state that his attention had been called to one of the clauses, which, in the opinion of the Board of Customs, would materially interfere with the securities given for the due collection and transmission of the public revenue. The 25th Clause provided in general terms that no judgment or security upon land shall be valid against a bona fide purchaser, whether such purchaser have notice of such bond or not, unless execution shall have been obtained before the disposal of the property. Up to 1839 all obligations to the Crown were binding upon purchasers of land under charge; but in that year his noble Friend (Lord St. Leonards) introduced a measure relieving a bona fide purchaser from liability unless the charge had been duly registered according to a form prescribed by the Act. Under that Act the Commissioners of Cus toms had proceeded in taking bonds from collectors charged upon land; but if the proposal in the Bill were adopted such bonds would become personal only. He should not oppose the third reading, but thought it unlikely that the clause would pass the other House. Government the propriety of altering that provision under which government property was at present exempt from the payment of local rates. That state of the law was productive of great hardship and injustice. THE EARL OF DERBY said, that notice of the introduction of a Bill to remedy that grievance had already been given in the other House. Bill read 3 (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. ECTON AND WALTON EXCHANGE BILL. THE EARL OF DERBY laid upon the table a Bill to effect an exchange of Ecclesiastical Patronage between Her Majesty the Queen, and Miss Sophia Broadley. No such exchange could, under the present state of the law, be effected without the sanction of Parliament, and the propriety of altering that law was a point which he would not then undertake to discuss. The particular occasion which had given rise to the framing of that measure was an offer made by a lady to exchange an advowson in her possession for two advowsons held by the Crown, her intention being to build new schools and to effect other improvements in those pro He might add that the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester, in whose dioceses these two livings were respectively situated, had given their assent to the proposal, and that in introducing a public instead of a private Bill upon the subject he was but following the precedents of 1848, in the cases of Lord Leigh and Lord Leicester, between whom and the Crown a similar transfer had taken place. LORD ST. LEONARDS said, the Bill passed this House, and had been in the other House lost Session, when no objection had been taken to the 25th clause,perties. although another clause was struck out. The tendency of present legislation was to give a clear title to a bona fide purchaser, even at the risk of barring existing charges upon land. It was upon this principle that Her Majesty's Government had themselves proceeded in drawing the two Bills which, much to their credit, had a few evenings since been introduced by the Solicitor General in the other House. This measure had been favourably received by the other House as well as by the general body of solicitors. He had a strong opinion that no fiscal law ought to impede the creation of a clear title between one man and another. A judgment was one of the greatest impediments, because it was a floating kind of security; but the Bill was not intended to deprive the holder of the judgment of any of his rights against the person giving it. Those rights remained the same as at present; but upon a sale the judgment creditor would have his claim upon the purchase money. He saw no reason why any exception should be made in the case of the Government to the disadvantage of a bona fide purchaser of property. LORD CAMPBELL said, he wished to take that opportunity of suggesting to the LORD BROUGHAM was of opinion that it would be of the greatest possible advantage not only to the interests of the Church, but of private individuals, that such transactions as that to which the Bill related should be made the subject of a general law. Bill read 1a. House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow half past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, February 17, 1859. MINUTES.] NEW WRIT Issued. -For Marylebone, v. Viscount Ebrington, Manor of Northstead. - NEW MEMBERS SWORN.-For Greenwich, Alder man David Salomons, being a person professing the Jewish Religion, took and subscribed the Oath required by Law, and in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of the 16th February; -for Galway Town, John Orrell Lever, esq. PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Real Estate Intestacy; Juries (Ireland); Edinburgh, &c., Annuity Tax; Newspapers, &c. 2o Registration of County Voters (Scotland). THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION.-THE QUESTION. COLONEL SYKES begged to ask the Secretary of State for India whether extra Batta will be given to the Troops of the successful Persian Expedition, having reference to the privations and inconve niences to which the force was exposed on board ship, particularly the Native portion of the force; whether the recommendations by Brigadier General Jacob, dated Bushire, 13th of July, 1857, of certain Officers and Men for the Victoria Cross, is to be carried into effect; whether the Civilians who have distinguished themselves in a military capacity during the Mutiny in India are to have any specific mark of the approbation of Her Maje-ty's Government; whether the Report of the Commission upon the Reorganization of the Indian Army will be laid upon the table of the House; and whether, as the maintenance of a Standing Army under the Crown, independently of the Annual Mutiny Act, involves a Constitutional question, time will be given to the House to consider any recommendations in the Report before they are carried into effect? MR. CRAWFORD begged to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was true, as reported, that Her Majesty's Government had concluded a Convention with the Austrian Government for the establishment of a line of Telegraphic Communication with Alexandria, on the principle of a financial guarantee on the part of this country; and, if so, when a Copy of the said Convention will be laid on the table. