of Louisiana, in which state a testator having one descendant can dispose of but two thirds of his estate by will, and of but one half if he leaves two, and of but one third if he leaves three or more. The laws of the other states contain some provisions in favor of the widow of the testator, particularly her right to dower, and also in favor of posthumous children. The power of the living proprietor to direct how his property shall be disposed of after his decease, especially his lands, is not among those absolute rights derived from the laws of nature, with which the laws of society cannot interfere without doing injustice, but is founded in expediency. Chancellor Kent justly remarks (Com. v. iv, lect. 68) that "the interests of society, in its career of wealth and civilization, seem to require that every man should have the free enjoyment and disposition of his property; for it furnishes one of the strongest motives to industry and economy." And he thinks the bonds of affection and family pride are a sufficient guaranty in favor of the claims of the relatives of the testator.Persons capable of making a Will. The capacity to make a will, as to make a contract, or do any other act that may affect the person or rights of a party, is subject to legal regulation. To make a valid will, the testator must be of sound mind; and to make a devise of lands, he must be of the age of twenty-one years; but, by the English law, a boy of fourteen, and a girl of twelve, may bequeath chattels, By the revised statutes of New York (vol. ii, p. 60), the respective ages of capacity for this purpose are eighteen and sixteen. In the other U. States, the regulations in this respect vary. So, in England, and generally in the U. States, a married woman cannot dispose of either real or personal estates by will. But, in Louisiana, which adopts the French, and, therefore, in the main, the civil law in this respect, she can bequeath her own separate property. And, in the other states, property, whether real or personal, may be so placed in trust by marriage settlement, or other wise, that it shall be subject to a testamentary disposition or appointment by a married woman. Devises to corporations, except for charitable uses, are not authorized by the English law. By the revised statutes of New York, a devise to a corporation not authorized by its charter to take by devise, is void. But chancellor Kent (Com., v. iv, p. 508) is of opinion that a devise in trust for a charitable corporation would be good, notwithstanding 16

VOL. XIII.

this statute.-Things devisable. Though in England, and also in the U. States, with the exception of Louisiana, a person may dispose by will of his property, both real and personal, yet, in respect to real estate, the general doctrine has been, that a devise will operate only on the property of which the testator was possessed at the time of making the will, and of which he continued in possession till his death. This construction often defeats the intention of the testator, who, by devising all his real estate, generally intends to devise what he may own at the time of his decease. And the provision is often, professedly, a disposition of all the lands of which he may be in possession at the time of his decease. The revised statutes of New York have altered the law in this respect, and put a construction upon devises more conformable to the intention of testators, by providing that devises of all the testator's real estate, or terms in a will denoting an intention to dispose of all his real estate, shall operate upon all the lands of which he may be possessed at the time of his decease. A mere right of entry on lands is not generally devisable; but, in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, such a right is devisable, the rule, in those states, being that every interest or right in lands descendible to heirs may be devised.-Execution of a Will. It is a general rule that wills, to operate on lands, must be executed according to the laws of the place where the lands lie; but personal property passes by a will executed according to the laws of the place of residence of the testator, though the property be situated elsewhere. This distinction arises from the general rule, that the title to lands is to be governed by the laws of the country where it is situated, but that personal property is subject to the contracts and disposition made by the owner, in conformity to the laws of the place where they are made. It is a general rule, with some few exceptions, that a will must be in writing. The laws of New York require that it should be signed by the testator, at the conclusion of it. In England and in the U. States generally, it is only requisite that it should be signed. The construction put upon this rule in England has been that the testator's writing his name in the beginning of the will is a signing. This construction gave rise to the above provision of the New York statutes. These statutes have therefore defined, in one particular, what shall be a signing; but the law generally leaves this to construction, which

seems to be more advisable, since there is apparently no reason for defining what shall be a signing of a will, any more than what shall be a signing of any other instrument. In Vermont, a will is required to be sealed; but the law in the other states, and in England, requires merely that it should be in writing, and signed. Three witnesses are required in England, and in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. In New York, Delaware, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina and Kentucky, only two; in Louisiana, from three to seven, according to the circumstances and kind of will. But some exceptions as to the witnessing are made in Pennsylvania, and in North Carolina and Tennessee. The regulations of two witnesses subscribing in the presence of the testator, and of each other, are not the same under all these jurisdictions. In the revised statutes of New York, the testator is required to sign the will, or acknowledge it to be his will in presence of each witness; but the requirement of the English law, that the witnesses must sign in each other's presence, is omitted. It has been held that the provision, that the testator must sign in presence of the witnesses, is satisfied if he is where he may be seen by them; but his being corporally present, though insensible, does not satisfy the requirement that they must attest in his presence.-Nuncupative Wills. At the common law, an oral will was valid in respect to chattels; but such wills are rendered void, or made subject to particular regulations, by the various statutes on the subject. By the statute of 29 Charles II, c. 3, a nuncupative will was not valid in respect to property exceeding thirty pounds, unless proved by three witnesses present at the time of making it, and especially requested to bear witness to it, or unless it was made in the testator's last sickness, and was reduced to writing within six months after his decease. This provision, or one very similar, is introduced into the statutes of many of the United States. But the restrictions on nuncupative wills confine them, in some of the United States, within still narrower limits. In New York, by the revised statutes, a nuncupative will is not valid unless made by a soldier in actual military service or a mariner at sea. In Massachusetts, such a will is not valid where the property exceeds fifty pounds, unless it is proved by at least three witnesses,

