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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 21.
The 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 praying to be heard
by Counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House against
that Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that ho 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, and 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 dowers 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.
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. lie
• hoped, however, that care would be taken to
F given longer time, and to act more regularly in future
dealings with the National Debt.

.igs with the riationaL
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Lord NORMANBY had a petition to present for a
iady 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 I,OOOL had been paid into Court for
the use of the charity, although the rents re-
ceived amounted to 24,0001. —23,000/, having
been squandered. In the case which he (Lord
Normanby) brought under their Lordship? 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 71. 10s.,
but here, where the bequest was 1,0001. a year, to he 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 NORMANBY 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
Crown, 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 Bishop of BANGOR presented a petition against
the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
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 fur 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 Lordship?
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 Houma. 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 proceedings took place upon it. What was the
reason of that he could not explain. In the following
3-ear, his Noble Friend who preceded him in the
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 tome difficulties his Noble
and Learned Friend had anticipated in another place.
Thus the matter rested. and his Noble and Learned
Friend, up to 1840, never resumed that measure. Hav-
ing inade 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 firma to a Committee, but the session bad then
arrived at that period when it was considered
impossible to carry it through, and the measure was net
further proceeded with. tinder 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 great 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
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

—............-----
two courts would be beneficial to the public ? I injurious to real property. There was hardly an es,_ts!tse
As separate courts they had two sets of ministerial offi- ; but what was affected by settlements ; many Of tee,
cers, and by the proposed measure one of those sets I were for terms of years, and, in order to make °ems,
would be dispensed with, which would be a great title to an estate, it was necessary that all these our
relief to the public. He proposed. to do the same should be got in. The conveyancer, in making t
thing with regard to the courts of the Arch- 1 title might find that one of those persons had died in. ll's
deacon of York. He next came to consider 1 peculiar jurisdiction, and it would be necesssary to tait:
the diocesan courts. In every diocese there was a court I out administration ; but he could not venture to ta,,tt
in which probate of wills could be granted, and which 1 out administration in the peculiar, or in the dioces',o
possessed contentious jurisdiction in all ecclesi- court, because, if it could be proved that the Pers,`,/,,,
astical matters. Those courts were coeval with the had died worth 5/. in any other urisdiction,,„nt
Constitution. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had administration would be void, and the, title bad. 1-"tt
recommendedthe abolition of those courts. It was one strong argument for the abolition of the dice led
was said that they imperfectly performed the courts. The report of this Commission recom rt,
duties that devolved on them, and that they were pre- the abolition of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical e°.'l
a
sided over by incompetent persons. He, however, pro- in matters which they specified—in matters of leteficr,
wncrs.
posed to continue those courts. He saw no reason for and burials in church-yards, in matters of defain
0
abolishing these ancient courts on account of the insult, adultery, and church-rates. But his Noble
existence of abuses which could be remedied; and by the Learned Friend proposed to extend the power of the!e
Bill he proposed to provide that these courts shcaild be courts in matters of legacy. NOw, why should they Ql,?'
