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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMNIONS—(YEsTERDAY.
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 Corparation
Water Bill was discharged, and the bill was withdrawn.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 ; and that 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 moving 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
lie contended that the existing law had its source
the
subject days, and was opposed to the ancient laws
.on
subject of division of property. At present the wife_ are
younger children were placed entirely at the mercy _ f
eldest child, and such a state of things
to morality, religion, justice, and even common sense.
was opposed' alike
'Hear, hear.) The reason why the table was not covered
ivith petitions on this subject was that the ces. ofo injustice
under the present system were not sufficiently or so
sufficiently numerous as to excite a general feeling on the
subject ; but that system was net the less unjustbecause
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 o
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 his objections to the
bill were not founded simply upon any technical view of
its provisions. He believed the hon. member for Surrey
would be surprised at many of the consequences which
would be produced by his bill. It was by no means an un-
common occurrence that a testator might have made a will
devising his real property, and yet have died intestate with
regard to his personal property ; and the effect of the bill
would be this—there would be an administration, under
which his real estate would be distributed among his next
of kin in defiance of his will. He could multiply instances
of that kind, for their name was legion. The view taken
of the bill by the right hon. hart. the member for Radnor
was Ipurhotly eorreot as to its effect upon the law of
dement with regard to real property. Every real estate
in the Idairdom would pass to an administrator, and would
be liable to be sold by the administrator for payment of
the debts of the trustee. (Hear, hear.) Take the case
of a man possessing an estate which he had acquired by
descent through his mother. Suppose he had one cousin
upon his mother's side and 19 cousins upon his father's side.
Under this bill 1-20th of that estate would go to the cousin
on the mother's side, and the other 19-20ths would go to
the cousins on the father's side. (Hear, hear.) Take the
ease of a large family estate descending to a married woman
who had more sons than one. She had no power to de-
vise. And, if this bill—which was said to be for the pro-
tection of children—passed, that estate would be taken
away from the sons and given to the husband, who had a
statutory right to administer to his wife's property. These
were some of the consequences flowing from a bill of this
kind; and yet the house was now seriously asked to give a
second reading to it. If these consequences had flowed
merely from some defects in the bill which could have
been remedied in committee, the hon. member for Surrey
would have had a better claim to ask the house to read his
bill a second time; but they flowed from the principle of
the bill, and to a bill based on such a principle the house
ought not to give a second reading. Certainly, in intro-
ducing the bill, the hon. gentleman had mentioned one case
which really was one of great hardship. Suppose a man
contracted for the purchase of an estate, and had got toge-
ther say £.50,000 to compete the purchase, but died before
it was completed, intestate, the heir-at-law might require
that £50,000 to be applied to the completion of the pur-
chase, and then he would take the land so purchased, to
the detriment of the other members of the family. That
was the law if the country, and he agreed with the hon.
gentleman that it was a discredit to us, and that it ought
to be remedied. But surely it was not wise to change the
whole policy which regulated descent in this country sim-
ply because such a grievance as that existed. It would be
about as reasonable to prohibit men from buying land alto-
gether. (Cheers.) Of all men in the world the honourable
member for Surrey ought to be the last to use such an ar-
gument, for it was but a few years ago that he had carried
a bill to remedy the injustice of the law which au-
thorised an heir-at-law to compel the payment of
the mortgage money upon an estate out of the
personal property of a testator. He had not been able
to understand clearly at the time why the hon. gentleman
had not included this case, which was identical in principle,
in that bill. If he wished to remedy the hardship the best
way would be for him to introduce a bill to amend his for-
mer Act, but Parliament ought not to be asked to convulse
the country and alter the rules by which the descent of land
was regulated for that simple purpose. But, coming now
to the discussion of the general question, these three things
ought to be shown by all those who proposed to Parliament
so grave an alteration in the law of descent in this country
—First, that there was a strong desire entertained for legis-
lation on the subject ; next, that the present law occasioned
hardship ; and lastly, that the change which they proposed
was consistent with expediency and sound policy. (Hear,
hear.) Who was it that desired this change ? Some of them he
knew and their motives also. The hon. member for Sheffield,
for instance, supported the introduction of the bill on the
ground that it put an end to all difference between land and
money. The hon. member thought that, if carried, it would
enable.the State to levy probate duty on land, and to treat
it altogether as if it were so much money. His reasons for
supporting the bill were not so much that it remedied a
hardship as that it squared with a theory of his own, that
there ought to be no difference for any purpose between
land and money. But what were the reasons of the hon
member for Surrey in desiring this change ? In intro-
ducing the bill his argument was that it would not touch
the great proprietors of land that it would not meddle
with entails and settlements, but merely effect the simple
object which was announced on the back of the bill. But
the hon. member had unfortunately written a book
hvaonethe
this
subject, and it was always of great advantage
detailed and considered opinions of the person who proposed
a change on a point of this gravity. In that book the hon.
gentleman lie Ivas altogether again st the prienn;h'plit•
gentleman said
of entails and the principle of settlements, and th 1- e
had been suggested that this bill would affect entails and
the distribution of landed property, he did not think it
would directly ; yet if it did, it would only make him like
his own bill better. (Hear, hear.) In laying his bill bef9re
hon. „
the house the o.entlernan used those arguments v
in his
.ducy
he thought most likely to stave off opposition, but
book he avowed that his desire went beyond the bill, and
that he looked for the abolition of the law of entail and
settlement in this country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOCKE KING—WiII the Solicitor-General quote
the passage ? I don't know that I have said anything agaiainnsst
settlements, though I may have said something ag
entails.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would quote the passage
-willingly, but would the hon. gentleman say what he meant
by entails if they were not settlements, or by settlements if
they were not entails ? (Hear.) This was the passage—
" I feel that there is no reason to object to this measure
lesrit should tend tc increase the number of landed pro-
prietors. If it should do so, if it should cause a decrease in
the size of some of the already overgrown estates, it will
confer a gre-tter benefit than even I expect from it. I have
already shown that it cannot interfere with entails ; that
entails are an evil, and that this measure ought not to be
refused from an imaginary fear it might tend to correct
-what seems to me so great an evil."
(Hear, hear.) That was the hon. gentleman's desire, there-
fore, in passing this bill. But who desired this bill out of
doors ? The question concerned all the owners of land in
the country; and, in considering what the State ought to
do for the owners of land when they died intestate, the very
-first object ought to be to ascertain what the owners of land
-would do themselves, for everybody admitted that they
would have a perfect right to dispose of their land as they
pleased. No petitions had been Presented from them on the
subject, so that it was impossible to learn their opinionsat
in
that mode, and it was only left therefore to 100
their practice. Settlements -were just as much the
expression of the wishes of owners of land for the dis-
position of their property as wills. There was no dif-
ference between the two, and the wishes of the great body
of the landowners of the country on this subject wereaul-
fested by the habit and custom of settling their property.
(Hear.) The supporters. of this bill argued the question of '
the hardship of the law in a very inconclusive and unsound
manner. They began by assuming that whenever a man
-who had several children died intestate he did not mean
that his property should go to his eldest son, and that,
tterefore, he was a sufferer by the present law, But what