"A landlord advertises a farm and lets it to the highest bidder (at say £1 per acre). If I am going to value any land near it, my mind is naturally biassed to see if this farm I am going to value is worth £4 an acre. one, it may not be so good, let at that sum; the I say, 'Here is farm I value must be £4 an acre too.' While the man who took the farm that was advertised does not pay his rent; very probably getting a reduction of rent in a year or two."

limited to the land so let in the first in- | soil and swelled so enormously the rentstance. The example is contagious. If rolls of its owners, have made farming a hon. Members will turn to the Report of pursuit quite different from the simple the Royal Commission of 1864, page 122, culture of by-gone days. Successful they will find the process described by farming now requires the control of a that eminent agriculturist, the late Mr. large capital, and involves heavy and Hope of Fenton Barnscomplicated business transactions in many quarters, and with all sorts of persons. The modern farmer is a man of business who needs the full control of all his resources, and the free use of all his commercial freedom in the rusty his energies. If you fetter and cramp bonds of antiquated privilege, he will be overmatched in the fierce strife of worldwide competition; and, with falling rent and diminished production, you will mourn, when it is too late, that decline in British agriculture which a selfish and shortsighted policy will inevitably produce. The farmer is no longer shielded by protective duties in the disposal of his produce; he has to face the competition of the world. The fresh unexhausted "Do you consider it to be consistent with Free soils, the low rents, and the light taxes Trade principles that the State should prescribe of new countries, with the wonderful to the landlords upon what system they should manage their estates? Answer-I do not. improvement in the means of transport, Do you consider that it is consistent with those bring dangerous competitors to his very principles that they should be required by law door. The present position of the Engto be prudent, and to choose tenants with capi-lish farmer taxes to the uttermost the tal instead of others? Answer-Not at all. Therefore, if under the present law the landlord is imprudent and chooses tenants without capital, that is his own affair, is it not? Answer-Not at all under the present law, because he is protected at the public expense; at the expense of other creditors."

The true principle was elicited by a noble Lord, a Member of the Select Committee, in his examination of Mr. William Scott. The noble Lord, who evidently totally misapprehended the position of the advocates of the abolition of hypothec, asks

Mr. Scott

This is exactly how the case is. Without dreaming for a moment of any interference with the landlord's right to manage his property as he thinks fit and to let his farms to whoever he pleases, we do protest most earnestly against a law which affords him special immunity from the results of a want of care and prudence which in other transactions would be disastrous, and which encourages him in a course of proceeding which presses hardly on the competent and solvent farmer, and is highly injurious to the general interests of agriculture. When trade hardly existed, and land was held under feudal tenures, the power of distraint may not have been felt as an injury and inconvenience. But all this has passed away, and landowners now find their best interests are bound up with the commercial treatment of land. The scientific discoveries and mechanical improvements, which have increased the productive powers of the

Mr. Blennerhassett

powers even of the strongest. In better times, it is full of anxiety. In 1869, Mr. Wilson, of Edington, wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee a letter, pointing out in forcible language the peculiar risks attendant upon the farmers occupation

"When a man enters into a farm he at once

invests his means, usually his whole means, in a which yields smaller average profits than any concern beset with very great risks indeed, and business employing a similar amount of capital and labour. What may be called its natural risks, arising from adverse seasons, and from disease and death of live stock, are always very great, besides which there are those which it has in common with other occupations from fluctuations in markets, bad debts, and the dishonesty or carelessness of servants. In the case of a farm let on lease for a term of years, the tenant comes betwixt the landlord and all those risks, and also keeps its fixtures in repair, and insures them against fire. The landlord gets his rent term by term, whether there has been a profit or no; and if the farm proves to be rented above enough happens that he has to leave it a ruined its value, or if disasters befall the tenant, it often man, although all the rents have been paid in full. It is surely unbecoming to manifest such anxiety to have the interests of the naturally strong party, whose risks are small, fenced and the weaker party, whose risks are so great, are secured in every possible way, while those of deemed unworthy of notice."

