SECOND READING.

HC Deb 10 March 1875 vol 222 cc1533-92

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. VANS AGNEW

In asking the House to read a second time a Bill to abolish the landlords' right of hypothec, except as regards dwelling-houses, in Scotland, I fear that I must trespass on its patience for a short time, and I must ask for its indulgence while I deal with a subject which is of a dry and some- what technical nature. It is much to be regretted that, on former occasions, this has been treated rather as a party question than as what it truly is—one of political economy, and it is the latter sense that I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider it. I am aware that there is authority entitled to the utmost respect in favour of the maintenance of the law of hypothec, for a Royal Commission which was appointed in 1864 reported in the following year in favour of retaining the principles of the law, but recommended the removal of some of its most objectionable provisions, and Parliament in 1867 passed an Act carrying out, with one not very important exception, all the recommendations of the Royal Commission, thus sanctioning at that time the law as it now is; and later a Select Committee of the House of Lords sat in 1869, and reported their opinion that no further change was required, and that it was premature to make one. Besides, in the last Parliament several Bills were rejected, the object of which was to abolish generally the right of hypothec. I will admit further that the strongest opinions and feelings against the law were formed and entertained before the amending Act was passed in 1867. Still, it has failed to satisfy the country at large; the privilege of hypothec is complained of as bitterly as ever, and we may believe that those who wear it know best where the shoe pinches. The Bill to which I have to direct the attention of the House consists of one clause only; to abolish the agricultural landlord's rights of hypothec. It does not effect house property; it reserves the right of landlords during the currency of existing leases, and it is proposed that it shall not come into operation till Martinmas (November 11), 1876. If we were to approach this subject from the same standpoint as the last Parliament did, or even if this were the same measure as that which was rejected by the last House of Commons, I will admit that it would be presumptuous in me, or any hon. Member to ask Parliament to reverse the decision which it then pronounced; but I hope to show the House that the circumstances and the Bill are different. During the latter part of the life of the last Parliament several single elections took place in Scotland, and they all turned on what were called the farmers' ques- tions, of which this of hypothec was the most important; and so entirely was this recognized at the late General Election, that every candidate who wooed a Scotch constituency, avowed himself willing to abolish, or at least not to oppose the abolition of the law of agricultural hypothec; and the result is that the Members who represent Scotland are practically unanimous in supporting the Bill. There may be a few exceptions; but I shall be surprised if the division does not show that by 10 to 1 Scotch Members are in favour of the second reading of this Bill. I do not mean to say that because Scotland, as far as it can constitutionally express its opinion, is all but unanimous in asking for the abolition of the agricultural landlord's right of hypothec, therefore the House ought to pass this Bill. I might almost ground my Motion on the fact that a part of the United Kingdom whose laws and conditions differ from those in the rest of the Kingdom, desires a change in a law which affects it alone, with an amount of agreement which is perfectly unprecedented; but that is hardly a constitutional doctrine, though at least an argument for bespeaking careful examination of the subject. I propose, therefore, to state the objections to the law as far as it concerns agriculture, and to show that its abolition will be advantageous to the whole agricultural interest. The objections to this law are comparatively recent, and are mainly caused by the change which has taken place of late years, within the memory of most of the Members of this House, in the relative amount of capital invested in Scotland by landlords and tenants in the cultivation of the soil. I do not mean to dwell on the very great impulse which has been given to the agriculture of Scotland of late years; but I may remind the House that it is only 50 years since bones were introduced as a fertilizing agent, little more than 30 years since guano was first imported, that practical agricultural chemistry dates no further back, and that the immense trade in artificial or chemical manures has grown up within that time. This has caused a very large increase in the capital invested in Scotland in farming, and a very large increase in the produce raised, and it will not be disputed that the extra manures have been paid for by the tenants, and that the capital required to culti- vate a farm profitably, and to pay the increased rents now given in Scotland, is much greater than it used to be. This being so, the policy of the law of hypothec was called in question. I myself have thought the objections to it well founded—as was admitted by the Royal Commission and by Parliament—and with others I was willing that the amended law of 1867 should have a fair trial, and that legislation on the subject should be gradual and tentative. It has had that trial, and it has been found wanting. It has not settled the question, and I now ask the House to read a second time a Bill which I believe will do so with benefit to every class engaged in the agriculture of Scotland. I propose to consider its effect on the farmer with capital, the landlord, and the small farmer; and in the observations I shall make, I mean the arable, not the pastoral farmer. In the first place, I will say that the principle of this law was perfectly equitable in its origin, and that its operation in times gone by has been beneficial to many tenant farmers. I am not one of those who declaim against it as unjust, or as a piece of class legislation; but I maintain that it has done its work, and that, like the leading strings of a child who can walk alone, it can only fetter and restrain the agriculture of Scotland, which no longer requires its support. To understand the origin of this law, we must glance back for a moment to a much earlier state of society, when all land was held, not by a legal fiction, but in reality, direct from the Crown or other feudal superior, when the law commanded little or no respect, and the old rule was in full force, that he should take who had the power and he should keep who could. In those early days, what little corn was grown—and no more was grown than would barely feed a scanty population—was absolutely the property of the owner of the soil, who supplied the seed, and employed, maintained, and protected the cultivator. From that time to this, the relation of owner and cultivator has developed into that of landlord and tenant through the various stages of a fixed share in the produce being given to the cultivator, the introduction of tacks or leases, under which a mail, or fixed amount of grain, cattle, and other things—but little money—was paid to the landlord, and the present system of a fixed money rent, or a fixed quantity of grain, commuted into money according to the fiars' prices, or the average annual market value as officially declared every Spring. Through all these various changes, the presumption which has underlaid the law on the subject is that the stock and crop on his land are the property of the landlord, as was once the case. This principle, established by ancient decisions of early Judges in the Scottish Courts of Law and the privilege founded on it of a preferential right to everything on the farm, once called "the privilege of the master of the ground," was continued after the introduction of leases and fixed rents under the law of hypothec. This principle is thus laid down in Erskine's Institutes (B II., Tit. VI., sec. 56). The landlord's right of hypothec in rural subjects is a "real right in the fruits of the ground, and in the cattle brought up on it by the tenant," and in sec. 57. "All fruits while growing belong truly to the proprietor of the ground in consequence of his right of property." By the law of hypothec prior to 1867, in so far as agricultural subjects were concerned, a landlord had a preference for his rent over the crop of the year for which that rent was due, however long that crop remained unconsumed, and a preference over the live stock for the rent of the current year, this latter right expiring three months after the last conventional term of payment of the rent for the year. He had also a similar preferential right over all goods and chattels for the current year's rent. By the amending law of 1867, it was enacted that over agricultural produce sold, delivered, and paid for the right of hypothec should cease, and its duration in other cases was limited to three months after the last term of payment; and household furniture, implements, manures, lime, drainpipes, feeding stuffs, &c, were exempted from it. This to a great extent mitigated the harshness of the old law, but as it was left the present law is this—Not only after rent has become due, but before any rent is due, a landlord may apply to the Sheriff for a sequestration on reasons given, which, if applied for, would be granted as a matter of course, and may prevent his tenant selling crop or cattle as long as any part of the rent for the year in which the crop is grown remains unpaid, and in the case of cattle as long as any part of the cur- rent year's rent is unpaid, this power terminating in both cases three months after the last conventional term of payment of rent. The tenant can be relieved from this sequestration before the term of payment only by finding security for payment of his rent, and after it only by payment in full. Now, in early times, when little or no capital was expended by the tenant, and the landlord was the principal or only creditor, such a law had its uses. The tenants, far poorer as a class than they are now, were more dependent on the seasons, and the landlord, having a right to all the tenant possessed on his farm, was able without risk to himself to give him credit in bad times to the full value of his whole property. The law operated beneficially in obtaining for the tenant credit from his largest, if not his sole, creditor. But does this same law at this date add to or diminish the credit of the farmers of Scotland? I maintain that its effect is injurious to them. The landlord is no longer the sole, or even the largest, creditor of the farmer. The money spent on seed, artificial and imported manures, implements, and labour, exceeds, and in some cases very largely exceeds, the amount of the rent. But there is one with whom the farmer is in closer relation than any other, and that is his banker. It is to him and not to his landlord, that a farmer would go in any temporary pressure, and it is of the greatest importance to him to maintain his credit at the bank. In so far as a preference is given to any one of the farmer's creditors to that extent his credit is reduced as concerns each of the others; but credit is very sensitive, and the landlord's privilege injures the farmer's general credit with the public in a greater measure that it increases it with his landlord. It will not be disputed that it is a national advantage that the greatest possible amount of produce should be raised at the least possible cost, and agriculture, like all other industries, is most successful when capital is invested in it and judiciously expended. Now, I have shown that a very great part of the capital invested in farming in Scotland belongs to the tenants, and the best authorities tell us that, taking one year with another, they do not make a profit of more than 8 per cent. which is much less than the ordinary profit of other trades, but is in some degree compensated by the healthy life, the agreeable occupation, and the lightness of the risk. Now, I claim for the Scottish farmer that, having invested his capital, he should have the utmost commercial freedom, and be placed in the best position as regards credit; so that, being thus enabled to carry on his business under the most favourable conditions, he may augment his production, and, by so doing, add to the national wealth. While attaining this result his own profits will increase, and, as a necessary consequence—to which I beg to call the attention of those who think the landowner may be injured—the value of land will rise. It is asserted, also, that by the existing law men without means are tempted to offer for farms, and that, having nothing to lose, they offer more than farms are worth, thus increasing the competition for land and raising rents unduly. There is no doubt that theoretically this must be the consequence of the law, and, if it has had this effect in practice—and I believe it has in some cases—it is an evil, and an additional reason for change. But on this point I agree fully with the Royal Commissioners who, in 1865, reported as their opinion, that it was not "a general practice among landlords, in reliance on the security which the law of hypothec affords them, to entrust their farms to a class of tenants whom otherwise they would not be disposed to accept." I think that land, like everything else, will find, and does find, its true value in the open market, and that the competition of men without sufficient capital is much more fostered by the custom of back-renting than by the landlord's right. Allow me to explain the term back-renting. In some parts of Scotland, a tenant pays his first half-years's rent six months after he enters a farm, the second at the end of the year, and so on to the end of the lease. He pays before he has reaped a crop, and is said to be fore-rented. In other parts of Scotland, and by far the greater part of it, a tenant does not pay any rent till he has been a year or a year and a-half in the farm—sometimes as much as two years. He does not pay any rent till he has reaped a crop, and he is said to be back-rented. In the first case, the tenant on entering must have sufficient capital to pay a year's rent before he has sold a crop; in the second, the ten- ant need not have so much capital, and he looks to the sale of his first crop to pay his first year's rent. One of the natural effects of the abolition of the right of hypothec will certainly be that the practice of back-renting will in a great measure cease, and landlords will require earlier payments than they have hitherto done. If, on the one hand, this result may not be agreeable to the tenant-farmers, and I know that it will not, on the other, they will be relieved to some extent of the competition of which they complain. If, then, by this law, a tenant can be sequestrated before rent is due; if his credit is diminished, and the expenditure of his capital thereby discouraged; if, in some cases, competition by men without capital is stimulated and rents are thus unduly raised, there are good grounds for removing it from the Statute Book. This brings me to the consideration of the subject as it affects the landlords of Scotland, and I hope to be able to show that they can dispense with the preference now secured to them by the existing law. First, I would say that this privilege is of little importance to them, and this is shown by the fact that it is very seldom exercised. It was stated in the Report of the Royal Commission, when the old law was in force, under which the powers of the landlord were much greater than they now are— It is a circumstance highly creditable, both to landlords and tenants throughout Scotland, that, taking the country as a whole, sequestrations for rent are of rare occurrence. And I find by a Return of the number of "petitions for sequestrations for rent for agricultural subjects," which was moved for by the hon. and gallant General opposite, that the whole amount for which such petitions had been applied for in 6½ years, since the passing of the amending Act of 1867, is £171,182, or an average of £26,335 a-year in all Scotland, which is only 7s. 6d. per cent on the gross rental, and the warrants for sale are not one-third of that, or less than one-eighth per cent of rental. Another suggestive fact is this—that a great proportion of the landlords of Scotland do not collect their rents till after the period during which they could exercise the right of hypothec, thus voluntarily placing themselves in the same position as ordinary creditors. Again, leases are all but universal in Scotland, and this Bill does not touch farms held under existing leases, and, to meet the cases in which leases do not exist, the date proposed for its coming into operation is 11th November, 1876, thus giving time to landlords to give 12 months' notice to tenants without leases of any conditions they may require in consequence of the change in the law. A landlord may secure himself in many ways if he wishes a further guarantee than his knowledge of the character and circumstances of the tenant. He may have a sum of money deposited in bank, as is done for the value of tillages in Prussia. He may have payment in advance. He may require to have third parties as securities, or, on the ground that his security is lessened, he may require a higher rent to cover the risk than he would now accept—if he can get it. In any one of these ways, he can take care of himself, and, therefore, the right of hypothec is unnecessary for his protection. A point has been made by those who wish to maintain this law, that its abolition will reduce the value of securities on land. If I was of that opinion, I should be an advocate for its continuance, for it is only if the value of the land itself is deteriorated that that of the security over it can fall; but if the existing law operates to check the flow of capital to the cultivation of the soil, as it is believed and felt to do, its removal will have the contrary effect, and the result will be "increased produce," "higher rents," "greater value in the land," and thus better security to the lender. But it will be said that the lender may not think so, and is not a party to the transaction, and it is quite right that he should be satisfied. First, let me remind the House of the condition of Scotland as to this. It is only a proportion of the land which is held under mortgage, for much is under strict entail, and cannot be burdened. As to that which is mortgaged, the custom is that money is borrowed, not for a fixed, but for an indefinite time, and may be called up on certain notice at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, If, then, a creditor should think he is not as safe as he was, he can call up his money, and as it is not proposed that the Act is to come into operation before November, 1876, and existing leases are not affected by it, he runs no risk at all. An extreme case has been put to me by an advocate of the existing law, and, if I can meet it, I think I shall have disposed of this head of objection. It is this—Suppose a small estate, mortgaged as heavily as possible, belonging to a man who has no other means, and all let to one tenant, and that tenant to fail suddenly, the landlord would not have the means of paying the interest on the mortgage. The answer is this—If such an estate is under-lease, the Bill will not affect it till the expiry of the lease, and if it is not, then not till 11th November, 1876. In either case the landlord will have the opportunity to enter into a new lease, in which he can stipulate for security for punctual payment of rent. Should he neglect to do so he would only have himself to blame, and in such a case would be compelled to do so by his creditor. It is admitted by those who wish to maintain the law as it is, that this is rather a tenant's than a landlord's question; that the landlords do not require to retain the right of hypothec for themselves, but in the interest of their smaller tenants, who will be sufferers by its repeal. Let us examine whether this really is so. I would first define the class of small tenants to mean those who are rented at and below £50, who perform with their own hands and those of their families nearly all the labour on the land they occupy, and keep not more than one pair of horses. As a class they are industrious and thrifty, but they are often poor, ill-lodged, ill-clothed, ill-fed, and hard-worked, and not so well off in these respects as farm servants on large farms. Further, they pay higher rents in proportion to the value of their land; and this must be the case, because the small tenants, not having capital, the rent is not so secure, and the landlord's outlay on small farms must always be greater in proportion to the rent than on a larger one. Now the argument I have used with regard to the tenant's credit applies in full force to the smaller tenant. He requires credit from his neighbours, from tradesmen—the smith, the carpenter, the village grocer, whom he must employ, to as great an amount as he may get it from his landlord. I will not deny that a landlord may be a loser to some extent, as he probably would be now, by the failure of small tenants, who have not made up for their want of capital by thrift and industry and skill. In such cases, a want of caution and prudence in the selection and retention of the tenant must have been shown; and to obviate a few such possible instances, which can, and do, occur under the present law, we should not refuse to carry out that which will be a benefit to a large and important interest. It is objected that if the right of hypothec is abolished, landlords will no longer let land in small farms, and consequently the country will lose this valuable class of small farmers. With all respect for those who hold this opinion, I believe no greater fallacy can be uttered. It is not the existence of hypothec which has made the small farmer—it is the necessity of the land-lord. It cannot be denied that farming on a large scale is more profitable than on a small one, and wherever the soil is good and comparatively easy of cultivation, the farms are large, and are occupied by men who bring capital into the business; but where land is being brought in, or has lately been brought in, from a state of nature, much more labour is required to raise a crop than in the longer settled and cultivated districts. The farmer with capital will not take such land, and it is that which is let in small lots to hard-working men, the pioneers of cultivation, who do the first rough work, and make land for the owner. He in process of time finds it to his advantage to throw several small farms together, to erect proper buildings, and to let them to a man with capital. As long as there is rough land to be brought in, so long will there be found men willing and ready to take it; it will be let in small farms, and whether or not the right of hypothec exists, landlords must let such land to the same class of men as now occupy it, and as they have not been in the habit of putting their right in force against this industrious class, things will go on much as they have done, with this difference—the landlord will see that the man to whom he lets a small farm has a little more capital or security than he now looks for, and the tenant will carry on his work with more freedom. If the effect of passing this Bill should be that a man ambitious of rising from the position of a labourer to that of a small farmer must save a little longer, or find some friend to back him with money or credit, this result will be nationally bene- ficial. More capital will be brought to the cultivation of the soil, and if our friend, the small farmer, was a good man before, he will be a better man with larger means and extended credit. But the small tenants of Scotland do not ask for the continuance of the law of hypothec. On the contrary, they are utterly blind to the benefits which it is said by its advocates to confer upon them. In the counties in which they are most numerous, the desire for its repeal has been strongest, and the hon. Members for those counties have pledged themselves to support any Bill for its abolition. I have now endeavoured to show that the abolition of this ancient privilege will, in Scotland, be of advantage to the agricultural interest generally, and that no injury to it, or other evil result, need be anticipated, and I ask the House to read the Bill a second time as a matter of expediency, because suited to the circumstances of Scotland only, and asked for with at least the general concurrence of its constituencies. I admit that the principle of giving to the landlord a preferential right over the crop and stock in some countries, and at some times, may be just and useful, and that it has been so in Scotland; but I hold that this is an exceptional case, and I ask the House to pass this law to meet a state of things which does not exist elsewhere. The Bill is expressly limited to agricultural subjects, as was the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and the Act of 1867. No serious complaint has been made about hypothec in regard to urban subjects, and there is no general wish in Scotland that it should be repealed as regards them. But some authorities tell us that we cannot consistently abolish the one, unless we also abolish the other. I do not agree with them. I see a difference in their origin, in their operation, in their policy, and in their effect. The one had its origin in the presumption that all that was raised on the soil was the property of the owner: the other in the Roman law, when the household furniture—invecta et illata—was a pledge for the payment of the rent. In the one case, the tenant hires the use of the surface of the ground, on which he has to expend largely his own capital and labour to produce the landlord's rent, and, as a rule, he improves the subject. In the other, the tenant lays out no money, and, as a rule, the house is deteriorated. The policy of the first was to secure the landlord's rent, when tenants had little capital, and to extend the tenant's credit; the policy of the other is to enable a man to secure one of the first necessaries of life, a house to live in, on the security of his personal property. The effect of the one is to reduce the farmer's credit; that of the other is to make his personal property the best security an industrious artizan has to offer. If he had it not, his landlord would require security, or a bill of sale. I will not go further into this part of the subject, and I hope the House will consider that it is expedient to make the change so urgently asked for by the Scottish constituencies, and not expedient to tack to it a change which is not wanted, or to refuse it because what is not wanted is not asked for. We are told also that to alter the law of hypothec for Scotland would form a precedent for altering the law of distress in England, and if the circum-stances were alike in the two countries and the laws were alike, there is no doubt it would do so. It is because the conditions are different, and the laws—though somewhat analogous—differ in so many respects, that the one need not be taken as a precedent for the other. Rents in Scotland are proportionally higher, leases are all but universal, the relation between landlord and tenant is almost purely commercial; and, to come to details, the law in Scotland allows a land-lord—but only after application to a Court of Law—to sequestrate his tenant before rent is due, and this sequestration is effective without possession. These conditions do not' prevail in England, where distress may be made for six years' rent, while it is limited to one in Scotland. But the main point is, that the law of distress has not created dissatisfaction in England, and it is therefore unnecessary and inexpedient to touch it, while that of hypothec has caused such wide-spread discontent in Scotland, that her constituencies unanimously ask for its repeal as far as it relates to agricultural subjects. The right of hypothec is complained of by the tenant-farmers of Scotland as injurious to their credit, and limiting the amount of produce which they could and would raise from the soil if it were removed. It is admitted by the land-lords to be unnecessary for their protect- tion, to be of little use to, and to be little used by, them; and if this Bill, which I now ask the House to read a second time, is passed, it will stimulate agricultural enterprize in Scotland, and the benefits which will accrue from it will far outweigh any temporary inconvenience which may arise from the loss of an irritating, unnecessary, and injurious privilege.

