long leases, the capitalists of the country, being secure of their money, would join in the development of the landed interests of the country. He might say in conclusion that he did not agree in some of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) in his Amendment, especially that which exempted from seizure the stock of a third party left on the farm for grazing.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words it is desirable that the power of distraint for the rent of agricultural holdings in England, Wales, and Ireland should be abolished,”—(Mr.

Blinnerhassett,)

-instead thereof.

was a curious fact, however, that though for many years the Law of Hypothec had been regarded amongst the tenant-farmers in Scotland as a great grievance, it was not until a recent date that the Law of Distress had at any agricultural meeting been referred to as being in any way detrimental to the tenant-farmers in England. The harsh operation of the present Law of Distress had been brought more forcibly into notice of late in consequence of the bad times the farmers had been passing through. Not long ago, a landlord who had allowed his tenant to get several years into arrear with his rent waited until the sheep of a neighbouring farmer were sent on to the farm to graze, when he at once put in a distress and sold the sheep for £400. It was a remarkable proof of the good sense, the justice, and the moderation of

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the the landlords of England, that they very

Question."

MR. CLARE READ said, that he had lost his voice through attending a temperance meeting. Possibly that circumstance might excite some sympathy on his behalf from hon. Members opposite, although he did not look for much pity from those around him. He desired, however, to utter a few inarticulate sentences in defence of the Amendment on this subject which he had placed upon the Notice Paper, but which he could not move. By that Amendment he had proposed to omit from the Resolution the word "abolished," in order to insert the words "limited to one year's rent," and to add words providing

"That the stock of a third party taken on a farm to graze should only be liable for the amount of consideration payable for the grazing, and that the landlord's rights to re-entry for the non-payment of rent should be more simple and speedy than at present."

He maintained that if the Law of Distress was to be maintained at all, it must be on the lines thus indicated. He had been charged with inconsistency in putting that Amendment on the Paper, although he had supported the abolition of the Law of Hypothec in Scotland; but what he had said with regard to that was that when the tenants of England demanded the abolition of the Law of Distress with the same unanimity as the people of Scotland had demanded the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, he should be quite ready to vote for it. It

rarely put that extraordinary law into operation. He might be asked why he did not advocate the total abolition of the Law of Distress. His answer was, that that law was so interwoven with our agricultural system that its total and immediate repeal would give a very great shock to all who were concerned in agriculture, and would be detrimental, especially in times of depression like the present, alike to the landlord and the tenant. If they were to abolish that law at once, they must, according to all precedents, exempt existing tenancies from the operation of the new Act; but, on the other hand, if they simply modified it as he would suggest, it might be applied at once to every holding in England. His suggestion was that the landlord's right of distress should only extend to one year's rent. Why had he done that? Because that limit was the law of the land in the case of bankruptcy; and, further, he did not suppose that a landlord would distrain on a tenant unless the latter were more or less insolvent. The rents in annual tenancies were generally due half-yearly, and payable as a rule in England some three or four months after they became due; and if the landlord wished to be generous to his tenant and allowed more than two half-years' rent to be in abeyance, he might take his share with the other creditors for anything over and above one year's rent. His next suggestion was that the stock of a third party taken on a farm to graze should only be

