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

E VENTION 'OF, SMOKE..

Mr. lIINDLEY begged to ask thesHon. Member for
Lymington-(Mr. Mackinnon), as Chairman of the-Com-
mittee appointed to.inquire respecting the nuisance, of
smoke in towns, whether it was intended to found any
Measure Upon the Report of that Committee?
—Mr. MACKINNON said that: the Cominittee's Report
recommended that a Bill should be passed on the subject,
but the Government _declined to introduce such a mea-
sure ;. and, therefore, he -as chairman of the Committee
would feel it his duty to propose a Bill.
THE . ARRESTS 'IN THE 6TH REGIMENT.
Mr. GILL rose pursuant to notice, with a view to- ob-
viate an. erroneous impression produced by the state-
ment of the Secretary at War on the 12th instant, to call
:the attention of. the .1-louse to-the detention of Captain
Brewster of the 761 W regiment,. under arrest for eight
Months, without any 'charge being, made against him, and
to-iiik the Right IlOn. Gentleman whether he had any ob-
jection.to communicate to the House the order from the
Horse Guards for that officer's relief and admonition?
,On a former occasion the Right Hen. and Gallant Officer
(Sir H. Hardinge) was reported to have said as these
officers had violated their duty they had been put under
arrest, and they would be kept under arrest • for a
short -time longer. That statement was incorrect ;
but he was sure the inaccuracy did not attach
.td the Gallant, Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge), whom
everybody in- that HouSe, and out of it, ,knew
to be, incapable of stating anything but what was fully
,boene oat by.facts, The effect of such inaccuracy might,-
howeier, be injurious to the character of Captain
Brewster; and he (Mr. Gill) therefore mentioned the
subject, that shoiddimputation rest upon it, it might
be removed. The two officers referred to were or-
dered - under arrest by another officer, who was
present it some proceeding which had: taken
place,: and who had. subsequently communicated to .the
-commanding .officer what had taken place. Now he
(Mr. Gill) found, by the articles of war, that no officer
was liable to arrest, except for - an offence conimittea;
and that it was the dUty of the party putting an officer
,under arrest.immediately to take steps for instituting an
inquiry. When he stated to the House that Captain
Brewster had not been guilty of any offence
Whatever;he thought he was not, asking too much when
he. tried to have an imputation removed -from his cha•••
meter. After being five months under arrest, Captain
Brewiter wrote a letter to his commanding officer,
begging it might be forwarded to the Major-General in:
command of the `district, and which in*reated to know
under what charge lie was labouring, and ' stated
that if any offence ;had been committed by him, he
would cheerfully submit to such punishment as the
Commander-in• Chief might think fit. Subsequently two
letters were 'written by General Biewster—ene of them
to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, and the other to
Lord FitzrOy Somerset. The Noble Duke, in his reply -
to General Brewster, said he was aware his son was
nnder arrest, and as certain regulations were being pre-
pared en the subject of duelling, it was intended that
these. officers should be made subject to them when
oompleted. Notwithstanding thesa leffers, these two
officers were continued under arrest three months longer.
He complained, on the part of these gentlemen, of their
having suffered the long arrest they had done, and that
arrest without some explanation from the Right
Hon. BarOnet .might Injure the character of Captain
Brewster. Although the articles of war stated that. no,
officer should be :kept under arrest for more than eight
days hefOre he was tried, that course had not been adopted
in the presentiease. He thought the House would agree
'with him; that this severe punishment was imecalled.for.
He wished to know whether the Rightllon.-Barenet had
any objection. to ,"communicate to the House a copy of the
order of the- Horse Guards for the liberation of these
gentlemen, and the admonition given to them. ,
Sir H.HARDINGE had a strong objeation to produce
the papers, first, because it would form abtid-precePifi-
and secondly, because the proceedings took place under
a prifate warrant. Captain Brewster had violated mi-
litary discipline, by. immediately accepting a challenge
from a young and -inexperienced officer. He would
frankly confess, as to the other point, that there was no
imputation on the CharaCter et:Captain Brewster,
DROPPED ORDERS.

