The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

' HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The following hills were read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed :—Brighton, Hove, and Preston
Waterworks ; Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas ; London
Life Association ; Middleton Gas ; Radcliffe and Pilk-
ington Gas.
On the motion for the second reading of the Dublin
and Mullingar Road bill,
Mr. M`CARTNEY moved as an amendment, that
the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. GROGAN supported the second reading.
After a brief discussion the house divided, when there
appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
On the motion for the second reading of the Dublin,
Clontarf, &c., Road Bill,
Mr. IVI`CARTNEY moved that it be read a second
time this day six months.
After another discussion the house again divided
When there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority --121
The bill was accordingly read a second time, and or
dared to be committed.
PETITIONS.
Sir F. THESIGER presented two petitions against
the Oaths Bill.
Several petitions were presented against the opening
of public houses on Sunday.
IRISH PRISONS.
Mr. FRENCH asked the Secretary for Ireland, whe-
ther a commission wag appointed to exmaine and report
on the state of the Government Prisons and Convict
Depots in Ireland ; whether it has made any report; and
by what authority it was appointed ; further, whether
such commission was superseded, and another commis-
sion appointed by the Home Secretary ; and whether
there is any intention on the part of Government of
transferring the superintendence of these Government
prisons and convict depots from the Irish authorities to
those in England.
Sir J. YOUNG said a commission had been appointed
to examine and report on the state of the convict prisons
in Ireland, but the commission had not yet made any
report, with regard to the last question the right hon.
baronet's answer was in the negative.
SUCCESSION TO REAL ESTATES BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it behoved the house to
pause before they adopted the democratic principle of
the bill, It was a most unwise principle, and utterly at
variance with the spirit of the constitution. But the
operation of the bill would be highly unjust if it were
carried, for, according to the provisions of the measure,
if the owner of a real estate died suddenly and intestate,
the law would step in and divide his property, in a
manner which might be wholly at variance with his
wishes. (Hear, hear.) In the estimation of some mem-
bers of the house, and amongst these the honourable
. member for Manchester, this bill did not go far enough,
but after the example they had had in a neighbouring
country of the working of the principle of this bill,
he hoped the house would resist the further pro-
gress of this bill. His apprehensions with re-
gard to this bill had been the more excited by
the conduct of the Government, whose supporters
were the advocates of the bill, and who had once already
adopted, after first opposing a democratic proposal com-
ing from the same quarter as the bill. He should, there-
fore, move that the bill be read a second time this day
six months.
Mr. BRIGHT said the right hon. baronet always
declared when he opposed a measure that it was
contrary to the spirit of the constitution. (A. laugh.)
-This- bill, however, , was. neither at variance with the
feelings of the people nor the spirit -of -the' Constitution.
Nor was it opposed to public morals or sound policy.
Its only object was to free land from some of the
trammels which the feudal system had imposed
upon the land ; it did not propose that there should
be a forced division of a man's landed property, but
that when a man died intestate his real estate should be
divided amongst his relations in the same manner as his
real estate. The law as it now stood was frequently the
cause of great dissensions in families. A man died sud-
denly without leaving a will behind him, and, his pro-
perty consisting chiefly of realties, his eldest son
succeeded to the estate, while the widow and
the other children were left to go pennyless. Now, such
a law was a disgrace to the country, and he entreated
the house to consent to the just and modest proposition
that, in case of intestacy, the law with regard to real
property should be the same as that which regulated the
distribution of perSonalities. -
Lord LOVAINE viewed this bill as the first step to-
wards the total abolition of the law of premogeniture,
and he could not consent to so unjust and so unconstitu-
tional a proposal. (Hear, hear.) He allowed that
this was not intended to preclude a man froip leav-
ing his real property to his eldest if he so thought fit,
but once let the thin end of the wedge be got in, and
those who advocated the democratic measure would not
rest until they had driven the whole of it home, and
established the same law of succession in England that
prevailed in France.
Mr. M. MILNES said the law.of primogeniture was
a custom not a law, and it was useless to waste time in
discussing that point. He entirely disagreed with the
noble lord in thinking that the system which obtained
force in France and Belgium was injurious to the land.
On the contrary, he thought it was a great bendit to
both those states, and, though lie should not wish
it to be transferred to this country in its entirety,
lie yet felt that it would be only an act of justice that
