The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-24 00:00:00

[mina tWuz

6710-..
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1852

We inveighed yesterday against the rashness of al-
lowing any mistaken economy in the Naval Estimates
to degenerate into niggardliness. Such has all along
been to us matter fcr very serious solicitude in the
midst of our unaffected anxiety to witness a rea-
sonable diminution in the amount of our annual
expenditure. We have dreaded lest the more en-
thusiastic advocates of this decrease should, through
what we could not but regard as a very dangerous
solicitude, exert themselves to bring about reductions,
in reference
to the maritime service of England, such
as must necessarily prove, in the end, most disastrous,
if it were not ultimately found to be absolutely irre-
trievable. Instead of enervating the defensive power
of the empire in this particular, we would see it, on
the contr2TY, h
t ?roughly re-organized, and very con-
siderably re-invigorated. so far from consenting to
without protest anywitaess such ill-judged and
retrenchment, we hate ,
perilous e_en long in readi-
ness'is regard to the management of the
to evince,
of Great Britain, a preference Royal Navy
expenditure that might
munificence of be designated
by some as extravagant. Rather than Bee the force
upon which our very existence,as an insular
power, is mainly dependent,
we should be will'
advocates of economy though we are—tocountenance
a disbursement of an almost prodigal description. It -
consequently with regret that we observe the arguments
of this very mistaken system of retrenchment put
forward not only in the House of Commons, but
subsequently in the columns of a morning Contem
porary, by the Hon. Gentleman the representative of
Tavistock. It would appear that Mr. T
Y is
desirous that no misapprehension whatever should be
entertained as to what he really observed in the popu-
lar branch of the Legislature, insomuch that he
appeals to the Times to repeat yet more explicitly
what might not be sufficiently comprehensible in
the pages of Hansard—he invokes the aid of Journal-
ism to render yet more clear the records made by
the short-hand writers of Parliament. Hence the
letter published elsewhere in our columns of this
evening, in which the Member for Tavistock en-
deavours to show that another million and-a-half
might be spared to the nation from the Naval Esti-
mates, already reduced since 1847 by 2,000,000/.ster-
ling l Seeing that the moneys were on Monday night
actually voted, it certainly appears to us rather
ill-
timed and superfluous to demonstrate that 4,000,0001.
would be ample for the annual support of the mari-
time department, in lieu of the 5 700,000/. virtually
accorded to the Admiralty within the last forty-eight
hours by the Rouse of Commons for the ensuing
twelve months.

A better employment
of
the munificent sums
granted to the Royal Navy of England ili, of
have
course, 13 we again and again in-
sisted, requisite. But a whole,.ale re-
duction of those dutie3 to the tune of another
1,500 0001., we are by no means prepared to regard
as desirable. When the Member for Tavistock ob-
serves that, with nearly this very amount of
1,600,000/. annually expended upon the two items of
Wages for artificers and materials for ship-building,
,
we should have much larger supplies of efficient men
of war than are Actually at 0213 Wile in our possenio,

he expresses an opinion in every respect
coincident with the views we ourselves
have for a considerable time past entertained. Ac-
cording to the well-known estimate, we should be
enabled to secure to the country new ships of war at
the rate of 1,0001. per gun, yet such has hitherto
proved by no means an accurate calculation. Had
it done so, we should now, in truth, have collected
together during the last 37 years of peace, no less
than 370 such vessels—as Mr. THELAWNY has him-
self intimated—the ordinary duration of these vessels
extending over a period longer than the interval
from the present moment to the battle of Waterloo.
When, however, the Member for Tavistock, in con-
tinuation of his argumentin favour of retrenchment in
our naval expenditure, contends that for 40,000 seamen,
an annual outlay of 2,000,000/. ought at the very out-
side to be sufficient " on the ground that able seamen
can be obtained for 11. a week to find themselves," he
is himself guilty of an extravagance yet greater
than the very extravagance complained of by him in
the disbursement of 5,700,000/. in our Naval Estimates.
The suggestion we cannot but regard as one alto-
gether derogatory to the national character, revealing,
as it does, that very tendency to niggardliness against
which we have protested as unbecoming the wealth
and dignity of the empire, and as calculated in a
particular manner to prove injurious to our maritime
interests. Fancy the House of Commons resolving
that the sailors of England should be secured at
the rate of 11. a-week, on the understanding that
they were "to find themselves !" Away
with these little quibbles of parsimony, away with
them Let us re-organize the administration of
naval affairs by the Lords Commissioners of the Ad-
miralty, if we will. Let us see that the moneys
granted by the nation for the maritime service are
expended without folly and without prodigality.
Let us so arrange matters for the future in regard
to the manning of our vessels of war, in re-
gard to our building :of ships, in regard to
the management of our dockyards, in regard
to provisions, and medicine stores, and all
the other items in our maritime expenditure, so that
not a thousand, or a hundred, or ten, or even a single
pound shall be squandered without the return of
some compensative advantage. But do not, in con-
sideration of the glory of our navy, and in considera-
tion of the wealth of our empire, and in considera-
tion of the national credit, and the popular munifi-
cence of Great Britain, do not be grinding down
the tars of England with an economy less befitting
the generous hands of JOHN BULL than the miserly
clutches of JOHN ELWES !

