MR. BRIGHT, M.P., ON THE LAW OF PRIMOGENITURE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume III, Issue 901, 3 October 1866, Page 5

MR. BRIGHT, M.P., ON THE LAW OF PRIMOGENITURE.

In tlie debate in tlie House of Commons recently on the Real Estate Intestacy Bill, Mr. Bright, said—l was not aware until I entered the House-that this question was to be- - discussed to-day, and therefore it is not my intention to trouble the House with many observations. The speech of the learned Attorney-General was one which we have often heard on this subject, but I live in hope of hearing him make one exactly contradictory. (A laugh.) I think it is extremely probable. (Hear, hear.) The lion, and learned gentleman began by saying that the charge against the present law, of injustice, was a charge which had yet to be established. Of particular cases of injustice he made no complaint; but, I should like to ask him, if there be no injustice in this law, would he be willing to extend it to all property as well as real ? (Hear, hear.) If he would so extend it, and think that he did no injustice in doing so, then would I believe all he has said on that point; but until he does so, I must believe that in his observations to-day he did not mean exactly what he said. Honourable gentlemen opposite well know that to extend this law to all the property of the country would involve the country in convulsion and confusion within the next twelve months. There are many forms of injustice which, having long been established amongst us by law, the people are able to bear without the distress to which I referred ; but if the principle of this law were extended to other property, it would not last a month. The Attorney-General tells us that every man is left to perfect freedom of action, but he must knowthat that is not a fair mode of stating the case. Of course a man has leave to make a will; but what happens if he does not ? We then inflict an injustice on him. Take the case of game. If there is no contract between landlord and tenant, the law says that the game belongs to the tenant, because he has clearly a right to anything that is produced or supported by the land. And so if in this case the law were equally just and wise, it would say—lf the owner of property had failed at his death to make any appropriation of such property, the law will undertake to do that which it is to be presumed he would have done if he had made a will. If a mail leaves children, it is to be presumed that he would have shown some impartiality; the man who does otherwise is a condemnation of your law, because he shows that it destroys the sense of right and wrong, and leads to divisions of property contrary to all rights. (" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) It in fact makes the last act of a man's life the great crime of his being. (Cheers,, and dissent from the Opposition.) I have often said that I would never judge of a man's life and character until I heard the sort of will he had made. (Laughter.) Gentlemen opposite treat that observation -with derision and contempt—an effect of the bad law on their feelings and judg. ment. (Cheers and laughter.) The AttorneyGeneral says that this is not a question of justice or injustice, but of public policy. He says that with a hereditary Peerage, it is desirable to have the present law. It is admitted that the law, taken by itself, may be condemned ; but taking it in connection with the hereditary Peerage you must maintain it. Now, I prefer morality and justice to all the peerages and. dynasties in the world ; but if I were in favour of hereditary succession, I should be afraid of tying up the Peerage with a law so obviously immoral and unjust as that the alteration of which weare now discussing. (Loud cheers.) The Attorney-General has told, us of the duties and responsibilities of the great landowners, as if no one but landowners had any duties or responsibilities. Hear, hear.) Why, he might as well have a law for preserving intact great manufactories. (Hear, hear.) in Lancashire, we constantly see small factories becoming great ones,, a much easier task than it would be did this law affect manufacturing interests. Does the At-torney-General mean to say that all over Europe, the United states, and in our colonies, the duties of the landowners are not as well performed and in quite as exemplary a manner as in this country ? Why, it is one of the greatest of the calamities of this country, and a calamity which is constantly increasing, that its limited amount of laud is graduallv becoming the property of a more limited number of people. (Hear, hear.) I venture to say that there is not another civilised country in which such things take place, things than which there could be nothing more deplorable or more dangerous. I shall not tell all I know of the effects of the law on younger sons on this question —(hear, and a laugh)—but I remember when, two years since, I made a speecli in Birmingham on this subject, I came afterwards to this House, and a younger son came up to me and said —liis language, it is true, was not quite Parliamentary, but I trust, under the circumstauces, I may be permitted to repeat it—he said, " I read your speech at Birmingham* and I quite agree with you. We are d—d badlyused." (Groat laughter, and cheering). I vouch for the accuracy of the quotation ; I have not. altered a syllable—(continued laughter)—and I deem it a fair answer to the Attorney-General-(Hear.) I understood the learned gentleman also to say that under the- present law younger sons descend into the ranks of the people, and are trained to commerce and professions. Well, but that would be equally an argument for robbing elder sons, and I am not quite sure that the learned gentleman would like to see his principle extended to every member of the family. If property were more equally divided,, younger sons would come into the ranks of commerce a little later; but if this principle, which is held sacred nowhere else —which is held to beof a most pestilent character in every country but this —(cheers, and loud dissent from theOpposition)—be held sacred hero, must we not hold the honourable member for Westminster to have been right in saying that England was an exceptional country ? I recollect reading in the "Life of Jefferson," a man who was twice President of America, that he considered the greatest act of his life to have been the abolition of the laws of primogeniture in his native state of Virginia. His biographer quotes from a letter, describing the great advantage the abolition had been to the State, these remarkable words, "Some years after the abolition of the law therewere fewer carriages and six to be seen, but therewere a great many more carriages and pair. (Hear, hear.) And I take it to be fairly granted that a country is better off where there is a greater equality of condition, greater division of property, and not so much practical injustice in the law. (Hear, hear.) I believe that in a multitude of cases this law produces injustice of tlx© most grievous kind. The cases cited by the hon. member for East Surrey were only as one in a thousand. I maintain that nothing can be worse lor the Legislature than that they should,, in matters of this kind, maintain a system whichin. our own hearts, and upheld in any other way we should condemn. If the law be unjust,, and tho instrument of injustice, how can you expect morality and right principle to spread in the minds of the people ?■ (Hear, hear.) I do not expect that my hon. friend will carry his principle to-day — (laughter from the Opposition) but the day will come when the principle will be carried. Gentlemen oppositealways believe that they are going to be ruined ; they seem unable to comprehend any question connected with land. (Derisive Tory cheers.) They believe that we are hostile to the holders of great estates—(oh, oh)—we who have done more good for great estates tnan the holders ever did themselves. We, in discussing this question, owe allegiance to tlie highest principle, to the highest political economy, to iustice between men and their children, between States and those whom States govern ; and therefore, without any consideration consequences, we avow ourselves supporters ot tJn bill, and believe that the time long when it will be accepted by the House ot Commons and the Legislature. (Cheers.)