were real or personal. An executor would be admitted to give evidence of the validity of a will, which, at present, he could not do. Under the existing law, it was not necessary that both the witnesses should be present at the same time; they might sign at different times and in different places, provided the place were one where the testator might see them, which was held to be a sufficient exercise of actual presence; but the bill provided that the signature of the testator or his acknowledgment should be made in the presence of two witnesses, who should then attest it themselves.

With respect to the revocation of wills, no alteration was proposed in the rule whereby a woman's will is held to be revoked by her marriage; but it was proposed to alter the rule adopted from the ecclesiastical courts in modern times, whereby a man's will is considered as revoked by his subsequent marriage and the birth of a child. Lord Langdale stated cases which might occur, in which the effect of this rule would have the most unjust and absurd effect. The bill next provided for the due construction and effect of certain words; provisions which, however important in a legal point of view, it would be difficult and needless to give the purport of in this place. Lord Langdale admitted that a legislative construction of words had been objected to; but he observed, that when a rule of construction which plainly violates the lawful intention of the testators has been established in the courts of law, he knew no way of correcting it, but by legislative interposition.

The bill was decidedly approved af by the leading law authorities

in the House, and passed almost without discussion; in the House of Commons, the only opposition to it came from sir Robert Inglis, who objected to it chiefly on the ground of the expense which the mode of execution there enjoined would entail on the humbler class of testators. By abolishing holograph wills, and rendering two witnesses necessary in every case, a resort

resort to professional advice would become indispensable.

We do not immediately perceive the force of the hon. baronet's reasoning in this instance, if it be accurately reported. Witnesses are commonly the least expensive parts of the execution of a will; nor is it apparent how their presence renders more necessary that of a lawyer. The bill was defended by the attorney-general, who quoted in its favour the support it had received from all the high legal and ecclesiastical authorities of the country. As one of sir Robert Inglis's objections had been the uniformity it introduced in the mode of willing real and personal estate, the attorney-general observed, that nothing could be more absurd than the present law in that respect. A single perch of freehold land could not be disposed of by will, unless such will was attested by three witnesses; yet no witnesses were required to the willing of a copyhold estate of the greatest value; and it might pass by a mere memorandum put into one's pocket-book, without signature or attestation. Again, though with respect to funded property, two witnesses were generally required for a will; none were necessary, if it related to other kinds of personalty. The present bill would put an end to litigation, and would thus diminish the pro

fits of the legal profession; and though professional men might be oftener employed than heretofore in the preparation of wills, yet he thought it far better that a small fee should be expended for that purpose, than that the family should, as was too often the case now, be impoverished by litigation. At present, there was this anomaly in the law of attestation, that the same will might be bad as regarded real property, while it was good as regarded the personalty disposed of by it.

of

Dr. Lushington, too, approved

the measure, and denied that it would increase the expense of making wills. An amendment was proposed by sir Robert Inglis, in favour of the validity of holograph wills, if signed and dated, though without the attestation of witnesses; it was rejected on a division by sixty-five votes to fifteen.*

It should not be omitted that the attorney-general again brought forward in this year, his measure for the abolition of the law of imprisonment for debt. After considerable discussion, it passed the House of Commons, but at so late a period of the session, that it did not appear that there would remain time sufficient before the

We may here subjoin that a bill was also passed this session for the abolition of all offices in the superior courts of law at Westminster, the duties of which had wholly or in part ceased, were executed by deputy; and directing the appointing of five principal officers and no more to be called respectively the masters of each of the three courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer; and who were to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the offices abolished. Another provision of the bill authorised the preparation of a new table of fees in the superior courts of common law, with refer

prorogation for the due discussion of its details in the Upper House. This was consequently among the bills, the further consideration of which was necessarily postponed to another parliament.

On the 17th of July, the queen went in state to the House of Lords for the purpose of closing the session. The age and sex of the youthful sovereign, as may be supposed, gave a singular and very touching interest to the scene. The Speaker, on this occasion delivered an address to her majesty, in which on behalf of the House of Commons, he assured her of their cordial participation in that strong and universal feeling of dutiful and affectionate attachment, which prevailed among the free and loyal people of which they were the representatives; and expressed their "trust that this feeling would be strengthened by a long course of constitutional, beneficent, and wise government." In recording the results of the session, the Speaker found little to mention, except the acts which we have just described for the mitigation of the criminal law and the simplifying of the rules for the execution of wills. Various important measures had been recommended to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the

ence to the various changes that had taken place in the process and practice of these courts, and with a view to the diminution of expense, where practicable to the suitors.

The appointment of masters in the several courts was to rest with the chief judges of each; their salaries was fixed at 1,2007. a-year; and they were forbidden to take any gratuities on pain of dismissal; and of disability to serve the crown thereafter in any situation what

ever.

