The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-08 00:00:00

was as common among the humbler as the higher elates
of society, for real property to descend from -father to
son according to the law of primogeniture, and no one
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-
teribrated _the value of property; and with the experi-
ence which France offered him 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 but announced
his intention to suggest amendments in committee.
Mr. PHINN contended that rule which held good
with regard to personalties, must 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. (Hear, hear.)
He 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
England to meet an exceptional case. The institutions
of this country were mainly based upon the principle at
which this bill aimed a blow, and the house should be
cautious how they gave countenance to its supporters.
It might be a fair subject of discussion whether a differ-
ence ought to be made between personal and real pro-
perty, but for his part he thought such a difference
should continue to exist. The law recognised the differ-
ence, and upon the recognition of that difference our social
system was built. One branch of the legislature rested
upon it, and the house should be slow to disturb it. But
beyond that consideration, it should not be forgotten
that the possession of real property involved the
performance of important public duties, which did not
necessarily attend the possession of personalities, while
it was to the maintenance of large properties that public
liberty had been preserved in this country. Public liberty
could not be long sustained in an ancient European
country like thi:s without the assistance of large proper-
ties to rally round it, and he should therefore be sorry to
see any steps taken which in the remotest degree tended,o
disturb the 'existing state of things. The only effect of
this bill thea would be to remove that well-defined and
useful difference between persons and real property
which the-law and custom of the country had so long
acknowledged, and inasmuch as such a change in the
existing system would be dangerous to the community,
as well as lower the character of the country, he should
give it his unhesitating opposition.
KING pronounced the fears which had been
expressed with regard to this bill to be quite groundless,
because its operation would not in the least affect the
larger estates of the country, or disturb the duties and
functions that devolved upon those who enjoyed the pos-
session of "real preperty. On the one hand,_the bill
would confer great benefits upon the middle classes, who
were not prepared to continue a system which enriched
the elder son, -while it beggared the rest of the family—
a system which was upheld by prejudice now that it
could be no longer supported by argument.
The house then divided, when there appeared—

For the second reading
Against it