HC Deb 05 May 1869 vol 196 cc244-59

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CARNEGIE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been generally understood that the greater portion of that day would be given up to the discussion of this subject, but the proceedings which had just terminated had necessarily occupied so much time that he was compelled to deal with the measure more briefly than he otherwise would have done. The noble Lord the Member for Haddington-shire (Lord Elcho) had put on the Paper a Notice to move that, pending the con- sideration of the whole? subject of hypothec by the Committee of the other House, it was not expedient to proceed with this Bill. Now he (Mr. Carnegie); had introduced this Bill at the earliest possible moment; he set it down for second reading at such a date as would not interfere with the county meetings or during the sittings of the General Assembly. The Lords' Committee was not appointed until after he (Mr. Carnegie) had given notice of his Bill; and therefore he did not think that he should be doing his duly to those whom he represented if he were, because of proceedings "else-where," with which, he had nothing to do, to consent to the postponement of a question of so much importance. It seemed to him that probably the best course which could be taken would be to pass the measure through that House, send it to the other House, where their Lordships could make Amendments in accordance with the Report of their Committee. There was another reason why he considered it unnecessary to postpone the Bill—that was the Royal Commission which sat upon it took ample evidence, having examined no less than 102 witnesses; and it must also be remembered that, these witnesses had the advantage of being examined by gentlemen who held various opinions of the propriety and expediency of amending this law, and not by gentlemen who merely represented one part of the public It was quite impossible that he should go at length into details—he referred hon. Gentlemen who were anxious to understand what the law was, and in what respects it differed from the Law of Debtors, to the Report of the Royal Commission. Subsequent to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1867 the Government introduced a Bill which was subsequently carried. That Bill made the minimum possibly alteration in the law. What it did was to abolish the right of following crops sold to bonâ fide purchasers, to require; that sequestrations should be registered, and to shorten slightly the time during which hypothec could be enforced. Practically this was as little as could have been done; because this right of following the crops was very seldom enforced, and, in fact, was very nearly a dead letter; and practically it abandoned the whole system on which the laws formerly stood—because the theory of the Law of Hypothec was that the fruits of the ground were positively pledged for the payment of the rent. So that so far as that went the produce was not the property of the tenant but of the landlord; and therefore the right of following the crop was a legitimate conclusion from that theory. If the rule was that the crop was the property of the landlord, of course to sell it without his consent would simply amount to robbery; but if they laid down the principle that the crop was the property of the tenant, it was liable to division between the tenant and his creditors. Now a letter appeared in The Times the other day of a rather remarkable character. The writer says— The abolitionists seek to place the landlord in the position of a creditor towards his tenant. But he is not a creditor. This is the key of the whole subject. If he were a creditor their argument is sound. But to let land is not equivalent to the lending of capital. And then he proceeded to write nearly a column and a-half of what he could not help terming simply special pleading. He (Mr. Carnegie) contended that the landlord was a creditor, and nothing but a creditor, and if the law allowed him to be anything more, he said that the law was unfair and unjust. And that the landlord holds the position of a creditor he could show on a higher authority than that of the author of the letter—namely, Ross, On the Law of Scotland, in which he said the Romans created debts on real property of hypothec. Now the definitions of hypothec was a right imposed upon the property of another, and the latter held the position of a creditor. It was the hypothec which burdened the land, and he maintained that the landlord was the creditor of the tenant. He would leave it to the noble Lord and to the writer of that letter, to upset, if they could, the dictum of one of the highest legal authorities in Scot- land; and they must upset his authority before they could make out their case. The real analogy, it appeared to him, was that of the merchant and the seller of the raw material. The merchant who sold cotton and flax, sold that which was not available for general use until it was manufactured; but in order to manufacture it, it must go through certain processes which require machinery. Now, neither the seller of the raw material, nor the manufacturer, nor the maker, or seller of the machinery have any rights for hypothec. He contended that the landlord was very much in the position of the seller of the raw material, or the makers of the machinery, or the manure merchant. It was said that the laud was entrusted to the tenant as a trust. That might he true as regarded the land where there was a good tenant; but it was precisely the reverse where there was a bad one. In that case the Law of Hypothec did not apply because a tenant might deteriorate the land without in the least degree bringing himself under the operation of the law. If the landlord had no remedy against the properly of the tenant, except The right of hypothec, there might be some reason for it; but, supposing there were not sufficient crops on the land to satisfy the hypothec, the land-lord could still come in and rank as creditor in respect to any other property which the tenant might possess. In common justice, the man who owes money ought to pay it; and if he cannot do so, his property should be liable to equal division among his creditors, and no one should have a preference more than another. It had been represented that, the Law of Hypothec was a relicoff feudalism. It was not a relic of feudalism, but a relic of something a great deal worse—namely, of serfdom. Under the Roman law, in which it originated, the cultivators of the soil were serfs, and they cultivated the soil for the landlords, the produce belonging to the landlords: and for them to apply the produce to their own use would of course amount to complete and absolute robbery. As. however, serfdom became abolished, the payment of rent was taken in kind, and then, at any rate, a portion of the crop was the absolute property of the land-lord, and, therefore, his claim over that property could be maintained as easily as that of any other owner. But as it was at present, the process is entirely altered. In the former state of agriculture the matter was of little importance, because the tenant lived principally on the produce of his farm, and had scarcely any other creditor than his landlord. Therefore, the question whether the landlord had or had not a preferential claim affected