13' j 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN THE PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY 
 OF 'UPPER CANADA 
 

MR. BIDWELli’S SPEECH 
 
 IS THE PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF UPPER CANADA, JANUARY 24, 1831. 
 
 Afr. Bidwell explained the objects of the bill. By 
 the present law, if a man died without having made a 
 will, and left a son and other children, his land, in- 
 slcA',t^»eipir divi^l eqtialbi^r -Qilig*' .rr?- 
 
 portion, among ms children generally, went entirely 
 to the oldest son. In like manner, if such a man left 
 no children, the land, instead of being divided among 
 the nearest relatives of equal degree, went entirely to 
 the oldest male. This principle of preferring the eld- 
 est child or other relative, did not obtain when they 
 were all females; but in that case the land was equal- 
 ly divided among them all. 
 
 Another rule of the present law^ was, that if any one 
 died, without a will, and without children, his father, 
 if living, could in no case, succeed to hischild’s proper- 
 ty, but it would go, in preference, to some other rela- 
 tion, however distant, or ;f none such could be found, 
 it would even escheat totiieLord Manor or the Crown. 
 In short, the father was excluded even from the possi- 
 bility of succeeding to his child’s lands. 
 
 In like manner, if a person so dying withoiit-a wdll, 
 left relations of the whole blood, or not, any relations of 
 t?) e h a 'tfmibr 'tTnt' 
 sihly inherit tlie real estate; hut it would go to the Lord 
 of the manor or t!ic crown, to their exclusion. 
 
 It was obvious, upon the first blush, that such prin- 
 ciples were absurd, unnatural, unjust. They were op- 
 posed to the strongest and most amiable emotions of 
 the heart, and the plain dictates of natural justice. 
 The hill wms intended to abrogate tliem, and to sub- 
 stitute, in their place, the more equitable and reason- 
 able rules which prevailed already, as it respected per- 
 sonal property; so that, if that hill became a law, 
 whenever a man, not having made a will, should die, 
 the estate would pass to all his children equally, or to 
 his parents, if he left no children; and, if he did not 
 leave parents or children, it would descend equally a- 
 niong his next kindred, without any distinction be- 
 tween them in favor of the eldest male. The first 
 clause of the hill established this principle, and partic- 
 ularly described the order and mode of succession to 
 an intestate estate, in almost every possible 6a<re t So 
 that, in any case, anv person of common iinderstand- 
 ing, by reading the clause, might ascertain who the 
 heirs were, and what was the share of each. The sec- 
 ond clause directed the personal property to he dis- 
 tributed in the same manner. The third clause de- 
 clared that any property advanced by the intestate du- 
 ring his life, towards the portion of any child, should 
 be considered and allowed for in the distribution, and 
 deducted from the share of such child The fourth 
 clause provided for the partition of the properly. The 
 Judge of the Probate or Surrogate Court was to de- 
 cide, subject to a simple and easy appeal to the King’s 
 Bench, who the heirs were, and their proportionate 
 shares, and was to appoint three disinterested free- 
 
 holders, who were, accordingly, after being sw’orn, (o 
 divide the estate. He intended, in order to obviate 
 some objections, to propose an addition to this clause, 
 which lie hacLpxena.o?ib a ud w liicli would authorize 
 these freeholders, wlien ll ley sb otird" jifdgc it best, on 
 account of the smallness of the property or any local 
 circumstances, instead of dividing it, to appraise it, and 
 ! then, unless some one or more of the heirs would take 
 it, with the consent of the rest, at that appraisal, and 
 pay the others their projiortion, the Judge was to have 
 it sold, and tlie avails divided amongst all. The bill 
 also provided, that any of the heirs, before receiving 
 his share of the estate, might be required to give a 
 bond to pay his proportion of any debt which the Ex- 
 ecutors or Administrators might afterwards ho com- 
 pelled to pay. This was analogous to a provision in 
 the present law of distribution, by which, before a per- 
 son could receive his part of the personal property, ho 
 could be required to give a similar bond. There was 
 a further clause, authorizing an heir, who had been 
 compelled to pay a debt of the intestate, to recover 
 from his co-heirs their rateable proportions of such 
 Th'OTff wm of the hill; and it 
 
 would be observed, that its operation was confined 
 entirely to those cases where a man died without a 
 will. It did not, in the least, interfere with the right 
 which a man now had, to dispose, as he pleased, of 
 his property by will. It applied only to those cases 
 where he died without having made a will, or (which 
 unfortunately was too common,) where he had made 
 a will but, from some informality, or other cause, it 
 could have no effect. 
 
