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 Sir William Harcourt 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 | whether there should be a division or an (Mr. Potter) which he did not hold. aggregation of property, the State would The proposal of the Bill was small in have been a better judge of it than the itself, and in point of justice it was un- individual; but clearly the State did not answerable. think the making of a will a matter of MR. HARDCASTLE said, the ques- political economy or State policy, but tion was not whether any change was thought it was one of duty, justice, desirable, but whether we should make honour, and obligation as between a man the change specified in the Bill, and he and his children or relatives. It must desired to look at the probable effect of have been on that principle that the law the Bill on the smaller properties. There gave freedom of testamentary disposiwere two kinds of small landownerstion. But suppose a man neglected to yeomen or "statesmen" who cultivated avail himself of this power, how ought their fields with their own hands, and the State to exercise it for him? Clearly men with ample means, an increasing if a man died intestate and the State class, who owned good, often large, was remitted to its former power, it houses, with more or less land, forming ought surely to exercise it on the prinwhat were called residential estates. ciple it had substituted for the old one In regard to the first class, the division and make a just and equitable will. of the property would lead to great hard- But how was it to decide what would be ship. It was far better for them and for a just will? On this matter we possessed society that the estates should remain complete information. In the case of in the hands of one member of a family, personal property, the Legislature had and that the other members should have laid down, and the common sense and to seek their own fortunes in trades and feeling of the people had accepted, the professions than that the old family law of division when there was no will; property should be sold and the children and the State therefore having to make receive a few pounds often more to a man's will, had nothing to do but to their injury than benefit. Even in in- apply the same principle to real prostances in which the money divided might perty. This appeared to him to dispose be more considerable, the members of of all objections against the Bill. The a family would still desire that the an- Bill had nothing to do with any wild cestral home should remain in the hands theory about the distribution of proof one of them, as the rallying-point perty, or with curtailing the liberty of where they might meet occasionally, re- men in dealing with their own. new old associations, and gratify that could not see how any Conservative attachment for the soil which was dis-object could be attained by keeping up tinctive of the family life of this coun- a flagrant and manifest injustice which try. In regard to the second class, the in principle had been condemned by the distribution of the property would be the State itself. As regarded the opposition breaking up of the home, and would be to the proposed change, there was, perfelt as a family misfortune. He should haps, no instance in which so much had oppose the second reading. 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 clinging to antiquated notions derived from other conditions of society which did not now commend themselves to the common sense and the feelings of mankind. 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 He This THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, I will for the benefit of his widow and the question before the House was very children. It was said that the possessors narrow and simple, but it was one which of real estate often neglected to make ought not to be decided without serious any disposition of their property. consideration. The question was simply was, however, seldom the case, because whether in cases of intestacy the law they valued the possession of land so should deal with real property as it dealt highly, and treated it as so sacred a with personal property. It was all very description of property, that they were well to deprecate criticism of the details in the great majority of cases careful to of the measure; but it was certainly make a settlement or disposition of that most extraordinary that, after the con- property. Therefore, in dealing with sideration which ought to have been this Bill, the House had only to consider bestowed upon it as the result of former what would happen in the very few cases debates-and the proposal was now in- in which the owners of real estate died troduced for the fourth or fifth time-it intestate without making some disposiwas still in so crude a form-so little tion of their property either by settleconsidered and so carelessly prepared, ment or will. In that event the real that, if a married woman possessing real estate-subject to the widow's right by property died without a will it would be dower, which was too often forgottenhanded over to her husband without any went to the eldest son. The question was provision being made for her children. what sort of will a man would be likely Surely such a provision as that was not to make in regard to this kind of proconsistent with the claims of justice. perty. Notwithstanding what had been In nine cases out of ten it would have said by the right hon. Gentleman the the effect of compelling the sale of the Member for London University (Mr. smallest properties. The measure came Lowe), he was of opinion that in the before the House in specious guise, great majority of cases where the owner which certainly had the air of theoretical of landed property died intestate he plausibility; but the question was not would, if he had made a will, have kept whether such a measure would work the property in the family and settled with theoretical justice, but it was whe- it for the benefit of his eldest son. If ther, taking a large view of the interests the proposed law had been in existence of the community, it would be wise, in this country, it would have had a expedient, and politic to pass it, and detrimental and disastrous effect upon a thereby effect a sweeping and radical class of persons who were entitled to the change. Isolated instances of hardship highest respect-namely, the small freemust not prevent us taking a compre- holders of this country. The House had hensive view of the operation of the law; been told that the ownership of the land and if so great a change were necessary, was the luxury of the rich; and no surely hon. Members who had been doubt they possessed the greater progetting up their case for years could have portion of the land of this country; but adduced some evidence of a desire in the many of those who were not rich poscountry to alter a law which had existed sessed as keen and eager a desire to for centuries, and which on the whole acquire a portion of land as was found had worked satisfactorily. No such in the breasts of the rich. When a man evidence had been adduced; no speaker of this class had bought or inherited a had hinted at any manifestation of well-timbered estate, with perhaps a public feeling on the question. If it sparkling trout stream and other advanwere the law that in every case where a tages, he was most reluctant to part with man possessing real estate died intestate it, and he usually desired, of all things it should devolve upon the eldest son to in the world, to keep those few acres in the exclusion of the widow and of the his family. This was, he knew, the case younger children, he would admit that in those parts of England with which he that would be a strong argument for was acquainted-in Cumberland, Westsome change: but it was not so-ac- moreland, and North Lancashire-which cording to the law every owner of landed swarmed with "statesmen," as they estate had large powers of dealing with were called, the owners of a small it either by settlement or will. He freehold property which had been in might settle it for the benefit of his the family from generation to generaeldest son, or he might bequeath it by tion. What was the result? These 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." men became good citizens in every re- | out why such a radical change should be spect 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, persons and which had been so cherished a The House divided :-Ayes 175; Noes 210: Majority 35. Acland, Sir T. D. Backhouse, E. Blake, T. AYES. Fawcett, H. Fitzmaurice, Lord E. W. W. Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Goldsmid, Sir F. Goldsmid, J. Gourley, E. T. Gower, hon. E. F. L. Greenall, Sir G. Grieve, J. J. Gurney, rt. hon. R. Hankey, T. Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Gladstone, W. H. Carington, hn. Col. W. Crawford, J. S. Harcourt, Sir W. V. Harrison, C. Harrison, J. F. Hartington, Marq. of Havelock, Sir H. Hayter, A. D. Hopwood, C. H. Ingram, W. J. Kingscote, Colonel Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E. Lefevre, G. J. S. Davie, Sir H. R. F. Macgregor, D. |