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 Hypothee (Scotland, Act of 1867; it had worked remarkably well during the last 12 years, and there was no reason why it should not be equally good for England. In these times of depression the capital of the tenants had been so reduced, that many of them could not stock their land, and the only way in which the landlord could get his rent was by enabling the tenant to take to graze on his farm the stock of other people. Machinery, such as thrashing-machines and steam-ploughs, which was often let out, was liable to be seized if it happened to be on the tenant's land, whereas it really ought to be exempted. On the same principle that lodgers' goods were exempt from seizure by the landlord of a house, so he would exempt all the cattle and agricultural machinery belonging to a third party which might be found upon a farm. Thon, with regard to the right of reentry, if the landlord could not get his rent ho ought to have his land, and to have it at once. He believed it often took a landlord months to eject a yearly tenant and obtain possession of his land. It was a roundabout, tedious, and exponsive 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 pottifogging lawyor. With respect to agricultural leases, if the tenant becamo 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 liko £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 ho was now precluded from for mally moving as Amendments. Mr. Clare Read the hon. Member for South Norfolk 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. submit to more onerous conditions in the enabled them to do both. As for imThe Law of Distress lease. 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. 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 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 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. 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 land. He had mentioned the matter to circumstances, was not enough, it was the Attorney General, who had promised still further intensified by the Law of to take it into consideration when the Distress, which enabled landlords to Bankruptcy Bill came under discussion. accept as tenants, or, at least, as comIn conclusion, he hoped the House would petitors for farms, men who had not favourably consider his suggestions, sufficient capital for the farm. That which he was now precluded from for- was the argument put forward by landmally moving as Amendments. lords and land agents in defence of the Mr. Clare Read 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 tho 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. 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, 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 worked, was, indeed, more for the benefit of the tenant than of the landlord, although its primary object was the protection of the landlord; and he altogether denied that it was either unjust or unequal; but a limitation from six to two years was desirable. Besides, there was the great advantage to the tenant-class from the operation of the existing law, that young men were often enabled in consequence of it to enter upon a business in which they could exercise their talents and industry; whereas, if it were repealed, the facilities for taking a farm which now existed would be denied them. The relations, he might add, between landlord and tenant were on a totally different footing from a creditor and debtor under ordinary circumstances, for unless the landlord took his rent in advance, the landlord could only get it at certain times, periodically; but a creditor could refuse to supply a man with goods, while the landlord was in a very different position. There was no injustice as regarded third parties, for every person who trusted a farmer knew what the landlord's rights were. Therefore, he contended, exceptional legislation was justified by the inherent difference in their situation. But if the Law of Distraint were to be abolished with regard to agricultural holdings, he was at a loss to see why it should not be done away with in its application to house property in towns, a proposition no one was bold enough to make. Entertaining these views, he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry. MR. COGAN said, he hoped this question would be settled as speedily as possible. It would be better for both landlords and tenants that all angry discussions should be evaded, and that the question should be promptly settled on grounds of fairness and justice. It was with this feeling, and believing that it would be both for the interests of the landlords as well as the tenants of the country that an agreement should be arrived at, that he cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend. In the exhaustive speech which the House had listened to from him, he had shown from history that the present law was antiquated in its character, and only fitted for times now past, and that its present operation was unjust and by no means impartial. In his (Mr. Cogan's) opinion, Mr. Rodwell the power of distraint was hard upon the tenants, and, although not extensively put in force, yet its latent power, which might at any time be used, was hurtful and injurious in many ways. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last say that the present law was neither unjust nor harsh. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have heard an instance of injustice, quoted in the House tonight, or he would not have given that opinion. An instance had been given, in which a landlord allowed his tenant to go five years without payment of rent, and when a third party placed his sheep upon the tenant's farm the landlord seized them and recouped himself the five years' rent. That was a case of injustice and hardship in which an innocent third party had to suffer, by the landlord putting the unjust power of the law of distress into force. When a case like that had been stated publicly and not contradicted, it did seem strange to hear any hon. Member get up and assert that the law was just and impartial in its application. It was with great surprise that he heard the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who had acknowledged in public speeches that this law was bad in principle, now stating that he could not agree to the abolition of the law. How would the hon. Gentleman justify that course? He hoped that he would at some future time be able to state, with increased vigour and increased courage, his opposition to the present practice, and his actions would come up to his convictions. He believed that this law was unjust, and, therefore, should be abolished; that it was injurious to the tenants; and that it was hurtful and of no use to the landlords. Not many, it was true, had recourse to it, but still it existed and could be used. In Ireland the law, by which an owner could recover either his rent or his land, was simple enough. Upon one year's rent being due a landlord had simply to bring an action of ejectment against the tenant, and he could very soon obtain possession of his land. He contended that that was quite sufficient, and that no more was required to meet the case. He hoped the House would act promptly in the matter, and thus do an act of simple justice in a graceful way, instead of delaying and having to concede it |