Lords Sitting of 1 March 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages (Odessa)* (.30).
Second Reading—Hypothec Amendment (Scotland) (12).
Report—Masters and Workmen* (3).
Third Reading—Lis Pendens* (6); Sale of Land by Auction* (10), and passed.
The Right Honourable Duncan McNeill, late Lord Justice General and President of the Court of Session in Scotland, having been created Baron Colonsay of Colonsay and Oronsay in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Hugh MacCalmont Cairns, Knight, a Judge of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, having been created Baron Cairns of Garmoyle in the County of Antrim—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.

THE CONVERTED ENFIELD RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a Question, of which he had given him private notice. There had recently appeared in the newspapers some statements which, if they were correct, tended to show that the Enfield rifles converted on the Snider principle had proved, since they were issued to the troops, by no means so efficient and so calculated to make good shooting as was anticipated when the system was first adopted. The Reports which came in just before he left the War Office gave good reason to believe that this system of conversion afforded a satisfactory mode of tiding over the time that must necessarily elapse before it was possible to determine what was the best breech-loading rifle to place in the hands of the troops. His noble Friend the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) determined that a considerable number of Enfield rifles should be converted on that principle at once, with a view to their being placed in the hands of the troops in case any emergency should arise. The present Secretary of State for War was so satisfied with the Reports, that shortly after he took office he presented a Supplementary Estimate to the other House of Parliament, and ordered a very large and extensive conversion. The statements, however, which had recently appeared in the public papers had caused fears to be entertained that the system of conversion was not so satisfactory as was at first supposed. But the main defect appeared to be not so much in the rifles as in the ammunition which was made by machinery, and which had not made as good shooting as ammunition prepared by hand. Taking into consideration the importance of this subject on account of the large sum of money which had been spent in this system of conversion, and the necessity of arming the troops with the best possible arms, he hoped the noble Lord would state what information the Government had received on the subject.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that reports had been current much to the disadvantage of the Snider system of converting Enfield rifles, the fact being that, although they had been tested and experimented upon in every possible way, previous to their adoption into the service, some small defects had developed them-
  1212
  selves in the cartridges and in the mechanism of the arm. The first cartridge adopted in the course of practice did not prove satisfactory. A second was then tried, and was not found satisfactory; but although these cartridges failed in accuracy at target practice, they were not unserviceable. A third had now been adopted which there was every reason to believe would be perfectly satisfactory. The small defects which had developed themselves in the mechanism of the arm were such as could easily be remedied without making any change in the original plan of the arm. He held in his hand a letter from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, who is commanding at Aldershot, and whose attention had been directed to the exaggerated reports which the noble Earl had referred to. It was as follows:—
  "Aldershot, Feb. 26, 1867……. I for ward a letter from Captain Thompson, District Instructor of Musketry, under whom the practice so erroneously described took place….Though I believe a still simpler plan will be produced, I consider the present pattern Snider rifle an admirable weapon, and perfectly efficient when well made and well handled."
  The enclosure from Captain Thompson was dated February 25, 1867, and was in the following terms:—
  "Having noticed an article respecting the recent trial of Snider rifles and ammunition at Aldershot which is likely to lead the public to form erroneous opinions as to their general efficiency, I think it right to inform you that the trial which took place here, instead of proving not very favourable to the new arm and ammunition, may be considered the reverse. Out of 8,000 rounds fired, only twenty cartridges burst, none of which in any way injured the breech arrangement, and only three missed fire. In very few cases were the old cartridge cases found difficult to withdraw, and those frequently from the awkwardness of the men who were firing for the first time with an entirely new weapon. As regards accuracy at 500 and 700 yards, notwithstanding an apparent inferiority of the Snider to the Enfield at the longer ranges, I think that the very little practice which was made with the Snider rifle at the longer range should not be received as a test of accuracy, as the sighting of the rifle is altered in consequence of the reduction of the weight of the bullet; and the accuracy of the Snider may probably not be found inferior to that of the Enfield rifle when the soldiers become accustomed to its use, which, up to the present time, they have had no opportunity of becoming."
  Sir James Scarlett added—
  "My only regret is that the correspondents who furnish information on military matters to the press do not first make themselves acquainted with the subjects on which they write."