It was a fundamental principle observed both in
Courts of Equity and COmmon Law, that " wills
should be construed liberally, and deeds strictly."
Certain legal forms should be observed in the latter,
but the sole object of the judges in adjudicating
upon the former was to ascertain the intention of the
testator, which, so far as practicable, in every instance
was carried into execution. There were abundant
reasons for this wise and salutary distinction. Deeds
were supposed to be solemn instruments, framed with
the utmost care and deliberation, the enacting parties
having the benefit of adequate legal advice. It was
not considered desirable that they should be di-
vested of the formalities essential to their efficiency,
or that any undue facilities should be given to the
execution thereof. It was rightly considered that great
security against fraud was afforded by the stringent
rules of interpretation, which rendered professional
assistance almost indispensable. Had it been other-
wise, the business of the tribunals, more especially of
the Courts of Equity, would be greatly increased by
proceedings instituted for the purpose of setting
aside deeds improperly obtained, or executed under
an erroneous impression of their effect and operation.
But it was otherwise with respect to testamentary
dispositions. Although every prudent man should
prepare himself for the event that sooner or later
must occur to all without exception—although he
should have his affairs so arranged that his wishes and
intentions should be carried into effect, no matter
how sudden might be the final summons, even though
it should arrive while he was in the possession of
physical and intellectual vigour, in the full enjoy-
ment of mental and bodily health—a large proportion
of persons were in the habit of postponing the execu-
tion of their wills. There were various reasons for
this dangerous omission. Some merely indulged in
habits of procrastination. They would give instruc-
tions for their wills, to-morrow or next day, but
there was surely no hurry. They were never
better, and might look forward to many
years during which circumstances might change,
so as to occasion the necessity for various
alteration=, codicils, &c. There could, therefore,
be no harm in a little delay, but they would take care
that everything was done before any necessity should
arise. Others might pause from real uncertainty as
to how they would wish to bequeath their property,
being too much busied in acquiring fortunes to think
seriously of the ultimate disposition. Some avoid
the small pecuniary outlay incident to the prepara-
tion of their wills, while the great majority are in-
fluenced by the dislike to think seriously on so
unpleasant a subject, and perhaps a superstitious
feeling secretly indulged in. The result in every,
case is the same. It was only when the emer-
gency actually arose that the omission was felt.
But professional advice or assistance could not then
be obtained. It was therefore essential in such cases
to dispense with all formalities, to look only to the
substance, and to give effect to the intention of the
testator whenever it could be fairly arrived at,
adopting only such precautions as might be deemed
essential for the prevention of fraud.

Such was the case until the Statute of Wills (1
Vic., cap. 26), which came into operation on the Ist
day of January, 1838, and by which
certain formalities were rendered necessary
in the execution and attestation of wills. The
principal features of the new law were, that
every will should be in writing, signed at the end sr
foot thereof by the testator, in the presence of two or
more persons, who should, in the presence of the tes-
tator, affix their names as witnesses. It has, however,
been found that some one or more of these compara-
tively trifling points are but too frequently dispensed
with, so that will; which could not be impeached on
any other ground become inoperative. Many Learned
Judges have expressed their deep regret at being
compelled to disregard the clear and unequivocal ex-
pression of the testator's wishes on some merely tech-
nical difficulty by which the objects of their bounty
were reduced from a state of comparative affluence
and comfort to poverty and destitution. Persons of
even the highest rank were not exempted from these
mistakes, and we believe that her late Majesty Queen
ADELAIDE was included among the number.

