HC Deb 28 June 1876 vol 230 cc574-609

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. POTTER,

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: The Bill which I ask the House to read a second time to-day has for its object the assimilation of the law affecting real property with that on personal property in cases of intestacy. It aims to remove from the Statute Book a law which, in my opinion, gives an unwise and unjust preference to an eldest son over the rest of the family in cases of death without a will, for which law there is no State necessity, as in feudal times, and which is not adapted to the circumstances of the day. The subject has been frequently before the House, and a Bill was brought forward as early as 1836 by the late Mr. William Ewart, then Member for Liverpool. It was again brought forward in 1837 by the same hon. Gentleman, but in both cases it met with no success. Mr. Locke King brought forward the question in 1850, and in several suc- cessive Parliaments the question was identified with his name, until in July, 1869, he obtained a majority of 25, and carried the second reading by 169 Ayes to 144 Noes. In 1870 it was understood that the question was left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); but, as no measure was introduced, Mr. Locke King again prepared a Bill in 1873, which did not reach a second reading. I am not going to enter upon the legal technicalities of the question, as I believe they will be dealt with by hon. Gentlemen who will follow me. Nor do I intend to dwell on the numerous instances of injustice and hardship to widows and younger sons and others, which occur in the working of the present law, and which, I think, cannot be denied. I believe the law as it stands at present is an anomaly, and not suited to the necessities of the present day. I believe it ought to have been abolished 200 years ago, when the feudal obligations on which it was based were done away with. The feudal system, which was quite contrary to the spirit of the old English laws in Saxon times, was fully established in England in the 13th century. The necessity of Monarchs in those days required the concentration of power and of land (which was the main source of power) in the hands of very few individuals; and consequently the law directed the inheritance of land to the eldest son, to the exclusion of the younger branches of the family, though not to so complete an exclusion as the present intestacy laws provide for. I venture to impugn the intestacy laws as the key-stone of the custom of primogeniture. I am aware that there is no law of primogeniture, but in cases of intestacy the law sanctions the custom, and, in fact, gives the custom the force of law. In the 13th century military service was frequently the sole condition on which land was held. I hold in my hand a title deed or grant of the 13th century, which belongs to a friend of mine who still occupies the land granted to his ancestor 600 years ago. Homage and service are the sole conditions except the payment every year of the clove of gilliflower at Easter. There was, however, a singular condition entered into on the part of the grantor, which was that in return for the homage, military service, and the payment of the clove of gilliflower each Easter, he bound himself and his heirs to defend against all men, Jews and Christians, the grantee and his heirs for ever. In 1662, at the Restoration of Charles II., the military obligations of landowners were abolished, and a grant was made to the King of a tax on the beer of the people to the extent of 1s. a barrel in place of them. The landowners relieved, themselves of the burden of military service, on which their tenure had been based, but accepted no new burden themselves. It was at that time that, as it appears to me, the laws of intestacy should have been abolished. There was no longer the necessity of concentrating power in a fewhands for military objects, as armies were no longer provided by the landowners. Since that time the effect of the maintenance of these laws has simply been the political and social aggrandizement of certain families. Unfortunately, instead of abolishing the laws of intestacy, when the necessity for their existence had passed away, these laws had been made more stringent and exclusive during the last 200 years. I think it will not be denied that by assimilating the law on real and personal property in land, a great simplification would be gained as regards title deeds to property, though the lawyers might complain that their interests were interfered with. Whatever may be the views taken by lawyers, the real difficulty in affecting the change I desire is political and social. But I think it is time that the spirit of feudalism should give way to more modern ideas. The many would be gainers, though the few would be losers by the change. It was said by an American statesman, speaking of the change in the intestacy laws in the State of Virginia, which State was the last, after American Independence, to adopt the modern idea, that—"If there would be fewer coaches and six driving into Richmond, there would be more carriages and pairs." I do not anticipate that the abrogation of these laws will affect any great immediate change, but I believe the result will be salutary on the whole, and that, at any rate, an anomaly will be removed from the Statute Book. I claim the support of the present Government, and especially that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us in Manchester last autumn that "the true features of a Conservative policy were not to destroy institutions, but to adapt them to the circumstances of the day." Surely I may claim that the present laws as affecting intestacy are not adapted to the circumstances of the day. I hope, therefore, to have the vote of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the second reading of the Bill.

