The Times publishes with great triumph a strong letter from.
M. Le Play, the French economist, against the system of com- pulsory subdivision of property, and no doubt M. Le Play makes out in part a case. Subdivision has reduced the popula- tion of France, and has increased to a terrible degree the passion for litigation. When a man has only five acres, a hedge, or a pathway, or a corner no bigger than a handkerchief becomes of importance. But M. Le Play forgets to describe the other side of the system—its-wonderfully conservative effect—and the Times seems to us to be beating the air. Who is proposing for England compulsory subdivision, or the restriction of the right of bequest, or any interference with land as distinguished from other pro- perty? The single proposal about inheritance now before the public is that land and personalty shall follow the same rule,. and that if the owner fails to distribute by will he shall be held to have wished to distribute equally as among his children. We were going to say to distribute "fairly," but in our opinion_ the English law is hardly fair to the wife and mother of the family. The "fair" law is the Prussian, which makes the children suoceed only after the death of both-parents. Our law, which turns the mother out of the realty for her son's advantage, and gives her only a portion of the personalty, is a relic of days when every woman was legally held to be in wardship to some man,—father, husband, or son.
Previous page