presided over by competent and efficient persons, either so? Was there any complaint of the courts of
W_
by advocates, or by persons who had been used to the The ecclesiastical courts could not exercise the
j furA
practice of other courts of justice; and having diction conferred on them in legacies, unless they
thus remedied the abuses complained of, he full control over the estate of the testator. Sitel„
could not consent to abolish these ancient local courts. power would be perfectly inconsistent with the con
°l,
He now came to a class of courts of another description of the ecclesiastical courts. It should be ree`le
tion—he meant the Courts of Peculiars. There were lected that the judges of the ecclesiastical courts 'o.'4
three or four hundred of these courts scattered about appointed by individuals, and not by the authority ,Y'„
the country, some of them possessing such li- the Crown or of Parhament—judges appointed pts
mited jurisdiction, that it was impossible to secure the individuals in a court where the greatest interriie
services of an efficient Judge, or of efficient ministerial might be at stake !—(Hear, hear.) The Ini do,
officers. He proposed to abolish them altogether. In ought, in such cases, to have protection in ,hos
many instances they possessed the power of granting appointment of judges. They ought at least to gain' ns
probates, and owing to the ignorance of those who pre- guarantee which the responsibility of Government cort,
sided over them, injustice to an incalculable extent fers. It was provided that, in case the diocesan 01,1.5 a
might be done. 'He therefore proposed to abolish them. were to be continued, barristers of a certain stanol'r7,
The system would then present this appearance :—ln were to be appointed to preside over them. That ee're
ever diocese there would be a tribtmal for the granting tainly was an improvement. Then these judges
pod
of probates, and possessing contentious jurisdiction, to hold office during good behaviour ; but if this gut to
and in York and Canterbury there would be ap- behaviour did not exist, and if it was found expedie„nths
pellate tribunals ; and if these courts were pre- remove one of these judges for misconduct, still; ,to
sided over by able judges he could not see Noble and Learned Lord proposed that they were oniitbo
how any superior system could be established. be removed in the same manner as the Judges nsso,
He knew that in what ho was proposing he was acting superior courts. How was that 1 By an address lio
adversely to the opinions of the Commissioners, and to both Houses of Parliament to the Crown. But those 11,."r
"n, f
the authority of the Committee of the House of Corn • were appointed by individuals—by the Right Rev. 13isd
mom, and therefore he spoke with hesitation ; but it then hew absurd was it to propose that both House_s,, ,
was his opinion that even if it were in their power to Parliament should address the Sovereign to reuso,"eor
abolish the diocesan courts, it would not be expedient functionary appointed by an irresponsible individurotL4
to do so. He knew that some Noble Friends of his he presumed the Noble and Learned Lord' could of
would support him in the view which he took of this mean that the Houses of Parliament should address Lfo,
subject. He knew that his Noble and Learned Friend Bishop.—( Hear, hear.) If the Crown were to retn°;„
at the table was one ; and no man was more con- judges, the Crown should appoint them. These matt
stant, stant, firm, and unwearied than that Noble and Learned had been made subjects of inquiry by the Comps arty,
Lord, in an opinion which he had deliberately 1832, and also by the Commission of real proPe,,,,,
expressed. When Sir F. Pollock, in the House of which consisted of individuals connected with the 10,
Commons, brought in a Bill to abolish ecele- and who were eminently qualified to discharge iitsrio4
siastical courts, he was opposed by his Noble ties. His Noble and Learned Friend near him
k .04
and Learned Friend with great elequence and Campbell), was at the head of it, and it comer iiii
learning. His Noble and Learned Friend said that many eminent first-rate conveyancers. They be
centralisation might be carried too far—that those courts agreed in recommending that there should .005,
were of great advantage to persons in the provinces, only one court for probates and administrati
o,
and that it would be most unwise and inconvenient to A Select Committee of the House of Commons svas,6r,t
bring them to London. lie repeated that he knew the pointed in 1833 to inquire into the Admiralty Couriyeej,
decision of his Noble and Learned Friend, and that he the head of which was Sir James Graham, Sir 11' gr.
should have his support. He could refer to another Sir Frederick Pollock, Dr. Nicholl, Dr. Lushingtell: p.•
authority, that of the late Lord Stowell, than Abercrombie, and the present Chancellor of th i.her
,iii
rts,
whom there could be no greater authority. chequer were Members of it. The Committee nat tie
on ecclesiastical law. He (the Lord Chancellor) was extended its inquiries into the jurisdiction a ''re.