MR. LEATHAM

I rise, Sir, to second the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Potter), and as my name is upon the back of the Bill, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words in its defence. When this subject was last under discussion, we heard a great deal about the small freeholder, and I dare say that he will make his appearance again to-day. Hon. Gentlemen contend that the Bill will destroy him, and, so far as I am able to follow the argument, it is this—most of these small freeholds are heavily mortgaged, and the village usurer is only prevented from foreclosing and pouncing upon the land at once, because he knows that under the existing law it will descend in a lump. But how can he know that his victim will not make a will? And further, if the freehold be so heavily mortgaged, that the process of sale will sweep away the margin, the question suggests itself whether it is worth while to keep such a freeholder as that upon his legs at all. It is, above all things, desirable that the land should be in the hands of men of means. And if by the peasant proprietor be meant a proprietor who is mortgaged to the hilt, for my own part I lose all interest in the peasant proprietor. Indeed, I am a little amused at the amount of sympathy with which he appears to have inspired hon. Gentlemen opposite. I had always supposed that there was no landholder in the House who would have thought it a great misfortune if, at anything like a reasonable price, he was able to clear away some of the little white patches which, in his estimation, no doubt disfigure the green expanse of the map of his estates; but now I find that there is nothing so much to be dreaded, and nothing so much to be deprecated. There is one class of small freeholder, however, whom the Bill will not touch—those who have purchased a few acres with the proceeds of their industry, or who have inherited from those who have so purchased. For we have the high authority of Lord Coleridge, based upon his experience as a revising barrister, for saying that such men are not only in the habit of making wills, but even simple settlements. But the class upon which hon. Members perhaps have their eye is one whose freeholds have grown up, not because they have been inherited, as we were told on one occasion, from the time of William Rufus, or any other William, but because the negligence of the lord of the manor has permitted squatters upon the common land. I cannot regard this class as either interesting or important. To begin with, they are not in a position of independence; for isolation is not independence. They are usually feeble parasites hanging on to the flanks of some great estate. There is nothing Arcadian about them, not even the simplicity, and if this Bill should promote their disappearance without hardship to anybody, and so give an unexpected holiday to the gamekeeper and the policeman, I do not know that we shall have any great cause for regret. But whether this be so or not, nothing can be more absurd than to invest the heirs of such men with all the paraphernalia which you have contrived to throw around the ownership and descent of land in the gross. It is better at once to recognize the fact that, except in the vicinity of towns, land has become a luxury of the rich, and one for which they are willing to pay exorbitant prices. It follows that for a poor man with a family to continue to hold land is very often the height of improvidence, and it is better for everybody that at his death the land should be sold at a high price for the benefit of all the survivors, rather than that it should pass to one to the exclusion and possible pauperism of all the rest. So much for the case of the small freeholder. Now, let me turn to what I cannot but regard as a more substantial objection to this Bill in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, and one which is thinly veiled by all this transparent enthusiasm for the small freeholder—I mean the possible influence which this Bill may exercise over the future of primogeniture in this country. To listen to some hon. Members, one would suppose that a hereditary Monarchy and a hereditary Peerage were staked upon the issue of this debate. It has been my melancholy lot on many an occasion, when some just reform has been demanded, to see what I may term the great Gods of the Constitution dragged by the hair into our debates, but not often, I think, in quite such a quarrel as this. At the risk of appearing irrational to some hon. Members, I venture to dispute the assertion that this Bill will endanger the principle of primogeniture as it is now understood in this country. For what is meant by primogeniture now? Does it mean that the obligation which devolves upon every man to support all the beings whom he has introduced into the world is rendered null and void by the fact of his being possessed of property in the most substantial and enduring shape? If this were the meaning of primogeniture, it could not exist in this intelligent community for a single hour. What is the significance of your whole system of settlements in favour of younger children? Why, it is the protest of every succeeding generation against the naked barbarism of such an idea. The universal custom of the country is against it, for it is the universal custom to provide for younger children at the expense of the estate. All natural justice and all reasonable sentiment are against it too, for I will engage to say that there is no Member of this House possessed of landed property, and only landed property, and possessed also of the power of willing it, who would dare to think that he was propitiating either justice or sentiment if he bequeathed the whole to one child, and flung all the rest naked and destitute upon society. Yet it is precisely against this burlesque and caricature of primogeniture that this Bill is framed. Now, if it is any crumb of comfort to hon. Members who are opposing the Bill, let me say at once that, as one of its promoters, I have no quarrel with the principle of primogeniture. I am very far indeed from saying that when a man has once made what he considers to be an adequate provision for his children, he is not at liberty to bequeath the surplus to any member of his family he pleases; and upon what member of his family is his choice so likely to fall as upon his eldest son? I will go a step further, and say that when a man has made proper provision for his family, there is no principle of economy, and, certainly, no precept of morality and religion, which can forbid him to bequeath the whole of the surplus to some great public object with which his children may have nothing directly to do. Taking, then, this limited and modified, and, as I venture to think, reasonable notion of primogeniture, what is there in the Bill before the House to overthrow or even endanger it? The practice of primogeniture is based on almost immemorial usage. Are we asked to believe that immemorial usage will perish before a Bill which will change the devolution of only one estate in 500—perhaps not of one acre in 5,000? It is not contended for a moment that this Bill will change by one hair's-breadth the devolution of large estates. They are bound up by fetters which are strong as the chains of destiny, and which the Bill cannot unbind. And whose example are the small proprietors so likely to follow as that of the large proprietors? If, then, primogeniture be just, if it appeals, as it does appeal vehemently, to sentiment, if it be able to command the force of predominant example, what has it to fear from this Bill? Hon. Gentlemen display very little confidence in the justice of primogeniture and in the power of all those forces which will still converge in its favour, when they tremble for it, and for everything which they suppose to be founded upon it, merely because we propose to touch the very fringe of the question by a little Bill for the dispersion of estates which are either so small, or the devolution of which is so little an object of interest to their owners, that they make no wills at all. Even if I were enamoured of the principle of primogeniture, if I regarded it, not as I do regard it, as a principle which has a great deal to be said in its favour, but as that upon which everything which is just and stable in this country is founded, I should still vote for this Bill; because all experience proves that if a principle is to be respected and preserved it must not be pushed to an excess, and I contend that it is pushed to an excess by the existing law. Why, there is no civilized country in the world, with such a law of intestacy! We are acting not only in the teeth of English custom, but of the whole law and custom of mankind. And, under these circumstances, what must happen? Why, being indefensible, the law will some day be swept away, and with it possibly other things which are quite susceptible of defence, but which. we persist in confounding and entangling with it by all the reasoning, I had almost said by all the casuistry, at our command.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. B. Potter.)

MR. GREGORY

said, that the subject of the Bill had not yet been brought forward in the present Parliament, and no one could say that it was not a fair one for discussion, or that it had not been most ably and moderately treated by the hon. Members who had introduced it. But the question was, whether they had shown a sufficient case for the alteration of a law which had been in operation, in this country, at all events, since the Norman conquest, and probably before, as it appeared to have formed part of the Saxon code by which the country was previously governed. Now, in the first place, in dealing with the question, he protested against any analogy being attempted between this and foreign countries. The conditions of their climate, products, and population were so different that no fair parallel could be drawn, and he trusted in particular that we should never be brought to entertain the French law of partition of property, of the effects of which he had some personal experience, and of the destructive effects of which upon property he warned the House. It was true that the present Bill did not go to that extent, inasmuch as it left untouched the power of dealing with property by settlement or devise; but if they introduced the principle as proposed by this Bill of the partition of property, in case of intestacy they might before long have a cry raised against the power of devising land by will as contrary to the spirit of the law, and the distribution of property which it contemplated. Now, as regarded the Bill itself, it would, as he read it, operate as a conversion of real property out and out in cases of intestacy, and as the property was to pass by the grant of administration, he apprehended that it would become liable to administration duty. He did not know whether it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill to subject land generally to probate or administration duty. It had not been stated by them, but it was implied by their Bill, and gave rise to a very grave and serious question, involving, of course, the distribution of burthens between real and personal estate, and the liability of the former to land tax, local rates, and other impositions of that nature. As regarded the operation of the Bill it would not take effect upon many of the larger estates in this country, as they were generally the subject of settlement, or upon many of those belonging to the upper and educated middle classes, as those persons generally left wills which would take their property out of the operation of the Bill; but the Bill would take effect upon many small properties belonging to persons in humble circles, and it would be well for the House to consider what this effect would be. Now, if land was to be divided amongst a family, it could be done only in one of two ways—namely, either by sale or by partition; and he ventured to say that, do what you would, the expenses in either case would be wholly disproportionate to, and would seriously affect, the value of the property. Besides this, were you really benefiting the members of the family by this distribution? Would you not be creating in their minds the impression that on the death of their parent they would come into possession of property sufficient for their wants, and that it was not necessary for them to provide for them by their own exertions, subjecting them, in short, to that most demoralizing of influences—namely, that of living upon expectations? He (Mr. Gregory) had seen much of this in families, in cases of personal property, and he certainly did not think it would be beneficial to carry it any further. Well, if this were a true representation of the effects of the Bill, the question arose, whether a sufficient case of hardship had been made out of the operation of the present law to justify the alteration of it. The hon. Gentleman who promoted this Bill had not cited any instances of it. He (Mr. Gregory) did not deny that there might be some—in fact, there was hardly any law which did not occasionally give rise to hard cases. But he did not believe they were numerous in the present instance, and certainly, in his own experience, which had extended over a good many years, he could hardly recollect one. Again, he believed that the law as it stood generally carried out the wishes and intentions of the owner of the property. There was a general desire in the proprietors of land in this country to keep it together, and in none more strongly than in Gentlemen who, like the Mover and Seconder of the Bill, he believed, had acquired property by their own energy and intelligence. He believed, under the circumstances he had stated, that the proposed alteration of the law was uncalled for and injurious; that it would be destructive of small properties, which would have to be sold, and, if sold, would certainly be merged into larger estates; and that we were called upon, without any case of necessity being shown, to alter a system of great antiquity, well recognized and generally acquiesced in by the people of this country.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE,