The LORD CHANCELLOR has introduced a Bill to
remedy these acknowledged evils, which last night
received the
a second reading in House of Lords.
The noble and
Learned Lord directs attention to
three Points
which require amendment, and we can
scarcely „iv
of
opinion
that there can be any dif-
ferenceor either of
tnhe as to the propriety of any
LEozi,.: the signature of the tes-
tator. first and most
important topic relatest.
de_esnd_enies that the execution
"the rule of law,
tator. Lord ST.
that. if the signa-
tureshould in that respect
s
and not on the rule ofppsaplgasPeeceed,t:'
an
was
should
of giving
authority of his
some
hahlferoberetofeoffreec
be affixed with the boniifiaodunde.
validity to the
Idvoceuhmaeynet,thiet
tu
con-
sidered l,
quarter of
aanithinocuhghloiwtemr iognhtthbee
correct.
Lord-
ship for the assertion that upon the constructionthat the name should immediately follow
the disposition " hundreds of wills have been
held invalid, and misery and wretchedness have
found their way to hearths where wealth, and peace,
and comfort, ought to have bad their habitation."
The principle appears indisputable that "a will should
be considered valid and sacred where the form only
is impeached, and the substance is not objected to."
We trust, then, that the most inveterate advocate for
an early dissolution will acknowledge the propriety
of the most speedy remedy practicable, and give every
possible facility to the passing of the
measure of the
Bill during the present session.

The other points relate merely to the attestation,
and although there are not by any means so many
cases of invalidated wills in consequence of
the existing rules as of that relating to the signature,
they are no less objectionable in point of principle,
and equally require amendment. For instance, the
signature must be made or acknowledged in the pro-

sence of the witnesses, and if a man, desirous of con-
cealing the provisions of his will from the inquisitive
scrutiny of the only eligible persons whose attesta-
tions he might be enabled to obtain, should
chance to turn down his signature with the
other portion of the will, the whole would
be vitiated. It is now proposed that it
shall be sufficient if the will itself is acknowledged
by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and
also that the attestation may be affixed, when the
witnesses without fraud, and as part of the same
transactions, and without leaving the house,
sign their names, although not within the
sight of the testator. This is the first of the legal
reforms introduced by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and
we believe that all will acknowledge its propriety.
It affords a favourable augury of future proceedings
on this very important subject.

The vulgar adage bath it, that " It is easy to find
a stick to beat a dog." Prejudiced judges, whose
minds are previously made up, will easily assign
reasons for the decisions which they may deliver,
although from the very beginning these decisions
were little better than " foregone conclusions."
From the first we had but little hope from the ap-
pointment of the Treasury Commission of Inquiry
into the the cost and applicability of the Crystal
Palace, unless there was a vigorous pressure from
without, combined with strong and energetic de-
monstrations within the walls of Parliament. There
was a too manifest disposition to get rid of that
magnificent structure, to convert what should be the
honour of the country into a national disgrace, by
its being made the object of an act of Vandalism un-
paralleled among civilized nations in modern
years. The people, however, remained apathetic,
while the stirring events in Parliament and the an-
ticipated dissolution have prevented the energetic
efforts being made which could alone preserve
that magnificent structure to the community.
There is, however, yet time for combined and
strenuous exertions, and the designer and constructors
of the building are willing to afford every opportunity
to the people to give expression to their sentiments.
On Monday we inserted the letter of Messrs. Fox
and HesinExsoN, containing an invitation to all
corners to visit the building gratuitously during
the present week, so that they may be enabled
to form a just estimate of its capabilities,
and also of the conduct of those who insist
upon its destruction. We now earnestly in-
vite attention to the letter of Sir JOSEPH
Pa vror.r, which will be found in another part of this
day's impression, and which throws considerable light
on the animus of the Commissioners, who, in their
report, only adverted to a single detached sentence,
the meaning of which they totally misunderstood—
a .misconception, probably arising from the omission
of affording him an opportunity of making verbal
corrections in the printed evidence. _ We be-

lieve that there are but few disinterested
persons who will not coincide in the opinion

that the destruction of the building would be a
wanton sacrifice of property," which should not be
sanctioned under any circumstances, but most
certainly not under erroneous—we shall not
say false representations of the evidence
of Sir JosErs PAXTON. Let, then, the
people speak out boldly and unequivocally, so that
the voice of public opinion may be heard within the
walls of Parliament, and let some of our representa-
tives insist on the matter being calmly discussed, so that
the opinion of the Legislature may be fairly ascertained.
We venture to assure those who may make them•
selves active on the subject that their chances of re-
election will not be diminished thereby, and that such
conduct will be anything but displeasing to their re-
spective constituencies.