§ Distress.
§ Clause 15 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).
§ MR. CARPENTER GARNIERrose to move, in page 7, line 12, to leave out the words "after the commencement of this Act," in order to insert the words "after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five." He said that, as the Committee were aware, the commencement of the operation of this Bill was fixed for the 1st of January next; and all he asked was that a little more time should be given before this particular provision came into force. He had nothing to say against the principle of the clause—there was a general agreement upon that; but what he asked was for a little more time before the commencement of so great a change. During the late agricultural depression landlords had allowed arrears to grow up; but they did this relying on the security of the law as it stood, and if that security was taken away very suddenly great inconvenience would ensue. Moreover, the rents were often not collected until many months after they became due; and it was not asking too much that a little time might be given to enable both landlords and tenants to consider the subject, with the view of arriving at the best course which might be convenient to them both.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 12, to leave out "after the commencement of this Act," and insert "after the first day of January one thousand eight
310
hundred and eighty-five."—(Mr. Carpenter Garnier.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill might see his way to accept this Amendment. A great alteration was to take place in regard to the Law of Distress; and, seeing the peculiar position in which a very large number of tenants were placed at this moment, especially after the great depression which there had been in agriculture, and after the full consideration which he hoped it would be acknowledged had been shown to them with regard to their rents by their landlords, it would be unfair to bring the Bill into play in the hurried way proposed. He was quite sure that arrangements would be made, if time were given to make them—arrangements which would be satisfactory both to the tenants and to the landlords; and it was principally in the interests of the tenants that he asked that the Amendment should be accepted. It would be most inconvenient if the Bill came quickly into operation, so far as it affected the Law of Distress; and it would be both wise and prudent that this point should be very carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was in that belief that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to press this Amendment strongly on his attention.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he trusted that the Government would not consent to the alteration suggested by the two hon. Members who had just spoken. It had often been stated, with regard to the Law of Distress, that it had generally been kept in abeyance, and that, though it conferred a vast power upon the landlord, it was a power which was only exercised in rare cases. But it struck him, unless he heard arguments to the contrary, that if this Amendment were passed it would put both landlord and tenant, during a great number of months, into a most cruel position, because as the clause now stood—limiting the power of distress to one year—the landlord might make up his mind whether or not he would distrain for all the previous arrears; and large Companies, Corporations, trustees, and others, must come to their decision in four months as to whether they would distrain to an extent to which landlords 311 never distrained before. It would be a rather unfortunate matter if, when a Bill was passed to place tenants and landlords in a more satisfactory position, the landlord should have a longer time to consider whether he would exercise the right of distress which was now about to be taken away for any period beyond a year, on a scale larger than it had ever before been exercised upon. In the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for instance, he knew that there were very large arrears due to them; and, as a public body, if they had a certain number of months given to them for consideration, it would be a serious question whether they ought not to exact almost the whole of the arrears before the Act came into operation. He did not see what advantage could be claimed for the tenant under such an arrangement—indeed, the tenant would be considerably endangered by it. He hoped the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the advantage to the tenant was very clear, for if the Amendment were passed it would not be necessary for the landlord to take these harsh steps which were so injurious to the tenant until the 1st of January, 1885, instead of having to take them by the 1st of January, 1884. That was a gain of 12 months to the tenant, who for that time would be free from the extremely disagreeable and painful position which the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had vividly described. That was the advantage to the tenant which the Amendment proposed, and because he (Mr. Chaplin) viewed it in that light he should support the Amendment. There could be no doubt that the clauses relating to distress would fall with very great hardship, or they might do so, upon all those tenants who were in arrear at the present time, if they were brought into operation too rapidly. That was beyond dispute. There were an enormous number of tenants who were in arrear to-day, and if the Bill passed in its present form, one of two things must happen—either the landlords would have largely to sacrifice rents which were justly due to them, or they would be obliged by this law, passed nominally in the interests of the tenant, to step in and take measures which they would greatly regret; but which would be absolutely necessary 312 in their own self-defence, if they were to have any regard to their own interests at all. He thought the Amendment one of the most reasonable and sensible of all that had been proposed, and he hoped the Government would give it their best consideration.
§ Sir HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had wrongly assumed that the provisions of this Bill would come into operation immediately on its receiving the Queen's sanction. But such was not the case, as he would see by reference to Clause 22, by which it was provided that the Act should come into force on the 1st January, 1884. He (Sir Henry Holland) hoped that the Government would accept this Amendment to extend the time to 1st January, 1885, and he advocated this extension in the interest of the tenant. Unless the time were extended, landlords, including trustees and corporate bodies, would have only three or four months to consider what course to adopt with reference to existing arrears; and in many cases they would feel compelled to distrain at once for two or three years' arrears which, unless they took immediate action, they would lose. If they had more time allowed within which such arrears might be recovered, they would be in a position to make much more favourable terms with the tenants. The forcing a hasty decision upon landlords must lead to the issuing of many distress warrants, which would bear hardly upon the tenants, many of whom would be able, if more time were allowed, to make satisfactory arrangements with their landlords.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment and allow the change to come into operation as slowly as possible in the interests of those tenants who owed between three and four years' rent, as many thousands of them did, and who hoped with a fair harvest this year and next to be able to get round. He was afraid they would not have a very good harvest this year; but he could assure the Government that there were hundreds of tenants now who owed two, three, or four years' rent, and who, if the Distress Clauses of the Bill came into operation at the beginning of next year, and they were unable to come to any arrangement with their 313 landlords in the meanwhile, would be reduced to ruin. In the interests of the tenants, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not think the point of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had been quite understood by hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Opposition Benches. The question was, not whether the landlords would be hard upon the tenants in the course of the coming six months, but whether they could pile up the agony, and add another 12 months to the amount already to be paid, when the rent would be still more in arrear. Was it not better to have the present arrears settled, so that both parties could start fair afterwards, instead of having it hanging in suspense? That was the real point.
An hon. MEMBER said, he was strongly of opinion that the Amendment was in the interests of the tenant. Where a tenant was in embarrassed circumstances, and the Government came down upon him with this alteration on the 1st of January next, it would be extremely hard.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had entirely misapprehended the object of the Amendment. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was not sure that the right hon. Member for Ripon, whose views the hon. Member for Grimsby undertook to make clear, at all understood the effect of the Amendment, and yet it was very clear what the effect of adopting it would be. The hon. Member for Grimsby seemed to think that its object was to enable the landlord to distrain for another year's rent. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not read the Amendment in that way. No doubt, another Amendment did propose to extend the period during which the arrears of rent might be claimed from one year to two; but that was not done by this present Amendment, which merely deferred the evil day for both landlord and tenant from the 1st of January next to the 1st of January, 1885. How could the right hon. Member for Ripon make out that that was an injury to the tenant? It might be bad for the landlord, who might have to wait another year for his money; but he did not see how it could be a bad thing for the tenant. He would not anticipate the discussion 314 upon subsequent Amendments, in favour of which he had a very strong opinion; and he hoped the Committee would not be led away from the consideration of the proposal before them by anticipating those which would come on afterwards. This particular Amendment was simply a proposal to give a respite of another 12 months to those tenants who, perhaps, through the pressure of exceptionally disadvantageous seasons—he would not say anything about other causes—might be temporarily short of money.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he only wanted to say one word in order to make his meaning clear. He understood the matter thus. Under the present law, the landlord had power to distrain for six years' arrears; under the new law, he would only have power to distrain for one year. But if this Amendment were passed, that power to distrain for six years instead of one would remain in force for a year and four months, instead of for four months only. That was his point. If he were wrong in his view, he would withdraw all he had said. The question was, was it a desirable thing for the tenant that the landlord should retain the power of distraining for six years' arrears for a short time, or for a long time? Hon. Members opposite said it should be retained for the longer period; he, on the contrary, thought it was better that the power should be cut short. His desire was to abbreviate the time at the disposal of the landlord for recovering arrears which reached back for so long a period.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it was quite clear that if they postponed the operation of the clause for 12 months, the landlord would retain for that period the power of distraining for six years' arrears. He had been much struck with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ripon, who, as it seemed to him, was confirmed by the remarks previously made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). There was considerable danger in extending the time during which the landlords would have to consider whether they would take advantage of the opportunity to recover the six years' arrears. The right hon. Member for Ripon had pointed out that trustees and other public bodies might 315 feel themselves bound to distrain, and where their tenants were now two or three years in arrear, these tenants would probably be another year in arrear in another 12 months' time. Not only was this the case with trustees, but there were many other persons who had an interest in property, but who had no very great interest in the condition of the tenants. There were mortgagees and others who had an interest in an estate, and who, if they had a long interval during which to decide whether they should distrain or not, might naturally be driven to the conclusion that they ought to distrain for their arrears; and it might be the case that other and ordinary landlords might come to the same conclusion, for they might feel, on reflection, that they could not afford to lose the right of distraining. What did all this point to? Why, to this—that if the Bill were passed in its present shape, its passing might possibly be signalized by the issue of an enormous number of distress warrants to secure terms in regard to past years' arrears, and that, he thought, would be a most unfortunate thing. He had no great expectations from this Bill; he would have liked to see it much stronger than it was; but it would be most unfortunate if its passing should be signalized by the putting into force, even for three or four months, of the Law of Distress. To accept the Amendment would add enormously to the evils to which he had referred; and he thought it would be far better, in the interests of all classes, and for the maintenance of good feeling between landlords and tenants hereafter, that the operation of this clause should commence, not with the commencement of the Act, but the very moment the Bill received the Royal Assent. There would then be no interval at all for consideration—an interval that must otherwise be employed in a most disastrous manner.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought there would be something in the argument of the right hon. Member for Ripon if the Bill was to come into operation when it received the Royal Assent; but as that was not the case, it was better to postpone the new Law of Distress for 16 months, so that the whole matter might be well considered, rather than to give only four months for decision.