.
The dropped Orders of yestbrdifivere then disposed of.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. -

On the Order of the Day for the House resolving, itself
into Qamnilitee on the Factories Bill being read,
LarcrJOHN RUSSELL suggested the propriety of
entering on the paper the Orders of the Day which were
to have precedence.
Sir R. PEEL , agreed with,: the suggestion of .the
'Noble Lord, and 'would take tare that it should he at-
tended to. •
On the Order of the Day being read for the House
resolving itself intn-CoMMittee On the Factories Bill,
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a.petition signed
by twenty-tWe of the principal firms of Preston, stating
that the petitioners had heard. with the utmost alarm
that the Hohse had come to a resolution limiting the
hours 'of labour to ten; and praying" the House not to
consent to such sn enactment
LOrd A.snr.,Ey presented ninety-ono petitions from
various districts in the West, Riding of Yorkshire, in
favour bf a ten hours clr.use. . .
Mr. FIELDEN presented a petition in favour of
limiting the hours of labour.
The SPEAKER then left the Chair, and the House re-
solved itself into Committee, on the Bill.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Lord - ASHLEY-- said that he would postpone- the
amendment of which he had, given notice on this clauie,
iind.would raise the discussion on the Bth clause as it
Would he more convenient.
Mr. T. EGERTON then rose- to move the omission
Of the word ":silk " froth line 31. .He said that those
who were 'engaged in the silk manufacture did not de-
sire to, be exempt from legislation. on the subject_ but
they, did not wish to have their, interests huddled
up in the legislation which affected
_others. He
read various, tabular statements of the condition of the
silk trade, and endeavoured to show that it would be
necessary to-establish the relay<systerrt in this branch of
manufactum,„as. there was not a sufficient. number of
children in some places to supply the demand of the silk
trade. With respect to education, he was happy to say that
there eXiifed throughout the various: distric., a great
disposition, on. the part of the masters, to afford &cull--
ties for education, and an equally great desire on the
part of the children and their parents,tb, avail them
selves of those facilities.

• . ;Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure his. Hon.
Friend ,that- the caution which he 'had • enjoined with
respect to; dealing with these great manufacturing in,
ferests„ was. a caution which, ;as:- far as •he • was
concerned,_ a altogether unnecessary.; for ,he
was • anxious-. to .. give the best consideration to
the subject • under discussion. He admitted that
in past legislation silk had been treated differently froth
any other branch of the staple manufactures. The-mo-
tion of his Honourable Friend, as it now stood, would,
• if carried, take silk altogether out -of the operation
of the present Bill. It was necessary to call the atten-
tion of his Hon; Friend to the portion of the-children
- employed in the silk ynanufacture._ ile. thought that
that if any portion of this legislation was• more de-
fensible than another, it was- that which referred to the
children. engaged in this -manufacture.. The po- •
verty of the parents, notwithstanding their natural
affections,-led them to overwork their children, in order
to-obtain the largest possible amount from their labour.
The legislation on this subject at-the commencement of
the-present session was first confined to apprentices,•but
was afterwards confined • to • young, children.- At
the present moment, in the silk trade generally, there
was no limitation ,whatever with respect to the age at
which children might be-employed. They might be
employed -as, early- as -five; six; •or seven years of age.
There was a limitation with respect to time ; they could
not be employed above ten hours, between the• time
when they first entered the factories and thirteen years
of age. There was another distinction, that the,
children
, ertsploYed in silk did not , require the certificate • of .
education which was necessary-, in other cases.
He thought it of great importance, with respect to both
these: 'points, that the children employed •• in
the_ silk, trade should be brought under. the ge-'
neral operation of the Act, and this 4555 the'
opinion forged ,by thei.Conunittce which -sat in 1841.