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was not true that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Convention with the Austrian Government; but the terms on which such a Convention would probably be concluded had been settled, and when the Convention was concluded it would, of course, be laid on the table of the House. If it were carried out on the terms which had been agreed upon it would include a financial guarantee, but not an unconditional guarantee. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM (IRELAND). QUESTION. MR. BLAND asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the people in Ireland this Session; and, if so, whether he can state about what time? LORD STANLEY said, that with reference to the first Question, he understood that it was not usual to grant such indulgences as those to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, except upon the recommendation of the Government of India, and in the present case no such recommendation had been received. With regard to the second Question, he had made inquiries for the list of officers and men recommended by General Jacob for the Victoria Cross, and he was told that it had not been yet officially received from India. With regard to the third Question, two despatches had been sent to the Governor General of India-the last in September, but as yet no answer had been received -to inquire for a list of civilians who had distinguished themselves by military services during the mutiny. It was undoubtedly proper that they should be rewarded; MR. GREGSON asked the Under Sebut with regard to the manner the Gover-cretary for Foreign Affairs if the Copies THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that with the permission of the House he would propose to defer answering questions respecting future Reform Bills until the 28th instant, when he should make a general statement on the subject. CHINESE TARIFF AND TRADE REGULA- of the new Chinese Tariff and new Trade Regulations published in the North China Herald are correct? MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, he had had the tariff and trade regulations compared with the documents which the Government possessed at the Foreign Office. The tariff was correct, and the trade regulations were substantially correct also. THE BALLOT IN NEW SOUTH WALES. QUESTION. MR. DILLWYN asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Bill or Act, establishing the Ballot at elections in the Colony of New South Wales, and passed by the Legislature of that Colony, has been sent over by the Governor for the Royal Assent; and, if so, whether such Assent had been given? SIR E. BULWER LYTTON said, that such a Bill had been received. The Royal Assent had not been given. It was under consideration. LAND TRANSPORT CORPS. QUESTION. GENERAL CODRINGTON asked the Secretary of State for War whether the rank given, "pending Her Majesty's pleasure," to Officers of the Land Transport Corps, by general orders in the Crimea, was to be confirmed to them; and, if so, from what date? GENERAL PEEL said, he had mentioned on a former evening that he had recommended the Treasury that the rank should be confirmed to them, and he was in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject. THE COLONIES.-QUESTION. COLONEL SYKES asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Return, ordered last Session, of the cost of the several Colonies to the Imperial Exchequer will be laid upon the table of the House? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, it was a Treasury question. Immediately after the Return was ordered circulars were sent to the different departments for information; but as the Address asked for a Return in a different form from what was usual, there was difficulty in getting the details. Two Returns had not been received, and one other required some alteration; but he hoped shortly to have them laid on the table. REAL ESTATE INTESTACY. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. LOCKE KING:* Sir, It is now some time since I asked the House to take into consideration, the propriety of altering the law of succession to real estate in cases of intestacy, and to make a law more in accordance with the age of progress in which we live. My reason for not having brought this subject under the consideration of the House during the last two years is simply this, that having introduced a variety of other measures which I felt confident would be attended with success, in which I have not been disappointed, I was unwilling to trespass too largely on that kind indulgence which the House has invariably shown me; not that I think any question can be of much greater importance than that a uniform, and above all, a just law should settle the estates of intestates. When I first brought this question forward, I was indeed surprised to find the vast amount of ignorance which prevailed generally among all classes, as to the state of the law which settles how the real and personal estates of intestates shall descend. I also found there was something even worse than ignorance on the subject