moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a
natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any
human code. If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses
to reform much more serious than any connected with the question
of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the
modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go
no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest
son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts
the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's
personal property was secured to his family; and it was only of
the residue that he could dispose by will. Now he can dispose of
the whole by will: but you limited his power, a few years ago,
by enacting that the will should not be valid unless there were
two witnesses. If a man dies intestate, his personal property
generally goes according to the statute of distributions; but
there are local customs which modify that statute. Now which of
all these systems is conformed to the eternal standard of right?
Is it primogeniture, or gavelkind, or borough English? Are wills
jure divino? Are the two witnesses jure divino? Might not the
pars rationabilis of our old law have a fair claim to be regarded
as of celestial institution? Was the statute of distributions
enacted in Heaven long before it was adopted by Parliament? Or
is it to Custom of York, or to Custom of London, that this pre-
eminence belongs? Surely, Sir, even those who hold that there is
a natural right of property must admit that rules prescribing the
manner in which the effects of deceased persons shall be
distributed are purely arbitrary, and originate altogether in the
will of the legislature. If so, Sir, there is no controversy
between my honourable and learned friend and myself as to the
principles on which this question is to be argued. For the