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

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER, took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Majority
REAL ESTATE INTESTACY BILL.

Mr. LOCKE KING moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to assimilate the law
with respect to real and personal property, in order to esta-
blish a more just arrangement in cases where persons died
Possessed of land and house property without having made
a will, or there being any settlement. In the case of a man
possessed of personal property dying without a will, one
ball went to the widow in the event of there being no
children, the other half went to the next of kin ; an
arrangement that was perfectly fair. With respect to real
property the case was different - a person dying possessed
of real property without a will and without settle-
ment, the whole of the property went to tho heir at
law, the widow and younger children getting nothing. It
might be said that the widow had her thirds, but what was
that—it was the third of the income and not the third of
the property itself; and as an instance he should like to
know what the third of the income from a cottage value
£3OO could be. (Hear, hear.) The bill now before
the house was not au act to abolish the law of primogeni-
ture, and he was much surprised that such an assertion
should be made ; in fact there was no law of that kind in
existence. He regretted the bill was to be opposed, but
hoped he should succeed in getting the assent of Parlia-
ment to the measure.
Mr. B. HOPE moved as an amendment that the bill be
read a second time that day six. months. He quoted in
support of his amendment the opinions of Sir. G. C. Lewis
and Lord Palmerston, both of which Were adverse to the
bill. When the bill was last before thhoeihuogt:seiniftavwolutsr r7e6-,
have thought would
jaecg
st
iends, t t2h9el,nsunmdber
thats infa
fact the hhee dsihvoi
us ilodn
have been quite sufficient to prevent the reintroduction of
the bill. He could not assent to the opinionlalidiibdug
ciosN'nebiy_
the hon. gentleman that there was n
ture ;.nn the contrary, he contendedthatolaw of primogeni-
ture
tho la
the land of a person dyingintestate went to whichy
eldest
ep rdi me
soegriepntiiteunr e
as, a l tehxoius
tgehd hseoadmitted
ago,that
sitonwawsaosfathlaewsaomf
fTe
ehtei
yl aewffi ewi
ei tnht r
and
ns pde c t
theretoforehe
moved property
the hhe though pr - t
amendment
in
peinsoirte.der to defeat the object of the hon. gentleman op-

Mr. GOLDNEY seconded the amendment. He thought
that as the bill was of so extensive a nature, that if it
was at all necessary it ought to have been introduced to
the house by the Government, and not left to a private
member. He contended that it was an attempt to alter
the whole law of the land by a sidewind.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the injustice of
the law as it at present stood has yet to be established. It
was his opinion that the law of England with respect to
the disposal of land was good, and far to be preferred to
that of other countries. (Hear, hear.) Ho did not see
any injustice in the law as it at present existed with re-
spect to younger sons, because they now entered into com-
mercial pursuits in order to make their own fortunes, and
thus they were getting rid of those absurd restric-
tions which had prevented many a man born
in an aristocratic family engaging in trade. If
the estate was to be encumbered, with provisions for all
younger sons, the result would be far from desirable.
Such a system would increase Chancery suits, increase
bills of costs, and load to anything but a desirable result.
fle was quite content with the law as it stood, and, there-
fore, he could not support the motion for the second

reading.
Mr. BRIGHT said the Attorney-General had favoured
the house with a speech, which it had heard many times
before, but he must say that he (Mr. Bright) lived in hope
of hearing him make a speech exactly contradictory—
(hear, hear) —and that circumstance ho thought highly
probable. (Laughter.) if the law was not unjust to real
property, why not extend it to personal property, and
what objection could he have to such an arrangement if he
really believed what he said ? (Hear, hear.) Why, such
an extension of the law, if made, would not be allowed to
exist a month. The law gave every man the right to
make a will or not ; and if a man thought proper to avail
himself of the option not to make one, the State then came
in to do that for him which he had not done himself.
(Hear, hear.) In the case of a will being made it was but
natural to expect that all the children would be treated
with some show of affection, and that the property would
be fairly divided amongst them. (Hear, bear.) But in the
ease of the man dying without having made a will, the
State came in to do it for him, and how was it done ?
Why, everything was given to one, and all the rest were
left dependent on their own exertions. Ho did not consider
,uch an arrangement at all just or equitable, and he, for
one, had abstained judging of a man's life until he had
read his will, because in many instances the last act of a
man's life was the crime of his being. (Hear, hear.) With
respect to the opinion of the Attorney-General with re-
gard to younger sons, he had not heard so much on that
point as he (Mr. Bright) had. lie talked of younger sons
as if they were persons most justly treated, but who did
not think of the matter themselves. Ho would tell the
hon. and learned gentleman that he had on one occasion
met a younger son, who had been in that house,
and although the language in which he had expressed
himself was stronger than was permitted in that house, yet
he hoped he should be excused if he repeated it just by
way of illustration. The young man in question met him
(Mr. Bright) after he had made a speech on the subject