to contend with; for, after all, one may easily inform those who are unacquainted with the working of a law as to its consequences. They then frequently become warm advocates of a change in that law, when they see that it is unjust and cruel. I found, however, there was such a deepseated prejudice in favour of the existing law of succession to real estate, not supported by argument, or even by common sense, wrapped up and shrouded as it were in itself, that it seemed next to impossible to uproot it. I am happy to say that this prejudice is dying out, and that the present state of the law is beginning to be understood by those whom it injuriously affects, namely, the small owners of land or houses; they see that a change in the existing law is essential for the happiness of the families in the class to which they belong. On the other hand, the owners of large landed estates see the proposed alteration in the law will not affect them; it will not diminish the size of their estates, or compel them to divide those estates where they had rather not do so. They will be as free as they are now. I shall endeavour to explain to the House, in a very few plain words, the state of the law, the complaint I make against it, and the alteration I propose. If there are honourable Gentlemen who are still in favour of the existing law, I ask them for a few moments to give me their attention; and I think I shall be able to convince them, that the Bill I ask leave to introduce is just, and that the times we live in really do require that laws which were intended for a very different state of society, should now at all events be modified. 64 The Statute of Distributions, which passed in the reign of Charles II., for the better settling intestates' estates," is, on the whole, a satisfactory law, simple in its operation, well understood, and, above all, it is just. We have now, as far as personal estate is concerned, since the Bill which I had the honour to introduce for abolishing the customs of London, York, and other places, has been placed on the Statute-book, an uniform law throughout the kingdom. The law, on the other hand, which regulates the descent of the landed es ate of an intestate, is founded on the very opposite principle, if it has any principle at all. It is a perfect chaos, inconsistent with itself, and generally admitted to be oppressive and unjust, whenever it comes into opera tion. Under the Statute of Distributions, where a parent dies intestate, leaving a widow and children, his property being personal is distributed in a very equitable manner; one-third goes to his widow, and two-thirds go to his children. Or in the event of a person leaving a widow and no children, then one half goes to the widow and the other half to the next of kin. If we turn to land, in a similar case, we find that where a parent dies intestate, leaving a widow and children, if his estate be freehold land, the whole of it descends to the eldest son, and the remaining children aud the widow are, under the sanction of the law, left destitute. Such is the law where the intestate dies possessed of freehold land; but where the land is leasehold, and there is a great deal leased for 99 years, 500 years, or even 1000 years, or 10,000 years, in value quite equal to freehold,-here a most happy quibble of the law steps in and distributes it as personal estate. Again, leasehold differs from leasehold; for if the leasehold be for lives, and not for a term of years, then a most unhappy quibble of the law steps in, and determines that such a leasehold shall descend as real estate does, and not as personal estate. have only as yet mentioned the anomalous, I absurd, and inconsistent state of the law, as far as freehold and leasehold estate is concerned; I will now call the attention of the House to a series of other most glaring anomalies, which affect the landed property of intestates. As I am not a lawyer, and always tremble lest I should be caught up by those honourable Gentlemen who belong to that learned profession, I will read the description which was once given in this House by one of its brightest ornaments : "Is it fitting or consistent with reason, or indeed with justice, that merely crossing the river, or travelling a distance of some miles in this neighbourhood, should make so great an alteration in the law of real property, as that to the eastward of us all the sons inherit equally,―to the westward the youngest alone, and here the eldest? But these rules of the Common Law, of Gavelkind, and Borough English, are better known and operate within more defined limits. What shall be said of the Customary Tenures in a thousand manors, all different from the Common Law that regulates freehold estates, most of them dif fering from each other? Is it, I ask, fit that this multitude of laws, this variety of codes, the relics of a barbarous age, should be allowed to exist in a country subject to the same general bonds of government. In some manors the eldest daughter succeeds to the exclusion of her sisters, as the eldest daughter (in default of male heirs) succeeds to the Crown of England; in other manors, all the daughters succeed jointly, as copartners after the manner of the Common Law. In some manors, the wife has her dower one-third of the tenement, as in the case of freehold; in others, she has for her 'free bench' one half; and again, in some she takes the whole for life, to the alienation vary; the power and manner of entailing and cutting off entails vary; the taking of heriots and lord's services varies. There are as many or more of these local laws than in France, in the Pays de Coutume, of which I have seen four hundred enumerated, so as to make it the chiet exclusion of the heir. The fines