  He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory to the noble Earl: and he

  1213
  might add, that although it would be a great disappointment to be obliged to confess a failure, the War Office would not have proceeded with the conversion, as they were now doing, if they had lost confidence in the arm.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was not satisfied either by the answer of the noble Earl, or by what he had read of the Snider rifle in the newspapers. Considering the vast sums of money to be laid out in putting a proper weapon into the hands of our soldiers, he thought that proper means had not been taken with regard to the selection of that weapon. Last Session, when this question was mooted in that House, he strongly recommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government to appoint a Committee other than the Ordnance Committee, in which he had no confidence, to consider the question of a selection of small aims. He recommended that the Committee should consist of some of the lieutenant-colonels commanding the regiments which had the highest number in musketry, and to add to them some of those gentlemen who took a deep interest in, and were thoroughly conversant with, the long range shooting of our Volunteers. If such a Committee were appointed to consider the best weapon, there would be a good chance of obtaining a good, a simple, and an effective arm. Before the country was put to very great expense in obtaining improved arms, it was but right and just that all engaged in the manufacture of arms, and all interested in putting a good and simple rifle in the hands of our soldiers, should have an opportunity of competing before a competent Committee, which should recommend such weapon as it might think best adapted for military use, and above all adapted to receive the rough usage which was given to any rifle put in the hands of the common soldier.

MILITARY AT ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in moving for Papers on the subject of the Employment of the Military at Elections in Ireland, said, that in any allusion he should make to recent events, he did not seek to throw blame upon any one. It would be improper in him to do so, if for no other reasons than that, arising out of the two elections to which he should refer, there were petitions to the other House of Par-
  1214
  liament against the return of Mr. De la Poer and Captain White for Waterford and Tipperary, and that some men of the 12th Lancers might be put upon their trial for an event which took place at Dungarvan during one of those elections. He should have been ready to leave the duty which he was now about to discharge to some noble Lord locally connected with the part of the kingdom in which those elections had taken place; but he was glad to be the means, however humbly, of showing that in Irish affairs a warm interest was felt on this as well as on the other side of St. George's Channel. Further, he ventured to think that the use of Her Majesty's troops at an election was a matter which any Member of their Lordships' House might reasonably bring under the notice of Parliament. He should now very briefly state the reasons which had induced him to put his notice on the paper. In England it had been found unadvisable to call on the military either to convoy voters to the poll, or to parade the town or village in which the polling was taking place. In Ireland it was quite the reverse. In Ireland when violence was apprehended troops were called out, and the election was put under military supervision and control. In England it was thought better to run the risk of individual encounters between the inhabitants rather than that a single man should receive a wound at the hand of any of the Queen's troops. In Ireland, however, electoral purity and independence and freedom of election were upheld at the point of the lance and with the edge of the sword. Now, what was the Parliamentary declaration with respect to English elections, made on the 17th of November, 1645? It ran in these words—
  "That all elections be made without interruption or molestation by any commander, governor, officer, or soldier."
  Again, on the 22nd of December, 1741, it was declared—
  "That the presence of a regular body of soldiers at an election is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of this kingdom."
  But Parliament had gone still further. By the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 21, s. 3, it was enacted—
  "In order to secure freedom of election it is directed that the Clerk of the Crown or other officer making out any new writ shall as soon as the writ has been made out, give notice to the Secretary at War, or, in case there be no Secretary at War, to the person officiating in his

  1215
  stead, and he to the General commanding the district, who is to see that no soldier, within two miles of the place of election or poll, shall be allowed to go out of barracks on the day of nomination or polling, unless to mount or relieve guard, or give his vote at the election, and that going out for such purpose, he shall return with all convenient speed."
  Such was the law as regarded England. In Ireland the principle appeared to be quite the reverse. At the recent elections in Tipperary and Waterford the military had been called out. The events of the Waterford election were so recent and so well-known, that he need not detain their Lordships by detailing them. In the town of Dungarvan, in the latter county, a number of the 12th Lancers were engaged in escorting voters to the poll, when a disturbance took place, and a gentleman named Captain Keily, who lived in the town, received a fatal wound from the lance of one of the soldiers. A coroner's inquest was held, and a great deal of evidence was given as to the throwing of stones at the troops; but the result of the inquiry was a verdict of wilful murder against several of the Lancers. It would appear to him that while the troops were powerless to protect the voters, unless they were allowed to use their arms freely, their presence on such an occasion was a cause of irritation. Every officer knew that it was impossible for him to order his men to act; the men knew the same thing; and the Irish mob was equally well aware of the fact. He found that in the reports of the inquest these observations were attributed to Mr. Waters, a professional gentleman who appeared for the friends of the deceased Captain Keily. Mr. Waters said—
  "It was asked was a trooper to sit in his saddle and be stoned, and not resist it? He asserted that he was, and such was the law of the country."
