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

----
self was such as what they might suppose a good and up-
right man would execute ; but, according to the present
would not make except under peculiar circumstances. He
concluded by voting for the second reading of the bill.
Lord H. VANE said if they determined on making wills
in a particular way, they would startle the landed proprie-
tary interest, and any legislation on the subject would not
come into operation for some years, so far as the great body
particular cases, and were to
there might be some hardships under the existing law, but
proceed on considerations of general
_policy.
they were not to legislate for
therefore oppose the second reading of the bill. He would
Mr. A. B. HOPE supported the amendment. The effect
of the proposed alteration would be to reduce the descend-
doofwlaellndnoodtpthropforirgeteotr,
sforwietreis
cotliceurnghed.thins
eapapdrmoaitcthedththaatt
the enemy will penetrate the fortress." (Loud cheers.)
Mr. LOWE considered that the question before the
house had been much magnified beyond its proper propor-
tions by hon. members on both sides, and was not a ques-
tion of public policy at all. He considered that the will
which was to be made fora man failing to do so for him-
law, they made for him such a will as a man certainly
descend-
ants of landed proprietors to the state of an Irish " squireen"
or a £4O freeholder, with a right to vote, and starvation
staring him in the face. On the ground of economy
he objected to the measure *of the honourable mem-
ber for the subdivision of land to which it would
necessarily lead. Nobody required, asked for, or
dreamt of it, and it was a mere crotchet or theory of the
hon. member for Surrey.
General THOMPSON said he believed there was an
erroneous impression on the part of hon. members on the
opposite side as to the state of public feeling on this sub-
ject, but he could assure them that he had heard the sub-
ject frequently discussed at popular assemblies under the
title of the law of primogeniture. It was with some diffi-
culty that he could, on some occasions, calm those present,
by assuring them that they could dispose of their property,
they being under a conviction that they would be obliged
to leave their property to their eldest sons. It was sup-
posed that the present law was maintained by influential
families in order that they might have a substantial head,
who would provide for the younger sons by getting them
situations in public offices. (Laughter.)
Mr. EWART supported the second reading of the bill,
and asserted that both public feeling and public reason had
gradually become in favour of the principle of the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE denied that the public feeling was
in favour of the bill, and condemned the practice that pre-
vailed in France. The present law was founded on the
good sense of their forefathers, and with respect to any fear
of wives being left unprovided for, they well knew the
desire that prevailed on the part of husbands not to leave
their wives without necessary provision.
Mr. WALTER opposed, and Mr. GREER supported the
second reading.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, with reference to
the effect of the law in France, that no sooner was the law.
of primogeniture abolished, than that country was con-
vulsed with anarchy, and if the legislature were to pass a
bill like the present, the same result might, before many
years had elapsed, be realised in this country. The effect
of the bill would be to impose on the family of a poor man
the task and expense of administering to effects that per-
haps were not worth £2O.
Lord PALMERSTON said he objected to the bill on
every possible ground. (Laughter.) The proposition of
the hon. member for Surrey was against the feelings of the
people, and entirely incompatible with the maintenance of a
constitutional monarchy. It was opposed to the habits of
the people of this country, because, as every one knew,
there was a disposition generally among landed proprietors
to make what was called an eldest son. There was also a pride
on the part of some small proprietors to have retained in their
families the land which they inherited ; there was one man
who possessed only a few acres in the New Forest, which
descended to him from his ancestor, who carried the body
of Rufus to Winchester, and who was as proud of his pos-
session as if it was of considerable value. How could it be
expected that a man with a few pounds would go to the ex-
pense of making a will ? He held that the existence of a
constitutional monarchy required a landed aristocracy, by
which he meant a landed gentry, whether titled or not.
(Hear, hear.) The. moment that that intermediate body
ceased to interpose between the Crown and the people, the
constitution would undergo an alteration, for its continu-
ance was essential to the present system. (Hea , r hear.)
In those countries where the law of primogeniture was
abolished it was found that the aristocracy were impo-
verished, and quite unfitted to exercise such functions as
would be necessary.
Mr. LOCKE KING having replied,
The house divided,
For the second reading.. .... 76
Against it 271

Majority against 195
NEWSPAPERS, &c., BILL.
Mr. AYRTON, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said there was no need to occupy the attention of the
house, as the details of the bill would be fully discussed in
committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not in-
tend to oppose the bill, but he reserved to himself the
right of moving certain amendments in committee.
The bill was then read a second time.