HL Deb 07 February 1831 vol 2 cc203-4
The Lord Chancellor

would take that opportunity of reminding their Lordships, that he had placed a Billon their Lordships' Table, for consideration before the recess, respecting the Rights of Landlords in Scotland. He had then explained to their Lordships the cause of his introducing that Bill. The law of Scotland respecting the rights of landlords was in such a state as not, in general, to do any credit to the Legislature. If such a law existed in England, no man could buy or sell a sack of corn in Mark-lane without first sending to Yorkshire or Somersetshire to ascertain that the tenant who sent the corn to market was not in arrear for rent. London, with such a law, would be starved in a week. Under such circumstances, he had ventured to bring in the Bill he had alluded to; but at this Bill the landlords of Scotland had taken great umbrage, and expressed themselves as if it would make all landed property insecure. They were dreadfully alarmed at the Bill, and thought that the country would be reduced to a desart. They had written many letters to him on the subject, and they declared that they were not averse from giving the corn-buyer security in some other way. They said, that before the purchaser concluded his bargain, he might write into the country, and they would immediately answer his letter, candidly stating whether the rent was in arrear or not. That was like telling a corn-dealer in England that he might write to the Duke of Wellington or Earl Grey to know if the corn he wanted to purchase might be safely bought; or whether his Grace's tenants were in arrear for rent. But before the answer could reach the buyer, the market-day would be over, and he could make no bargain at all. He supposed that it would be advantageous to the landlords themselves to have the trade in corn free; but they did not appear to wish that. Under such circumstances, he meant to take no further step in the matter; though he must own that, out of respect to their Lordships, he felt repugnant to withdraw the Bill, yet he meant to leave it to the landlords and the corn-dealers to settle the matter between themselves, and when they had done so, he should be ready to take the measure they might regard as best for their mutual interest into his consideration. He had introduced his Bill, as he supposed, for the benefit of the landlords. He had received, however, a great number of letters from several gentlemen whom he highly respected; and as he was not able to answer all their letters, he would take that convenient mode of acknowledging the receipt of them. They rejected his proposition, and, therefore, with the approbation of their Lordships, he would withdraw his Bill.—Bill withdrawn.