The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-03-08 00:00:00

W EDN ESD A Y.

On the order for the second reading of the Real
Estate Intestacy Bill, moved by Mr. Locke King,
Lord W. GliAll.lll moved to defer the second reading
for six months. The object of the measure was, he said,
merely to satisfy a crotchet, and its effect would be to
disturb the ancient law of descent of landed property in
this country; to limit and curtail, and ultimately sub-
vert, the rule of primogeniture, and, by shaking the
solid substratum of substantial power, to affect the fonn
of the Constitution, the minute sulsdivi.ion of land
being at the bottom of all the political changes in
France.

Mr. Meht,o• supported the Bill. He dwelt upon the
evils rwiulting from the existing law, which often, Le
said, defeated the intentions of proprietors of landed
property towards their families. It in no respect inter-
fered with the right of a man to 1. 't the succession as
he pleased, nor would it lead to other alterations of the
law, which it modified wily on principles of morality
and justice.
Mr. HENLEY, in opposing the Bill, insisted that it
would have • cruel effect upon the lower classes of
landowners. The higher and middle classes could take
care of themselves; but, as not one in • hundred of the
owners of cottage property made • will, such property
would often, under this Bill, pass away from the
family.
Sir G. LEWIS observed that the effect of the proposed
alteration of the law would not be limited to cottage
property; it would completely alter the whole customs
of the country with respect to the devolution of landed
propertg. It was therefore necessary to consider not
only the economical, but the political consequences of
the division of such property, and the abolition of the
idea of an " heir at law." Much, he was aware, might
be said as to the convenience of a system of a divison of
landed property ; hut, looking to the connexion of our
custom of landed tenures with the constitution, he was
not prepared to consent to the second n:ading of this

Mr. M. MILNEB supported the Bill, believing the
alteration it proposed was in accordance with the desire
of • large majority of the country.
The SoLICITMI•GENKKAL said, although his objection
to the Bill was not founded on technical views, it was
impossible to approach this dissuasion without alluding
to the fonu in which the measure was embodied, and the
corusequences that would flow from that turn; and he
enumerated various points which appeared to have been
overlooked, showing, he observed, the sinall degree of
consideration given to the measure. Those who pne
posed so grave and important an alteration of the law
were bound to show that there was a strong desire for a
change of the law, that the law occasioned hardship,
and that the proposed change was consistent with expe-
diency and sound policy. He stated reasons for conclu-
ding that the parties interested in this subjmt were satis-
fied with the law as it stood ; and he argued from its I
operation that, unless in exceptional cases, it inflicted no
practical hardship. In dismissing the last
.point, he
remarked that the existing law had produced a date of '
social circumstances justifying the law, wl,ich Larne:,
nixed with an hereditary monarchy and an Ltreditary
peerage; tended to keep up a class distinct frsn. ta.t
aristocracy of mere wealth and that produced by
«slut commercial enterprise; favoured the agnea.l4—st
of the country; and kept families together by a Lead
ship, while it stimulated younger brothers to emulation
and parent' to exertion, in order to make provision for
the younger branches of the family. In pointing out
the evils that would result from the proposed change, he
urged that it would be impossible to stop there; the
Legislature must go further, and perhaps fulfil the pre-
dictions of Count ilontaletubert.
Mr. Lowg remarked that in this discussion both sides
had indulged in exaggeration. This was not • question
of great public policy; the question was, when the law
had to make a will for a man, what kind of will, stand-
ing in his place, it ought to make for him. The views
of the landed interest, lie maintained, ought not to decide
Me question, any more than those of the coininercial or
any other interest. It ought to make such a will as the
roan himself, supposing I to he a good, prudent, and
wise man, would have made; and he contended that our
present law did not make such a will for the distribution
of landed property.
Lord H. 1, ANC replied to Mr. Lowe, and contended
that it would be unwise to intrialuce an alteration of
the law which was not called for by landed proprietors
or any other class.
Mr. thiPE argued that the change of the law would
injuriously affect the market value of land, and that, in
the course of years. it would concert the holders of small
freehold estates into mere squatters.
tteneral THoIll•SoN and Mr. EWAIIT spoke in favour
of the Bill, which was opposed by Mr. WHITEBIIa as
the first step to greater changes.
Mr. WALTER called attention to extracts from the
Code Napoleon, and, believing that this measure would
lay foundatl for the introduction of something like
the Code Napoleon, he solennily warned the House
against its adoption.
After it few remarks by Mr. GREER in support of the
Bill.

The ArroßmEr•GtxtßAL said the passing of this
measure would be a legislative declaration that it was
the duty of every honest. prudent, and wise MAU to
divide his real estate by will among his children.
Lord P.totEms-roN said he objected to this measure
upon every possible ground. The proposition was at
variance with the habits, customs, and feelings of the
people of this country, and incompatible with the main•
tenance of a constitutional monarchy, which required
a landed aristocracy, titled or untitled. It was nothing
to say that an option was given ; if a great constitutional
principle was involved, it should not be left to such a
contingency.
Mr. KING replied to objections, and upon a division,
the original motion was negatived by 271 to 76, so the
Bill is lost. .

The Newspaper, Ise., Bill was read a second time.
On the order for the second reading of the Conveyance
of Voters Bill, moved by Mr. COLLIER.
Mr. Hoar moved that, as the voting by polling papers
was a provision contained in the New Reform Bill, the
debate be adjourned ; but after some debate, he with-
drew hie motion.
Mr. JAMES, in supporting the Bill, dwelt upon the
enormous expense to candidates occasioned by convey-
ances to the poll in metropolitan elections, which, he
said wins scandal and disgrace.
Mr P. O'BRIEN opposcif the Bill, and
Mr. Srxualtr, who had given notice of a motion to
defer the second reading for sit months, which, how•
ever, he did not move, contended that the Bill would
tend practically to disfranchise voters, while it laid pit-
falls for candidates.
The measure was supported by Mr. WHITE and Mr.
DEEDEM, and opposed by ME. NEWDEGATE.
lord J. Russei.i. said, as the Bill provided for more
polling places, his objection to non-payinent of convey-
ances had been removed, and lie should vote for the
!till.
, Mr. iIeNT moved the amendment of which Mr.
Steuart had given notice.
Sir .J. PARINI:TON reminded Lord J. Russell that he
had supported the clause in the Bill of last session now
proposed to he repealed, .on the ground that it was
necessary to settle the question.
Mr. AIRTON wished to go into committee upon the
Bill.
Upon a division the second reading was carried by 172
to IM.
The Recreation Grounds Bill wax read a second time.
The Medical Act Amendment Bill was read a third
time an.l passed.
The House adjourned at a quarter to 6 o'clock.