10 



to be placed on what they call equal terms with the landlord, whilst 

 during all these years they ha\ e been selling their wares subject to the 

 existence of this law and charging a price sufficiently high to cover their 

 risk. What more do they require ? Do you for a moment imagine 

 they will be willing to charge the farmer one penny less for their 

 articles if this law were abolished ? No, gentlemen ; I venture to 

 think that if we depend upon such promises or hopes we are trusting 

 to a broken reed. I have pointed out, however, that even if the 

 Law of Distress were abolished, the landlord would be able to make 

 such special arrangements as would secure him against loss. This 

 may be done in various ways, but the most probable plan to be 

 adopted would be what is called ^'' fore-rentirifj,'' which means de- 

 priving the tenant of that credit he now possesses. I confess I was 

 much surprised to read during the recent election that the Radical 

 party, who so much desire to be regarded as the farmers' friends, 

 strongly advocated such a course. I cannot conceive that such 

 a recommendation could come from anyone who was not in reality 

 the ^mall farmers' greatest enemy, and such, I venture to think, 

 is your opinion also. But when a desire is expressed that a 

 certain law must be abolished, it becomes our duty to look for 

 some substitute. In this case we must look abroad to find a 

 country in which the Law of Distress does not exist, and I find 

 that Denmark is a country of this character. It appears that in 

 Denmark the landlord protects himself by exacting the payment of 

 a year's rent in advance, and the deposit of certificates for a 

 certain amount of funded property, or, in lieu thereof, the security 

 or guarantee of one or two responsible persons. This statement 

 is corroborated by a letter I hold in my hand from Mr. Westenholz, 

 the Consul- General of Denmark, a gentleman thoroughly conversant 

 with agricultural matters, who in writing to my friend Mr. 

 Jenkins, the secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 

 used these words : *' With regard to distraint for non-payment 

 of rent, I do not believe any law exists in Denmark giving land- 

 lords preference over other creditors. Hence the custom of stipulating 

 for prepayment and sufficient securities, as alluded to by you ; 

 and the securities, I know, sometimes consist in ready money, 

 deposited with the landlord, upon which he allows the tenant a 

 mere interest of 4 per cent. I am of opinion that the absence of 

 any law of distraint acts against the farmers of my country." 

 Gentlemen, I put it to you whether such an alteration in the 

 Law of Distress, as I have indicated as existing elsewhere, would 

 be to your comfort, convenience, or advantage ? But do not 

 misunderstand me with reference to this matter, for, whilst I 

 consider that the total abolition of the Law of Distress would 

 be detrimental to the interests of the tenant-farmer, and 

 especially to the smaller class of farmers, I am free to admit 

 that a modification and alteration of this law is highly desir- 



