The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-22 00:00:00

SALARIES OF JUDGES.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER gave notice that on going into
Committee on the Chief•Justices' Salaries Bill, he should
bring under the notioe of the House the salarios of the
Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-
Chancellor, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the
Puisno Judges, with a view to their prospective re-
d notion.

Mr. FREWEN moved an address for return of the
abstracts of the account of the treasurers of the liberty
of Peterborough, in the county of Northampton, and the
liberty of St. Alban's, in the county of Hertford, for the
years ending Michaelmas, 1847, Michaelmas, 1848, and
Michaelmas, 1849 (in a similar form to the return of the
several county treasurers in England and Wales, pre-
sented and ordered to be printed by the House of Com-
mons on the 4th day of May, 1849, Parliamentary
Paper, No. 260).
DUTY ON BRICKS.

Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition from mer-
chants and traders at Liverpool, praying that the
"drawbacks" on bricks might be allowed if the duty on
them were repealed.
TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.
Lord NUGENT presented a petition against the
advertisement duty, the penny stamp on newspapers,
and the excise duty on paper.
POST-OFFICE.

Several petitions against Sunday labour in the Post-
office were presented by Lord NUGENT from the metro-
polis, and by Mr. A. HASTIE from Glasgow.
MARRIAGE BILL.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in
favour of this Bill.
KING'S-ROAD, WESTMINSTER.

Sir J. PAKINGTON gave notice that after Easter
he would put a question to the Attorney-General re-
specting the lighting of the King's-road.
THE FACTORY ACT.

Mr. M. GIBSON wished to put a question to the
Speaker upon a matter of form. Should the Factory
Bill be committed pro forma this evening, could any dis-
cussion be taken on the principle on the question for its
re-committal?

The SPEAKER said no step would be gained by
proceeding pro forma this evening, and a discussion
on
the principle could be taken on the occasion of the next
committal.
DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
In reply to Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he should take
the second reading of this Bill on Monday, and postpone
its committal till after Easter.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, perhaps it would be con-
venient to the House for him to take that opportunity
of stating what he intended to do with regard to the
three several Bills standing on the paper relative to the
merchant seamen service.—(Hear,hHe proposed
to take the second readings of these Bills on Friday, the
19th of April, and he would now move that the orders
of the day be read, for the purpose of being postponed
accordingly.
Mr. RICARDO would be glai to know in what order
the Bills would be taken.
Mr. BOUVERIE said, 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. LABOUC HERE thought the best course would
be not to lay the amendments on the table of the House
until the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL.
In answer to a question from Mr. MOWATT,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he should go into Com-
mittee on the Australian Colonies Bill to-morrow
evening.

THE MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he should
postpone his Marriage Bill until Thursday, the 18th of
April.
At the suggestion of Lord J. RUSSELL,
Mr. TRELAWNY 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.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF LAND.
Mr. LOCKI 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
horn 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 largo
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 ho 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 realm 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 art 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 A the children,
and distributed the property with the most perfect
justice amongst all; hut, in the case of real property, it
told the younger children that it was for their interest
that the whole of the estates should descend 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 had almost become a curse instead of a
blessing. They had the soil crying out for capital, and
labour crying out for employment. The districts where
the greatest poverty and distress existed were
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 of 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 constitution. 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 state 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 circumstances of the times. He had good grounds
fur claiming the support of those who dealt only in
ancient laws and ancient precedents. Division
of property existed among the ancient Britains
without any right of primogeniture. Among the
Romans, the great civilizers 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 same 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 concentra:e it into a
few hands. Among the Jews, who so much respected
the rights cf the eldest son, he was not entitled to the
whole of the property, but only to a portion it. He knew
that France would be used as an argument against him,
hut 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 4,650,000,000 of 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 country 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 extant. One of the groat arguments which
would be adduced against him would be that this system
was necessary for the support of the landed aristocracy,
and some might say that a large body of landed
proprietors was necessary for the defence of the institu-
tions of the country; but the present state of society
no longer needed them, and he thought the sooner they
got rid of them the better. The Hon. Gentleman then
concluded by reading the words of his motion.
Mr. EVVART'S apology for addressing the House on
the subject was, that fifteen years 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
prevent 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. NEWDEGATE believed the Hon. Gentleman's
proposition would lead to the destruction of the aristoc-
racy of the country. He 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
question he should be glad if he would put the House in
possession of which of these two objects he was anxious
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 he 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 our constitution. In no country was the
number of landed proprietors so limited as in England,
and it was 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 benefit 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
srecollected aoduisneg.
ttoh ew wh
oi o f
until they obtained some Government appointments,hea nleofbtl e6moao7. wah3o,ehaard
each
and he was sorry to say that he knew other instances
in which the same provision had been made for sons.
The result of enriching the eldest son at the expense of
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 should allow every man to dispose of
his property, either landed or otherwise, as he might
think proper.
Mr. CHARTERIS did not rise to prolong the discus-
sion, but he wished to ask a question of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Montrose. The Hon. Member had stated that
the law of primogeniture led to the maintenance of large
military and naval establishments, for the purpose of sup-
porting the younger sons of the aristocracy. He wished
to ask the Hon. Member whether he would be satisfied
with an ensign's commission as his only means of sup-
port in life.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. HUME.—I am too old.—(Great laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER who
spoke chiefly with his back to the gallery, and was con-
sequently very imperfectly heard, said that the motion
of the Honourable Member comprehended two subjects
—first, facilities for the transfer of landed property, and
secondly, an alteration in the state of the law as to the
division of real property. lie was not prepared to say
that the first object of the motion was one which ought
not to be supported, but Hon. Gentlemen would remem-
ber that this subject had been referred to the Real
Property Commission, from whom a report might soon
be expected, and he did not think that at present any
great advantage would be derived from the passing of an
abstract resolution. With regard to the second part of
the motion, which proposed to alter the distribution of
landed property in cases of intestacy, he did not agree
with its object. He believed that on the whole, as his
Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had said, there
was a general accordance of habits and opinions in this
country with the present state of the law, and, therefore,
he should feel bound to oppose the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT, who rose amid loud calls for a division
observed, that as he had said a great deal on the subject
of primogeniture outside the walls of the House, he was
desirous of saying a few words before the House divided.
He was not disposed to conceal the objects which lion.
Gentlemen opposite, who were so timid on this question,
might suppose the friends of the motion had in view,
but he would assure the Hon. Member for North War-
wickshire that they would not take a single acre of his I
property without paying him for it. They were not de-
stroyers of property, as they had been called, but the
improvers of it.