He (Sir J. Graham) would now briefly state the course
he proposed to adopt with the portions of the Bill affect-
ing this portion of our industry. He must resist the
motion of his Hon. Friend, which would take the silk
trade entirely out of the operation of the Bill: In the
75th clause were provisions which dealt particularly with
the silk trade. In legislating upon this subject, they must
bear in mind the large .proportion which tie children
employed hear.to the adults emPloyed—it was no less
than as four to one. He should propose to dmit certain
parts in the clause referred to, and then to enact that no
children from eight to eleven years old should be employed
in the silk manufacture more than six hours and a half ;
but that froM eleven io thirteen they might be employed
fol_ ten hours in. winding and throwing. ; and then at the
age of thirteen, they should return under
the general provisions of the Bill as it now
stood. By she arrangement which he proposed
to the,House, they would, for the first time, impose a
limit in regard to children, and which he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) certainly thought to be necessary, At the
present moment there was 'no— such limit. In
this wanner -he was . willing to . hope the
just demands of the " peopre engaged in the
silk trade would be met. When they came to the 75th
clause of the Bill he should propose to remit the limi-
tation as to children under
.11 years of age, and intro-
duce words to carry out the arrangement he now sub-
mitted, which he sincerely trusted would, upon the
whole, be coniidered satisfactory to the various inter-
ests involved in this great and important branch of
our trade. •

Mr. LABOUCHERE -said that he observed, with
some apprehension, the _Bill which had been 'in-
trodueed by her Majesty's Government on the
subject of factories, - because he- believed that it
_

_ •
was the first time that the silk-matufacturers had
been put on the same footing of cotton manufacturers.
These considerations'operated so strongly upon the late
'Government, that they brought in two Bills—one with
respect to silk, and the other with respect to
cotton manufactures—and he confessed upon the whole
that he thought it would facilitate the progresi-oltfie
Bill if lbe Government adopted a similar course. He
thought, however, after what the Right Honourable
Baronet had stated Abet the'objection urged by the silk
manufacturers had been fairly met.; and he believed
that his proposition would be satisfactory to the trade.
He hoped, therefore, that no obstacle would be thrown
in the way of the Government. It was not
his ' wish to - see - the silk trade excluded
from the operation of a Factory Bill. The
-silk manufacturers had the largest amount of children
employed in their factories.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH thought that upon the whole the
plan of the Governmetit would be satisfactory.
• Sir G. STRICKLAND rose, and was
(LEFT APEAEING.) • s • •
. .

COURSE OF "EXCHA
Amsterdam CF. 12 6
- Ditto, at sight l2 ' 4
'Rotterdam 2U. 12- 7
Antwerp . .. . 26 0
Ramburgh l4 0
Altona • • 14 0
Paris, 3 days'- sight... 25 75
Ditto, 3 months 26 0
Marseilles 26 5
Bourdeaux '2s 5
Frankfort on Maine 1224
Petersburgh, 3Us 36
Berlin r
Vienna, effect 8.3 M. 958
lrieste, ditto ? 959
„Madrid. 361
Cadiz
Bilbao 36
Barcelona 36

SGE.-(THIS DAY,
Gibraltar

Leghorn 3O 65
Genoa
Milan

Venice
Naples 3Bl
Palermo, per oz ll7
Lisbon 53
OportO • 53
Rio Janeiro 23
Bahia 23
Buenos Ayres —
NewYork,2ldyssight

ritIOEB OF BULLION, PER OZ.
ForeignGold,tuirs.—£3 17 9
Portugal Gold,COin 3 17 5
New Doubloons—. 0 0 0
New Dollars 0 4 91
Silver in: Bats 0 4 11;

BRISTOL BANXIMPTCY COURT.—Several estates,
considered to be wound up for years past, are now in course
of investigation, and creditors who had entirely forgotten
their 4annaL have been surprised on receiving notices from
the official assignees of their being entitled to dividends. In
the case of Walter Jacks (against the commission was issued
upwards of forty years
.since), a dividend was declared on
the 6th instant, on debts proved to. the amount of nearly
70,000/. We learn that a 'dividend of at least 41. in the
pound will in a short time 'be declared on the estate of John
Wood, a banker, at Cardiff, in. which the list proceedings be-
fore the Commissieners took place so long since as the year
IB27.—Bristol JOurnitl. ' ' -