very few people, and was not raised; but at the present time capital requires to be applied to the land. The tenant must have dealings with the manure merchant, and he must employ the manufacturer of ma- chinery, and many other people, and pay to them a large sum annually, which is necessary for the cultivation of his farm; and he believed that the sum thus paid is frequently in excess of the sum paid for rent. It was perfectly impossible that the rents which were colleted in modern times should be paid without a certain outlay being made. There was evidently a complete change in the state of things from former times; and the question was whether, the state of things being so changed, the state of the law should remain unaltered? He would first consider how the present state of the law affected the landlords, the tenants, the merchants, and the public. To put before the House the landlords' case, he would refer to the statement which was made two years ago by Lord Selkirk, who was directly opposed to any change. Lord Selkirk said it was not from any idea that it would affect the pecuniary interests of the landlords that he opposed the Bill, because it affected them very remotely; but it was in the interest of the tenant, and especially of the smaller tenants, that he opposed it. That was a question which he (Mr. Carnegie) would touch on hereafter. Again, Mr. Dickson who is not in favour of the abolition of the law, and whose words, therefore, would probably be listened to with respect on both sides, says— What would be the effect of the total abolition of the law? In the first place, then, it must considerably reduce the rents; but probably after twenty years it would raise the rents, because it would necessarily bring about an application of capital to the cultivation of land, and that capital certainly will not be forthcoming until it is safe. At present the landlords would frequently take men without capital at high rents in preference to men with capital at lower rents. But the bankrupt tenant was no good to the landlord, and he very seldom did anything for himself. He exhausted the soil, and in the end he generally dragged his friends into his own ruin. It had been frequently said that, under the operation of this law. the landlord was often able to give indulgence to his tenants. But if this Bill passed, the landlord would not be prevented in the least from doing so; only instead of giving indulgence at other people's risk he would do it at his own. By this Bill he proposed to recognize all existing contracts, and, of course, the landlord would in future be permitted to guard himself' by special contracts, and could demand security from the tenant or even forehand rent. One argument used against the abolition of the law was that, as the landlord in Scotland had to pay the ministers' stipends, school salaries, and other charges, it was right he should have security for his rent. But these charges were charges on the land, not on the crop, and the landlord would have to pay them whether he let his land or not. Moreover, he could make his own bargain with his tenant in this respect. It had been said that if this Bill were to pass the landlords would take a great deal of the land into their own hands. If they did, he did not think the country would be any the worse for it—he thought it rather a thing to be encouraged, for it would induce the landlords to live upon their own estates, and to take an interest in country pursuits. He would now take the law as it related to the tenants. A great distinction had been drawn between the large and small tenants; but the only distinction he (Mr. Carnegie) could see was between the tenant who had sufficient capital to farm his land and the tenant who had not. But the tenant of a small farm might be the man who had sufficient capital, while the tenant of a large one might be a man with insufficient capital. The prudent landlord was the man who got a fair rent for his farm; and in such a case as that the law was practically inoperative, and it was practically inoperative so far as the good tenant is concerned. Now, with regard to the small tenant, he believed that every argument that he had applied to the large tenant applied also to him. It was very remarkable that the opponents of this Bill all said they were acting in favour of the small tenant. The small tenants did not seem to see it. At the time of the General Election—though some of the candidates came out very strong on this point—the small tenants did not appear to have any objection to the abolition of the law. On the contrary, the small tenants were, as a class, in favour of this Bill. As to the question of how the law affected merchants, he did not think it necessary to go into that question further than to say that if a merchant, in the case of a bankrupt customer, only received a dividend of something like 3s. 6d. in the £1, they were not likely to be very well satisfied with the present state of the law. He had now endeavoured to show that the present law did no good either to the landlord or the tenant. It did no good to the prudent landlord, while it did mischief to the imprudent one; that it was injurious to the tenant, and, therefore, ought to be abolished, because anything which prevented the application of capital to the land must be injurious to the community. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the Law of Hypothec is in the interest of the community, he willingly admitted that it would be a good law. At present he had confined himself to the Law of Hypothec connected with agricultural subjects, but this Bill of his also included urban hypothec. He had included it in this Bill, because otherwise it would have been difficult to deal with the question in Committee without a special Instruction; and it would be for the Committee to decide whether they would deal with urban hypothec or not. For his own part, he must express his opinion that urban hypothec was an unfair tax, for he could not see why a claim for lodgings should have a preferential money claim over claims for food or clothing. The writer in The Times, to whom he had before referred, said—" The Law of Hypothec, as a maxim of jurisprudence, is absolutely unassailable." It seemed to him strange that a maxim that was "absolutely unassailable" should never have obtained currency in England, for the Law of Distress has never included the principle of hypothecation or pledging the crop. He said, on the contrary, that as a maxim of modern political jurisprudence it was absolutely untenable. It was useless to conceal that the feeling between landlord and tenant in Scotland was not what it ought to be, or what their best friends would wish. He believed the reason to be that whilst the system of modern agriculture had materially modified the moral position of landlord and tenant with regard to one another, the laws which regulate that relation had remained unchanged. The tenant was not now, and ought not to be considered as. the dependent on the landlord. He was equally a contracting party in the bargain for their mutual advantage. The tenant derived no more benefit from the landlord than the landlord derived from the tenant; and he called upon this House to remove from the tenantry of Scotland the badge of serfdom.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Carnegie.)