  That doctrine might appear extraordinary to some of their Lordships, but an Irish jury had borne Mr. Waters out in his view of the law. What, he would ask, was the result of the employment of troops at the Waterford election? First, it had placed gallant officers in a very painful position; next, it had led to a stigma being for a time cast on one of the finest regiments in the service, and, of course, had rendered that regiment unpopular in one of the richest recruiting districts of the Empire; and lastly, it had, in all probability, raised a hostile feeling between Her Majesty's troops and a portion of her people. Sol-
  1216
  diers in the discharge of their duty were but men after all, and at the inquest it came out that one of the Lancers said to his officer, referring to the conduct of the mob, "Flesh and blood cannot stand this." Under such circumstances, officers must feel it extremely difficult to decide how they ought to act. He spoke in the presence of illustrious and distinguished officers, and he asked them whether he was not correct in making that statement? He submitted that the proper instruments for securing freedom of election in Ireland were the Irish police, and the power of petitioning Parliament against any return which was brought about by violence. It might be said that there would be breaches of the peace if the military were not employed; but it must be remembered that the Irish constabulary was a very large and a very well disciplined armed force. During the last election for the county of Dublin the troops were confined to their barracks, and yet no disturbance took place. He had been assured on all hands that the noble Lord now at the head of the Irish Government (the Marquess of Abercorn) conducted his administration not only with great splendour and liberality, but with a hearty desire in every way to promote the best interests of the country. At the same time, when the true interests of the people in both countries pointed to a perfect assimilation of rights and privileges, an elector of the county of Water-ford might well ask why he was to exercise the franchise under different auspices from an elector in the county of Sutherland. He would conclude by thanking their Lordships for the kind attention with which they had listened to him.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of the Instructions or Orders issued to Officers commanding Regiments and Detachments called upon to aid the Civil Power in maintaining Order at recent Elections of Members of Parliament in Ireland: Also,
  Copy of the Instructions issued to the Stipendiary or other Magistrates concerning the Use of Troops on such Occasions: Also,
  Copy of any Reports or any Extracts of Reports to the Government from the General commanding the Forces in Ireland respecting the Employment of the Military in aid of the Civil Power during any recent Elections in that Country, and the Conduct of the Troops upon such Occasions.—(The Duke of St. Albans.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, there had been three elections lately in Ireland, at which troops had been employed in aid

  1217
  and upon the demand of the civil power. He did not find that, at any one of these, special instructions had been issued, relative to the conduct of officers or soldiers, whose duty, in such cases, was well understood. The Queen's Regulations provided generally for the movements of troops to aid in the suppression of riot, and were applicable, generally speaking, to Irish elections. Each officer was provided with a small book, in which the Queen's Regulations were somewhat amplified; and those books were also supplied to magistrates. There would be no objection to produce one of those books, if the noble Duke wished, but their contents were simply what he had stated. He was further informed that the stipendiary magistrates acted under their ordinary instructions; those he could not produce, as they were not actually in his hands; but his noble Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department would, no doubt, be able to say whether there was any objection to produce them. To enable 3,400 electors of the county of Waterford to exercise their constitutional privileges, nineteen stipendiary magistrates were collected to cooperate with the local magistrates; and a force of 1,900 soldiers, besides a body of police, was stationed in the county, and stationed in vain; for since the election a petition had been presented, setting forth that a number of voters, through the violence and intimidation which prevailed, had been unable to record their votes. Voluminous reports had been received from the General commanding the district, covering other reports from officers who had exercised independent commands, bearing testimony to the admirable conduct of the troops under gross provocation, harassing duties, and violent assaults. These reports also gave details of numerous instances of violence perpetrated by organized bodies of men, who openly set the law at defiance, constructing barricades most skilfully disposed, accumulating with prudence and foresight great heaps of stones, at points where they might prove serviceable, and generally obstructing, by all the means in their power, the progress towards the poll of those electors to whose opinions they were opposed. At Tipperary election, although there had been considerable violence, although the troops had been insulted, and subjected to most disagreeable duties, no loss of life, at the hands of the military, had been reported. But at Dungarvan, as
