South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2869, 5 June 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1882.

Mr Holmes has just introduced a Bill entitled the Distress Act 1882, which will probably pass through all its stages without opposition. Its provisions appear so just that very few persons are likely to say much against its becoming law. Section 3 is to the following effect “ It shall not be lawful for any landlord, person, or corporation, to seize or distrain for rent due in respect of any land, messuages, tenements, or premises, the goods, chattels, or property or any person or persons, save and except of the person or persons owing such rent, although the said goods, chattels, or property may be in or upon the lands,messuages, tenements, or premises in respect of which such rent is due • at the time when such distress is made or levied,” This will meet a great many Cases where hardship has been inflicted on quite innocent persons ; lodgers and others, wlio have by chance left their chattels in the care of householders, not knowing that a distress is impending. Section 4, however, deals with a still greater hardship ;—The personal and family clothing, the bed clothes, bedding, tools of trade, and necessary furniture to the value in all of at least twenty-five pounds sterling of every person whomsoever, »are hereby declared to be absolutely exempt from being sold, seized, taken, or levied jipon, under distress of any . kind, or or for any purpose whatsoever, notwithstanding that such distress may

be ordered, issued, made, or levied under or by virtue of any ordinance, statute, law, power,' or authority whatsoever.” Everyone will welcome this just and humane provision. It may be asserted the complete stripping of the tenant’s residence is the deserved result of his failure to pay his rent, and that the landlord, in taking everything he can to satisfy his claim, is only taking hisjust due. But this seizure involves grievous infliction on persons who were quite innocent as to the commission of the offence, and helpless as , regards . its consequences, and even one’s rights should be secured and maintained with the smallest possible modicum of pain to others. In all transactions there are duties and obligations on ‘both sides, and the effect of this Bill, if it should become law, will be to quicken the landlord to take more care of his own interests. With the power of seizure removed from him he will be careful not to allow his tenant to be too long on his books. In fact it is beginning to be more and more understood, by thoughtful men of business, that in proportion as legal process is mitigated, and the possibility of recovery by law diminished, integrity and honour will grow in importance as elements of commercial life. In the absence of legal redress, a good character will stand as the highest qualification, and the only sure passport to credit. A man, under such circumstances, would obtain just such credit as his reputation warranted. It would be measured by his character, not by his purse. Should this Bill pass, into law, the sad scenes we almost . daily witness “ under distraint for rent ” would be impossible. No more turning into the. street of helpless women and children, —no more taking the beds from under them,—no more ruin of a man, and thereby, of his family, by the deprivation of tools and implements of trade or industry. The Bill has our hearty sympathy, for it is just and merciful.