The Lord Chancellorsaid, he rose, according to the notice which he had given last night, to introduce a Bill for the purpose of regulating what was called the Landlord's right of Hypothec in Scotland; or, in other words, the landlord's right over the produce of the tenant's land, after it legally quits the possession of the tenant. The Bill had been made necessary by a judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland, which at his suggestion their Lordships affirmed. That judgment was founded upon a Scotch law, which had become almost obsolete. The law of Scotland, in the particular referred to, differed widely from the law of England. Their Lordships were aware that in England, if the tenant owed his landlord rent, and took away his. produce clandestinely, or for the purpose of concealing it, the landlord had a right to follow the produce. But if the tenant owing an arrear of rent took his corn to the open market, and made a bonâ fide sale, the property was validly transferred to the purchaser, and the landlord had no claim whatever to it, however large might be the arrear of rent due from the tenant. In Scotland, however, a different law prevailed. According to the law of that country, if a tenant owing rent sold his corn in market overt, not in bulk, but by sample, and the corn was delivered to the bonâ fide purchaser, the landlord was nevertheless at. liberty to follow it, and take possession, or to demand from the purchaser, that he should repeat the price, as it was called, or in other words, pay 1118 the value of the purchase to the landlord. This certainly appeared to be a most extraordinary, unjust and extravagant right which existed in the landlord under the law of Scotland. If such law existed in this country, no man could purchase in Mark-lane, where all corn was sold by sample (the building not being capable of holding the quantity sold in any one day), without first inquiring into the state of the accounts between landlords and their tenants. It would not be sufficient to ask the tenant whether he had paid his rent to his landlord; for, wishing to sell his corn, he might answer untruly; so that the purchaser, before he could conclude the bargain with any degree of security to himself, would have to proceed to Yorkshire or to Norfolk, or wherever the landlord resided, to inquire from him whether his tenant, who offered corn for sale, owed an arrear of rent or not. Until he had been satisfied on that point, the corn-dealer could not venture to purchase. The existence of such a law in this country would lead to nothing less than to shut up Mark-lane and the Corn Exchange, and the Metropolis would shortly be in want of corn. Next to the consumers, it was quite clear that the tenants and landlords would be the greatest losers by such a state of things. Considering the natural and almost necessary consequences of such a law in England, their Lordships might ask, how it was possible that such things could go on in a great commercial and agricultural community like Scotland. He felt, with the law in such an anomalous state, great difficulty himself on this subject, and the gentlemen at the Bar knowing more of the law than of the practice of the corn-markets, were not able to satisfy him on this point. He had, therefore, communicated with some persons in Scotland, whom he thought likely to afford him information, and the result of his inquiries had been, that though the law was undoubtedly as he had stated it to be in Scotland, it was not generally known to be the law; and no one had stirred in it until the case of "Dunlop v. the Earl of Dalhousie," to which he had already referred, was brought before the Court of Session. The decision in that case, though strictly in consonance with the law, had excited the greatest alarm amongst all ranks of people concerned in the buying and selling of corn, and to remove that alarm, and remedy the evils which such a state of the law 1119 must lead to, when it came to be generally acted upon, he thought it necessary to introduce this Bill. So many applications had been made to him on the subject, that he found it impossible to resist them, and had consented to bring in this Bill to render the law of Scotland, in this particular, conformable to the practice which had long prevailed there. By the Bill he merely proposed to protect the rights of purchasers of corn in Scotland as they were protected elsewhere, and at the same time to preserve the public rights. The Bill certainly went to change the principle of the law, and however clear it might be that a principle of law was wrong, as he thought their Lordships should not proceed to change it without great caution, he did not intend to press the second reading of the Bill until an opportunity had been allowed of considering its provisions. The mere intimation that such a bill was about to be brought in, would prevent any serious inconvenience arising from a short delay. The rights of the landlords of Scotland were certainly affected by this Bill, and it would be, therefore, worthy of their Lordships' consideration. He also wished to attract the attention of the agriculturists of Scotland to the subject, and should therefore merely move that the Bill be read a first time and printed, in order that it might be circulated, and he over until after the approaching recess.
§ Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.