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

•
I:IO.USE ,OF LORDS, March 21.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR -(in continuation from
our Third -Edition- last night)—lle had now stated all
that was necessary. in this stage of the proceeding. , The
.main question for their Lord.ships' 'consideration would,
of course, relate to the diocesan courts. The extent of
the existing evil in regard toprohates,might be gathered
from the lact, 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 or 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 wholly 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 y to, him, that means,
~by the agency
of this,Bill, might be btained-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.extellent instrument in "judicious and able
hands for the faithful administration of the ecclesiastical
law of thia,eountry. - -
Lord :COTTENHAM said ho bad .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 (f which
sent to secure the, maintenance of all the diocesan courts.
When the Noble and Learned Lord, however, stated -it
was ithpossible to carry-any other. Billhe Was still more
surprised, for they all knew that the present Government
wet a very powerful one. He (Lord Cottenham) was
at a loss to find out where-the difficulty at carrying the
measure -would be c it certainly would mot be. for want,
of Parliamentary power, either in that or in the ether
-'There might be inconveniences which he
(Loid .Cottenham) -would not further inquire . into,
which -might induce the. Government not to. press
the Hill for the abolition of the dioceian courts. Those
courts, .it 'should be remembered, had been condemned
for the last twelve years—condemned- by the Ecclesias-
tical. .
.cornrmssioners-7by the Real Property COmmis-
sioners—by the Select Committee of the House of Com-
mons, and by the Select Conamittee of their Lordship?
House. .Ali 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 -WM to divine.
•The.suheet of the ecclesiasticalcouris was one of the
highest • importance to the conntry. Their Lordships
were aware that the eccleSiastical courts had jurisdiction
Otor Matters of the utmost imPortanee to the people of
this country. They had 'to , decide questions between
husband and.wife—they had to decide on the validity of
marriageathey_ 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. Novi- in what
way • we)-e ' -these , important questions to be
decided?hiloc Noble: and tearned Friend
had triilistated, no less than three hundred and' forty
different courts: His Noble Friend hid stated good
reasons why these minor -'courts should exist no longer.
.But be had not kept, in mind that his_ panegyric ap-
plied to these peculiar courts as -well, as to the -diocesan
courts. 'Nbvv; he (Lord "Cotternham) '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. T'lley had
to decide uponflie validity of a will affecting land, and
also affecting money, on Which 'the law, as it now
stood, web most absurd; because as far as ;We Will
affeeted money, it was. ..subject dprobate, but, as far
as it related to land, the, ecclesiastical court had no
jurisdiction, and there was no means of establishing
that will with respet to freehold property, unless it
contained 'a trust, and, 'if it did so, then the Court .of
Chancery
,interfered... Well, then a question of JaVf
arose, what was the ultimate tribunal to decide any ques-
tion that was involved in that will ? Why, that' House
was ..tha tribunal.; but if 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 observii-
ration, 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 juristEctiona, because he was satisfied that sooner
or- later it would be necessary to: abolish these courts,
and to subject all wills to' one jerisdietion... The Bill
vas good, inasmuch as, it went to abolish peculiars, but
he, objected to the continuance of these _diocesan'
courts. The matter had been fully - investigated
by the- Commission _ which made its 'Report in
1832.. • When they considered the time which
had beep 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--
inissioriers, he thought their Lordships would be inclined
to pay great attention 'to their recommendations. The
Report was sigoed by. the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the Bishop of London, - the -Bishop of • Durhani, . the
Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of St. Asapb, 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 theirrecoin-
mendations were, therefore, entitled "to the-greatest at-
tention.' Now, all these anthorities were agreed in re-
commending the abolition of the diOcesan conks. The
Report proposed to maintain the Prerogatii_e 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
subje4. \Tow, with regard to the diocesan courts
and to. the peonliars.• •if a man died possessed •of
property in the jurisdiction of any one of these -courts,
probate might-be teken,out in that,
.court-; but, if the
deceased had property to the-value of 5b in any other
jurisdiction, the probate was void—probates could not be
sued out in either of these courts. Now, this,was most
:

, •an P.
..,`
iI?jUrIOUS to real property. There was berellYrill°
but' what was affected by settlementSolnieo
werefor terms of years, and, in
,order to here to
title to an estate, it was necessary
.ond all kingolli
should be got in. The' "conveyancei; in if,ticiiel It:
title might find that one of those persOns niwt, torsi
peculiar jurisdiction, and it would be necess,liiio
out administration ;, but lid could not l'en,in 044
out administraticn in the pecUliar, or in the Pfl
court, because, if it could be proved thst Aictiee.,
had died worth 51. in any other iiiri37ol.
administration would be void, and the title.._l4ioo.
was one strong argument for the abolition of tiivoieol
courts. The report, of this CoMmission ree.e...101
the abolition of the - jurisdiction of ecclesixstniegli
in matters which they specified—in matter:l;ooi
and burials in church-yards, in matters of :4001
Insult, adultery, and church;•rates. But hoere(
Learned Friend proposed' to extend the P,?aid tile!,
courts in matters of legacy. Now, wily -010°1"
so? Was there any complaint of the courts to?
The ecclesiastical courts ctiuld not exercise
~, Of!
diction conferred on them in legacies, eeir- Sr
full control over the estate'. of the testotor.,_ oil
power would be perfectly inconsistent withrte ree'
tion of the ecclesiastical courts.- it 5h0,111,001,31
lected that the judges of the etclesia-sticat .thorietil
appointed by individuals, and not by the 6„.,,0" fat 00
the _'Crown or of Parliament—judges !r:t 0.
indieiduals in a court where the, greaLerr),t P
might.? be at stake 1--(Hear,. hear.) ', io
eugh,c',M; such' cases, to have proteetle.opill
appointment of judges. They ought at least 'loot
guarantee which the responsibility of Oolerii,ol el;
lers. It was provided that, in case the dior,e„- 0
were to be continued, barristers of a cert'Tbol
were to be appointed to preside over thenl. dr
tainly was an improvement. Then theseJti i,
to hold Office during good behaviour ,• . but 'iflodieol
he ha.iiour did not exist, and if it was found ePt ,tilli
remove.one of these judges for misconchie 're oo',
Noble and Learned Lord prcposed that they toe
be removed in the same manner as idle jusi7,-,0,
superior courts. How was that? By illi'• thooo,
both Houses of Parliament to the Crown. But. ~.iiie
were appointed by individuals--,--byili.e Right Be doll
then hew absurd was it to propose that both Pope
Parliament should address the Sovereign Vridoil
functionary appointed by an irresponsible inji old
he presumed the Noble and Learned 14,748;jare°
Mean that the Houses of Parliament shod"' to re
Bishop.-.--(Hear, hear.) If the Crown- Ive„„re.ooll,,'
judges, the Crown should appoint them. •-t•LeliOr
had been made subjecti of inquiry.by the C°7' pro
1832, and also by the Commission of ren h tl)e
which consisted of individuals connected *it 01 iv
and who were eminently qualified to discliTo (I,
ties. His Noble and Learned Friend nett' :Or
Campbell), was at the head of- it, and
_it I.Dif
many eminent first-rate conveyancerS• s hold,
agreed in recommending that-. there - .nisel
only one court for probates and eatrlins ii°,io
A Select Committee of -the Honie of Coma* Coe':
pointed in 1833 to inquire into the Admiral-111.0
the head of which was Sir James Graham) ~,,gtA ~
Sir Frederick Pollock, Dr. Nicholl, Dr:Do f the
Abercrombie, and the present Chancellor °e 0 ,
chequer were Members of it. The Conitel!te of
extended its inquiries into the jurisdketl°„llooll4
courts, and after a very patient invesnge"cisoo,
commended the abolition of all the_clidcesittibe
the . appointment of probate and adininis"Leori
They recommended the abolition of those_..cii, on,
in which strictly legal matters were dealt 7,1.,ti0ti 9'4
recommended that all ecclesiastical juris"- tip
he concentrated in the court of Canterhulied II!
the judge _of this court should be afP°iriliou°ll
Crown.- In 1836 a Select. Committee of thst.cotteoA,
appointed, .and in the same year he (Ler,,cl *reeo9'il,
brought in a Bill for carving into effect to Tie pie '
-dations of the Ecclesiastical Commission the ioi