  1218
  the noble Duke had stated, the outrages were carried to much greater extremes. In the town of Waterford, at Dungarvan, and at many other points in different parts of the county, attacks were made upon the military, sometimes in small parties, sometimes even when they were in large bodies. At Dungarvan an affray took place, in which the Lancers were obliged to defend themselves from the violence with which they were assailed; two men, unfortunately, lost their lives, one a person who, he believed, had taken no part in the disturbances. The responsibility, however, of that loss of life rested on those who organized bands of rioters to disturb the public peace, and not on those who, in the exercise of their duty, and by no will of their own, were placed in a position which brought them into conflict with the populace. A charge had been put forward against the soldiers of having acted with unnecessary violence; but, having read the various reports which had reached him, and also those which had been published, he was disposed to concur with what an officer upon the spot, unconnected with the troops, had declared as to the great forbearance exercised by the soldiers under great provocation and most trying circumstances. The noble Earl having read extracts from reports received from Lord Strathnairn, Colonel Sawyer, Captain Betty, 6th Dragoon Guards, and other officers, descriptive of the movements and duties of the troops during the elections, and of the outrages to which they had been subjected; and from Mr. Fleming, senior magistrate of Tipperary, Mr. Gore Jones, one of the most experienced stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, Mr. Miller of Waterford, Mr. Warburton, stipendiary magistrate, who read the Riot Act—testifying to the forbearance, good conduct, and efficiency of the soldiers—proceeded to say that all these reports tended to prove that the skirmishes were not local or accidental, but formed part of an organization deliberately set on foot. Into the legal aspect of the question, he would not enter, for it had been debated only a few evenings ago, on the question raised as to calling out the Volunteers in aid of the civil power; and it would, he believed, be brought directly under the notice of the other House by a Bill introduced with the object of extending to Ireland the English law as to the non-employment of military at elections. If it were decided to withdraw the military, there were two alternatives, either

  1219
  such an increase of the civil force as will make them equal to the performance of such duties as the civil power may require; or, police as well as soldiers might abstain from taking any part in elections, leaving it to each individual voter to make his own way to the poll, by whatever means, and with whatever arms for his protection, he thought best. Upon the propriety of the latter alternative, of course, he offered no opinion whatever; but he would gladly concur in any project by which the military may be relieved from a most ungracious duty. If the noble Duke pressed for such documents as he had declared it to be in his power to produce, the desired information would, of course, be afforded.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that in the case of riot at an election the troops were sometimes called in in England in aid of the civil power; and he had himself, on two occasions, commanded troops in Warwickshire under such circumstances.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that no instructions of a special nature had been issued by the Home Office to the stipendiary or other magistrates with reference to such occasions as were referred to in the Motion.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I wish to express my sentiments with respect to the employment of troops at elections, and I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without doing so. I think the practice most objectionable; and I believe there is no duty of which the troops have so great a horror. At the same time, it must be remembered that the initiative must always be taken by the civil authorities themselves; and it is clearly laid down that when the troops are called on by the civil power it is necessary that they should support it in the preservation of the peace. I apprehend that these troops are not sent to attend the election, but practically in obedience to the requisition of the magistrates stating that they apprehended a breach of the peace and that the civil power at their command was not sufficient to meet the emergency. Unfortunately, in Ireland it almost always happens that the services of the military are called into use at elections, at the request and in aid of the civil power. Under these circumstances, the law is clear; and although, for the sake of the troops as well as the people, I should very much like to see such a change as would enable the civil authorities altogether to dispense with the use of troops, I am afraid that it is im-
  1220