in the House of Commons when that great lawyer courts, and after a very patient investigation theYt,a
brought in a Bill for the reform of those courts commended the abolition of all the diocesan cow ,tp
on the same principles on which the Bill was the appointment of probate and administration °oats
founded, that was to abolish the peculiar courts, They recommended the abolition of those minor Ca the,
and to maintain the diocesan courts. There in which strictly legal matters were dealt with, an bola
was something whimsical in the conduct of those who recommended that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction shoals
ti that
called for the abolition of ecclesiastical courts, and at the be concentrated in the Court of Canterbury, an 110
same time cried for local courts to bring justice home to the judge of this court should be appointed 11); istil
every man's door. Here were local courts established, Crown.. In 1836 a Select Committee of that 11°500)
and he thought that instead of trying new systems which appointed, and in the same year he (Lord Cottessusea'
generally disappointed the expectations of their authors, brought in a Bill for carrying into effect the recoaisciest
they should endeavour to apply remedies to the sys- datious of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The; ;oaten
terns which existed, which could be done with Committee was appointed, he believed, at the illeisse),
less expense, less trouble, and less risk of fail- of his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord Cha_rotioa•
ure. As to the jurisdiction of those courts, he had and the Bill was referred to them for consmebosell,
already stated that it was not open to his own mind to This Committee consisted of the present Lord,9l yarn
determine which was the best system, but he was satis- for, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Lang rd
fled that the one recommended in the Bill was the only Denman, Lord Abinger, Lord Brougham. J-Vr ;shop e
practical one, and they ought not like froward children ket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the P 10, •.t"
to reject the offered boon, because they could not London, the Earl of Devon, the Bishops of Lirl"trfirte6
get all that they desired. The Bill proposed to Asaph, and Bangor. The Committee, after a Pret, fill
place the donative livings, over which at present the and pains-taking investigation, made a RePri stil
Bishop had no jurisdiction, under the same ecclesiastical which he would read some extracts. In cases e 5101
authority as the presentive. The ecclesiastical courts property, it was said to be an advantage that ther bs eat
had now some Jurisdiction in respect to tithes. be local courts, so that parties in the country Mige, After
This, at the recommendation of the Ecclesi- be put to trouble and expense. The Corninitte.o.teet,
astical Commissioners, it was intended to take referring to the Reports of the Committees ab°`,tirev
from them; which was of the less importance, as the tioned, came to this conclusion—that they were eie, fs'
'Tithe Commutation duties had greatly diminished their of opinion that all courts in England and '„f 41
business in regard to tithes. He had now stated all ercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over probates that one
that was necessary in this stage of the proceeding. The and administration should be abolished, and toot 11'r
main question for their Lordships' consideration would, court sitting in London should be the only, coact
of course, relite to the diocesan courts. The extent of probates of wills and granting letters of adralnlbe per,:
the existing evil in regard to probates, might be gathered They were of opinion, however (and it would owell's
from the fact, that there were no less than 350 courts of fectly consistent with the plan), that arranFa, st '
peculiars—no less than 350 tribunals to which a great should be made so as to secure to parties residl; theft
and serious difficulty applied. These would be swept distance from the metropolis all the convenie!geport:,
away and confined to 26 courts, each of which would now enjoyed from the diocesan courts. The ichs oft",
have jurisdiction over certainly a large extent. Nice the Ecclesiastical Commission stated that four-flit ~,,ocial
questions of law, it had been hinted, would be intro- contentious business was transacted in Doctors' Ce`-teriao;
duced into the discussions on this question. He did not as well as a much greater portion of what waso ,10erA
know where those questions were to come from, as, for the common form business—that signified svberstiv",
his own part, he believed they had all been pretty well sonal affidavit was made, the probate was, sSis 0";
settled by a variety of decisions. He (the Lord Chan- without any further formality or expense, an host ~‘ 0 tll,
cellor) admitted that the only mode of getting rid en- what occurred in 99 cases out of 100. Throuac'oelen•
tirely of certain inconveniences connected with the dio- country there would be surrogates, officers of the eh, all
cesan courts was a holly to get rid of them. The ques- astical court, authorised to administer the Ostbro4,
tien was, whether such a sacrifice was not paying too would transmit the will to the court in London, tof silo/
high for the benefit. However, let that be as it might, the intervention of the proctors, and those letter:oP
it occurred to him, that means, by the agency ministration would be sent down to the in erelle
of this Bill, might be obtained to lessen the evils which making the application. But it was urged thstfog Is,
now existed. He was sure the measure be now submit- in the country were often desirous of see seeir
ted to their Lordships was a most important one, that it will of the testator, for the purpose e seoll i 5
ii
would tend greatly to the advantage of the country, and the handwriting, &c., and that theY the tis
become an; excellent instrument in judicious and able wish to have an opportunity of consulting
_4,eava
hands for the faithful administration of the ecclesiastical from time to time. Now, to meet both these re:s'i ev
; ins teo
law of this country. demands, it was recommended that the ongursogsof
Lord ;COTTENHAM said he had certainly enter- should be left in the hands of one of those %foe 1 .
tamed some curiosity to know upon what grounds the nearest to the place of the legatee, or aPP"nd Po
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack proposed to fourteen days after the death of the testator, and
rest r.
give his assent to a Bill, the principal portion of which correct copy of the wills itself should
see OP5iO
W ent to secure the maintenance of all the diocesan courts. with this officer, so that prties might have a
_d
ei.