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

MR. GREGORY

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months said, that if he required justification for troubling the House with opposition to this measure, he might rest his case on the speech of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Mr. Vans Agnew), because that hon. Member admitted that the law of hypothec was ancient, equitable in its conception, and had, on the whole, been beneficial in its operation; that notwithstanding its existence there had been a large outlay in artificial manures; and that the agriculture of Scotland had been enormously developed. If that were so, he might rest his case there, and ask what ground had been shown for the abolition of a law, under which that state of circumstances had taken place. He felt, however, that he ought to state the grounds upon which as an English Member he opposed the Bill, and they were that it was a question not affecting Scotland only, but the Empire generally, and that the principles upon which it was sought to rest the abolition of this law must, if this measure were to pass, be extended to England. The hon. Member for Wigtonshire had told them that the differences between the law of Scotland and that of England on the subject were differences of detail rather than of principle, and, in fact, in detail they were slight, because they had been nearly abolished. The Act of 1867 had tended to place the law of the two countries very much on a similar footing, and had taken away from the law of Scotland that which was harsh and unjust in its original enactment. By the Act of 1867 sequestration could be made only on application to the sheriff, and for one year's rent. It was true that it might be made for accruing rent, and in that respect the law of Scotland and England differed, because in England distraint could only be made for rent which had actually accrued. When this measure was before Parliament last Session, he (Mr. Gregory) mot it by a suggestion for assimilating the law of the two countries, and he for one should have no objection to such an assimilation taking place; but he did not desire that it should take place in the direction proposed by the present Bill. It might be that the period over which the power of sequestration in England operated was too long, while in (Scotland it might be too short. He thought the law in Scotland, as to the mode in which distraint was to take place, was better than that of England, and might prevent abuses by committing it to the sheriff, and not any chance person whom the landlord in England might employ to put the process in execution, and who very often were not persons of the highest character. On the other hand, it might be desirable to provide that, as in England, distraint should only take place in Scotland for rent that had accrued. The law of Scotland proceeded on the assumption that the tenant could not pay his rent—which was unjust to the tenant, because the landlord ought to presume that the tenant would pay his rent, and it was only when the rent was not paid in accordance with his contract that his power should be put into operation. These were points on which the law of the two countries might without any difficulty be reconciled; but he could not doubt that the principles of the law being so analogous, if the law of hypothec were altogether abrogated in Scotland, they would have an agitation for the abolition of the law of distraint in this country. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, said that the existing law had run up the competition for farms to an exaggerated and dangerous pitch, and he argued in favour of the Bill, that one effect of it would be to diminish that competition. But how would the competition be diminished? Why, by squeezing out the small tenants—and the question really for the House to consider was, whether the principle of squeezing the small tenants out of their holdings could be defended, either on the ground of justice or of expediency. They were asked to exclude from competition a class of men from whom had sprung many of the foremost agriculturalists of Scotland, and it was in evidence that but for this law of hypothec, those men would not have been able to obtain that start in life which had proved so advantageous to themselves and to the country. One of the principal arguments urged against the existing law was, that it gave to the landlords a preference over the other creditors of their tenants, and that there fore the credit of the latter would be extended by its abolition. In considering that point a landlord might be considered either as the quasi-partner of his tenant, reserving to himself a certain share of the profits, and retaining a preferential right to recover it; or, as a man who gave to another a temporary occupation of his property, on condition that a certain proportion of the produce of the property in question should be reserved to himself. In either case, it was almost incidental to a relation of this nature that the person so committing his property to another should have a preferential charge, and an easy means of enforcing it. It was urged further that the tenants had creditors other than their landlords. That was true; but it seemed to be for-gotten that those creditors were the persons who supplied the stock and manures, and who knew perfectly well that they were dealing with tenants who were bound to pay their rent first, and that what they had to look to was what the tenants could make out of their farms after paying the rent. It was upon this footing that the farmers and the general run of their creditors did business; and it would be unfair to place on the same footing, landlords who had parted with the possession of the land, relying upon this preferential charge and who could not recover it except by a tedious process of litigation, and creditors who, knowing the relation between the parties, could either give credit for the goods they had to sell, or refuse so to do. Tenants had no right to expect to obtain credit at the expense of their landlords. Credit so obtained could only be false and fictitious, in that it would be holding out to the world as possessing resources and capital, men who could not pay the rent of the very land they occupied. There was another result to be anticipated from the abolition of the existing law, to which he thought it right to allude—namely, the effect of doing so upon securities on laud. It was stated by witnesses of considerable weight before the Lords Committee, that if the present security for rents was abolished, mortgagees could not be expected to continue their investments on the same terms. It was answered that they were at liberty to call in their money, but independently of the loss to landowners. Surely there ought to be stronger grounds than had yet been urged for making a legislative enactment which would necessitate the trouble, difficulty, and probable loss of calling in and reinvesting large sums of money at present legitimately invested on the security of real property. Relations similar to those existing between landlord and tenants under the operation of the law of hypothec—so far as the question of lien was concerned—existed in the case of charterers of ships or holders of bottomry bonds, and the owners of freights carried. No inconvenience or injustice had arisen, so far as he knew, in such cases, and he really failed to see why an exceptional law should be made in the case of the land in Scotland. On the whole, he could not bring himself to believe that the change proposed in the Bill would, for a long time at any rate, be desired by English agriculturists or advocated by English Members of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gregory.)

