jurisdictions, showing the important distinction between the Diocesan and the Peculiar and Exempt jurisdictions, the Reforms which are desirable and practicable, and close with some general remarks upon the usefulness of the jurisprudence and profession of the Civilian. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF 1832 AS TO It is very possible that the report of Mr. Bouverie's speech may not do his argument justice, and may sometimes lead me astray in attempting to follow it; but I think I am right in supposing that he expressed himself to the effect that the judicature of Doctors' Commons had been condemned by eminent and competent authority, and was "a reproach and disgrace to our law." The first appeal to evidence made by Mr. Bouverie in support of this proposition, was an appeal to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown to inquire into the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts in 1832. He remarks that the Commission "was composed of the most eminent 66 persons in the Church and in the Law;" and this is quite true. It might be further stated, as a reason for giving weight to its authority, that it was not a one-sided Commission; it was not composed of the members of one branch of the legal profession, it included eminent civilians as well as eminent common lawyers. This Report, like that of the Church Commis sion, was not made at perhaps the most favourable period for sober investigation, inasmuch as it was made in a time of panic and tumult which preceded and accompanied the passing of the Reform Bill. I remember that the Bishop of London replied with much candour and boldness in the House of Lords, to a charge of deviating from one of the recommendations of this Commission, of which he was a member, by his subsequent defence of the Diocesan Courts, that he had become wiser and better informed upon the subject since the Report was made. Nevertheless, I am far from denying that the Report is entitled to great weight-I have far too much respect for the names of the great lawyers who subscribed it. Let us see, however, whether this Commission did recommend the abolition of Doctors' Commons, or the law administered there, "as a reproach and disgrace to our law." I shall be much surprised, as I think you will be, to find that it did so; because you will remember that every Bill upon the subject which has been since laid before Parliament, including both those brought forward by the administration of which you were a member, had for one of its objects at least the consolidation and confirmation of the Courts at Doctors' Commons. And I say that if the House of Commons were led to believe that the abolition of these Courts was recommended by those Commissioners, they were led to believe the exact reverse of the truth. For, on the contrary, in this "learned and able Report," (according to Mr. Bouverie's opinion,) the value of the Profession of Civilians is distinctly acknowledged; the breaking it down by opening any other avenue to it other than that of the Universities, the fusing it in either branch, advocates or proctors with barristers and attorneys, is no where recommended, though it might have been made to appear otherwise from the language of Dr. Lushington, when examined as a witness, cited by Mr. Bouverie. But that gentleman forgot to call the attention of the House to the fact that a different opinion is expressed by the Report to which Dr. Lushington's signature is affixed, and which I will presently quote. It contains no charge of vexatious expenses or delays against the tribunals, but, as I am about to show, commendation of them in these respects. It recommended the transference of certain matters to other tribunals, and the introduction, under certain limitations and restrictions, of trial by jury and vivâ voce examination. It recommended the alteration of the Testamentary Law respecting Personalty, and the assimilating it to the Law of Realty-a recommendation which has subsequently been carried into effect by legislative enactment, and by which every day the intentions of perfectly capable testators are defeated, and wills actually written throughout in their own handwriting are annulled, to the scandal of English law, which (as I have often heard the late Sir W. W. Follett remark) is the only country in the civilised world not acknowledging the validity of a holograph instrument. It recommended these alterations, and the annihilation of inferior jurisdictions; but will it be believed by any hearer or reader of Mr. Bouverie's speech that it not only recommended the firm establishment and perpetual maintenance of those "reproaches and disgraces to the law," the Provincial Courts of York and Canterbury; but Tyndal, Tenterden and Wynford, those oracles of the Common Law cited by Mr. Bouverie, advised-what? that the jurisdiction over wills of personalty should be taken from them and given to the Courts of Westminster Hall? Why nobut that the jurisdiction over devises, over wills of realty, should be taken from the Courts of Common Law and given to the Provincial Courts of York and Canterbury, when they had undergone the amendments suggested in the Report. 66 But this is not all-this Commission, which is represented as having pronounced our sentence of condemnation, actually contains the following passage:"With respect to the admission of "Proctors, we see no reason to disturb the present practice. With the alteration suggested as to "Advocates (the admission of Bachelors of Civil "Law to practise under certain restrictions had "been suggested), the present mode of admitting "Advocates and Proctors appears to be well calcu"lated to ensure the acquisition of such knowledge as 66 may enable them to conduct those causes which are "the subjects of Ecclesiastical cognizance with ad 66 vantage to the suitors and to the public. And it may be added, that, from the course of the pro"ceedings and the nature of the business trans"acted in Doctors' Commons, the Proctors are 66 necessarily brought under the constant obser"vation of the heads of the profession, so that it "is difficult for any attempt at malpractice to 66 escape detection; but it should be mentioned "to their credit that instances of misconduct are "of very rare occurrence." From the passage marked in Italics it will be seen that the eminent judges who signed the report differed, toto cœlo, from the attorneys of Liverpool whose petition Mr. Bouverie cited; the former consider our jurisdiction to be of "advan 66 tage to the suitors and to the public," the latter that it is a "daily source of oppression and legal wrong to suitors." 66 I cannot find that Mr. Bouverie contrasted these two statements in his speech. The former must have escaped him, for he would agree I am sure with me, that the testimony of the judges who do not wish to practise in the Courts is of a less biassed character than that of the attorneys who do, to say nothing of a pardonable prejudice in favour of a judge's opinion over that of an attorney upon a question of jurisprudence; and I think Mr. Bouverie's knowledge of the prac |