When the Noble and Learned Lord, however, stated it tunity of inspecting it. It was further reeom,T,t th jt
was impossible to carry any other Bill he was still more the Report of their Lordships' Committee, 'looo.,ta
surprised, for they all knew that the present Government should be a registry of all wills kept in Li°,,centli
was a very powerful one. He (Lord Cottenham) was difficulty arose in the abolition of the dieeerspad, °tile
at a loss to find out where the difficulty in carrying the for some of the Right Reverend Bishop o surged,
on'
measure would be ;it certainly would not be for want great force, that they were necessarY this
phial
of Parliamentary power, either in that or in the other proper discipline of the clergy. To meet Bill sr 01
House. There might be inconveniences which he vet-Hence he (Lord Cottenharn) brought in Lai, 0005'3;0
(Lord Cottenham) would not further inquire into, Rassed through this, but was lost in the oti'e 5 brOti It
which might induce the Government not to press Parliament. In 1843 her Majesty's iNliniksterderggitbe
the Bill for the abolition of the diocesan courts. Those in a Bill providing for the discipline of tae 01, tiesixili'
courts, it should be remembered, had been condemned was endorsed by Dr. Nicholl, Sir James Greg ad io,
for the last twelve years—condemned by the Ecclesias- Attorney-General. This Bill recommended
edge anted
tion of the diocesan courts.
toll veg' etrantad DO 0;5
tical Commissioners—by the Real Property Commis-
sioners—by the Select Committee of the House of Com. consistent did it seem, then, ee his oble aye e' t°
mons, and by the Select Committee of their Lordships' iriend on that night panegyrising those ' rightttbe
House. All these authorities had unanimously advised which his colleagues had thought itded to 's'
the abolition of the diocesan courts. The Noble and destroy ?—( Hear, hear.) That Bill recorninen,be CPYrils'
Learned Lord had himself been of that opinion last judges of the courts should be appointed by. the -of Parf
et
ei
session, as he (Lord Cottenham) would prove. What He disapproved of any measure in one sessi°dist tlif tbe
went which would have a tendency to coutri!_tio, ohicli
had changed his opinion it was not for him to divine.
The subject of the ecclesiastical courts was one of the a former one, upon which the decided convolcuse i°4oo
highest importance to the country. Their Lordships House was strongly declared. It was a Me.serste°l oils
were aware that the ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction required to be weighed well and duly de"' se tht°,tare
over matters of the utmost importance to the people of before they pronounced any opinion upon it'iia thelitr°,i
this country. They had to , decide questions between that it .vas fraught with much mischief, a.'t 011,0
he hoped that the Noble Lord by wh°ll3 or so aiteiesb,l:
husband and wife—they had to decide on the validity of
marriages—they had to decide whether wills should be duced would consent to its withdrawal, s2-object.i°oo `•
admitted to probate, and whether they were valid modify it as to deprive it of the tisanY,o,elo9ol_,'
features by which it was marked. In '''siss 10° Coy.
or not. The whole of these important matters came
under their especial jurisdiction. Now in what should move that the Bill be read that day "oftbeef;
way were these important questions to be The Bishop of LONDON said that as Oleo for ,55,1,,
decided? Why by, as his Noble and Learned Friend missioners who originally signed the lierfosio9,'issge
had truly stated, no less than three hundred and forty siastical Reform, he felt called on to say ae;„oo6,,o'rtis
different courts. His Noble Friend had stated good order to defend himself from the charge ~,. sagpriats°_s
reasons why these minor courts should exist no longer. which might be preferred against him in
dot on` to via
But he had not kept in mind that his panegyric ap- the present reading of the Bill. He dinss,rl-sisse.voa.
plied to these peculiar courts as well as to the diocesan his Noble and Learned Friend on the r''°- bate 3e'
rfect a b, re
courts. Now, he (Lord Cottenham) would show that that the present measure was the most pet: ,001 ees,a,,
the same reasons which his Noble and Learned be devised, but that it was the best whim' -Ifs 13f.iceliii!.
