The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-21 00:00:00

of the day be read, for the purpose of being postponed
accordingly.
Mr. RICARDO would be glad to know in what order
the Bills would be taken.
Mr. BOUVERIE :aid, perhaps at the same time the
Right Hon. Gentleman would state whether he should
previously announce the amendments that he contem-
plated introducing into the Bills.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said with regard to the first
question, he should take the Bills in the order in which
they at present stood on the paper, namely, the
Merchant Service Bill first, then the Merchant
Fund Bill, and, lastly, the Marine Bill. It
would be quite impossible, consistently with the rules
of the House, to lay the amendments to the Mercantile
Marine Bill on the table of the House until the Bill
was read a second time.
Mr. CARDWELL should like to know whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) would adopt
any means to put the parties interested in those amend-
ments in possession of them before the second reading, in
order that those parties might know whether they could
assent to them or not. _

Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the heit course would
be not to lay the amendments on the table of the House
until the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill.
In answer to a question from Mr. MO WATT,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he should go into Com-
mittee on the Australian Colonies Bill to-morrow

evening.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that ho should
postpone his Marriage Bill until Thursday, the 18th of
April.
At the suggestion of Lord J. RUSSELL,
Mr. TRELAW NY postponed his motion on the
subject of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster until
Monday, after the Committee on the Australian colonies
should have been gone through.
DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

