MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the following instance of the operation of the Law of Distress has recently taken place. A landowner in Norfolk hired from a proprietor of steam-engines and threshing machines some machinery for the purpose of threshing his crops. Upon the work being completed, the 1731 same machinery was immediately hired by a tenant of the landlord, and, upon being removed to the holding of the said tenant, was thereupon seized by the landlord for rent due; whether, upon consideration of these facts, the following resolution has not boon unanimously adopted at a general meeting of the Agricultural Engineers' Association: —
That a case of a landowner who seized an engine and threshing machine hired by his tenant, for rent due by such tenant, having come before the general meeting of the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the members present desire to express a decided opinion that the time has arrived when landowners should be deprived by the Legislature of such an exceptional power, and that, in respect of money due to them for rent, they should be placed upon the same footing as other creditors;and, whether he can hold out any prospect of such legislation during the present Session?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the case only by the Question of the hon. Member; but it was very probable that such a case might have occurred. As to the prospect of legislation on the subject, he was very glad to be able to answer in the affirmative, because there was a Bill, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), and which stood for second reading on Wednesday next, the object of which was to exempt live stock and agricultural machinery, not being the property of the tenant, from distress for rent. That Bill, no doubt, would receive the earnest consideration of the House.