on death and opprobium of the old French Law, that it differed in every village. Is it right that such varieties of custom should be allowed to have force in particular districts, contrary to the law of the land?" Now, the Bill which I ask the House to allow me to introduce would, in cases of intestacy, do away with all these absurd distinctions; it would make one uniform law for all the property of intestates, whatever that property is, whether real or personal; and it would, above all, be founded on a principle, and would be in its nature just. It has been the habit with persons in favour of the present law, to accustom themselves to believe that it was a part of the ancient institutions of the country. This is quite a mistake; for in those days of freedom, of which we are justly proud, our Saxon forefathers not only had no such law, but the very opposite was in force, for all the land was divided equally among all | he would not invest her money in his busithe sons and daughters. The present law ness, lest it should run any risk of being was introduced by the Normans, the more lost. After they had lived very happily effectually to subdue and break the spirit together for some years, the house they of a conquered nation. I admit that, in resided in was for sale; he told his wife that those days, there may have been reasons it would be a very good investment for her which made it expedient to have such a law, money, and accordingly he bought it. He and not to be unjust. It was expedient then died intestate, ignorant of the law; his own that the descent of land should form a part nephew, his heir-at-law, claimed and took of a vast military system. But I ask, do you the house, and the widow is now destitute, want the descent of land to be so ordered for a menial servant. such a purpose now? We do not require now great lords and knights, with their retainers and vassais, as a part of our military system. Those laws show what were the habits of a people who knew not the true principles of legislation, and who were ruled in such a way as to make them seek to be conquerors abroad rather than to be happy at home. Such was the barbarous state of the law in this civilized country only a year ago, that the wife was deprived of her honest earnings. The wife even now is obliged to have a settlement made, because, unless that is done, her husband may rob her of all the property she had. The husband again, the owner of freehold land, is obliged to make a will, solely because the Adam Smith remarks with great force:-law would rob her and all her children, ex“When land was considered the means not of cept one, of perhaps their all. subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. "Laws frequently continue in force long after the circumstances which first gave occasion to them, and which could alone render them reasonable, are no more. In the present state of Europe, the proprietor of a single acre of land is as perfectly secure of his possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand." Certainly this law has continued in force long after the circumstances which first gave occasion for it, and alone rendered it reasonable, have ceased. I ought to say, that, from my having repeatedly brought this question forward, I have become acquainted with a vast num ber of cases of real hardship and suffering to widows and fatherless children, through the state of the law, and solely from the father not being acquainted with it. I make bold to say, that among the middle classes there is scarcely one in a hundred who knows the law; they always imagine that land descends as money does. I am able to say that the discussions in this House have done good, for I know of several cases where fathers have made wills, and felt most happy that they have rescued their children from the cruelty of the law, from misery and ruin. It must not be thought that these cruel cases occur only where there are children I myself have bad, among many others, a case of peculiar cruelty to a widow, brought under my notice. A small tradesman married a woman with some money; no settlement was made on the marriage, It is the fashion with some to say, for want of better argument, that this Bill should do away with what they call the law of primogeniture. Now I think this is altogether a mistake; for, seeing that there is no law which compels a man to give all his property or land to his eldest son, there cannot be a law of primogeniture. Under the Norman dynasty there was, no doubt, a law of primogeniture, for no man could leave land by will, or even alienate it, or part with it in any way. Kent in his Commentaries on American Law," shows us pretty plainly what was the feeling in the feudal times. He tells us: "This restraint on alienation was a violent and unnatural state of things, and contrary to the nature and value of property, and the inherent and universal love of independence. It arose partly from favour to the heir, and partly from favour to the lord; and the genius of the feudal straint upon alienation, that, by a general orsystem was originally so strong in favour of redinance of the Book of Fiefs,' the hand of him who knowingly wrote a deed of alienation was directed to be struck of." The stringency of these laws was modified about 300 years ago, when Henry VIII., for the first time, allowed by statute land to be devised by will. It was then that the law of primogeniture was repealed; from the Norman Conquest up to that time it had been in full force. It was then that the first inroad was made on this great military system. All I ask is, in the event of a person dying without a will, a uniform and just law should apply to all property, that land should not differ from land, that land |