  possible to make any change in this respect. How is it possible if the civil authority requires assistance on the ground that it apprehends a breach of the peace, bloodshed and loss of life, that the Government could withstand the pressure from without if they refused to do all in their power to prevent such a calamity? I should heartily wish to see a more conciliatory spirit prevailing at Irish elections on both sides; but until such a change takes place I am afraid you cannot alter the law. At the same time, I am strongly of opinion that no troops should ever be exposed to unnecessary insult or provocation. With reference to the acts of the troops in cases of riot, I desire to say that, although I have no wish to screen any from the censure due to those who exceed their duty, I think every allowance should be made for bodies of troops employed in the suppression of riots; and respecting the cases under discussion, I have every reason to believe, from the representations we have had from responsible persons, that the troops were exposed not only to the greatest obloquy and insult, but that they were actually attacked with stones and other missiles. This, I think, is almost beyond a man's powers of endurance; it is not to be expected that men are to sit still under such a state of excitement; such a passive endurance is not in human nature, and is more than can be expected of the troops. I verily believe that, if we were to go critically into the conduct of the troops, we should find that the amount of forbearance which they exhibited redounds very much to their credit. I deplore, perhaps more than any of your Lordships, that two cases of death resulted from the riots at the Waterford election; but I must express my belief that these deaths were occasioned by one of those unfortunate combinations which it is almost impossible to avoid in a dense and excited crowd of people, crushing upon one another, and surrounding a few soldiers endeavouring to extricate themselves from the general confusion. We must not forget that upon such occasions as these the throwing of stones and shouting not only irritate the men, but make their horses uneasy; and in this particular instance the horse of the officer in charge became so restive that it was unmanageable. These are incidents which still further complicate the difficulties of the situation. I merely wish to point out to your Lordships the great difficulties to which the troops have been exposed. I hope, then, on full

  1221
  consideration of the circumstances of the case, not only your Lordships, but the public at large, will appreciate these difficulties, and be led to take a generous view of their conduct. I do not wish to defend anything palpably wrong, and I think that the whole profession will deplore these results. There is not one of the men who were engaged who would not, I am sure, feel with me delighted if these sad events could have been avoided. I am satisfied that nothing would be a greater solace to the troops than to know that the country believed that they had endeavoured to do their duty without recklessly or inconsiderately availing themselves of the opportunity to exceed it. My Lords, I feel called upon to make these remarks in justice to the troops. If I felt the slightest doubt as to their conduct, I should be the first man to admit that censure might be due. I feel, however, justified in stating distinctly I believe honestly and sincere that no censure is due, but that the troops, on the occasion in question, did conscientiously and moderately perform their duty.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, we must all have heard with great satisfaction the observations which have fallen from the illustrious Duke, and we must all concur in deploring the necessity of using troops to quell civil disturbances; but, at the same time, we must not forget that it is the first duty of the Government to protect Her Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their lawful rights. Riots with violence must, at all hazards, be put down; if the civil force cannot do it, then the military must support them, and if painful consequences ensue, the fault lies, not with the troops, but with those persons who have broken the law in the first instance. The very essence of free Government is violated if an elector is coerced by fear when giving his vote. It is therefore absolutely necessary that violence at elections should be put down; and if any fault was committed by the troops upon the occasion referred to, it was an excess of leniency, inasmuch as they allowed, so far as we can judge from the published reports, an excess of rioting before they decisively interfered. It should be understood by the populace that troops are not sent out at elections as a mark for stone-throwers and as subjects for violence; and it should be understood that they are justified—nay, that it is their duty to use their arms to put an end to the violence of rioters.
  LORD VIVIANexpressed his belief that the troops were not only called out at the request of the civil power, but refrained from acting until the civil power directed them to do so. He presumed, then, that the Lancers al Dungarvan did not act until called upon, and then he believed they performed their duty with great forbearance. He rose, however, for the purpose of inquiring of the Under Secretary for War as to the actual position of the Volunteers. The old adage, "Quot homines tot sententiœ," had never fitted any case so admirably as it applied to this question.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that on the last occasion when the subject was discussed in that House, it was stated that very shortly would be published instructions, which are under preparation in the Home Office, for the guidance of the civil authorities and Volunteers in the cases referred to.