in seconding the Amendment, referred to the time which had elapsed since the question used at long intervals to be presented to the House as the pet crotchet of Mr. Locke King, the loss of whose genial presence was the smart money which Parliament had paid for the beneficent change of 1874. Mr. Locke King used to base his views on somewhat sensational stories of alleged individual hardships, while the hon. Member for Rochdale had plunged into the depths of archæology, and discoursed upon gilliflowers in 1270. As to the ingenious speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, he could only contrast it with a very telling one from the same lips delivered only a short time ago, when he was resisting a small Bill for enfranchising widows and spinsters, on the ground that that apparently trifling little Bill was only an instalment which would open the road to still wider and worse changes. On that occasion his arguments seemed to be very conclusive, and cynical critics might consider them a logical reply to the speech which the House had just heard. Still, his hon. Friend was the martyr of his own consistency, when he had the candour to tear the mask from the Bill and own that it was intended for the absorption of small properties. He must himself, relying as he did on such good authority, denounce the Bill as a barefaced attempt of Plutocrats to make it more easy to absorb and gobble up those small properties in land which were often, at present, difficult of acquisition; while, if the desired change took place, they would be at the mercy of any provincial Ahab. In this respect he maintained that the Bill was contrary to public policy and an anachronism;while, on the other hand, it might often lead to the breaking up of properties, when sound reason would urge they had best be kept together. It had been brought forward many times by Mr. Locke King; but he would go no further back than March 2, 1859, when it was thrown out by 271 to 76. On that occasion the Leaders of the then Opposition, though Liberals, showed themselves conservative of the principles of the Constitution. Sir George Cornewall Lewis—one who was, in the best sense of the word, the most sceptical of men—a man in whom imagination never overbore reason, nor hypothesis evidence—denied that a measure of this sort could have a limited application, and said "its effect would be to extinguish that class of persons who were denominated heirs." Sir George Lewis argued, moreover, that it would operate against the widow, by raising a sentimental feeling against marriage settlements for fear of crippling younger children. So that, although under the present system there might be "limited starvation," under this Bill there would be starvation all round. As things were, there was left one corpus of property on which all might lean—hereafter, corpus there would be none. Lord Palmerston, who followed, roundly asserted that such a proposal was incompatible with the maintenance of a constitutional Monarchy; but it was not necessary to go that length to be seriously opposed to the change. However, it was worth noting that that very shrewd man stated that his objections to the Bill were "on every possible ground;" while he characterized the alteration in the law as at variance with all the habits of the English people. In 1866, when he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had the honour of carrying its rejection, the minority of 76 in favour of the Bill had grown to 84, but the opponents of the measure then numbered 281. So the progress in seven years was an increase in the opposition to it of just two. Sir Roundell Palmer, who was then Attorney General, thought it so necessary to resist the measure that he ran out of Court, and came down to the House in his wig and gown in order to make a speech against it, in which he dwelt with great force on the benefits in times past of the maintenance of a graduated scale of society, which, as he contended, this Bill would affect. The debate was concluded by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, who was then Leader of the House, and he expressed a general acquiescence in Sir Roundell Palmer's arguments, and voted in the majority.

Mr. Locke King

again brought forward the measure in 1869, when it was carried by a small majority, during the first year of the Government of the right hon. Member for Greenwich. But that was at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were revelling and rollicking in their enormous majority of 120, pulling down Churches and generally turning the world upside down. Yet they could only whip up a miserable majority of 25–169 to 144—although the right hon. Member for Greenwich—following the bent of his gigantic but impulsive intellect—then voted for the Bill. It was not for him to conjecture the mental process which had so soon turned his right hon. Friend; but this he knew—that in the minority still voted 17 Liberals, and some of them men of great weight in that House, such as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (the late Attorney General), the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, and Sir Roundell Palmer. At that time, too, the case of the advocates of Mr. Locke King's measure was bolstered up by that most absurd fallacy that there were only 30,000 landed proprietors in England—founded upon an obviously unfair muddling of some fragmentary Census Returns—a fallacy which he grieved to say that even the right hon. Member for Birmingham had condescended to pick up and to propagate. Since then the "Domesday Book" had appeared, and showed that, excluding proprietors in London, there were 972,836 landed proprietors in England and Wales, of whom 703,289 held less than an acre each. Not only had that fallacy been exploded, but the Return had clearly proved that there were a great many more proprietors of very small quantities of land scattered throughout the country than the world had previously suspected. He found, for instance, that out of 48 properties, taken at haphazard out of eight counties, six from each, 22 were under 10 acres, while only two counted by thousands—4,323 and 1,716 respectively; and there were but five between 1,000 and 100 acres—the largest of 747, and the smallest of 183. How, therefore, any hon. Member could contend that public policy required that further facilities for the division of landed property should be given by the Legislature, he was at a loss to understand. These figures proved that land was already divided enough. The common sense of the matter clearly was, that although when a large property came into the market the next proprietor, if he could buy it as a whole, and if he was sure it would stay a whole, might very probably do so, supposing him to be a man who had made a fortune, and who wished to establish a name in the country, yet that, as a rule, sizeable properties were preferentially kept together at their original dimensions.

The enactments of this Bill, and still more the tone of feeling which it would engender, would be fatal to the continuance of the existing balance; the bigger properties would get bigger, and the smaller ones smaller each generation. There was, again, another class of small proprietors which had no existence 40 or 50 years ago—the proprietors of lots in building societies. What would be the result in their case if this Bill were passed? When any of these proprietors had not made his will, the property would come into the market. Was it likely that the labourer or the artizan would come in to buy it? No, it would go to the attorney or the speculative builder, who would be on the perpetual look-out to snap up windfalls; so that land societies would no longer be the beneficent agents of industry which they were intended to be. The village usurer also—a common character in some parts of the country—would profit by the Bill, for, although a man might still, by mortgaging his property, retain a nominal ownership, he could be able to do so only at a higher rate of interest in proportion to the risk, and thus be more speedily reduced to destitution. If hon. Members opposite were all as candid as those who had preceded him, and declared as openly that they wanted to see an end of small properties, he could meet them on equal grounds. But, even assuming their premises, the damnosa hœreditas, if it was one, was limited to a single victim, and it was only exceptionally damnosa, while the other sons made their own way by their own exertions. Under that system of preferential division of which this Bill was the forerunner, all inheritances would ultimately be damnosissimœ, and the ever swelling phalanx of owners of land too little to live by, and yet just big enough to delude them into dodging starvation, would daily draw closer to the risk of deteriorating into purposeless and needy loafers. Then, as to the larger properties. In his speech in 1866, Sir Roundell Palmer pointed out the advantage of keeping old residential estates well together, estates on which the landlords lived, not merely viewing them as investments, but for pleasurable occupation—men who looked after the schools and provided good cottages on their properties. But it was said that if the Bill became law not only this residential landowner, who did so much for the poor on his property, but all others, would be sure to make their wills. Well, it was a strange reason for asking the House to pass a measure to enter into a sort of guarantee that its provisions would be inoperative. It would, however, not be inoperative in such cases, for instance, as those in which a proprietor happened to be a minor or a lunatic, and the result would be that, however important to the neighbourhood might be the maintenance of an estate in its entirety, it would have to be put up for sale and divided piecemeal.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham had, in speeches delivered outside the House, told them that it was not intended to introduce the French system of compulsory division or to interfere with freedom of bequest, and had urged that this was simply an optional measure. But its more outspoken advocates admitted that their desire was to change the existing prejudice for keeping property together, and to substitute the opposite doctrine in popular estimation. If they had not a bias in favour of some such system the question would not have been urged on with so much pertinacity. But in France the enforced division of land had, as the House well knew, and as had been pointed out in a very interesting work (Round my House), recently published by Mr. Hamerton, and describing the social life of provincial France, or at least of Burgundy, from the farm-house and the cottage to the chateau of the squire and the dwelling of the well-to-do bourgeois in the country towns—produced a very miserable state of things, and one which must, as time went on, lead to still more disastrous complications. The supposed political stability and dread of change which had sometimes been predicated of the French system as a favourable feature was one which he would not dignify with the name of Conservatism, for it was at best a lazy, torpid, profoundly ignorant, and, above all, selfish feeling. It had to be taken in connection with another French practice, not indeed enforced by the Code civile, but by the equally tyrannical law of custom, the mariage de convenance, also very graphically pictured by Mr. Hamerton. The most respectable provincial form of this mariage de convenance (the one, that is, which is fashionable in upper and bourgeois classes) was when neither party had ever seen the other, but both were convinced of the solid advantages of the alliance, and both perhaps owners of some scrap of land. The combined results of this system was that which a very eminent French Protestant minister lately owned to him (Mr. Beresford Hope) was la playe (the sore) of French social life—namely, the limitation of families. This was a subject on which it was impossible to speak publicly with perfect plainness in a country where the domestic hearth with its large and happy family circle was cherished as God's blessing. The husband and wife in France married for interest. Their affections were set upon keeping together their properties, of which each had probably a share. One child would unite both possessions, two would leave things as they were, and the diminution made by three could be repaired by saving. A larger family meant inevitable partition and diminution. The result was that the marrying couples did not wish their unions to be very fertile and that those unions were not very fertile. The House would not be surprised at his being very fearful and jealous of any legislation which seemed even to open the door to any possible introduction of so evil a system. The Bill had never yet been made a Party question, for the number of distinguished Liberals who voted against it in 1869 had been sufficient to divest it of that character. He appealed, there- fore, to the Opposition not, now for the first time, to make this a Party division.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Gregory.)

