ing upon his land in case of non-payment of rent, and I believe this could be effectually done with all due regard to the tenant's interest, and without hardship to anyone concerned. The other parts of the hon. Member's proposal are of a different nature. Regarded as independent propositions, no doubt, the limitation of Distress to one year's rent, and the proviso that the stock of a third party taken to graze should only be liable for the amount of consideration payable for the grazing would, so far as they go, be decided improvements in the law. The effect of the Amendments, however, would be to substitute these modifications of the law for the definite and comprehensive proposal that the law itself should cease to exist. A compromise, I know, possesses great attraction for many minds; but is this a case to which it is satisfactory or desirable to apply such a compromise? I cannot think so. There is a principle involved in the maintenance of this law which it will be far better to face boldly and finally. It is not easy to comprehend the position of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. At a recent meeting of the Central Farmers' Club he expressed strong opinions on this subject. He is reported as having used these words "My opinion is that the Law of Distress is wrong in principle. It allows a man to be his own avenger, which is, I consider, contrary to the spirit of our laws altogether. It also allows him to be an avenger of his wrongs in private." A little further on, he says "I contend that this law is worse in principle than the almost doomed Law of Hypothec in Scotland." The hon. Member's attitude, it is only fair to say, was the same then as it is now, and in that very speech before the Farmers' Club he announced his intention of moving the Amendment which now stands in his name. It is an Amendment objecting to the abolition of a law which he considers wrong in principle, and altogether contrary to the spirit of our laws. Can any good come of maintaining such a law as this? If it be so bad as the hon. Member thinks it, why not sweep it away at once, and have done with it? The hon. Member spoke and voted for the total abolition of Hypothec, and yet he strives to preserve this law, which, by his own contention, is worse in principle. What is the use of this timid and hesitating policy? How did it avail in the Scotch question? A very few years ago we passed an Act, greatly relaxing the severity of the law in that portion of the Kingdom. Then we had a Select Committee which summed up very ably the arguments against further change. But it was all in vain. Public opinion in Scotland went to the root of the matter. Public opinion had discerned a principle, and was resolved to carry that principle to its only logical conclusion. And this year we have had the second reading of a Bill to abolish the Law of Hypothec, supported by the Lord Advocate on the part of the Government and carried by a large majority. Why, then, this hesitation and delay? What can come of it but waste of public time and disturbance of public opinion? We should not be too eager to make changes in the law; but when the necessity for a change is . proved, and the time for it is come, our legislation should proceed on clear and definite principles, and should be, as far as possible, a settlement of the question with which we deal. If you accept my Motion this subject will be for ever set at rest; if you adopt a timid and hesitating middle course you will satisfy no one, and settle nothing. I am sorry to have been obliged to trouble the House at such length, but I cannot apologize for having done so. I could not venture, with due respect to the House, to present an incomplete case. I have no sympathy with persons who would propose to change any portion of our ancient laws without fully considering the reasons for, and carefully estimating the consequences of, their proposals. I ask the House to abolish an antiquated privilege which came into existence under social and political conditions totally different from those which now prevail amongst us-a privilege which is out of harmony with the spirit of modern institutions, and hostile to the full and free development of modern enterprize. One feature of the case I have not cared to dwell upon, though it is impossible to ignore it. The Law of Distraint is a class privilege in the strictest sense of the term. It is a privilege which has been created by the power and which is maintained for the benefit of class alone, and enjoyed by it at the expense and injury of every other class. In the long series of enactments which have shaped this law from the time of Henry VIII. to our own day, the dominent influence of the landowner is reflected. Shall we wait till the demand for the repeal of this law becomes a cry through the length and breadth of the land for the destruction of a class privilege? This should be no Party question. A few months ago, the Essex Chamber of Agriculture, as I am told, a highly Conservative body, adopted a resolution which is embodied in a Petition lately presented to this House, praying that as the Law of Distress is injurious to the best interest of the landlord, unjust to the tenant, and deceptive to the trader, it should be forthwith repealed. Public opinion is awake to its importance. Let us not permit this question to become an instrument of political agitation, or a means of severing those who ought to be united. Let us adapt our measure to the circumstances and wants of the time, and boldly and promptly, but with true prudence, efface from the Statute Book a law which is opposed to modern ideas, and unsuited to the conditions of modern industry. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice. MR. B. WILLIAMS, in seconding the Resolution, said, that no one could justify the Law of Distress on any principle of jurisprudence. It enabled the landlord at his own will to enforce the payment of a debt which he thought due to him by the tenant, to be judge in his own case, and also executioner. The Law of Distress originated at a time when the tenant was bound to his lord not only as regarded his goods but his personal liberty, and it would never have continued to this day had not the landlords of this country exercised their rights with singular forbearance. That the law was unequal, and that it sometimes produced real injustice, no one who attended our Law Courts could deny. When the law was enforced the tenant was perfectly helpless. It was true there was the remedy of replevin, but it was a cumbersome, expensive, and dilatory process, and often involved the tenant in long and useless litigation. Whatever claim the tenant might have against the landlord, if any rent was due the landlord had the right to enter and distrain. The law with regard to excessive distress had been laid down entirely in favour of the landlord. Mr. Justice Bailey had said Mr. Blenner hassett "The landlord is not bound to calculate very nicely the value of the property seized, but he between the sum he is entitled to levy for and must take care that some proportion is kept the sum he is entitled to take." And Baron Parke had ruled still more tersely "To determine whether the distress was ex cessive, you must ascertain what the goods seized would fetch at a broker's sale." The landlord, acting on that view of the law, could seize large portions of the tenant's property and confiscate them. In Wales the practice of distress was seldom resorted to, landlords preferring arbitration for a settlement of whatever differences they might have with their tenantry. The difficulties of the tenant had been increased by the Judicature Act of 1875, which enabled the landlord to reply to the tenant's action for excessive distress by allegations of breach of covenant or bad farming. Counterclaims of that kind ought to be regarded with jealousy by the Courts as the suggestions of legal ingenuity, but unfortunately they were not. A case came before him last year in the course of his professional practice, in which a distress was levied on a large farmer in the North of England, who had a valuable stock on his farm, and the property was sold in a most wasteful manner and for most inadequate prices. The tenant, acting on advice, brought an action for excessive distress, and the landlord brought a counter-claim for bad farming and breaches of covenant. The case occupied some days, and the Judge was not able to complete it because he had to go elsewhere, and at the last moment the tenant was obliged to accept £400 by way of compensation, each party to pay his own costs. The £400 was not more than enough to pay the lawyer's bill. The result was that the tenant was ruined by the wasteful sale. In cases where land in Ireland had fallen into the hands of speculators, the Law of Distress had been frequently exercised with great severity. Although he fully admitted the evil that would result to the tenant if he were allowed to enter into possession of a farm unless he had sufficient capital to cultivate it, he contended that if landlords would condescend to come down from the high eminence of privilege they occupied, and give up the right of distress, abandoned yearly tenancies, and granted 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," Blennerhassett,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." 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 the landlords of England, that they very 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 It taken on a farm to graze should only be 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. 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 oxempt 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. As the hon. Member for pensive process, and he thought it ought South Norfolk had remarked, this to be both quick and cheap; quick if he question of distress and its effects was was dealing with a fraudulent tenant, new to English farmers; but farmers in and also cheap, or the remedy would be Scotland had long ago made up their worse than the disease. Moreover, he minds about the Law of Hypothec, would not allow any distress to be made which was the corresponding law in except by a bailiff or respectable officer Scotland, and the same in principle. He of some Court, and not by a trumpery would state, as briefly as possible, the blackguard acting under the instructions objections to the law, which were much of a pettifogging lawyer. With respect wider and deeper than it at first sight to agricultural leases, if the tenant be- appeared. The land of England was a came insolvent during the time he occu- monopoly, in these respects at leastpied the farm and was made a bankrupt, that the quantity to be leased was in the if the trustee could not carry on the hands of very few, and that, however farm, the landlord could enter imme- great the demand, the quantity could diately on the farm and could also seize not be increased. The agricultural all the growing crops. Cases of that population naturally increased, and, in kind had recently occurred; and a land- these circumstances, competition was lord had bagged not only the whole of maintained at a maximum, and tenants' his rent, but something like £800 worth profits at a minimum. But as if the of hay and turnips that were on 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 com petitors for farms, men who had not sufficient capital for the farm. was the argument put forward by landlords and land agents in defence of 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 That improve this state of matters; but no modification of it, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, would be of any avail. The restriction to one year's rent would simply make the land agent more stringent with the tenant; and he, therefore, strongly supported the Motion for the total abolition of the law, giving the landlord reasonable powers of re-entry when the tenant had become insolvent and unable to discharge his obligations. 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 year's rent would not meet this, the principal ground of the farmers' objection to the law. The injustice of the law to creditors and others dealing with the tenant was very obvious. The landlord who risked only his interest and not his capital was paid in full, when other creditors who risked both capital and interest had to take a dividend, or perhaps even get nothing. The landlord, in his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) opinion, had 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. Landfords 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, was a popular delusion to suppose that MR. RODWELL contended that it 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 landlord seized sheep worth £300 A recent case in Kent, where or £400, belonging to a third person, in distress for rent of several years, was clearly exceptional. case had caused showed that the law The outcry that 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 |