The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-06-21 00:00:00

LORD DERBY ON AGRICULTURAL
DEPRESSION.

Lord Derby presided at the annual meeting of the
Lancashire Farmers' Club and Chamber of Agricul-
ture, held at the Liverpool Town-hall, on Saturday
(14th). The report of the Council expressed anxious
concern at the present and prospective position of
agriculture, and stated that the foreign competition
in animal and vegetable produce had so increased
quantities and reduced prices that the future was
regarded with apprehension by home producers. The
continually adverse weather added to the farmer's
perplexity, while high rents, tithes, and local taxes
pressed heavily upon his energy. Though labour was
lower, it was still dearer than in the last cycle of de-
pression, and so also was the cost of all farming requi-
sites. Often, too, farmers had to contend with restric-
triotions as to cropping and with uncertainty of occu-
pation, some living in constant fear that they would
not be compensated for unexhausted improvements if
served with six months' notice to quit. On the latter
point the Council considered that such compensation
should either be provided by special agreement
between landlord and tenant or legally secured by the
Legislature,
Lord Derby, who was cordially received, said he
had attended at the request of the club, many mem-
bers of which thought it desirable they should confer
on the present unsatisfactory condition of the agri-
cultural interest, and to consider whether anything
could be done for its advantage, a point upon which
there was much diversity of opinion. His lordship
proceeded—
Were we to consider that the distress which prevailed
among farmers was likely to be permanent or was it
temporary in its character? That was a question on
which a good deal depended, and it was not easy to
answer with certainty. He inclined to the more
hopeful view. We had had in the last two or three
years a combination of circumstances which were not
likely to recur altogether. We had had, generally
sneaking, bad harvests at home, We had had during
the same time abundant supplies from abroad, which,
to thegeneral public, was of course a gain, but which
had robbed the farmer of his usual compensation for
short crops—a high price for his produce. He had sold
littls, and he had sold that little cheap. We had had
great industrial depression, the effect of which on the
demand for agricultural produce had been very per-
ceptible. Further, we had lived for a long time in
constant apprehension of a war on a large scale, and
we had actually been engaged in two wars on a small
scale. Now, any one of these troubles might occur
again, and probably would. But it was very long odds
that we did not have them all, one on the back of the
other. No doubt there was plausibility in the argu-
ment of those who contended that we were only now
experiencing the full effect of the free trade measures
of 30 years ago. It took time, they told us, to develops
a new industry and to organi,e the means of transit ;
but that was now done, and the British farmer
could never again compete against the corn of Cali-
fornia and the western prairies, to say nothing of coml.
tries still more distant, posplbly those who 3 poke In that
sense might be right—at least so far as corn was corn-
°mod, for corn was easily transported, was easily
stored awl would keep. But he did not think we need
be discouraged as yet by iwything that we had seen
as the import of foreign cattle. In meat, and milk,
and vegetables, and some other articles of produce, we
ought to bp able to hold our own., jf, we bed against
U 8 cheapness and abundance of land in other quarters
of the globe, we had in our favour nearness to the
market ; and even ocean steamers would not reduce
the Atlantic to a mare ferry, Coneraliy, he 8ho;Ild
put it in this way :—ln regard of whatever would not
bear keeping we had a natural protection against the
foreigner; and iii regard to whatever cultivation re-
quired minute care and personal oversight, the small
highly cultivated farm at home and cheap labour:—
he meant in comparison with that of the colonies
-_--possessed advantages whiali they were not likely to