Committee was appointed, he believed, et-ossoceo,
of his Noble and Learned Friend (the. Lord • 000
and the Bill was referred to them for ~'ec6t,o•Ch
This Committee consisted of the present .„-„,e•
lor, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord 'Ls° el
Denman, Lord Abinger, Lord Broughant,,,l
ket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, ture 130iiPc°,;e'
London, the Earl of Devon, the Bishops 0' KV
Asaph, and Bangor. The Committee aftel*E _port'
9 ,
and pains-taking investigatien,
,roade e' ',.,,,rte1i`,11(
which.- he would read some extracts. 1-1.74,5ere0
property, it was said to be an advantage tus4o
be local Courts, so that pa,rties in the, cettli;i' iitee'
be put to trouble and expense. The CO fiNfrii
referring to the Reportsof the Conamitteesiv•
et, eo, fl
tioned, came to this conclusion—that they' a Wolef
of opinion that all courts in England 4/Littl°„l,
ercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over pr°";,l writ'
and administration should be -abolished c61,,P4
court sitting in London should be the oe :00,11
probates of wills and granting letters of id of ii
They were of opinion, however (and it loef•e4 tol
fectly consistent with the plan), thl/34,i•eigli:
should be made so as to secure, to pari4e"4o* 0',06041
distance from the 'metropolis all the corivre-he sty'
now enjoyed from the diocesan courts. ' 6000,
the Ecclesiastical Commission stated that four, coo
contentious business was, transacted in Docterogie, '
as well. as -a much greater• portion of l'PllAL'olirli,,,
• the common form business—that signified
tft: (Li
sonal ' affidavit was Made„ the probate lid ',l{ 1'; '
without any further formality or expen,rse4,o„#Al
what occurred in 99 cases out. of 100. I"'"Ethe 'it o'' '
countrythere would, be surroates, Officers °he st;el
astical court, authorised -to 'administer t"-
t' fl
0
would transmit the will to the court in dicer'Loo,o4
the intervention of the•proctors, and those ,iltalro
ministration would be, sent down to tutioge,
making the application. flut it was.urged. seeliTte •
in the country were often desirous of el.'
will of the testator, for the purpos'hey e
the . handwriting, &c., ' and. that Itiog• ti.o'erit
wish to have an • opportunity_ of corislo_ ress, 9
from time to time. Now; to meet both theseiesid.
demands, it was recommended that the ors il ft4l
should be left in the hands of one of tho'neolicethot,
nearest to the -lace of the legatee, or 4,1010.010"
fourteen days after the death of the testator,,reiiry
correct copy of the will itself should elit 011014
with this officer, so that parties might have 7-0004'filt)
tunity of inspecting it. It was further ree°„ thiLts, A
the Report of their Lordships' Coalmit,„te-ijoil°ol,9
should be, a registry *of all wills kept m..„„e6sef 10,0
difficulty arose in the abolition -of the tliv-„rbrets' !t,
for • some of -the Right Reverend BiSh°Prog y' 'f,,aiO.l4'
great force, that they were necess t, •11,1,ie•VI
proper- discipline of the cleriy. To nife 0 ft' lee,pt
vemence lie (Lord Cottenhatnybrought ',,nther PbA
passed through this,
-but was lost in thr,e %ors
..,', 0
Parliament. In 1843 her Majesty's 13-111,111$ elltid lir
in a Bill providing' for the discipline 0f,..,'..',100, Or
was endorsed by Dr. Nicholl, Sir Jaines"AL;i illeap(llo,3
Attorney-General. 'This Bill reconitnellerd
tion of..;the diocesan cmirts.' How veil sTe-00v.40,
consistent: did it seem, then, to see his •LN°b 0 feltbt t
Friend on that night panegyrising,
.tlic'siy f,1°,011
which his colleagues had thougnt „"001e0 'erf,,,
destroy ?—(Hear, hear.) Thetßill recoolliv. the IV' ef
judges of the courts should be appointed hY•00 bithote
He disapproved of any measure in one SeStloco of ,I 0
ment whicli would have a tendency to c°ll 14,0'1°01.4
a former one, upon which the decided cericoored olio
House was strongly declared. It was s,ll,belltholifiro
required to be weighed well and defy "eft, Ilefier,, !
before they pronounced any opinion urll,. jsed .t$ Ott)
that it '.vas fraught with much inisenie" it lv.iiiikflle
he hoped that the Noble Lordbefrwhelli r soLeliooel