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he wished to call the special attention of the House to the circumstance that although the Bill proposed an amendment of a law affecting Scotch interests alone, yet no Member from Scotland had been found to move its rejection, and it had been reserved for an English Member to do so. Indeed, the hon. Member who had moved the second reading had told the House very frankly that hon. Members even on his side of the House had been forced to pledge themselves to vote for the total abolition of this law in order to secure their return by agricultural constituencies. They had heard elaborate arguments from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), in moving the rejection of this Bill; but he (Mr. Barclay) must warn the House that those arguments were not really in the interests of the landlords, however much the hon. Member might think so, nor yet in the interests of the smaller tenants, but in those of a class well known in Scotland as lawyer factors. That was the class in whose interest really the hon. Member had spoken. The lawyer factors in Scotland wore, as a class, gentlemen belonging to the legal profession, who resided in the metropolis of Scotland or the large towns. He did not say that they managed the estates of which they had charge, for in point of fact they confined themselves very much to the letting of the farms and the collection of the rents, visiting the estates only for that purpose, and then even frequently by deputy. Thus situated, they endeavoured to manage the estates by rules and regulations which were certainly of the most extraordinary kind that could well be imagined. He was sorry to hear the other day from a friend, that there were similar instances to be found in England, for mentioning the circumstance to him that many rules and regulations affecting large estates in Scotland were dated 30, 40, and even 50 years ago, his friend said he could produce a more extraordinary case even than that. A brother of his had recently taken a farm, and on being asked whether he had read over the lease, he replied—"No; there are so many skins of parchment, and if I had done so I am sure I could not have understood it." The farm had been in the possession of the family for several generations, and several old leases were in existence—one granted to his informant's grandfather in 1790. On examination, it proved that the lease of 1874 contained the same conditions of cropping and husbandry as the one issued to the grandfather in 1790. It was thought that estates could be managed by rules and regulations; but the real effect of them was, that they hampered and restricted good tenants in the management of their farms and in endeavouring to develop its resources, while they were impotent to prevent bad farming. It was a fact that on those estates which were most strictly tied up by these rules and regulations, the worst farming was to be found. Indeed, if he were asked whether the law of hypothec or the management of the land by the lawyer factors had the worst effect in Scotland, he should be at a loss to decide between the two. The lawyers raised difficulties and created alarm in the minds of those proprietors who had abundance of money and capacity to manage their estates. They persuaded the landlords that tenants could not be entrusted to farm the land judiciously or without injury to the landlord, and must in consequence be bound up by rules and regulations. In fact, to hear how they endeavoured to raise alarm in the proprietors' minds might lead one to fancy that some of the tenants would run away with the acres. But there was another and a very different class of men with whom the lawyer factors had to do, who might be said to consist of the impecunious landlords; and in their case, the business of the lawyer factors was further to provide money for the spendthrift, and to facilitate his progress to ruin. He was not drawing any fancy picture, because, although there were sufficient exceptions to strengthen the rule, yet this picture of the lawyer factors as a class would be recognized in Scotland as only too true. As regarded the tenants and the administration of the estates, the great business of the lawyer factor was to increase the amount of the rent-roll, and he know cases where the lawyer factor had, by putting the farm up to competition, got a most excessive rent for a time; but in course of two or three years the tenant failed, and in order that the rent-roll might not be ostensibly reduced, the factor had taken the farms into his own hands and farmed at a greater loss to the landlord than if it had been let at a moderate rent. The great advantage of the law of hypothec to these lawyer factors was, that without troubling themselves particularly about the tenants with whom they engaged, or really managing the estates, the rents were always secured to the landlords. Should the tenant run short of his rent, it only remained for the factor to sequestrate him, not only for the rents which might be actually due, but for the rents which were coming due. Thus, as regarded the money part of the question, he was always able to keep the landlord secure. It was evident that the abolition of the law of hypothec would necessitate a better management of estates than at present existed, and he contended most strongly that the abolition of this law, by inducing a better management of estates in Scotland, would be quite as, if not more, beneficial to the landlords than to the tenants, whether they were large or small. If Parliament, by passing this Bill, should abolish the law of hypothec, he believed it would to a great extent abolish the lawyer factors, and he did not know which of the two would be the greater blessing. He was not prepared to say to what extent the lawyer land agent in England corresponded with the lawyer factor in Scotland; but he apprehended that there was about as much similarity between the two as there was between the law of hypothec and the law of distress in England. Yet they had now been told, to scare the landlords in that House, that if the law of hypothec were abolished, the law of distress must also be abolished in England. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the operation of the law of distress in England to speak with confidence on the subject, but if it were as bad as the law of hypothec in Scotland, the sooner it was abolished the better. He hoped, therefore, that the House might not be deterred by any such consideration from voting for the second reading of this Bill. But, even on the ground of expediency, he considered the policy of the hon. Member for East Sussex a mistake, because, as the hon. Member for Wigtonshire had told the House, the tenant-farmers of Scotland were fully determined on the abolition of this law. As a matter of policy, if on no higher ground, he thought the hon. Member would have done well to have allowed this Bill to be read a second time. Although the farmers of England might not yet be aware of the indirect evil effects which arose from this law in their own case, yet he had no doubt that by-and-by they would, become educated to the subject, and that they should have a pressure in that House from the farmers of England for the abolition of the law of distress quite as great as that which now proceeded from the farmers of Scotland in regard to the law of hypothec. Scotland had got the credit for many years of managing its own affairs, and of managing them quietly, and he trusted that hon. Members from England would allow this practice to continue. Now he would consider briefly the arguments of the hon. Member—first, the statement that the law was for the advantage of small farmers. He had never heard it argued that the law of hypothec induced landlords to break up large farms into small ones. In point of fact, the opposite process was going on, for reasons which it would take him too long to state; but it was not because the landlords were getting higher rents for the larger farms, for it was notorious that small farmers paid a higher rent per acre than the larger farmers. If the statement meant anything, it meant that the law of hypothec enabled small farmers to compete for farms which they could not otherwise do. It was manifest that this meant increased competition for small farms by small people. But the result of competition was simply that the greater the competition the higher the rent. The consequence was that if a poor man with limited means wanted to take a farm, he would, under the operation of the law of hypothec, have to pay a higher rent for it than he would otherwise have to do, because he would have a larger number of small people competitors than he naturally would have—that was what the law did for the small people. If any doubt were entertained upon the question, it would be removed by an examination of the Return which had been prepared of sequestrations, which showed that from the passing of the last Act on hypothec to 1873 the number had been 1,493. Of that number the sequestrations over £100 were 525; those under £100 were 968; and those under £25 were no less than 319. The effect of the law of hypothec was that it enabled possibly some few farmers to get farms who could not otherwise obtain them, but it usually sent them adrift again into the world bankrupts and ruined. If the hon. Member for Wigtonshire, in moving the second reading, had admitted that the principle was just, he was prepared to join issue with him on that point. It was admitted that the law whereby the landlord got a preference over other creditors was exceptional in its nature, and therefore the onus lay upon the landlords to justify this exceptional legislation. It was said the landlord was entitled to this preference, but he gave only the use of his land—the manure merchant parted with his property altogether. The hon. Member for East Sussex had stated that, as it was well known that the landlord had this preferential right, there was no injustice or harm done to the tenant's other creditors. But it was because this was well known that it was complained of, and if such an argument were to prevail, what ground would there be for asking for the abolition of any other unjust law? The hon. Member further said that a manure dealer or person dealing with the tenant on credit gave him a fictitious capital. But surely if a landlord put the tenant in the position without sufficient capital he, though keeping himself safe under all circumstances, gave the tenant fictitious credit.

MR. GREGORY

explained that what he said was that, when they held out to a man who could not pay his rent that he might extend his credit, they gave him a fictitious capital.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

confessed he could not see the distinction. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wigtonshire assert that the landlords in many cases gave the tenants 12 months' credit. He (Mr. Barclay) was pretty well acquainted with the customs of land-letting in Scotland, and he was not aware of a single case in which such a thing was done. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that because a tenant entered into possession of a house at Whitsuntide, and did not pay for 18 months afterwards, he thereby got 12 months' credit from the landlord; but such was really not the case, because the tenant entering at Whitsuntide had to pay the outgoing tenant for all the crops of that year, so that it was not until the succeeding year that the incoming tenant began to deal with the landlord at all, or got possession of the land from him. In fact, there was no back rent in Scotland properly so-called. In the majority of cases, where the farmer entered at Whitsuntide, he was called upon to pay the first half-year's rent as soon as ever he reaped the corn, and before he began to realize any part of it. Indeed, the landlord got his money from the farmer as soon as if he had the farm in his own hands, cultivated it himself, and realized the produce. The hon. Member for Wigtonshire had referred to a class of small improving tenants who had done a great deal for Scotland. He fully endorsed that statement. If it were not that he did not wish to introduce personal matters into that House, he might refer to particular estates upon which the practice he was about to describe had obtained. Many of these small farmers had squatted down, he might say, by the side of some moor which was worth to the landlord perhaps 6d. or 1s. an acre. After spending the best of their lifetime—10, 15, or 20 years—upon that barren moor, and converting it during that time into such a state of fertility that the landlord might get 15s. or 20s. an acre for it, these people had been turned out because they had no particular holding, or, if they were allowed to remain, their improvements were confiscated, and it was at a rent representing its absolute worth. It was true that the law of hypothec directly affected them very little, because the landlord had no rent, except a very small one, to got from the land during the time the tenant had been improving it. But he had felt very strongly on seeing these tenants, after they had got the land into such a condition as to enable them to live upon it comfortably to the end of their lives, turned out without a farthing into the world, to begin life anew, or sometimes to find refuge in the poor-house. He could assure the House that the farmers of Scotland would not allow the question to sleep until Parliament had acceded to their just demands. He must refer to the endeavours made by hon. Members and other gentlemen outside the House to create a division between the large and the small farmers upon this question; but these attempts had proved and would prove ineffectual, because the small tenants had found by experience that the law of hypothec was a very great oppression and hardship to them. He hoped the decision of this question would be left very much to the Scotch Representatives, and he could assure the House that if the abolition of this unjust and class law were sanctioned, it would give a great stimulus to agriculture in Scotland, not only directly, but indirectly, by inducing a more intelligent and careful management of the land than had hitherto been the case.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