§ MR. DUCKHAMcould not allow the Amendment to pass without making one observation. It was well known that great distress was prevalent throughout the Kingdom over a great majority of the tenantry. They had sustained severe losses, and, no doubt, there were many tenants who were in arrear. If it should please the Almighty Ruler to bless them with a good harvest this year, and another next, they might possibly have a chance of recovering themselves; and it would be an advantage to them if the clause was not put into operation for another 12 months, as they would then have the benefit of two harvests instead of only one. It was quite true that it would extend the time longer than, under other circumstances, it ought; but it must be remembered that the landlord could use the provisions of the Bill in anticipation. The Amendment was not likely to extend the tenant's credit, but it would give him an opportunity of reducing his liabilities; and holding that view he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the hon. and learned Member who had recently spoken (Mr. Staveley Hill) argued that it would be better for the tenant to be liable for six years' rent instead of one, for a period of 16 months rather than for a period of four months. They had often heard it said that the Law of Distress existed for the benefit of the tenant; but if this Amendment were carried the tenant would be liable to a distress on his farm very soon after he had gathered his next harvest, and next year, after harvest, he would be liable to a second distress. The sooner the power of the landlord was terminated the better. He would have been glad to have had this clause come into operation on the passing of the measure; and he should support a subsequent Amendment, which would provide that it should come into force at Michaelmas. He was afraid that his hon. Friend who had last spoken had not seen the object of the Amendment.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it had been argued as if the law under which a landlord might distrain for six years' rent was a law of constant application; but he was bound to say that that was not the case. Not in one case in 6,000 was a distress put in for such a long period as six years. They should deal 317 with this matter not in the way of absurd theory, but as practical men; and what were the facts? There were a great number of instances where rent was due for two, and, perhaps, for three years. Landlords had extended to their tenants great consideration, and trustees had done so too, because they were able, if necessary, to put the existing law into force; but if this clause passed in its present form, every trustee in defence of his trust must speedily put the law into execution, and thus a mischief of great extent would be created which they all desired to avoid. This Amendment was clearly conceived in the interests of that unfortunate class of tenants who were in great difficulties through a succession of disastrous seasons. It would be much the best course to have the Bill, so far as this point was concerned, to come into operation, as was suggested, a year later. If they were afraid that the accruing rent between this and that time might add to the tenant's difficulties, it would be easy to insert a provision that the accruing rent, from the time of the passing of the Bill, should be subject to the Bill, and that the rent recoverable as rent in arrear should be rent that was in arrear at the date of the passing of the Bill. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had suggested another plan—quite a new way to pay old debts. How would that hon. Member like his business transactions to be cut short by a severe Act of Parliament, which should come into operation the moment it was passed, and prevent him from having the chance of recovering any of his bad debts, if he should be so unfortunate as to have any? But possibly there was an amount of prosperity in the hon. Gentleman's trade which did not extend to agriculture. He hoped the Amendment would be passed in the interests of the tenants.
§ MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he would urge the Government to accept the Amendment, not on account of the landlords at all, but on account of those tenants who owed 18 months' or two years' rent. If the Bill was passed in its present form, giving such a short time to put the existing Law of Distress into operation, it would be like raising a flood ate, and letting the flood in on the tenant before he had made arrangements to pay. If the Government would 318 give them a year, there were thousands, and perhaps ten of thousands, who would probably be able to carry on; but otherwise everybody would come down upon them all at once, and their livelihood would be taken away from them. Indeed, he thought it would be much better for the tenant that the interval should be two years instead of one; and he spoke simply in the interests of the tenant farmer. He agreed that if the tenant owed his landlord six years' rent the sooner he was put out of his trouble the better, because he never would pay; but he spoke of those—and he knew scores of them in his own neighbourhood—who had carried on under great difficulties. He would not take up the time of the Committee any further; but he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment in the interests of the tenant farmers.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, in strict principle this clause ought to be brought into operation immediately on the passing of the Act; but the Government had not provided for that, because they thought it would be somewhat hard on the parties concerned to bring it into instant operation. They had postponed the operation of the clause until the 1st of January, 1884; and he could not see what advantage there would be in postponing it any longer. In the case of tenants in arrears of rent, what would be the effect of deferring the operation of the clause? It would give an opportunity to add another year's rent to the arrears which had already accumulated. He believed that any further postponement would work injuriously towards the tenant, without being of any benefit to the landlord.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought there was no disposition on the part of Members on that side of the House to extend distress to six years' rent; but they did think, in the interest of the tenant, that some further extension of time should be given for the collection of the existing arrears. He ventured to offer a suggestion to the Government which he hoped would be considered favourably—namely, that the clause should be left as it stood in the interest of the tenant with regard to the power of distraint, and that at the end of the clause they should add—
Except in the case of arrears of rent existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which 319 shall be recoverable by distress up to the 1st of January, 1885.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought the Government would do well to accept the proposal just made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Although in general he agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), yet, under the existing law, they could not help seeing that an immense number of executions would be put in at once. There were a vast number of Trustees of Corporate Bodies in the State—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for instance, and others, who would have no alternative but to put in executions as soon as this Act became law; and, therefore, he agreed that it would be advisable that some such addition as was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire should be made to the clause.
§ MR. STORER, said, he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Carpenter Garnier), in the interests of the tenants, to that of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), because it was well known that there were arrears of rent, and that these arrears of rent were being paid up by instalments, and because he believed that the extension of time would enable the tenants to go on paying these instalments, and, perhaps, retain possession of their holdings. He was certainly of opinion that an extension of time for one year would be a good thing.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, there was this much in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire—that it met a practical difficulty. He suggested that the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Carpenter Garnier) should withdraw his Amendment, with a view to qualifying it in the sense indicated by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he ventured to add his approval of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. His reason was that many tradesmen to whom farmers were indebted were not aware to what extent the landlord could come down on the tenant; and the result of the clause, as it stood, would be to bring down upon the tenants not only trustees and persons having the care of property, but also the tradesmen who had accounts against them.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he believed the Amendment practically carried out the opinions and the intentions of Parties on both sides of the House—namely, that due security should be given for existing arrears. He thought it would be advisable that the tenants should have some further time to make arrangements, otherwise it would be absolutely necessary for the owners to press for the outstanding arrears between the passing of the Act and the 1st of January next. But he considered it most necessary that, with regard to the sale of this year's crops, the tenants should not be compelled to force them into the market and sell them at a considerable loss. It was the practice of factors and others to take advantage of the necessities of the tenant in paying his rent, and the consequence of that was that directly the crops were got in the prices went down; and, therefore, he said, with regard to stock, corn, or other produce of the farm, that it was most desirable to enable the tenants to realize them on proper terms. The effect of the Amendment would be to give further time for the settlement of arrears, which was a matter of great convenience to the tenant. The question was, whether it was fair and reasonable, under the circumstances, to give some extension of credit to the tenant in arrear, so that he might not be forced to make bad bargains to meet the demands of the landlords, and in order that the landlords, particularly when in a fiduciary position as trustees or corporate bodies, should not be compelled at once to resort to extreme measures of law?
