The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

then proceed with the regular business. If they stopped at a
certain hour they must begin earlier. When the debates were
by day they were shorter and more effective, and more business
was done. He had no objection, if the House pleased, to
change the hour from eleven to twelve.
Mr. O'CONNgLL said that motions represented as mat-
ters of form were often cf a substantive nature. Bills relating
to capital felonies were often considered as matters of form
after midnight. In 1792 they went to business at three o'clock
and it was then considered a late time. The present House
was most inconvenient. In most places it was too hot, and
when not too hot it was too cold, and it was highly prejudicial
to the health of Members to sit up there to a late hour. One
great corrective of the misdeeds of Members was public opi-
nion, which was influenced by the fourth estate, as it was called,
the press. At a late hour the reporters were worn out, morn-
ing was approaching, there was a necessity for an early publi-
cation, there might not be space for a full report, and the con-
sequence was that the late debates were seldom given.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the motion
Against it _ 121

Majority
WILLS EXECUTION BILL.

- 60

Sir J. CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this
Bill.
The ATT ORNE Y-G ENE RAL did not mean to oppose
the second reading of the Bill, but begged to notice some
errors in it. First it was provided that minors should be in-
capable of making a will ; that was a harsh and impolitic
measure. Suppose an illegitimate minor died intestate ;if no
one could establish a rightful claim to his property it would,
under the Bill, go to the Crown. There was no good reason
for confining the power of making a will to twenty-one. Wo-
men who married and became widows before twenty-one
were, in point of law, looked upon as if they were not mar-
ried. To deprive them of the power of making wills was
un wise.

Mr. HUME rose to order. The principle of the Bill was
discussed already. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did
not object to the principle, but entered into details which
should be reserved till the Bill was in Committee. _ _

Mr. C. FERGUSON said the principle could only he col-
lected from the details, and it was fair and useful that the
House should be made acquainted with its provisions.
The SPEAKER was understood to say that the principle
was to be collected from the details, and the question was,
whether it was desirable that the details should be explained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed. Another ob-
jectionable provision of the bill was, that a will could only be
revoked by marriage and issue; it was better that marriage
alone should cause the revocation. A gentleman who had
been many years married without issue made a will ; afterwards
he had a large family, and died without using the precaution
of altering his will. . The consequence was that his children
were deprived of the property which he intended for them. It
was a much safer course in legislation to protect those who
had natural ties on the owners of property.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the entire scheme of the Bill
deserved the approbation of the House, and although there
were some minor points in which it was capable of amendment
it was his intention to give its leading details every support.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON also expressed his approval of the
measure, for the introduction of which, as well as for the se-
veral other Law Reforms he had effected, he thought the
public and their Represematives owed a debt of gratitude to
the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh. For the pairs
he had taken in smoothing difficulties—in correctly explaining
doubtful principles—in removing ano►ralies ; and, lastly, in
rescuing the profession to which he belonged from the imputa-
tion of supineness, by showing that those Members of the
House who belonged to it were determined to remove all that
was really objectionable in the administration of the laws, he
for one begged to tender him his humble tribute of praise, and
sure he was, when his measures came into active operation, the
public at large would follow his example.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. FE RGUS SON expressed his approval of the Bill,
which he thought was calculated to introduce most important
and wholesome reforms in the law to which it related.

Mr. PR YME alluded to the difference of the period when
first- three witnesses were considered necessary for passinc,
freehold estates, which, being in the time of Charles 11., the
property of the country was chiefly in possession of land-owners,
and an opulent fundholder possessed of 100,0001. was not then
known, as at present. He considered that the law should alter
ith altered circumstances, and other property receive pro-
tection equal to the landed.
Mr. JACKSON contended for the necessity of three wit-
nesses to the attestation of a will whether of freehold or per-
sonal property; as a confederacy for a fraudulent purpose was
more easily detected by their cross-examination.
Mr. ROLFE agreed to all the principles of the Bill which
had been adverted to by Hon. Members, but there were some
that had been omitted, and to which he would for a moment
call the attention of the House. They were a series of
clauses, and they enabled Courts of Justice to decide a priori
what illiterate people meant. Lord Mansfield had said that
no task was so difficult as to give a meaning to a party who
themselves knew not what they meant. He alluded particu-
larly to clauses 34, 35, and 36, which appeared to him likely
to lead to endless litigation and dispute.
Sir J. CAMPBELL rose to reply, and thanking the At-
torney-General and the Member for Dublin for the support
they had afforded him, proceeded to contend, though in oppo-
sition to the opinion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, that
the act of executing wills could not be accompanied with too
great a solemnity. In this opinion he was strengthened by the
testimony of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, of the
Bishop of Durham, the Ecclesiastical Judges, and the
Judges of Westminster Hall. The present Lord Chancellor
also entertained the same sentiments, and he was happy to be
able to state would carry on this measure elsewhere, so
that like many other pieces of legislation it might not be
lost when it left that House. Indeed the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack had expressed his willingness to
introduce himself a Bill founded on the principles of the
present, if he (Sir John Campbell) bad not been able to
bring it forward. He was happy to find the House
unanimous in its condemnation of the mischievous ten-
dency of the present law--for mischievous it was in
the extreme. Why, it was well asked, should that form
of executing wills be void with regard to reality which
was valid with respect to personality ? The distinction was
unknown to the civil law, and it ought to be abolished.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after alluding to the im-
perfect wording of wills, and testators giving only a life in-
terest, as the law was now interpreted, when they evidently
intended to give an interest in fee, concluded by saying he
should defer entering further into details until the Bill was in
Committee, convinced that the more it was investigated the
better would be the appreciation of its previous provisions.

