The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-28 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL.

In compliance with a requisition addressed by the Select
Vestry to the Churchwardens, a meeting of the ratepayers of
the parish of Liverpool was held at one o'clock yesterday,
in the Church of St. Nicholas, for the purpose of consider-
ing the propriety of petitioning the legislature against certain
provisions in the bill recently int) oduced into the House of
Commons by Dr. Nicol, for the amendment of ecclesiastical
conrts. There was a moderate attendance of parishioners.
The Rev. JONATHAN BROOKS, Senior Rector, took the
chair.

Mr. M. D. LOWNDES, the vestry clerk, having read the
public notice convening the meeting,
Mr. BIRKETT said, that in accordance with the usual plan,
the churchwardens had summoned this meeting at the request
of the Select Vestry. Neither he nor his colleague were
aware of the exact nature of the bill which the meeting were
called to take into consideration ; but perhaps the Rev.
Chairman would be kind enough to detail to the parishioners
its principal objects. He (Mr. Birkett) believed that some
parts of the bill were very desirable, whilst there were others
which it was very undesirable should become law.
The CHAIRMAN commenced by stating that he believed
the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill, now before the House of
Commons, had arisen out of the report of some com-
missioners who had been appointed, in the year 1829, to
enquire into the state of the ecclesiastical courts of the
country, which it was believed required revision. They made
their report in the year 1832; and in it they recommended
there should be one court only (he believed there were now
nearly 400, including a number of small peculiars, which had
been found inconvenient,) in each diocese, and that every
other court necessary to be retained should be subject to
that. These courts were principally for the probate of wills :
there were, at present other duties annexed to them, not of a
very pleasant nature, which he believed the courts themselves
would be exceedingly glad to get quit of—he meant their
powers with regard to brawling, standing in white sheets,
•••.a so It would bo very clooirable, he believed, to get
id of that part of the business, for it was a species of busi-
ness which did not seem to tend to any good, but, on the
contrary, was often productive of considerable unpleasant-
ness arid evil. There could be no objection, therefore, to
these parts of the bill. There were other portions of it in
the same position, such as allowing one probate. in cases
where the property left was in different dioceses, to be suffi-
cient. It had, certainly, been considered a hardship upon
persons who proved wills, that if the bulk of the property
left was, for instance, in Liverpool, or in the diocese of
Chester, they took out a probate for that from Chester; but
if the party died possessed of only one railway share, or pro-
perty in the funds, in the province of Canterbury, he was
obliged to take out a second probate from there ; and as this
second probate was attended with a much heavier expense than
the Chester probate, it seemed to be a very great hardship.
The bill had been brought in by Sir John Nicol, who was
at the head of the Arches Court; but instead of carrying
out only the recommendations of the commissioners, it went
a great deal further, for it proposed measures which seemed
to the Select Vestry, and indeed to every one else, exceed-
ingly injurious and oppressive to the great mass of the
people, whether looking at the additional expense it entailed
on them, or the additional inconvenience it incurred. It
would do away with the diocesan courts altogether, and place
every thing under the superintendence of a central court in
London ; so that all wills of above £3OO would have to be
prtived there, and the wills themselves deposited there. At
present, by the wills being deposited in the court of the dio-
cese in which the person died, and where the property was,
they were accessible to every body who wanted to enquire
into them at a very trifling expense. Any person might now
go from here to Chester and for one shilling examine any
will he pleased ; but if all wills were deposited in London,
and people wished to know how any property was left, of
course a variety of expenses would be entailed upon them in
the shape of agent's charges, and the costs of search, so that
the inconvenience as well as the expense would, no doubt,
be very great. With regard to expenses, the bill provided
that the present fees of Doctors' Commons should remain
until they should be altered by the judge of the: court with
the approbation of the Privy Council. 1t was not very likely
that the judge of the court would ever make much alteration ;
but when he read to them some of the comparative expense
of proving a will in the diocese of Chester and in the diocese
of Canterbury, they would see how it bore upon the present
question. The reverend gentleman then gave a number of
examples of the charges on a will, when one part of the pro-
perty was in Chester and the other in Canterbury, from which
it appeared that in one case £35,000 were left in Chester,
the court charges on which were £l9. Os. 5d., and £16,000
in Canterbury, the charges on which were £34. 6s. 4d., an
enormous difference. In another case £lOOO was left in Ches-
ter, on which £7. 2s. was charged, and £6OO in Canterbury, on
which the charges were £lB 14s. The stamps in bo t h
oces were, of course, the same, so that the great difference
which was here shown arose from the office business. Several
yther cases were mentioned, from which the reverend gentle.
man contended that it was evident these charges bore no re-
lative proportion to each other: It was a hardship, there-
fore, particularly in these times, when the professed princi-
ple of legislation was to bring justice home to every man's
door, and when travelling courts were to be established for
that purpose. in order that they should be put to the least
inconvenience possible in obtaining their rights, that a great
central court should be established in London, and that Lon-
don should absorb all the business of the country, much to
the inconvenience and additional expense of the parties con-
cerned. Then it was said that there was no proper place in
which to keep wills; but, he would ask, was it not as easy to
make proper places in the country as in London. And in the
case of fire, if the whole mass of wills in the country were in
London, was it not likely that more demage would be done
in the event of fire than if they were deposited in the several
dioceses. The reason of the thing was against this part
of the bill. Under these circumstances, therefore, for this
bill to pass through parliament, without the public taking
any notice of it, and knowing the great interests concerned,
it appeared to the Select Vestry that they would not be
doing their duty to the public if they did not afford to them
an opportunity of protesting against so serious an inconve-
nience. They had, therefore, with these impressions, called
the parishioners together for the purpose ; and they had pre-
pared the draft of a petition, which petition did not go
against aaything which might be good in the bill, but only
to those parts which were likely to be injurious. At Ches-
ter, in the course of only a few hours, a similar petition had
received a thousand signatures, and the whole body of soli-
citors and proctors bad signed it. It was also worthy of
consideration that a great number of officers of the present
courts would, in the event of the bill now before parliament
becoming law, be thrown either upon their own resources
or upon the public. There was a provision for the com-
pensation of those officers so thrown out, which, of course,
would throw considerable expense upon the public. (Hear,
hear.) An all these accounts the Select Vestry deemed it, their duty to make the parishioners acquainted with what
was going on ; and now it was for them to determine whe-
ther the bill was of that nature to require a petition from
them in opposition to it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. W. HOUGHTON proposed, and Mr. MUNCASTER
seconded, a resolution to the effect that it was expedient to
petition the legislature against the bill now before the House
of Commons.
Mr. BIGHAM put some questions as to the expense of the
meeting, and the fund from which it would be paid.
The CHAIRMAN replied, that the expense would be very
moderate, and that, being for a church purpose, they would
be defrayed from the church-rates.
Mr. BIGHAM considered it an illegal expenditure.
After a short discussion of no interest, the motion was
carried unanimously.