45

The Law of Distress

{MAY 9, 1879}

The facts were

But there are other persons to be con- | siderable attention. sidered as well as landlords and tenants. publicly stated at a meeting of the East If the landlord's claim on the estate of Kent Chamber of Agriculture, held at an insolvent be paid in full, the divi- Canterbury last October, and a strong dends applicable for the discharge of all feeling of indignation was expressed. the other claims must, of course, be I refer to the case of Lake and Duppa. diminished. I do not know that imple- Mr. James Lake, the aggrieved party, ment-makers, or dealers in manures, told his story to the meeting, and the seeds, or feeding stuffs, have any special facts, I believe, are undisputed. Mr. claim to regard; but, certainly, if ser- Lake said that he had been in the habit vice done should be remembered, they for many years of sending his lambs, as deserve the utmost consideration at the soon as they were weaned, on to a hill hands of landowners. Without their occupied by a neighbouring tenant-farenergy and enterprize, anything like the mer, to eat off the aftermath. Having present standard of rent would have been very unwell lately, Mr. Wood, been impossible. They do not profess who managed those things for him, put to be animated by philanthropic motives, out his lambs for him this year; and he but they seek no exceptional favours. had received a report from Mr. Wood On the 25th They are men of business; but they do which contained a complete statement expect that those who reap so rich a of what had occurred. harvest from their labours will not deny September two men were sent over to them fair commercial equality in their bring the lambs back, when they found dealings with those with whom they Mr. George Duppa, the landlord, in conduct their transactions. Every im- possession of the farm. The broker was provement, by which the expenses of not there then, but arrived shortly aftercultivation are lowered and the cost of wards, and refused to give up the lambs, production diminished, cheapens the although well aware to whom they beprice of food and is a general advan- longed. On the following Wednesday, tage to the community. Landowners, Mr. Wood called on Mr. Hoare, Mr. however, derive a special advantage Duppa's solicitor, and was referred by from these improvements. Ultimately, him to Mr. Duppa himself, who said he indeed, the whole advantage is absorbed should sell the sheep. On Monday, the by them. Farmers, who use improved 30th September, a bill of the sale was machinery or manures may profit by brought to Mr. Wood, and the sale took them for a time; but if the expenses of place on the 2nd October. Mr. Lake production are thereby permanently said they would see from this that on diminished, they will be able, with the the 24th September Mr. Duppa seized same margin of profit, to pay more rent, these lambs, no bill of sale came out and the competition of capital will soon until Monday, the 30th, and on Wednesoblige them to do so. Nothing in the day the lambs were sold; so that really, operation of the Law of Distraint offends if Mr. Wood had not happened to be on more strongly against one's ordinary an adjoining farm, the sheep would have sense of justice than the consequences been sold, and the owner, Mr. Lake, which proceed from the principle that it would not have known anything about is the place where they are found, and it. It appeared there was four years' not the persons to whom they belong, rent in arrears, which, with expenses, that renders them liable to distress. It amounted to £495. The rent of the is hard that agricultural implements, farm was £112. It was raised from tiles, manures, and other property which £80 to £112 when Mr. Duppa bought The have not been paid for, should be dis- the land, and it was four years' rent at trained for the rent of the land on which | £112 that the distress was for. they are found. It is harder, still, that tenant's effects realized £135-a great cattle and sheep, sent upon a farm for deal more than they were worth-and temporary keep, and which are not the his, Mr. Lake's, 160 lambs sold for property of the tenant at all, but belong £360, making £495 in all; so that Mr. to some innocent third person, should be Duppa had actually got £350 of his in A hard cash. He thought the state of seized and sold for arrears of rent. case, showing the monstrous abuse to things thus revealed ought not to be which this law may lead, occurred not allowed to exist in any civilized country. long ago in Kent, and attracted con- Comment on this case is unnecessary.

Now what does a

So much for the opinion of a lawyer of
great experience.
practical agriculturist say? At page 58
of the Report of the Select Committee,
Mr. Scott, of Timpendean, gives this
answer—

"In the case of mortgages, I don't think it

would be more difficult for landlords to raise money upon land. It is not usual for landed property to be borrowed upon to its full value; and, in the next place, proprietors scarcely ever have four or five tenants failing at once. There would be as much from the good tenants as

would pay the interest."

One witness, and one only, expressed a contrary opinion; but I think it must be felt that, in his anxiety to prove too much, this gentleman deprived his evidence of any weight whatsoever. At page 11 of the Blue Book this question was put to Mr. Burton

The facts speak for themselves. Distress | foreclosing that the mortgagee has the power has been defended on the ground that of getting his principal back by a sale. I do the relation between landlord and tenant not think the abolition of the right of Distress would affect loans on mortgages at all." is a sort of partnership, giving the landlord a claim for his rent upon what is found on the land. But what is the meaning of such language, applied to such a case as this? What partnership or quasi-partnership existed between Mr. Lake, the owner of the lambs, and Mr. Duppa, the owner of the land? How can it possibly be argued that Mr. Lake's lambs were Mr. Duppa's share of the produce of the farm? I pass on to glance very briefly on the effect of the abolition of Distraint on the position of the landowner. I may say, in passing, that I approach this question not as a farmer or as a dealer in implements, manures, or anything of the sort. My income is derived from the ownership of land, and it is because I believe the abolition of Distress would be conducive not only to the general welfare of the country, but also to the true interests of the landowners, that I bring forward this Motion. It has been urged by those in favour of the existing law, that if it were abolished, the landlord's power of raising money for the improvement of his estate would be greatly diminished, as anything which tends to impair the security of rent tends necessarily to improve the mortgagee's security for the payment of interest. This objection was stated in the draft-Report submitted to the Select Committee by the Chairman, Lord Airlie; but as it does not appear in the Report ultimately adopted, it may fairly be assumed that the Committee were unable to find evidence to support it. Let us turn for a moment to the evidence itself. Witnesses of great experience and authority were examined on the point. At page 5 of the Report, Mr. James is

asked

"Supposing the right of Distress to be abolished, and that security, if it is a security, taken away, would the lenders of money on mortgage find it necessary to require either a large margin in lending on the security of land, or to raise the rate of interest, or perhaps to do both?"