LORD ELCHO

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice,—That pending the consideration—by a Committee of the House of Lords—of the whole question of the Law of Hypothec, as existing both in Scotland and other countries, it is expedient to delay the further consideration of this Bill, he did not propose to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Carnegie) in his inquiry as to whether a certain writer in The Times did or did not take a correct view of this question, nor was he going to enter upon any of the collateral issues he had raised. What he wished to point out was that that if any stranger had come into the House and had not known the subject of the present discussion, he would have supposed that his hon. Friend was speaking of a country where the tenantry were oppressed and for the most part bankrupt, and where, under the operation of a most unjust, oppressive, and impolitic; law, agriculture was in a most depressed and deplorable condition. Now, so far from that being the case, he had always been proud to represent men who were at the head of agriculture in the world—than whom there were none more prosperous, and who Live in a country where agriculture was in a more satisfactory condition than in any other country in the world. His hon. Friend had spoken of the existence in Scotland of a bad feeling between landlord and tenant—a feeling created by the Law of Hypothec. Now while he admitted that there might exist some bad feeling between the two classes in consequence of the excessive preservation of game, for which the landlord class might be to blame, he denied altogether that any blame attached to the landlords by reason of the Law of Hypothec. It was a law that had existed in the country for any length of time, since the days of the Romans, in point of fact—and what did his hon. Friend propose? A modification of the law? Nothing of the kind. He proposed, in order to bring back those kindly feelings, to take away from the landlord the preferential right which he, from time out of mind, had had over the crops of his tenants, and to leave him exactly in the same position with any other creditor. He (Lord Elcho) wanted the House not to give an opinion in favour of the measure, but to pass his Resolution, which he maintained embodied the common sense of the question as it stood at present. The broad issue now before the House was this—the preferential right of the landlord, called the Law of Hypothec, was equivalent to the Law of Distress in England and Ireland; and the Hill of the hon. Gentleman—and he hoped the English and Irish Members would mark it—did not propose to modify this law, but to sweep it away, wholly and entirely, both as regards land and houses in towns. Now, consider the time at which his hon. Friend proposed this sweeping and revolutionary measure. What is the position of the question? In 1865 a Commission was appointed to consider this question, and a majority of the Commission—9 out of 13—proposed certain modifications to the law. The Solicitor General dissented, and two tenant-farmers, members of the Commission, signed a separate Report of their own. When Lord Derby's Government was in Office, the recommendations of the Commission were in the main adopted, and a Bill was passed. Now, in reference to this Bill, he had himself that afternoon presented two Petitions signed by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh on behalf of himself and his brother magistrates, praying that no fresh legislation on this subject may be attempted until the Bill already passed had been fairly tested. Before the hon. Gentleman had any right to ask that House to sweep away the existing law, he should prove that under its operation abuses had arisen; and he maintained that neither he now, nor the witnesses who were examined before the Commission had proved any such thing. Another reason why they should not pass this Bill was that, at the present time, a Committee of the other House was sitting to consider the whole question of the relations between landlord and tenant, not in these islands alone, but in all European countries: and therefore the common-sense view was not to attempt further legislation till after the Act of 1867 had been tried, and until after they had seen. the Report of that Committee. 'What were the points mainly urged in favour of this Bill? It was said that the existing law artificially raised the price of land, made landlords careless in the selection of tenants, and rendered it difficult for a tenant who had a crop liable to be seized to get accommodation from bankers, and that the law was unjust to creditors other than the landlord. Now last night he was reading the debate upon this Bill of his hon. Friend, when it was brought in and rejected in 1867, and in that debate he found a speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mir. M'Lagan), who represented, in a great measure, the enlightened opinion of a large portion of the farmers and tenantry of Scotland, and who was one of the Commissioners, and what did he say? With reference to the Law of Hypothec raising rents, he utterly denied that it had any appreciable effect in that direction, It was due, he said, to other circumstances. Then, with regard to the greediness of landlords, who, anxious to get tenants, did not make proper inquiries, and so got their farms occupied by bankrupt fawners, or farmers on the verge of bankruptcy——