MR. BAXTER

said, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had delivered a long and amusing speech, but he had entered very much into the question of general politics, in which course he (Mr. Baxter) did not desire to follow him:—indeed, if any one had come into the House during the earlier portion of the hon. Member's speech he would have been at a loss to discover what the debate was about. The party who were opposed to the very simple alteration of the law which it was the object of the Bill to accomplish, had made a very remarkable change of front during the course of the controversy. He (Mr. Baxter) was old enough to recollect when the sole objection made to the change was that it would lead to the partition of estates, and when all the stock arguments against the system adopted in France and elsewhere were brought up to frighten the people of this country into a rejection of the policy proposed by this Bill. But in 1869 that argument was not used. Hon. Gentlemen one after the other took exactly the opposite line, and told the House then, as it was told now, that if the Bill was passed, the main and immediate consequence would be to annex a number of the small properties to vast neighbouring domains, and in that way forward the accumulation of property in a few hands, and so make the evil greater than it was at present. That was the argument of 1869. To-day they were favoured with both these arguments; for both the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Gregory), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), described this as a Bill for the partition of land, and then went on to show that it would tend to the annexation of small properties to large ones. Two more inconsistent speeches he never remembered. For his own part, he did not believe that the immediate consequence of the passing of the Bill and the assimilation of the land to personal property would make any perceptible difference in the size of estates in Great Britain. But the true question in issue, in this the 19th century, was whether the mode in which personal property—intestate personal property—was now distributed—namely, to the widow and children, male and female, was a fair and natural and a Christian-like mode of distributing it? And he would ask every hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House, if he had a new constitutional code to draw up, would he for one moment entertain the idea of giving the eldest son the right to all the real estate, leaving, perhaps, the other members of the family in a state of destitution? Why, this was a piece of artificial legislation. It came down from feudal times, from the mediæval ages, and arose from the circumstances of those ages. Our more modern and better notions of justice to humanity would never have established it, and he was satisfied that sooner or later it would be abolished. The cases of intestacy were few and far between in this country; but, at the same time, it was essential that the law should be uniform, no matter what the property was, whether it was real or personal. He had two reasons for supporting the Bill. First, that it would do something in the way of educating the people of this country ill favour of a more equal division of property. He did not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), and thought the Bill would have a tendency to educate the people of this country in favour of equal distribution of property, and so mitigate the evils of the advantages which were too often given to primogeniture. He would plainly assert his opinion that it was a great detriment to any nation when great tracts of land were held by one man, who must necessarily be an absentee, and unable to perform those duties which a landlord ought to perform. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Beresford Hope) had referred to a most interesting book relating to the subdivision of property in France. The book exposed the evils which they all knew existed under that system—and he might say at once that he was not an advocate for the compulsory subdivision of property, or that we should assimilate our law to that of France. He thought the law of France a very bad law; and in. advocating this Bill he wished to deny in the strongest manner that he had any desire whatever to assimilate the law of this country to that of France. His second reason for supporting the Bill was that it would relieve many families who under the operation of the present system would be plunged into a state of destitution by the death of a father who had invested all his little savings in a plot of ground, and had unfortunately omitted to make his will. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who moved the Amendment, said—and he (Mr. Baxter) was surprised to hear it—that he did not believe there were many such instances in this country. Surely his hon. Friend had been present on former occasions when a great many instances of such hardship were quoted. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge admitted that in the speech they had just heard. Another objection had been urged against the Bill. It was said that it would be found that small properties would be consumed by mortgages, and that the effect would be to annex small holdings to large ones. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) did not agree on this point. He said he did not believe that mortgages existed to a great extent; but he was flatly contradicted by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. Was it not a strange thing that this country of ours was the only country which had a law of this kind? That was a reason of itself why they should pass the Bill. The distinction between real and personal property could not be long maintained, and he thought the House would act wisely in making a virtue of necessity by reading this Bill a second time.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that isolated cases of hardship must occur in every state of society and under any law, and no doubt inconvenience sometimes arose from our law in relation to this matter. The real question was the general expediency of the existing law. As to the Bill, there had been many proposals for altering the law, but this Bill appeared to him the very worst of all the measures which had so often been submitted to the House on this subject. He thought it would have been far better if the hon. Member for Rochdale, being a private Member, instead of bringing in a Bill for altering the law on so important a subject, had moved a Resolution stating the principle on which he desired to proceed. But remembering the advanced opinion of the hon. Member, they must look a little beyond the particular provisions of the Bill. Some political economists had vindicated the right of the owner of land to dispose of it by will as tending to the public good, on the ground that the owner of such property would have a stronger motive to take care of his land when he knew that he had the right of directing how it should descend. Others asserted the absolute right of the children to share the land of the deceased parent. But if it were once affirmed by Parliament that in the event of intestacy the land should be divided among the children, the matter would not rest there, for some philosophers had advocated that in the event of there being no child the land should lapse to the State. The Bill really tended to the adoption of the maxim of the late John Stuart Mill, which ignored more or less the right of private property in land. Then there were economical authorities who held that a man's duties did not extend beyond educating his sons and providing for them up to years of maturity; at all events, that he was under no obligations towards collateral relations, and if once Parliament affirmed the principle of this measure, it would pave the way for hereafter limiting the rights of children in cases of intestacy or ignoring the claims of collateral relatives. It had been said that the existing law in this country could be found in no civilized community. The Colony of Victoria, however, after fully considering the whole subject, had adopted the English law of descent in its integrity. In some of the American States there was a different mode of distribution upon intestacy, but it was coupled with a provision that the widow should take her share only for life, as under our law of dower, while under this Bill she would be entitled absolutely to any portion coming to her. No doubt an investment in land was by no means the most profitable a poor man could make; but, as far as his experience went, there was a strong feeling, even among persons possessing but a small amount of landed property, in favour of inheritance by the eldest son. He fully recognized a man's right to leave his property to anybody else; but the custom in favour of the eldest son was thoroughly understood in English society. The common saying was, "land which comes by heirship goes by heirship;" and persons who possessed only a cottage and two or three acres of land would rather do anything than dispossess their eldest sons. This Bill, however, would tend to break up small properties into properties still smaller; and as these small estates came into the market, they would be bought up and added to the larger estates adjoining; therefore the practical effort of the Bill would be to increase the size of estates already large, and to diminish the number of small freeholds. Again, it was a great objection to the Bill that it left so large a question as the descent of land to rest upon the mere accident of a man dying without a will; and there might be such a case as that of a married woman having power to dispose of her land by will—would her husband allow her to make a will, which might defeat his own right of succession which would accrue if she died intestate? Again, there was the case of copyhold property, which in the absence of a will would descend according to the custom of the manor; why should that property pass in a different way from that in which ordinary freehold property passed? Then there was an enormous proportion of the land in this country which was held in trust which this Bill would not deal with at all. In all these respects, there would be one law of descent established for one portion of the land, whilst there would be another mode of descent for other portions of the land. It must further be remembered that if estates were to be split up in the event of intestacy, the burden of employing surveyors and other persons upon such occasions would create consequences which would be serious in the case of large estates, but in the case of small estates would constitute a ruinous burden. A more simple way of carrying out the principle contained in the Bill would have been simply to say that land should in future be treated as personal property. He was very much inclined to think, as other hon. Members would, that behind this Bill this principle was sought to be established—that property in land should, as much as possible, be broken up in some shape or other. He did not see the right hon. Member for Birmingham in his place; but some years ago the right hon. Gentleman took a large part in the discussion of this measure, and then thought it unfair and unjust that a man should exercise his right of disposition to benefit one child to the exclusion of another. But the right hon. Gentleman said—"I think that to force the division of property by law is just as contrary to sound principles and natural rights as to prevent its division as is done by our law." Now it had not been shown that the present state of things required to be altered, and he hoped, therefore, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex would be agreed to.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

