The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1878-03-14
Property in England and America

In very many respects we naturally re-
semble our English cousins. We are of
the same race and speak the same Ian
guage; our laws have been, to large
degree, modelled upon those of our
another country" in numerous Gus
toms, religious and festive, we have con-
tinued to follow those brought by our
ancestors from England across the At
lantic.
Yet the respects in which we differ
from the English are scarcely less
striking than those in which we are like
them. The growth of the American
people on new soil, the exchanging of
monarchical for republican institutions
after the Revolution, the spirit of indie
pendence fostered by our distance from
the old world, and the absence of the
contact which England has with the
civilization OF Europe, and other causes
have made us distinctive race.
One marked difference between the
two nations is seen in the matter of hold
ing and disposing of property; in the
general diffusion and easy transfer Of
this worlds goods in America, contrasted
with its fxedness and long possession
by few families in England.
1t is often remarked among US that a
large estate rarely remains in the same
family for more than three generations.
A man of shrewd business talent, by a
long life of labor and thrift, amasses a
large fortune. He dies, and the fortune
is divided, very often equally, among a
larger or smaller family of children.
These may either squander their por-
tons or lose them by ill fortune, and
then the grandchildren are poor; or else
what was a good portion, on being divid-
ed among the grandchildren, leaves but
small stipend to each.
The fact Il at, as rule, fortune van
ishes by the time it reaches the grand
children of the man who made it, is
largely due to the great freedom allowed
by the laws to our citizens in the dispos-
al of their property. If rich man dies
without making a will, his property is
divided equally among his children.
The laws, moreover, absolutely forbid
him so tying it up that it cannot be d.
vided or freely disposed of by his heirs
Thus property, having gathered in one
hand, when Mat hand is loosed from it
is very apt, from many causes, to take
wings and be dispersed; it is easily got
nd of by a spendthrift son, or is divid-
ed among many children; it is lost in
trade or by financial reverses; hun
dred accidents threaten and assail it.
In England the case is very different.
1t is true that within quarter of cent
ury the laws of ''primogeniture" and
''entail" have been a good deal altered
but it is also true that there great prop
critics tend to remain from generation to
generation in the same family.
The old law of "primogeni.ure" com
PEELED man to leave all his real estate
to his eldest son; and the old law of
''entail" enabled him TO tie up his prop
erty for great number of years, and
say how it should descend, so that those
who succeeded him could neither sell it
nor will it away at their death.
These laws have been changed, so that
now a man can will his estate to whom
soever he pleases, and if he likes d.
vide 1t equally among his children; only
If he dies without making a will his
real estate goes, as before, to the eldest
son. A man may still "entail" his prop
erty to certain extent, so tina, for the
period of life in being and twenty-one
years after" his heirs cannot dispose of
it; but this right of entail is more re-
stricted than formerly.
Besides these laws, long custom and
family pride induce the rich English to
keep their estates together and have
them descend from father to son. This
is especially true of the nobility and
'old families" The descendants of the
wealthy lords and squires of three cent
uries ago are for the most part rich to
this day.
1t is said eight noblemen own quar-
ter of Scotland; and there is one English
county, half of which is owned by two
lords. And these lords have inherited
their estates from ancestors who lived
centuries ago.
There can be little doubt which OF
these two systems of property is the
best for country in general. The re-
suit of the English system is to create a
class of few very rich, and leave an
immense class of the very poor. But
with us, where property circulates freely,
and is not tied up and so out of the
reach of competition, competence and
comfort are more widely spread and
evenly divided, and there is far less of
the misery of extreme poverty.