said, he should support the Amendment, as he believed the present law worked very efficiently for the agricultural classes, as well as for the interests of the community generally. In upholding the law as it now existed, and opposing its abolition, he did not consider himself advocating the interests of any particular class. Certainly not the interests of landlords as against their tenants. The hon. Member who had just spoken had spoken of class legislation; but for his part he (Sir William Cuninghame) did not see that he was speaking in the interests of any class. It was not in the interests of the landlords, for they would be less affected by the abolition of the law of hypothec than probably any other class, as they could perfectly easily find some other means of securing the payment of their rents. The only serious evil likely to arise to them from the proposed change was, that they would have more difficulty in raising money to improve their property, while as regarded the smaller tenantry, it would be a matter of life and death. It meant to them driving them out of an occupation for which they were admirably fitted, and to those not quite so impecunious, it meant in times of pressure greatly increased difficulties. Another of its consequences would be to deprive the country of a class of the population, the smaller tenants, who had done an immense deal to improve agriculture. It was said that agriculture would be benefited by the change of small for large holdings; even if it were so, it would be dearly purchased by the desertion of homesteads to which it would lead. Those who were acquainted with Scotland knew how exceedingly sad a sight was presented by the ruined cottages already in that country. He (Sir William Cuninghame) for one deplored very much that inexorable law which seemed to have decreed that sooner or later the smaller tenantry as a class should disappear, and he looked with extreme disfavour on any proposal which, like the one before the House, tended to hurry on that change. He would ask the House, was there any reason for the abolition of hypothec? It was said that the law of Scotland was exceptional. He considered, on the contrary, that the proposal to abolish the law was exceptional. It was proposed to put the tenant-farmers of Scotland on a different footing from the tenant-farmers of other parts of Great Britain, and also, as was shown by a Report presented to the House of Lords, in a different position from the tenant-farmers of almost every other country in the world. If that was not putting Scotland in an exceptional position, he could not imagine what would be. Then, since it was exceptional, it seemed to him some very strong reason should be shown for making the change. A reference to the agricultural statistics of the country would show that between 1857 and 1874, Scotland had made an advance that was perfectly astonishing. In 1857 the number of acres under cultivation was 3,500,000, while in 1874 it was something like 4,600,000. That did not look like adversity or pressure, or suffering under unjust laws. It might of course be said that this extraordinary advance in Scotch agriculture had taken place in spite of the law, and that the advance, rapid as it had been, might have been even more rapid had the law been abrogated. That might be the case, though it seemed unlikely; but he ventured to remind them—and his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire in particular—of a fable and a proverb: the fable was the dog and the shadow; the proverb was let well alone. The general arguments against making the change had been so well stated, by the hon. Member for West Sussex (Mr. Gregory), that he did not mean to go into them; but he might make a remark as to the argument that the credit the farmers got from tradesmen was interfered with by the law of hypothec. It must be remembered, on the other side, that they were amply compensated for this by the longer and larger credit which the existing law enabled the landlords to give them. The question for the House to consider was, whether the amount of capital that was thereby left in the tenants' hands for a period varying from a year to 18 months equalled the decrease in credit which they got from tradesmen. He admitted that that might not be so in largo farms; and if the proposal had been limited to an abrogation of the law in regard to tenants whose rent was, say, over £200, he would have been inclined to support it; but as regarded small tenants, the increase of credit they would got from tradesmen would not by any means equal what they got from their landlords. This was strongly borne out by the evidence given before the Lords' Committee of 1869 by manure merchants and others, who said that there was so much competition among manure and seed merchants that a farmer could never have any difficulty in getting credit; but that, on the contrary, it might even be said, they got more credit than was good for them, being much in the same position as young gentlemen of known expectations, who were offered any amount of accommodation by speculative parties. To say that the law placed the tenant with capital at a disadvantage by exposing him to competition with poorer men was no argument for a change. The possession of money did not give a prior claim to the possessor; on the contrary, one argument in favour of the law was, that it gave the poorer man the chance of raising himself to a better position in spite of his disadvantages. The more this became known the less popular would become the cry for the abolition of hypothec. There were many other points that he might refer to, but he did not wish to weary the House, and would confine himself to the popularity of the proposed change. It was said on the other side, as a strong evidence of the feeling of Scotland being in favour of the change, that nearly every Scotch Member would support it; and it certainly was a fact that the large majority of the Representatives, both of agricultural counties and of burghs in Scotland, would support the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire. He maintained, however, that this position of hon. Members had been caused by a mistake with regard to the popular feeling in Scotland on the subject. There were many able and interested tenant-farmers in Scotland who agitated this question with great energy, and the opinions of this minority had, he contended, been mistaken for real popular feeling. One reference to the evidence given before the Committee would show this. It was the evidence of Mr. Adam, a farmer in Rossshire, who described the proceedings at a meeting which was numerously attended by farmers, and supposed to represent fairly the feelings of the district, and where a resolution to petition against Mr. Carnegie's Bill was carried unanimously. That, at all events, proved that there was not quite such unanimity as was supposed. In conclusion, he asked the House to pause and consider well before it decided to abolish a law which had been in existence for a great length of time, and during the operation of which it was admitted the agriculture of Scotland had vastly improved, and the abolition of which would drive a large number of the smaller tenantry from their present occupations, and would lead to great difficulties being placed in the way of many hard-working and industrious people.

VISCOUNT MACDUFF

As a Scotchman, Sir, and one much interested in all questions relating to Scotch agriculture, I venture to address a very few remarks to the House in support of this Bill. In the first place, I cannot help thinking that it should not be mixed up with other and more intricate questions connected with this side of the Tweed, but that it should be regarded purely as a Scotch question and from a Scotch point of view. The law of hypothec, as it now stands, even in its present modified form, is a remnant of the legislation of centuries ago. I do not dispute the wisdom or necessity of such a law in former times, for in those days tenants, as we now understand the term, did not exist. Not only the farms but the stocking', and even the implements of husbandry, were the property of the landlord. When the present class of tenants gradually came into existence, they were often under the necessity of borrowing largely from their landlords to carry on their operations, and this right of hypothec was the only security available. But now that there is a bank in every village, and plenty of capital at the command of the farmer, I fail to see the necessity for maintaining this antiquated right, when all which made it reasonable has long since passed away. It has been suggested that this law is favourable to small tenancies, and that its abolition would abolish their number. I cannot think so; if it were so, my vote would not be recorded for its abolition. But the only result of the present law is that tenants are sometimes induced to take farms beyond their means, while landlords are induced to trust them, relying on hypothec. Insolvency is, and must be, the only consequence of this artificial state of things. By the Hypothec Amendment Act of 1867 the old privileges of the landlord were very much pared down, and to my view the whole principle of this measure was conceded by that Act. By its further extension in the same direction, the Legislature would simply be withdrawing its sanction from privileges rarely, if ever, exercised on well-managed properties, and which are capable of being exercised very oppressively—in fact ruinously—as regards the tenant. I venture to think that the security of the landlords does not depend upon any such powers, but upon the mutual reliance which exists in Scotland between them and their tenants. I fear, however, that an idea has got abroad that the relations between landlord and tenant in the north of Scotland are not as good as might be wished. In a recent debate mention has been made of the existing dissatisfaction in the north of Scotland; and I have on several other occasions heard the farmers in that part of the country described as men labouring under positive disaffection to their landlords. Without entering upon topics foreign to the measure now before the House, I am anxious to state most emphatically that the relations between landlords and their tenants in the north are quite as satisfactory as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have the pleasure and the advantage of a large acquaintance among farmers not only in the county I have the honour to represent, but in several other counties in the north, and I have never heard any expression of such a feeling among them. I do not for a moment deny that disturbing questions exist—grievances arising from the over-preservation of game in some cases, and from a feeling that farmers have not sufficient security for the capital invested in their farms; but I am certain that there are none which cannot be amicably settled by practical legislation. It has hitherto been a matter of regret to me that the House does not seem disposed to entertain favourably several questions upon which there is a good deal of feeling in Scotland; but I am quite sure that the true friends of the Scotch farmer are not those who make immoderate demands in their name, and who indulge in strong expressions about landlords. My very short experience has shown me that such a course, while it alienates the sympathies of moderate men on both sides, does not in the least advance the cause professed to be represented. I intend to vote for the second reading of the Bill, because I believe its tendency will be to strengthen the good feeling between farmers and their landlords in Scotland, which I firmly believe to be the landlords' best and only real security.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he agreed entirely with the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Macduff) that those were not the real friends of the tenant-farmers who urged immoderate demands on their behalf; and, he might add, that it was very much because the demands had seemed to the House so immoderate, that so little legislation on subjects which concerned them had passed through Parliament. But he rose for the special purpose of explaining why he intended to vote for the second reading of this Bill, while in the last Parliament he had voted and spoken in favour of the law of hypothec. As he had not changed his opinions, it was not without considerable thought that he had come to the conclusion he now had. In the late Parliament the Bill introduced to their notice was of a very different kind from that now under consideration. He had never supported the law of hypothec in the interest of the landlord, who had other and ample means of getting security, and if the law were abolished to-morrow no landlord would be any the worse for it, but because he believed—and he still held to the belief—that the law was favourable, not only to small tenants, but also in bad times, to persons who could hardly be described as small tenants. He knew of many instances where in bad times, if it had not been for the law of hypothec, farmers would have run the chance of losing their farms; but in consequence of hypothec the landlord had been able to give them time—and it was doubtful if they would have got it from any other creditor. In so speaking, he spoke from personal knowledge, and he retained the belief that many farmers profited by the law. The law was much misunderstood, and it often happened that those who were loudest in advocating its abolition were precisely those who knew least about it. The personal relations between Scotch landlords and their tenants were of an extremely satisfactory kind, and he would be sorry to see the time when they would be entirely of a commercial character. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had referred in tones of something like contempt to the faded parchment of old leases, such as had been held from father to son on some estates, and he spoke of the year 1790 as a very remote date. The hon. Member's reference was made to what he (Mr. Dal- rymple) was glad to think was a common state of things, and the distant date did not astonish him, for he knew of a case lately occurring where a tenant died, unfortunately childless, but who, togegether with his father and grandfather before him, had occupied the same land for 150 years, on the property of a near relative of his (Mr. Dalrymple's) own. In cases such as that, there was little of the commercial relation, and the advantage, as far as money consideration went, was all on the tenant's side. If it were merely on the ground of the outcry against the law, he would not be found among the supporters of the change; but he supported it for the almost opposite reason—that the question had really passed out of the regions of stock election cries. There was not nearly so much excitement about it now, and comparatively little was heard about it at the last Election, when candidates rather volunteered to support the abolition of the present law than had any pressure brought upon them to induce them to do so. He thought, therefore, that the time had come when a calm opinion might be formed. He had been aware of the ignorance which existed on this question, and at a time when there was no political excitement existing in the country at the end of 1873 he called together a meeting of farmers in his district to consider the question, and to ascertain if they were really in favour of an amendment of the law. Well, there was a clear majority of 7, in a company of about 40, in favour of the retention of hypothec as it was, so that the decision to which he (Mr. Dalrymple) had come could hardly be said to have been pressed upon him. It was true the Farmers' Society to which he alluded could not be considered altogether as representatives of the class to which they belonged, because their circumstances were peculiar. The feeling so expressed might be partly due to the fact that in that particular district sequestrations were almost unknown—but he admitted that there was a general feeling in other parts of Scotland in favour of the alteration of the law as regarded agricultural tenancies. The present Bill was confined solely to agricultural subjects, and for this reason he was able to take the course he proposed to take by voting in favour of the second reading. If the Bill had been introduced in its old form, and the proposal had been to abolish urban as well as agricultural hypothec, he could not have supported it; because, though it might turn out that if the one kind were abolished, the other would follow, at all events there was no movement in Scotland against urban hypothec, and he (Mr. Dalrymple) could be no party to its abolition. He would himself have preferred an alteration of the law regarding agricultural hypothec, and would have been willing that the hypothec, instead of being as at present on stock and crop, should have been placed on furniture, implements, and manure, which were not now hypothecated. While the former subjects might well be set free, the latter would afford ample security to the landlord, as they ought to represent a half-year's rent of any farmer worth the name. In conclusion, he said that he found himself able to vote for the second reading, because the Bill was limited in its scope; and because the subject, having been removed from the region of controversy, it had been better considered, and yet in spite of some variety of opinion, a very wide-spread dislike to the law prevailed in Scotland. He (Mr. Dalrymple) had been anxious to make these remarks in explanation of his vote, though as far as his own feeling, derived from observation of the law, went, he remained very much of the same mind as formerly, and his change of opinion was more apparent than real.