The bill passed through both Houses without opposition, and received the royal assent at the close of the session.

throne; but, although circumstances had rendered it impossible that they should be perfected in the course of the present session; it was hoped, that the care and deliberation which had been bestowed upon them would not have been in vain, with a view to their eventual adoption.

The royal assent was then given in the usual form to a number of public and private bills; after which, the queen proceeded to read in a clear and unfaltering tone the following speech.

"My Lords and Gentlemen. "I have been anxious to seize the first opportunity of meeting you, in order that I might repeat in person my cordial thanks for your condolence upon the death of his late majesty, and for the expressions of attachment and affection with which you congratulated me upon my accession to the throne. I am very desirous of renewing the assurance of my determination to maintain the Protestant religion, as established by law; to secure to all the free exercise of the rights of conscience; to protect the liberties, and to promote the welfare of all classes of the community.

"I rejoice, that in ascending the throne, I find the country in amity with all foreign powers; and while I faithfully perform the engagements of the crown, and carefully watch over the interests of my subjects, it will be the constant object of my solicitude to maintain the blessings of peace."

Addressing more particularly the House of Commons, the queen thanked them for the liberal supplies which they had granted for the service of the year, as well as for the provision which they had

made to meet the payments usually chargeable on the civil list; and assured them that she would give directions that the public expenditure in all its branches should be administered with the strictest economy.

Her majesty then proceeded to return her thanks to both Houses for the zeal and assiduity with which they had applied themselves to the public business of the country. Notwithstanding the melancholy and unexpected interruption which had taken place in their labours, she said, she trusted they would have the beneficial effect of advancing the progress of legisla tion in the new parliament. She expressed a peculiar interest with which she regarded the amendment of the criminal code, and the reduction of the number of capital punishments, and said that she hailed this mitigation of the severity of the law as an auspicious commencement of her reign.

"I ascend the throne," said her majesty in conclusion, "with a deep sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon me; but I am supported by the consciousness of my own right intentions, and by my dependence upon the protection of Almighty God. It will be my care to strengthen our institutions civil and ecclesiastical, by discreet improvement wherever improvement is required, and to do all in my power to compose and allay animosity and discord. Acting upon these principles, I shall, upon all occasions, look with confidence to the wisdom of parliament and the affections of my people, which form the true support of the dignity of the crown, and ensure the stability of the constitution."

It is not meant to apply this theory in strictness to our revolution of 1832; for, as has been observed in our first chapter, that event was more directly the result of circumstances which were altogether beyond human combination and control. But yet the accident that the sovereign at the time was eminently an easy and well-intending man, contributed powerfully to the catastrophe. Had William the Fourth, with less natural intelligence been endowed with something of that instinct of self-defence and distrust, which the weakest animals have commonly the largest share of, the part he might have taken in the crisis, would probably have been a much wiser one, not for himself and his crown merely, but for the country and the constitution. As it was, the tone and conduct he did adopt singularly perplexed and disabled all the combinations of the friends of the old constitution. Hitherto governments have been at least on the defensive, at periods of popular commotion. In this instance we saw all the constituted authorities of the state actually taking the initiative in the aggression on its prescriptive institutions; and the king himself actively co-operating in the attack, by the exercise of his own prerogative; and that contrary to the instances of his family, of his personal friends, and of all the natural allies and supporters of the crown.

The king's dissolution of the Parliament in 1831 affords a new illustration of the important operation of the monarchical principle even in the weakest hands. The act decided the fate of the British constitution; and had it been William's ambition to give something of historical illustration even to

his own short and feeble administration, he could not better have consulted it. That the misguided monarch came himself bitterly to repent of his conduct on this point, we suppose can hardly be doubted. Of its consequences to the welfare of the country, it would at present be premature to speculate. Perhaps, under the guidance of that Providence, which, we must believe, is, after all, the disposing and actuating cause of all human events, it may turn out that however unwisely for himself, the king in this instance decided best for the constitution. It may, indeed, always be a matter of question whether at the pass to which his ministers had brought the government, and under the unfavourable excitement which they had given to the public mind, it was any longer in the power of their master safely to retreat; whether since a reform of some kind was now inevitable, it was not preferable, that the men who originated the movement, should not have the responsibility of carrying it into effect; whether the principle of change being thus conceded, any modifications of the bill would not have been dearly bought by the difficulties and the dangers, that would have attended a

change of government at such a crisis; and finally, whether in thus obtaining their "whole bill" without mutilation or mitigation, the party, that caused and carried it have not subjected themselves to a pledge of resistance to further incroachment on the part of the democratic principle, from which even the slightest modification of their own measure, would have given them a plea to escape.

William the Fourth as we have seen, died at Windsor, on the 20th