believed that the probable effects of this measure had been greatly exaggerated, both by its supporters and opponents, but he should support it, because he believed that the operation of the existing law was unjust and oppressive. The Bill, in his opinion, would be of very limited operation. It would not touch the great family estates, which constituted the great bulk of the real property of the nation, nor would it touch any land disposed of by will. As to a man dying intestate in England, he had small chance of doing so, even if he desired it. He altogether protested against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) that there was something behind it. He maintained that a measure ought to be judged on its own merits. For his own part, he was opposed to the law of France with regard to the subdivision of property. In the case of real property intestacies were rarer than in that of personal property; and he did not believe that one man in a hundred of the owners of real property died intestate. But if a man died intestate the office of the law was to step in and make, as nearly as possible, the same disposition of the property as the owner, if a right-minded man, would have wished to do. Well, he would ask, was there any less obligation to provide for his children on a man who had invested his money in houses than if he had invested it in Consols, or was a man entitled to a freehold estate more free from that obligation than one who possessed a leasehold for 999 years? It was very often a toss-up whether a man died possessed of real or personal property. For instance, a farmer in his neighbourhood who had just invested all that he was able to scrape together in the purchase of a little real estate, on his return from the solicitor's office, and before he had made a will, was run away with by his horse and killed: the whole of his property went to his eldest son, and the widow and children were thrown on the parish; but if the man had been killed while going to the solicitor's office the property would have been divided among his widow and children. Not one of the three hon. Members who had made speeches against the Bill had touched the question of the justice of the case. The whole of their argument was founded on public policy. But then the divergence between the Mover of the rejection of the Bill and his Seconder was remarkable, for while the former opposed the measure on the ground that it would lead to the accumulation of estates, the latter opposed it because it would lead to their subdivision. No doubt the latter influence was the stronger of the two; but if there were these two dangers we might safely leave the one to neutralize the other. He did not believe the Bill would have any sensible effect in increasing either the subdivision or accumulation of property: but what he would say was—"Make your laws just and reasonable, and leave the accumulation and subdivision of property to take care of themselves."

MR. HENLEY

said, no doubt much might be urged upon the abstract question whether one species of property should be dealt with in one way and one in another: but what he looked at was this, where parties by their own default did not make a will, how this proposed legislation would act upon those who were better off in the world and those who were less well off. He confessed he looked very much to the effect this Bill must have upon a very valuable class, the 40s. freeholders. He could not but see that this measure in the course of a very few years must annihilate them. He was very sorry for it, but he could see no other result. Take the case of a man with a cottage and garden of 40s. a-year who died intestate. By the time the administration fees were paid, perhaps a little debt on the cottage, and the legal expenses, what would be left to be divided among the family? He asked any reasonable man whether that would not amount to a confiscation of property? Who was entitled to most consideration, the man with little learning and little information, who was not likely to know the ill effects which would happen if he did not make a will, or the man who was wealthy and better informed, and was therefore better able to make a just distribution of his property? Those who knew anything about the poorer classes would agree with him that they were not in the habit of making wills, they did not like lawyers, they knew how their property went, and were content to leave it alone. He did not see why, on account of some injustice and inconvenience which might arise among those who were more able and ought to take precautions against those evils, we had a right to inflict this Bill upon that large class comprehended under the name of 40s. freeholders. They were a valuable class, who had held their estates for many generations, and who would be very loath to see those estates dealt with as this Bill would deal with them. An argument had been used as to the effect of the Bill on the distribution of property. His belief was that its effect would be precisely the reverse of what had been stated, because so little was to be made by land that those portions that were put up for sale would fall into the hands of some wealthy neighbouring proprietor. That would be the natural result, and so far from distributing property, the tendency would be to concentrate it. He would therefore be glad to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex for the rejection of the Bill.

MR. LEVESON GOWER

said, he should support the Bill. He had listened to the whole of the arguments for and against the measure, and he believed the entire question lay in a nutshell. The law of France had nothing whatever to do with this question. There was not a single Member of the House more opposed to the law of France than he was; its evils, economical and social, were manifest; but he defied any one to point out that such evils would be occasioned by the proposal now under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), to whose opinions he always listened with respect, was opposed to the measure on the ground that it would be injurious to the owners of small properties who did not make wills. But he (Mr. Leveson Gower) must say that every one ought to make his will, and the man who wished to divide his property among his children ought to make a will as well as the man who wished to leave it to his eldest son. If this proposed change in the law were made, the duty of making a will would be impressed on every one He was not opposed to the custom of primogeniture. If not pushed too far, the custom was beneficial; but he held the custom to be a very different thing from the law of primogeniture. Anyone with an estate of a certain size was, in his opinion, right in leaving it to his eldest son, to educate his younger children, and give them the means of living. One of the beneficial results of that custom was to be seen in the fusion of our different classes; for he believed there was no country in Europe in which the separation of classes was less marked. But without the existence of the present law there was the natural feeling of a man to wish to increase and maintain the importance of his family; and that would induce this custom to continue in force. That was not a bad feeling unless carried too far. But the important question was, whether the present law of primogeniture did not carry that feeling too far. He believed there was in this country a notion that a man was more responsible for the welfare of his eldest son than of his other children. He was not sure that this feeling was not fostered by the present law. Where a man had colossal estates it was desirable that a man having several sons should distribute his estates, and that would be done to a larger extent than now if this law of primogeniture did not exist. With regard to younger children, he thought the feeling was in favour of equality among them, and if the law were altered a man would be led to consider their case more than at present. The case of daughters was a very cruel one. Many daughters brought up in luxury were often reduced to a position bordering on beggary; but if the law gave those children a right to a certain portion of the property of their father in case of intestacy, it would probably dispose him to consider his responsibility in regard to them. He thought the operation of this Bill would be gradual, but beneficial, so far as it went, and therefore he should support it.

