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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(Tms DAY).
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

On the motion of iir:CIAitEETF6IISTER, 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Water Bill was discharged, and the bill was withdrawn.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 placinc, 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
this 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 subject 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
years. 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 defectiv, 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
tojan 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 property by descet
should be altered, and a bill ought to be introduced to meet
any 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 ho should be prepared to show that it was desired, that
the present system inflicted hardships, and that the tb4ethchsoaunnge
d
proposed would remedy them, and be consistne dm
this bill ?
policy. "Who, he asked, out of doors requir
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
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 where there was no such expression,
and the logical assiunptio 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-
because a few extraordinary wills had been
teens ofproperty,
made. As regarded this point, he considered that it was
tho policy of this county to.t!iofford
othe fullest and freest
facilities for the
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 mere 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 much magnified beyond its proper propor-
tions by hon. members on both sides, and was not a qu;is-1
tion of public policy at all. He considered that tfohre
which was to be made for a man failing
self was such as what they might supp
atog the present
oseto dooCkCI) and up-
right man would execute; but, accordisng
a man certainly
law, they made for him such a will
would not make except under pecul acircumstances. He
concluded by voting for the second traerading of the bill.
they determined on making wills
5ie.H.117..1-NEasavidh. fywOuldstartle the landed proprie-
itanrya Paintreriecs7,ala.nmd.--arn any they
on the subject would not
come into operation for some years so far as the great body
of landed proprietors were concerned. He admitted that
tteere n,eire night be some hardships under the existing law, but
not to legislate for particular cases, and were to
proycesed on considerations of general
th pe bill. He would
herefore o_ppose t
t Mr. A. B. HOPE supported the amendment. The effect
of the proposed alteration would be to reduce the 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 Sauey.
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 propelty
they being under a conviction that they would be obliged
to leave-- their property to their eldest sons. It was suy-
posed that tire 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
secqnd 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 resut 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 ho 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 hetween the Crown and the people, the
constitution would -undergo an alteration, for its continu-
ance was essential to the present system. (Hear, 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 boneeessary.
Mr. LOCKE KING having replied,
The house divided,
For the second reading
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.

Tho 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.
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS BILL.

Mr. COLLIER moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate, as the
whole subject must necessarily be discussed when the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
bill was under discussion. _

Mr. HEADLAM strongly objected to postponement.
Mr. COLLIER said the present bill was to prevent the
continuance of a bill which would expire in July. It had been
said that the-present bill should not be proceeded with, because
the subject would be dealt with in another bill. But .the
reason he wished the present bill to be proceeded with was,
that he believed that bill would not pass. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON thought the bill ought to be pro-
ceeded with. - _ •
. _ _

The motion for the adjourninent was then withdrawn,
and the discussion on the bill proceeded.
Mr. EDWIN JAMES thought that the 'expenses at pre-
sent entailed upon candidates for metropolitan boroughs
prevented men of eminence and talent from coming forward
to contest these boroughs. The cab hire was enormous.
At the late elections for Finsbury and Lambeth there was a
phalanx of cabs, and every description of vehicularity—
(laughter)--engaged in conveying voters to the poll, and if
these proceedings continued to be legal, the ultimate result
would be that the successful candidate in any case would be
the one who had the longest purse. He thought members
of Parliament should be returned free of all expense. (Hear.)
During a contest that he had lately taken part in in illu-
sion to the great expense of cab hire, some of his most in-
fluential supporters had said that they were- sorry to put
him to such an outlay for cab hire; but the other side did
the same. The practice had been legalised by Act of Par-
liament, and without he did the same he would stand no
chance. He again said electioneering expenses were a
scandal and a disgrace. In a contest ho had
had in Marylebono he had paid about £4OO for
the erection of polling booths, yet in all the booths erected
there was not one which would not have been a disgrace to
a gingerbread stall. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN opposed the bill.
Mr. STEWART thought sufficient reason had not been
shown for repealing a measure which had been passed after
considerable discussion.

Mr. WHITE thought the bill had been introduced into
Parliament merely to secure the omnibus and cab interest
in elections. He hoped the hon. gentleman would be suc-
cessful in his endeavour to repeal the law.
Mr. DEEDES said he opposed the bill last session, and
he should now give his vote in favour of its repeal.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill, as he considered
it one of disfranchisement to the poorer out voters of all
the county constituencies of England
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that last year he was of
opinion that the house had no right to disfrancise those
poorer voters who could not convey themselves to the poll.
The bill of last year was merely a temporary measure, and it
was open to repeal immediately more polling-booths were
erected. By his bill his hon. friend had removed this ob-
jection, as he found be had largely increased the number
of polling places, and he did not see why the practice of
conveying voters to the poll should continue, as it was nearly
akin to bribery. He should, therefore, seeing that the bill
increased the number of polling places at no great distince
from the residence of the voters, give his vote for the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. HUNT thought the bill highly objectionable. Ho
thought a voter whose residence was eleven miles from a
polling place had a right to a conveyance to the poll. An
infirm voter had also the same right; he should therefore
move that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the present a very
inconvenient time 'to proceed with the bill, although
at the same time he had no strong feeling on the matter
one way or the other. He thought the present law ought
not to be repealed before extra polling places had been pro-
vided. The new Reform Bill did this, and he therefore
should vote against the bill.
Mr. AYRTON said, when the bill of last session
was passed, the Government said the bill could be fully
discussed during the present session, and now, when it was
proposed to remedy the effect of hasty legislation, his hon.
friend was met with strong opposition. Ile thought he
had a right to insist that the bill should be allowed to go
into committee.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ........ 115723
Against it
Majority —l9
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day week.
The Recreation Grounds Bill was read a second time.
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
METROPOLITAN GAS.
Mr. BYNG nominated the select committee on the supply
of gas, as follows:—Mr. Byng, Sir John Shelley, Mr.
Ayrton, Mr. John Locke, Mr. John Abel Smith, the Judge
Advocate, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Mr. Adams, Mr. Barrow,
Sir William Dunbar, Sir William Hayter, Mr. F. Russell,
SCOTCH COUNTIES
toivoedn roll
rl
oaDf
returnea
e eoun BOROUGHS.county
Mr. Jackson, Mr. Thomas Mills, and Mr. Whitbread.
heßvNaluain burgh,rnum b or
of Aplrro.pßriLetAorCsKonßtU
or Parliamentary combination of counties or burghs, in
Scotland, having property under £lO but not under £5 of
annual value.—Agreed to.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for copies of all informa-
tions, summonses, and convictions, with the amount of fine
and costs paid in each case, under the Act 29 Charles 11.,
intituled, An Act for the better Observation of the Lords'
Day, commonly called Sunday," before her Majesty's jus-
tices of the peace for the empty of Southampton, from 25th
day of December, 1858, to tn.° Ist day of March, 1859 ; to-
gether with a copy of a memorial recently presented by the
inhabitants of the district to the magistrates, complaining
of the conduct of tbo pose, with their reply thereto.—
Agreed to.
The house then adjourned.