Mr. NEWDEGATE explained that what he said WM,
that during the recess the Hon. Member for Manchester
had been instructing the public that there ought to be
a very large sub-division of lauded property in this
country.

Mr. BRIGHT went on to say that the motion did not
propose to interfere with the manner in which a man
might bequeath his estate, but that when there was no
will the law should step in, and do that which was con-
sistent with justice, and which natural affection would
dictate. lie allowed that the motion tended in a direc-

tion along which he would probably travel further than
many Members of that House; but he was sure that,
with our immense and growing population, the time
was not far distant when they would apply ta landed
property the principles which applied to all other
kinds of property—a change which would be atteaded
by great pecuniary advantage to landed proprietors.
He believed that freeing land from the restrictions im-
posed by the present state of the law would add
seve❑ or eight years' purchase at least t) the value of
landed property. In Prussia forty years ago there were
estates which were not allowed to be sold to any but
those who were of noble families, and the consequeece
was that there were very few purchasers to be found for
those estates, which were almost unsaleable, and when
sold were sold at very low prices. This law had been
subsequently altered, and the advantages which had been
derived from the change had been very great. With
regard to the general question of treeing the land from
restrictions, he would ask lion. Gentlemen to bear in
mind that there was a large labouring population in the
rural districts very ignorant lied often much demoralized,
and he believed that the principal cause of their demo-
ralisation was the hopelessness of their condition. He was
obliged to his Hon. Friend for bringing forward this
motion, and though there had not been a very animated
discussion, and Hon. Gentlemen did not seem to be
willing to attend to the subject at the present time, he
was sure that before long the ❑ecessities of the country
would force them to amend the law.

Sir HARRY VERNEY did not intend to say any-
thing which could in the slightest degree reflect on the
aristocracy. He believed there were no possessors of
property in any country who did so much tor those on
it, and who received so little remuneration from it, as
in England. Much good, however, might be effect-d
by facilitating the transfer of landed property. There
were 30,000 acres of unimproved land within a short
distance of the metropolis, which, if there were facilities
for its sale, would furnish employment for several hun-
dred poor labourers in its cultivation. In supporting the
motion bel)re the House, he wished it to be understood
that he did not concur in all the grounds urged in favour
of it by the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. LOCKE KING observed, in reply, that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the Re-
port of the Real Property Commissioners. This Com-
mission had been appointed in 1832, and had not yet
completed their labours, and it was not known whe❑
they would. The Honourable Member for Warwick-
shire alludel to the objects which he had in view in
bringing forward his motion ; his obj ect were that
facilities might be afforded to capital to find its way to
the soil.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... ... 52
Against it ... ... ... ... 110
Majority against ... ... —53
DEPENDENT PRINCES IN INDIA.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE, who evidently laboured under
indisposition, then proceeded to bring under the notice
of the House the motion of which he had given nc•t'ce
for a Select Committee to inquire into the rights of sue
cession of the allied and dependent princes of India; but
he addressed the House in such a low and indhti❑ct
tone as to be nearly inaudible. He was understood to
say, that the question out of which this subject aroff,
was considered one of the greatest importarce in India,
namely as to the right of a native ruling prince to adopt
an heir to succeed him, in default of his having children.
The denial of this right on the part of the East India
Company would limit the succession to the family of a
ruler of a country. It might be necessary to state, in
the first place, that this question had arisen in connexion
with a state, the administration of the afriirs of which
had repeatedly been before the House—he al-
luded to Sattara. It was the policy of the Govern-
ment, at the end of the war in 1818 to place a
portion of the states of the deposed head of the Mahrat-
tas, under the head of the descendant of the original
founder of the Mahratta dynasty. The House was fully
aware of the circumstances which led to the deposition
of the successor of that prince, who, at his death having
no direct descendants, adopted a youth as his successor.
As to the feelings with which these adopted heirs were
regarded, he would refer the House to the report of Mr.
Frere, whose duty it was to communicate to the family
of the deposed Raja of Sattara the course which the
East India Company intended to take with regard to the
succession.—(The Hon. Baronet proceeded to read from
this report, but he became so unwell that he was unable
to proceed, and was obliged to resume his seat.)
Sir J. HOBIIOUSE rose, and suggested to the Hon:
Member, that in his then state, it was impossible he
could do justice to the question—it had bettor be ad-
journed.
Mr. HUNIE concurred in the suggestion, and

Sir E. COLEBROOKE, who hail in the meantime
been revived by a glass of water brought by an Hon.
Member, apologised to the House for his sudden illncss,
and the debate was adjourned.