The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-11 00:00:00

RIGHTS OF EXECUTORS.

Mr. S. RICE, in rising to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the Rights of Executors, observed that the
measure he was about to submit to the House was the
same in every respect us that which bad last Session re-
ceivesl their assent, and which was afterwards lost in ano,
Cher place. He should not, therefore, trouble the House
by entering into any explanation of the principles of the
Bill, but merely remind them that its object was to put an
end to that state of uncertainty which prevailed with re-
spect to the residue of the property of testators, after the
discharge of all specific bequests. The inconveniences of
the uncertainty which prevailed on this subject had been
felt as long back as 1725 ; and in 1726 a Bill wai intro-
duced into the House of Lords fur the purpoie of deciding
the question, by giving the residue to the executor. That
Bill was, however, thrown out in the Commons, as a mat-
ter of reprisal, the two Houses being then at valiance.—,
The present Bill, which, he was :happy to say, had the
approbation el his Learned Friends the Solicitor-General
and the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Sugden)—was in-
tended to give the residue, in all cases of doubts to those
who stood next in consanguinity ; a course which, he be-
lieved, would be found the moat equitable that could be
adopted. The Hon. Member then moved for " Leave to
bring in a Bill for the better Regulation of the Disposal of
the Residue of the Effects of Testators."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not disposed to
agree with the Hon. Member, that the difficulties which
alendeil this question would be removed by the Bill which
he wished to introduce. He had seen a good many of the
cases which arose out of the questions between executors
and the next of kin upon thii subject, and he could safely
say, he never found a greater degree of hardship' on one
side than en.the other. In his opinion, there were no per-
sons in this country-so ignorant as not to know that the
property which they did not dispose of by their will Would
g0..t0 the executor; and Be was satisfied that if they once
admitted-the principle, that those next in consanguinity
were to lay claim to residues, it would h :ve the effect of.
letting in unheard-of and unknown relations, while the
alteration in the law, according to his Tense of the progress
of such knowledge, could scarcely become known t those
who were interested in it for at least a century. The
Learned Gentleman, in conclusion, seemed to be of opinion
that the law, as it now stood, was much Itsi objectionable
than the proposed alteration:
After a few words froit Dr. LUSHLNGTON in de-
fence of the Bill, and in condemnation of the expence to
whirls the present state of the law gave rise.
Mr. ROBERT GRANT concurred in the expediency
of altering the law, and be thought the best principle of
alteration would be that of the proposed Bill. The law,
as it now stood, consisted in an arbitrary assumption made
on the one hand, 'by the common law, and in a mass of
equally arbitrary assumptions opposed to this, on the other,
by the courts of equity. The common law assumed that
every man who appointed executors meant them to take
beneficially, if he did not say the contrary; a position de-
nied by Lords Smelt: cad Macclesfield and other
great Chancellors. Equity, in order to limit the
rule, set up against it various presumptions, which
it called either violent or irresistible. if it resistible, as
when a legacy was left to an executor expressly_ for his
trouble, the executor was of course excluded. If only vio-
lent, as when a legacy was left to him simply, he might go
into parole eiidence to sustain his common law right, and
then the next of kin might adduce similar evidence on the
other side.. The lion. Gentleman, after illustrating the
absurdity of these presumptions, said that the chief evil
however was, the profuse admission of parole evidence.
This had been greatly lamented by Lord Eldon, and Lord
Alvanley had pronounced the state of the law to be dis-
graceful, and had hoped the legislature would interfere.
The proposed Bill would be a subordinate statute of distri-
butions ; applying the rule of that undid statute to cases of
partial intestacy, and on the same principle, viz. that to
give what was undisposed of to the relations of the deceased
would probably be right, and at any rate could not be far
wrong.

• Mr. S. RICE, in reply, said that where doubt existed,
it was the duty of the Legislature to remove it. The prin-
ciple of his Bill would be, where that doubt existed, to give
the benefit of it in favour of consanguinity.—Le.tve was
given to bring in the Bill.
MUTINY BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. HUME, on the bringing up of the Report on the
Mutiny Bill, begged leave to advert to a subject to which
he bad adverted in former Sessions of Parliament—namely,
Corporal Punishments in the Army. The object of his
present observations was to induce the Right Ilon. Baronet
(Sir H. Hardinvp). to limit the amount of lashes given in
the army. Ile priceived that so many lashes as one thou-
sand were allowed to be given ; he did not know that thnt
number had ever been inflicted, but he objected to the
power of that number being inflicted. Ile thought that
the number ought at least to be limited to 500. Again, he
objected to the power of inflicting so heavy a punishment
belonging-.not oily to a General Court Martial, but also
ettendieg equaily_to District Courts Martial, which con-
pisted of only nine officers; and to Detachment Courts
Martial, which consisted of only,three officers. He would
propose the limitation of the punishment in the case of
General Courts Martial to 500 lashes—in that of District
Courts Martial •to 300—and in that of Detachment
Courts Alartirl to 100 or 200. It was. l.ighly objection-
able that the same .power of infliction sh..uld be entrusted
to tribunals so differently constituted. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving an amendment to the 9th clause, to
the effect expn ssed in his speech, for " the limitation of
the lashes inflicted in the several Cour s Martial."