 As to the principle respecting the exclusion of pa- 
 rents and relations of the half-blood, he did not antici- 
 pate any objections against the measure which was 
 proposed. A man was certainly under stronger obli- 
 gations to his father than to any other human being ; 
 yet, that father could not, by the existing law, inher- 
 it Ids intestate estate, although he might have given it 
 to him,. or, certainly, by the care of his education and 
 his prudent advice, enabled him to acquire it. The 
 father, indeed, was in the next degree of kindred, the 
 nearest friend, the most entitled by merit, by tne ties 
 of nature, and the best feelings and affections of the 
 human heart, to inherit the e.state. These claims were 
 recognized by the laws of distribution, which, in such 
 case, gave the personal estate to the father; but, by 
 the law of descent, for artificial reasons from fictitious 
 feudal principles, the father, the natural heir in such a 
 case, and the mother, when there was' no surviving 
 father, were absolutely excluded from the inheritance. 
 A more distant relation was preferred ; and, if there 
 was no other kindred, even the Lord of the Manor or 
 the Crown. This exclusion of the parents was con- 
 trary to nature, and justice, and good poliev, and the 
 practice of every other civilized nation. There was 
 
2 
 
 certainly no p:oo(l rr'ason for it in this Province; and 
 he hoped, therefore, liiat, so far at least, the bill would 
 meet with unanimous support. 
 
 But the most important feature of the hiB, undoubt- 
 edly, was its abolition of the law of primogeniture, and 
 its atloption of a system like that, which obtained in 
 the distribution of personal estate, by which the real 
 estate would he divided equally among all the chil- 
 dren or the relatives, without regard to sex or senior- 
 ity of age. He maintained that such a system was 
 most just and reasonable in itself, best adapted to the 
 condition of things in this Province, and most in ac- 
 cordance witli the well known sentiments of the peo- 
 ple, who were almost unanimously in favor of such a 
 law. Where indeed was the man in the country, wlio, 
 in his own case, would he willing, if he should die 
 without a will, or if his will, after his death, should be 
 found insulheient, that all his landed property should 
 pass to his eldest son, and that his other children 
 sliould he left destitute of any share of it, as if they 
 were unworthy of a father’s care and protection! 
 
 Me knew it was difficult to argue against prejudi- 
 ces, and to reason people into conviction against the 
 strong current of long cherished feelings. He believ- 
 ed that this was the chief obstacle to the bill. The 
 law of primogeniture was derived from ancient times. 
 It was venerable, therefore, in the eyes of all those 
 who were habitually opposed to improvement, on ac- 
 count of the supposed danger of innovation. With 
 such per&on»-e v 4 »fy . ^u se» e - 
 
 ted institution, every law which had long ago ceased 
 to be adapted to the spirit and circumstances of the 
 age, was regarded witli about the same reverence as 
 the noblest principles of the constitution, or rather, 
 was itself regarded and spoken of as a fundamental 
 principle of the constitution. He expected, therefore, 
 to liear the bill denounced, as it had been on former 
 occasions, as subversive of the fundamental principles 
 of the constitution. He could, how'ever, easily shew, 
 that it did not at all deserve such a terrible character; 
 for, although the law of primogeniture was old, still 
 it was itself an innovation on the constitution. It did 
 not exist until after the principles of the constitution 
 had \yven settled and established; those noble and life- 
 giving principles of national freedom, which seemed 
 destined by Providence politically to regenerate the 
 world; such as trial by Jury, tlie right of representa- 
 tion, &c. Mr. Bidw’ell here quoted the opinions of 
 Lord Holt, Sir William Blackstone, and others, to 
 confirm this proposition. It would be observed, he 
 continued, that these venerable men, these great lu- 
 minaries of the law, expressed, in strong and decided 
 terms, the opinion, not only that the law of primogen- 
 iture did not (irevail at that early period, but, further- 
 more, that a law precisely similar in its principle to 
 tlie bill then before the Committee was in force at that 
 time. lie was aware, tliat the latter part of this opin- 
 ion bad been controverted, although, as he thought, 
 without much show of reason. All authors, however, 
 agreed that the law of primogeniture did not then ex- 
 ist, hut was introduced afterwards. That was suffi- 
 cient for his argument. It overturned the objections, 
 and ought to dispel the fears of those who thought 
 
 tliat the law of primogeniture was one of the funda- 
 mental principles of the constitution, and should, there- 
 fore, be'^ sacred from the rude and barbarous rand 
 