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, which entirely removed his objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon. He did not think it mattered whether the clause came into operation on the passing of the Act, or on the 1st of January, 1884, as long as the suggestion of his hon. Friend was adopted.
§ MR. CARPENTER GARNIERsaid if the Government would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire, he would ask leave t withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon for the reason he 321 had already stated. He thought the principle contained in the words suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was a good one, in so far as it would continue for a year the term of credit for arrears due and recoverable at the time of the passing of the Act. He had some hesitation in accepting the words themselves, which might go further than was intended; and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that they should not be pressed then, but that they should be again brought up on Report.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, undoubtedly, he should not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman about words, as he understood him to accept, on behalf of the Government, the principle of his proposal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, the Amendment he was about to move would carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee which sat last year to consider the question of distress. The recommendation of that Committee was that the right of distraint should be restricted to one year's rent, and that it should only be exercised after six months' rent had become due. The majority of the Committee wore in favour of that recommendation, and he believed it was also supported by many Members of that House. He thought his Amendment expressed the object of the clause more plainly and intelligibly than the words in the Bill. The clause, of course, gave 12 months for distraint; but he pointed out that, after that point had been settled by the Committee, they came to the conclusion that if distraint were made after the last half-yearly portion of rent became due, it would not be in the interest of the tenant, landlord, or general creditor that the credit should continue for a longer period than six months. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 14, leave out all words after "for" to the end of the Clause, and insert—"More than one year's rent; and proceedings for such distraint must be commenced within six months of the day on which such rent on the last payment to be made in respect thereof became due."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
322§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman opposite had quite realized that on most estates the rent was not collected until three months after it became due. The effect of the Amendment would be to make distress compulsory, perhaps within two or three months of the rent becoming due. This was clearly not in the interest of the tenants, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not accede to it, but that he would give his very careful consideration to the Amendment further down on the Paper, which proposed to extend the period within which a landlord might distrain from one year to two.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, it was his custom only to receive his rents once a-year; but the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) would compel him to collect them half-yearly, because he could only put in distress for the half-year that became due. It would be an unusual thing in his neighbourhood to collect the rents half-yearly, and he knew many large estates in Kent where the same custom prevailed. The effect of the Amendment proposed would, in this respect, be very hard upon the tenants.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham was intended to carry out, literally, the recommendation of the Select Committee, the effect of which, if it were carried out, would be that the landlord could never secure more than half-a-year's arrears. He would point out to the Committee the effect of the clause as it stood. Suppose that he had a half-year's rent due to him at Lady Day, and another half-year's rent due at Michaelmas, 1883; he could allow those two half-years' rents, being one year's rent together, to remain in arrear up to one day short of Lady Day, 1884, and then he could destrain for one year's rent, because every part of it had become due within one year. If they were to say that the rent should be collected within six months, the effect would be, as regarded that half-year due at Lady Day, that he would not be able to collect it after Michaelmas, 1883; therefore, practically, he would not be able to collect more than half-a-year's rent. But the effect of the clause, as it stood, would be to carry out the recommendation, and what was, no doubt, the intention, of the 323 Select Committee—namely, that the owners should be allowed to distrain for one year's rent, and no more. As the clause was drawn, he would be compelled to distrain within one year from the time at which the first half-year's rent became due.
§ MR. BIDDELLsaid, as a Member of the Committee referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he begged to say that he openly dissented from the recommendation with regard to distress at six months. He did not think there was any necessity for this stipulation at all, because, when they limited the amount of rent to be distrained for, practically they limited the time within which they could put in the distress. He agreed that the Amendment would operate harshly in the case of landlords whose rent, as the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) said, was collected yearly.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would point oat that this clause was identical with the 51st section of the Irish Act relating to distress; and, so far as he could ascertain, no difficulty had arisen in that country in the working of that section. What he desired was to get a distinct statement from the Government as to the construction they put upon this clause; and he was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster held clearly that a landlord would have practically six months after the last half-year's rent became due within which to distrain; in other words, that if half-a-year's rent became due on the 29th September, 1882, and another half-year's rent in the following March, the landlord could distrain for those two half-years' rent at any time up to the 28th September, 1883. He was aware that a different view had been taken upon this point, which was, doubtless, the reason of the Amendment now under consideration. It was clear now that, though the rent was, in fact, accruing due from day to day, up to September, 1882, in the case suggested, it was not till the whole of that half-year's rent was due—namely, on the 29th September, 1882—that the time began to run.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to acknowledge that the Government were greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) for the wording of this clause, 324 which was wholly taken from the Bill introduced by him. The Government had carefully considered the way in which the clause should be drawn, to see whether they could improve upon the hon. Gentleman's wording; but they had come to the conclusion that improvement was impossible, and they had accordingly adopted the clause as it stood. The construction placed on the clause by the Government was to this effect. If the landlord had a half-year's rent due on Lady Day, 1883, and a half-year's rent due at Michaelmas, he might allow these two half-years' rent to wait until one day short of Lady Day, 1884, and then distrain for two half-years' rent. That was distraining for one year's rent, the first half of which became due at Lady Day, 1883.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared there was very little difference between the clause and the Amendment proposed.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, it appeared, then, that he and the hon. Member were agreed in principle; nevertheless, he preferred the words in the Bill, as being much clearer than those of the Amendment.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee were all agreed to what it was desirable should be done. In his district it was usual to have an agreement which reserved the rent to be paid at each quarter-day; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the explanation he had given held good with regard to agreements which reserved the rent in the manner he had described?
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, if the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the words of the clause were as plain as those which he wished to substitute for them, he was quite ready to acquiesce in that opinion. But he had proposed the Amendment because he thought the wording of the clause was indistinct, and he had sought to improve it.
SIR MATHEW WHITE - RIDLEYsaid, that owing to the manner in which rents were payable in his district, landlords would find themselves in very considerable difficulty. If the clause passed in its present form, it would be necessary to put in execution almost before the rent became by custom payable.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, in cases where rent was payable every three months, it would not ordinarily be collected for the first three months unless the words "due and ordinarily payable" were in the agreement.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he would repeat the question with reference to agreements which reserved the rent to be paid at quarter-day. Would it be necessary to alter those agreements to provide for the payment of the rent half-yearly?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, in cases where the rent was payable in December, March, June, and September, the landlord could distrain down to the following December. He did not quite understand the point which the hon. Gentleman wished him to reply upon.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had stated that if a half-year's rent were due at Lady Day, 1883, and a second half-year's rent at Michaelmas, 1883, the landlord could distrain until within one day short of Lady Day, 1884. The point on which he desired information was this. If the rent were payable quarterly, must the landlord distrain at Christmas and March?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no doubt that if the Government intended that there should be the right of distress for one year from the date the rent became due, they had, practically, curtailed the time to some six or eight months. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had pointed out that the rents in that district were duo on the old Lady Day. He would also be aware that, practically, on most estates they were not collected for some considerable time afterwards. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of his legal advisers, would take into consideration a form of words that would obviate the difficulty Which might arise in this case.
§ MR. WHITBREADwished to point out that if a tenant were in arrear for a whole year's rent, under ordinary custom that rent would be received three months after the expiration of the year; therefore, if the landlord could distrain for a year's rent under this clause, he could, practically, only distrain for three quarters 326 of a year's rent. He hoped his right hon. Friend would make this matter clear on Report.
