This article observes a little-noted proposal (the Landed Property of Intestates Bill) introduced into the British Parliament in 1836. It considers the debate upon it that ensued, and the accompanying pamphlet literature. The Bill proposed to alter the inheritance custom of primogeniture that directed the pattern of descent of freehold land in the absence of directions by settlement or will, and the dialogue is used as a lens to view the nexus between inheritance customs and broader political, economic and social concerns. The intensity of the dispute over primogeniture suggests that more was at stake than simply the devolution of land. The controversy in the Commons over the proposed legislation encompassed a discussion on the variety of purposes that succession law should serve. Lurking in the background in the debate over the proposed bill was a more abstract conundrum: should succession laws primarily be crafted to serve political ends, the constitution; or was it more appropriate to calibrate them to foster desirable social, economic or familial goals? In short, the debate put into sharp focus the question of what interests drive inheritance law, and how attempts can be made to modify it, if and when such concerns alter over time. The bill failed, and it would be for another century for Parliament to abolish primogeniture.

中文翻译：

---

告别唐顿庄园，告别长子继承与继承：英国与强制继承权的短暂相遇

本文观察了 1836 年在英国议会中引入的一项鲜为人知的提案（无遗嘱土地法案）。它考虑了随之而来的辩论，以及随附的小册子文献。该法案提议改变长子继承制的继承习俗，该习俗在没有定居点或遗嘱的情况下指导永久业权土地的后裔模式，对话被用作观察继承习俗与更广泛的政治、经济和社会之间联系的镜头。社会关注。长子继承权之争的激烈程度表明，比简单的土地流转更重要。下议院对拟议立法的争议包括对继承法应服务的各种目的的讨论。在拟议法案辩论的背景中潜伏着一个更抽象的难题：继承法是否应该主要为政治目的而制定，宪法？还是调整它们以促进理想的社会、经济或家庭目标更合适？简而言之，这场辩论突出了以下问题：什么利益驱动了继承法，以及如何尝试修改它，如果以及何时随着时间的推移而改变这种担忧。该法案失败了，而议会废除长子继承制还要再过一个世纪。辩论突出了以下问题：什么利益驱动继承法，以及如何尝试修改它，如果以及何时随着时间的推移这些问题发生变化。该法案失败了，而议会废除长子继承制还要再过一个世纪。辩论突出了以下问题：什么利益驱动继承法，以及如何尝试修改它，如果以及何时随着时间的推移这些问题发生变化。该法案失败了，而议会废除长子继承制还要再过一个世纪。