lose.
Looking to the present only,
it was impossible to
deny that in soma parts of England fanners had great
reason to complain. Allowing for some natural
exaggeration, there was no doubt that the distress
about which so much was said was severe in some
counties, real in most, and felt to some extent,
thought it might be but slightly, in all. There were
some suggested remedies which it was only necessary
to mention in order to put them out of the way.
Nobody in Lancashire was likely to ask for a retu:n
to protection; and even those who talked about
reciprocity and the protection of British industry as
regarded other branches of production admitted that
iniported food could not again be taxed. So they
might pass on to something more practical.
One of the subjects most frequently discussed by
Chambers of _Agriculture and farmers meetings was
the incidence of local taxation. Local taxes, it was
said, fell more heavily on land than on other kinds of
property. (Hear, hear.) He did not undertake to
prove that their incidence was in all respects per-
fectly just; but he was compelled, against his own
interest, to point out that the farmer, though
certainly he was concerned, was not the person
primarily concerned in the matter. If all rates what-
soever were taken off, he would not be a gainer in the
long run. What was taken off from rates would fairly
enough be addEd on in rent. And the same argument
applied to the various proposals which we heard of
from time to time for putting rates on to the owner
instead of the occupier. In regard to the malt-tax,
no doubt it was a heavy charge upon a certain class
of lands, and had the inconvenience of falling
unequally on different parts of the country. But
it was not a charge on the farmer' except in the same
sense as rent was so. Take away the tax and the land-
lord pocketed the differences.
Lord Derby said he would not do more than touch
upon the question, deeply interesting as it was,
whether wo should make matters better by establishing
(if we could do it) a clac.o of cultivators who should be
also freeholders. He repeated what he had said more
than once before, that he should like to see that experi-
Ment fairly triad. There was land enough in the market,
and it a few capitalists chose to join, buy an estate,
and divide it into small lots, they might practically
test the question by selling these off, letting the pur-
chasers pay by instalments spread over a long term of
year', The obvious advantage gained, if the experi-
-

meat succeeded, was that they would work on their
own ground more zealously than they would on anybody
else's. Tee equally obvious drawback was that pur-
chasers would not only have no spare capital to ex-
pend on the soil, but, until they had paid off the pur-
chase money, would be in the position of very heavily
encumbered owners. Between these oppoeite con-
siderations only an actual trial could decide. But even
if that solution were a practical one, it was one which
would take generations to work out, and for tenant
farmers who did not want to buy their farms, and for
the most part had not the capital to buy them, it was
no solution at all. For the same reason we might
ignore the vexed question of large or small estates.
The farm, not the estate, WM the unit to be dealt
with. For example, the farms in a given district were
each on an average about 100 acres in extent. It made
absolutely no difference to the way in which they
were worked, whether one, or ten, or 50 were
under the same landlord. One exception caly to
that rule he would make—there were Lndowners
who were owners only in name, whose estates really
belonged to their creditors, and who were driven to
press hard upon their tenants because they were hard
pressed themselves. If the present depression con-
tinued, matters would become worse and worse for
such persons, and the question might arise whether
some such summary remedy as was applied by the
Encumbered Estates Act in Ireland might not become
necessary here. That was for Parlament and for the
country to decide; in the meanwhile he would strongly
warn landowners against that common delusion that
It was always better to hold on to an estate, however
encumbered, rather than to sell, because the price of
land was continually rising: (Applause.) No doubt
that had been the experience of the last 50 years, but
it did not follow that the experience of the next 50
years might not be, on the whole, in an opposite
direction.