  LORD VIVIANhoped that the Government would give proper attention to the subject, as it was a matter of considerable importance.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

HYPOTHEC AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
HYPOTHEC AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 12.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that from communications which had been made to him from various quarters, he had been led to believe that this Bill would not be received favourably by any noble Lord connected with Scotland, and therefore he had not felt in a very agreeable situation. What had occurred, however, on the previous evening had re-assured him on that point. He should perhaps be pardoned if he entered into a short explanation of the objects of the measure. Hypothec is a right by the common law of Scotland which the landlord possesses over the fruits of the ground, and over the cattle and other property of his tenant, as security for his rent. Perhaps it might be convenient to explain to those who were familiar only with the law of England the difference between it and the law of Scotland as to the relation of landlord and tenant. In England, the landlord has no power over his

  1223
  tenant's property until the rent is due; and then, if the rent is due and unpaid, the landlord may seize all movables, with a few exceptions, and may, by statute, distrain upon the growing crops; and if the tenant does not pay the rent within five days, the landlord may sell the goods and crops, and out of the proceeds pay himself the rent, and hand the surplus, if any, over to the tenant, If a tenant, being in arrear, clandestinely removes his goods to avoid a distress, the landlord may, within thirty days, follow and seize the goods, and make thorn available for the payment of the rent in the same manner as if the distress had been on the land; but if the tenant removes his property the day before the rent becomes due in order to prevent the distress, the landlord has no remedy. In Scotland the law is quite different. The law of hypothec, in fact, gives the landlord a security for the current rent; the landlord may retain the property of the tenant on the land, even if-no rent is due; and if the tenant removes the property the landlord may follow it and bring it back on the land. If there is no rent due, he retains it as a security; and if there is rent due, he appropriates it in payment. The hypothec extends to the produce of the year for which the rent is due, and the year is taken to expire three months after the conventional term at which the rent becomes due—namely, on Whitsunday (15th May), and Martinmas (11th November). If the tenant removes the crops after the rent is due, the landlord may follow and seize them in the hands of a bonâ fide purchaser, unless the property has been sold to him in bulk in market overt. If the goods are sold by sample in market overt, or out of market overt, the landlord's remedy remains; and there was a case in which the landlord exercised this right seven years after the removal of the property from the land. Hypothec is a general right of retention or recovery. If a landlord wishes to exercise it over specific objects, he must do it by sequestration, and obtain a warrant of sale from the sheriff. This peculiar law of landlord and tenant in Scotland has at different times undergone discussion chiefly as it affected bonâ fide purchases, and Bills have been introduced upon the subject, which have not been proceeded with. But in the year 1864 a Royal Commission was issued for the purpose of inquiring into the law of hypothec. That Commis-
  1224
  sion made an able Report, and upon the recommendations contained in it this Bill is founded. The Commissioners stated that they sat for thirty days at Edinburgh, and examined 102 witnesses, including landlords and agents, bankers, corn and manure dealers, and tenants, so that they might be informed of the state of the law in Scotland, and they were satisfied that the information laid before them was complete, and had exhausted the subject. Two of the Commissioners thought that the law ought, subject to existing leases, to be abolished, and they dissented from the general Report of the majority of the Commissioners, who thought that the law ought to be retained subject to certain alterations which they recommended, and which were embodied in the Bill. The clause to which he would first direct attention was the third, which gave protection to the bonâ fide purchaser of corn, &c, for valuable consideration, actually delivered, removed, and paid for. The provision was, he thought, a very necessary and proper one, because, in the present day, there were very few bulk markets, crops being generally sold by sample. To the next clause some noble Lords might possibly object, as it provided that hypothec was not to be available beyond three months after the rent was due. He did not think that clause would meet with any very decided objection, provided he consented to protect existing contracts from the operation of the Bill, and he might say that he felt disposed to make that concession. By Clause 5, the stock of a third party taken on a farm to graze was made liable only to the amount of consideration payable for the grazing. By Clause 6, it was provided that in the sequestration for rent of any farm or lands it should not be competent to include any household furniture or agricultural implements, or imported manures; and lastly, the Bill provided that all sequestrations for rent should be entered in a register, to be kept at each court where sequestrations for rent were granted. The Bill was, as he had stated, founded upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had sat in 1864 to inquire into the matter, and, in his judgment, its provisions introduced a wholesome alteration into the law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKsaid, he entertained a very strong objection to the

  1225