in cases of intestacy the real property should follow the
same ruie as personalties, and be distributed amongst
all the next of kin, instead of the whole of it going to
the eldest son.
Sir F. THESIGER declared that it was an error to
to suppose that the law of primogeniture did not prevail
in this country, as, so far from it being merely a custom
or a practice, it was part and parcel of the established
law of the land. That point being settled, he would
proceed to consider the measure before them. It was
either useless or mischievous useless, because, as the law
now stood; a man could dispose of his real property by
will, and mischievous because it recognised the prin-
ciple that it was desirable that there should be a
distribution of real property as well as personal
property. Nobody seemed favourable to a com-
pulsory distribution as the errors and dangers of such
a law had been made manifest in a neighbouring
country, but if this bill was once passed lie doubted
whether the Legislature could stop short of establishing
a system of compulsory distribution. But the principle
involved in this bill had already been tried in this coun-
try, at least so far as sons were concerned, and it was
found to be so inconvenient that it had to be repealed.
Many years ago a law prevailed in the county of
Kent by which the real property of a man who
died intestate was equally distributed amongst his sons,
but for the reason he had just stated, it was afterwards
repealed. There was, however, a still later instance
where that law had been tried and failed ; for in the reign
of Queen'Anne, when it was thought advisable that some-
thing should be done to weaken the influence of the
Roman Catholic Church, a law was passed that real
estates should descend to all the sons in common, but
the law was afterwards found to be impolitic as weaken.
ing the power of the aristocracy, and it was therefore
repealed. What use then would there be in passing a bill
which was based upon a principle which had already
been tried and failed.
Mr. J. 0. STANLEY disapproved of the distribution
of land into small allotments, a practice which prevailed
in France to the great injury of the country ; but he did
not think such would be the effect of this bill, and he
should support the second reading.
Mr. PACKE opposed the bill, as' impolitic and un-
wise, and declared that it was for the good of the-poor
that the land should not be distributed in the manner
which the bill proposed.
Mr. INGEIAM treated the bill as wholly unnecessary,
because a man who wished that his real property should
be equally distributed amongst his family could make
provision for them by his last will„and testament.
Mr. HENLEY said this bill would not so much
affect the higher or wealthier classes as the lower classes,
and as the real property of the latter was, generally
speaking, but very small in quantity, it would be
most unwise to pass a law to compel a forced sale of it.
A small property could not be so split up as to be
divided amongst all the children, without ultimately
lowering the status of a large body of respectable, though
small freeholders.
Mr. DRUMMOND argued that the experience of this
te,nl in France should -be a warning to the house not
to adopt this bill.
FrMance r. BOUVERIE did not think the state of things in
The should deter them from supporting this bill.
law of grlvheal kind prevailed in Kent, were it worked well. t law recognised the principleh of this
bill, and since the general law as it now stood was cruel
and unjust,
be adopted the . alteration proposed by this bill ought to
Lord J. RUSSELL said that
there was a wide diffe-
rence between personal and rea props erty,
tact', it might be advis-
able to subdivide the one in
of into y, ac but it
was neither for the interest or ;Ie state nor the land
subduitnvibslieornaosfthrenahl
.'estates. It
hat there should be any
was as common among the h
gmhefratchliaerssteos
of society, for real property to descend from
son according to the law of primogeniture, and no one
complained of the custom. Once establish the principle
recognised by the bill, where could they stop ? Would
it not be encouraging the cry that the present system
was unjust, and opening the way to the adoption of the
compulsory system which existed in France ? Well,
then, the best authorities concurred in the opinion that
a subdivision of land impoverished the people and de-
teriorated the value of property ; and with the experi-
ence which Franca offered limn in support of that
view, he had no alternative but to give a decided nega-
tive to the second reading of this bill.
Mr. V. SCULLY supported the bill, lint announced
his intention to suggest amendments in committee.
Mr. PEIINN contended that rule which held good
with regard to personalties, moat be equally good and
equally applicable to real property, and he supported
the bill on that ground alone, without any desire to dis-
turb the institutions of the country or diminish
the just influence of the aristocracy. (fear, hear.)
Re viewed all the objections which had been urged
against this bill as illusory, for in point of
fact practically there was no law of primogeniture in
this country, and intestate real property should be al-
lowed to follow the same rule as his personalties.
Mr. DISRAELI was not disposed to alter the law of
Edgland to meet an exceptional case. The institutions
of this country were mainly based upon the principle at

25
126
-101

. 13.6