§ MR. FLOYERsaid, it was quite clear that where rents were payable quarterly and collected half-yearly, the landlord would only be able to get three quarters of a year's rent under the clause.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the point that it was the custom, on many estates, to give a certain amount of grace in the collection of rents might be met by a proviso at the end of the clause, to the effect that where it appeared to be the ordinary practice of the estate by agreement between landlord and tenant that the rent should be payable some time after it became legally duo, there should be a corresponding extension of time. He would not bind himself to the actual words, but would take the matter into consideration.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BLENNERHASSETTsaid, he desired, by the Amendment he was about to move, to give effect to a Resolution arrived at by the House not more than two years ago, and which received the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; amongst them, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, on that occasion, said he was prepared to support the Resolution, and would have been also ready to support a Bill dealing with the Law of Distress. It was with feelings of disappointment that he saw that the Government had dealt with the question of distress by way of legal compromise, instead of the abolition of a mischievous law. He believed that the alterations which the Bill made in the Law of Distress removed some of those scandals with which they were occasionally astonished; but, at the same time, it utterly failed to touch the points which he and his hon. Friends objected to. They objected to the Law of Distress, because it was a highly exceptional privilege altogether opposed to the general principles of our law, and because it was an old law derived from a state of society that had entirely passed away. The Law of Distress sprang into existence at a time when the agricultural interests in the country stood upon very different conditions. The Law of Distress in its ancient form bore no resemblance to its present shape. He did 327 not think it desirable to occupy the time of the Committee by going into the history of that law, although it would be an exceedingly interesting subject; but he would remind the Committee that the Law of Distress was enforced by the most arbitrary, unjust, and severe proceedings. He ventured to say that it stood alone in the legal system of the country, in so far as it allowed a man to take the law into his own hands, simply on account of a certain right arising out of the Law of Property. This question had been before a Select Committee, which came to the conclusion that the Law of Distress, by the way in which it was enforced, inflicted great hardship on tenants. In former years, when the subject was under discussion in that House, a great deal was heard about hypothecations, and matters of that kind, which he did not now propose to go into. He thought he was justified in assuming that the law was entirely exceptional in our legal system so far as it gave a preferential right to the landlord over all other creditors. One of the main reasons why they objected to the Law of Distraint, and asked for its abolition, was that it impaired the credit of the farmer, because it gave a preferential security to one particular class of creditors, while it diminished the security of all the others. But it was always said, in reply to that argument, that although the Law of Distress might operate unfavourably to the tenant with regard to bankers and merchants, on the other hand, it improved the credit of the farmer with the landlord, and enabled the landlord to stand by him year after year, and show him an amount of kindness and consideration, and that, by abolishing the Law of Distress, they would destroy the advantage which the tenant enjoyed through the forbearance of his landlord. Again, it was urged against the abolition of the Law of Distress that the existing law enabled persons who would not otherwise be accepted as farmers to get farms; and it was said that the law should be retained for the sake of an industrious class of men with small capital. It seemed to him that it would be a most unfortunate thing to lay down the principle that the Law of Distress should continue for a reason of that kind; and it was upon that ground that they believed the law 328 to be injurious to the community at large. He put forward this Amendment as a protest against the action of the Government in not logically and consistently acting upon a principle which they themselves had accepted. It was a very great pity that the Government had not dealt with this question once for all, because he believed that the farmers throughout the country would not be satisfied while this law, founded upon an obsolete state of things, was allowed to remain on the Statute Book. For these reasons he asked the Government, even at the eleventh hour, to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, leave out all after "rent."—(Mr. Blennerhassett.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the Committee would not think it necessary to enter into a long debate on this Amendment. He was not himself over favourable to the Law of Distress in its present form; but he could not disguise from himself the fact that there existed a great diversity of opinion as to its merits on the part of those who were concerned in it. The Government had recently before them the Report of two Bodies who sat to inquire into the subject—namely, the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and another Committee, presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), both of which Bodies concurred in recommending, not the abolition, but the modification, of the Law of Distress—that was to say, the limitation of the power of distress to a specified period. Accordingly, the Government had limited the power of distress to one year. He was not going to enter on all the arguments bearing upon this question; but he would shortly state two of them. The argument which they heard generally in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress was that it enabled a landlord to accept a tenant with little capital, because he could trust to the power of distress for the payment of his rent. The other argument was that it gave an unjust preference to the landlord over the creditor. Well, both the evils to which those arguments applied were 329 reduced to a minimum by limiting the distress to one year. In the first place, when the landlord knew that he could only distrain for one year's rent, he would not be so ready to accept tenants with small capital; secondly, other persons would be able to measure the credit which they gave to the tenant, because they would know that the landlord's preferential claim through the power of distress was limited to one year's rent. Without going into the subject any further, he contended that the Reports of the two Commissions constituted a complete justification for the Government in proposing this clause, which he trusted the Committee would allow to be retained in its present form.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, this was one of the most important questions dealt with in the Bill, and he thought it should be fairly placed before the Committee. He was willing to admit that the amendment of the law introduced by the Government would, to a certain extent, be favourable to the farmer's creditors; but he said that it did not constitute any advantage to the tenant himself; indeed, it seemed to place him in a worse position than he occupied before. The complaint of the tenant farmers was that the Law of Distress induced landlords to take tenants with capital inadequate for the farms which they wished to occupy, the result being that that those tenants offered a larger rent in order to induce the landlords to accept them. The landlord having done that, the law stepped in and gave him a guarantee before all the other creditors of the tenant for the payment of that excessive rent. He was entirely in favour of the poor man getting a farm in proportion to the capital which he possessed; but there was no kindness in giving a man a farm larger than his capital justified, because the practice could have no other effect than to get the man into difficulties. It was in this way that capital was driven away from the land. He said it would have been far more creditable to the Government not to have touched the question of distraint at all, than to have brought in this compromise, which was really detrimental to the tenant farmers, while, at the same time, it disappointed the expectations which had been raised amongst that class. He could not understand the change that had come over 330 the Government since the time when they supported the Resolution of the hon. Member who had just moved the abolition of the Law of Distress.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in deprecating any prolongation of the discussion on the Law of Distress, because he foresaw the uselessness of argument. Anyone having sat in that House for a length of time must know that in matters of this kind the House was entirely dominated by landlords. Now, when the Government supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), he presumed that that support rested upon some intelligible basis, and that when the Prime Minister assured the farmers of England that the Law of Distress was a law of severity which could not be justified, the right hon. Gentleman had some ground for expressing that opinion. Had anything happened since that time to alter the character of the law in question? The subject had been discussed over and over again; and, as far as he was aware, it stood in precisely the same condition as when the Government supported the Motion of his hon. Friend, and the Prime Minister expressed the opinion to which he bad just alluded. Had the Government changed its opinion, because a Royal Commission and a Select Committee, composed in the main of landowners, expressed themselves in favour of maintaining the Law of Distress, restricting it to one year? He was forced to the conclusion that the Government had taken their stand upon the opinion expressed by two Bodies obviously favourable to the landlords. He would ask the Committee whether, if this law were not in existence, any Government, Conservative or Liberal, would have dared to propose its introduction—would they have dared to propose a measure conferring a class privilege of the worst kind? They would have found such a proposal denounced by all classes in the country. They had heard a great deal upon the doctrine of freedom of contract, both out-of-doors as well as in the House; but landlords and owners of real property were not prepared to depend upon freedom of contract for the payment or recovery of rent; they wanted the protection of an exceptional law, and abandoned the principle of freedom 331 of contract. He considered that the Committee by its action was preparing for the circumstances which would attend the advent of Henry George and his followers. He (Mr J. Howard) was opposed to the advent of Henry George. He was opposed to the principles Henry George advocated; and it was on that ground, and because he wished to stave off the occasion for revolution, that he supported this Amendment.
§ MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, he sincerely hoped that this Amendment would be pressed to a Division, and that the country would have a chance of seeing, in the black and white of the Division List, the names of each of those who supported the Amendment, and who, on a point which the farmers themselves were well qualified to judge, were ready to write themselves down as the worst enemies of that class. With the plausible absurdity of the sitting tenant fallacy, it might be possible to impose on the ignorance and discontent of a section of the agricultural community; but on this point, as regarded the abolition of the Law of Distress, the miscalled Farmers' Alliance were obliged at last to cast off the sheep's clothing of pseudo-friendship for the farmer, and to show themselves in their true colours. The matter had been thoroughly sifted, both by a Select Committee appointed for that purpose, and by the Duke of Richmond's Committee on Agriculture; and there was absolutely no evidence in favour of the view of those who would abolish the Law of Distress; while to-day the Committee had heard nothing new upon the question. As the Representative of a constituency which, he believed, contained a larger number of tenant farmers than any other constituency in the country, he could honestly say that to his views on this subject did he attribute his presence on the Conservative Benches. He did not intend to repeat the well-known arguments on the subject. They all knew the manner in which the abolition of the law would operate against the small tenant farmer; and they all knew that it was not a landlord's question, because the landlord had various means of protecting himself. As regarded the belief that the abolition of the law would work in favour of the general creditor, he would only remind the Committee that last year the hon. 332 Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) had said that he was a creditor of agriculturists each year to the extent of thousands of pounds, and that his losses had never been more than £10 per year. It was from the big farmers, the money-lenders, and the agricultural implement makers that this agitation sprung. The large farmer saw in this proposal a prospect of being able to add smaller farms to his own at decreased rent, owing to diminished competition. The money-lender knew perfectly well that, if the Law of Distress were abolished, the farmer would be driven to borrow money from him at a high rate of interest, instead of, as now, receiving a credit of many months from his landlord; and the agricultural implement maker knew full well that big farmers meant large capital, and the ability to invest freely in expensive agricultural implements. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) was at a loss to understand how anyone who pretended to have an interest in the welfare of the smaller tenant farmers could support an Amendment for the abolition of the Law of Distress. The acknowledged injustice of the present system, under which a landlord was able to exercise his power of distraint for the long period of six years, and over certain properties not the property of the tenant, was effectually removed by the present measure; but he trusted that, with regard to the present sweeping and pernicious Amendment, the country would note the quarter from which it emanated, and that the Committee would show its appreciation, both of object and subject, by rejecting it by an overwhelming majority.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not propose to prolong the discussion, but merely wished to explain the suggestion which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), that the Government in this matter had taken their view solely from the landlords. On the second reading of the Bill, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated that in his opinion a large majority of tenant farmers at the present time were opposed altogether to the total abolition of the Law of Distress. Everything he had heard since then confirmed that view. There was no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire represented the view of a very small section of tenant farmers. 333 Although there might be many theoretical views in favour of total abolition, yet he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed that if they attempted to carry out that view it would be attended with very disastrous results. He need hardly remind the House of what had already been stated in the course of the debate—namely, that a large number of tenant farmers were in arrears with their rent, owing to agricultural depression. Now, if it were known that Parliament were contemplating the total abolition of the Law of Distress, he believed that great pressure would be brought to bear, and that distress would be levied immediately. Holding the view that tenant farmers as a class were not favourable to the views on this matter of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped the Committee would bear with him for a few moments while he offered some observations upon the remarks which had just been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay) and by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He admitted that there was a difference of opinion among tenant farmers upon this subject, and he had never disguised that fact either from himself or from the Committee. He had, however, attended as many meetings of farmers up and down the country as any hon. Member, and he had had as many opportunities of judging of the opinions held by tenant farmers. He had addressed scores of meetings at which the question of the Law of Distress had been raised, and he could only remember one occasion on which a tenant farmer had stood forward to advocate the continuance of the Law of Distress. He had, however, known scores of farmers advocate the total abolition of the Law of Distress. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire had referred to what he called the want of evidence in favour of the proposed abolition. Now, he (Mr. J. Howard) had been a Member of the Select Committee which sat on this question, and one intelligent farmer after another—including the Gentleman who contested the North Riding of Yorkshire, at the last election, with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guy Dawnay)—conclusively 334 proved to his (Mr. J. Howard's) mind, that the Law of Distress led to rent being raised to an artificial standard, that it impaired the credit of the farmer with the banker and with the trader, and that it had the effect of repelling capital from the land. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire had alluded to the trade in which he (Mr. J. Howard) was engaged. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, imagined that he (Mr. J. Howard) was ashamed of his calling, they were very much mistaken. He was proud of being an agricultural implement maker, proud of the advantages which his class had conferred on the agriculture of this country, and upon the agriculture of the world. He was still more proud of the various ways in which his class had lightened the toil of humanity; and, therefore, do not let hon. Members suppose that these allusions to his business, although displaying want of taste, were annoying to him. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire showed by his speech how little he knew of the question on which he was talking. If the hon. Member knew anything at all about the trade, he would know that the great agricultural implement makers had really no relations with the farmers; their relations were with the middle men. To show how little the great agricultural implement manufacturers were concerned in the abolition of the Law of Distress, when the charge was first made that this agitation against the Law of Distress was got up by agricultural implement makers in their own interest, he ascertained what the losses of his own firm were in the shape of bad debts. He found that they did not amount altogether to ½ per cent, and he had compared notes with other implement manufacturers, and he found that their experience corresponded with his own; the extent to which their interests would be affected by the proposed abolition was infinitesimal. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawnay) had said that he had advanced nothing new upon this subject. He (Mr. J. Howard) might retort that charge, and say that if the hon. Gentleman would tell them what natural right the landowners, the most opulent class of the community, had to these exceptional privileges, he would 335 be advancing something new. He (Mr. J. Howard) had often propounded this question, but had never had an answer.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 207, Noes 58: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
§ LORD BURGHLEYproposed, in line 15, to leave out "one year," and insert "two years." He said that the Law of Distress was instituted in the interest of agriculturists generally, and if they cut it down to the short period of 12 months, they did not inflict harm particularly upon the tenant and the landlord in cases where they were both solvent, but they did create a burden upon the interests of agriculture generally. It was quite impossible for hon. Members to shut their eyes to the fact that agriculture did not depend upon a 12 months' system. If a tenant had only to have 12 months' credit wherewith to work his farm, he would stand in a very poor position as compared with tenants of former days, who had very long credit at their disposal. Hon. Members knew full well the low condition to which agriculture had arrived in consequence of the late bad seasons; and it was impossible for them not to know that, owing to the Law of Distress system for six years, many insolvent tenants had been able to carry on their farms through the bad times, and that now they were gradually righting themselves. There was a class of tenant attention to whom had not been as yet called, and that was the class who now occupied their farms, having nothing at their disposal at all, except what they were given by the kindness of their landlords, to keep the farms going as best they could. How would such a class of tenants exist if a 12 months' system of distress only prevailed? He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 15, leave out "one year," and insert "two years."—(Lord Burghley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Committee must recollect that, in the course of the earlier part of the debate, many hon. Members expressed 336 themselves on the subject, and stated that it was only on very rare occasions that distress had been levied for more than two years. If this Amendment were adopted, the Committee practically would be doing nothing; it would be practically no change whatever. The proposal of the Government was that distress should be reduced to 12 months, and in favour of that view they had the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat last year. That Committee was one of the most important which ever sat on agricultural questions. It was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and it reported unanimously in favour of reducing the Law of Distress to one year. The noble Lord (Lord Burghley) compared the condition of the farmers of the present day with that of the farmers of former days. It would be most undesirable that farmers should take two years' credit for the purpose of working their farms. If that were the only ground on which the Law of Distress could be maintained, it would appear to him to be a weak argument in its favour. It was one of the strongest arguments against the proposal. If farmers were to obtain credit indirectly in this way—if they were to be enabled to get into arrear for two years for the purpose of enabling them to work their farms, it certainly appeared to him to be an argument against the proposal of the noble Lord, rather than an argument in its favour. All he could say was, that he hoped hon. Members would adhere to the recommendation of the Committee of last year, and stand by the proposal in the Bill.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he should support the Amendment; but, after the question had been so extensively discussed, he did not propose to detain the Committee any length of time with regard to it. What they ought to endeavour to arrive at was this—to give the landlord an opportunity of extending to the tenant the utmost latitude that was possible in bad times compatible with the best interest of the tenant himself. He meant by that, that it was not to the interest of the tenant to allow him to run so far into arrear as to become hopelessly involved and in such a condition as to be unable to extricate himself again from his difficulties. They should 337 give a tenant as much latitude as possible short of forcing him into a position of this kind. They should give him sufficient latitude to enable him when good times recurred to clear off his liabilities. Two years, it seemed to him, should be sufficient time to enable the tenant to recover his position, although he did not think it would be wise to go beyond two years. It appeared to him that this was the only logical ground upon which they could defend the Law of Distress. The Bill proposed to limit the period to one year; but he did not think that was a sufficiently long period, as it would very often oblige landlords in their own interest to step in and claim arrears, greatly to the disadvantage of the farmer, and when it would be more convenient to all parties concerned to be able to allow the tenant another year, so as to avail himself of a recurrence of good times to extricate himself from his difficulties. Reference had been made to the Select Committee and the Royal Commission. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not know how far the labours of the Select Committee might have extended; but of this he was sure that, undoubtedly, an enormous amount of evidence was taken on this question by the Royal Commission; and speaking from memory, because he had not the evidence before him, he believed the farmers were, with very few exceptions—he might say practically unanimous—in favour of retaining the Law of Distress in a modified farm. The farmers took this view in their own interests. The period that seemed to commend itself generally to their views was two years, and not a shorter time than that.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he desired to state that in the Bill which he had introduced last year upon this subject, he had fixed the limit at two years. But since then he had made further injury into the subject, and he thought, upon the whole, that tenant farmers, and, in many cases, landlords, preferred one year to the limit of two years. The Committee of 1882 had also reported in favour of one year, and the evidence before them was strongly in favour of the shorter time. In making the change to one year in the Bill which he introduced this year, he was also influenced by the hope that the opposition to the Law of Distress would be, if not put an end to, at all events greatly diminished, 338 if the right to destrain was so limited. He would only add that this clause was the same in terms as the 51st section of the Irish Distress Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 154; and, therefore, as uniformity in the legislation of the two countries was desirable, so far as was practicable, the adoption of the clause in this Bill would be a step in that direction.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that having voted against the proposal for enabling the landlord to distrain for one year's arrears, he felt he could not consistently vote for an Amendment enabling the landlord to distrain for two years' arrears. If the Law of Distress was not to be abolished, he would much rather that it should remain as it was than that it should be modified in the manner proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Burghley). He believed the Amendment would be of no benefit to the tenant farmers; and, seeing that the Government were committed to the retention of the proposal in the clause, he should abstain from voting on this occasion, and if he had any influence with hon. Members around him he should certainly advise them to follow his example.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not wish to discuss the question at any length; but he would point out that unless this Amendment were adopted, distress for tithe would remain at two years, and distress under the Bill would be for one year only; also, where the landlord paid the tithe and merged it in the rent, he would be able to distrain for two years for one portion, and for only one year for the other part. That would be unequal and anomalous.
§ MR. AKERS - DOUGLASsaid, he could not support the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Burghley), believing that one year was the best period. He had the honour of serving on the Committee of last year, the majority of which were in favour of one year as against two. The constituency he had the honour to represent was in favour of the shorter period, and the county in which that constituency was situated was the one in which the agitation against the Law of Distress first began, and where the subject had been most thoroughly considered. There were other reasons beyond those laid down by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) why they should stick 339 to one year, one of which was that I when there was a meeting of creditors or proceedings under bankruptcy, a landlord could only distrain for one year's rent.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he had had the honour to serve on the Select Committee of last year, and they were unanimously of opinion—except those Members who were in favour of the total abolition of the Law of Distress—that the period should be one year. He trusted that no alteration would be made in the proposal of the clause.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Burghley) would bring this matter to a Division. The hon. Member for Midhurst had mentioned that he originally proposed two years in his Bill, and that he subsequently came to the opinion that one year was better than two. Well, he would point out that he never knew any subject in which public opinion in agricultural circles had so steadily changed as it had done on the Law of Distress. Some two or three years ago a clause in favour of the entire abolition of the Law of Distress would have been carried by the solid vote of hon. Members opposite representing farming constituencies, and would have been supported by not a few hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. If Her Majesty's Government would question hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies upon this point, they would find from those hon. Gentlemen that those constituencies had of late entirely changed their views upon this subject. The fallacies that passed muster at one time had been one by one removed; and he thought that now it would be found that there was a general prevalence of opinion in favour of a two years' distress.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the greatest evil of the Law of Distress was that it would lead to undue competition for farms. But, however, if the Law of Distress was to be continued, it would be more advantageous to the farmer that the period should be two years than that it should be one. The great objection he had to the Law of Distress was in regard to its effect of raising the rent of tenant farmers, and he considered that to restrict it to one year would only give the landlords more reason for being sharp with the tenants than they had at present. It would be of no benefit to 340 the farmer to limit it to one year, and for that reason he could not vote upon the question.
§ Colonel KINGSCOTEsaid, that having heard the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, he wished to add his testimony to the fact that tenant farmers, were strongly of opinion that the Law of Distress should not be abolished. That fact came out very strongly before the Commission from witnesses who were entirely of the tenant farmer class. As to whether the limit should be one or two years, the Commission had come to the conclusion that the longer period would be by far the best. He was not very strongly of that opinion himself; but still, having gathered evidence upon the subject, he wished to add his testimony to the fact that the tenant farmers of the country did not wish to see the Law of Distress abolished.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to put in a plea on behalf of the tenant farmers—the small tenant farmers, and not the large ones, as the latter could do with the Law of Distress as it at present stood on the Bill. He wished to put in a plea on behalf of men who had struggled into the position of tenant farmers from the position of farm labourers, who hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House were so anxious to see in the occupation of the land. On behalf of these people he urged upon the Committee that it would be more to their benefit to fix the period at two years than to retain it at one. Supposing a landlord was not able to let a holding to a tenant of this kind without some valuation as to improvements. If there was a valuation upon the holding it would be allowed to stand against the rent, and the tenant having two years allowed him would be able gradually to pay the rent and clear off the valuation. In all probability the tenant would not be able to pay the valuation at once, as he would have to expend his small stock of money in buying cattle and horses and farming tackle. He would be naturally anxious to struggle on, and, being a working man earning his subsistence by his own labour, he would be able to pay off the valuation by putting extra labour into his farm. It was clear that to such a man two years would be better than one to enable him to pay off the whole debt in this way.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he should not have risen to address the Committee but for the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down in favour of the period of two years. He would draw the attention of hon. Members to the singular fact that the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), which Bill fixed the term at one year.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson). It was true his name was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Midhurst; but it had been put there on the distinct understanding that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should propose and vote for a period of two years instead of one year.
§ MR. DODSONThen I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having made a precedent unknown in the annals of Parliament.
§ Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOTI must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that the period in the Bill was two years. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) came to me and said—"You won't take your name from the back of the Bill if the period is altered to a year?" And I replied—"No; I will not do so if I am allowed to vote for a period of two years."
§ MR. DODSONSo the hon. and gallant Baronet said—"No; I will keep my name on provided I am allowed to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds." The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that the greatest evil of the Law of Distress was that it led to undue competition for farms; and yet he argued that the period should be two years rather than one. I must point out that so far as there is a tendency to undue competition, the longer the period the greater will be that competition. I have only one other point to call attention to. We have upon this question of two years and one year, the opinion of the Royal Commission on the one side, and the recommendation of the Committee of the House on the other. Well, the Committee was appointed specially to inquire into this particular subject; whereas the Royal Commission only went into it 342 amongst a host of other matters. Therefore, if we are to form an opinion between the two, I must say that the conclusion of the Committee appears to me to be the weightier.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, he had attended a meeting on the subject of this Bill of the Chamber of Agriculture at Worcester. When they had come to this provision, he had intimated his intention of voting for two years, and when he did so there was a general cheer all along his line.
§ Colonel RUGGLES - BRISEsaid, there had been a very strong opinion in the Committee in favour of one year; and, so far as he had been enabled to gather the opinion out-of-doors, that term received the most general support. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord (Lord Burghley) would not divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 32: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 16 (Limitation of distress in respect of things to be distrained).
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished, in line 19, to move, after the word "tenant," to insert—
And notice has been given to the landlord that such stock is not the property of the tenant.He thought it only reasonable, if the distress was to be limited in this way, that when the stock upon a farm did not belong to the tenant, the landlord's attention should be drawn to the fact. If this were not done, a landlord might be for some time erroneously under the impression that his tenant was a man of considerable means, when all the time that tenant's stock might belong to somebody else.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 19, after "tenant," insert "and notice has been given to the landlord that such stock is not the property of the tenant."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he did not know how this would work. Who was to give the notice?
