LANDLORDS AND OTHER CREDITORS 2 1/ 



lead to payment of rent in advance, and that abolition 

 should apply to future tenancies. 



On the other hand, witnesses from the south and east, 

 like Mr Read, oppose abolition, on the ground that it 

 would press hardly on struggling farmers. 



Mr Edwards thinks that it would damage the chances 

 of young beginners in farming. 



Mr Biddell believes abolition would limit the numbers 

 of those who rise from very small occupations to large 

 ones. 



Mr Johnstone thinks the law of distress does the 

 farmers no harm. 



Mr Fisher objects to abolition, as it would lead to 

 prepayment of rents. Its retention is beneficial to 

 farmers. The landlord is the most lenient creditor. 



Mr W. J. Clark quoted by Wilson Fox says : — 

 " Abolition might lower rents, but would lead to many 

 farmers being sold up." 



Another Cambridgeshire farmer says : " If the law of 

 distress were abolished, we should get the land los an 

 acre cheaper here. I should not mind paying rent in 

 advance." 



The land agents and owners generally oppose further 

 restriction of the right of distress as unjust to the land- 

 lord and prejudicial to tenants, especially those starting 

 in farming. The abolition would only benefit the other 

 creditors. 



Mr Druce does not think abolition would be bene- 

 ficial, but thinks the procedure unsatisfactory. He and 

 other witnesses strongly urge that the law should be 

 amended, so that in all cases the intention of Parliament, 

 that distress should be strictly limited to twelve months, 

 should be carried out. Under certain agreements at 

 present,- it is possible for distress to be levied for 

 eighteen months to two years. 



Mr Middleton probably expresses an opinion widely 

 held that many prefer things as they are, as the land- 

 lord is the easiest creditor to deal with, and the tendency 

 of the law of distress is rather to protect the small 

 farmer. 