MR. CARNEGIE

said he did not say so, nor anything to that effect.

LORD ELCHO

Perhaps not in those very words, but certainly his impression from hearing the speech was as he had stated. With regard to the question—the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) said— It is said, moreover, that on account of this law landlords and factors are careless in the selection of their tenants, that men of capital and skill are passed over, and mere adventurers chosen if they offer the highest rent. It may be that some greedy and unwise managers of estates may take the highest offerer for a farm whatever may be his qualifications. But we have it distinctly stated in evidence that such are merely exceptions, and that both proprietors and factors are most particular in making inquiries about the character and capital of the men who offer for farms, and that in general they select the best men even though they may not be the highest offerers.—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 202.] The hon. Member for Linlithgowshire said moreover— We are told again that the Law of Hypothec prevents farmers getting advances from bankers, between whom and the farmers banking facilities would be very much increased if this law were abolished. The evidence laid before the Commission is at direct variance with this statement: for almost every banker who gave evidence stated that the abolition of the law would make no difference to them in giving credit to farmers. And in addition to this direct evidence we have the strong indirect evidence of experience, from which we learn that nothing has tended mere to the advancement of agriculture in Scotland for the last fifty years than the cash credit system of our Scotch banks, by which farmers were enabled, from the facilities afforded them, of borrowing money from the banks for the improving and carrying on of their farms."—[Ibid.] And he said— We are further told that the law operates injuriously on those merchants who are in the habit of dealing with tenants. But the evidence given before the Commission by merchants favourable to the abolition of the Law of Hypothec was to the contrary effect. It appeared from their statements that during the succession of bad seasons from 1861, the losses their firms had suffered from their dealings with tenants were not greater than from one-third to a little over 1 per cent. Mr. Copeland, of Aberdeen, stated his loss from these transactions in 1863, at seven-eighths per cent. and in 1864, at one-third; and that from dealings with other classes in the same years, at one-half and one-fifth respectively."—[Ibid., 202–3.] Mr. Hopekirk. a com merchant, who was examined before the Commission, gave evidence, in the course of which he stated that, in mercantile sequestrations, it was frequently found that the bankrupt had made a bond in favour of one particular creditor, to the exclusion of the rest—those rest have known nothing of the existence of the bond until the bankruptcy. By this means the creditors of the bankrupt merchant were placed, so far as the prospect of payment was concerned, in the same position with the creditors of the bankrupt, farmer—with this difference, that in the one case the existence of the preferential creditor was secret, and in the other case it was perfectly clear and open. Moreover, Mr. Hopekirk was favourable to the granting a preferential claim to the landlord, for the reason that he ties up his money in land for a term of years at a very low rate of interest—not more than 3 per cent, taking the taxes into consideration—while the trader, by turning over his capital rapidly, say six times in the course of the year at 3½ per cent, made a profit of more than 20 per cent upon his capital in the course of twelve months. It must be remembered too, that, though the landlord lost his rent, the local burdens remained: so that the landlord would frequently, if this law was repealed, be in a position similar to that of the Irish landlords in the famine time, as he once heard it described in this House by an hon. Member—they would have to spend half their rents in paying the mortgages on their lands, and to live on the other half which they would never get. Now, what was the state of agri- culture in Scotland at that moment? Unquestionably, it was a credit to the enterprize of the farmers. He ventured to say, in the presence of an authority so great as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. A. Pell), that it was equal to anything that could be found in any part of England. This being the state of things under the existing law, the hon. Member (Mr. Carnegie) sought entirely to abrogate that law. But he (Lord Elcho) hoped the House would not assist him in his intention. He ventured to think that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's measure would be that, in the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), we should have fore-rents instead of back-rents, collateral security required by the landlords from the tenants, and, further, shortened leases. He hoped that when they had granted longer leases to the tenants in Ireland there would be in that country as prosperous and contented a tenantry, and as fine a (lass of hinds, or labourers in husbandry, as they have at the present moment in