The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THis DAY).
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
On the motion of Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, the order
of the day for the committal of the Liverpool Corporation
Water Bill was discharged, and the bill was withdrawn.
PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented in favour of placing post-office
officials in the provinces on the same footing as those in the
metropolis ; that for any inquiry into the working of the
Licensing Act in Scotland should be conducted by Royal
commission.

REAL ESTATE INTESTACY BILL.
Mr. LOCKE KING, in moving the second reading of
his bill, said there was a great deal of misstatement and
misapprehension existing. The effect of the bill would
materially relieve a large number of small proprietors from
the operation of the present system, which affected them
most injuriously. It had been asserted that the present
law was in harmony with the feelings of the great body of
landed proprietors in the country. That he entirely
denied ; because, as he had already stated, it was opposed
to their interests, and consequently not congenial to their
feelings. He had been accused of a desire to introduce the
French law on this subject into this country ; but he did
not know what was meant by the French law, as there
could be no division by testament of property in that
country. The more experience he acquired, the more con-
vinced he was of the utility of making the law uniform in
regard to every description of property.
Lord W. GRAHAM moved as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time that day six months. He con-
sidered that the effect of the bill would be most disastrous.
It was said that the measure did not attack the law of
primogeniture, but though it did not do so directly it did so
indirectly, and they might rest assured that any attempt to
abrogate or restrict that law in the slightest degree would
eventually lead to enactments that would terminate in its
total abolition. If such a result took place they had no
guarantee for the permanence of the constitution of the
country. That constitution, he contended, was maintained
by the continuance of large properties, and any alteration
in the present system could not fail to work most injuriously.
He believed that the minute division of land in France led
to revolution in that country, and it had also proved detri-
mental to the interests of agriculture.
Mr. MELLOR supported the second reading of 'the bill.
He contended that the existing law had its source in
feudal days, and was opposed to the ancient laws on the
subject of division of property. At present the wife and
younger children were placed entirely at the mercy of the
eldest child, and such a state of things was opposed alike
to morality, religion, justice, and even common sense.
(Hear, hear.) The reason'why the table was not covered
with petitions on this sithject was that the cases of injustice
under the present system were not sufficiently known or so
sufficiently numerous as to excite a general feeling on the
subject; but that system was not the less unjust because
its operation was not more extended. It had been
said that the number of small proprietors who died
intestate was conclusive in favour of the present law, be-
cause it showed they did not wish to avail themselves of
making a distribution of their property amongst their chil-
dren. But it was a fact that so many of the class alluded
to dying intestate was in consequence of their delaying
their wills until they were surprised by death.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, and argued
that the present bill would be very detrimental to the lower
class of small proprietors.
Sir G. LEWIS said he understood the object of the bill
was to assimilate the law between the division of real estate
and personal estate. He thought such a measure was not
only unnecessary, but would be most injurious, and that
it was not demanded by the very class for whose benefit it
was introduced. Hon. members must be aware that the
present law was closely identified with the constitution of
the country, and such being the case, and there being no
expression of the public opinion in favour of the bill, he
would vote against the second reading.
Mr. M. MILNES said that he had heard no argument
to alter his opinion, which was that the bill of the hon.
member would be beneficial to the class for whom it was
intended—namely, the middle class of society. He came
to the consideration of the subject quite independent, and
he would, as he had done on a former occasion, support the
measure

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he hoped the
present discussion, terminating, as he trusted it would, in
the rejection of the bill, would set the question at rest for
yeOrs. He did not oppose the measure on any technical
ground, but on its own merits. The bill did not provide
for a description of cases that was of very frequent oc-
currence ; and it was also very defective in its provisions,
so that it could not attain the end for which it was designed.
The consequences of this bill would be, amongst others,
that the right of the Crown by escheat would be transferred
to an administrator, who was a stranger. He admitted
that there were some defects in the existing law, but
that was no reason why the entire system relative to pro-
perty by descent, and a bill ought to be introduced to meet
that particular grievance. Any hon. member introducing
a measure that seriously affected an existing system should
have three grounds to justify his doing so. In the first-
place he should be prepared to show that it was desired,
that the present system inflicted hardships, and that the
present system inflicted hardships, and that the change pro-
posed would remedy them, and be consistent with sound
policy. Who, ho asked, out of doors required this bill ?
He wanted to know the views of the property interest
either as expressed by their language or their
practice. According. to the custom it was evident that the
general body of landed proprietors of the country were in
favour of the existing law. With respect to any hardships
it could not be contended, because in some particular cases ,
parties might have expressed regret at not having made '
their wills when they were competent to do so, but there were
thousands of instances when there was no such expression,
and the logical assumption was that the majority did not
care to make their wills, being satisfied to let the law take
its course. It would be as just to infer from these particu-
lar cases the will of the majority, as it would be call on
Parliament to legislate with regard to testamentary disposi-
tion of property, because a few extraordinary wills had been
made. As regarded this point, he considered that it was
the polky of this country to afford the fullest and freest
facilities for the disposition of landed property.
He admitted that the present law was a remnant
of feudalism, but he maintained that it, notwith-
standing that, was in consonance with existing in-
terests. The law as it at present stood harmonised with a
hereditary monarchy and peerage, and tended to keep
families together by preserving a headship amongst them.
If, however, the measure now before the house would have
the effect of dwarfing old families in one generation to
petty squires, and dwarfing them still further in the
next generation to mera peasant. (Hear, hear.)
The present system had the effect of stimulating the
younger children to exertion to enable them to maintain
the respectability of their family, and it rendered parents
more desirous of making a provision for their younger
children. The right hon. gentleman cited the dictum of
Sir Matthew Hale and the statement of Count Montalem-
bert, in his celebrated pamphlet, as to the impolicy of al-
tering the present law.
Mr. LOWE considered that the question before the
house had been very much magnified.
[LEFT SPEIRING.]