MR. M'COMBIE

Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill. It vitally affects the interests of my constituents and the tenant-farmers of Scotland. The game laws only affect the farmers on game preserving-properties; whereas the law of hypothec affects every farmer paying rent, and is the worst of all class laws. It has raised a fictitious value over farms large and small in Scotland. Now, we are told every day that the tenant-farmers are quite fit to make their own bargains. I wish it were so. Why, he has not the ghost of a chance. In Scotland the proprietors have all printed estate regulations—many of the most tyrannical description, oven binding the tenant to keep neither cat nor dog. The first question asked by the proprietor or his agent is—"Do you agree to our regulations?" Should the applicant raise any objection, he is po- litely shown the door. But he is in no better position with other proprietors in 99 cases out of 100, and he must submit, or betake himself to some other occupation. In every neighbourhood there will be some proprietors who will advertize their farms, and will accept of the highest offer—an offer that never can be paid from the produce of the farm. In many such cases a rent is never paid: but the landlord falls back on the crops and whatever stocking there may be on the farm, and secures his rent by the law of hypothec, although there should not be a shilling left to the other creditors. In other cases, the tenant applies to the landlord, and he gives a reduction of rent; and perhaps he may obtain a second reduction. Now, it is a bad sign of a farmer and a farm when a reduction is called for. I have no sympathy for tenants promising rents that never can be paid—it is a great injustice to the country, and they ought to be made to fulfil their bargain or quit, as such conduct raises a fictitious value for farms over the whole country. During the last 50 years I have taken many leases of different farms, but I never asked my proprietors for a reduction of rent, neither did I ever sign a printed regulation or a lease binding myself to preserve game. But mine is a quite exceptional ease. As my own nearest connections have generally been my proprietors, they dispensed with their printed regulations, as they knew I would never submit to such degrading and tyrannical rules. Why, Sir, it is to no purpose for proprietors and their land-agents to hold out that the tenants are quite fit to make their own bargains. I say most emphatically that they have no fair chance, and it is a mere delusion to think otherwise. It is only another attempt of the proprietors and their agents to throw dust in the eyes of the public. The tenants are practically at the mercy of the proprietors. Another of the cases raised by the proprietors and their agents is that if the law of hypothec was repealed, it would ruin all the poor tenants. Now, I think I can prove that it is a law to hold a poor man always poor. Believing that the fictitious value of land has been raised under the hypothec law. I have remonstrated with proprietors who had let their farms at rents that never could be paid from their produce;—and what was their reply— "What did they care, they could be no losers. They would have the law of hypothec to fall back upon, and other creditors might just take their chance." Such, Sir, is the law of hypothec. I will give an example or two as the working otherwise of the law and our estate regulations on a farm of 400 acres, where the tenant had expended on houses, dykes, roads, &c, £4,000. He became bankrupt, the proprietor appropriated for his own behoof the whole houses, dykes, &c, and the creditors were promised 3s. in the pound. The proprietor re-let the farm at a great rise of rent. Another example, and I will not trouble the House with more, for they would only be repetitions. A poor and foolish man took a hill farm at an absurd rent; his family became security for him; he improved a tract of "bog" land; he built a slated house and steading with his family's money. They paid the rent for several years. As last they saw that it was no good, so they gave up the lease, with the expectation of getting some remuneration for the houses and improvements. They were turned about their business, and never got a farthing. I could give hundreds of cases of the results of the tyrannical and unjust estate regulations, and of the working of the law of hypothec in Scotland. It is marvellous that the landlords of Scotland, who are stated to have little interest in the question of hypothec, have almost been alone in their desire to retain the law, and the tenant-farmers, who are said to have the greatest interest, are almost unanimous in their urgent desire for its repeal. Aberdeenshire is a county of small farmers. 2,481 farmers of that county signed a Petition in favour of the abolition of hypothec. This is just another tactic of the landlords to throw dust in the eyes of the public, and to create sympathy for the poor farmers. Sir, the tenant-farmers have never been represented in this House. The proprietors have had all their own way, and made laws exclusively for their own behoof. And why are we sitting here to-day on this side of the House? Because the late Government ignored the claims of the tenant-farmers of Scotland. When the late Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie) introduced his Bill for the abolition of the law of hypothec, instead of giving us any relief for our grievances, they saddled us with additional taxes. The farmers of Scotland were incensed at their conduct, and turned round upon them at the late Election—turned out the Liberal Members, and put the hon. Gentlemen opposite in their place. I believe I am better acquainted with the feelings of the tenant-farmers of Scotland than any Member of this House. I would advise the present Government, if they wish to retain their seats and the seats of their supporters in the Scotch counties, not only to support this Bill, but give us relief as to the game and land laws, or else at the next Election—I believe it to be as sure as I am ad-dressing you—the present Government will meet the same fate as the former Government, as far as the Scotch counties are concerned. It is thrown in our teeth that owing the law of hypothec some have risen from being small farmers to large farmers. I should wish they would condescend on their number. I am acquainted with very-few, and the one or two I am acquainted with would have risen in whatever position of life in which they might have been placed. It is a law of serfdom; such is the law of hypothec. We should bear it thoroughly in mind that if the tenant-farmers of England, Ireland, and Scotland would only be true to themselves, they can make a Parliament—sending none but those who will advocate their rights. Then Parliament will grant them their just rights, and not till then. Looking at the benches opposite, it is marvellous to me to think how the English tenant-farmers have packed the benches with landlords who do not represent their interests. Is that the way to obtain our rights? We will never obtain our rights until we send our own representatives, and not be depending on landlord representatives. Why is it that the English farmers do not send to the House of Commons more representatives like my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read)? I beg to support the Bill.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he only spoke on this occasion as an Aberdeenshire proprietor. In that capacity he had had the management of an estate in that county for a number of years, and he was now nearly as old a man as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Combie)—he might, therefore, claim to have some little knowledge of the agriculture and the farmers of Scotland. This question of hypothec was not only bound up in the agricultural interest—it entered into the very soul and marrow of the whole commercial system of this country—it was not merely a farmer's question, it was a merchant's and a banker's question; and the interests could not be separated. He did not see how—looking at the fundamental principles of commerce—they could not dispense with this system of agricultural hypothec. The law of hypothec was as old as any system in the world. The word, he believed, was derived from the Latin noun hypotheca, which meant "a pledge." The man pledged his stock to the man who furnished him with the material to carry on his business. It was not the landlord's but the manure merchant's question—they viewed a farm as a young man was viewed by money lenders—they induced the farmer to keep the land in a state of intoxication for 18 years, and then left it poor and stripped of its energy when the lease was up. Had the question concerned merely the rights of the landlord, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, because it would tear off from the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire and Forfarshire the only garment that covered them, and would leave them in a state of political nakedness. From his long experience of them he was proud to say that in the whole of Great Britain there were no such tenantry as those of Aberdeenshire. They were the men who turned land into cultivation that would have absolutely appalled the labour of any other country. Land had been cleared and brought into cultivation in places where you could not see it in the first instance for the stones that covered it. Well, but did these men enter on this without security? Not one of them; they did it with the understanding that they should occupy the ground for a certain number of years free of rent; in the second term of years there would be a small rent, and in the third term of years there would be a larger rent. During this time the landlord frequently supplied the farmer with guano, and afforded him other assistance. These men always improved their condition in Aberdeenshire—as they did also wherever they went—all over the world they were found in positions of trust, to which they had raised themselves by their own industry and energy. This Bill was to strike at the root of these people. It struck at the root of this hardy peasantry to cover the land with large farmers. The hon. Member (Mr. M'Combie) knew as well as he did the character of the farmers in Aberdeenshire, and must know that their sons had fallen in India and in the Peninsula, and had carried the British flag to the ends of the earth. These were the men who founded our East Indian possessions, and whose blood had been shed in every battle-field in the service of the British Crown. These men had sprung more from the lower tenant-farmers than from the upper tenant-farmers. Standing there as an Aberdeenshire proprietor, he had never known a single tenant turned off any of the farms he was fortunate enough to possess, and there never should be. On the contrary, he should be glad to break down the system of large farms, and to produce again that bone and sinew which it had been the pride of Scotland to possess, and which it was the object of those opposite to sweep off the land, and in their place to produce a bloated aristocracy of large farmers.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, and as that was the first time he had voted against the law of hypothec, he hoped the House would listen to him for a Jew minutes. He never supported hypothec on principle, but he thought it a law to be supported on grounds of expediency. The principle was that of class legislation, and on account of its being class legislation he was determined to vote against it on this occasion, and because he thought there were no longer those exceptional circumstances that required its being kept up. When the law was first passed it might be urged that it could have been supported on principle. The tenant received the land from the landlord on condition that he should pay rent in kind to the landlord, but these times were passed. Then, the only security the landlord had for his portion of the produce was that which the law of hypothec gave him. The tenant was now a man of capital. Formerly, he had little or no capital—on the contrary, he had to borrow capital from his landlord. Formerly, a tenant had only one creditor, and that his landlord; now the tenant had numerous creditors, and some of them were larger creditors than the landlord. Farming was now being conducted on more commercial principles than formerly; and as he believed this, he believed it would be wise on the part of that House to place the regulations affecting landlord and tenant on a basis possessing more of a commercial character. He should not object to the arguments which had been used by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in favour of the law. He was not one of those who thought this law had been an iniquitous law; on the contrary, he would say the law of hypothec had been of great benefit to Scotland and to the agriculture of Scotland. He believed that without the law of hypothec the agriculture of Scotland would not have been in the position it now was; but these times were passed. We lived in new times, under different circumstances, and we required different laws. One reason why he voted for the Bill was that the population of Scotland had increased to an enormous extent, though the land had not increased at all. Competition for land was, therefore, also very greatly increased. There could be no doubt this law of hypothec tended to increase the number of applicants for farms. If these were only tenants with capital there would be no great harm; but, unfortunately, it tended to the increase of applications by tenants without capital. Landlords sometimes selected tenants for their farms who had not sufficient capital for the purpose. This was a great cause of complaint at the present time, and it was because the law tended to keep up such an evil as this that he opposed it. Another reason was, as he had said, that the landlord was not now the only or even the largest creditor of the farm. He should not mix up in the question some of the statements that had been made by hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him. He did not think the law of hypothec was one which was much connected with the bitter feeling which existed between landlord and tenant, and he should say nothing now which would tend to evoke the feeling. It was injudicious on the part of those who called themselves farmers' representatives, that they should come up to Parliament and stir up the bad feeling which all would like to allow to pass away. He could not say he alto- gether approved of the Bill. That of Mr. Carnegie, the late Member for Forfarshire, was a Bill which abolished the law of hypothec, both in agricultural and urban communities. He should vote, however, for the second reading of this Bill, because he did not approve of the principle of hypothec. The hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Mr. Vans Agnew) said, he saw a difference in the principle between agricultural and urban hypothec. He could see no difference in the principle whatever. As regarded agricultural hypothec, the landlord had a claim on the stock, but had none on the furniture. An urban landlord had a claim on the furniture. See how that might be exercised. A tenant entering a house bought the furniture from an upholsterer, but did not pay for it, neither did he pay his rent. The landlord entered and seized the furniture, which did not belong to the tenant. The baker and the butcher were in exactly the same position when they supplied the tenant-farmer, but if the Bill was carried in its present shape, the baker and the butcher would be placed in a different position with regard to the tenant-farmer and the tenant of a house. If the Bill should pass, and go into Committee, he should support Amendments on these points. There were two classes of constituents in the counties in Scotland—the tenant-farmers, who wished to have the law abolished, and the house proprietors, who wished no change; but if he disapproved of the principle, he should go against it whether it suited one class of his constituents or another. Another difficulty in the way was indicated by the evidence of a tenant-farmer before the Commissioners in 1864, who said that if the law of hypothec were abolished it would be absolutely necessary to have a limit to the lease if a tenant did not pay his rent, or as it was called in Scotland a statutory irritancy of the lease. He knew it was said in all leases that the tenancy should come to an end if rent was not paid; but he would ask in how many instances had a landlord been able to put out a tenant who had not paid rent? If he happened to be a litigious tenant, he could keep his place there in spite of the landlord and in spite of the law. A case had been stated in which a tenant kept his place three years simply by raising an action against the landlord for not taking certain improvements. The witness said that if the tenant did not pay rent the tenancy should cease at that moment. The hon. Member for Wigtonshire had stated that every time a Bill had been introduced for the abolition of the law of hypothec it had not been carried in that House. In 1868, he believed, a second reading of the Bill was carried, and it was after the carrying of that Bill he was led to re-consider the course he had taken in neither voting for nor against it. When he had considered the subject more fully, he arrived at the conclusion that the time had come when it was expedient that this law should no longer exist. The House should bear in mind that discussion had taken place on the subject not only within, but outside the walls of Parliament. One question which must soon come up for discussion here would be that of the land laws, and in the front of these was the law of hypothec. If the law of hypothec was abolished in Scotland, the time would not be far distant when the law of distress would be abolished in England. If these laws raised up bad feeling between landlord and tenant, it was right that Parliament should do all it could to smooth down those differences. He fully sympathized with sentiments that had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Elginshire (Viscount Macduff), that the future prosperity of the agricultural interest depended very much on the good relations between landlord and tenant; on a tenantry with capital, zeal, and enterprize; on an educated peasantry, and last—but not least—on equal laws between the parties.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that although the opposition to this Bill had come from an English Member (Mr. Gregory), he should not have ventured to take part in this purely Scotch debate if it had not been for the special appeal made to him by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. M'Combie). The hon. Gentleman concluded his interesting speech by saying why could not the tenant-farmers of England send more tenant-farmers to that House? Why—because so long as the gentry of England would be so good as to realty represent the tenant-farmers of England there was no necessity for such a sacrifice being made by the tenant-farmers as to become representatives in Parliament themselves. Although they both had one object in view on this question, there seemed to be a different opinion between the Scotch and English tenant-farmers on many points. For instance, take what was said about game. Scotch tenants wished to abolish the whole of the game laws; whereas in England farmers wished simply to protect themselves from ground game. Again, Scotch tenant-farmers wished to abolish the law of primogeniture and entail—the English did not go half so far—all they asked for was that the tenant for life should have certain powers to grant leases, and to give compensation for improvements on his property. It might be said that the tenant-farmers of England were "the residuum" of an ignorant class; but they had no desire to benefit themselves at the expense of their landlords. He considered this was a question rather affecting the public and the creditors than the tenant-farmers of England. When they came to compare the two laws he believed it would be found that the law of hypothec, as recently modified, was, on the whole, rather more just than the law of distress. At all events, it was open and above board. The landlord had to go beforet he sheriff, or a Judge of some sort, before he could seize the tenant's crops—and he believed it was an unknown thing for that to be done in Scotland, unless the tenant were in arrear of rent—whereas, as had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for West Sussex, an English landlord could distrain back for six years, and thus deceive the creditors in regard to the state of the farmer's finances. Of course, he should be classed by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) as a "bloated aristocratic farmer." He was much obliged to the hon. Baronet for the compliment he had paid the large farmers of England and Scotland. As a man of capital he might have some objection to the law of distress, for he believed it did tend to foster undue competition for land, and that now and then it was an inducement for the landlord or his agent to accept a man of straw: but when he came to regard it practically, he must say that, with respect to those who occupied small holdings, he believed that the law had been beneficial. Take his own county, where it was thought the proportion of large farmers were unusually large:—there were in Norfolk 10,000 occupiers of land whose farms were under 20 acres, and the whole average of the county gave only 60 acres to a farm. Landlords were but human beings like the rest of creation, and they would not be so kind and generous if they had great risks to run; therefore, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that a great and meritorious class of farmers were benefited by the law of distress, because their landlords were enabled to be kind and considerate towards them. He knew very well how hard was the lot of these small cultivators, and how they had to labour from morning to night in order to gain a most scanty subsistence. He knew that the only way in which a small English farmer could succeed was by doing the work of two agricultural labourers, and living at the expense of one. Consequently he could do nothing that would in any way injure their condition. He could not vote therefore for the present Bill; but, at the same time, he was so much of a Home Ruler, that he would accept the opinion of the Scotch Members on the question. He believed the tenant-farmers of Scotland were nearly unanimous on the subject; and that being the case, he should be compelled again to act as he had done of late years, and to abstain from voting on the question altogether.