Scotland. The Royal Commission pointed out that the effect of the abolition of this law would be to drive small tenants out of the market. Some, however, hold a different view, and said that there would be a greater demand for small farms; but, in his (Lord Elcho's) opinion, the demand would come from above and not below—that was to say. the demand would be amongst the wealthier farmers, and not amongst the small ones; and if they drove these small tenants out of the market, they would sweep away a large class which was an honour to Scotland. The small tenant was generally a man who had risen from being a labourer to be an overseer or bailiff, and who then took land for himself. One gentleman who gave evidence before the Commissioner said— I now pay a rent of £3,000 or £4,000 a year in Scotland, and I began as a farm-labourer; and it is through this security, and through the credit which I have had given me, that I have been enabled to rise. Now, he (Lord Elcho) could substantiate the Report of the Royal Commission that the abolition of the law would act injuriously upon the small tenants by quoting figures. There were in eight counties in Scotland 2,543 farms, averaging in rent from £100 to £200; 1.108 from.£200 to £300; 648 between £300 and £ 100; 377 between £400 and £500; 413 between £500 and £700; 261 between £700 and £1,000; while there were only 138 above £1,000. Now, where this change would tell was in the Lothians. It was not in the rich, fertile, and arable land—in the land there would be plenty of competition amongst men of capital for these farms—for, mark this, the tenantry could not pi-event competition; they could not establish, as it were, trades' unions amongst themselves. Nearly always men who had mads money in trade and commerce wished to settle on the land, instead of living in towns all their lives; and they would not look so much to profit as to their residence on the land—therefore, he said, there would always be plenty of competition for these first-class lands—it was in the Border districts, where there were small farms, and where, from geographical causes, large farms could not be got together, that the effect, of the abolition of this law would be most felt. The small farmers there would most suffer, not the larger proprietors. Now, in one district in Scotland—Aberdeenshire—there were, out of a total of 711 tenants, 251 whose rents were between £5 and £20; 217 between £20 and £50; 123 between £50 and £100; 81 between £200 and £500; and only one above £500. This was only one instance of many. It was said by some who call themselves Liberals that this agitation was got up by the large farmers. Well, they were not to be blamed for that. If men believed the law to be unjust, they were perfectly justified in endeavouring to obtain an alteration of it. He wished, however, to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife shire (Sir Robert Anstruther). who, two years ago, said he would support the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, because, after examining the question, he was convinced it was not one between the landlord and the tenant, but was an agitation on the part of the large fanners as against, the small farmers. He might quote a passage to the same effect from a speech by Lord Dalhousie; and in a speech to his tenantry the Duke of Argyll had said the same thing, quoting the evidence of Mr. Henderson, once a tenant of the noble Duke, and now a tenant under his (Lord Elcho's) family. Mr. Henderson said that the abolition of the law would have a tendency to limit the former class to men of more capital; and the Duke of Argyll added that he was convinced the change was proposed not in the interests of the tenantry as a whole, but in the interests of a particular section of those who were large capitalists. Now in this matter it was proposed to take away the right of hypothec as regards the land and urban subjects. But the Law of Hypothec was not confined to land and houses—it extended to money transactions—it extended to mortgages, and it extended to marine matters. A cargo of sugar transmitted from abroad to this country was not the property of the man to whom it was consigned until the freight had been discharged, and the shipowner had a complete hold of it until the debt was discharged. Further, he was told that nine-tenths of the sugar that came to this country was the property of the agent before it was put on board, and he had a right of hypothec prior to the person to whom it was con- signed. The law in any of these cases furnished a strong argument against the measure. He would now quote an authority against the abolition of this law, which he had kept until the last, because it was one to which this House, especially Members on the other side, would feel bound to submit—the present Lord Advocate. Now, there was no man in this House for whom he had a greater personal regard and respect than the learned Lord Advocate. Twelve years ago he had the honour of being associated with him in Office, and a friendship was then commenced which, he trusted, would last for the remainder of their lives. Well, his hon. and learned Friend said in the debate on his hon. Friend's Bill two years ago— I believe that the Law of Hypothec, as it at present stands, is a great deal too