An op

elections, and a variety of other local matters. portunity was taken of introducing into this bill, clauses placing the power of making a will upon the same footing in London, as it then was in all other parts of England. This bill was the subject of much anxious discussion, upon many of its clauses, in both houses of parliament; and particularly upon that part of it which related to the alteration of the custom, in regard to the power of making a will.

66

At the third reading of the bill in the House of Lords, several protests were taken against different parts of it. (n) In one of these protests the objections to this part of the bill are thus expressed: "4. Because this bill abolishes "the custom relating to the distribution of the personal "estates of free citizens, which is a custom not only of great antiquity, but seems to us to be wisely calculated "for the benefit of a trading city, and has been acquiesced "under for so many years, without the least complaint of any one free citizen that we have ever heard of, that the taking it away in this manner cannot but appear to us to "be too rash and precipitate, and may too probably, in our opinion, be very detrimental to the true interest of this "ancient, populous, loyal, and hitherto flourishing city, "the preservation of whose good order and government, "the bill itself very justly and judiciously allows to be of "the greatest consequence to the whole kingdom."

66

66

66

66

And in the other of those protests we find the following objections to this alteration of the custom :-" 5thly, We "are of opinion that the abolition of the ancient custom "of the city touching the personal estates of freemen is a dangerous innovation, tending to let into the government "of the city, persons inexperienced and unpractised in

66

(n) Lords' Journals, 13th April 1725.

"the laudable and beneficial trade of the city and king"dom, and unfit for the magistracy of the city, and may

thereby introduce improper and pernicious influences 66 over the citizens; and we think that the strength, riches, power, and safety of the city of London have been "hitherto in a great measure supported by this and other "customs of the city, as the walls thereof; and we fear "that the decay of trade, and with that of the grandeur of "the city of London, and the diminution and loss of the great excises and duties arising from the trade of the city, on which the support of his Majesty's government "so much depends, may be the consequence of the abolition "of this ancient custom and privilege of the freemen of the 66 city of London."

66

The opposition to the bill, and to this part of it, did not however prevail; and clauses regulating this matter now appear in the act (0), which was then passed, in these

Whereas great numbers of wealthy persons, not free of the city of London, do inhabit and carry on the trade of merchandize and other employments within the said city, and refuse or decline to become freemen of the same, by reason of an ancient custom within the said city, restraining the freemen of the same from disposing of their personal estates by their last wills and testaments. (Preamble.)

And to the intent that persons of wealth and ability, who exercise the business of merchandize and other laudable employments within the said city, may not be discouraged from becoming free of the same, by reason of the custom restraining the citizens and freemen thereof from disposing of their personal estates by their last wills and testaments, be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and

(0) 11 Geo. I. c. 18. s. 17, 18.

every person and persons who shall, at any time from and after the 1st day of June 1725, be made or become free of the said city, and also to and for all and every person and persons who are already free of the said city, and on the said 1st day of June 1725, shall be unmarried, and not have issue by any former marriage, to give, devise, will, and dispose of his and their personal estate and estates to such person and persons, and to such use and uses, as he or they shall think fit; any custom or usage of or in the said city, or any by-law or ordinance made or observed within the same, to the contrary thereof, in anywise notwithstanding. (Sect. 17).

Provided nevertheless, that in case any person who shall, at any time or times, from and after the said 1st day of June 1725, become free of the said city, and any person or persons who are already free of the said city, and on the said 1st day of June 1725 shall be unmarried, and not have issue by any former marriage, hath agreed or shall agree by any writing under his hand, upon or in consideration of his marriage or otherwise, that his personal estate shall be subject to, or be distributed or distributable, according to the custom of the city of London; and in case any person so free, or becoming free as aforesaid, shall die intestate, in every such case the personal estate of such person so making such agreement or so dying intestate shall be subject to, and be distributed and distributable, according to the custom of the said city; any thing herein contained to the contrary, in any wise notwithstanding. (Sect. 18.)

As in the statute relative to the alteration of the law in the principality of Wales, so this act of the 11th of George I. had no operation upon the rights of wives and children, in the city of London, then existing. In this respect, it differed also from several of the other acts which have been already mentioned.

Thus, throughout England, the power is now universal

in every person to give and bequeath the whole of his personal estate by his last will and testament, as fully as he formerly could any part of such personal estate; and it does not appear that such power has been, at any subsequent period, objected to as inconvenient or inexpedient. This obviously must have tended to prevent all collision between the conflicting rules of distribution of intestates' estates, which still subsist in the different districts of England; such collisions, it will be seen afterwards, have been little known as matters of discussion in the courts of law.

According to the customs of the province of York and city of London, as modified by these acts of parliament, it will be seen in the sequel, that a great degree of intricacy has been introduced into the law of succession where these customs prevail. In a case of intestacy, the widow and children take their rateable proportions according to the ancient customs; but the dead man's part is distributed by the statutes of distribution.

There is this further intricacy in regard to these customs, that it has been decided in various cases (p), that the customs do not extend to grandchildren. Thus, though grandchildren would represent their deceased parents, and take the distributive shares of such parents under the statute, they would be cut out from all distributive share under the customs, in regard to which their uncles and aunts would be preferred to them.

It could not have been contemplated, that such intricacies should have resulted from the statutes of distribution. It is matter of surprise that they have been allowed to exist in England till the present day; but the universal power of making a will of the whole personal estate, ap

(p) 1 Vern. 367; 1 P. Williams, 341; 2 Salk. 426.

pears to have operated so as to have made these intricacies little felt. Except for this power of bequeathing by will, it is not too much to say, that the variety of customs, and the intricacy of the rules thence resulting, still subsisting in England, must long ago have become intolerable.

The differences between the rules of distribution, prevailing respectively in the province of Canterbury, in the province of York, and in the city of London, shall be further stated and contrasted in a future part of this treatise.