 of innovation, and tfds law 
 
 vulgar irreverence and incredulity. In fact, this Ia^ 
 
 was a feudal principle and had existed no 
 in feudal countries. It was unknown to the ancient 
 nations, the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the teax- 
 ons, &c. And in proportion as nations cniancipatea 
 themselves from the artilicial rules and oppressive re- 
 straints of the feudal system, which was a tremen- 
 dous system of despotism, this law appeared burden- 
 some, unnatural and odious, ft is true, it was still 
 the law of England. And perhaps with her immense 
 population, and the danger of making great alterations 
 m the tenure of real property and the mode of its trans- 
 mission, it might not he wise or prudent there to abro- 
 gate it. He thought, however, that there was no rea- 
 son to conclude that it had contributed, in any degree, 
 to the prosperity and exaltation of England. Ihey 
 were owing to other causes, such as the extent arid^ 
 activity of her commerce, the industry and frugality or 
 her people, and the freedom ami impartiality of her 
 laws. It was in spite of tlie law of primogeniture, and 
 not in consequence of it, that she had continued to 
 flourish. And he believed, tliat it was because the 
 natural tendency of this law was counteracted by 
 various causes, constantly in operation, that it had not 
 long ago been considered an intolerable evil. Could 
 -sMay s&usimp. a ufl nnprajii j ir c /l that„E ift ^ «. - 
 
 land, at this moment, was more happy and prosperous 
 tliaii she otherwise would have been, on account of the 
 immense accumulation of landed property in the handsof 
 a comparatively few persons! Did not this law tend to 
 produce such an accumulation! And were not thou- 
 sands and thousands, in consequence of it, left without 
 any home which tliey could really call their own, in 
 a state of precarious and miserable dependence, and oc- 
 casionally of extreme want, suffering, and wretched- 
 ness! of dependence, not upon their own honorable in- 
 dustry and careful frugality, but upon the caprice or 
 charity of the wealthy few, or upon the certain, and 
 sometimes sudden, inffuence of causes beyond their 
 controul or even comprehension! At the same time, 
 this aristocratic tendency of the law of primogeniture 
 to aggrandize a few and reduce the multitude to a ser- 
 vile and beggared, and frequently a distressed condi- 
 tion, was restrained and counteracted in England by 
 various circumstances; so that tlie evil was mitigated 
 and less felt than it otherwise would he. There was 
 a vast and immense amount of wealth there, not vest- 
 ed in land, which W’as not subjected to tiie exclusive 
 and unjust principles of this law, but which was divi- 
 ded equally among the children. The question, how- 
 ever, was not whether the law was well adapted to 
 that country, but whether it was necessary or expedi- 
 ent in this. 
 
 He thought he had shown that it was not an essen- 
 tial part of the English constitution; and he was quite 
 clear there was no reason to speak of it as a fundamen- 
 tal principle of our constitution. He argued that it 
 was not originally a part of our laws. When the pro- 
 vince of Quebec was divided into two provinces, the 
 
3 
 
 laws of Canada were in force here, and so continued, 
 until our Provincial Parliament, most unwisely as he 
 thought, by one comprehensive and indiscriminating 
 act, with a few exceptions, introduced the laws of En- 
 gland, some of which adopted law's, had already been, 
 and others ought to be, repealed, being found unsuita- 
 ble to this province. JBy that statute, the law of pri- 
 mogeniture was first established here. Before that, 
 we bad the same law as they now have in Low'er Ca- 
 nada, by which intestate property, whether of lands 
 or per sona l, divide d equally among all the 
 children orctner" relatives. His bill, therefore, would 
 introduce no new, unconstitutional, theoretical princi- 
 ple. It would merely restore the old law and the old 
 system. 
 
 He believed that this was the only one of his Majes- 
 ty’s North American provinces in which the law of 
 primogeniture existed. It certainly was not the law 
 of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or Lower Canada. 
 They had tried a different system from that of primo- 
 geniture long enough certainly to ha* e found out its 
 evils, if there w’ere any of serious importance; but who 
 liad ever heard of any one’s proposing to do away 
 w ith it, and to establish the law of priinogenituiel 
 And who would say that they were less friendly than 
 ourselves to the principles and institutions of the moth- 
 er country 1 Would any one, then, say that the bill 
 w'as unconstitutional, or that, it it became a law, as he 
 was confident it would in a few years, they would not 
 still have thfr-coTistitntion, in all its vigor,- purity and 
 perfection! Why should Upper Canada be distinguish- 
 ed from lier sister provinces, by this relic of feudal law! 
 
 He defended the constitutionality of the bill in anoth- 
 er way. A few years ago the Legislative Council 
 passed a bill, which was unfortunately Ihrowm out in 
 that House, by the casting vote of their Speaker, con- 
 taining the very principle of that bill. No one, he 
 was sure, could suspect that hon. body, the venerable 
 aristocracy of the country, of any insidious designs of 
 a democratical nature, or of any hostile enterprise 
 against our constitution. A principle adopted and 
 sanctioned by them ought certainly to be above suspi- 
 cion, in the eyes of those whose prejudices conjure up 
 so many dreadful consequences for this bill; for there 
 certainly was nothing in that august body but loyalty, 
 pure loyalty. 
 