MR. ASSHETON

said, that it had been argued that the existing law was a relic of feudality. He was not to be frightened by the word feudal. The greatest advantages to this country had originated in the laws that had come down to us from feudal times; and if everything that could be traced to feudality were eliminated from our system very little would be left. A fallacy pervaded the arguments of those who supported this measure. It was said that where a man possessed of personal property died intestate the law divided that property among his children, and why should not the same thing be done where the property was real estate? He saw no reason for assimilating the law of real property to that of personalty. He had known cases in which the personalty having been divided among the other children, the heir had been left comparatively a beggar. He believed this Bill, if passed, would be really inoperative, and what was the use of passing a measure which would be practically inoperative? He should vote against the second reading.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought the hon. Member for Clithero (Mr. Assheton) had carried his enthusiasm for primogeniture to a most extravagant extent, for he seemed to think that the heir having got the inheritance should take the personal property also. He could congratulate the constituency of Clithero for having for their Representative a Gentleman who was several hundred years behind the age, and whose opinions would have been considered barbarous even in the 12th century. The question was not one of feudalism—they had nothing to do with the cobwebs spun by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney)—it was a question of justice between man and man. He asked the House to consider was it fair where a man died intestate, and where the whole of his property was in land, that his widow and younger children should be altogether unprovided for? He hoped and believed there were very few men in this country who by will would leave their whole property to one son, leaving the other children and the widow beggars. Such conduct would be reprobated by society. The object of this Bill was to declare that where a man possessed of real estate died intestate, the law of England should not make so wicked a disposition of his property. The present law was monstrous and unjust. If a man died intestate in regard to personalty, the law made a fair and just distribution of it; and when he died intestate possessed of real property, he did not see why the law should not make an equally fair and just distribution. The law should not interfere with the personal liberty of the individual—he should have free power to dispose of his property as he wished; but if he did not exercise the option which was given him to dispose of his estate, the law, like that of every other civilized community, should be a just law, and prevent what he said was a monstrous and wicked scandal resulting from the existing state of the law. He heartily supported the second reading of the Bill.

MR. HERSCHELL

supported the Bill. He could see no reason or sound principle on which the present law could be defended. The simple question was, when a man died without a will what was a fair and equitable distribution the law should make of his property for him? In considering this question they were too apt to look at it in its personal bearings rather than to its effect on the national interests, and he said it was most unjust and most injurious that the whole real estate should, in the accident of intestacy, descend to one individual, leaving the widow and the rest of the family to destitution. As to the 40s. freeholder argument, if this law passed it would not extinguish the 40s. freeholder, who was likely to continue so long as it remained a qualification for a vote; but if it did it would be better that it should happen than that the present unjust law should continue to exist. In the law as it stood, when it first came into existence, there entered no idea of disinheriting the bulk of a man's children in favour of one. In those days the estate went to the eldest son, but it carried with it duties, burdens, and liabilities, and when those were borne by the same person there was nothing so unreasonable in it. The eldest son was then only a sort of administrator of the estate for the benefit of the family. He was only in law the proprietor. The law had been maintained, but that part of it was abolished, or had become obsolete, which prevented its working injustice. Again, the ancient law made a provision for the widow; but under the Dower Act and by the practice of conveyancers every piece of land was now conveyed in such a way as to deprive a widow of all her dowry. He had heard no broad argument against the principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) said this Bill would facilitate the conversion of realty. That might seem a horrible and monstrous result, but it only meant that the freehold house and the freehold piece of land would be dealt with in the same way as leasehold had been dealt with for many years. There would, no doubt, be individual cases of hardship under the new law as under the old; but the broad question which they had to consider was whether this Bill proposed a just, wise, and equitable distribution of property. He regarded it as a moderate, practical, and sensible reform. It would remedy cases of injustice where a man did not make a will, and it would leave every man free to will his property as he pleased. He believed that in a few years men would recollect with astonishment that a Bill so little revolutionary had been introduced into Parliament so many times in vain. He thought it was just and wise in its conception, moderate in its character, and that it would prove beneficial in its operation.

MR. GREENE

said, that as soon as he saw the names on the back of the Bill he made up his mind which way he should vote. It was a very small Bill, but it had some very large names on its back. The Bill proposed a revolution in the laws and habits of this country which the Liberal Party had not urged when they were in power. That suggested the probability that the object of it really was to unite the Liberal Party; but he was not afraid of that consummation at present, and therefore he was not much afraid of the Bill passing. The law had the effect of holding families together and making our country what it is; and a stronger case must be made out for such a revolution as was now proposed.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the argument just used was such as always came from old grain Conservatives when reforms were proposed. England was "what it is"because of reforms which such Conservatives first opposed and then accepted. He repudiated the terrorist ideas of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), who had attributed views to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Potter) which he did not hold. The proposal of the Bill was small in itself, and in point of justice it was unanswerable.

MR. HARDCASTLE

said, the question was not whether any change was desirable, but whether we should make the change specified in the Bill, and he desired to look at the probable effect of the Bill on the smaller properties. There were two kinds of small landowners—yeomen or "statesmen" who cultivated their fields with their own hands, and men with ample means, an increasing class, who owned good, often large, houses, with more or less land, forming what were called residential estates. In regard to the first class, the division of the property would lead to great hardship. It was far better for them and for society that the estates should remain in the hands of one member of a family, and that the other members should have to seek their own fortunes in trades and professions than that the old family property should be sold and the children receive a few pounds often more to their injury than benefit. Even in instances in which the money divided might be more considerable, the members of a family would still desire that the ancestral home should remain in the hands of one of them, as the rallying-point where they might meet occasionally, renew old associations, and gratify that attachment for the soil which was distinctive of the family life of this country. In regard to the second class, the distribution of the property would be the breaking up of the home, and would be felt as a family misfortune. He should oppose the second reading.