stringent, and I desire to see it amended: but there is a great deal of difference between modifying a law and abolishing it altogether. I am not prepared to take that step. This is not a theoretical, it is a practical question. The landlord being only a party to a contract can, even if the law were changed, always make his own terms, and preserve to himself his own remedy. As to preference claims, they are not peculiar to the Law of Hypothec. Instances of their existence in the laws respecting trade, commerce, and manufactures are numerous. There are eases of lien and rights of redemption, which really amount to just as much by giving a preference to one creditor over another as the Law of Hypothec in Scotland is as respects the landlord. The principle of the law is this—That where the risk is more than commensurate with the interest, then the law gives an unusual facility to recover the subject-matter of the interest. That is the principle of the Law of Lien, and it goes through a variety of cases, and it reasonably applies to that of the landlord, who has a lien, and whose means of subsistence for the year depends upon his receiving the rents of the year. But this is a practical matter. The landlord cannot be compelled to let his land. He may choose his tenant—he has ample means to protect his interests—he may, if this law be abolished, exact payment of rent in advance, or require security, and this implies that tinder the then new state of things the general creditor gains no more than at present. Small tenants will not be able to pay rent in advance, nor give security, and this, reducing the demand for farms, would no doubt cause farms to be let at something less than at present. Landlords would get rather less rent than before, and merchants and other creditors of farmers would be as they were before. The Bill, if it becomes law, will create inconvenience, without any benefit, and there is no necessity for it."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 206–7.] He had not offered opinions of his own upon the general merits of the question, but he had culled from the speeches of others opinions which coincided more or less with his own, and which, he believed, were sound, quoting, by preference, the views of eminent Liberals who held official positions. The House ought to be careful not to indulge in anything like exceptional legislation. He was surprised to hear it stated broadly that the Bill applied the same rule to urban property that it did to landed property; and he was surprised that, for the sake of catching a stray vote or two, for the sake of getting the vote of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mr. Graham—["Hear, hear"]—he was in order in mentioning the name for the sake of distinction—and urban representatives, they should be invited to vote for the second reading of the Bill and make any alteration in it in Committee. The hon. Member, Mr. Graham, was at first in favour of the measure, but when he found it dealt with urban property he changed his opinion, and said he must oppose the second reading, un-less Amendments, with regard to urban property, were accepted in Committee. The Royal Commission took a wider view, and said that, if landed property were dealt with in this way, the principle must be applied to other property, including goods for sale—which were something like a crop, were they not?—for they were the produce of industry. If the House dealt with this question at all, let it deal with it in a broad, just, and fair, and not in an exceptional manner. He hoped the House would protect the rights of property, whether of the landlord, the shopowner, or the shopkeeper. He was opposed to exceptional legislation, and the existing law, judged by results in Scotland, was proved to be, on the whole, expedient, and, on the whole, he believed it to be just.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "pending the consideration (by a Committee of the House of Lords) of the whole question of the Law of Hypothec as existing both in Scotland and other countries, it is expedient to delay the further consideration of this Bill,"—(Lord Elcho,) instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GRAHAM

said, that not wishing to talk the House out, he would confine ' himself to saying that he was prepared to maintain what he before expressed in that House, that he believed there was an entire difference in the action of the Law of Hypothec as between the landlord of the agricultural produce and the right of the landlord to hold lien over household property, whether in city or in country. This was a matter of great importance to the interests of dwellers in houses.

MR. CAMERON

said, he believed that the complaints against the operation of the Law of Hypothec arose from what it was before 1866 rather than from what it had been since, and urged that there was a difference between a farmer giving nineteen years' credit and a merchant giving fourteen days' credit. This was not a landlord's question but a farmer's question and a poor man's question; and he knew men who had risen from a humble position to affluence mainly through the help they derived from the existing law.

And it being now a Quarter before Six o'clock,

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.