Passing to the relations between landlord and tenant,
a great deal of mischief was done by both parties to
the discussion preferring to shelter themselves tinder
general terms which each side interpreted in its own
favour, The English tenant recognised the fact that
his relation to his landlord was one of contract; and, if
he understood the subject rightly, the difficulties which
from time to time arose related almost exclusively to
matters for which the contract had not sufficiently
provided. That view of the case suggested the remedy
which would usually be effective—don't leave these
points unprovided for when you enter on a farm. We
sometimes heard it said, "Freedom to contract is all
nonsense; the parties are on too unequal terms; the
law must step in to protect the weaker side." Now,
he did not meet that argument by a denial of the
right of the State to interfere. The practical objec-
tions to legislative interference with contracts were ex-
ceedingly strong. If the incoming tenant was strong
enough to make his own terms, he wanted no protec-
tion; if he was not, he would agree to any evasion of
the legal conditions which the owner might propose.
It should be recollected that every owner had the
choice of various expedients to escape from an obliga-
tion to which be objected. He might keep his lands
in his own hands, and rich men, whose fortune was
meetly in money and who owned estates rather for
pleasure than profit, were likely to do so if they
found the alternative was to lose all control over
them. He might, again, let it only to tenants who
he knew were not able or not likely to insist on legal
rights against him, and, of course, these would not
be of the improving or independent class. Or,
thirdly, he might fix a rent higher than he intended
actually to receive, and keep the difference in re-
serve to be collected only in the event of a dispute
between himself and his tenant. This showed the
importance of keeping to the plain rule of life, tha of
letting the two parties to a bargain settle the terms
between them. But he would go further.
There never was a time when it was less necessary for
tenant-farmers to ask the State to make contracts
for them. In the present state of things they were
masters of the situation. With farms lying unoccupied
all over the country, it was the farmer's own fault if
he accepted a lease with provisions in it which he
thought objectionable. These remarks as to leaving
contracts free applied in principle to all of the three
main subjects of agricultural discussion—restrictions
on cultivation, game, and unexhausted improvements.
But there were differences of detail, and a word on each
might not be out of place. One of the demands often
made by Chambers of Agriculture was for what they
called 'free cultivation." He did not think the phrase
a happy one. Everybody was free to cultivate his own
land as he pleased, and freedom by law to cultivate
somebody else's land as the cultivator pleased meant a
transfer of ownership if it meant anything. The
question was hardly one for Parliament to deal with.
So long as an owner was left free not to let his laud at
all or to let it to whomsoever he pleased, it was on the
face of it inconsistent to forbid him to impose such re-
etrictions on the cultivation as the tenant was willing
to accept. But he did not doubt that there was a great
deal of truth and force in the complaint thatleases were
often clogged with conditions not applicable to the
wants of modern farming,probably not intended to been-
forced, but kept up merely by the force of routine. The
grievance, he thoueht, might be settled without any
serious difficulty. He should have no objection to such a
change in the law as would give the game to the
tenant, in the absence of any agreement to the con-
trary; but, as it would always be a subjeet of agree-
ment, the change so made would be one rather of form
than fact. Some people contended that the landlord
should have no power of reserving the game. But
that would not only be an arbitrary restriction—it
would be altogether useless. The tenant having the
game might let it, and he would naturally let it back
again to the owner. To prohibit that would involve
the absurdity that every owner would be able to ehoot
on his neighbour's land, but not on his own;
to allow it would leave things virtually as
they were. A tenant had a right to protection
from all damage by game greater than what
he bargained for when he took his farm. Some-
thing was said in the report as to the shortness
of the present notice to quit—six months wherever the
new Act had not been brought into operation. He
thought, connidering the character of modern farming,
the complaint wan a reasonable one. Some owners
gave twelve months; that was not an inconveniently
long delay for the landlord re-enteting into possession,
and he thought it might fairly be made the rule in all
cases. As to unexhausted improvements, that was
not a question which could be treated in a few sen-
tences. No one wished that the landlord should con-
fiscate the result of the tenant's outlay; on the
other hand, the landlord hal a right to protect him-
self against having to pay for so-called improve-
ments made by the tenant, which might ee of
no use to him and might not add to the lotting
value of the farm. These were the two melts
between which we had to steer. (Hear. hefty.)
He believed the last Act on the subject embodied
as fair a solution of the points in dispute as we
were likely to arrive at. Most of the trouble. on this
question arose from want of care in the first instance.
He had more than once asked farmers why they bad
laid out their money without security, knowing, per-
haps, that their farms were likely to go into the
market. Generally the answer was that they supposed
they would be fairly dealt with. Well, if men walla
not exercise ordinary prudence, the fault wee their
own when they suffered. (Hear.) The farmers had
always been in a stronger peeition than they knew of,
and if they only made ine their own minds as to what
terms they thought fair in regard to this question of
improvements they required no help from the ontside.
Landlords did not, as far as he could ever tee, want to
claim what was not their owg, They had a strong
feeling in favour of settling such claims amicably and
quietly ; and, apart from personal feeling and from a
eense of justice, they were too much afraid of injuring
their party and their class to be willing to quarrel with
those who had the electoral command of the counties
in their hands. (Hear, hear.) Vaerae:es would spoil
their own and each other'u chances by being too thick
on the qeound. Let those who had sore whom they
were bringing up to their business look outside this
island. In America and Australia there would be
room for centuries to come, and in those countrles, as
long as a man was on good terige wish himself, he
could not quarrel witle in landlord. (Laughter and
cheers.)
The report was adopted.