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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.

The following bills 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. WCARTNEY 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 126
Majority
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
On the motion for the second reading of the Dublin,
Clontarf, &c., Road Bill,
Mr. MTARTNEY 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. I3G
Against it l5
Majority -121
The bill was accordingly read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed.

PETITIONS.
Sir F. TIIESIGER 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 was appointed to examine 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such commission was superseded, and another commis-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, bat 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. PARING-TON 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 wouli resist the further pro-
gress of this bill. His apprehensions with re-
, gard fo 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 pennyleee. 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 from 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. Ire 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 benefit to
both those states, and, though he should not wish
it to be transferred to this country in its entirety,
he yet felt that it would be only an act of justice that
in cases Of intestacy the real property should follow the
same rule 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
eitheruseless or-mischievous useless, because, as the law
not stood, ,a man could dispose of his real property by
will, and mischievous because it recognised the eain-
ciple that it was desirable that there shmild be a
distribution of real property as well as personal
property. Nobody seemed favourable to a Qom-
, pnlsory 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 he doubted
whether the Legislature could stop short of establishing
' a system of compulsory distribution. But the principle
involved in this bilh had already been tried in this coun-
t 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
died Sent by whieh real property of a man who
intestate ,was equally distributed amongst his sons,
but for the reason he had just stated, it was afterwards
Pealed. There was, however, a still later instance
Where thatlaw had been tried and failed ; for in the reign
(g)tlflueerfAnne when it was thought advisable that some-
, g should be done to weaken the influence of the
Colic Church, a law was passed that real
eatates shoulddescend to all the sons in common, but
the laiv•
;4, as afterwards found to be impolitic as weaken-
espea"Ciner of the aristocracy, and it was therefore
ar use then would there be in passing a bill
which was.bil
been tried andetilurion a principle which had already
Mr. S. O. 3T41..8Y
OT land into small disapproved of the distribution
in France to the allotments,great a practice which prevailed
not think such'sveerd tnittry of the country • but he did
should support
the
seed the effect of this and he
Mr. PACKE.Opposed
the bill ast
otreading
and un-
wise, and
that :the land ' declared
should not that
be
As for the good of the poor
t
Which the bill proposed. ' distributed. in the manner

____......
• Mr. INGHAM treated the bill RA whop
unnecessary,
because a man who wished that his realY
fanil4° could make
perty should
be equally distributed amongst big
provision for them by his last will awuodu
would
slna
Mr.- HENLEY said this bill
omtell3t. much
affect the higher or wealthier classes as the lowe'r°cla s
awl as the real property of the latter wl° gene.raciell', sPeaking, but very small in quantity, it would be nhost 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
e►uall freeholders.

__,....,.
Mr. DRUMMOND argued that.the experience of this
system in France should be a warning to the house not
to adopt this bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE did not think the state of things in
France should -deter them from supporting this bill.
T.he law of gravel kind prevailed in Kent, where it
corked well. That law recognised the principle of this
"al, and since the general law as it now stood was cruel
t 134 unjust, the alteration proposed by this bill ought to
ue adopted.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there was a wide diffe-
a
2ce between personal and real
property, it might be ad vis-
.lo to subdivide the one in cases of intestacy, but it
that
ryasnnetherither for the interest of the state nor the land
t there should be any subdivision of real estates, It

I MPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOTTSE OF COMMONS-,-(YESTERDAY.)
POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH SCOTLAND
Mr. H. G. LIDDELL moved for a select committee
to inquire into- the postal communication between LOn-
don and the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, with a
view of ascertaining whether greater despatch and punc-
tuality can be attained in the transmission of letters, as
well between the termini as the intermediate places.
He suggested that the Northern- Mails, instead of being
carried round by Derby and Rugby, should be taken by
the Great Northern Railway.
Mr. COWAN seconded the Motion. •
Mr. WlLSON_said there were difficulties at present
in the way of employing the Great Northern line ; but
when these,difficulties, which were of a somewhat com-
plicated character, should be removed, there would be
no objection to carrying the mails over that railway.
The arrangements-of the Post-office, he observed, were
in a transition state, and considering the rapid rate of
increase in the number of letters, it was no wonder that
there should be
,occasional irregularities and delays. He
would not oppose the hon. member's motion, but he
wished him to. alter it, so that the inquiry might not be
confined to any particular case • and he would suggest
that for that purpose words should be added to this
effect—" to inquire into the causes of irregularity in the
carriage of the mails by railways, and to consider the
best mode of securing speed and regularity, and the re-
muneration which railway companies should receive for
the services, they performed."
Mr. LIDDELL was ready to assent to this proposal,
doubting, however, whether the area of inquiry would
not be too large where an expeditious remedy was re-
quired for a pressing evil.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES thought both proposi-
tions objectionable. - If witnesses were brought from all
parts of the country, a long time would elapse before
they would have any report on the subject. He thought
it was the fault of the Post-office Government in not
coming down to.bring ia.a bill to. remedy the evils com-
plained of.
Mr. FREWIN complained of the delay in the day
mail train that left Euston-square for York. The ex-
press train that left an hour later arrived in York an hour
earlier than the mail train.
Mr. HASTIE trusted 'that the inquiry by her Ma-
jesty's Government would be gone into with a deter-
mination to inVestigate the whole question, and to cor-
rect the abuses. _lii Glasgow there was no proper
post-office, and, the people of- that city complained
strongly of the inconvenience, and want of proper public
accommodation. -
Lord HOTHAX said it was not only the great towns
on the main line that suffered, but the small, and more
inland towns. •• • " • •
Mr. HUDSON stated that if the Postmaster-General
would only give'direetiOns at any time for a train to be
put on the Great Northern Line, the desire would be at
once complied with. He thoughtl the grievances com-
plained-of by
''hialon. friend who brought forward the
motion was a very serious one, and he (Mr. Hudson)
regretted that.there should be any opposition offered to
his motion. The railway company was not at all to
blame in the matter, and the only party who really was
to blame, and against whose want of arrangement there
was great cause of complaint, was the Postmaster-Gene-
ral. , He (Mr. Hudson) thought it desirable that a com-
mittee 'should be appointee, and he was satisfied that
such .a report would emanate-from, that .committee
*mill 'prove
.beneficial -to the. trading • and commercial
interesta'of thelcountry, and, te the public generally.
The motion waslthati withdrawn, and the amendment
of Mr. 'Wilson was zulistitiited and agreed to.