The examination and cross-examina tion of witnesses is kept secret until pub lieation passes, that is, until copies of the depositions may be had by the adverse parties, after which either party is al lowed to except to the credit of any wit ness, upon matter contained in his de position. The exception must be con fined to such matter, and not made to general character, for that must be plead ed before publication ; nor can the excep tion refer to matter before pleaded, for that should be contradicted also before publication. The exception must also tend to show that the witness has deposed falsely and corruptly. The exceptive allegations are proceeded upon, when admitted, in the same manner as other pleas. They are not frequently offered, and are always received with great caution and strictness, as they tend more 2ommonly to protract the suit and to increase expense than to afford substantial information in the cause. It is always, however, in the power of the court to allow further pleading in a cause; and if new circumstances of importance are un expectedly brought out by the interroga tories, the court will, in the exercise of its discretion, allow a further plea after publication. This may also be permitted in cases where facts have either occurred or come to the knowledge of the party, subsequently to publication having passed.
The evidence on both sides being pub lished, the cause is set down for hearing. All the papers, the pleas, exhibits (or written papers proved in the cause), inter rogatories, and depositions are delivered to the judge for perusal before hearing the case Hilly discussed by counsel. All causes are heard publicly in open court ; and on the day appointed for the hearing, the cause is opened by the counsel on both sides, who state the points of law and fact which they mean to maintain in argu ment: the evidence is then read, unless the judge signifies that he has already read it, and even then particular parts are read again, if necessary, and the whole case is argued and discussed by the counsel. The judgment of the court is then pro nounced upon the law and facts of the case; and in doing this the judge pub licly, in open court, assigns the reasons for his decisions, stating the principles and authorities on which he decides the matters of law, and reciting or adverting to the various parts of the evidence from which he deduces his conclusions of fact, and thus the matter in controversy be tween the parties becomes adjudged.
The execution of the sentence, in case there be no appeal interposed, is either completed by the, court itself, according to the nature of the case—such as by grant ing probate or letters of administration, or signing a sentence of separation—or re mains to be completed by the act of the party, as by exhibiting an inventory and account, by payment of the tithes sued for, and other similar matters, in which cases execution is enforced by the com pulsory process of contumacy. significav it and attachment. The question of costs in these courts is, for the most part, a matter in the discretion of the judge, ac cording to the nature and justice of the case ; and the reasons for granting or refusing costs are publicly expressed at the time of giving the judgment.
Attempts were made more than three centuries ago, to remedy the defects of the ecclesiastical courts. The earliest efforts of this kind were directed to the peculiar jurisdictions. Some of these juris dictions extend over large tracts of coun try, and embrace many towns and parishes; others comprehend several places lying at a great distance apart from each other ; and some only include one or two pa rishes. The jurisdiction to be exercised
in these courts is not defined by any ge neral law, and it is often difficult to as certain to what description of cases the jurisdiction of any particular court ex tends. The commissioners appointed to revise the ecclesiastical laws, in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., recommended that the power of the bishop, in matters of discipline, should extend to all places in the diocese, not withstanding the exemptions andprivi leges of Peculiars. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it was proposed or talked of in convocation that parliament should be applied to, to subject peculiar and ex empt rites and jurisdictions of what had belonged to monasteries to the diocesan. Nothing, however, appears to have been done.
In 1812, Sir W. Scott (Lord Stowell) brought a bill into parliament which passed the House of Commons, but was afterwards dropped in the Lords, which provided that " the power of hearing and determining contested causes of ecclesias tical cognizance should be exercised only by ecclesiastical courts sitting under the immediate commission and authority of the archbishops and bishops, and not by inferior or other ecclesiastical courts." In 1832, the commissioners appointed to inquire into the practice and jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, recommended a number of important changes in these courts. In 1833 the real property com missioners expressed an opinion in favour of their extensive reform. In the same year a select committee of the House of Commons made a report in which similar views were urg' I, and in 1836 a se lect committee of the House of Lords adopted the same course. From 1836 until the present time several bills have been brought in for amending the eccle siastical courts, none of which were car ried. In 1836 Lord Cottenham brought in an ecclesiastical courts bill. On open ing the session of parliament in 1842 a measure for the improvement of the ec clesiastical courts was announced in the speech from the throne ; but the bill brought in by the government, lingered through the session and was finally aban doned. In 1843 and 1844, other bills with the same object were equally un successful. In the session of 1845 Lord Cottenham brought in an ecclesiastical courts' bill, and as it had received the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, hopes were indulged that it might pass. Lord Cottenham's bill was identical with that which he brought in in 1836. It proposed the estabhshment of a central court in London to which all wills were to be sent. Surrogates were to act in the towns where there are now diocesan courts, who were to grant probates where the amount of property was small; but in every case the will was to be sent to London to be registered. The cen tral court was to retain the power of the old courts in questions of divorce. In matters relating to church-rates, there was to be an appeal to quarter sessions, where the rate had been ille gally levied; and in that of tithes the power of the ecclesiastical courts was to be abolished altogether. But this bill shared the fate of its predecessors, and all anterior efforts at reform; and the spiritual courts remain an =re dressed grievance.
By a clause in 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 77, which was an act for carrying into effect the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners of 1835, it was enacted that future appointments in any of the eccle siastical courts in England and Wales (except the Prerogative Court of Canter bury) were not to give a vested interest in any office, nor any claim or title to compensation in case of the abolition of offices.