In reply to Colonel SIBTHOItP,
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that he would take this
Bill to-morrow.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF LAND.
Mr. LOCKE KING rose to bring forward the fol-
lowing motion :—" That, considering the complaints
which in many parts of the kingdom have proceeded
from the owners and occupiers of land, and considering
also the benefits which have arisen to all other classes
from recent legislation promoting free trade, it is expe-
dient now to adopt measures for diminishing the exist-
ing restrictions on the free transfer of landed property,
and for distributing such property, in cases of intestacy,
according to the same rules as prevail in respect of per-
sonal property." Recent changes in legislation had called
forth the attention of people to the principles of free trade,
the effects of which had been denounced by a very large
and influential body in that House. Attempts had been
made by that body to influence Parliament, and the
people out of doors, to re-enact protection ; and he was
ready to admit at once—and he deplored the fact—that
very great and considerable inconvenience had been ex-
perienced by that party. A change of any system would
cause derangement which would be felt until matters were
re-adjusted. The demand for a return to a protective
system, or for measures of relief to improve the condi-
tion of the party, were so loud and so continually re-
peated, that it became their duty to consider what re•
medy could be applied. Landed proprietors bore a very
small proportion to the population of the country, and
it could not be said they had been inadequately repre-
sented in that House.—(Hear, hear.) The House for a
long time had almost entirely been comprised of landed
proprietors, and, therefore, it might be presumed they
looked after the interests of the body.—(Hear, hear.)
The object and tendency of the two existing systems had
bean directly opposite to each other. The tendency of
the first had been to accumulate land in the hands
of the few, while the tendency of the other system had
been to increase wealth and create capital by the dis-
tribution of property in all cases of intestacy. In the case
of personal property there was an equal distribution
of property amongst all the members of a family, but
Under the other system it went only to one member of
the family. The State undertook-, in cases of intestacy,
to become the guardian and protector of the children,
and distributed the property with the most perfect
justice amongst all; but, in the case of real property, it
told the younger children that it was for their interest
that the whole of the estates should descent to the eldest
son only. Now, if the principle were right in one case.
was it possible to be right in the other too?—(Hear.)
He did not find much difficulty in obtaining an answer to
that question, if he judged by the effects produced in
both. The wealth of the commercial class had increased
in a most wonderful degree. It had at its com-
mand the greatest possible amount of industry,
and an almost unlimited amount of capital, while,
on the other hand, judging from the complaints
which had been made by the agricultural
body, they were in a deplorable position.
They had the fact that the abundance of labourers in
this country bad almost become a curse instead of a
blessing. They had the soil crying out for capital, and
labour crying out for employment. The districts were
the greatest poverty and distress existed where
those where the greatest improvement could
be made. The tendency of our laws had been
to drive capital in one direction, and the land in
another direction. If they inquired into the
origin cf this state of things, they would find it origi-
nated in feudal times. He asked them now to abide
by the spirit of their ancient constitutions. The welfare
of society was consulted by the laws then made—great
possessions and great tracts of land were then a source
of wealth and power, when now we find them to
have a contrary effect. The sole right of the eldest
son was not, founded upon any principle of justice.
The stare of society required that land should be kept
together in large parcels for the sake of strength.
From a feudal country this had become, a commercial
one, and it was necessary to accommodate our laws to the
altered eircuras'aacei of the times. He had good grounds
for claiming the support of those who dealt only in
ancient laws and 'ancient precedents. Division
of property existed among the ancient Britaina
without any right of primogeniture. Among the
Romans, the great eiviliaers of the world, property was
equally divided among the children, without respect
either to age or sex. In Athens it was divided equally
among all males, the daughters being left to be provided
for at the discretion of the brothers, on the SIMI" princi-
ple as that a younger son, by our law, was left to the
mercy of his elder brother. In aristocratic Sparta the law
made it dishonourable either to buy or sell land, and the
tendency was to accumulate and to concentre.-e it into a
few hands. Among the Jews, who so much respected
the rights of the eldest son, he was not entitled t ) the
whole of the property but only to a portion it. He knew
that France would be used as an argument against him,
but that could not hold, as his only object was to
obtain the right of division in cases of intestacy,
whereas in France the division was compulsory.
In making a comparison with France, the present time
should be taken. In 1789 the capital employed upon
agriculture in France was 42.000,000 of francs,
whereas now it amounted to 50,000,000 of francs. In
1790 the nominal value of the produce of the whole
kingdom was 4 850,000,000 if francs. In 1843 the
returns from agriculture alone amounted to no
less than 6,000,000,000 of francs. But France was not
the only c metry where there was an equal distribution
of an intestate's landed property. In Belgium the same
principle prevailed, and there agriculture flourished to
an enormous extynt. Ore of the great arguments which
would be adduced against him would be that this system
was necessary for the support of the landed arht icracy,
and some might say that a large body of landed
proprietors was necessary for the (it f ace of the institu-
tions cf the country; but the present state cf society
no longer needed them, and ho thought the sooner they
got rid of them the better. The Hon. Gentleman then
concluded by reading the words of his motion.
Mr. EWART'S apology for addressing the House on
the subject was, that fifteen 3 ears ago he had introduced
a similar motion. Both he and his Honourable
Friend wished, however, distinctly to be understood
that they had not the slightest wish to assimilate the
state of things in England to that in France, by which
the distribution of land was compulsory. That was
going into the opposite extreme. It appeared to him
that the time was particularly well chosen for the
present motion—the country would never do any good
until it treated land like every other commodity.
He believed his Hon. Friend's proposition was founded
on justice and would tend to advance the interests of the
agricultural and commercial classes of this country. He
would, therefore, second the motion of his Hon. Friend
and give it his cordial support.
Mr. NE WDEGATE believed the Hon. Gentleman's
proposition would lead to the destruction of the aristoc-
racy of the country. Ile wished to know whether this
was a real abstract resolution to the effect that the agri-
cultural interest was dissatisfied with the present system.
and it was therefore intended to follow it up with some
plan for a new distribution of property. He was really
at a loss to know what the drift of this motion could
be, except it was to carry out the resolution which
free trade had commenced, and to strike a blow at real
property, so as to change the monetary and political
power of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Either it was
intended that this resolution should lead to steps for
removing some temporary inconvenience relative to the
transfer of real property, or it was the pre-
cursor to some comprehensive measure for changing
the tenure of property in this country, and therefore
when the Honourable Mover replied upon the whole
questionpossessio
oh e Shouofldwhich hoef
th glades
ei f t hes, eo wo
ho
juelodt
s puthe t hwes
sHsonuxs
ieoin
s
to obtain.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME could not interpret what the ultimate
object of the Honourable Member was in pro-
posing this motion. As far as ho could judge,
it appeared to be his intention to alter
the law of primogeniture. There could be no
doubt that the poverty and distress which existed in
this country was to be attributed to some peculiarity
in oar constitution. In no country was the
number of landed proprietors so limited ac in England,
and it eas worth while considering whether the
wretchedness that prevailed did not arise from
this circumstance. He believed that the duty on convey-
ances, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to take off, would confer considerable ben( fit upon the
holders of small properties. The law of primogeniture
was most impolitic and unjust and ought to be altered.
There was no country in which the sons and daughters
of the aristocracy were left in so dependent a state. He
recollected reading the will of a nobleman who had four
sons in the House to whom he left 6001. a year each
until they obtained some Government appointments,
and he was sorry to say that he:Oenew other instances
in which the same provision had been made for sons.
The result of enriching the eldest son at the expense if
his brothers and sisters was pauperism and distress, and
an increase of burdens on the State. While he gave his
assent to the motion, he would guard himself against
sanctioning any compulsory act to compel the division of
property against the will of the parent.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES supported the motion. He thought
it right that they eheuld allow every man to dispose of