The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-24 00:00:00

IMPERI

AMEN T

HOUSE OF LORDS, FlontrAnr 23.

The LORD CHANCELI.OR took his scat en the Wt. olsack
at five o'clock.
Lord STRAFFORD presented portions from Poo7e,
in Dorsetshire ; from Binkley Long, in Kent ; and ft.( m
the congregation of Chapel-street, Holy cell, praying f( r
the abolition of Church-rates.
Earl RADNOR presented a petition to the sallme effect
from Ashstead, in Kent.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a pe-
tition from Bringfield against the abolition of Church-rates,
and praying for protection to the Established Church.
The Earl of DEVON presented petitions from Kew,
from Beer, and from the parishes of Bishopstone and All
Saints', Dorchester, in favour of Church• rates.
The Marquis of CONYNGHAM presented a petition
from Ramsgate for the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition from the
parish of St. Michael's, Dublin, in favour of a system of
poor laws for Ireland ; from a parish in the county of
Mayo, for the abolition of tithes ; and one also from the
same parish, praying for Corporate Reform. lie had seve-
ral other petitions to present from different places in Ire-
land, praying also for Corporate Reform, but they contained
certain words which had been declared irregular to be
troduced into petitions on a former evening, and therefore
he was not sure that they would be received. Unlike the
former petitions, those he had now to present did not allude
to either person or place. He should read the words of the
petition, and leave their Lordships to decide whether or not
they were irregular. The Noble Lord thee read as fol-
lows :—"Your petitioners therefore pray that they may not
be legislated for as if they were aliens in blood, in religion,
and in language." There being no opposition offered to the
reception of the petitions, they were laid upon the table.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from a parish in
Macclesfield, praying for the repeal of the present Poor
Law Bill, and complaining of the effects it was likely to
have upon the manufacturing districts of the country.
The Bishop of EXETER had been requested to sup-
port the prayer of the petition, but although he hoped such
an alteration would be made in the law as to induce more
humanity in the exercise of it, he could not join the desire
for its repeal.

The Earl of RADNOR, for his part could not under.
stand from the petition what it was the petitioners core
plained of.

Lord KENYON suggested that the petiCoa should lre
read for the information of the Noble Earl.
The petition having been read by the clerk,
The Earl of RADNOR said that the petitioners did
not seem to have any individual or specific grievance to
complain of. They appeared only to fear some specula-
tive evil.

Lord IV HARNCLIFTE, although he did not approve
of that part of the Poor law Bill which prevented out-door
relief, yet should not support any proposition for the repeal
of the law, not even the bastardy clauses of it. He had
had much opportunity of seeing in many extensive districts
of the country that the law worked well when properly ad-
ministered.

The Earl of DEVON also bore testimony to the bene-
ficial operation of the Poor-law Act, and believed the Com-
missioners generally exercised a very sound judgment and
discretion in the application of its provisions.
The Marquis of SALISBURY wished to call the at-
tention of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Cloncurry) to
some rather remarkable circumstances connected with the
petitions which the Noble Lord had that night presented
from places in Ireland. In those petitions there were seve-
ral erasures, and some of the sheets of paper on which the
names were signed appear to have been joined together by
wax seals ; but two out of three of those seals had been
torn off.

Lord CLONCURRY was perfectly willing, and indeed
anxious, that their Lordships should institute an inquiry
into the irregularity, it such it was, which the Noble Mar-
quis had pointed out, and he therofore hoped their Lord-
ships would call for the attendance from Ireland of those
who signed the petition. He was sure that there was not
one of the petitioners who would not be delighted to take
a trip to this country at the public expense.—(A laugh.)
For himself he could only say that the petitions underwent
no alteration since they came into his hands.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE did not think it was
worth while to go to the expense of bringing over the peti-
tioners on this occasion, however anxious they might be to
visit this country.

The Marquis of SALISBURY was quite satisfied with
the explanation given by the Noble Lord.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a number of petitions—
from Norwich, signed by two thousand persons; from
Brighton, signed by three thousand persons ; and from
various other places—praying for the abolition of Church-
rates.

The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from Sud•
bury, in favour of Church-rates.

Lord REDESDALE presented two petitions to the
same effect.