Friend bad given for putting an end to the peculiar vised so as to ensure its passing.—(Delr',/y ill° ~bslt°t:
jurisdiction, applied equally to the diocesan courts. of ecclesiastical reform was passed age"soenteirsts elt
These courts had jurisdiction, not only on matrimonial of a large portion of the public, it mign'...„,-tad oitihees
questions, but on all testamentary questions. They had the good which otherwise might be e%rost lsiiteoget,vis
to decide upon the validity of a will affecting land, and There were certain improvements sugg,„ dotso,,e` es, a
also affecting money, on which tke law, as it now men on the subject, with which, if he &Ss juesesoer,
stood, was most absurd, because, as far as the will agree, he thought he ought to submit 131,001 e tgetbt,s
affected money, it was subject of probate, but, as far them on them. He thought there werte La sit es!, 00
as it related to land, the ecclesiastical court had no tical courts which ought to be aborsmr`ofera.',..)
„0,
jurisdiction, and there was no means of establishing but there were others which, if,......(149 op
that will with respect to freehold property, unless it thought might be rendered usefllS .00 0,0 t, of
contained a trust, and, if it did so, then the Court of thought the Noble and Learned Lor uen be ths" se
Chancery interfered. Well, then a question of law ken last had not fairly stated the case, Is'f."„ot also° t°o,
arose, what was the ultimate tribunal to decide any ques- the Bill created 34 new courts. The Which 1 reedt,
tion that was involved in that will ? Why, that House 384 courts, it abolished 350, leaving 34 ci to lb`o co" 01
was the tribunal ; but if any question arose with remodelled and improved. With rangy diocOttli rego
he must say that his own experience °ably en o,otato
respect to personalty, then the Privy Council was the
was such as not to impress him faveu„r, to aceopesiessee
court of the last resort ; and these proceedings, their
Lordships must remember, related to one and the same to them ; but there were many sea.
they Pr esi‘ilie
paper. This subject bad often been matter of observa- their falling into the state from which sass the tors
tri,
rescue them by the present Bill. ' reportinfieli c1,,,d
vation, and must soon, he would venture to predict, be
matter of legislation. He was therefore opposed to that which justified the Commissioners in.t'hout °de be)l-,rof
part of the Bill which proposed the establishment of courts' `'ry c°oe°'
functions of those courts might be without
several new courts, or the remodelling of those old este, rnent transferred to the provincial
e_,,etttoie 4, t°
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 this to be true with regard to the t
_s,rtie if"oloo,e0
but he did not profess to have raaste.trs ws, tie cesi ti
ation °I. the
0° (irtPc
was good, inasmuch as it went to abolish peculiars, but P
he objected to the continuance of these diocesan tion of testamentary jurisdiction. Ile
provide for a more efficient administr
___d to 5
~ed
~ro
by the Commission which made its Report in
courts. The matter had been fully investigated to abolish diocesan courts, for ,eb, tho7ll6oooe
astical law, but he was not now prePr be lte.„ v 74
1832. When they considered the hi some of the functions now performen Tlovinceers.4a!'
could not be so well performed by the_Frofer,l7oa lelie
investigation of the subject, the vast body of evidence
had been devoted by those Commissioners to the Petitions were presented against th,e,htrel'oieegYt oasetayse
which had been collected, and the authority of the Com-
missioners, he thought their Lordships would be inclined i
1 feelings stronger than he believ ow__ he
eAtee,r,,
ing the feelings of a larger body (I,i
to eeistbes 3 I
signed the report. The question afbieb
_,fr: V 444
to pay great attention to their
recommendations. The ,courts 'ht t reform the abuses '...,(1-10-1 sbild
mig ne
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 Bish which existed in this
respect, 00 ili j 0
erf° Vi le
them, retaining all that was valua_tlaer•o of
it li` 1:0;elf
who P Ile sa Sie
of Bangor, Lord. Tenterden, Lord Wynford, the present roes- pe 1' e
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Sir John : functions with satisfaction to
cases there were judges
all Pa sto ss 0, ill
Nicholl, Sir Christopher Robinson, Sir Herbert Jenner,of the Pe`i :sorisfiest#4
and Dr. Lushington. Their Lordships would see that i courts of justice. This was
the
recoone, !iota e. e ~0
; pared to say that clergenenoeuiht 11°`• sei i'd" 01 ;0
the Commissioners consisted of the highest ecclesiasticaland not carried ! Pii ,t
and legal authorities in the realm, and that their recom- Commissioners were right, . did not thinkortig 0 e
Bill. Even if the entire of
the Bill now before the House, he ,upp colic, ttl
mendetions were, therefore, entitled to the greatest at- the •
tention. Now, all these authorities were agreed in re- very glad that thepostSect,
tx,
commending the abolition of the diocesan courts. The 1 far as it went. He 1 liable to the charge of inconsistency n 1 ' Lit lie
Report proposed to maintain the Prerogative Court of , were to De - ha 00
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, , all be the -s
York, but it stated that it had been recommended to , peen i and exempt"s7oneof the tv,nrs„tbolisba se e
supported the mea . , sure because from giro 0 ss.
