented to be very fond, and the
songs she sung. Armed with all this information, the
officers employed upon these important investigations,
found that no two persons could be found so closely to
resemble each other in all those particulars. Dates were
then compared, and it was ascertained that Mrs.
Sanders was absent from Bristol at the time in ques-
tion. Other facts were also ascertained, which it is not
necessary to represent here, but which, combined with
what we have detailed, remove all doubts as to iden-
tity. All that was then to be done was to track Mrs.
Lydia Sanders, alias Emma Slack, out ; an undertak-
ing which has been just so ably accomplished by the
sagacious officers to whom the task was consigned.

Lord MONTEAGLE said that this was a subject of
great importance, and he was glad that his Noble
and Learned Friend had called the attention of the
House to it. He did not think that on this occasion
the delay would produce any practical inconvenience,
and he was surprised that there had been even one dis-
sentient, as the measure was so advantageous. He
hoped, however, that care would be taken to
given longer time, and to act more regularly in future
dealings with the National Debt.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Lord NORMANBY had a petition to present for a
lady named Woolridge, complaining of neglect of duty
on the part of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ire-
land. The petition stated, that in 1819 Thomas Wool-
ridge died, leaving the rent of houses in Har-
court-street, Dublin, for the relief of the poor
in that city. In two years afterwards a Chan-
cery suit was instituted by the relatives of the
deceased against the Board of Bequests. In 1828 there
was a final decree, but since that period the Board had
taken no steps to apply the funds according to the
will of the testator ; and in 1840 the Master reported
that only 1,000/. had been paid into Court for
the use of the charity, although the rents re-
ceived amounted to 24,0001. 23,0001, having
been squandered. In the case which he (Lord
Normanby) brought under their Lordships' attention on
a former occasion, when the Board of Guardians refused
to allow a bequest to be applied to the education
of children under the care of a rector of the Es-

tablished Church, the sum in dispute was only 7L 10s.,
but here, where the bequest was 1,0001. a year, to be de-
voted to the relief of the poor, they entirely neglected
their duty.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Let me have a copy
of the petition.
Lord NORMANDY then presented a petition from
the next of kin of two orphan children—one from Dur-
ham and one from Rochester—complaining that the
children had been enlisted without their consent, and
that one of the boys was under fourteen years of age.
The same Noble Lord also presented a petition from the
Mayor and Corporation of Waterford, praying that the
corporations of Ireland might have the same rights as
those in England ; and also a petition from St. John's,
Newfoundland, signed chiefly by Irishmen, praying for
a redress of the grievances of Ireland.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice, that
to-morrow week he should present a petition from Ire-
land, on the state of that country, and upon that occa-
sion he should draw the attention of their Lordships to
the state of the sister island.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that,
upon the same occasion, he should call the attention of
the House to the instructions given to the officers of the
Crov%n, relative to the composition of juries ; and he
should move that their Lordships be summoned for that
day.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE wished to know if the Noble
Lord's notice had reference to the composition of the
jury on a late occasion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said his object was
a general one, and was intended to apply to the instruc-
tions given now and to be given to the officers of the
Crown in the composition of jury lists.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several returns re-
specting quarantine regulations.
The RishOp of BANGOR presented a petition against
the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.

CHANGE OF THE IRISH MAIL PACKETS.—The day
is officially announced as the 12th of April for the long-con-
templated change in the hours of the mail packets sailing.
ITALIAN BANDITTI.—ROME, FEB!