liable for the amount of consideration MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, he felt payable for the grazing. That was de- considerably surprised by the views of rived from the Hypothec (Scotland) the hon. Member for South Norfolk Act of 1867; it had worked remarkably (Mr. Clare Read) as embodied in the well during the last 12 years, and there Amendments he had placed on the was no reason why it should not be Paper for; although the changes he proequally good for England. In these posed would favour, to some extent, a times of depression the capital of the tenant's creditors, their effect would be tenants had been so reduced, that many prejudicial to the farmers themselves. of them could not stock their land, and To limit distraint to one year's rent the only way in which the landlord could would simply be to limit the indulgence get his rent was by enabling the tenant which landlords would give their tenants; to take to graze on his farm the stock of and it would be a conclusive answer, other people. Machinery, such as thrash- doubtless, by a land agent to a tenant ing-machines and steam-ploughs, which desiring delay for more than one year's was often let out, was liable to be seized rent, that Parliament, by the change if it happened to be on the tenant's proposed, had precluded the landlord land, whereas it really ought to be ex- from giving it. To give greater power empted. On the same principle that of re-entry to the landlord would simply lodgers' goods were exempt from seizure be to give him more summary means of by the landlord of a house, so he would ejecting the tenant, which seemed wholly exempt all the cattle and agricultural unnecessary, so long as the landlord had machinery belonging to a third party the preference to a year's rent, and one which might be found upon a farm. year would practically give him a preThen, with regard to the right of re- ference to two years' rent. The Amendentry, if the landlord could not get his ment might be accepted as evidence of rent he ought to have his land, and to the disinterested character of farmers' have it at once. He believed it often politics, for they showed that they took a landlord months to eject a yearly were ready to look after the interests tenant and obtain possession of his land. of their landlords and creditors before It was a roundabout, tedious, and ex- their own. pensive process, and he thought it ought to be both quick and cheap; quick if he was dealing with a fraudulent tenant, and also cheap, or the remedy would be worse than the disease. Moreover, he would not allow any distress to be made except by a bailiff or respectable officer of some Court, and not by a trumpery blackguard acting under the instructions of a pettifogging lawyer. With respect to agricultural leases, if the tenant became insolvent during the time he occupied the farm and was made a bankrupt, if the trustee could not carry on the farm, the landlord could enter immediately on the farm and could also seize all the growing crops. Cases of that kind had recently occurred; and a landlord had bagged not only the whole of his rent, but something like £800 worth of hay and turnips that were on the land. He had mentioned the matter to the Attorney General, who had promised to take it into consideration when the Bankruptcy Bill came under discussion. In conclusion, he hoped the House would favourably consider his suggestions, which he was now precluded from formally moving as Amendments.

Mr. Clare Read

As the hon. Member for South Norfolk had remarked, this question of distress and its effects was new to English farmers; but farmers in Scotland had long ago made up their minds about the Law of Hypothec, which was the corresponding law in Scotland, and the same in principle. He would state, as briefly as possible, the objections to the law, which were much wider and deeper than it at first sight appeared. The land of England was a monopoly, in these respects at least— that the quantity to be leased was in the hands of very few, and that, however great the demand, the quantity could not be increased. The agricultural population naturally increased, and, in these circumstances, competition was maintained at a maximum, and tenants' profits at a minimum. But as if the excessive competition, inevitable in the circumstances, was not enough, it was still further intensified by the Law of Distress, which enabled landlords to accept as tenants, or, at least, as competitors for farms, men who had not sufficient capital for the farm. That was the argument put forward by landlords and land agents in defence of the

law as it stood. It was not because they | by people who knew little, if anything, had any favour for the poor man; but of farming. It was thought all right if because the man with inadequate capital the rent-roll were increased and the offered a higher rent, or was willing to rent collected. The Law of Distress submit to more onerous conditions in the enabled them to do both. As for imlease. These circumstances explained proved cultivation, they, as a rule, did why tenant farmers frequently sub- nothing for that. It was thought that mitted to onerous, and, in many cases, by antiquated and obsolete covenants in monstrously unjust and even absurd, leases tenants could be prevented from conditions in leases. The vicious prin- exhausting the land; but he never saw ciple of the law was that the landlord covenants which would prevent a tenant was protected against the consequence from exhausting his farm, if he set himof his own imprudence, and, it might self to do so. Such covenants, together be, greed. Even if the landlord accepted with the want of compensation for ima doubtful tenant because he promised provements, were the great obstacles to a higher rent, or because he submitted improved cultivation. They tied up the to highly onerous conditions-it might hands of the intelligent and skilful be with regard to ground game-this farmer from making the best of the Law of Distress secured the payment of land for himself and the landlord. The the rent. It was evident that the Amend- abolition of distress would do much to ment to restrict the distraint to one improve this state of matters; but no year's rent would not meet this, the modification of it, as suggested by the principal ground of the farmers' objec- hon. Member for South Norfolk, would tion to the law. The injustice of the law be of any avail. The restriction to one to creditors and others dealing with the year's rent would simply make the land tenant was very obvious. The landlord agent more stringent with the tenant; who risked only his interest and not his and he, therefore, strongly supported the capital was paid in full, when other Motion for the total abolition of the law, creditors who risked both capital and giving the landlord reasonable powers interest had to take a dividend, or per- of re-entry when the tenant had become haps even get nothing. The landlord, in insolvent and unable to discharge his his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) opinion, had obligations. grounds for complaint against the law; and if they had not complained already, he expected they would begin to do so by-and-bye. So long as prices of agricultural produce continued to advance, as was the case for a good many years, tenants with inadequate capital might manage to get on; but when bad seasons and lower prices came, landlords would find that the high rents promised by those tenants with inadequate capital were delusive. The tenants might hold on for a year or two, but they did so at the expense of the farm, which would ultimately fall into the landlord's hands in a condition which he would find very prejudicial to its being re-let. Landlords under such experience would begin to have doubts as to the wisdom of their land-agents in increasing the rent-roll by accepting tenants with limited means, who, when reverses came, were unable to hold their position and do justice to the land. Land agents were the only people who got advantage from the law, because it was only by means of this Law of Distress that the control of large estates could be kept in lawyers' offices,