Mr. James replies—

"I do not think it would affect that in the slightest degree. I think the mortgagee does not look to the rent he could get by distress, but he looks rather to what he could realize by bringing the property into the market and selling it after foreclosing. It is only after

Mr. Blennerhassett

"Of course, if the security were impaired, I suppose lenders would either require a larger margin or a higher rate of interest?" Mr. Burton scorns this idea of nicely balanced less or more, and replies—

"No; they would not be tempted at all. We should decline to lend." And he adds

"No solicitor would lend money with the possibility of getting his clients into jeopardy of being disappointed of their incomes." I do not think I go too far in saying that no weight can possibly be attached to the views of a man who could commit him

self to such a reckless assertion as this. If the power of Distraint were abolished, what security for money lent would be better than a mortgage on real property, with the usual margin and power of sale in default of payment of principal or interest? The rate of interest and the facility of obtaining loans depends, of course, on the state of the Money Market, which is constantly being acted upon by a great variety of causes; but the idea of saying that if this right of Distressof which only under the rarest circumstances a lender on landed estates ever avails himself, and which we are assured on high authority seldom or never enters into his consideration in arranging a loan-were taken away, no temptation would induce lenders to advance money on mortgage, is a statement so extravagant that it would be mere waste of

time to dwell upon it. I do not know | Nations he points out how important it how much of the money raised on mort- is that the landlord should be induced gage is spent on the improvement of the to cultivate a part of his own land. His land-I imagine not a very large portion capital is generally larger than that of of it; but, however this may be, the the tenant, and with less skill he can attempt utterly broke down which was frequently raise a greater produce. The made to show that the abolition of Dis- landlord can afford to try experiments, traint would injuriously affect the power and is generally disposed to do so. His of raising money on landed security. unsuccessful experiments occasion only It is said that if the special security a moderate loss to himself; his successafforded by distress be taken away, the ful ones contribute to the improvement value of land will be diminished, and and better cultivation of the whole rents will fall. So far as distress stimu- country. The fact is that the landlates a fictitious and unhealthy com- owner's interest is strictly and inseparpetition, and landowners, relying upon ably connected with the interests of the it, are induced to let their farms to reck- community. Whatever either promotes less bidders without capital or know- or obstructs the one necessarily proledge, rents, thus raised above the motes or obstructs the other. If the proper level, would temporarily fall; maintenance of this law is injurious to but, in the long run, rents artificially the general interests of agriculture, then stimulated in this way must fall, and it is necessarily injurious to the interests they are highly injurious to owners. of the landowner rightly understood. The amount which a landlord can get An artificial exception from the principles must ultimately depend upon the net of law which attracts into a certain produce of the soil; it is only by in- business persons destitute of the qualificreasing this that the substantial value cations necessary to work that business of his property can be raised. If a properly, and which exposes persons needy or ignorant tenant promises an possessed of those qualifications to an excessive rent, he may pay it for a time; unfair and injurious rivalry, must lower but things will adjust themselves after a the character of the business and hinder bit, and the land, neglected and ex- its development. Neither does it benefit hausted, will fall even below its former the unhappy persons led into a struggle value. No better illustration can be for which they are unequal. Several found than that which is used by Mr. witnesses pointed out to the Select ComTaylor in his pamphlet. He points out mittee the strong objections to a law that the true interest of the landholding which gives countenance and currency to class, as a class, is something very the delusion that farming is a business different from the immediate pecuniary which a man may safely engage in with advantages of all the present recipients the very slenderest means, if only he be of rent. steady and industrious, and have a good knowledge. Mr. John Wilson said

"Were a railway company suddenly and arbitrarily to raise its rates, the income of some shareholders would be greatly augmented, because the alienated traffic could not simul

taneously be divided. Yet to the permanent shareholder such a course were ruin, and to the company, as a company, suicide. On the other hand, reduction of rates or judicious outlay may decrease the present dividend, while developing new traffic and assuring a prosperous future." Owners, we are told, would decline to let their lands, and would farm them themselves. This is not probable; we see every day farms coming into the owners' hands, and the owners preferring even to let them at lower rents rather than incur the risk and trouble of keeping them themselves. If this were the effect, however, we have the high authority of Adam Smith to show that it would be far from an evil. In The Wealth of

"It is very saddening to think of the multitude of such men who, by attempting to farm on such terms, have speedily lost every penny of their hard-earned little stores, and of the still greater numbers who in the same way have consigned and ill-requited toil." themselves to a lifetime of care, and privation,

The Law of Distress holds out a premium to landowners to accept as tenants persons with insufficient capital. I do not say that they generally do so, but so far as the Law of Distress influences their selection this must be its effect. It would be easy to show how injurious this is to the public welfare. The interest of the community is that the greatest possible amount of produce should be raised at the least possible cost. Authorities are united in deploring the evil of