nor unless it is made in the last sickness of the testator, and at his usual residence, or where he had been resident at least for the preceding ten days; excepting in the case of a person being unexpectedly taken sick when absent from home, and dying before his return to his home.-Revocation. A will may be revoked by an instrument of equal formality, or by cancelling. A subsequent will, accordingly, is a revocation of a prior one, if its provisions imply a substitution of the latter will for the former. But the more general rule is, that if a subsequent will is invalid, it will not be a revocation of a preceding one; and the general rule again is, that by a revocation or cancelling of a subsequent will, a preceding one is revived. But the New York revised statutes make a provision on this subject, which is more likely to meet the intention of the testator, namely, that the cancelling or revocation of a subsequent will does not revive a former one, unless the testator makes a declaration to that effect. So a will may be revoked by legal operation or inference; as in England, by subsequent marriage, and birth of a child, unless the wife and child or children be provided for by a marriage settlement. So the will of an unmarried woman is revoked by her marriage.— Omission of Children or Heirs. The law of Louisiana, as has been already noticed, prohibits the parent from disinheriting his children, excepting in certain specified cases; but in the other United States and in England, the parent may disinherit his children. The statutes of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, provide that if a child be not named in the will of its parent, it inherits the same proportion of the estate as if the parent had died intestate; and so, in the same states, and in Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Alabama, posthumous children, and in most of those states, also, children born after the making of the will, inherit as if no will had been made, provided, in either case, that no provision is made by the will for the subsequently born or posthumous children.A codicil is a supplementary will, and requires to be made with similar formality.-Construction. It is a general rule, that wills are to be construed liberally, and, as far as is practicable, so as to fulfil the intention of the testator. In this respect, a greater liberality is adopted than in regard to deeds and most other written instruments. Thus the law does not re

quire that a devise should be to the devisee and his heirs, in order to carry a fee; any other words, or any provisions of the will, showing an intention to give all the testator's title, being sufficient for that purpose. But it has been held that, in general, the devise of a piece of land gives the devisee only a life estate, unless it could be gathered from the will that a greater estate was intended to be devised. But the law, in this respect, is very much improved in the revised code of New York, which construes a devise of land to be a devise of all the testator's interest in it, unless a contrary intention appears in the will. This construction will, undoubtedly, more frequently correspond to the intention of the testator. In Massachusetts, it had previously been held that a devise of wild lands, which the testator possessed in fee, carried the fee; the presumption being entirely in favor of this construction, since the devise would, upon any other interpretation, be of no advantage to the devisee. The rule that the presumption shall be in favor of a life estate, if no other be expressed, has, undoubtedly, defeated the intention of testators in thousands of instances, indeed, in almost all cases of wills not drawn up by lawyers.

WILLAMOV, John Theophilus, a German dithyrambic poet, was born in 1736, at Mohrungen, in Prussia, and, in 1767, became a school-master in St. Petersburg. He died in 1777. His poems relate to the separation of Sicily from Italy, the history of Arminius, and other elevated subjects. He also wrote fables in dialogue. The most complete edition of his poems was published at Vienna (1793).

WILLDENOW, Charles Louis, a celebrated botanist, born at Berlin, in 1765, was the son of an apothecary, and, after studying pharmacy under his father, was sent to the university of Halle, and then to Langensalza, where Wiegleb had a laboratory of pharmaceutical chemistry. Willdenow then returned to Berlin, where, in 1798, he received the chair of natural history at the royal college of medicine and surgery. In 1801, he was appointed professor of botany to the academy of Berlin, and, at length, director of the botanic garden at Berlin, which received great additions and improvements under his management. He formed a zoological cabinet, which he presented to the museum of Berlin. In 1804, he travelled through Austria and Upper Italy, and, seven years after, was invited to Paris by Humboldt, to classify and describe the

