The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

WRITS OF RIGHT.

Mr. SHADWELL moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to limit the period within which Writs of Right for the re-
covery of real property might be brought, and also to amend the
law relating to dower. The Honourable and Learned Member
stated that, by a statute passed in the 20th of Henry 111. it was
enacted, that the period within which Writs of Right might be
brought, should not exceed forty-five years. By the Statute of
Westminster, 3d Edward 1., in the year 1275, it was enacted,
that a Writ of Right might be brought from the time of Richard 1.,
1199, making a limitation of 76 years. The law remained un-
altered till the 32(1 of Henry VIII. 1540, it was enacted, that no
Writ of Right should he brought against a tenant who had had
possession for more than sixty years. This was the law at
the present day, and the practical effect of it was, not only
that persons in the lower classes of life might, in many cases,
inconvenience and injury. Such
under the erroneous supposition of their having a title to landed
property, involve themselves in great and useless expellee,
but
i personsa tnhda, t
wereeoipersonsildn
not
whoe exposeds l
to x
o vr 1 greater
imortgage n
e,or
tinc undoubtedlyNen the lawful possessors
of
l
their
property, unless they
were capable of making out a title to it for a period of sixty
years. His object, therefore, in the first place, was to limit
this period. The measure which he proposed to introduce was
not a new one. In the year 1'783 a bill had been introduced for
the same purpose by Lord Kenyon, and this bill, as framed by the
Committee in 1783, he (Mr. S.) intended, with a very few
alterations to adopt. He should propose to limit the period within
which the legal title to land might be disputed to 30 years. He
proposed, also, to correct a gross abuse which resulted from the
present state of the law. As the law now stood, a person having
no title whatever, might, for the mere purpose of vexation, bring
a Writ of Right against the person known to have the title. He
might put him to great expence to prove his title, and after all he
was not even compelled to pay costs to the person whom he had
wantonly harassed, This abuse he proposed to remedy. There
was another injustice which it was his intention to remedy..:-.
At present the party bringing the Writ of Right was not
bound to make out his claim, but the tenant in possession
was compelled to make out his title to property, of which he
might have been in possession for fifty years. He proposed to
snake possession prima facie evidence of the right, and to throw
upon the party disputing the right,the onus of proving a: better
title to the land, The measure would also embrace an amend-

mint of the laic, relatlng to dotter. As the law stood at present
every married woman was entitled to dower of any freehold land
or inheritance of which her husband might be seized during the
marriage ; and it was necessary that a purchaser of the estate
should have it conveyed to him, so as to prevent the wife from
being dowable of the land. This could only be done in a circuitous
form, which created a great deal of expence—an inconvenience
which it was a part of the objects of the present Bill to remove.
The Honourable and Learned Member concluded by moving for
leave to bring in the Bill.

Mr. LOCKHART thought the Landed Interest
were mush indebted to the Honourable and Learned Member, for
the measure which he proposed to introduce.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY expressed his surprise and
regret that the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Shadwell) had not
moved for the appointment of a Committee, to investigate the
state of the laws with respect to the state of real property, rather
than by proposing a partial remedy, such as that contained in his
bill, to disappoint the expectations formed by the public upon
any thing which might emanate from a man of the Learned Gen-
tleman's character, and legal reputation. If, however, the
Learned Gentleman did not move that Committee, he would
himself, at an early period, propose that the whole of the laws
relating to real property be subjected to the revision of a Commit-
tee of the House.

Mr. HUME expressed his conviction of the neces-
sity of such a Committee, and condemned any measure which did
not put some bar to the claims of the Clergy for Tithes.

Mr. SHADWELL, in reply,- declared himself
willing to lend the benefit of any little experience he might possess,
to any measure which the House might adopt towards a reforma-
tion of the Law of Real Property ; but he thought they ought not
to reject the remedy of one grievance, because they could not
obtain their wishes with regard to all.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.

PRIVATE COMMITTEES.

Mr. SYNGE COOPER gave notice of his inten-

tion, in the discussion upon the Bill fir regulating Private Com-
mittees, to move that all Members be not alloNVed a voice in
these Committees.

Lord PALMERSTON brought up a Return of
the number of Officers dismissed during the last year without
Trial by Court Martial.

Mr. HUME begged to ask the Noble Lord at
what time the Return of the Sales of Commissions might be ex-
pected ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he did not know, as
the Papers were in the office of the Commander-in-Chief, but he
would inquire.—The House then Adjourned at Eight o'clock.