~
abolish the court. The Commissioners merely threw i he was able to el,. t joie
and all the consideration
was most
li
.lbeel.isosi
out the suggestion, but offered no opinion on the .
that though he Pooeldijese;
subject. Now, with regard to the diocesan courts ieet, it was the measure which
arid to the peculiars. If a man died possessed of i Lord BROUGHAM said
~coopj
property in the jurisdiction of any one of these courts, port the second reading of the furtl!ei , Oct, vi
probate might be taken out in that court : but, if the wished it had gone a great deal..„ara ineazOr
deceased had property, to the value of 51. in any other . The subject was first brought r1r"..,, you% V'
jurisdiction, the probate was void--prob.acs could nut be which he, \Own in office, prop_osev'ovble ors'
sued out in either of these courts. Now, this was most i which ha gave up in 1835. lii

friend -----
t, be near him (Lord Cottenham) seemed to him not
I,,ate. aware—at least, he did not argue as if he were
tlt.ase; of the difficulties which were in the way of this
e• There was no other measure which gave him
trouble and labour in preparing and digesting,
ITl''asure he introduced on the subject. If there
-ne deputation, there were 200 or 300 ; if there was
he itnierial and remonstrance, there were 800 against
*jai '44trY Act. The Reform Bill itself had not met
theirs° much opposition out of doors—he did not say in
oilenere...ordsh. ips' House, but out of doors. The same in-
ter which were at work against the Registry Act
l'h now at work in opposition to the present measure.
tolicentire influence of the lauded gentry, with their
I,,,,iitcirs and proctors, was at work to support their
f;rti.e°nrts, and to prevent an efficient measure of re
tlimehi Re therefore believed that almost insuperable
lure` "'res were opposed to the carrying out of the mea-
liaitriot in this douse, but in the other House of Par-
itttint ; and it was the business of this house not to
tit anY measure to the other House which there was
4a reasonable prospect of carrying.—(Hear, hear.)
ij bO.tight, therefore, to take all they could get- But by
jild.'lll they were going to create thirty diocesan
NI", who would have considerable salaries. The con-
ence was, that they were throwing obstructions in
Ifet I%'ay of further reform, if it was deemed necessary.
btherefore thought that they should accept their
7: °,ll the understanding that their removal was not
the.way of any future reform.
tor • e LORD CHANCELLOR said that was provided
114)n the Bill.
4th rd BROUGHAM—Then his objection was alto-
the removed. •His principal reason for supporting
Le was, that it did away with the courts of pecu-
Kiiehrilld. exempts—one of the greatest improvements
ackm.lould be made. He thought that they were a
Fritles4i4l, in the ecclesiastical system. For this reason
ring vallY, but reserving to himself the option of pro-
such amendments in Committee as he might be
hilf.sed, he should vote for the second reading of the

La
or
lion s• CAMPBELL said the House had had no intima-
nist:f the reasons which induced her Majesty's Mi-
a% sios to abandon the Bill which was introduced last
LI. His Noble and Learned friend who spoke last
lia4"red an ingenious apology for the present Bill, but
th-°,t stated thatb he was present at the deliberations
'4 the Cabinet, or that he had been chosen as the organ
4% 5 'iovernment to communicate information to the
toe' Now their Lordships were entirely in the dark
the Motives which caused the abandonment of the
„,,,:,fiast session. Yet there were five members of the
lA, "'meta present, and amongst them a Noble Duke,
ta, *as able to explain the advantages and 1
disadvan-
-111. any measure ; and there was the President of
the °tined, himself a judge, and also the President of
ttss.kard of r,
who, as a magistrate at quarter
14,145, must be well acquainted with the working of
l'r,Zeourts. Yet they were all silent. The Right Rev.
