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

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1866.

.-.---- - -110.

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 cubdivision will tend
eventually rather to impoverish the whole than to
lenrich all alike. An estate which may give compe-
tence and comfort to one may be comparatively
valueless to half a dozen; although the expectation
of receiving a share may encourage the younger
branches 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
of affairs. Englishmen are naturally cautious and
greatly influenced 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.

The article in the Wiener Abendpost, the official
journal of Vienna, naturally
this
excites
pursued
attention
this juncture when the course by
a
power has given rise to so much animadversion, and
caused so much dismay in certain quarters. This
long discourse seeks to vindicate the policy of the
Austrian Government The Treaty of Vienna is
tthiseedgraasndtext upon which all proceedings are
basede,naanraidatthiccelicio:rse followed by Vienna is stigma"
upon Austria
It is contrary to the principles of that treaty. i
treigrphrtetabetidoonneo.'f' declared that the treaties "confer
and Prussia the right of seeing that
Certainly this is a fairer in-
The chi
the m
dt attoal all,
matter than any that the
Prussians put upon it ; they to ignore the
rests upon the declaration that
seefeniargument in this
the Schleswig-Holstein question ought to be referred
article referred roeffriergreh
to the Diet ; that seems to b 3 the a esire of the
Vienna Government, and to give great offence to
that of Berlin, perhaps for the same cause, and it