MR. LOWE

said, the solution of the question raised by the Bill depended upon the answer that would be given to another question—What were the considerations that ought to influence a man when he sat down to make a will? As the House was aware, up to the time of Henry VIII., the Legislature was of opinion that it was not right that a man should be allowed to make a will; but at that time opinions changed, and by degrees men were allowed to make their own wills. Why did the Legislature give them this power? Clearly because the State thought the power would be better exercised by individuals than by itself. If the question had been whether there should be a division or an aggregation of property, the State would have been a better judge of it than the individual; but clearly the State did not think the making of a will a matter of political economy or State policy, but thought it was one of duty, justice, honour, and obligation as between a man and his children or relatives. It must have been on that principle that the law gave freedom of testamentary disposition. But suppose a man neglected to avail himself of this power, how ought the State to exercise it for him? Clearly if a man died intestate and the State was remitted to its former power, it ought surely to exercise it on the principle it had substituted for the old one and make a just and equitable will. But how was it to decide what would be a just will? On this matter we possessed complete information. In the case of personal property, the Legislature had laid down, and the common sense and feeling of the people had accepted, the law of division when there was no will; and the State therefore having to make a man's will, had nothing to do but to apply the same principle to real property. This appeared to him to dispose of all objections against the Bill. The Bill had nothing to do with any wild theory about the distribution of property, or with curtailing the liberty of men in dealing with their own. He could not see how any Conservative object could be attained by keeping up a flagrant and manifest injustice which in principle had been condemned by the State itself. As regarded the opposition to the proposed change, there was, perhaps, no instance in which so much had been made of so little. The present law was a plain and simple injustice—and who would maintain that it was conservative that the State should continue to maintain a gross and flagrant injustice? Any one would resent it as an insult if it were suggested that he would do that which the State did when it gave real property to eldest sons and left daughters and youngest sons to starve. Nothing could be less conservative, more revolutionary, more calculated to shake the foundations of property, than this slinging to antiquated notions derived from other conditions of society which did not now commend themselves to the common sense and the feelings of mankind.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the question before the House was very narrow and simple, but it was one which ought not to be decided without serious consideration. The question was simply whether in cases of intestacy the law should deal with real property as it dealt with personal property. It was all very well to deprecate criticism of the details of the measure; but it was certainly most extraordinary that, after the consideration which ought to have been bestowed upon it as the result of former debates—and the proposal was now introduced for the fourth, or fifth time—it was still in so crude a form—so little considered and so carelessly prepared, that, if a married woman possessing real property died without a will it would be handed over to her husband without any provision being made for her children. Surely such a provision as that was not consistent with the claims of justice. In nine cases out of ten it would have the effect of compelling the sale of the smallest properties. The measure came before the House in specious guise, which certainly had the air of theoretical plausibility; but the question was not whether such a measure would work with theoretical justice, but it was whether, taking a large view of the interests of the community, it would be wise, expedient, and politic to pass it, and thereby effect a sweeping and radical change. Isolated instances of hardship must not prevent us taking a comprehensive view of the operation of the law; and if so great a change were necessary, surely hon. Members who had been getting up their case for years could have adduced some evidence of a desire in the country to alter a law which had existed for centuries, and which on the whole had worked satisfactorily. No such evidence had been adduced; no speaker had hinted at any manifestation of public feeling on the question. If it were the law that in every case where a man possessing real estate died intestate it should devolve upon the eldest son to the exclusion of the widow and of the younger children, he would admit that that would be a strong argument for some change: but it was not so—according to the law every owner of landed estate had large powers of dealing with it either by settlement or will. He might settle it for the benefit of his eldest son, or he might bequeath it by will for the benefit of his widow and children. It was said that the possessors of real estate often neglected to make any disposition of their property. This was, however, seldom the case, because they valued the possession of land so highly, and treated it as so sacred a description of property, that they were in the great majority of cases careful to make a settlement or disposition of that property. Therefore, in dealing with this Bill, the House had only to consider what would happen in the very few cases in which the owners of real estate died intestate without making some disposition of their property either by settlement or will. In that event the real estate—subject to the widow's right by dower, which was too often forgotten—went to the eldest son. The question was what sort of will a man would be likely to make in regard to this kind of property. Notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Mr. Lowe), he was of opinion that in the great majority of cases where the owner of landed property died intestate he would, if he had made a will, have kept the property in the family and settled it for the benefit of his eldest son. If the proposed law had been in existence in this country, it would have had a detrimental and disastrous effect upon a class of persons who were entitled to the highest respect—namely, the small freeholders of this country. The House had been told that the ownership of the land was the luxury of the rich; and no doubt they possessed the greater proportion of the land of this country; but many of those who were not rich possessed as keen and eager a desire to acquire a portion of land as was found in the breasts of the rich. When a man of this class had bought or inherited a well-timbered estate, with perhaps a sparkling trout stream and other advantages, he was most reluctant to part with it, and he usually desired, of all things in the world, to keep those few acres in his family. This was, he knew, the case in those parts of England with which he was acquainted—in Cumberland, Westmoreland, and North Lancashire—which swarmed with "statesmen," as they were called, the owners of a small freehold property which had been in the family from generation to generation. What was the result? These men became good citizens in every respect in consequence of the property they possessed. They might devise this property and settle it, but it was kept in their family by exercising this right under the law from generation to generation. Was this so hard? Did it not often happen that the small freehold proprietor did devise his property to his eldest son, charging it very highly for the benefit of his widow and younger children, or leaving his personal property to his widow and the younger members of his family because he was devising the land to his eldest son? It frequently occurred, however, that the eldest son died before he was of age to make a will, or some other contingency might occur under which the whole of the property which had been in the possession of the family for centuries, and which had been so cherished a possession, would be of necessity brought to the hammer under this Bill. Was it a desirable thing that the House should put such a limitation and fetter upon the ownership of these small estates? There was, to his mind, another reason why the provisions of this Bill would not have a beneficial effect. Under the present law if a man possessed a very considerable landed estate he was in a situation to charge that property for the benefit of his widow and children, or other persons who had claims upon him, because the eldest son to whom it would come could not say there was any abstract injustice in that disposition. If, however, the law, instead of giving him that property, gave the property to a number of people, and they were entitled to it as if it were personalty under the Statute of Distributions, the testator would hesitate to make that disposition of his property. He opposed this Bill because he believed it would work detrimentally to the interests of the State, and because it would interfere with the small freeholders and practically tend to extinguish a class as much entitled to respect as any other class in the country. He opposed the Bill, moreover, because it would create the greatest possible confusion and difficulty, and cause a change most undesirable in regard to the public revenue. To sum up his objections, he opposed the Bill because it would make a sweeping and radical change in a law that had existed for centuries, and because no case had been made out why such a radical change should be made.

MR. POTTER

said, he was quite contented with the course of the debate, and would not delay the House in coming to a decision except to say that he felt assured no long time would elapse before the Bill would be carried.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 210: Majority 35.

AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Fawcett, H.
Adam, rt. hon. W. P. Fay, C. J.
Allen, W. S. Ferguson, R.
Anderson, G. Fitzmaurice, Lord E.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.
Backhouse, E. Forster, Sir C.
Balfour, Sir G. Forster, rt. hon. W. E.
Barclay, J. W. Foster, W. H.
Bass, A. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bass, M. T. Gladstone, W. H.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Goldsmid, Sir F.
Bazley, Sir T. Goldsmid, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Gourley, E. T.
Bective, Earl of Gower, hon. E. F. L.
Biddulph, M. Greenall, Sir G.
Biggar, J. G. Grieve, J. J.
Blake, T. Gurney, rt. hon. R.
Bolckow, H. W. F. Hankey, T.
Brady, J. Harcourt, Sir W. V.
Brassey, H. A. Harrison, C.
Bright, Jacob Harrison, J. F.
Bristowe, S. B. Hartington, Marq. of
Brogden, A. Havelock, Sir H.
Brown, A. H. Hayter, A. D.
Burt, T. Henry, M.
Callan, P. Herschell, F.
Cameron, C. Hill, T. R.
Campbell-Bannerman, H. Hodgson, K. D.
Carington, hn. Col. W. Holland, S.
Carter, R. M. Holms, J.
Cartwright, W. C. Holms, W.
Chadwick, D. Hopwood, C. H.
Childers, rt. hon. H. Ingram, W. J.
Cholmeley, Sir H. James, W. H.
Clifford, C. C. Jenkins, D. J.
Cole, H. T. Jenkins, E.
Cotes, C. C. Kingscote, Colonel
Cowan, J. Kirk, G. H.
Cowen, J. Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E.
Crawford, J. S. Laverton, A.
Cross, J. K. Lawson, Sir W.
Crossley, J. Leeman, G.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Lefevre, G. J. S.
Davies, R. Leith, J. F.
Dilke, Sir C. W. Lloyd, M.
Dillwyn, L. L. Locke, J.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Duff, M. E. G. Lush, Dr.
Edwards, H. Lusk, Sir A.
Egerton, Adm. hon. F. Macgregor, D.
Ellice, E. Mackintosh, C. F.
Errington, G
M'Arthur, A. Price, W. E.
M'Arthur, W. Ralli, P.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N. Ramsay, J.
M'Lagan, P. Rashleigh, Sir C.
M'Laren, D. Reed, E. J.
Maitland, J. Robertson, H.
Maitland, W. F. Russell, Lord A.
Marling, S. S. Rylands, P.
Martin, P. W. St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Meldon, C. H. Samuda, J. D'A.
Mellor, T. W. Seely, C.
Middleton, Sir A. E. Sheridan, H. B.
Milbank, F. A. Simon, Mr. Serjeant
Monk, C. J. Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Morgan, G. O. Smith, E.
Morley, S. Smyth, R.
Mundella, A. J. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Muntz, P. H. Stevenson, J. C.
Mure, Colonel Stuart, Colonel
O'Brien, Sir P. Swanston, A.
O'Conor, D. M. Taylor, P. A.
O'Donoghue, The Trevelyan, G. O.
O'Leary, W. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P
O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M. Vivian, A. P.
O'Reilly, M. Waddy, S. D.
O'Shaughnessy, R. Walter, J.
O'Sullivan, W. H. Ward, M. F.
Palmer, C. M. Watkin, Sir E. W.
Parnell, C. S. Whitbread, S.
Pease, J. W. Whitwell, J.
Peel, A. W. Whitworth, B.
Pennington, F. Williams, W.
Perkins, Sir F. Wilson, Sir M.
Playfair, rt. hon. L. Yeaman, J.
Portman, hn. W. H. B. Young, A. W.
Power, J. O'C. TELLERS.
Power, R. Leatham, E. A.
Potter, T. B.
NOES.
Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C. Campbell, Sir G.
Agnew, R. V. Cave, rt. hon. S.
Allsopp, C. Cawley, C. E.
Allsopp, H. Chaine, J.
Archdale, W. H. Chaplin, H.
Arkwright, A. P. Chapman, J.
Ashbury, J. L. Charley, W. T.
Assheton, R. Christie, W. L.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Clifton, T. H.
Balfour, A. J. Clive, Col. hon. G. W
Baring, T. C. Close, M. C.
Barne, F. St. J. N. Clowes, S. W.
Barrington, Viscount Cobbett, J. M.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Cobbold, T. C.
Bates, E. Cochrane,A.D.W.R.B.
Bateson, Sir T. Cordes, T.
Bathurst, A. A. Corry, hon. H. W. L.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H. Corry, J. P.
Benett-Stanford, V. F. Crichton, Viscount
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Cross, rt. hon. R. A.
Beresford, G. De La P. Cubitt, G.
Beresford, Colonel M. Cuninghame, Sir. W.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Cust, H. C.
Boord, T. W. Dalkeith, Earl of
Bourke, hon. R. Dalrymple, C.
Bright, R. Denison, C. B.
Brooks, M. Denison, W. E.
Brooks, W. C. Digby, hon. Capt. E.
Brymer, W. E. Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Butler-Johnstone,H.A. Douglas, Sir G.
Buxton, Sir R. J. Dyke, Sir W. H.
Cameron, D. Eaton, H. W.
Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W. Marten, A. G.
Egerton, hon. A. F. Matheson, A.
Egerton, Sir P. G. Maxwell, Sir W. S.
Egerton, hon. W. Merewether, C. G.
Elcho, Lord Mills, A.
Elliot, G. W. Mills, Sir C. H.
Elphinstone,SirJ.D.H. Montgomerie, R.
Eslington, Lord Montgomery, Sir G. G.
Ewing, A. O. Moore, S.
Fellowes, E. Morgan, hon. F.
Finch, G. H. Morris, G.
Folkestone, Viscount Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Forester, C. T. W. Mulholland, J.
Forsyth, W. Newport, Viscount
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Gardner, J. D. Agg- North, Colonel
Garnier, J. C. Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Gibson, E. O'Gorman, P.
Goddard, A. L. O'Neill, hon. E.
Goldney, G. Parker, Lt.-Col. W.
Gordon, rt. hon. E. S. Pelly, Sir H. C.
Gordon, W. Pemberton, E. L.
Gorst, J. E. Pennant, hon. G.
Grantham, W. Percy, Earl
Greene, E. Plunket, hon. D. R.
Guinness, Sir A. Plunkett, hon. R.
Hall, A. W. Praed, C. T.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Raikes, H. C.
Hamilton, Lord G. Read, C. S.
Hamilton, Marquess of Rendlesham, Lord
Hamilton, hon. R. B. Repton, G. W.
Hardcastle, E. Ripley, H. W.
Hardy, rt. hon. G. Ritchie, C. T.
Harvey, Sir R. B. Rodwell, B. B. H.
Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D. Sackville, S. G. S.
Heath, R. Salt, T.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Sandon, Viscount
Heygate, W. U. Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.
Hick, J. Scott, M. D.
Hogg, Sir J. M. Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Holford, J. P. G. Sidebottom, T. H.
Holker, Sir J. Smith, W. H.
Holland, Sir H. T. Smollett, P. B.
Holmesdale, Viscount Sotheron-Estcourt, G.
Home, Captain Stanhope, W. T. W. S.
Hubbard, E. Starkey, L. R.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. Steere, L.
Hunt, rt. hon. G. W. Stewart, M. J.
Isaac, S. Sykes, C.
Jervis, Colonel Taylor, rt. hon. Col.
Johnson, J. G. Temple, rt. hon. W. Cowper-
Jolliffe, hon. S. Tennant, R.
Kavanagh, A. MacM. Thornhill, T.
Kennard, Colonel Thynne, Lord H. F.
Knight, F. W. Tollemache, hon. W. F.
Knightley, Sir R. Torr, J.
Lee, Major V. Tremayne, J.
Legard, Sir C. Trevor, Lord A.E. Hill-
Leighton, S. Turnor, E.
Leslie, Sir J. Verner, E. W.
Lewis, C. E. Walker, T. E.
Lewis, O. Wallace, Sir R.
Lindsay, Col. R. L. Walpole, rt. hon. S.
Lindsay, Lord Waterhouse, S.
Lloyd, S. Watney, J.
Lopes, Sir M. Wellesley, Colonel
Macartney, J. W. E. Wells, E.
Mac Iver, D. Williams, Sir F. M.
Majendie, L. Wilmot, Sir H.
Makins, Colonel Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Malcolm, J. W.
Manners,rt.hn.LordJ.
Winn, R. TELLERS
Wroughton, P. Gregory, G. B.
Yarmouth, Earl of Hope, A. J. B. B.
Yorke, hon. E.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for three months.