multitude of new plants brought by that traveller from America. Willdenow died not long after his return to Berlin, July 10, 1812. He was an associate of twentyfour learned societies; and the king bestowed on him the order of the black eagle. Among his principal works are, Prodromus Flora Berolinensis (1787); Historia Amaranthorum (Zürich, 1790, folio); Elémens de Botanique (1792), which has been translated into several languages; Arboriculture Berlinoise spontanée (1796); Species Plantarum exhibentes Plantas ritè cognitas ad Genera relatas cum Differentiis specificis, Nominibus trivialibus, synonymis, selectis Locis natalibus, secundum Systema sexuale digestas (Berlin, 1797-1810, 5 vols., in nine parts); Guide pour étudier soi-même la Botanique (1804); and Hortus Berolinensis, of which only the first volume has been published. Willdenow's great work, the Species Plantarum, was left incomplete, as he did not live to finish the history of the cryptogamic plants. A continuation has been promised by professor Link, of Berlin.

WILLE, John George, a distinguished engraver, was born in 1715, near Giessen, in Hesse-Darmstadt. He learned the trade of a gunsmith, and afterwards became a watch-maker. He subsequently went to Paris, and there became an engraver. His portrait of marshal Belleisle became the foundation of his fortune. In the revolution, he lost his property, amounting to 800,000 francs, and would have lost his life had not his son happened to be general of the national guard of Paris. Napoleon made him a member of the legion of honor, and the institute elected him into their body. His portraits of the minister Florentin and of Bossuet are particularly valued. He subsequently engraved historical and similar pictures; also many sketches of his son Peter Alexander Wille, born in Paris, in 1748. He died in 1808.

WILLIAM I, surnamed the Conqueror; king of England and duke of Normandy. He was born in 1024, and was the natural son of Robert, duke of Normandy, by Arlotta, the daughter of a tanner of Falaise. His father, having no legitimate son, on his departure on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, caused the states of the duchy to swear allegiance to him as his heir. Robert died in 1035, on his return from Palestine; and the guardian of the young duke could not prevent the king of France from reducing the duchy to a very low condition. When William assumed the reins himself, his vigor and ability soon repelled these ag

gressions, and reduced both the French king and his own rebellious barons to the necessity of peace and submission. Edward the Confessor, at this time king of England, being closely connected with the Norman family, was instigated by the archbishop of Canterbury, a Norman, to allow William to be given to understand that the king designed him for his successor. The irresolute character of Edward, however, induced him to keep the secret in his own breast, which enabled Harold to ascend the throne on his death, in 1066, without opposition. Harold had previously been carried a captive into Normandy, where he was treated with great distinction by William, who informed him of the intentions of the Confessor, and took from him an oath to do his utmost to carry them into effect. His occupation of the throne led to immediate war, and the Norman invasion followed, which was rendered successful by the battle of Hastings, fought on the fourth of October, 1066, terminating in the defeat and death of Harold and two of his brothers. On the Christmas-day of the same year, William was crowned, after a sort of tumultuary election on the part of the English nobles, and took the customary coronation oath. His first measures were mild he sought to ingratiate himself with his new subjects, preserved his army in strict discipline, confirmed the liberties of London and other cities, and administered justice impartially. On his return to Normandy, however, the English, being treated by the Norman leaders like a conquered people, broke out into revolt, and a conspiracy was planned for the massacre of all the Normans in the country. On this intelligence, William returned, and began with a show of justice, by repressing the encroachment of his followers; but, reviving the tax of Danegelt, which had been abolished by Edward the Confessor, the discontents were renewed. These he repressed with his usual vigor, and a temporary calm succeeded. The resistance of two powerful Saxon nobles, Edwin and Morcar, who had formed an alliance with the kings of Scotland and Denmark, and with the prince of North Wales, soon after drew William to the north, where he obliged Malcolm, king of Scotland, to do homage for Cumberland. From this time, he treated the English like a conquered people, multiplied confiscations in every quarter, and forced the native nobility to desert the country in great numbers. In 1069, another formidable insur

rection broke out in the north, and, at the same time, the English resumed arins in the eastern and southern counties. William first opposed the storm in the north, and executed such merciless vengeance in his progress, that the whole country between York and Durham was turned into a desert; and above 100,000 of both sexes, and all ages, are said to have perished. There being now scarcely a landed proprietor who had not incurred the forfeiture of rebellion, he put into execution his plan of introducing a total alteration of the state of English law and property, by dividing all the lands into baronies, and adopting the feudal constitution of Normandy in regard to tenure and services. He also reduced the ecclesiastical property to a similar system, and, in order to prevent resistance from the clergy, expelled all the English church dignitaries, and placed Normans or other foreigners in their stead. Still further to subjugate the minds of the English, he sought to abolish even their language, causing the French to be spoken at court and used in courts of justice and in law proceedings, and ordering it to form a leading part of instruction in all the schools throughout the realm. In 1071, the earls Edwin and Morcar produced a new insurrection in the north, which terminated in the death of the former, and capture of the latter; and the Scottish king having again aided them, William marched an army into Scotland, which soon led to a peace; on which occasion, he allowed the return of the weak but rightful Saxon heir, Edgar Atheling, who had taken refuge in Scotland, and promised him an honorable establishment. In 1073, he returned to Normandy, whence he was recalled by a revolt among his Norman barons, which was, however, quelled by the regent Odo, his half brother. In 1076, he received a letter from pope Gregory VII, requiring him to do homage for his kingdom, and to pay the accustomed tribute from England to the holy see. William denied the homage; nor would he allow the English prelates to attend a general council summoned by Gregory, but consented to the levy of Peter's pence. About the year 1081, he instituted that general survey of the landed property of the kingdom, the record of which still exists under the title of Domesday Book, being a minute return of the estates in the different counties, their extent, proprietors, tenure, condition and value. The manner in which he laid waste the New Forest in Hamp