The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions against
the abolition of Church-rates from Dudley, Plympton, St.
Stephen's, Exeter ; and other places in Devon.
Lord EL LENBOROUGH moved for a return of the
expenses incurred in passing paupers from this country to
Ireland since the Union. It was necessary to have those
returns before the House preparatory to the introduction
of the Bill for establishing Poor-laws in Ireland.—
Agreed to,

On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Post-
office Contract Bill went through a Committee.

LAW OF WILLS.

Lord LANGDALE rose, pursuant to notice, to propose
to their Lordships the second reading of a Bill for certain
alterations in the present existing law of wills. Their
Lordships would see that this was a subject of the greatest
importance to families and all persons who had property
to dispose of by will.—(Hear.) The subject had indeed
been considered of such importance that two commissions
had been issued to inquire into the state of the law as re-
garded wills, and to report upon it. One of these commis-
sions, the real property commission, was issued in 1828,
and the other, the ecclesiastical commission, in 1830.
These two commissions had made their report, and as one
was an inquiry into the disposal of real property and the
other into the disposal of personal property, and both being
necessarily connected, the two reports were calculated to
supply the most valuable grounds for an improved law
upon the subject. Pursuant to the report of the real pro.
perty commission a Bill was introduced into the House of
Commons in 1834 ; but it did not pass that House in that
year. In 1835 it was again introduced, and passed the
House of Commons ; but on being brought up to their
Lordships it was referred to a Committee, when the sub-
ject underwent the closest investigation, and from that in-
quiry the present Bill was proposed. Notwithstanding,
however, all the information thus supplied by means of the
inquiry in their Lordships' Committee, and the reports of
the two commissions, he felt it his duty to cause copies of
the Bill to be sent to the most eminent members of the
legal profession, to obtain their advice and opinion. In
this way he had obtained much valuable and carefully-
con,idered judgment on which to introduce improvements.
Having thus stated the general scope of the Bill, he
would briefly advert to its particular; objects. One ob-
ject was to reduce the statute law, so as to define what pro-
perty was disposable by the will. N ext, how a will should
be executed, how revoked, and how it might be revived.
With respect to property, the present Bill would give the
power of disposal of all property held by the person at the
time of death, which was not the case at present. There
were certain freehold estates called copyhold, which, under
particular circumstances, were not now devisable by will.
Another alteration which the Bill contemplated was this—
as the law now stood a man might make a will, dividing all
the property he should die possessed of at his death, but
should he acquire any property, however extensive, after
making his will, that property would not be conveyed by the
will, although it devised all he should die possessed of. The
Bill also went to make an alteration in the period of life at
which a person was to be competent in the eye of the law
to make a will: At present the age was twenty-one ; but
the present Bill would provide that twenty-one should be
the age qualifying a person to make a will conveying or dis-
posing of real property, and seventeen the capable age at
which personal property might be disposed of by will.
The Commissioners recommended that as clear, uniform,
and distinct a form as was practicable should be adopted,
and the reason why the law at all required a degree of so-
lemnity in a will was to prevent spurious wills. It had
been said that the law exhibited a matchless variety in this
respect. There were no less than ten different ways in
which property could be legally conveyed by will. What
he (Lord Langdale) should do on the present occasion
would be, to bring before the House the two modes most
strongly contrasted. A will disposing of real property
must, under the statute of frauds, be signed by the testator,
and subscribed by three or four creditable winesses in the
presence of the testator. With respect to wills merely
conveying personal estate, no form whatever was required.
A letter to a friend, a letter to an agent, a loose me-
morandum, or a string of loose memoranda would convey
personal property, provided that the Ecclesiastical
Court could collect an intention to devise. Both these
modes of disposition were open to great objection, and
many learned and eminent Judges had expressed their dis-
approbation of them. He would not go into the report of
the real property Commissioners, but they, however, stated
that it was desirable that some uniform plan should be
adopted. To the validity of a will it was necessary that it
should be in writing, signed and attested. By the statute
of fraud three or four witnesses were required ; but the
Commissioners were of opinion that two would be suffi-
cient. He (Lord Langdale) agreed with the Commis-
sioners in that opinion. In the present state of the law if