 He hoped, then, that he liad brought the bill to rest 
 upon its own merits; and that honorable members, in- 
 stead of being in horrors at its supposed unconstitution- 
 al spirit, anerTnsfead of dwelling on the objections 
 which might be urged against tlie establishment in our 
 mother country of such a law, would be prepared to 
 listen with unprejudiced minds to the arguments in fa- 
 vor of its adoption here. 
 
 He argued that the principles of the bill were pre- 
 cisely such as the natural affections of every parent 
 wouid at once dictate. In whose bosom bad nature 
 planted an aristocratic preference of the eldest son, and 
 a contempt and disregard of his other children! Who 
 would give all he haci to his strongest, and oldest, and 
 most capable child; and leave the others, who were 
 more helpless, and more worthy of compassion, pro- 
 tection, and assistance, destitute, and unprovided for, 
 
 as if they were bastards and intruders and unworthy of 
 a father’s care! He did not believe that such a wretch, 
 (for a father with such aristocratic feelings deserved no 
 better appellation,^ could be found. The voice of na- 
 ture, in every parent’s bosom, would argue, with a pa- 
 thos and eloquence irresistable, in favor of this bill. 
 
 Justice loo, austere and inflexible justice, would con- 
 firm the claims of natural affection: for nothing could 
 be more just than that a parent should provide for his 
 own offspring, who owe their existence to him. Jus- 
 tice to them ancl justice to the community, who may 
 Otherwise be burthened w ith their support; equally re- 
 quire it. 
 
 A bill that is founded upon plain principles of natu- 
 ral affecton and natural justice, and that will merely 
 substitute these principles, in place of the arbitrary 
 rules of an artificial and unnatural system, ought to re- 
 quire no furtlier argument. 
 
 The measure was recommended by a wise policy. 
 Lord Bacon bad said that married men were better 
 subjects than those wJio w’ere unmarried: for they had 
 given hostages to fortune. A man with a family had 
 a peculiar interest in the peace of his country and in 
 the stability of the Government, which protected him 
 and those who w ere dear to him. In the same manner, 
 a freeholder had a peculiar interest in the public tran- 
 quility and in the permanency of those institutions 
 which secured his property. If one only out of six (or 
 any number of) children inherited the wJioIe of their 
 father’s land,- the others would feel loss interest to pre- 
 vent and suppress intestine convulsions, or to repel an 
 enemy, than if they had succeeded to a share of the 
 patrimonial property. What interest, indeed, could 
 they have in maintaining a system of law, that was 
 unjust in principle and injurous to them in its opera- 
 tion! Nothing in liis opinion, could be more desirable, 
 as a matter of domestic policy, than to encourage 
 among the lower orders, who constituted the mass of 
 the community, and who composed the physical force 
 of the country, the acquirement of a permanent landed 
 estate. Instead of a peasantry, let us have a yeoman- 
 ry; and the country, on the one hand, would be more 
 free, and all its liberal and popular institutions be sup- 
 ported with more spirit; and, on the other, the Gov- 
 ernment, within the just limits of its constitutional 
 pow'er and influence, w’ould be vastly stronger. Mr. 
 Bid well here referred to the late revolution in France, 
 and spoke with admiration of the conduct of the French 
 people, their jealous detestation of 
 
 despotism, tlieir enthusiastic and heroic resistance of a 
 cruel but otherwise contemptable tyrant, and, more 
 than all, their wonderful moderation, forbearance and 
 self-restraint in the moment of victory, although they 
 were under the direction and control of no regular au- 
 thority, w'erc intoxicated with success, w'ith arms in 
 their hands, and smarting under a deep sense of the 
 most unprovoked cruelties and the most atrocious in- 
 juries. The law of primogeniture had been abolished 
 in France during the time of Napoleon; and he could 
 not but believe that this moderation and forbearance, 
 which formed such a striking contrast to the fury and 
 horrors of their former revolution, were caused by the 
 equal division of property among the people, by which 
 