gence has just been received, that an English family of dis-
tinction, en route for that city, have been robbed by banditti
near Itris of all their luggage ; and what renders the affair
more unfortunate is, that some of the servants, in defending
the property, came in conflict with the robbers and were se-
verely wounded.
SERIOUS ACClDENT.—Wednesday evening, about six
o'clock, W. B. Glasse, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, was proceed-
ing along Portland-place on horseback, accompanied at a
distance by a youth, his groom, when the animal, a
high-spirited one, upon which the latter was riding,
took fright and ran with great violence against a
lamp-post ; by the concussion the horse was nearly
sunned, but after a short lapse of time, it started
off again, and came with such violence against some area
railings, that it dropped dead upon the spot. The groom
fell under the animal, and on being extricated he was
immediately conveyed in a cab to the surgery of Mr. A.
B. Chisholm, in Devonshire-street, who upon examina-
tion, found that there was a severe concussion, his
right ankle being much injured, and otherwise bruised
very much in various parts of the body. He was promptly
bled—and we are happy to find that the sufferer is doing
well.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had to call the
attention of their Lordships to the provisions of the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the second reading of •which
was fixed for that evening. This was a question which had
at several times been submitted to their Lordships' con-
sideration. There was little novelty in the Bill, and
therefore, he should occupy but little of their time in
explaining its scope and object, It was, however, de-
sirable, that he should principally call their Lordships'
attention to the history of the proceeding. It would be in
their recollection that in the year 1830 a Commission was
appointed to take into their consideration the constitution
of the ecclesiastical courts and the administration of
justice by those tribunals. It made its Report in the
following year. The Commission he should state con-
tained among its members several of the most revered
prelates, many eminent persons, and certain of the heads
of the law, equity, and ecclesiastical tribunals of the
country. They considered the subject very fully, and made
a report, but nothing was immediately done. In 1833 a
Committee of the House of Commons was appointed for
the purpose of again investigating the subject, and to
this Committee the report of the Commission was re-
ferred. That Committee carefully considered the sub-
ject, and having examined the late Lord Tenterden, the
present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and
other eminent characters, presented a report agree-
ing in substance with that published by the Commission.
Upon these proceedings a Bill was founded, and was
brought into their Lordships' House by his Noble and
Learned Friend who then sat upon the Woolsack
(Lord Brougham). He did not know precisely
from what cause, but that Bill proceeded only to
a certain stage, and was not prosecuted further.
In 1835, after his Noble and Learned Friend
had left office, the same Bill—or the same Bill with
some alterations and modifications—was presented by
another Noble Friend to that 'House. Nothing took
place upon that Bill, and he apprehended for
this reason that, almost contemporaneous with it,
Sir Frederick Pollock, who was then Attorney-General,
obtained leave to bring in a similar Bill in the House of
Commons. Almost immediately afterwards he resigned
office, and then his Noble and Learned Friend who was
sitting at the table (Lord Campbell) introduced a mea-
sure corresponding with those that had been introduced
by his predecessors. That measure had been brought
in by his predecessor in the month of June. It was
founded not entirely upon the Report of the Commis-
sioners, but that of a Committee of the House of Com-
mons ; and although that Bill was introdced in June,
1835, and the Parliament sat till August, no
further
ar it. What was the
ieded him in thene
In the following
reason,ear,
hoipf proceedingssthatNoblehe
e tookuFriend
codk n
(x
whoplace
uponpplc
office of Lord Chancellor introduced a similar
Bill. That Bill was read a first and second
time, was referred to a Committee, and a report was
made upon it ; but owing to some cause the Bill pro-
ceeded no further and the measure was abandoned, he
presumed, in consequence, of some difficulties his Noble
and Loarned Friend had anticipated in another place.
Thus the matter rested, and his Noble and Learned
Friend, up to 1840, never resumed that measure. Have
ing made these statements, he came now to the last at-
tempt made in the way of legislation on this subject, he
meant the proceedings in the House of Commons last year,
when a Bill, similar to the others that had been intro-
duced, was brought in by a Member of the Govern-
ment. The second reading of that Bill was carried, but
it was considered impossible to carry it on in its
then shape. Alterations were made in it—it was referred
pro forma to a Committee, but the session had then
arrived at that period when it was considered
impossible to carry it thrall!, and the measure was not
further proceeded with. nder these circumstances,
he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it important
to introduce the measure this session in its modified
shape. He was anxious to go as far as he could
upon the present occasion to reform the ecclesiastical
courts by carrying into effect, the report of the
Commissioners, The peat object of the Bill was
to consolidate the Arches and the Prerogative Courts.
Those courts were presided over by the same judge, they
were attended by the same bar, they were held
i in the same hall,. and they were, for all practical
purposes, one and the same court. Could it there-
fore be doubted that the consolidation of those