COLONEL MURE

desired to make a few remarks on the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth. The hon. Baronet had drawn a very melancholy picture of the evils which would result to commerce if the law of hypothec were abolished. Now, as he understood the author of this Bill, it applied only to agricultural subjects. Hypothec was, in fact, an artificial lien which a landlord had upon his tenant's property. Now, there were various kinds of liens. There was the lien a lawyer had over his client's papers; a sailor had a lien on the cargo of his ship; the Custom House or the Government had a lien on goods deposited, which could not be freed until the dues were paid. But these were all natural liens—namely, liens on goods in possession, in keeping or manipulating which expenses had accrued. In Scotland, however, the greater part of the land was let on lease. In the old times, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) had referred, there was a dis- tinct partnership between the landlord and tenant, much on the old métayer system, the landlord supplying, besides the land, sometimes even stock and implements, and the rent was the proportion of profit accruing to the landlord, and not a fixed annual payment. But in these days the case was totally altered—the land was let principally on lease for 19 years, for a fixed money rent. Now, under the stringent power of a Scotch lease, the land belonged to the tenant, and not only for usufruct, for it was necessary that the landlord should introduce a clause in the lease providing for his free entry upon the land to seek for game or for other purposes. Practically, therefore, for the duration of the lease, the land was in the tenant's possession—not in that of the landlord; and, consequently, the tenant's goods could not be subject to a lien unless it was an artificial lien—this, therefore, was not a lien which ought to be recognized by the law of hypothec. He quite agreed with some remarks which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, to the effect that it was very wrong to introduce into the present discussion topics which might tend to impair the good relation subsisting between landlord and tenant. He had no hesitation in saying that the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland were excellent. He meant to support the Bill because he had promised to support it; but he denied that there was any reason for supporting the measure on the ground that the law of hypothec created a bad feeling between landlord and tenant. He supported it on political economic grounds purely. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. M'Combie) had stated that the tenant-farmers required relief. Well, looking at the distinguished position which the hon. Member had achieved in the commercial and agricultural system of the country, entirely by his success as a tenant-farmer, he did not think he required either out-door or in-door relief. If the hon. Member came before the House as a specimen of a poor Scotch farmer labouring under the law of hypothec, and seeking relief, he must be regarded as a very infirm advocate of the cause. An argument had been adduced that by the law of hypothec the market for farms was unnaturally raised, and that the unnatural credit which a tenant had from his landlord often enabled a farmer with little or no capital to take possession of the soil. These arguments had been worn threadbare; but he had no hesitation in saying if we had absolute free trade as it existed in other countries, farmers who possessed sufficient capital, and were otherwise qualified to occupy farms, would be sure to find them; while other persons who had not sufficient capital, or who were not qualified to be farmers, would have to seek some other occupation more suited to their capacity. In the course of his travels and his reading, he had learned a little about land tenure in foreign countries. At the time of the discussions on the Irish Land question, a great deal was said about the charming position of the small cultivators and small proprietors in Belgium. Probably, there was not so miserable a class of men in the world. The small tenant of a petit proprietaire was obliged to take small patches of land, and he and his wife and children literally watered the land with their sweat. The children were worked to the bone as soon as they were old enough to work, and were brought up in the grossest ignorance. Moreover, in Belgium, at the close of the last hour of the last day of the agricultural year, the landlord might step in and sell up his tenant without any warning whatever. Now, could anything present a more striking contrast than the position of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, or of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, compared with that of the small tenants of the petits proprietaires of the plains of Belgium? With regard to hypothec, he wished to assure the House that landlords and tenants could live in perfect security without that law. In Schleswig-Holstein, where the tenure of land was very much the same as in this country, there was absolutely free trade between landlord and tenant—that was to say, there was no artificial law that pointed out a statutory means of security, such as the law of hypothec in Scotland. Formerly, hypothec was not statutory, but merely a stereotyped custom. Now, however, it had become almost statutory, because the custom had been regulated by statute. In Schleswig-Holstein the land was usually let on lease, and there the landlord and tenant had absolute freedom, and de- cided between them what security should be given. The consequence was that both met on equal terms. Again, in Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, or rather in those districts of the country where nine-year leases were usually granted—for the greater part of it was let on the métayer system—there was no law whatever at all resembling hypothec. Neither was there in the lowlying lands on the fertile banks of the Po, which might be termed the Garden of Southern Europe. There the farmers were men of great intelligence and comparative wealth, while the landlords, like our own, generally had large estates; but there was no interference whatever, either by custom or law, between landlord and tenant. But this curious practice prevailed: the tenant usually agreed to pay down three years' rent—and the chances were that he would have to borrow the money—but the landlord paid him 7 or 8 per cent interest for it during the term of the lease, which was generally for from 9 to 12 years. Practically, this amounted to a custom; and there was a graduated scale, according to the demand for farms, of the amount of interest which accrued to the money. He had no hesitation in saying that, in these days, men without capital had better go and work as labourers until they got capital—and then they might become farmers; for in these days, to carry out farming successfully, costly appliances were necessary, and no farmer could compete in the great agricultural markets who had no capital. If the law of hypothec were abolished, he believed rents would at first fall on paper, but as the land became better cultivated would eventually rise. At the close of the Abyssinian War, when the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was at a loss for funds to supply a rather grave deficit. What did he do? Why, he changed the incidence of taxation from assessed taxes to licences; he put £500,000 into his pocket and made a very good business of it, while nobody felt any the worse. If the abolition of the security of hypothec resulted in forehanded rents—it was clear that, in the case of a landowner of an estate let in the aggregate for £5,000 a-year, on 19 years' leases, from the moment forehanded rents were enforced, in the course of 19 years he would put £5,000 in his pocket. That, he thought, would be a very satisfactory result, and, therefore, he should give his support to this Bill. He had warned the tenant-farmers in his district what the result would be; but they were so anxious for the repeal of the law that they were prepared to make the sacrifice—if, indeed, it could be called one. He had been anxious to say a few words respecting this measure, more especially as he desired to assure this House that he supported, not on account of any supposed differences, which in reality did not exist, between landlord and tenant, but because he believed that while free trade would result, perhaps, in landlords having less rent on paper, they would, under a free system, be more careful in choosing tenants, and get better security. In his own district the result of the law of hypothec had been that a vast number of agricultural tenants, without capital, were retained on the soil, and the landowners had not been able to take advantage of the increased intelligence, the increased capital, and the increased agricultural science, which was now happily in the possession of Great Britain.