4 
 
 it had (become the interest, not merely of a few wealthy 
 aristocrats, hut emphatically of the people, of the great 
 body of the nation, to prevent, as far as possible, tu- 
 mult and disorder, and all violation of the rights ol 
 property. And so much were the French people, al- 
 ter a trial of botli systems, attached to their present 
 law, in preference to the law of primogeniture, that, 
 ev'eri in the House of Peers, notwithstanding the nat- 
 ural prejudices of that body in favor of any measure of 
 an aristocratic tendency, a pnipositior^ emana^ 
 believed from the G'overhtttf^fit, W tTf^ law W 
 
 pn moo'eniture, was rejected. He had understood that 
 t!ie present law of France not only parted the proper- 
 ly equally in eases of intestacy, but absolutely pre- 
 vented a man from disposing of it by will in any other 
 way. He thought this an unjust restriction. The law 
 of equal partihiiity had not, therefore, in that country, 
 altogether a fair experiment. It labored under some 
 disadvantages*, yet, notwithstanding those disadvan- 
 tages, the French people, after witnessing the practical 
 o|)erations of both, preferred their present system to 
 the «dd rule of primogeniture. And as one of the ad- 
 vantages of the former over the latter, it might be ob- 
 served, that, at this moment, the number of paupers 
 was bv no means so great in France as in England, in 
 
 proportion to their respective populations. 
 
 An equal division of property in a country was most 
 f/.vorable to its morality and happiness. There were 
 two conditions in life dangerous to \drtue and hostile 
 
 vast wealth, which enabled its master to gratify every 
 desire of his heart: the other, extreme poverty, which 
 exposed its victim, by his urgent wants and his abject 
 penury, to strong temptations. He would not, to be 
 sure, interfere with a man’s right to dispose of his prop- 
 erty; nor would he limit the extent of wealth, which 
 an individual might possess. So far, ho would not 
 legislate against the accumulation of property. But, 
 on the other hand, he would not, by municipal regu- 
 lations which were certainly not demanded, and w’.uch 
 he thought were forbid by natural affection and justice, 
 increase and promote a disparity of property in the 
 country. He was sure the country would be more free, 
 more moral, more happy, if there was a pretty equal 
 diffusion of property, than if it were principally accu- 
 mulated in the liands of a few. He wished there might 
 be none very wealthy, and none very poor. 
 
 He took notice of the objections to the hill wliich 
 were contained in a report made last .session hv a Com- 
 mittee of the Legislative Council. A number of those 
 objections, which were urged against the details of the 
 measure and the mode of carrying it into execution, 
 would he entirely obviated by the amendments, which 
 he had mentioned to the bill. The committee, indeed, 
 admitted that by proper provisions those dlfficnlties 
 might be removed. No argument, therefore, could be 
 derived from them against the measure itself. And 
 the V deserved no further notice; for the occasion for 
 them no longer existed, as they were now, at all 
 events, sufficiently guarded against, in the measure in 
 its present shape. 
 
 That Committee conld not perceive any difference 
 between the slate of society and the circumstances of 
 
 thepooplc in Uiis province and thoscof England, wliich 
 would render it more expedient to abolish the law of 
 pritiK'geniturc here than there. He could mentioti, 
 however, some reasons for such a step here, which 
 would not apply there. In that country, a great pro- 
 portion of its wealth was embarked in commercial pur- 
 suits, or invested in the funds, and was therefore ex- 
 empt from the operations of the law of primogeniture; 
 hut in this country, where men were chiefly engaged 
 in agricultural puxsui ts, and la id out the greatest 
 ^f In their faniis, there 
 
 was comparatively but little personal prr f'crty, and of 
 course but little property not under the operation of 
 this law. The evils and injustice of this exclusive law 
 reached, therefore, a greater proportion of cases here 
 than in England. 
 
 That country was oppressed by a burthensorne and 
 redundant population. One of the arguments which 
 was regularly urged in favor of the lavs* of primogeni- 
 ture there was, that a contrary system w’ould promote 
 more than the existing law, an increase of their pop- 
 ulation. Just so far, however, as it would produce 
 such an effect, it would be expediontand wise to adopt 
 it here, where it w'as a capital object to promote and 
 favor an increase of our population. 
 
 The accumulation of landed property had already 
 been felt to be a great evil in this country. One of 
 the arguments in defence of the assessment law was its 
 strong and manifest tendcnc\' to resist a nd destroy this 
 accumulation, arui to thti -htrid invnc^ xn-juall^r 
 
 The same policy recommended his bill; for it had the 
 same tendency, though its operation was more gradual 
 and less violent. He could not see how any one could 
 consistently support the principle of the assessment 
 law, and yet oppose this hill, on the ground of its in- 
 fluence being adverse to the formation of a landed aris- 
 tocracy. 
 