§ MR. CHAPLINThe tenant.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the tenant would not take the trouble to do it. Why should he?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) in this matter. The Bill proposed to afford the tenant facilities he did not now possess for obtaining cattle in some parts of the country for agistment; and he thought it only fair, that if this security of the landlord was to be limited, the landlord should be notified when the stock was not the property of the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the tenant should notify to the landlord? He should do it for this reason, that information might be conveyed to persons who put their cattle on a farmer's land as to the position of that farmer, so that their property might not be seized for the payment of his debts. The tenant had every inducement to give the notice to the landlord which the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) suggested. Probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not considered that point. The Attorney General seemed to object to this view; but if he had any knowledge on this subject, he would know that a great grievance had been felt in regard to the persons who let their cattle to go to the farms of other people as to their being placed in an unfair position. The Amendment would not cast much trouble upon the tenant; but it would prevent—and this was a point which had not been referred to—the risk of fraudulent transfers of cattle in moments of difficulty to third parties. Where a tenant was in a serious difficulty, if he were inclined to be fraudulent, he would be very likely to make over his cattle to a third party, by means with which the Committee were familiar, and which he need not dwell upon in detail. There should be some protection afforded to those who needed protection in this matter, and the landlord should be notified when that which to all outward appearance was a security was really nothing of the kind.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, that this Amendment would in no way meet the case of fraudulent transfers.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that if a tenant purposed making away with his property by fraudulent transfer, the requirement of notice would defeat that 344 purpose. In the same way, if cattle or horses upon a farm belonged to some person other than the tenant, it was not asking anything extraordinary of the tenant that he should give notice to the landlord, because, if he did not give notice, the cattle would be liable to distraint. If he himself wore to let cattle or horses go on to another man's farm, he should insist on notice being given to prevent their being swept away to pay another man's debts. The right hon. Gentleman might think this unnecessary, or might disapprove of it; but he could not understand his saying there would be no inducement to give a specified notice, for there would be every inducement. If the tenant wished to devote his land to pasture for other people's cattle, it would be absolutely necessary for him that he should give notice that the cattle were not liable for other people's debts. He hoped the Government would undertake further to consider this point.
§ MR. BIDDELLsaid, he did not think this would be of any beneficial or practical use to the landlord, for there was nothing to prevent a tenant who was in difficulties combining with a dealer to take over the cattle in his name, and then give notice to the landlord that it was the dealer's cattle. If notice was to be given to the landlord, it ought to be given to the other creditors also, because everything on the farm was secured to the landlord. He was satisfied that the Amendment would have injurious effects.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. Member was in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress altogether; but, as this was a minor point in the Bill, he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDproposed to add, after the word "feeding," in line 29, the following words:—
Provided always, that so long as any portion of such live stock shall remain on the said holding the right to distrain such portion shall continue to the full extent of the price originally agreed to be paid for the feeding of the whole of such live stock, or if part of such price has been bonâ fide paid to the tenant under the agreement, then to the full extent of the price then remaining unpaid.He said that this Proviso was substantially taken from the Hypothec Amendment 345 Act, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 42, s. 5, and the object which he had in proposing it was two-fold. In the first place, it was only reasonable that if the owner of the live stock removed some part of it from the tenant's holding, the remaining part should be subject to the same liability as attached to the whole; and, in the second place, it seemed only just and reasonable that if, under the terms of the agistment agreement, the owner of the stock, as was frequently the case, had made bonâ fide payment to the tenant on account of the whole price originally agreed upon, he should not be called upon or be liable to pay to the landlord the whole of the price originally agreed upon, or have his stock distrained, but that he should in such case only be liable for the part unpaid. He hoped the Government would accept this Proviso.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 29, to add, at the end of the Clause, "Provided always, that so long as any portion of such live stock shall remain on the said holding the right to distrain such portion shall continue to the full extent of the amount originally agreed to be paid for the feeding of the whole of such live stock, or if part of such price has been bonâ fide paid to the tenant under the agreement, then to the full extent of the price remaining unpaid."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought the proposed addition would be desirable, and would make clear what otherwise might be left open to doubt. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ LORD BURGHLEY (on behalf of Sir JOSEPH PEASE)proposed to insert, in page 7, line 31, after "tenant," the words—
Having upon it, or upon one or more of the main parts thereof, the name of the owner.He thought this was a very necessary Amendment, for when the implements belonging to the tenant had to be distinguished from the hired implements, it would be a great advantage to have the names of owners who supplied agricultural implements.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 31, after "tenant," to insert, "Having upon it, or upon one or more of the
346
main parts thereof, the name of the owner."—(Lord Burghley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he could not see any special advantage in this proposal. It would involve a good deal of trouble, and would give no security against fraud.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he approved of the Amendment, believing that it would be a great advantage to have the maker's or the owner's name on the implements. People who had valuable articles had them all marked for their protection, and it was much more necessary to have protection for property on a farm. That the argument of trouble should be advanced by a Minister showed what a wretched pitch this Bill had reached.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he thought there was something in the Amendment. It was the habit of many manufacturers to lend implements to farmers, to be paid for in three or four years; and it would be well that their name should be on the implements until the expiration of that period.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he hoped the Government would not agree to the Admendment, for it was distinctly inexpedient, and would not effect its intended object. He believed the effect of it would be that fraudulent persons would be enabled to act in collusion, for there would be some ground for supposing that the presence of the name was sufficient proof of the ownership. In all cases he believed it was the law that the person whose property an article was had the burden of proof upon him; but this Amendment would, he believed, practically alter that presumption.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment. It was the custom in many parts of the country for manufacturers to lend implements and machines, to be paid for by instalments, and this clause was drawn for their protection. There was something to be said in favour of making these things distrainable; but, on the whole, he thought it would be for the advantage of agriculture that that should not be done; it would, in fact, be a concession to freedom in agriculture. He would appeal to his noble Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
347§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which he thought was deserving of consideration. He was informed that there was a custom in vogue by which machines were lent upon terms which were exceedingly arbitrary. They did not purchase the machines at once, and, in the event of difficulties on the part of the tenant, not only were the machines seized, but the tenant forfeited all the instalments he had paid. That was a harsh system, which ought to be checked.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 31, after "tenant," to insert "except where a tenant hires upon what is known as the hire and purchase system, and has entered into a contract to purchase."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought the Amendment was not needed. An agreement of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was, in truth, a contract of sale, and the property in the article passed; but the clause only applied to machinery which was on the premises of the tenant under an agreement "for the hire or use thereof."
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would take this point into consideration.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not assent to the Amendment, because it would import what was known as the "hire and purchase" system. If there was a contract for the purchase of property, the property would pass to the tenant, even although there would be a right to the tenant to take it back if the money was not paid.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had proposed the Amendment to bring the matter under notice, and he should be satisfied if the Government would consider it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDproposed to insert, in line 33, after the word "business," the following words:—
And live stock of all kinds which is the bonâ fide property of a person other than the tenant, and is on the premises solely for purposes of breeding.He need only observe that this provision was in both the Bills on Distress 348 which he had the honour to bring before the House, and that it had been twice approved of on the second reading of those Bills, and in Committee on one of them. The Committee on the Law of Distress, which reported last year, had also distinctly approved this provision.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsuggested an Amendment to substitute "for breeding purposes" for the words "for purposes of breeding."