,hen before the house at Birmingham, and said—" I've

read your speech at Birmingham, and I agree with you

;hat we are d— badly used." (Loud laughter and cheers,

That, he considered, was a good answer to the argumen

of the Attorney-General. He did aot think that the day
had yet arrived for his hon. friend to carry his bill, but it
would come, and that at no very distant time. (Hear, and
ironical cheers from the Opposition side of the house.)

lion. gentlemen opposite seemed to hold those on his (Mr.
Bright's) sid3 of the hous3 as hostile to the owners of largo
estates. (Hear, hear.) Why, did they not know that they,
on the Ministerial side, had done them more good than
they ever did themselves. (Ironical cheers.) He, for one,
gave his hearty support to the bill.

Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill on the ground that i
would be a great injustice on the small holders of real pro

party in this country.
Mr. NEATE supported the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE opposed the bill, and said that no
answer had been given to speeches that had been delivered

against it. He thought the younger son referred to by the
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright) was what hon. gen-
tlemen in that house would think a young scamp_
(laughter)—who held peculiar notions with respect to the
property of his elder brother.
Mr. BRIGHT said it was not so, as the person he had
alluded to was of the highest rank and of the highest
character. (Hear, hoar.)
Mr. WHITESIDE thought that he had expressed him-
self in a very foolish manner.
Mr. E. JAMES supported the bill, which he said was
not brought forward to ruin the aristocracy, to undermine
the House of Peers, or to destroy the landed interest, but
merely to extend that which was just and_ right in

cases where personal property was concerned to real

property.
Lord J. MANNERS begged to ask the hon. gentleman
who introduced the bill a question, and it was whether,
in tho case of the death intestate of the owner of a
palace or hall, it must not bo sold by auction.

Mr. L. KING had no doubt that would be the case, but
the bill could not effect great lauded estates, all of which
were in settlement.

After a short discussion, in which Mr. EWART, Sir J.
WALSH, and Mr. BARROW took part,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQITER said he did
not think that it would be respectful to the house if he
allowed the bill to proceed to a division without shortly
expressing his opinion on the subject. He was not aware
of sufficient reasons for passing such a bill as that before
the house, and therefore he should give his vote against
the second reading.
The house then divided---

- -
For the second reading
281
Against it

The bill was consequently lost
FELLOWS Majority
OF COLLEGES DECLARATION BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. G. HARDY opposed the motion, and moved the
rejection of the bill, which he said proposed to admit
dissenters from the Church of Englani to the teaching
and emoluments of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge.
He did not believe in mixed religious teaching, and no
instance could be pointed out where such had been carriod

out with success.
Mr. POWELL seconded the amendment.
Mr. FAWCETT supported and Mr. C. BENTINCk opposed
the bill. The latter gentleman was speaking at a quarter
to 6, at which hour, according to the orders of the house,
the debate terminated. The resumption of it was fixed for
the 11th of July.
The other orders of the day.wero then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

MADAUE TI:SS AUD s.—This old-established fa-
vourite exhibition continues to attract the sight-
seers who visit the metropolis ; and now that excursion
trains have commenced running from almost every part of
the country to London, we think a more interesting and
instructive exhibition than that of Madame Tussaud's can-
not possibly be found therein. Magnificently executed
life-size portrait models of the most distinguished men of
the present as well as the past generation are here to be
seen, and such persons as may feel desirous of looking at
effigies, taken from life, of the most notorious criminals,
eau bo gratified by passing into the Chamber of horrors.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT'

On the motion that the Holderness Embankment and
Reclamation Bill be read a second time, a discussion en-
sued, in the course of which it was moved by Mr. NOR-
WOOD that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.
The house divided, when there appeared
For the second reading 94
Against it