 Almost the whole of the argument against the bill, 
 in the report of the committee of the Legislative Coun- 
 cil, rested on the assumption, that the bill would pro- 
 duce a minute and inconvenient subdivision of proper- 
 ty. Estates, it was supposed, would, in a short time, 
 be frittered away, so that tlie share of each individual 
 would be too small to be of any value; and great con- 
 fusion, uncertainty, and vexation would be the inevit- 
 able, and not very distant result. Now all this was 
 mere assumption. And although numerous cases were 
 supposed, to illustrate the argument, they w*ero chiefly 
 imaginary cases, and certainty were extreme eases. 
 Such w*ere the instances taken from the county of 
 Kent in England, where the law of Gavel Kind pre- 
 vailed. There were various incidents also to that law, 
 which rendered it uippopular; such as its peculiar rules 
 of Dower, Tenancy by the Curtesy, alienation of mi- 
 nors &c. The evils, besides, of this minute and vexa- 
 tious subdivision would be efectually guarded against 
 by the provision he had mentioned for the sale of the 
 property, and a distribution of its avails, instead of a 
 division of the property itself, in those cases, which, 
 after all, must be rare, where such evils could reason- 
 ably be apprehended; Moreover, the experience of 
 other countries furnished a complete and satisfactory 
 answer to this objection to the bill. The principle of 
 
D 
 
 k 
 
 M 
 
 Tne equal dicision of inte«:tate estates prevailed in the 
 United States. It existed among them while they 
 ^ve^e ilritish Colonies. It had been long tried, and its 
 eifects well ascertained. The.se evils of a minute subdi- 
 vision of property would be as great there, and as cer- 
 tain consequences of the law, as if tlieir form ot Gov- 
 ernment were like ours. But none ot these inconve- 
 niences were found to follow. On the contrary, not- 
 ■witlistanding the operation of this law, there was a 
 manifest tendency there to an accumulation of proper- 
 ty in Die hands of a few, and to a gradual creation ot 
 an aristocracy. Indeed there was a constant lenden- 
 naiiraTWrs e grinf f fg y, in all countries, to 
 accumulation, rather than to the subdivision and di- 
 minution of estates. In France, where the right or 
 primogeniture was done away, and estates were par- 
 tible, Baron l)e Stael says, that in spite ot the law as 
 it is, bv which an equal division takes place among 
 the children, it seems that property has a tendency to 
 accumulate. The example and experience of our sis- 
 ter colonies also are equally opposed to these imagmai y 
 evils: and the opinion not merely ot prejudiced pei - 
 sons, but of candid and enlightened men, who have bad 
 
 great opportunities of observing its actual, and piac- 
 
 tical opeVation, is decidedly in favor 
 isting tliere, of an equal division ot intestate ^^^states. 
 Mr. Bidwell here read from the evidence bemre tic 
 Committee of the House of Commons on ^ ‘ 
 
 fairs, the sentiments of Mr. Grant, a 
 
 in support of this position. However plausible, tl eie 
 fore the statement of these evils may be in specuiation, 
 Biev are not found to exist, to any serigus extent, 
 where the mode proposed in the bill for the regulation 
 
 of equal partibihty of propeity, ‘ ‘ decree of perfection, 
 
 tee, Vrevented its being «„t upon this 
 
 , and was, in fact, quite 
 
 subject, bes dcs the e^i^mp e of U S which p 
 
 Testator’s intentions. In the first 
 
 I'-isv matter bv «^uv means, to Uiavv a will coirectlv. q 
 
 no ordinary professional shill. To employ a ® 
 
 necessary e.ypensive certainly, 
 
 aiid incomplete, And^’oeilTshoulrT b? obscr'vcd, 
 
 tlr.t in'casX*doubt on the construction of a will, the blourts were 
 bold ro lean in favor of the heir A 'v « 
 
 Ta^llCm^rK^ wbrit'^rovided for 
 
 r.L^xrsrrr;:.'^ h^::f “fii 
 
 subject, besides TA-ould not sufl’er in comparison with 
 
 spected Heretic cited an 
 
 this province, he shouia reiei i Humphreys. That 
 
 opinion ftiven by an o,i I^ w.nn of his work on real prop 
 
 : gen- 
 
 tleman, in the ] 
 
 ' n^hce to^thV2d edition of his Avork on real 
 
 ;tr.a3.r.r!;7 ■p--n 
 
 thoroughly at its ease.’ thouch the principle of the bill 
 
 It has sometimes been said, that, thougn ^ 
 
 WAS just and good, thereby prevent the injustice of 
 
 Avho chose could first plaL, he denied that every 
 
 ‘a n^arried ^voinanor a person 'U^dcr the 
 
 AVim 
 
 the present system. 
 
