The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-07 00:00:00

LONDON, 711URSDAY, JUSE 7, 1866.

The rejection of Mr. LOCKE KING'S Real Estate
Intestacy Bill by the House of Commons yesterday
was only to be expected. If such a measure should
be eventually carried, there will be a very strong
opposition to overcome first, and a gradual change
to be worked in public opinion. There is no doubt
a good deal to be said on both sides as to the prin-
ciple of the measure. Like most social questions it
has various aspects. On the one hand there is the
plea for the equal rights of all the members of a
family to share in the inheritance— a right freely
admitted with regard to personal property in cases
of intestacy ; on the other hand there is the not un-
reasonable fear that reiterated subdivision will tend
eventually rather to impoverish the whole than to
enrich all alike. An estate which may give compe-
tence and comfort to one may be comparatively
Ivalueless to half a dozens although the expectation
of receiving a share may encourage the younger
brancles of the family to a life of listless expecta-
tion rather than of active personal exertion. It is
true that Mr. LOCKE KING'S measure was relieved
of many of the less favourable features of a bill of
this kind from the fact that it only referred to cases
of intestacy. If a- man has landed property which
he wishes to preserve intact for his eldest son, it is
not too much to expect from him that he will leave
a statement of his wishes behind him. Some of the
opponents of the bill brought forward a more for-
midable objection, when they asserted that its result
would be to throw many small properties into the
hands of the lawyer and the auctioneer. Mr.
BRIGHT naturally spoke strongly in favour of the
measure, and pronounced the tendency to accumu-
late large estates in one hand to be one of the most
deplorable features of the times. Mr. HENLEY,
however, declared his belief that the proposed mea-
sure would rather increase than diminish this ten-
dency, since it would not prevent the accumulation
of large estates which are for the most part strictly
entailed; but it would necessitate small estates being
brought to the hammer in cases of intestacy, when
those who wished to accumulate land would have
increased facilities for doing so. As we have said,
there was little question that the bill would be re-
jected by a decisive majority in the present position
Englishmen are naturally cautious and
greatly irsreaafftlayinfluenced by custom and association. It
will take some time to reconcile them to any consi-
derable change in the manner of transmitting land.
At the same time, it would be well to examine the
question, and without prejudice, in all its bearings.
We have plenty of opportunities for information in
the statistics of neighbouring countries. Let us
therefore frankly consider how much we can profit
by their experience or avoid their errors.

of Vienna, n
The article in the Watt'eunrearllyAbeexitosst,atttheentoioffinciaatl
journal
urs ue d
athis
powerthia juhnacstugrieventhe
so
much c onrs e
animadversion,p
whenr
ise to
caused so much dismay in certain quarters. This
the policy of the
long discourse seeks to vindicate
Austrian Government.
The Treaty of Vienna is
the grand text upon which all proceedings are
based, and the course followed by Vienna is stigma-
tised as contrary to the principles of that treaty.
It is emphatically declared that the treaties "confer
upon Austria and Prussia the right of seeing that
right be done.,,
Certainly •
this is
in-
terpretation of the matter than any that the
:The ley
chief seem
Prussians put upon it - the
a fairer
notion of right at all. t
argumentoignoirne
thistb e
article referred to rests upon the declaration that
the Schleswig-Holstein question ought to be referred
to the Diet ; that seems to be the c:esire of the
Vienna Government, and to give great offence to
that of Berlin, perhaps for the same came, and it