  Bill, and his opposition was on behalf of the small tenants in Scotland, whose position would be greatly changed by the operation of the Bill, and not because it was likely to affect the pecuniary interests of the landlords. In 1830 the attention of Lord Brougham, who was at that time Lord Chancellor, was called to the law of hypothec by a case that came before him, and in November of that year he introduced a Bill identical with the three first clauses of the present Bill. But having better considered the question, and having heard strong remonstrances from Scotland, the noble and learned Lord withdrew the Bill, Another Bill was introduced in the same Session by Lord Belhaven, to enable grain to be sold by sample in the open market, but this was also withdrawn, and nothing more was heard of the matter until the year 1848–9, when great numbers of the smaller tenantry of Scotland became bankrupt, and an agitation was got up by the corn-dealers, who were anxious that some alteration should be made in the law which would enable them to secure bargains in grain from bankrupt stock, by transactions which, though they might be considered bonâ fide and legal, partook, nevertheless, of the nature of sharp practice. The matter having again dropped it was not revived until the present Bill was brought in. A great change had taken place during the last few years in the position of the farming class in Scotland in consequence of farms having been much consolidated, and farmers had become divided into two distinct classes, those holding large farms, and those having small holdings. Some landlords were in favour of large farms, and he believed that the effect of this Bill would be to increase the temptation, already strong enough, to further consolidation of the farms, which must injuriously affect the interests of the holders of small farms. If this Bill passed it would very much discourage small holdings in Scotland. In the part of Scotland in which he lived, the usual practice was that rent was payable half yearly, in May and November, but practically it was not collected till August and February. Under this Bill sequestration would be taken away three months after the period at which rent became legally due. The three months' grace now allowed were of infinite value to small tenants, as they were thus enabled to reap their crops and to realize their cattle before they were called on to pay their rents. The withdrawal of
  1226
  this accommodation would, to many small tenants, be almost ruinous, and that would necessarily result from this Bill. He recommended that the Bill should be hung up as Scotch Bills generally were till after the 30th of April, when the county meetings took place, and if strong remonstrances were not made on the subject by the small holders of land, he would take no further step against the measure. But unless he received such an assurance he should make a Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not intend to offer any active opposition to the Bill, though he thought it would have been better if this matter had been allowed to rest. Such an agitation, however, had been got up, most unreasonable, as he thought, in itself, that it was wise and prudent on the part of the Government to offer some concession, rather than let an agitation go on, the object of which was to get rid of the law altogether. The law was one which, as the Commissioners stated, they could not trace to its origin. It was founded on the old Roman Law, and was the low of Scotland up to the year 1623, when the term "hypothec" was first introduced into the statute; and a few years after that time, by certain decisions of the Courts in Scotland, the law assumed the form which it had held ever since. It was under this much-maligned law of hypothec that all the improvements in agriculture had taken place in Scotland. It was rather a delicate thing, then, to touch a law which had conferred such great benefits on the country. But the law did not apply to agriculture alone; it protected landlords, in common with merchants and those engaged in commerce; and if they broke down the protection which the landlord enjoyed, other classes must also suffer. His great object in maintaining this law was not that he considered it essential for the benefit of the landlord; it was a law of protection for the humbler class of tenants. At the root of the great agitation against the law was an attempt by the large tenants of Scotland to get rid of the competition of smaller tenants for land and compel landlords first to throw their farms together into large farms, and then be at the mercy of these large farmers who should dictate to them the prices at which they should let the land. He did not think Parliament should encourage such objects. Under the present system a landlord was enabled to do much for his smaller tenants, by giving

  1227
  them credit, enabling them to reap an entire crop, and to turn it into money before paying their rent, but this he would not be able to do if the Bill now before their Lordships became law. He could easily understand the large farmers pursuing this course for their own benefit; but he was sorry to say that a great many of the smaller farmers were so blind to their own interests as to be as clamorous for a change as the large farmers. He did not wish to see the Bill hung up until after the 30th of April; but he believed that the House of Commons would be so much engaged in business of another character when the Bill should go down there, that the measure really would be hung up until after that date. He was glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had consented to give protection to existing rights under existing leases, and he considered that the provision regarding registration had been deprived very much of its sting, in consequence of publication not been insisted upon. The change proposed by the present Bill constituted the full extent to which he could go in modifying the law of hypothec, and any attempt to do away with that law altogether would meet with his most strenuous resistance.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord he was not disposed to offer any opposition to the Bill, but would be glad to see the concession made in the fourth clause extended to the fifth.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.