duced would consent to its;with awalit()olitidsiel, ,
modify- it as to deprive it of the onafejeette'"ooil;'
features by which it was ' marked.' 111.,; WO:, Colt,
should move that the Bill be read that dikr.e..ooPo •
The Bishop of LONDON.said that as43,l;lotlJ°:rorPci:
Ipissioners who originalle.aighed the Rep eeiv.°,ool'fii
siastical Reform, he felt Called on to say sf ioeell',ool,
orderto defend himself from the charge °off silteroi4of
which might he preferred aggiiAt him inA;00001, t0',1,1
the present ceading of the Bill. Ile ; cli",w6oll, tcte'
his,Noble • add /Learned Friend on the " ....at t'"Bbe d
ie
, ~,er,,,ja il
that the present measure was the rilost•-t,,h caw alef;4'
be' devised, but that it was the best which If° fecper
vised so as to ensure its passing.—He';„'slih,trbe l'f'
of ecclesiastical reform was passed age,`,.-eottor:froui, col
of a large portion of the public, it niigo"„eetea eeviityr
the good which otherwise might he elcrged lilitegt to
There were certain improvements sugg,,eci.eot leienioi;'
men on the subject, with which, if he u,_,al • jo"_freles,,,e ;
agree, •he thought he"ought to submit n'sooteet 00)10
them on them. He thought there were, hed Pl ed 4 IV
tical -courts which ought to be• Sho,oes refer:.,l ~,,
but there were others which,
useful ......(lieloci,3o,
thought might be rendered usei".`",„clio ' OA' 0
thought the Noble and Learned Lord he 9 oft be
10014,0 tO ,
ken last had not fairly stated the cane' Act ',ell li''
the Bill created 34 new . courts. The- 'hich - eV
384 courts, it abolished 350, leaving 34 w 014 -0- A
ra t°' saorea
remodelled and improved. With regl (110°0 P''
to
oeit
them
ah
seuumseth;s a
sabyu
notbth that
there
eohri
ei smwopwer
were
semxhap ei
many
nryi ef
tirn.ec:Teos, _
uu::reotrati i
ipi
Is
eeproi :
_i
:13
ee
I,:it:t:e
ciraf bll' fi,.col Otel tg
their falling into the state from which they.,,,As hot -,i,
rescue them- by the present Bill.
.which justifiOd. the Commissioners in 1,130 'ree beljeeti.
funetions'of.thnse courts might be 1vit.14,. Jler,, coliorY
ment -transferred to the' provincialCont`oeett to ,,,'
this to be veivilth regard to the t= he ire j 05..,,, i
but he did not profess to have masteree.ol' e$ t0e,,,,i,,,,
tion of testamentaty jurisdiction. ge.or, ef tbe,soofti,ol
provide for a more efficient administrati d to
i.,ca
ri.
asticil law, but he was not now prePtrf , belles, Cr°
to abolish diocesan courts, for • in,„ thesteclie
some of the functions now performed 70,,,ifici..te.y,
could • not be so well performed by the P for, end Piltle
Petitions were presented against th !rail_ jergl 01011,
ing the feelings. ora:larger body of tuf... exist,_ r il',lo
feelings stronger than he believed n weete%eistetr)
signed - the report.' The question iv.7,bich e_;., Dr/
courts might- not • reform the abuses Be of the
$17,1,!
them retaining . all that was :valuablere 014 Piojelf
With regard to the judges he was alfabut Intl te'
which existed in this respect, rfertoeool jo
cases there were judges- who Pe $e oicleol
functions with satisfaction to all parties- ,0 pr of 0
.
pared to say that clergymen
• courts of justice. This was one of the P_..citioP-4ict.so
Bill. Even if the entire of the reconitoFl_".l iilto.che,i:e,
Commissioners were right, and not cattle
thin)! „ )i of
ought notroLvigo.io3of.Pip
the Bill now-before the House, he did net:oportiZrts.ll,o
liable to the charge of inconsistency in st 'the 7,0 f Jie
far as it went. Ile was very glad that t par,,,e, "oril,
peculiar and exeints one of the w.e_ sabelisTielity
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were. to- he i be b‘ibeeoo,
supported the measure,' because from gkvied,•sto ,or
and all the consideration he *as ablet like .7', 0 se
ject, it was the measure which Was Ines.' lie gild li,fir,)
Lord BROUGHAM said that' though be. dSioe,soce
port
...the second reading of the 8i11.1.-arthee-leefili
wished it had gone a-.- great deal Id, in ilevii pe
The subject was first brought forw:r_roi4,
which he, when in office, proposed table. t:solo,,r''
which he gave up in 1835. liiil.,o -'