[BILL 32.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 25 April 1877)

§ MR. GREGORY

rose to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He was sorry to have to appear before the House twice in the same character on the same day; but as he was about to move the rejection of the measure, he would venture to state the objections that he had always entertained to it. He could not altogether follow the course taken by the hon. Member who moved the second reading in abstaining from any statement, but he need not detain the House long, as the measure was one of a simple character and very short in its details. The object of it was to put an end to a system which existed in Scotland under the name of the law of hypothec, which was practically what was known in England as the law of distress, but it was to be observed that the Bill in its inception was wholly illogical, and drew a distinction between urban and rural districts. Well, but if the law of distress was not applicable in the one case, he could not see that it was applicable in the other; and, on 1866 the other hand, if it was right in the one case, it was right in the other. So far as he could learn, although there might be a feeling in favour of the Bill to some extent amongst the agricultural constituencies in Scotland, that did not extend to the urban districts, and that was no doubt the reason of the distinction; but now let them consider what was the present shape of the Bill as applied to the rural districts. Of course, he was placed at this disadvantage, that the hon. Member who introduced it had made no case whatever for the Bill, and therefore he was obliged to assume, for the sake of argument, that there was some case, and he could only put forward his own case in opposition to that which he presumed the hon. Member would raise. The Act which this Bill sought to amend was somewhat different from the law of distress as it existed in England, although founded on the same principles. In Scotland the landlord had a lien on accruing rents; but this could not be put in force except on process through the Sheriff's Court. On the other hand, in England there was no lien for accruing rent, but in the case of rent accrued the landlord had power to enforce payment without reference to any Court, and by his own motion. He was not sure that in one respect the law of Scotland was not better than that of England, because he thought the law of England gave power to distrain for too long a period. He must, however, proceed to deal with the case as he supposed it would be put by the hon. Member. He believed that the case was that, although the law of hypothec enabled a small tenant to apply for a farm, and enabled the landlord to let it to a smaller class of tenants, by giving him a lien as security for rent, which he would not otherwise have, that security ought not to be given for such objects. Now, in the first place, the law was an old established law that had existed for several centuries. In the year 1867 there was a modification, and it was thoroughly well understood that the whole of the agricultural tenancies of Scotland, as they now existed, bad been contracted under this law. It was sought to modify the law, on the ground that to do so would induce landlords to pass over small tenants, and accept men of larger means. Now, he ventured to say that that there was not a more valuable class 1867 of men than the small tenant-farmers of Scotland, and that there was not a class of men whose interest and welfare ought to be more carefully regarded by that House. They were thrifty, prudent, and industrious—they struggled hard for their living, and they brought up their sons to work hard, and to be thrifty, prudent, and industrious like themselves. Now, ought the House to entertain anything like a proposal the adoption of which would prevent these men from competing for the occupation of their small holdings? It was said that that competition was prejudicial to the larger holders, that the law encouraged that prejudicial competition, and that the House was bound to alter the law, which was ancient and well understood, for the purpose of excluding the thrifty, hard- working tenants from competition. He should be very much astonished if the House of Commons were to adopt a principle of that kind. But it was, no doubt, the fact that, if the law of hypothec were abolished, that competition would be affected—no doubt it was perfectly true that landlords accepted the offers of poor tenants on account of the lien which the law gave them. Without that protection a landlord would have much difficulty in refusing an offer of a wealthy tenant as against one with little or no capital, and who had to rely on his own exertions on his farm for the means of paying his rent. But he did not think that the principle of this Bill was one which they were likely to lay down in that House, though it was no doubt true that a good many Representatives of farming constituencies in Scotland had pledged themselves on this question. The law was nearly identical in England and Scotland, and anything which they did with regard to Scotland would have to be applied to England also. But he was quite confident that in England there was no outcry for an alteration of the law: on the contrary, he was confident that the law of distress was acceptable to the great body of English tenants, and that they knew that it enabled the landlords to give facilities which they could not otherwise give them; that the farms were obtained on better terms on account of that law; and that more persons preferred the present law than wished to see it altered. He believed it was the same in Scotland; for it was seen that there was an effort on the part 1868 of the large holders to squeeze out the small holders, and that the present system was in favour of small tenants. Then it was said that this law of distress was prejudicial to the parties who supplied the tenants with various requirements for their farms— that it enabled the landlords to sustain a preferential claim over other creditors. But did not those who dealt with the tenant as a customer know the liabilities which he was under? Were they not aware that the tenant's property on the farm was subject to that lien, and that in dealing with a tenant all that they had to look to was his capital, or the produce of the farm after the satisfaction of the landlord? If the House took away this condition, they would give the tenant a fictitious property in what ho had not got. At present his property was what he possessed beyond satisfying the claims of the landlord, and he knew, and the world knew, that the landlord who had allowed him to enter on the occupation of the farm, had parted with it to the tenant to occupy on the terms that the tenant should regularly pay his rent; and it was because the landlord had parted with that possession that he had a right, in case the rent was not paid, to obtain the rent by seizure. The condition arose from the original relation of landlord and tenant. The one possessed the land and allowed the other to use it, reserving to himself the right of levying his rent by seizure of what was upon the farm, and what was growing upon it. Well, was there any hardship or any injustice in that? It was said that the landlord had no right to this preferential claim. But, first of all, he had the land, and, secondly, he had parted with the possession of it and the tenant was in occupation. The landlord was under no obligation to parties who supplied the tenant with goods. Their business was to hand over their goods, and to receive the money for them. If they chose to give the tenant credit, they did so with their eyes open, for their own convenience, and for the sake of trade, and knowing the liabilities of the tenant with respect to the landlord's claim. There had been a Committee of the House of Lords on this question, and they had had trading witnesses before them, and had asked these witnesses if they expected loss in consequence of 1869 the state of the law. Well, the utmost loss spoken of was from 3 to 5 per cent on the whole course of trade, but the general average was something like ¾ per cent by bad debts. He (Mr. Gregory) only wished he could carry on his business on the same terms, and any man was fortunate who only incurred that amount of loss in his business in the course of a year. This was the case of those creditors of the tenant to whom he had referred. He did not wish to trouble the House at undue length. He had answered the case which was advanced on the other side so far as he could anticipate it, and there was only one thing more which he would say. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—

It being now a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

The other Orders of the Day having been gone through—