The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to the
following Select Committee:—
_ _ _

Campbell, Sir J.
Pollock, s.r N.
Follett, Sir W. W,
Aglionby, H. A.
Blamire, W.
Brodie, W. D.
11-ntherton, J.
Buller, C.
Carter, J. B.
Carruthers, D.
Clay, W.
Crip ::, J.
DiveLt, i.
F.wart, W.
Fergthisfm. R. C.
Finn,

FresWield, J. W.
Graham, Sir J.
Grey Sir G.
Grote, G.
Hawes, B.
Hogg, J. W.
Lushingtnn, Dr.
Lynch, A. H.
Morpeth, Viscount
Mui ray, J. A.
Nichol, .1.
O'Connell, D.
("'Dwyer, C. A.
O'Loughlin, M.
Ord, W.ll.
Pemberton,

Ponlier, J. S.
Perrin, L.
Pilme, G.
Huller, Sit M. W.
Rlchar 8, J.
Roe:nick, J. A.
Rolfe, J. M.
Shaw, F.
Shell, H. L.
Smith, J A.
Talf,urd, I'. Noon
Tarered, IL W.
Tooke, W.
Wirburton, 11.
Jackson, J. D.
Hardy,J.

Fle'eiw•ood, H. 1
The House then went into Committee on the Newspapers
Regulation Bill, when clause one and two were agreed to.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again.
The House then resumed.
SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL.

Mr. POULTER should detain the House as short a time
as possible. A measure similar to that Ale now had the
pleasure of introducing had been honoured by no less than 12
divisions, and hence a majority of that House had sanctioned a
Bill of a like tendency on one occasion by a majority of five to
one; and on another by a majority of two to one, although
ultimately lost, in consequence of a misconception that had
been entertained with regard to it. He should be ablo to prove,
however, when the proper time came, that the present Bill
was only intended to restrain trade on the Sabbath, and cor-
rect some gross evasions of the law. There were those among
them who thought that legislation ought not to be extended
to every act of ott7't.:ocial and political lives, and that we could
not have a specific lei remedy for every evil. But even
they would find that there was no desire betrayed in the pre-
sent measure to:do anything but promote rational liberty. The
moderation of its aim was sufficiently proved by the assistance
that had been voluntarily afforded by Members of both Houses,
who were previously hostile to its introduction, but upon be-
coming acquainted with the modoration of its tone and the
general mildness of its character, had foregone their hostility.
The anxiety of the public on the subject was sufficiently dis-
played by the number of petitions that had been presented to
this House, and from the number of societies now in existence
which were instituted for the furtherance of the object he
had now in view. No less than 1,065 petitions had been pre-
sented, containing in the whole twenty thousand signatures.
The Honourable Gentleman concluded by moving for leave
to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the
Lord's day.
Mr. WA RBURTON did not mean to oppose the bringing
in of the Bill. But he should reserve to himself a right of
opposing it in any stage he thought proper, if he saw that it
was of such a nature as trenched upon the enjoyments of the
poorer portion of the community. The conduct of several
Hon. Members at various periods during the last Parliament
in respect to Sunday legislation reminded him forcibly of oc-
currences exactly similar in the Parliament of 1640. For
instance, one Member of that time brought in a Bill " to pre-
vent walking in the fields on the Sabbath," and another a Bill
" to prevent people regaling themselves in porches (of houses)
on the Lord's Day." He was sorry to be obliged to say that
many clauses in the Sabbath Observance Bill of the last ses-
sion were analogous to these, and very much to the same ge-
neral effect. He trusted that the Bill of the Hon. Member
for Shaftesbury contained no clauses of that nature. He
(Mr. Warburton) was not one of those who believed men
could be made religious by Act of Parliament, and therefore
he was opposed to any legislatorial interference whatever on
the subject.—( Hear. )
Mr. POTTER felt great surprise that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had gone into no details whatever re-
specting the Bill he proposed to bring in. That was pre-
cisely the course adopted by the Hon. Baronet the Member
for Wigtonshire, in introducing his Bills, both in the session
of 1833 and 1834, and,the consequence was, that the Bills
he brought in were Bills of Pains and Penalties against the
working and middle classes, but gave perfect licence to the
rich and powerful--that he was ready to prove by a reference
to the Bill of last year, a copy of which he held in his hand.'
Now, as the Hen. and Learned Gentleman had given no ex-
planation of the details of his Bill, he (Mr. Potter) supposed
one brought in last year, which revived