 .ersoFcouIdinakc a will. A married 
 ’ag^of 21 years could of Jcsce^it. 
 
 w ish to direct their property in . «or q^^ ^ 
 
 o dfrect their P™f„^‘Urttorof th^^w^ had r. legal cupa- 
 neyt place, a great proporho 
 
 city to divide t>'e>r.Propertj. "e„le^ d ,o „,e parti- 
 
 vented by superstitious ""‘T^’^®„hictance to do any thing w-hich 
 c, liars of their "Le of life; some, by a habit 
 
 In the 
 city to 
 
 kvills; some by a femciancc 
 
 brought tliem as it AA'cre, near to i f <vnn?r.iousness of their 
 
 in their prop^^; or 
 
 other oa.ises,_many P^ons died ^hich the law 
 
 SerS‘‘cimimsmncerrco‘^^^^^^ 
 
 Xu a will was made with all suitable delibemtion, a.^ w dh all 
 necessary care and skill, it was subject to occiirreiiccs, vvhich miol.t 
 render it nugatory, or even make it . perate contrary to the Its.. 
 Uir’s hdeiitifin. X change in his family by death, marriage, b rth, 
 &c the purchase or sale of a lot of land, or tlie alteration aa Inch time 
 -done mn' ht produce in the value of property, might have this e(k.ct. 
 
 iF£;b,;K-» 
 
 asif£i“ 
 
 id away bfiule wL under'j.ge, and could not prctxid it 1 he e^ 
 er brother took it all, and soon spent it. In this case tlie laiucr, no 
 doubt thouf^ht that he bad-guarded carefully against the unjust ope- 
 
 ed, that the necessity for a more just law of tlieir estate 
 
 ry^Wl'^iXwithrilliried" 
 
 • While the evils and injustice of tie proseiit law had t®“ ‘>ff“ 
 witnessed, no one had seen any good eifects from it. the atieii t 
 to build up an aristocracy in this province, by giving all to the eld- 
 
 l”st sol: ^ild thus iiiaking’^ - mX ^ 
 
 brothers and sisters, was ridiculous absurd, oui hon_ 
 
 T PcriKlfltive Council ors, the aristocratic bsanen oi i lie no 
 X ®1 SutturorsXted ll-om the whole province, in the man- 
 
 «TIon‘rogX:nd'’p™flf^te 
 
 Xdr:«roTew."S 
 
 ?ec[or’o7X family; that he would employ the f 
 with affectionate and generous care in 'piu X aU 
 
 observation, and general experience and 
 
 Xr«'>e- "rathm s^omeTby a 'einseiousness of their 
 
 I temper of procrastination, ^ ^ ^ ^j. by the expecta- 
 
 ...Jorinec and 'inability to dmv_a wnU pro^erly^ ^^y ^ these, and 
 tTon of some change m 
 
 and 
 
 other causes, many , 
 
 means have been satisfied 
 applied to their CT^Yj^^^bered, that in many cases, where wi 
 
 wills 
 
 the 
 
 “ U XXiserahre eon- 
 
 
fhcse cases to give all to the eldest child. Would not such an at- 
 tempt be universally scouted 1 ilut he could not see, if the principle 
 of the law of primogeniture was good in one case, why it was not 
 good in another. 
 
 Again, suppose the law of primogeniture was notin force, here, 
 but a Jaw lilie this bill. Would any one, he asked, would any one 
 now seriously attempt to introduce the law of primogeniture! And, 
 if not, why should w e retain a law introduced by an indiscriminate 
 adoption of English laws, but not suited to the stiite and circumstan- 
 ces of the province! 
 
 He maintained that the English Parliament had themselves, to a 
 certain extent, even in England, adopted and sanctioned the princi- 
 ple of this bill. When a man, w’ho had an estate in land during the 
 life of another, died before the death of the other, the Parliament 
 had said thdt the estate should not go entirely to the eldest son, but 
 be equally divided among all the children. Mil the htrmrmriences 
 apprehended from the bill would equally result from such a law; yet 
 we see the opinion of the Parliament on the subject. We had their 
 authority, therefore, in favor of the principle of the pre.sent bill. 
 
 When an older son succeeded to all his father’s estate, in conse- 
 quence of there being no will, he was expected to divide it fairly 
 with his lirothers and sisters. If he refused to do it, be was brand- 
 ed as an unfeeling and dishonest wretch. What could be a stronger 
 proof of the injustice of our law than this general sentiment! Must 
 not a law be unjust, and in its tendency unfavorable to morals, which 
 tempts a man to be inhuman and dishonest! He really wished hon- 
 orable members wcmld thinlc of its injustice. Let them once look 
 at a family bereaved of a fathers kind care and affection, expelled 
 from their native home, which was endeared by a thousand tender 
 recollections, and turned out, beggars and outcasts, upon the cold 
 charities of the world, merely that we might have a lordly aristoc- 
 racy of land holders built up in tliis province. 
 
 They might be told to adhere to the institutions of the mother 
 country, and to introduce no innovations. He would certainly be 
 in favor of every institution calculated to make the people happy 
 and the Crown respected. 
 