shire, where he demolished villages, churches, and convents, and expelled the inhabitants for thirty miles round, merely to form a forest for hunting, exhibits his cruelty and love of sporting, which he further protected by a most severe code of game laws. In 1087, he went to war with France, whose king had encouraged a rebellion of Norman nobles. He entered the French territory, and committed great ravages, but, by the starting of his horse, received an injury which hastened his death, at the abbey of St. Gervais, near Rouen (1087), in the sixty-third year of his age. He left three sons-Robert, to whom he bequeathed Normandy; William, who inherited England; and Henry, who received nothing but his mother's property. He also left five daughters. William the Conqueror was the most powerful sovereign of his time. He possessed superior talents, both political and martial, and employed them with remarkable vigor and industry. His passions were, however, strong; his ambition severe and merciless; and his love of sway often led him to disregard all restraints of justice and humanity.-See Thierry's Histoire de la Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands (Paris, 1825,3 vols.). WILLIAM II, surnamed Rufus, from his red hair, second son of the preceding, was born in 1060. Being nominated king of England by his father, on the death of the latter he hastened over from Normandy, took possession of the royal treasury at Winchester, and was crowned at Westminster in September, 1087. The division of England and Normandy did not, however, please the great barons, who possessed territories in both; and a conspiracy was formed for effecting the deposition of William in favor of his brother Robert. As the conspirators were chiefly Normans, the king, who possessed a considerable share of his father's vigor and activity, immediately turned his attention to the English, and, by promising a restoration of their ancient laws, and liberty to hunt in the royal forest, he was enabled to levy a force, by means of which he successively reduced the castles of the confederates, whom he sent to Normandy, after confiscating all their English possessions. Being now firmly seated on his throne, he forgot his promises to the English; and the death of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, freeing him from an authority which he respected, he extended his rapacity to the church, and seized the temporalitics of vacant bishoprics and abbeys, to which he delayed

appointing successors. In 1090, he made an incursion into Normandy, to retaliate on his brother Robert; but a reconciliation was effected between them, and Robert accompanied him back to England, and led an army for him against the king of Scotland, whom he compelled to do homage to William. The two brothers did not, however, long continue friends, and, in 1095, William was in France plotting against Robert, when he was recalled to England by a conspiracy of his barons in the north, which he quickly repressed. The following year, Robert mortgaged his dukedom to William for the sun of ten thousand marks, to enable him to fit out an expedition and join the crusaders in the Holy Land. William accordingly took possession of Normandy and Maine, and soon after, being seized with a dangerous illness, appointed Anselm, a Norinan abbot, distinguished for learning and piety, to the archbishopric of Canterbury, which had remained vacant since the death of Lanfranc. Contrary to his expectation, he found in Anselm a strenuous defender of the claims of the church, and strove to depose him by means of a synod, but could not succeed. At length Anselm obtained permission to visit Rome; and in his absence the king immediately seized on all the temporalities of his see. He soon after was obliged to visit France, to resist the progress of the lord of La Fleche. In 1100, the duke of Guienne, following the example of the duke of Normandy, applied to William to advance him money on his province, to which the latter readily agreed, and was about to pay the money and acquire possession of the territories, when an accident terminated his life. He was hunting in the New Forest, and had alighted from his horse after a chase, when, a stag suddenly starting up near him, a French gentleman, named Walter Tyrrel, let fly an arrow at the animal, which, glancing from a tree, entered the king's breast, and pierced him to the heart. Tyrrel immediately gallopped to the coast, and embarked for France, where he joined the crusaders. The king's body was found by the country people, and interred, without ceremony, at Winchester. This event took place August 2, 1100, when William was in the fortieth year of his age, and thirteenth of his reign. This prince possessed vigor, decision and policy, but was violent, perfidious and rapacious.

WILLIAM III, hereditary stadtholder of Holland and king of England, the greatest enemy of Louis XIV, and the