hat„te (the Bishop of London) gave no explanation
44),er, but confirmed the objections of his Noble and
varieci Friend I.ord Cottenham). saying that he would
er the Bill of last session. The Right Rev. Prelate
tano,Jnlcarred in the Report of the Commissioners, who
,liinse'nended the abolition of the litigious jurisdiction of
4(,4, euurts. In 1836 a Bill to that effect did pass the
Ent ;be of Commons, and it was rejected in this House ;
kkee Noble and Learned Lard who moved the second
lup,"g Professed to anticipate his (Lord Campbell's)
4r.t. However, he should be guilty of the grossest
t%is;'stency if he supported it, because it re-
iiiart all the litigious jurisdiction in respect to
keriages and wills. It continued the necessity of two
%negative courts for each diocese—one in the provinces
I',l"usi°,ll:l° in London. The Bill of Sir Frederick Pollock
"t tgecl for the appointment of officers in the country
tkae regulation of wills, but it would have taken
kse);_ the jurisdiction in personal and testamentary
kith(He (Lord Campbell) (lid not wish to interfere
qosy""e authority of the Church in matters of ortho-
t'r discipline, but what had the Church to do with
kiit„and marriages ? All questims relating to mar-
4,nt" ',.e-solved themselves into the construction of an
,`Asii,°l Parliament to b© determined by the Queen's
,itsrf°ss, and the ecclesiastical courts had no right to
k%s,:ere With them. With respect to wills, the Right
thnt4tetid Prelate (the Bishop of London) said,
doge much regretted the Church had anything
that them ; and he wished, as soon as possible,
ttiti„,;t should be relieved from them. The Church
li's4"4',Y claimed to have cognizance of wills, because it
the 'n former times usual for persons to leave money to
Chun qurch to say masses for their souls ; but now the
kiant:h had as much to do with wills as with policies of
tll@ -'liee• His opinion was, that there ought to be only
l
Nirt to control these matters for England and
kcal"' and that should sit in London. He was for
eoaditio but, in the constitution of local courts, two
ns were necessary ; first, that there should be
4ktls,,-83 ; and, secondly, that there should be competent
ktir'`„s• In the diocesan courts there was neither one
krai `7l other. None of them had more than the frac-
tots,,,cYl case in the year ; and how could the judges be
!lo C'nt, when they were chosen from persons who had
&is till°wledge of the civil law ? He could say from
Wh•
ich experience that there never was a statement.
in
got e,- the greatest blunders had not been committed,
4°ePtin..- the metropolitan courts. Two Eccle-
'trie . .
°A a, Commissions, and a Commission of that House
tots;s', estates, had condemned these courts. He was
` at his Noble and Learned Friend on the Wool-
vos, • gad not more fully explained the motives of the
tetti'ltnent in abandoning their own measure of last
lissit'; In 1835, when his Noble Friend held a different
kith.°4 in that House, he enlightened their Lordships
for an elaborate review of the business of the session,
of ttkhe purpose of showing that the Government
thegat day had not carried the measures which
beyt had introduced. Amongst other things
faits them with not having brought in a measure
,kIV-rd on the report respecting ecclesiastical courts
• wNow,as prepared by Dr. LushingtonNow,in 1842,
11. aajesty's Ministers were instructed to inform the
to s-• e,,e that a measure would be laid before Parliament
tha 'se the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. :But
th" Year no Hill was introduced. Why. was it not ?
111, at time there was not the same prejudice against
easure which had since been raised. In 1843, her
lhi-strs Ministers again intimated that a measure upon
ti(,';nject would be introduced. Why was that not
to s - A Bill was introduced in the House of Coihm-
-1) '4 a proper form by the Attorney-General, who
s°sed to abolish the litigious jurisdietion of
Gsah courts. That Bill was supported by Sir James
tkrt ttnt,and no measure could have received warmer sup-
44liq •" that House. But he must say that it was not the
Aeoe°f their Lordships that the Bill did not pass, for it
t'lo4 r
reached them. He would conclude his observa-
'4l4 ,'n the words of his Noble and Learned riend,
meat he said that the measure which they (the Govern-
fs,lr) themselves had devised, prepared, and brought
lissta4d--involving, as they told them, the most Mi-
tts, tit interests of the country—they, without scruple,
htlP, at the wish of a section of a party. He (Lord
thht'inst say there was some mystery hanging about
be
tack
that required explanation, and whichl
tack 01Ded his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woo -
Iskwould clear up.