SIR GEORGE H. SCOTT DOUGLAS

I quite admit the many benefits which the law of hypothec has conferred upon Scotland, and I fully acknowledge the very great assistance that law has given in developing the agriculture of Scotland, and raising it to its present high position; but we must not forget the very great changes which have taken place during the last century, not only in the condition of Scotland, but also in the conditions of agriculture there. Scotland formerly was very poor, the greater part of the country an uncultivated waste, whilst those portions under tillage were worked by tenants who depended almost entirely upon their own intelligence and persevering industry, the resources of their farms, and the kindly feeling of their landlords. Now, Scotland possesses a fair amount of capital; her uncultivated wastes have been converted into fertile and highly productive districts; the science of the chemist and the inventive skill of the engineer have been called in to aid the farmer in the cultivation of the soil, by supplying him with manures, artificial and imported, feeding stuffs, and agricultural machinery, the accounts for all of which form heavy items on the work- ing expenses of a farm; and the merchants who furnish these necessaries naturally feel it to be a hardship that they should run the ordinary risks of trade, while the rent of the landlord is secured to him by an exceptional law. I am quite aware it is said, that if the law of hypothec is abolished, competition for farms will be lessened, rents lowered, and the security of the landlord taken away. I have no fear of any such consequences, for I believe that the country contains abundant capital, and a farmer's life is a pleasant and healthy occupation much sought after—and, moreover, I have always noticed that when farms are vacant on well managed estates, there is no lack of competition for them; and a landlord has only to select, not the highest offerer, but the man who can show good antecedents and sufficient funds, and then by making careful conditions and a proper bargain, his rent will be as secure as at present. The question of hypothec has now for some years been a cause of agitation in Scotland, where it is felt as a grievance by the tenants and the public; whilst the landlords, whose interests the law was framed to protect, are indifferent as to its continuance. I know that what I have said is the feeling in the highly cultivated country which I have the honour to represent, and such is my own view. I shall, therefore, support the second reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire—and before sitting down, I must say that in that part of Scotland from which I come the feeling between landlords and tenants is very good, their interests are almost identical; and I believe that it is outcries and denunciations like those indulged in by the hon. Members for Forfarshire and Aberdeenshire, which have, to a very great extent, retarded and obstructed legislation on this and other agricultural subjects.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire because he thought it a good thing to get rid of laws which were no longer necessary, and because he believed that the law of hypothec tended to retard or prevent that investment of capital on the land which was one of the necessities of our times. He regretted that English Members had been found to urge the retaining of this law in a country where the conditions on which agriculture was carried on, through the aid of long leases differed so materially from those prevailing in England, but the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) had acted more wisely in saying that Scotch Members should be allowed to decide the question for themselves. The law of distress was widely different in England from that of the hypothec of Scotland, and he could assure the House that a large portion of the sequestrations which had taken place was for the purpose of having security for the rent to become due. Why were the landlords to be supposed to be incapable of looking after their own interests? Why not leave them to look after their own affairs instead of providing them with a special law? A point had been raised as to landlords being so liberal by allowing men to undertake the cultivation of land who had not sufficient capital; but if the landlords were left to consider their own interests, without the protection now given by the law to an unjust contract as against the farmer, they would look about them in order to select only those men who by means of capital, intelligence, and good conduct would do justice to the land. He was not there to speak with regard to assisting poor farmers, for he wished to see them rise by their own exertions to independence; but he might say that he believed that Scotland had risen to her present position in spite of this law. When they looked back for nearly 100 years, they would see what a great change in the cultivation of the soil had taken place through the Montgomery Act giving long leases. A great portion of the wealth from the land rentals of Scotland had been made mainly by long leases, whereby persevering and industrious farmers had without aid from landlords brought land into cultivation and improved and benefited the land fit for agriculture. He thought this was an unjust law, which favoured a powerful interest that no longer required such protection, while the feeling of Scotland was totally opposed to the longer continuance of such a law. He trusted the English Members would permit the Scotch Members to deal with this question which peculiarly affected Scotland. The Scotch Members did not desire to interfere with the English land laws. On those grounds he should support the second reading of the Bill.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, the district which he represented contained amongst the constituency many gentlemen who were interested in the question, and who had long expressed the decided opinion that hypothec ought to be abolished. After having given great consideration to the question, he was prepared to support the second reading of the Bill. It contained principles which had not been alluded to so far in the debate, and the Bill not only concerned what was agricultural, but it had also reference to mills, shops, and places of manufacture. That involved a different consideration, and if the Bill reached Committee it would be necessary to go thoroughly into the question, and to use other arguments than those already heard. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire declared that the tenant-farmers of Scotland could not take care of themselves. He understood the hon. Member to say that he had never been bound by any writing or parchment, and never would be. He was a very fair sample of the kind of tenant-farmer who came from Scotland, and his career and independence did him great credit; but at the same time when he held up the tenant-farmers, as he might say, almost to the ridicule of the House of Commons and the country by saying that they were utterly unable to look after their own interests, the hon. Member branded them in a manner which they did not deserve. He also laid great stress on the opinion that the question was a landlords' question. He (Mr. M. Stewart) utterly denied that it was a landlords' question. He was interested in land both as a farmer and a landlord, and he wished to tell the hon. Member that he had not, in the management of the estates of which he had experience, ever known a single case of hypothecation. The House, then, might say—"Why come here to advocate the abolition of a law under which no material injury has arisen?" Because it was the opinion of all persons during his election contest that he had come in contact with, that it was undesirable to continue the law of hypothec. The House should recollect that hypothec originated at a time when the landlord had to give everything for the cultivation of the soil—not only to look out for a tenant, but to provide the stock, implements, and seed, and other necessaries for carrying on the farm; but now of that was done away with. In his part of the country all the farms were fore rented, and practically the abolition of the law of hypothec would not much influence the proprietor. He utterly denied that the matter was a landlords' question, for if hypothec were done away with the landlord would not allow himself to be defrauded of his rent. He would put in some clause, in some agreement, or in some way, he would take precious good care of his own rights. The hon. Member had suggested that the tenant-farmers were a down-trodden class, but the landlords had nothing to fear in the discussion. Distinctive and class privileges were doubtless doing a great deal to embitter the feeling between landlord and tenant; but there were not engendered all those feelings which the hon. Member opposite had attributed to the landlords of Scotland. It had been said in the course of the debate that small farmers would suffer. No doubt they would suffer. He thought, in fact, that was the very strongest argument that could be used against reading the Bill a second time, and if he were opposing it, that would be his sole argument; but he was influenced in his present views by the fact that in the country he came from there was in his experience, and, so far as he had heard, little or no difference of opinion on the question, not only amongst the large tenants, but also amongst the small tenants. It had been found that men of straw did offer for farms. Although at first the landlord thought he was getting a great rise of rent, it did not last, as those men, having no capital, could not stand in bad seasons. The farm got badly cultivated, and in the end both the landlord, the tenant, and the country were injuriously affected. Competition was also, in another way, unduly fostered. A man came into a country new to him, and offered for a farm. He saw the surrounding farms let at a very high rent, and he thought he was safe in doing the same thing. He would not take into consideration that the landlord's right of hypothec virtually protected him against loss from an injudicious offer on the part of the tenant, and he offered a fictitious rent. Sometimes a man's goods were sequestrated from year to year, and there could be no doubt that under such management the farm suffered. He did not attach such great importance to the diminished credit of the tenant under the law of hypothec, though, no doubt, it operated harshly on occasional emergencies. Not only would the manure agents and seedsmen decline to trust a man; but the person on whom the tenant was, in these days, most dependent, the banker, would not trust him. There were other classes of persons who also would suffer. The blacksmith, the joiner, the clothiers, the ironmonger, and other small tradesmen, wholly depended for their livelihood on the well-doing of the tenant-farmer. On well-managed estates these hardships were not, he believed, often felt; but still there was no blinking the fact that they might rise up any moment, as had been said that though the majority of the landlords might be good landlords, there were bad ones as well. That was perfectly true; and if he were opposing the second reading he should give very strong advice to let well alone. It had been said that capital would flow into other channels; but there was no evidence for the use of the argument. The statement that the Bill would interfere with long leases was very serious; but when a landlord chose a tenant, he had to consider the-class of tenant he had to get, the best rent—from a reasonable point of view—that could be obtained, and how to get his farm into the best condition, for on that depended any fair rise which might be expected at the end of the lease: and taking that and other matters into consideration, he did not think the landlord would be inclined to take short leases in place of long ones. The House must not forgot that the customs relating to land in Scotland were on a very different footing from those of England. In Scotland the landlord paid half of the poor-rate, the whole of the county rate, half of the school rate, the whole of the minister's stipend, the repairs of the manse and church, and, till lately, those of the parish school. This might be taken as an argument against the Bill; but the House should consider both sides of the question. In his opinion it was not; as the landlords, he believed, were generally of opinion that it was a tenant's and not a landlord's question; and opposition on their part mainly arose on that score; and no doubt there was many a poor man who had risen to opulence and to be a large farmer owing to circumstances certainly to be traced to the profection the law of hypothec had given. It had already been remarked that hypothec had done its work, and if that was the feeling in Scotland, where its operation was best known, the House need not scruple to give its sanction to the principle of the second reading of this Bill. One word as to urban hypothec. During the two keen contests in his group of burghs last year, embracing many rural as well as urban voters, he had never heard of any wish to abolish it, or any grievance on that score. It seemed to him the first necessity to a poor man was the shelter of a house to protect him. The rent of a man's house was very small, and very different from that of a farm, which not only afforded shelter, but in it was embarked all a man's capital for the purpose of carrying on the farm. He would not trouble the House at greater length; but he wished to say he intended to support the Bill, because he considered that in course of time it would allay agitation and repress any feeling of bitterness that might exist between landlord and tenant, and which the common weal of the country required should not exist. He trusted, if the measure were carried, that great care would be taken in Committee to make it effective and conducive, to the welfare of the country.

MR. R. W. DUFF

was not singular, he thought, in asking the House that the Bill should be made to apply to the towns as well as the country. Speaking as a landlord, he did not at all object to the Bill so far as related to agricultural hypothec, because the landlords could take care of themselves—but he did object to getting the thin end of the wedge in, to having one law for the town and another for the country. He could understand hon. Members saying that they would abolish hypothec for the country but not for the towns—because the owners of house property in towns were a very powerful body—almost as powerful as the publicans—but he could not approve such a policy—and if he gave his support to the second reading it would be on the distinct understanding that if the same law was not allowed for both town and country, he would take the opportunity of voting against the Bill on every occasion. As to the rent system, he was quite certain, speaking from the knowledge of his own con- stituency, that the tenants had not capital sufficient to go from one system to the other. In that part of the country it was impossible for the landlord to look to "forehand rent;" and he thought the majority of the tenant-farmers in the north of Scotland had not sufficient capital to give forehand rent. He hoped that there would be some expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government on the Bill before the debate closed. The hon. Member for South Norfolk had certainly addressed the House; but he said that he would not vote at all on the question; and as the Lord Advocate was then, or had recently been in the House, he hoped the right hon. and learned Member would favour them with the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the question. He would support the second reading, but on the distinct understanding which he had mentioned.

MR. RAMSAY

pointed out that the measure dealt not only with agricultural subjects, as the term "heritable" used in the Bill would include warehouses, factories, and all descriptions of property except dwelling-houses, which were expressly exempted. That was a point on which he would have liked to have heard the opinion of the Lord Advocate. In regard to the discrepancy between several of the speakers as to the state of public opinion in Scotland, he begged to explain that the feeling against the law of hypothec existed chiefly in the arable districts on the east coast, while he had not heard of a Petition against it from the pastoral districts in the west of Scotland. That was an important consideration. If it were the intention of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire to include urban tenements, as well as those which were agricultural—and he believed the true construction of the Bill would be that both were included in its provisions—it ought to be distinctly stated. He wished the Lord Advocate had been in his place, because he might have favoured them with his views on the general question. As to the question of "forehand rents," there were strictly entailed estates, and if hypothec were abolished there must be an alteration of the law, or a tenant might be liable to pay twice. He (Mr. Ramsay) would be glad to support the abolition of the law of hypothec, but their legislation should be devised with reference to other existing laws, and not merely for the removal of an apparent defect with-out any regard to the consequences that would ensue, or the effect which such removal might have on the legal position and rights of owners and occupiers respectively.

LORD ELCHO

said, he was anxious to press one or two points upon the attention of the House. He certainly agreed with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. R. W. Duff) that the question was one of such great importance that they ought to have some expression of opinion from some responsible representative of the Government. He said it was a most important question; and on this ground—although his noble Friend (Viscount Macduff), who spoke so well in the earlier part of the debate, said he hoped that the question would be treated as a Scotch one, he (Lord Elcho) trusted that it would not be so treated. It was not a Scotch question. It rested on a much broader question, for it affected England and Ireland quite as much as it did Scotland. What was the principle of the Bill? It was a very short Bill; it consisted only of 12 lines, but in those 12 lines there was embodied an absolute revolution as regarded the security enjoyed by the owners of property for their lands and rents. That was not a question which ought to be disposed of in 12 lines. It not only affected England and Ireland as well as Scotland, but it affected only one description of property—namely, that of land. Why should not other property be dealt with in the same way? The question was not one that should be dealt with in that haphazard manner, and they ought to have a distinct expression of opinion from the Government. For instance, did they or did they not think it was right for owners to have some security? Did they or did they not think there was any reason why Scotland should be legislated for differently from England and Ireland? If the Government did think so, then they ought to bring in a Bill. If, on the other hand, they thought there was no reason for dealing exceptionally with Scotch property as compared with Irish and English property, then he thought they ought to say so. With regard to the statements that it was a landlord and tenants question, he, speaking as the son of a landlord, denied that it was. After the passing of the Bill—if it should pass—any landlord could secure himself against any loss; but it would be at the expense of the small tenant. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had in his speech in that debate stated that he could not shut his eyes to the fact that a great and meritorious class of farmers were benefited by the English law of distress, which was the counterpart of the Scotch law. He also stated—and he (Lord Elcho) was astonished at the statement—that in his own county there were 10,000 tenants with holdings under 20 acres, while the average quantity held by the small tenants and the "bloated aristocracy of farmers," as they were called by the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, amounted only to 60 acres. The question was a wider one than many persons supposed. He thought that the Bill, if carried, would operate most injuriously on what the hon. Member for South Norfolk had most justly described as a most industrious and hardworking class—the small tenants of Scotland.

