The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-12-13 00:00:00

ENGLISH FARMERS AND THEIR
RENTS;

On Monday night a crowded meeting of the
Farmers' Club was held at the Inns of Court Hotel,
Holborn, London, when a paper on "Farm Rents,"
by Mr. J. Howard, M.P., was read. Mr. Sherborn
presided ; and there were also present Sir Thomas
Dyke Ackland, Bart., M.P. ; Mr. C. T. Acland, M.P.;
Mr. A. Peel, M.P.; Mr. P. Phipps, M.P.; Mr. Clare
Sewell Read, M.P.; Mr. Thomas Duckbam, M.P.,
and a large number of well-known agriculturists.
Mr. J. 'Toward, opened by remarking that
Lord Beaconsfield's statement in 1879 that "three
profits are obtained from the land" showed that he had
a firm grip of the whole theory of rent, and that in
this country three classes were dependent upon the
produce of the soil, and necessary to its cultivation—in
ordinary phraseology, the landlord, the tenant, and
the labourer. As to present rents Mr. Howard said
that he had obtained 200 returns from inquiries he
had made, and the result gained therefrom was that
in 88 cases the reductions from rents since 1879
averaged 20- per cent., but the average of the 200
farms amounted to only 9i- per cent. In 95 cases
the remissions since 1879 averaged 11 per cent., but
the average of the 200 farms was only four per cent.
Taking the 88 reductions and the 74 remissions they
showed an annual abatement of 16 per cent., but the
average spread over the 200 farms was 13 per cent.
In Bedfordshire the reductions and remissions
together showed an annual abatement of 14 per cent.,
Cambridge 141- per cent., Essex 13 per cent.,
Gloucester 12 per cent., Huntingdon, 21 per cent.,
Lincoln, 12 per cent., and Northamptonshire, 22
per cent. The rental of the poorest land, espe-
cially arable, had been more affected by the
depression than that of higher qualities. In an
overwhelming majority of cases much lower rents
had been accepted from new than from the old
tenants. Respecting the future of farm rents, he
said that the farmer was in this position—wages,
although somewhat lower, could not be much
further reduced. Rates were upon the average only
about a tithe of the rent, and if reduced by legisla-
tion the total amount would be small. The farmers,
scale of living had been reduced within the utmost
limits of economy, so no further reduction could be
made in that direction. He could not change the
system of agriculture in this country, and it was idle
to pdviso the ordinary farmer to turn his attention to
vegetable, fruit, poultry, or even jam. Mr. Howard
could only see as the main if not the only source of
relief the farmer of arable land had to look to was a
substantial reduction of rent. On the question of
protection of free trade, he said that any Government
which should venture to propose import duties would
be driven from power or soon be brought face to face
with civil commotion. In conclusion, he said that
the most obvious way to make the best of the present
system was to remove all unjust burdens from the
shoulders of agriculture, to sweep away all antiquated
customs and restrictions which fettered the farmer's
enterprise, to give the tenant liberty of action, to
secure him stability of tenure, full compensation for
all improvements, a fair rent, and absolute security
against his rent being raised upon his own improve-
ments.

Mr. Clare Sewell Read, M.P., in proposing a vote
of thanks to Mr. Howard for reading his paper, said
he did not coincide with the whole of it. He differed
from Mr. Howard in his views of free trade and pro-
tection. He would not, however, discuss the ques-
tion, as it would absorb too much of their time. He
would simply state that there was a protection that
farmers were entitled to, and that was that the
national beverage, beer, should be included in the
Adulteration Act—(bear, hear)—and that whenever
a brewer made a beverage that was not composed of
malt and hops he should simply• state that upon a
label. He was glad that Mr. Howard agreed with
Lord Beaconsfield who said that the land was forced
to produce these rents, which must continue till the
end of time if there was to be any farming at all. In
those days of agricultural depression the great
weight and burden had fallen upon the tenant
farmer and the landlord, but the yeoman got both
those on his shoulders. The depression which had
existed in the Eastern counties during the
last ten years had fallen in a measure
upun the agricultural lalourer, who hEid had
his wages reduced ; but they must not attri-
bute too much importance to this, because of
the extreme cheapness of corn and other products.
He could not agree with the statistics quoted, for he
had a horror of statistics pertaining to agriculture,
for no sooner did even the ablest statistician give some
figures as to agriculture than they were knocked on
the head by those of another. Only those who went
over the large estates in the country were aware of
the magnificent buildings that had been put up during
the last three or four years for the assistance of the
tenant, which he thought was infinitely better than a
reduction of rent. He believed if the present value of
the land was taken, and there was deducted therefrom
all the money expended upon it, the prairie value
would be found to be worse than valueless. Rents
must, he thought, come down to what they were forty
or fifty years ago, except in those cases where the
landlord had effected permanent improvements.

- _
Mr. William C. Little seconded the motion, and
said that no doubt there had been great remissions
of rent, but those who depended almost entirely upon
corn required the rent to be still further reduced.
The motion was carried.