Mr. M. D. LOWNDES then read the draft of a petition
against the objectionable parts of the bill; and on the
motion of Mr. BIRKETT, seconded by Mr. R. W.
HOUGHTON, the petition was adopted, to be signed by the
chairman on behalf of the meeting, and forwarded to the
members for the borough for presentation to the Commons,
and to the Bishop of Chester for presentation to the Lords.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to a remark from Mr. BIRKETT,
mentioned that the Bishop of Chester had strong objections
to the parts of the bill, and he would oppose it.
Mr. BIGHAM inquired what was the object of government
in passing this bill ?
The CHAIRMAN believed that it was a job of Doctor's

Commons who were very fond of getting everything into
their own !hands. The country was put to more expense
in supplying the present courts, for it was supported by the
executors of the different rules, there could be no doubt,
to be mntual sufferers by any cbouge, seeing that the charges
at Doctors Commons were enormous. The Surrogates
had had nlany complaints made to them of this, and tht
had been a,ked—" how jA

It the expense is so ottioh
renter at Doctors Commons, than in the Court at Chester:
The only answer was " because the charges in Doctors Com-
mons for doing the wort are so touch heavier."
The Rev. R. DAVIES mentioned what a.short time ago he
had a will put into his hands for proof, both in Chester
and Canterbury. The amount in both courts was the same,
the stamp duty, consequently was the saine ; but the charges
iu Chester was only £1 18s Bd., whilst that of Canterbury
was £0 13s 4d.

The CHAIRMAN begged to state further, that under the
will of the late Mr. Hesketh Fleetwood, £9,000 was proved
in Ghester, and £ll,OOO in London ; in Chester the charge
was €9 only, whilst in London it was £35.

The Rev. R. DAVIES.—It is virtually a tax upon the
country, without a single penny going into the Exchequer.
Tke Rev. R. L. TOWN SEN D said that two cases had come
before him within the last few weeks. In one instance, a
will was proved in Chester for £lBOO, the expenses on which
was £3 : the other was a small will of £25 in Canter-
bury, the expenses on which were between £7 and £B.
The CHAIRMAN explained that there was no clause what-
ever in the bill now before the house for removing the sur-
rogates, consequently they could not be speaking from in-
terested motives. In saying this he used the authority of
Dr. Haggard, who, in writing to Mr. Hesketh, a surrogate
in Liverpool, said; that as far they were concerned they
would have only a change of masters. The inconvenience
therefore was altogether upon the public.

After a few more explanations the resolutions was passed,
and the Rector having been thanked for his conduct in the
chair, the meeting separated.

THE STEEPLE CHASE

LAST NIGHT

This event, which is termed " The Grand National Stee-
ple Chase," comes off to-morrow at Aintree. It is fully
expected to be a well-attended affair, not only from the num-
ber of the horses entered, but also for the eclat that has
attended all previous meetings of a similar character. The
ground selected to be run over is similar to that chosen on
former years, the same " difficulties" having to be encoun-
tered and the same impediments to be surmounted. The
ditch in front of the grand stand, over which all the horses
contrived to get last year without accident, has been widened
a foot, being now thirteen feet. The depth is as before, four
feet. A four feet wall has been erected at the distance chair
in place of hurdles, which will have to be cleared in the first
round previous to taking the ditch. It is expected that
twenty horses will start. There has not been mach betting.
Peter Simple, the favourite—betting 3to 1. The Hooton
Park Steeple Chase, which will come off on Friday, may be
expected to be a clashing affair. The start will take place at
Storeton. The entries will close to-morrow.