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

IFIPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HO USE OF COMMONS--This DA.Y.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. .

On tho motion that the Holderness Embankment and
Reclamation Bill be read a second time, a discussion en--
sued, in the course of which it was movod by Mr. Non--
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

Majority a
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 parsons 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
half 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 the heir at
law, the widow and younger children getting nothing. It
mightbe 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 an 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 the house it was re-
jected, the numbers in the division being, in favour 76,
against 291, and that fact he should have thought would
have been quite sufficient to prevent the reintroduction of
the bill. He could not assent to the opinion laid down by
the hon. gentleman that there was no law of primogeni-
ture ; on the contrary, he contended that the law by which
the land of a person dying intestate went to his eldest
son was a law of primogeniture, although he admitted that
it was of the same description as existed 500 years ago.
The law with respect to landed property he thought per-
fectly efficient, and therefore he moved the amendment in
in order to defeat the object of the lion. gentleman op-
posite.

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 loft to a private
member. He contended that it was au 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.) He 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 lead to anything but a desirable result.
He 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 he thought highly
probable. (Laughter.) if tie 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 mouth. 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, hoar.) 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. (Hoar, hoar.) But in the

Mr. WHITESIDE thought that he had expressed him
self in a very foolish manner.

Mr. E. JAMES` supported the bill, which he said s
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 bagged to ask the hon. gentleman
who introduced the bill a question, and it was whether,
• ..

in the case of the death intestate of the owner of a
palace or hall, it must not be sold by auction.
Mr. L. KING had no doubt that would be the case, but
the' bill could not effect great landed 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 EXCHEQUER 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 reeding ..................... 84
Againstit ...................................... 281

Majority ......
The bill was consequently lost..
FELLOWS 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 tho 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 carried
out with success.

Mr. POWELL seconded the amendment.
Mr. FAWCETT supported and Mr. C. BENTINCX 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 Ist of July.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
:he house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING.

The Public Schools Bill passed through committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read a message from the
Queen announcing the approaching marriage of the Prin-
cess Mary of Cambridge with the Austrian Prince Teck,
and requesting their lordships to concur with the House
of Commons in making further provision for her Royal

ighness.
The Pensions Bill was passed through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
MEDICAL OFFICERS (IRELAND.)
Mr. M'EVOY moved a resolution in favour of adopting
the recommendations of tho select committee of 1858, to
the effect that Government should take into consideration
the claims of Ireland to a grant of the half-cost of medi-
cal officers of unions, with a view of providing for the
same in future, as is now the practice in England and
Scotland.
The proposal having been seconded by Mr. P. DAW-
SON,

The CHANCELOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
prepared to accede to the principle of the motion after an
inquiry had been made with the view of ensuring an effi-
cient state control, and suggested that under these circum-
stances the motion had better be withdrawn.
Some discussion followed, in which several Irish mem-
bers took part, and ultimately the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. B. COCHRA.NE moved an address for the issue of a
Royal Commission to inquire into the constitution of the
Metropolitan Board of Works, the Office of Public Works,
and the Office of Woods and Forests, with the object of
seeing whether some means might not be devised by which
the improvements of the metropolis may be carried'out in
a more comprehensive and economical manner, and with
greater unity of purpose. The hon. member enumerated
the various defects which marked the local government of
the metropolis, especially the state of the street traffic, and
suggested, as the best and most effectual means of provid-
ing a remedy, the amalgamation of the three departments
mentioned in his motion, and the appointment of a chief
secretary, with two under secretaries, to carry out the
works now intrusted to those boards.
Mr. -AYRTON opposed the motion, which, he argued,
rather moved backwards than forwards. A committee of
the house appointed a few years ago reported that the
Crown estates should be held in the hands of one officer
and the public works in connection with the metropolis
and the public buildings placed under the charge of
another. This arrangement was sanctioned by the house
and subsequently embodied in an act of Parliament. Later
another committee had reconsidered the question, and the
result of their inquiries was that the house adhered to their
previous resolution, and the two departments had been
kept separate over Since. Moreover, a third committee
had been appointed in the present session to examine the
matter, and it would be a slur upon them to interpose with
another course of action in the form of a Royal commis-
sion.