MR. RODWELL contended that it was a popular delusion to suppose that the Law of Distress operated solely to the benefit of the landlord and the detriment of the tenant. He admitted that the law might require modification, but contended that in practice the law had not worked harshly. A recent case in Kent, where a landlord seized sheep worth £300 or £400, belonging to a third person, in distress for rent of several years, was clearly exceptional. The outcry that case had caused showed that the law was not often so employed, and he challenged any hon. Member to give an instance within his own knowledge. At present, the stock of the tenant was a running guarantee for the payment of his rent. His own belief was that the abolition of the present law would act very injuriously on the interests of the tenant, because a landlord would then be far more likely than was at present the case to take the first opportunity to secure his rights and to proceed harshly, when otherwise he would be disposed to the side of leniency. The law as it stood, properly and fairly

MR. PELL thought that if the House acted wisely and with moderation, it could not do better than accept the first proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. If the power were limited to one year's rent, he thought the justice of the case would be met; and if the landlord chose to give another year's credit, he should not be allowed to be generous at the cost of the other creditors. After all, the landlord would have the tenant very much in his power for nearly two years. With reference to the proposal that the landlord's rights of re-entry for the non-payment of rent should be made more speedy of execution than at present, he said there was no doubt very great hardship might be done by the right of speedy re-entry. At present, however, the law was very unsatisfactory. He could not go with his hon. Friend on the point as to the seizure of cattle on grazing land. No doubt, the question was one of considerable importance in the Midland counties, and there was land there where the landlords would have nothing whatever excepting live stock; but a person, before putting cattle on land to graze, might easily ascertain whether there was any back rent on the land. If a man put a large amount of property on the land, he ought to do it at his own risk. He did not know why the right of distress should be confined to agricultural holdings. One year's rent was, he thought, sufficient to distrain for; and, therefore, he was inclined to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

at some future time to pressure from prices were, no doubt, enhanced to the without. public because the Law of Distress and of Hypothec gave rights and special privileges to landlords, which interfered with the tenant in obtaining cheap capital to work the farms. Unless we could cheapen produce in this country, or find a new article which farmers could produce, and which would pay them better than grain had done for years past, it would be impossible to remove the agricultural distress which was now felt. With this prospect, it would be impossible to pay the rents which landlords had hitherto received from farmers, and the soil would be less cultivated than hitherto. The agriculture of Scotland. was undoubtedly highly advanced; mainly, as Mr. Caird has so well and so clearly stated in his recent work, through the intelligence and money of farmers; but another notable thing about Scotch agriculture was the want of capital on the part of tenant-farmers to extend these improvements which the present competition with foreign produce so urgently called for. The right of the landlord to distrain the goods of farmers had been the main cause why the latter had not been able to obtain better money or credit accommodation for their agricultural operations, and had prevented people from coming forward with loans to the farmers to enable them to cultivate the land they occupied, because in a distress for rent the property of him who had assisted the farmer might be seized by the landlord. Owing to these recent pecuniary necessities from bad harvests and low prices, the tenant-farmers of Scotland had, he said, been prevented by this deficiency GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, of capital from increasing their stocks, in supporting the Motion to abolish the or keeping cattle till an age when English Law of Distress, referred to the their quality and value would have been evils to agricultural improvement and greatly enhanced. He pointed out the extension occasioned by the Law of necessity for freeing the farmers from Hypothec in Scotland, and to the wide the shackles which now impeded their gulf which existed there from that law action in contending against the world between landlords and tenants; and in the production of grain and meat. which law, being injurious to the inte- Our high-priced lands, often inferior to rests of the country, ought not to be those abroad, could only be kept in allowed to remain on the Statute Book, cultivation by increasing the productive merely for the interests of one class of power of the country. This could only the people. It was obvious that the be effected by the application of more abundance of cheap grain which we now capital, thereby encouraging agriculture. got from all parts of the world would He argued that if landlords would give in future prevent the agriculturists of up their preferential claim on their England, Ireland, and Scotland from tenants' goods, they would enable the obtaining those remunerative prices latter to obtain more means whereby to which they obtained in past years. These till their farms better, and to pay everyVOL, CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

D