MR. LEEMAN

said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to some facts connected with the history of this measure. In 1871 a similar Bill was introduced, and was rejected by nearly two to one; in 1873 the same thing happened; but it seemed that the gentlemen promoting this agitation had resolved to continue it, whatever the decision of the House, until they had succeeded in carrying their proposal. It was what one hon. Gentleman had called a "noisy agitation in Scotland," but a great deal of the agitation might be confined to a very few persons. Full consideration had been given to this subject by a Royal Commission, which sat in 1864, and reported in 1865. That Commission, which was composed of many very eminent Members, examined 102 witnesses from Scotland, and the conclusion arrived at was to the following effect— In the general principle of the law, under which the landlord of an agricultural subject has, in security of his rent, a preference over the crop raised on the ground, and the stock brought upon it by the tenant, we are not disposed to recommend any alteration. Our investigations have regarded the results of a system which has existed for centuries, not only without complaint, but as a subject of commendation, both by legal writers and by persons practically conversant with its operation. That system is intimately interwoven with the land rights of Scotland. Numerous analogies to it are found in other branches of our jurisprudence, and under its influence this country has un- doubtedly made great advances in the science and practice of agriculture. We are inclined to think that, both on the part of the opponents of the present law of hypothec and of its supporters, the consequences which would be likely to result from its repeal may have been to some extent exaggerated. But such a measure would, in our opinion, certainly be followed by alterations in the tenancy of land, in Scotland, which must act injuriously on the tenants, and especially on the smaller tenants, and would probably remove many of that valuable and industrious class from their present possessions. We should also anticipate, from the abolition of the existing law, other changes in the relation between landlord and tenant, which might operate very differently in different parts of the country, but the ultimate consequences of which it is impossible to foresee. The Commissioners went on to say that they felt there were some hardships in the operation of the law which should be modified or removed, and they made certain recommendations with regard to the modifications which they thought might be introduced. The effect was that in the following year a Bill was brought in which carried out to the full the recommendations of the Commission and becoming law, removed many of the objections which existed to the old law. The landlord was prevented from following the crop, beyond three months after the rent became due. Before that he could have followed it for a considerable time. Further, there had been power to seize the cattle belonging to another person which might be found on the lands of the tenant for rent duo. The new law provided that the cattle taken to graze should only be liable to be seized for the value due from their owner to the farmer upon whose land they were in respect of the grazing. The amelioration of the old law was very considerable in several respects. Complaints, however, continued to be made, and in 1869 a Select Committee of the House of Lords was appointed, which called a great number of additional witnesses. That Committee said in its Report:— The next objection to the law of hypothec was that it stimulated an unhealthy competition for land, and raised rents above their natural level. The broad ground on which the present Bill was based was, that it was to have the effect of destroying competition on the part of the small tenants.

MR. VANS AGNEW

said, he never stated that the competition of the smaller tenants would be discouraged. He spoke of the competition of men without capital—without sufficient means.

MR. LEEMAN

said, the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the small tenant as a gentleman who had a farm at £50 a-year, and who worked it with his own family and two horses. There were thousands of such men in Yorkshire. He (Mr. Leeman) objected to the Bill because the abolition of the law of hypothec must be followed by the abolition of the law of distress. The hon. Gentleman went further, and quoted the language of a witness before the Commission, to the effect that if hypothec was abolished, the small tenant must go to the wall. The Commissioners stated that by the existing law, rents were usually paid after the tenant had the benefit of the crop. The doctrine of the present Bill was, and its consequences would be, that the tenant should pay the money down before he saw a crop. The Commissioners went on to say— With regard to the arable land, the first payment for land seldom takes place in less than twelve months, more frequently in eighteen, and in some cases not until twenty-one months after a tenant has entered on the farm. This long credit enables them to enter on the farms with less command of capital than would otherwise he necessary: while it is affirmed by those who support the law that if the security derived from the law of hypothec were withdrawn from the landlords, they would consider it unsafe to give such advantage to the tenants, and would insist on having the rent paid, if not in advance, at all events at the end of the first half-year. To that Report the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Young) and Mr. Carnegie, the hon. Member for Forfar, were the only objectors. In 1869 Mr. Carnegie brought in a Bill in direct contrariety to the Report from which he dissented, to abolish hypothec; but the Government supported the Report. In the debate the Lord Advocate admitted that the logical consequences of the Bill must be the abolition of distress in England—for which indeed he contended, honestly enough, from his point of view. The debate was more than once adjourned; but on a division the second reading was carried by 127 votes to 91. Owing to the time of Parliament being occupied by another subject, the Bill proceeded no further that session; but in 1871 Mr. Carnegie again introduced the Bill; but upon this occasion it was rejected by nearly two to one—the numbers being 105 in favour of the second reading against 186 against it. Something had been said of the difficulty in which the introducer of the Bill involved himself by having omitted to include the urban portions of Scotland. On the occasion of Mr. Carnegie's Bills the urban population was included; and the proposal was met by the Members for Edinburgh and other large towns in Scotland, who said the effect of the abolition of the law of hypothec would be that in Edinburgh alone there were 15,000 houses under £12 a-year rent—the occupants of which would be unable to got habitations if the law of hypothec were abolished—it was the present law that enabled those people to get houses over their heads; with the law abolished, every man who went to take a house must take his money in his pocket for the first quarter's rent, or he would not be admitted. Mr. Carnegie and the Lord Advocate said if the law of hypothec was abolished for the country districts, it must be abolished for the urban districts also. The Bill was lost as he (Mr. Leeman) had stated. In 1873 it was again introduced by Sir David Wedderburn, and rejected by 83 to 147—the English Members showing by their votes, that if Scotch Members were prepared to act injuriously to the small tenants in Scotland by the abolition of the law of hypothec, English Members were not prepared to follow their example by the abolition of the law of distress in England. The landlord's power of distress, in fact, gave him the means of adding to the capital of the poor man, who, if this law were abolished, would never be able to get a bit of land. He could mention the case of a man who commenced life as a humble shepherd, and who got on until he became possessed of considerable property; that he could never have done but for the operation of the law of hypothec. He hoped the House would pause before it passed this measure. Since the Royal Commission and the Select Committee that had inquired into this subject had made their Reports, nothing had occurred in the circumstances of Scotland to induce the House to alter its determination on two previous occasions, not to abolish the law of hypothec.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 156: Majority 18.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

AYES.
Adam, rt. hon. W. P.	Holms, J.
Alexander, Colonel	Holms, W.
Anderson, G.	James, Sir H.
Anstruther, Sir W.	James, W. H.
Balfour, Sir G.	Johnston, W.
Barclay, J. W.	Johnstone, H.
Bass, A.	Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.
Bass, M. T.
Beaumont, Major F.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Beaumont, W. B.	Laing, S.
Biggar, J. G.	Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Brady, J.	Leith, J. F.
Brassey, H. A.	Locke, J.
Briggs, W. E.	Lorne, Marquess of
Brogden, A.	Lubbock, Sir J.
Brown, A. H.	Lusk, Sir A.
Browne, G. E.	Macartney, J. W. E.
Bruce, hon. T.	Macdonald, A.
Burt, T.	Macduff, Viscount
Butt, I.	Macgregor, D.
Callender, W. R.	Mackintosh, C. F.
Cameron, C.	M'Combie, W.
Campbell-Bannerman, H.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
	M'Lagan, P.
Chadwick, D.	Maitland, J.
Childers, rt. hon. H.	Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.
Clarke, J. C.	Martin, J.
Cole, H. T.	Matheson, A.
Collins, E.	Meldon, C. H.
Conyngham, Lord F.	Monck, Sir A. E.
Corry, J. P.	Monk, C. J.
Cowan, J.	Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.
Cowen, J.	Montgomerie, R.
Crawford, J. S.	Morgan, G. O.
Cross, J. K.	Mundella, A. J.
Dalrymple, C.	Muntz, P. H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Mure, Colonel
Davies, R.	Noel, E.
Dilke, Sir C. W.	Nolan, Captain
Dodds, J.	Norwood, C. M.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	O'Conor, D. M.
Duff, R. W.	O'Gorman, P.
Dunbar, J.	O'Keeffe, J.
Edmonstone, Adm. Sir W.	O'Shaughnessy, R.
	O'Sullivan, W. H.
Edwards, H.	Pender, J.
Errington, G.	Pennington, F.
Esmonde, Sir J.	Playfair, rt. hon. L.
Ewing, A. O.	Plimsoll, S.
Eyton, P. E.	Power, J. O'C.
Fawcett, H.	Power, R.
Ferguson, R.	Rashleigh, Sir C.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	Rathbone, W.
Fletcher, I.	Redmond, W. A.
Fordyce, W. D.	Reed, E. J.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	Richard, H.
French, hon. C.	Robertson, H.
Gourley, E. T.	St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Grieve, J. J.	Seely, C.
Harrison, C.	Sherriff, A. C.
Harrison, J. F.	Smith, E.
Havelock, Sir H.	Smyth, P. J.
Hayter, A. D.	Stacpoole, W.
Hervey, Lord F.	Stafford, Maquess of
Holland, S.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

Stewart, M. J.	Williams, W.
Taylor, P. A.	Wilson, C.
Tillett, J. H.	Yeaman, J.
Trevelyan, G. O.	Young, A. W.
Vivian, A. P.
Waterlow, Sir S. H.	TELLERS.
Whitwell, J.	Agnew, R. V.
Whitworth, W.	Douglas, Sir G.

NOES.
Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C.	Hervey, Lord A. H.
Assheton, R.	Hick, J.
Baggallay, Sir R.	Hodgson, W. N.
Bagge, Sir W.	Hogg, Sir J. M.
Barrington, Viscount	Holland, Sir H. T.
Bates, E.	Holmesdale, Viscount
Bathurst, A. A.	Holt, J. M.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.	Hope, A. J. B. B.
Bentinck, G. C.	Isaac, S.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Johnson, J. G.
Beresford, Colonel M.	Jolliffe, hon. S.
Birley, H.	Jones, J.
Boord, T. W.	Kavanagh, A. MacM.
Brise, Colonel R.	Knightley, Sir R.
Brymer, W. E.	Lacon, Sir E. H. K.
Buckley, Sir E.	Learmonth, A.
Cave, rt. hon. S.	Legard, Sir C.
Cawley, C. E.	Legh, W. J.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Leigh, Lt.-Col. E.
Churchill, Lord R.	Leslie, J.
Clifton, T. H.	Lewis, C. E.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Lloyd, S.
Clive, G.	Lloyd, T. E.
Close, M. C.	Lopes, H. C.
Cochrane, A. D. W. R. B.	Lopes, Sir M.
Cordes, T.	Lowther, J.
Corry, hon. H. W. L.	Mahon, Viscount
Crossley, J.	Majendie, L. A.
Cubitt, G.	Makins, Colonel
Cuninghame, Sir W.	Malcolm, J. W.
Cust, H. C.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Dyke, W. H.	March, Earl of
Eaton, H. W.	Marling, S. S.
Egerton, hon. W.	Marten, A. G.
Elcho, Lord	Mellor, T. W.
Elliot, G.	Mills, Sir C. H.
Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.	Monckton, F.
Emlyn, Viscount	Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R.
Eslington, Lord	Naghten, A. R.
Finch, G. H.	Nevill, C. W.
Floyer, J.	Newdegate, C. N.
Forester, C. T. W.	Newport, Viscount
Forsyth, W.	Noel, rt, hon. G. J.
Fraser, Sir W. A.	North, Colonel
Gallwey, Sir W. P.	Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Gardner, J. T. Agg-
Garnier, J. C.	Pease, J. W.
Gibson, E.	Pelly, Sir H. C.
Goldney, G.	Percy, Earl
Gordon, rt. hon. E. S.	Pim, Captain B.
Gordon, W.	Plunket, hon. D. R.
Gore, W. R. O.	Plunkett, hon. R.
Gorst, J. E.	Powell, W.
Hall, A. W.	Puleston, J. H.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Rendlesham, Lord
Hamilton, Lord G.	Ridley, M. W.
Hamilton, Marq. of	Ripley, H. W.
Hamond, C. F.	Roebuck, J. A.
Hardy, J. S.	Round, J.
Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D.	Sanderson, T. K.
Hermon, E.	Sandford, G. M. W.

Sandon, Viscount	Verner, E. W.
Scott, M. D.	Walker, T. E.
Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.	Wallace, Sir R.
	Walpole, rt. hon. S.
Sidebottom, T. H.	Watney, J.
Smith, F. C.	Welby, W. E.
Smith, W. H.	Wells, E.
Smollett, P. B.	Wethered, T. O.
Stanhope, hon. E.	Wheelhouse, W. S. J.
Stanley, hon. F.	Williams, Sir F. M.
Stanton, A. J.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Starkey, L. R.	Winn, R.
Talbot, J. G.	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Taylor, rt. hon. Col.	Wynn, C. W. W.
Tennant, R.	Yarmouth, Earl of
Torr, J.	Yorke, J. R.
Trenayne, J.
Turner, C.	TELLERS.
Twells, P.	Gregory, G. B.
Vance, J.	Leeman, G.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 18th March.