THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1881.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6237, 12 November 1881, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1881.

At a recent election meeting a candidate was asked whether he was in favour of the abolition of distraint for rent, and his reply was an emphatic negative. It would have been well had he stopped there, because his reasons were worthless. It is a remarkable coincidence that only a few days before Dr. Hearn, who may be called a philosophical Conservative, was defeated in an attempt to obtain the assent of the Legislative Council of Victoria to a Bill abolishing distraint. That the Council should have rejected the change is natural enough, because most of its members belong to the class which in the Old Country, legislating for itself, conferred upon itself a preferential claim as against all other creditors. It seems an extravagant term to apply to a privilege which has existed fer so long, and been acquiesced in with such profound serenity, but distraint for rent is an iniquity, for the simple reason that instead of the landlord taking his chance with all other creditors, the law gives him the power to pay himself, and leave the fragments that remain for those others who, like himself, have given value. When a man like Dr. Hearn, a scholar, a lawyer, a Conservative, a man of proven ability, raises a question of this kind, it cannot be treated as if it had emanated from the inner consciousness of some well-meaning but benighted demagogue. In this University Professor, however, the thinking mind and the sense of right are superior to Conservative instincts, or, rather, he may think that the only kind of Conservatism is safe which rejects special privileges inflicting general wrong. Had the candidate, whose negative was so emphatic, been aware that his questioner was in such good company, he might have hesitated about giving so confident an answer. It may be conjectured with tolerable safety how it came about that one of the most resolute opponents of Liberalism, as represented by Mr. Berry, took up this question of distraint. He found that the Irish Land Act, vhich had just been passed, controlled the landlords' right of ejectment, and conferred upon a commission what had hitherto been his personal right, of fixing the rent for liis land. When he saw how much the rights of Irish landlords had been •ircumscribed, it must have struck liim, apart from the abstract question, as anomalous and absurd that in a new country which is supposed to be in advance of an old, the power of distraint for rent should continue to exist. In the rejection of liis Bill by the Legislative Council of Victoria we have evidence of that mischievous and ignorant conservatism which is based upon prejudice and personal interests, and which gives a handle to those who regarding only this bad phase of conservatism, condemn it, and who would be right if they condemned the particular exhibition of conservatism, and not conservatism as conservatism.

There is not a tittle of reason why the person to whom rent is due should be able to distrain to pay himself more than the butcher, groecr, baker, or anyone else to ■whom money is due. There is no justification whatever for the landlord being allowed to pay himself, sweep away whatever assets there may be, and leave the other creditors impotent. and lamenting. There is nothing about his claim which renders it one iota better than theirs, and there is therefore 110 reason why lie should have a law for his special benefit whilst the other creditors have to come in under a general law, and " share and share alike." So clear is the law upon this point that, if one creditor obtain judgment against a debtor process is arrested if the debtor choose to become insolvent, and he finds himself in

no better position than those who were less pressing. Now, if the object of the law be to prevent any one creditor obtaining an advantage over the others —and clearly that is so—and if farther —as is the case—it also provides that a debtor who is honest but without means should not be imprisoned, but obtain time to meet his obligation—do not these two facts constitute a double reason why it is monstrously absurd and unjust that a landlord should be allowed to swoop down and pay himself 1 Is it not clearly unjust alike to the debtor and his other creditors ? Abstract questions seldom commend themselves to the public mind, which usually requires to be moved by an illustration of wrong which renders it indignant. Moreover, those who benefit by the exceptional advantage which a monstrous law confers upon them are quickly up in arms if it be assailed, and are prolific of denunciations of those who question their privileges, however weak they may be in their reasons for its maintenance. But blots upon the Statute-book are never removed until the public become convinced that they are so, and this can only be brought about by a ventilation of the question. The great question of the day is the position of landlords. Originated in Ireland, ifc lias permeated England and Scotland, where organizations are afoot to assert the rights of tenants against those who, when they became proprietors of the soil, had to render large service to the State—military service—a burden which they speedily shifted on to the shoulders of the community at large. Men like Lord Derby, a territorial magnate, now admit that landlords must surrender ,'some of their rights, and if that be the view in England, and from such a source, it may certainly be permissible to offer for public consideration the necessity for abrogating that great absurdity and grievous wrong—distraint for rent.