The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-25 00:00:00

Ground Game—To the Editor.

"Your correspondent 'Agricola' writes to you of a ease
of oppression on an adjoining estate. I am very well ac-
quainted with the same, and am sorry to say it is only one
case of many, I having had two relatives plundered on the
same estate. Your readers cannot take their walks or
drives in this beautiful neighbourhood without seeing
hew ill some Land is cultivated in comparison with
others, not mising half the corn and scarcely any
meat to supply the wants of the population as it ought to.
If they have the curiosity to inquire they would find that,
In nearly every ease, some unwary tenant has been en.
trapped there, and is, either through excessive rental or
game—generally both combined—gradually mulcted of his
capital. Is it any wonder that the prier of provisions in-
creases tone high a price when so touch is wasted, and the
cultivator of the soil has so little security for his capital ?
The number of awn in this neighlmurhood in which the
farmer has list, in nearly every instance from this cause,
all that he possessed and after a few years hail to give up
his farm, would apply to nearly half the cultivated land In
this neighbourhood. The farm to which your correspondent
refers and its owners are notorious, but there are others. One
heanl say 'that a prize ought to he given to the ltest
method of screwing up rents he would take the first prize
in that class. and is driving all his old and meal tenants oil
his estate. There was a time when a landowner was betted
upon as a gentleman and resmdted. Now, too many land-
owners exercise the art on the horsealealer, called • coping.
These men, who are a disgrace to the name of a country
gentleman, gloat over the poor unhortimate fanner who has
fallen into their mantrap, and whose bones they are quietly
picking. Little do 801110 of their guests who eat at their
Mble think that the mixtures of game there provided are
the Itedi and blood ttf some poor unfortunate tenant. Your
readers, )Ir. Editor, may think that I write bitterly, lint
have seen some score of eases here Ihiring the test 20 years. I
(loot, know a farmer Wlll, WOlllll not 'worn to treat event a bad
labourer as tit., many landlords treat a good tenant. It is a
farce to talk of bop...ding the eondition of the agrieull oral
labourer while the fanner is deprived of t11,111,111$ of pa) lug
him, and has no security tor his capital am, sir, yours
truly, A Fanniat."

Lord Grantley, in answer to these charges, made ait
affidavit (,upported by the affidavits of other persons)
in which he stated what he alleged to be the real facts
with reference both to the farm in question and his
general conduct as a landlord. He stated that the
farm had been let to different tenants' not one of
whom had ever been driven off, whether by high rents
or otherwise, and that no complaint had been made
to him either with reference to the game or rent. He
also stated that the rent had been during is former
tenancy .V.;O a year, awl had been reduced I:00 in con-
sideration of the game being reserved to the landlord,
and that it had beta a term of the tenancy that the
tenant slnaffil have liberty to shoot down the game
several days in the year. With reference to the general
charge that game was exceptionally preserved upon
the estate, this was denied by Lord Grantley, who
stated that, on the contrary, he had given orders to his
gamekeepers, which he believed had been em-riot out,
that the game shoohl be kept down. It was also ,
alleged to be untrue that the farm was surrounded by
Lord Grantley'a woods : and, RS to the charge that
the tenants hail lwen " plundered," Lord I irantly de-
clared that lie had no kin•wledge of it, and that if it was
a fact that the crops of any tenant had suffered from
the game, no conq otaint had ever been made to him of
injury either through game or high rent. As to
the charge that the tenants had Nes driven off
their farms, it was shown to be utterly unfounded
and, finally-, Lord Grantley denied in distinct and
emphatic terms that there was any foundation what-
, ever for any of the charges contained in the libellous
lettirs. There was an affidavit that the printer had
been asked to give up the name of the writer of the
letters, but bad declined. l7pon they materials,
Sir J. Karslake (with him Mr. F. M. White) moved
on the part of Lord Grantley for a rule for a criminal
information against the printer and publisher. He
read thel etters at length, and stated the effect of the
affidavits.
The Court granted a rule nisi for a criminal infor-
matjOlL