The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-08 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Dewsbury, Batley, and Heckmondwicke Water,
Bishopscastle Railway, Great Northern Railway (purchase
of Hertford, &c. Railway), Kilkenny Market, Llantressant
and Taff Vale Junction Railway, and Midland Railway
(new line) bills were read a second time.
The South Essex Water, Caledonian Railway (Ruther-
glen and Coatbridge branches) Alva Railway, Clifton and
Durdham Downs, Kilrush and Kilkee Railway and Poul-
nasherry Reclamation, Bradford and Leeds Railway, and
Morayshire Railway bills were read a third time and
passed.

WILLS OF PERSONALTY_ BY BRITISH SUB-

JECTS BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,

Lord LYN DHURST rose and said he regretted not being
present at the second reading of this bill. He thought the
measure was one of great importance, and therefore he
should offer a few remarks to their lordships
respecting the bill. The decision that had been come to in
the case of Bremer and Freeman, in which the question
of domicile was involved, had produced a very great im-
pression on the other side of the channel, and if a noble friend
who was now in the south of France was present, he could
confirm that assertion. In the case he had referred to, he
believed the amount of money involved was about £lO,OOO,
but the costs in the case could not have been
much less than 5,000. Again there was another case which
had lately been decided. It was simply a question of whe-
ther the domicile was in England or Scotland, The
evidence in the case amounted to 15,000 closely
printed pages, the arguments of counsel in Scotland lasted
ten days, and then it was brought to the House of Lords
upon appeal and was continued for much the same amount
of days in that court, and the cost must have been enor-
mous. He thought some alteration was absolutely
necessary. The bill was one that was much required, and
the misapprehensions that existed with respect to it were
because its provisions were not fully known. It did not at
all alter the provisions of a will. It only related to the
form in which it should be made for the future. He
knew that the noble lord (St. Leonards) below him had
made some objections to this bill, but then the bill of which
he had been the parent relative to wills was one of the most
complicated pieces of legislation that had ever been before
their lordships. He thought if this was adopted a most
laudable and noble object would be accomplished.
Lord ST. LEONARDS denied that he was responsible
for the bill to which the noble lord had referred. He had no
more to do with it than any agent out of their lordships' '
house. He had, however, been instrumental in carrying a
bill of which he felt proud, because since it had been in
existence not a single Englishman's will which came within
its provisions had ever-been questioned. He did not object
to the principles of the bill, but what he objected to was
the manner in which domiciles were settled. He looked on
the law of domicile as the law of nations, and unless we
could get other nations to agree with us we could not alter
the law.

Lord CHELMSFORD said as it was agreed to refer the
bill to a select committee he would not trouble their lord-
ships with many observations, especially after what had
fallen from Lord St. Leotards upon the necessity of such a
bill as this. In order to show the necessity for some such
measure as was now proposed, he referred to the case of
Bremer v. Freeman. Nothing could be more helpless than
the position of an English testator in a foreign country in
the present state of the law. The theory of the English
law was to favour the testator, whom it regarded as inops
consilii ; but surely no person could want council more than
an English testator in a foreign land, when it was impossible
for him to determine for himself whether he had acquired
a new domicile or not. His noble and learned friend (Lord
Wensleydale) suggested a very extraordinary method of get-
ting rid of the difficulty by making a will in both ford s.
Lord WENSLEYDALE—No, I said make one will so
as to suit both.

Lord CHELMSFORD said this would not diminish the
difficulty, seeing that they would require a very learned
friend to see that they complied with the English form, and
a 'very learned foreigner to tell them what the foreign forma
required. The noble and learned lord eoncluded by ex-
pressing the gratification he was sure their lordships all felt
in hearing the voice of their noble and learned friend (Lord
Lyndhurst) once more--(hear, hear)—and after the power-
ful observations which that noble and learned lord had ad-
dressed to them, he (Lord Chelmsford) did not think it
necessary to add anything further.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said they were all rejoiced
to see in his place the noble and learned lord who began
this discussion—(hear, hear)—and who had brought his
groat capcnricnuo, and learning, and talent to bear upun
the subject. He thought this was a bill which ought to be
referred to a select committee, in which, he trusted, its
details would be carefully considered.
Lord KINGSDOWN, in reply, observed that the bill
had two distinct objects, one of which had no connection at
all with international objects. It altered the present law,
under which many of their lordships were unable to deter-
mine whether they were domiciled in England or in Scot-
land, though upon this it.depended by which law the dispo-
sition of their personal estate was to be distributed. It was
not desirable that the settlement of this question should in-
volve the heavy expenses which it now involved. The only
object of requiring forms at all was to be sure that they had
the genuine intentions of the testator expressed in the in-
strument; and that could not be in the least degree affected
by the question as to whether a man was domiciled on one
side of the Tweed or the other. The present law involved
a mere wanton expense, for which there was no necessity
whatever, and produced at times the greatest hardships, of
which their lordships had recently had an illustration in a
case which had come before them for decision. This bill
would give validity to many wills which were now invalid,
and would avoid the expense of inquiry into domicile where
domicile was not material to the genuineness of the will,
After a few words from Lord CHELMSFORD,
The bill was referred to a select committee, and their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER to'k the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
•

Tho Lords' amendments to the Shrewsbury and Welch-
pool Railway Bill were considered and agreed to, and the
bill was ordered for third reading. The ti hezystwith •and
Welsh Coast Railway Bill was read a third time.
The following bills were considered and ordered for third
reading :—Blyth and Tyne Railway, Clitheroe Gas, Cole-
ford, Monmouth, Usk, and Pontypool Railway, Greetwell
District Drainage, Leeds and Ealand Road, Limerick and
Foynes Railway, and Ross and Monmouth Rail% ay.
The Macclesfield Gas and Thames Embankment bills
were read a second time.