The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1893.

Timaru Herald, Volume LV, Issue 5720, 11 July 1893, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1893.

The Premier's legislative effort, entitled the Distress for Rent Abolition Bill, has the merit of being very short, which is about all that can be said m its favour. It contains three clauses and no more. The first clause gives the title, and provides that the measure shall come into force from and after the last day of the now current year ; the third deals with the necessary repeals of statutes ; and the second clause is as follows : — "It ohall not be lawful for any person hereafter to distrain for rent or arrears of rent; and no landlord shall be entitled to any preferential claim for payment of rent m the event of the bankruptcy of bis tenant." The Premier said but little when moving the second reading, but he made one astonishing statement, which was that ihere had been a general expression of opinion throughout the colony that distress for rent Bhould be abolished, and that a desire existed for an immediate settle-, ment of the question. By this time the public have become quite accue-

tomed to regard with suspicion all I statements by the Premier on public pi matters. He is, to pub it mildly, ac very inaccurate. A host of illustra- Oi tions could be culled from his speeches fa during the recess, but this statement ge about the general desire for the aboli ; n tion of distraint for rent is something t j, more than an inaccuracy. It is simply untrue, and the House was taken by surprise at the introduction of the Bill. d< It is not a liberal measure, though we t( suppose that tbe Premier would claim, J» for it that character. We regard it, ol however, as belonging to a clasß of 0 Bills to which the present Govern- hi nient are very partial, and of which ai tbe Ministerial programme for the tl session has already supplied several o; samples. It is intended as a blow at the property-owning classes, but, if the Bill B| were to become law, they would find t means to protect themselves, and the sufferers wbuld be the persons m whose interests tbe Premier declares himself anxious to legislate. Mr Eees said that ? the Bill cleared off a relic of barbarism by placing the landlord on the same a footing as other creditors. To call dis- ° traint for rent " a relic of barbarism " ° has no meaning nnless it be that the landlord's legal right m this E matter baa been m existence from a remote period. In the eyes of men o like Mr Rees that is a sufficient reason t for abolishing the right without making r any further inquiry. But when we t come to look at the question from the t tenant's standpoint, it may be that we c shall find something to recommend it. r Take away the power of distraint, and the t immediate tendency would be toraise rent, £ especially to the poorer class of tenants ; - besides which it would make it more difficult for them to obtain dwellings, and would necessarily compel landlords to be , far stricter m collecting rents. Delays would become especially dangerons, and payments would have to be made with l absolute punctuality, nnd m miny ' instances rent would have to be paid c beforehand. We fail to see that the working classes, on whose behalf the ■ Government are for ever intervening, 1 would benefit by the smallest degree m I the change. The debate on the motion | for the second reading elicited a good j deal of adverse comment even from the i Government side of the House ; so much , so tbat the Premier remarked that he | had not previously known that his party j contained so many landlords. It was , a most extraordinary remark to make , under tbe circumstances, and pointed to | the true motive for the introduction of the Bill a desire to harass the owners of property. Mr McL an, a strong , supporter of tbe Q >vernment, said that he would vote for the Bill, but he added | that — " if there ever was a measure which required to go to a Committee for revision it wa3 this Bill. If it wore not put into proper shape it would have ! the effect of raising rents 20 per cent., ' and would cause much injury to poor ' people." But it is abundantly clear ' that no Ojmmittee could remove the I essential demerits of tbe Bill. The ' mischief lies m depriving tbe landlord of his easy remedy and thereby compelling him to make himself safe at the expense of the tenant. Leave < tbe landlord bi3 remedy, and tbe whole Bill is destroyed. Another Government supporter Baid that the Premier would lose the respect of the colony through the introduction of the Bill. He, the speaker, hoped there would be no more 6uch legislation, and if there were be would have to leave the party. In short, tbe Premier appears to have met with a decided rebuff, and instead of pressing on tbe debate to a conclusion, he proctically consented to an adjournment. A day was named for the resumption of the debate, but it has been allowed to pass without the Bill being seen at the top of the Order P-aper. It may, therefore, be tbat the Premier remembers for the occasion that discretion is the better part of valour, and that his shoddy attempt at law making will be abandoned.