 Unfortunately we had some of her laws least adapted to the cir- 
 cumstances of the country; and some of the best we had not, at 
 least in practice; such as J udges bolding their offices dpring good 
 behavior, He ask.’etl,'‘W!UT^uuW in tavTu^'oTthe ndopfiou ' 
 
 of the game laws, though they were a part of her institutions! So 
 in England, land could not be sold for debt and was not liable upon 
 a man’s death to be taken in any w^ for debts, unless tliey were se- 
 cured by an instrument under seaf This was a part of the siune 
 feudal system as the law of primogeniture, quite as ancient, reason- 
 able and just. Yet the British Parliament themselves abolished it 
 in their Colonies; so little respect had they for the establishment of 
 a landed aristocracy here. 
 
 It was sometimes objected against the bill, that after all it would 
 not meet the wants of the people. Look at wills, it was said, and 
 see how few are drawn on the principle of this bill — but this was a 
 mistake. In general, property was divided upon this very princi- 
 ple. It was divided equally among children, except when some of 
 them had received their share or a part of it, which was in such a 
 case deducted. He appealed to honorable members, whether tliey 
 would dispose of their property in this mode! Did not they love one 
 child as much as another! and if so, would not they be as kind to 
 one as another! It was not to be expected that it would be exactly 
 adapted to every case. Vo law could do this. But it would answer 
 ill general, better than . . other. This, however, was not the ques- 
 
 tion. It was pot, whether this hill was the best of all systems thkt 
 could be devised; but whether it was better than the present law. 
 If it was, it should be adopted and established, until a better was 
 proposed. 
 
 An objection, which had been made on a former occasion, just 
 then occurred to his remembi*ance. It was said, the country was 
 small, and if the bill became a law, it would lead to a division of the 
 land, and the country would be stripped of its wood. Gentlemen, 
 he saw, were smiling; but he would assure them that the objection 
 was seriously urged. For bis own part, in anticipation of it, he 
 would only say, that, if the country were small, there was a greater 
 necessity fora division of estates; and he would ask, where was the 
 member who wished to have large tracts of land remain a wilder- 
 ness, uncleared of its wood and uncultivated! Which of these alter- 
 natives did honora ble g cutlemeu d esire! ^ tliat the great body of the 
 5ffd eT^itftorsT or that they should be a 
 dependent population, hanging loose upon society, and without any 
 considerable interest in its prosperity and peace! 
 
 He took notice of an objection which had been urged against tlic 
 clause in the bill which authorized an heir, who had been compel- 
 led to pay a debt of his ancestor, to recover from his co-heirs a rate- 
 able proportion of such debt. It had been said that this would open 
 the door for immense litigation. He was satisfied that this objec- 
 tion was not well founded. There were not many cases, where an 
 heir would be compelled to pay such a debt; and in these cases, the 
 other heirs would seldom refuse to pay their share, especially as 
 they knew it could be recovered from them with costs, if they were 
 obstinate; so that really there would hardly ever be a law suit fi*om 
 this cause. The justice of the clause was evident. 
 
 He said that the people very generally desired such a law. This 
 was a strong argument in favor of any measure, especially if it relat- 
 ed chiefly to the regulation merely of their property, and was not 
 unjust in its principles. They were dissatisfied with the present 
 law. They considered it unjust, absurd and burdensome; and they 
 wanted to be relieved from it. Why could not this relief be given ? 
 Would it curtail the prerogatives or constitutional influence of the 
 Crown !^ No! Would it extend the powers of the popular branch! 
 No! Why then could not the wishes of the people, in a matter con- 
 
 influence of prejudices, thought they could judge what the people 
 wanted better than the people themselves. 
 
 He did not know that the bill would pass into a law this session, 
 or next session, oiThe following session. He was not sure even that 
 it would be entertained by the House, at that time; but he was con- 
 fident, that at no remote period a measure so much called for would 
 be adopted. No man or body of men could long successfully resist 
 public opinion, in any countiy, much less in a country where tlierc 
 could be a free discussion of public matters. They miirht, indeed, 
 for a time oppose and obstruct the stream; but it would be continu- 
 ally accumulating and acquiring greater strength, until finally it 
 would sweep away all opposition. When he depended upon the 
 force of public opinion, to carry this measure into a law, he reHed 
 upon a principle, as simple, to be sure, but as certain and as power- 
 ful, as the law of gravitation. He knew that the voice of the people 
 was in favor of this measure. The raorc'their attention was called 
 to the injustice and evils of the present law, by discussion, and by 
 its practical operation, the stronger would be their desire and their 
 demand for something like the bill before the committee. He had 
 no doubt, therefore, of the ultimate result. 
 
 ». MILES, PJvIXTEil.