itibi," Bishop of LONDON denied that he had, as at-
OsZt''d to him by the Noble and Learned Lord
-‘,„1).b°11), said he would oppose the Bill of last year
bet were now introduced. He had said nothing of the

r,t
tit:l%s', CAMPBELL said he must have been under
Argil Misapprehension. He had thought the Right Rev.
e had said so.
r4;,7
LORD CHANCELLOR wished to make a few
i'll.,Cytttions in answer to the Noble and Learned Lord,
tkriPad asked what reason the Government had for de-
-11,11, from their original plan. His Noble and Learned,
‘raet-,,'Lhad supposed that he (the Lord Chancellor) as
kl• sqx oer of the Government had not concurred in the
'4 el? of introducing the Bill of last year into the Housein
t„hat?lroons. His Noble and Learned Friend was
Cl, respect quite mistaken. Nothing that he (the Lord.
qtt Feellor) had said that night in the course of the dis-
tfit:r)ll Warranted his Noble and Learned Friend in
t),;11R to that conclusion. He, in common with the rest
the a Cabinet, entirely approved of that measure, and
sere all most desirous of carrying it into effect.
4141ttrrile and Learned Lord now turned round and
they had abandoned that measure, and why,
the ,11.°*, introduced a measure curtailed of some. bf
gillsrtier parts of the measure of last session.
4119 t;:131 and Learned Friends thought there was some
giot3,,lrY about the matter; but if they referred to the
Si", `Y of the Bill in its progress through the other
It)ri Parliament, it would afford them an explana-
i. the matter. After the second reading of the
4141,4,h the house of Commons, it was seen by every
LG
carer in that House that it would be quite impossible
its -41'Y it, in its then form, through to the third read-
d roStich alterations were made in the Committee P°rmas
"der,_ it probable that it might be carried in the
li'll.thtoat it then assumed. The question then was,
I}lol7l' the measure should be wholly abandoned, or
sad be carried in its curtailed state. What reason
i`tY to suppose that the Bill, in its original form,
I'o4l- had been sent to the House of Com-
-4.3 "r again so sent, would not be treated
similar manner as it had been last ses-
,„4!,/vl4,l,The Bill now introduced was in the state
'1 fr'' it Went through Committee last session in the
irufire il,euis;' and
in which it had, he believed, been laid
Lordships' House. He thought it right and
1'1,041Q,t. not to do that which experience had shown
"141 -,`)5 ineffectual, but to bring in a measure which
unready obtained approval. The Bill could be read
th.e,"d time and then, if any Noble Lord thought that
stilraanre of: last year' could be passed into a law, he
Ord °vN an amendment to that effect. But he (the
th —'ant•ellor) would not give his sanction to any
,Niru-rlieridnient. That
pwas his explanation of the
which had been ursued by the Government in
"or'pttar; and in that course every member of the
'llse concurred.
te till was then read a second time, and ordered to
A"c'turaitted on Tuesday next.
1.,!1ati," a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH,
e to the observations made that night by the
t,t3l):°.nd Learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) with
<ll, to the Three •and-a-Half per Cents. Annuities
e
blowsb -°Tnrnons' Amendments to the Gaming Transac-
ks • ,
4eljourne ,
.eS Indemnity Bill were agreed to, ard the
d at Nine oloc.
Thp 110

"USE OF COMMONS, March 21.
ci-;,'',7l'zsit ER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
; EASTP,RN RAILWAY BRANCHES.
nath,ir s'„w
"ARI) KNATCHBULL moved that it be an
011 to the1 Committee of Selection to postpone
4icti he 1,,,L,
l:e"inZ of the Committee on the South Eastern
ih eIY Bill until after Easter. He said that his object
trbitting this motion WAS to ensure the attendance
44 ors who were interested in the Bill.
,a,
44 mo Sirpi\s',....fow words from Mr. GLADSTONE,
AR I) KNATCHBULL consented to with-
tion.
fL NEW WRIT.
im• motion of Sir THOMAS FitilLiNlLli