Sir H. HARDINGE said the Hon. Member's objection
to the different species of Courts Martial were incorrect.
It was not accurate to say that the three Courts-Martial
had the same 'pooers and authority. The Detachment
Coons-Martial was only carried on in time of war and in
foreign Countries, and was rendered necebe oy by the mature of
the service 'abroad.• The !lon. Miqnber was also :n error-in
supposing the General Courts-Martial had ea-extensive
powers. It' was no such thing. General Courts-Martial had
the power iif inflicting transportation and death, but Dis-
trict Courts-Martizil had not?-and,- moreover, the sentences
of the latter tribunal Were referti.d to the General com-
mending the district, at d were subject to his confirmation.
The Right-Hon: Gentleman proceeded to remark, that
corporal punishment had recently derteised in the- service
Thee Were instances, even of regiments 700 itrong, in
which not more 'than six corporal puuishnient were in-;
flitted in twenty years. (Hear, hear.) He deprecated
the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman, that corporal punish-
ment should not he inflicted' in thin country and yet might
be inflicted abroad. -The effect of this arrangement would
be, to render foreign service unpalatable to the British
soldier, if be thought he was likely to be subject to a
punishment from. which lie was exezrpt at home. The
regulations of the late Duke of York, and of the late Com-
mander-in-Chief (the Duke of Wellington), as well as of
the present (Lord Hill), were calculated to repress cor-
poral punishments ; and, moreover, the object of the Hun.
Gentleman was attained by .another Clause in the
which gave a discretion::ry power to Commanding Officers
to change the corperal punishment for punishment of an-
other kind. .
Mr HUME said, that what he eimprainedofWas--
a 1..• •Ln.e.rid 6alles WA.* tul

inflicted on any man. He wi.ha to.know if the Right
Hon. Baronet coral,) admit of a 'eduction of it ?
Sir H. HABDING7., after a few Obeervationg fiom Mr.
TRA NT, which were iostetible in the gallery, rePlied, th
although rine thou.and lashes were allowed, yet he did not
know of that nn ober h icing been inflicted. There was
always, on the o,ca.,ion rat punishments of this kind, a medi-
cal person 'Halo- whose app‘rohatbn the scuience
was carried into ,ff-er, so that there "was no likelihood of
any excess of punishment being inflicted.
The Amendment was tken negatived without A'division.
- .

After some further discussion, the Report was agreed to,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to .morrow.
The nirine Mutiny Bill was read a third time and pas.ed.
Mr. TRANT presented eix petitions from various
parishes in Yorkshire, &c. against the Catholic Claims.
Adjourned at a Quarter before Ten o'clock.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY TALENT.

(From the Times.)

A Sunday Paper having animadverted on Lott! Mor-
rth's assertion, tltat the talent, and more especially the
rising talent, of the University, was in favour of Mr. Peel
at the late contest at Oxford, the best way is at once to
state the facts ; and having by means of a correspondent
procured a list of those voters who either obtained the
highest honours-under the old system of examination, or
the first classes under the new, and al,o of those who lave
been distinguished by the academical prizes (which distinc-
tion is, after all, the best criterion -of talent, though the
ch:s4es may be the beat criterion of early acquirement), we
lay the list of names before our.readers. From this list it-
will appear, that out of 152 first-class-men, 101 voted for
Mr. Peel, and. 51 for • Sir 11. ingbs ; and that of prize-
men, twenty-three voted for Mr. Peel, and four for Sit
H. Inglis. -
Of Christchurch-men (the College of both candidates),
39 first-classmen voted for Mr. Peel, and eight for Sir 11.
Inglis ; ami of the prizemen of Christchurch, every one,
without exception, voted for Mr. Peel.

LIST OF VOTERS WHO WERE IN THE FIRST (LASS•
C stands for ClasSics; M for Mathematics; H for Honours
previous to 1807.
PEEL.

J. Rust, C.
T. S. Hodges, C.
T. D. Allen, C.
J. P. Allen, C.

J. Carr, C.
N. T. Ellison, C.
E. Bazalgette, C.
J. W. Mylne, C.
C. H. Bos•lnquet, C.
G. Moberly, C.
C. G. Round, C.

N. Ellison, H.
E. Denison, C.

J. P. 1 aithtfoot, C.
T. T. Penrose, C.
R. Martin, 'C.

UXI%EfSITti .

INGLIS.
(G. Rowley (Master), H.
J. Watts, M.

DA Ll.l

E. Hawkins (Provost), C. M.
W. H. Tinney, H.
H. Jenkyns, -M. C •
J. W. Au dry C.
T. Arnold, C.
J. Hughe4 C. M.
G. G. ey (Sir), C.•
J. H. S. B. Esmond, C.
C. Wood, C. M.
R D.'Harapden, C. M.
H. Ingham, C.

H. Barry, H.
A. Briscoe, M.
J. Wilson, M.
E. Field, M.
W. C. Rowe, C.
G. Richards C.
G. Riggs, M.
W. H. Cox, C.
C. Palairet, C.

J. J. Martin, C.

T. Grantham, C.
G. Booth. C.

W. Morian, C.
R. G. C. Fane, C.
W. Robertson, M,
W. N. Senior, C.

C. A. Ogilvie, C.
J. T. Round, C. M.
C. H. Co!lynx, C.
J. Wootten, M.
J. Camptell, C.
D. Maclean, C.

E.. Cardw-11, C.
R. Harrington, C.
W. Stone, C.
J Glibett, C.
W. Lowndes, C.
J. H. Lloyd, C.
H. H. Milman; C.
H. Lathan; C.
W. (iregson, C.

J. I)ayman. C.
T. Medland, C.
G. Morrim, C.

F. Goodenough, H.
J. M. Turn, r, H.
E. B. Fusey, C.
T. V. Short, C. M.
yv.y.Lloyd, M.

iToN.

L/No

ALI EP

11Y6D,

31131

CH MAT