The Express.
London, England, 1852-05-28 00:00:00

learned gentlemaa to take would be to propose to peptise
the clause as it stood, and to have his own substituted

for it.
Thl MASTER of the ROLLS said that he could not
concur is this bill or in the amendment proposed by his
hon. and learned friend the member for Aylesbury. fie
rase for the purpose of expressing the difficulties which
existed in the present ease, and of pointing out the course
vital it appeared to him the commitree ought to take.
It was of the "Noted importance to avoid anything like
tadmierlity of words in this matter. (Hear, hear.) The
law as it stood at present was an instance—he was going to
say of precipitate—but at all events of not duly considered
legislation in a matter of this great importance. (Hear,
hear.) The present measure was fouuded on the fourth
report of the commissioners on real property. They stated
the evils of technicalities, and they suggested various
modes of removing them, but be would venture to say that
their recommendations, if enforced, would girt rise
to a greater number of technicalities than ever
existed before. They suggested various remedies, but
the proper remedy was to require that the will be attested
in every ease by two witnesses, in the same way that deeds
conveying property were now attested. It was very diffi-
cult for gentlemen not acquainted with the court of pro-
bates to know the extent of the evil of the present law.
But they might form an estimate of the evil when he
informed them that he was told by a learned friend of his,
who was now no more—the Ista Sir Herbert Jenner Fust—
that basketfuls of been _Ade wills were taken out of Donors'
Commons every day without probate. (Hear, hear.) After
having pointed out the evil, he would ask the committee
whether they were competent so to deal with this subject
now that they were not likely to create fresh legislation
but would perform ineffectual cure. It appeared to him
that this was a subject which could not be so efficiently
dealt with in a committee of the whole house as it would be
if referred to a select committee. (Hear, hear.) The evil
of the present bill, and also of the amendment, was that
they required the signature to be at the foot of the will.
The commissioners introduced these words because it was
usual and convenient to sign the will at what
was called the foot. But they did not foresee
that the immediate consequence of this would be
that it would give rise to questions in every court
of probate whether the signature was at the foot or not.
(Hear, bear.) But if only an attestation were required
that would be perfectly understood by every person.
The fault of the amendment was that it required the will to
be signed by the testator in such a manner as that it shall
be apparent that the testator intended to give effect to it by
such signature. The effect of those words would be to
raise law suits in every court in the kingdom, for it left it
to be decided whether the signature meant to attest the
will. Ile should move that the chairman „report progress,
and that the bill be referred to a select committee.
The SOLICITOIt-GENERAL agreed with the hon.
and learned member for Aylesbury as to the importance of
the subject, but must entirely differ from his right hon.
friend the Muter of Rollo, as to the expediency of referring
the bill to • select committee, or interposing any other
delay in the way of its becoming law. One word as
to what bad fallen from the Master of the Rolls. His
right honourable and learned friend seemed to think
that the intention of the act of 1837 was to guide the
makers of wills. He (the Solicitor-Oemerol) did not think
that was the intention of the act, but that its object was to
guide judges is their decisions when questions as to the
validity of wills were brought before them. lie trusted
that the house would not agree to the amendment of the
hon. and learned member for Aylesbury, which would o ly
have the effect ef perpetuating the evils they wished to
remedy.
Sir W. P. WOOD said no one could doubt the neces-
sity of applying a remedy to the cad, but it was another
question whether this bill, in its present imperfect form,
Should be placed on the statute book. He regretted
that it was not referred to a select committee a fortnight
ago, but it was not yet too late to take such a step. The
bill consisted of only four clauses, and it might be con-
sidered by a select committee in two days, and afterwards
passed within two hours. All that was really wanted
was, to know that the party really signed the paper as his
will, and though there might be difficulties in drawing up
proper words for that purpose that was only a reason for
sending the bill to a select committee.
After a few words from Mr. Whiteside, Mr. J. Stuart,
and Mr. Mailings,
The MASTER. of the ROLLS moved that the chairman
report progress, with a view to referring the bill to a select
committee. This ho believed would be the better course
to take ; and ho felt strongly the importance of sending the
bill to a select committee.

Mr. WALI'OLE resisted that amendment. It was clear
to him that no benefit could be derived from sending the
bill to a select committee. His own opinion was decidedly
in favour of the bill; and he hoped the committee would
proceed with the ."bill," so as to enable the practical
reform contemplated in the execution of wile to be effected
this session. (Cheers.)

The committee then divided :
For reporting progress G4
Against l2l-57

The clause wu then agreed to, sr, after some conversa-
tion, wu clause 2.
The other clauses and the preamble of the bill having
been passed, the house resumed, and the bill was reported.
• - -

GENERAL BOARD OF lIEALTII BILL.
The house resolved itself into • committee of the whole
house on this bill and passed the clauses, except that
respecting Brighton, which was struck out. Several new
clauses were added, and the bill was ordered to be reported

this day.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT PARTNERSBI
BILL.

This bill passed through committee.
The Public Works Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Poor Law Board Continuance Bill was read a second
time, to be committo d on Monday week.

BURGH HARBOURS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved the committal of this bill.
Mr. F. M'KENZIE objected that the bill gave the power
to the town councils of certain small and decayed towns of
levying rates on all imports for the purpose of improving
the habours.
Mr. E. ELLICE spoke in favour of the bill.
Mr. HENLEY had not had time to examine the bill
sufficiently to justify him in consenting to allow the towns
to which the measure referred to levy a toll on all ves-
sels entering the harbours connected with them, which was
Os effect of the proposition.
Mr. PORTAL suggested tho postponement of the com•
fitter.
The house divided—
For going into committee
Against
KAYNOOTLI ENDOWMENT. ADJOURNED DE-