THE DEFEAT OF THE SCOTCH REQUEST.
THE Tories were getting quite cock-a-hoop about Scotland, but the division of Wednesday about Hypothec will, we doubt not, convince them that their old allegiance was the true one, and may even convince English farmers that the Liberals, not the Tories, are on their aide. The law of hypothec, which Sir D. Wedderburn, supported by the Advocate-General, wished to repeal, is, in fact, the law of distraint carried to its reductio ad absurdum. If in England a landlord just after quarter- day could take away his tenant's stock-in-trade and sell the things for the rent, their sale to any other person being null, he would be in precisely the same position as a Scotch landlord is in regard to his agricultural tenantry. He can cut the crop, or follow the crop, and no claim to the crop even in open market is valid as against his. That is very pleasant for him, as it enables him to put any rascal who will vote for him on to the land, and still be sure that his rent will come in, but its effect on the tenant is most disastrous. He cannot get money from the local bankers, because he has no security to give, except a crop which belongs to his landlord, and his tenure, from which he may be evicted at will. Suppose a young man entering on the business of agriculture after endless fawning on the landlord's agent manages to get a farm, hoping to work it in part with borrowed capital, as every young farmer must, he has no security to offer, not even the ordinary one that the banker shall rank with other creditors. The crop not yet grown
is by law pawned to the landlord, and not to the creditors at large, that is, is pawned to the only class of creditors who have a secure legal monopoly. There are not endless farms, but very few farms, which are the subjects of very fierce competition, and yet the owners of these farms, who in nine cases out of ten are so situated that they could make an incoming tenant pay up a defaulter's back rent and call it premium, are invested by law with special power over the crop. They have all the land, yet they have first claim against the crops. Their property cannot run away, yet they have a preferential claim to the interest on it. Nothing could be more unjust in principle, while in practice the tenants were so afraid of the law that they made its abolition their cardinal point on the hustings, Members like Mr. Agnew, who approve the law, supporting its repeal on the avowed ground that they cannot otherwise keep their seats. The plain truth of the matter is, it makes
them the landlord's serfs. A landlord thinks twice before he evicts a tenant who can pay, and has paid for years ; but if he has a preferential claim to the crop, he evicts on the slightest failure of respect or even obedience. But that Scotch farmers are such "dour carles " that oppression only makes them resist the harder, there would not be a Liberal county Member in Scotland.
The truth is just as plain in England, though privilege is not carried quite so far. Why in the world should the only dealer whose stock in trade cannot be run away with be the preferen- tial creditor Because he cannot recover suddenly when he knows his tenant is going to the bad? Neither can the bill- discounter. The landlord's slight liability to loss is more than balanced by the fixity of his property. Take, for instance, this very curious case. 'Half the small "jewellers" and watchdealers in London do not own their goods. If they did, they never could begin business ; so a system has sprung up of the large dealers loaning them a stock at, we believe, a rent of 12 per -cent. If the man fails and bolts with the stock, the owner has no redress except as creditor. But the landlord has ; he can re-enter on his property at once, loss of his principal being impossible, and sell all furniture left, and pay him- self before the master jeweller can get a penny. What is the sense of an injustice so complete and visible as that ? Oh! it makes the landlords liberal and kind? At the cost of the illiberality and unkindness of the banker, a much more important person, and of direct injury to every butcher, baker, and other industrious person who trusts the farmer or tenant. But then the farms in Scotland or houses in England are let cheaper? Stuff. Every Scotch farmer knows he is liable to have 50s. an acre offered over his head by a reckless lad eager to marry, when the land is only worth 40s., simply because the landlord is secure ; while in England the monopoly, coupled with the right of distraint, puts the tenant completely at the landlord's mercy. Distraint means the loss of double the money the tenant owes, from the forced sale of his property, and the landlord in many districts can steadily put on the screw. The butcher can only act through a Court ; but the landlord can act direct, and in hundreds of cases makes that his regular practice.
The upholders of hypothec all say that if the law is abolished, they shall have to take their rent in advance. Then why do they fight so fiercely for their privilege? But suppose they do ask it in advance what is that but a general increase of
rent by 5 per cent. all I—that is, an increase which tenants either can or cannot pay, a mere increase in the market demand which will very soon find its level. If they like that particularly stupid method of increasing their rentals—stupid because it leaves less capital for the soil—they can try it on at once, before hypothec is abolished-, and just see what they will get by it,—namely, tenants rich enough to demand leases, perhaps to oust them of their hereditary seats in Parliament. They want, they say, to see the little tenants get on. Yes, and so do we ; but not at the cost of leaving with a minute caste the mastery of all votes, and a temptation to multiply them by the dozen by giving minute farms to men who, with hypo- thee hanging over them, are dependent upon their favour, and knowing how to secure it at the polls, over-bid men who have made the land the valuable article it is.
Previous page