Sir W. JOLIFFE was glad Mr. Cochrane had drawn
attention to this subject, and although he was not sure
that legislation was necessary, he thought that some uni-
form system for regulating the traffic of the metropolis
might, with the concurrence and approval of the commis-
sioners of police, be adopted with advantage.
Mr. COWPER objected to the motion, because it was
inopportune and impracticable. An inquiry into the state
of the local government of the metropolis was necessary,
and it was at that moment being conducted by a select
committee. It would not therefore be respectful either to
the committee or to the house to appoint a Royal commis-
sion practically to supersede that inquiry. The whole
difficulty connected with the question was this, that
although London had municipal institutions, those
institutions had been confined to the very small
circle which constituted the City proper, whilst the
rest of _the metropolitan districts were governed like
country parishes, by means of a vestry. He thought
the time was approaching when the attention of Parlia-
ment should be directed to make such improvements iii
the local government of the metropolis as would at a
events ensure the safety of foot passengers througliits
scheme
shadowed and thoroughfares. As to the particular
shadowed forth by Mr. Cochrane, it wasi,iblo too be
create a First Commissioner or Chief Secretary
ruler over Clavnedrtthheetßaxoaatridon of
ofW thorekms,etsroopasoitios.oHogg,
checkl.
a control
After some remarks from Mr. Tite, c
G. Grey, the motion was withdrawn.
MESSAGE FROM
THE QUEEN.
t and Sir
EXCHEQUER brought
The CHANCELLOR of °
up a message from the
provision usual in such cases.
Queenho
ing the house to make marriage of the Princess
akeNtr. liPtc
Marytahr oCambridge,unci announcing the
and approachingreguest
ATCHBULL-LIUGESSEN to bring
in a bill to amend the •
the repair of a hun-
dred relating to county assessments,
relating to
Leave was
and a bill to amen
Sir C. O'LoonLEN to bring in a bill to
to
dogs liable for injuries done by their
um leave to bring in a bill to am
given
nd
ttohe law rc
amend
dogs;
health.
renderdredb tal(stts:;o3sorf.
law relating to the public
thle'he house, alarmed at the fact that the next notice stood
in the name of Mr. Whalley, contrived to be counted out
at 20 minutes to 8 o'clock.

THE ROBBERY BY A MAJOR'S SON .—At the Mid-
dlesex Sessions, this afternoon, James Hamilton Finney,
the son of Major Pinney, who was found guilty
on
charge of stealing a silver spoon from the Albion Hotel,
was brought up for sentence, but it was again postyoned
till next session.

case 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. He did not consider
such an arrangement at all just or equitable, and he, for
one, had abstainid 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 acrime 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. He talked of younger sons
as if they were persons most justly treated, but who did
not think of the matter themselves. He would tell the
hon. and learned gentleman that be 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 shoidd be excused if he repeated it just by
Way of illustration. The young man in question met him
(Mr. Bright) after he ha-I made a speech on the subject
then before the house at Birmingham, and said—" I've
read your speech at Birmingham, and I agree with you
that we are d-- badly used." (Loud laughter and cheers.)
That, he cousidekid, was a good answer to the argument
of the Attorney-Oeneral. He did not 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.)
Hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to hold those on his (Mr.
Bright's) side of the house as hostile to the owners of large
est
theates. (Hear,
ribear.) Why, did they not know that they,
on inisteal 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 it
would be a great injustice on the small holders of real pro-
perty in this country.
Mr. NEATE Supported the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE opposed the bill, and said that no
answer had been.given to spoyeeuchnegisertheaent had been ttpopuegehittethe
(Mr.
Bright)delivered
athlg:amni.negsnetniittniemtHhanaet house would think a to o b
young scamp—
was what hon. gen-
(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
allued to was of the highest rank and of the highest
chardacter. (Hear, hear.)