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would agree to this alteration.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 23, after "business," to insert "and live stock of all kinds which is the bonâ fide property of a person other than the tenant, and is on the premises of the tenant solely for breeding purposes."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the Government were ready to accept the words of the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 17 (Remedy for wrongful distress under this Act).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out Sub-sections (a) and (b).—(Mr. Biddell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Subsections proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he could not understand a proposal to leave out Subsections A and B, and yet retain Subsection C. Sub-section C was a general guide, and he thought it would assist the Court in the construction of the Act if the preceding sub-sections were retained, because they indicated the matter the Court would have to deal with.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, the clause was intended to remedy cases of distraint on, and yet to leave on the farms, stock which belonged to other persons. The Court would generally be composed of magistrates, who, as a rule, were landlords, and the questions to be determined by them were questions between landlords and tenants. He could not 349 help thinking that the jurisdiction in these matters should be given to a different tribunal, and he could find no tribunal better than the County Court. In the County Court matters would be determined with regard to sets-off, and that would remedy some of the difficulties of tenants. He, therefore, proposed to provide that these matters should be referred to County Courts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 1, leave out from "by" to end of Clause, and insert "the County Court by way of interpleader and the provisions of the County Courts Acts relating to interpleader shall apply thereto as if they were re-enacted herein mutatis mutandis."—(Mr. Waugh.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be let out stand part of the Clause."
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he quite agreed that the County Court would form a better tribunal than a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but there was the difficulty that one of the points to be considered was the restoration of live cattle. A County Court might not be sitting for four or six weeks; but the magistrates would sit once a-week or even twice a-week, or they could sit at any time. Therefore, much as he should be inclined to think that the County Court would be the better Court, there would be this delay, and the Bill was, on the whole, better as it stood.
§ MR. DODDSsaid, there was a question of expense involved in this matter. The hon. Member opposite had said the Magistrates' Court would be constantly sitting; but in his county the magistrates only sat once a-fortnight. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as the hon. Member (Mr. Waugh) had had great experience in these matters, and his evidence before the Select Committee on the Law of Distress showed that he had a clearer view on the subject than almost any other witness.
§ MR. PUGHsaid, he trusted the Government would accept the Amendment. There could not possibly be any doubt about the desirability of having a tribunal which would be satisfactory to the parties concerned. In his opinion the tribunal which it was proposed to make use of under the Bill would not prove satisfactory. Very difficult questions of law would arise with regard to distress, and he did not think it fair that the whole 350 branch of the law should be referred to magistrates in the manner intended. Without in the least wishing to treat the magistracy with the slightest disrespect, he could not look upon them as a fitting tribunal to deal with such questions as those which would arise under this clause. It must be recollected that the majority of magistrates were landlords. He did not wish to insinuate that they would be biassed on that account; but, as the Court to deal with the matters which would arise under this clause, they would certainly not give satisfaction to the tenant, because they would not inspire confidence. On these grounds, he trusted the Government would assent to the Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he trusted that the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. Nothing whatever had been said to meet the weighty objections urged against the Amendment by his hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill). No doubt, it was well that when questions of this kind arose they should be determined as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had said that the magistrates in his borough only met once a-fortnight. That, however, was an exceptional state of things. As it was desirable that the matters arising under the clause should be settled promptly, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he believed that, under the law as it at present stood, the Registrar of a County Court took security for replevy. Surely he ought to do the same for live cattle under the Law of Distress as he did for replevy. He much preferred the County Court to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Whatever was decided upon, he (Mr. Duckham) hoped that the provisions of this Bill would be so settled that a landlord would not be able to distrain for the whole amount of rent due to him, and thus place the tenant under the necessity of bringing an action for compensation for improvements under the Act. If the tenant were to be placed in such a position, in many cases the benefit of the Act would be completely destroyed.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, there was no doubt that in any question of this kind one had to consider what would be the most convenient course to adopt. He 351 quite admitted that, other things being equal, he should prefer the County Court to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but one had to bear in mind that it would be expedient, if possible, to give a cheaper and an easier remedy. Whether the two tribunals might be equal with regard to cheapness or not was a matter to be determined; but certainly, as regarded speed, the advantage was in favour of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The clause was not compulsory, and took no right away from the tenant. The tenant retained all his rights with respect to excessive distress or illegal distress, and it was not proposed that he should take his case before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but merely that he should have the option of doing so if he thought proper. In fact, all that was done was to give the tenant the option of that remedy as distinguished from any other remedy. This being the case, surely they were conferring an advantage on the tenant, because they allowed him to sue in the County Court if he liked, while, if he preferred, he might get speedy justice elsewhere.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 28: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 18 (Extension of certiorari) agreed to.
§ Clause 19 (Amendment of Act of 57 George 3, c. 93, and of the Schedule of that Act).
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, there seemed to be certain defects in this clause. It was provided that—
The limit of twenty pounds fixed by the first section of an Act passed in the fifty-seventh year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, Chapter ninety-three, shall in the case of an holding to which this Act applies be raised and be taken to be fifty pounds.Now, he considered that the matter might have been very well left as it was in the old Act, as far as £20. The clause then went on to say—And the allowance for a man in possession shall in the like case be a sum not exceeding five shillings per day, instead of the sum of two shillings and sixpence as provided by the Schedule of the said Act.It would thus be seen that there was 352 nothing allowed for the levying of the distress. He was sure no broker could be obtained who would levy up to £50 for 5s. Then, again, the clause did not go far enough, for it ought to extend not only to distresses of £50, but to all distresses. As far as his knowledge extended, there was no means whatever of taxing the charges of brokers and bailiffs and their men in possession; but he intended to propose a method by which their charges could be taxed. What he meant to propose was, to leave out this clause and insert in its place a provision to regulate the costs of distress, not only up to £50, but to any extent. If hon. Members would look at the new clause, which stood on the Paper in his name, they would see that he proposed to allow for the levying of a distress—Three per centum on any sum exceeding twenty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds. Two and a half per centum on any sum exceeding fifty pounds.The charges made on distresses were in some cases most exorbitant. It sometimes happened that after a distress was levied and the landlord and tenant came together, they made some compromise. For such a case, he proposed to provide—Such costs and charges, in case the parties differ, to be taxed by the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which the distress is made.If this proposal were accepted, it would afford protection to the poor tenant, who at present had no protection whatever. The present system led to nothing more nor less than simple extortion on the part of the brokers. Brokers knew full well that no action could be brought against them except for excessive distress, and this they knew really amounted to nothing, as the remedy was worse than the disease. He begged to move that the clause be omitted.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 19.—(Mr. Waugh.)
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 19 stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he had introduced a similar clause in his Distress Bill of this year, in deference to the recommendations in the Report of the Committee of 1882. But, looking to the necessity of protecting the tenant against the extortionate expenses of 353 these proceedings, he was disposed to support the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Waugh) in going further than was provided by this clause, and in regulating the expenses in cases above £50. Care would have to be taken in fixing the different amounts in the Schedule; but he hoped the Government would undertake to look into this matter, and thus put an end to a scandalous state of things, which bore very hardly upon a poor tenant.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the question, of course, was one, to a considerable extent, of detail. In some degree, what was suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth was proposed by the clause as it stood. The clause proposed that, as to all sums up to £50, the amount of expenses charged should be the same as that allowed by the Act of George III., with the exception that the charge for the man in possession should be increased from 2s. 6d. to 5s. It would be impossible for the Government off-hand to accept the scale which his hon. Friend proposed. Any proposal of that sort ought to be very carefully considered. If the Committee thought that it would be the best plan to omit the present clause, and to put in another one subsequently, they would be glad to do so. The Schedule of the hon. Member, however, could not be accepted, because, in some respects, it would allow even higher charges than those which were now made.
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, his hon. and learned Friend must remember that, with respect to sums of above £50, the Government made no arrangement at all. He should be extremely glad if the present clause were omitted, and a new clause brought up, with such a Schedule of charges as the Government might consider fair.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that this was a most important matter; and to give an idea of its importance he thought he need only read an account of the expenses of a distress which was levied last year in his neighbourhood. The distress was levied for £1,317. The charges for the levy were £59; for the possession by the bailiff, £11 16s. 6d.; for the appraiser, at 6d. in the pound, £34; and auctioneer's commission, £65. The costs of the distress, exclusive of the auctioneer's commission, were, therefore, 354 in round numbers, £105, and, including that commission, £170.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clause 20 (Repeal of 2 W. &. M., c. 5, s. 2, as to appraisement and sale at public auction) agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (Extension of time to replevy at request of tenant).
§ MR. DUCKHAMbegged to draw the attention of the Committee to the case which he brought before them yesterday upon Clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had said that the point he introduced on Clause 6 must be brought forward when the Committee had the question of the Law of Distress under consideration.
§ MR. DUCKHAMNo.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.