The Gazette 1972

invidious position and the Report does not really dis- pose of this problem adequately. The Report does not recommend any other change in the rules on attestation but suggests that the rule invalidating gifts to a witness is unreasonably rigid. It proposes that small gifts up to a certain limit should be exempted from this altogether and that above the limit there should be a rebuttable presumption of undue influence, with a procedure for decision as to validity to be obtained on a summons before the registrar. There is perhaps something to be said for exempting small gifts from the rule altogether but otherwise this proposal seems calculated to encourage litigation. We are inclined to think that solutions to the problem of home-made wills are more likely to lie in other directions, such as (i) greater direct publicity for the advantages of having a will drawn up by a solicitor (a service which even the most prejudiced must admit is good value for money), (iii) possible reforms of the law on interpretation of wills which, as the Report mentions, is being considered by the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee, who will no doubt be making recommendations on the matter shortly, and (i : i) various other reforms of the general law where it unreasonably defeats a testator's intentions, for example by imposing a strict settlement under the Settled Land Act 1925. (Gazette of the Law Society, England).

would be on trial. How in practice could the working of an optional scheme prove or disprove the case for making it compulsory? All that it could possibly achieve would be to familiarise the public to some extent with the practice of notarial attestation of wills, but in all likelihood this would only be true of those who consult solicitors about their wills in any case. Whether the scheme is optional or compulsory, it also seems unsatisfactory in principle to seek to steer testators towards solicitors in this way. Direct encoura- gement of testators to take legal advice about their wills is all to the good, but is it right to do so by exerting this sort of indirect presure? We would also foresee that it could raise awkward questions about the solicitor/ commissioner asked to witness a home-made will. It seems plain that, if he were asked to exercise a purely notarial function, he should not strictly be concerned with the contents of the will apart from matters affecting its due execution. But the Report seems to suggest that he would in some way certify that it was in order, and it seems to be an unspoken assumption that as a result of the proposal not only might the testator decide to ask the commissioner to advise on a solicitor and client basis but also, possibly, that the commissioner might feel obliged, without being asked, to point out any glaring defects in the draftsmanship of ,a will he is asked to witness, and clearly in some cases he might well find it hard not to do so. We seriously doubt whether it would be right to put a solicitor in this

Theological Association Report on the Constitution It might be thought that a Report submitted to the Theological Association about proposed changes in the Irish Constitution would be ultra conservative. This is however far from being the case. On the contrary, in order apparently to please the non-Christian Com- munity who form less than 1% of the population of the Republic, this Report suggested that the wording of the preamble should be secularised, and all mention of the Holy Trinity eliminated. While the views of important Christian denominations should be taken into account in framing a Constitution, ultimately suitable for all Ireland, it is very difficult to see why a tiny minority should be placated.

An all-party Committee of politicians (including a few Lawyers) has been formed to allegedly reform the Constitution with a view to its being acceptable to a majority of the people of Ireland. There is a grave danger that these politicians may well produce the text of a brand new Constitution, which would not have been submitted to the prior scrutiny of Constitutional Lawyers rather than going to the trouble of submitting many amendments to the present Constitution which would have to be voted upon separately in a Referendum. We lawyers must not allow politicians to hoodwink us into believing that our fundamental rights will be protected in a future Constitution as much as they are in the present Constitution. In particular we must ceaselessly safeguard the notion that the Courts are the guardians of the Constitution who will be the bulwark for the protection of the individual against the ever growing power of the State.

Once some facilities for divorce had been granted in Italy, it was easy to forecast similar demands would be made here. But there is little doubt that if the demand for full divorce were submitted to a popular referendum, it would more than likely be rejected. It has already been pointed out that, if there were a demand for easier facilities to optain contraceptive pills, this could be met by amending legislation.

167