The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-05-08 00:00:00

THE FARMERS' CLUB AND THE

TENANT-RIGHT BILL. - I
In London, on Monday evening, the Farmers' Club, ,
at its meeting in Salisbury-square, discussed the Go-
vernment Tenant Right Bill, assisted by Professor
Fawcett, MP., Mr. C. S. Read, M.P., Sir Thomas
Acland, M.P., Mr. James Howard, and a large num-
ber of the tenant farmer class. There were also pre-
sent Major Paget, M.P. Captain Dashwood, Mr.
Corbett, Mr. Neild, Mr. Charles Howard, Mr. Leeds,
and a full gathering of well-known agriculturists.
The first part of the meeting was occupied with the
reading of a paper by Mr. Masfen (Wolverhampton),
who spoke against several parts of the Bill, expressing !
himself as opposed to its permissive character, to the '
nature of the notice to be given to the farmer, to the
way in which the estimate was to be taken for the
landlord on the point of waste, and in regard to other
details.
The discussion on the principle of the measure
was opened by Mr. Clarke (Tiverton), who spoke
of the great advance the question had made
in public opinion' for, he said, only a short
time ago an agent for a large estate said, "If you
think the landlords are going to put up with interference
you are much mistaken.' Now, however, tenant
right was not only recognised by the country generally,
but by the House of Lords, and the step taken by
the House of Lords was one which the landlords could
retrace. (Hear, hear.) The Bill was one in which
improvements could be made; but it was the duty
of the tenant farmers not to throw cold water
upon the measure, and if they desired to shape it so
as to contain all they needed they should get their
representatives in the House of Commons to make it
a measure beneficial to tenants, to landlords, and to
the public. (Hear.) It had been said, he remarked,
that the fact of the farmers having called in the aid
of Professor Fawcett and Sir William Vernon Har-
court showed the weakness of the class; but he denied
that those gentlemen had been so "called in," de-
claring that they had come as interested in a public
question and interested in a matter which affected the
producing power of the country. (Hear.) He went on to
declare that the landlords had come to find that their
agents had led them by a wrong line, and where compen-
sating clauses had been made in leases and agreements
the utmost benefit had accrued; and he urged that to
make this compulsory could do no possible injury to
the landlords who did their duty, while it would
admit of the land being worked fairly and without
deterioration. He commented upon Sir Thomas
Acland, twenty-five years after he had seconied Mr.
Puzey's Bill, introducing another measure while the
Government Bill was before the country, and said
that such a course of action was extraordinary. He
likewise urged that a committee of the Club should be
appointed to watch the Government Bill, and to sug-
gest amendments to members of the House of Com-
mons favourable to the objects of the Club. He
commented upon the late election for Bedfordshire,
and said the apathy of farmers was shown in the fact
that the Marquis of Tavistock went unpledged on this
question.
Professor Fawcett, M.P., who was received with
warm applause, excused himself for rising thus early in
the debate by saying that the pointed reference made to
his name by the last speaker rendered it necessary that
he should explain his presence there on that and pre-
vious occasions. He said that he received an invita-
tion to be present on the occasion of the late member
for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) reading a paper,
and, for his own part, he was anxious to be present
and to show that this question was not merely one
which interested farmers and landlords, but had an
interest for every inhabitant of the country. (Cheers.)
He further justified his personal interest in the matter
by saying that he had spent some of the happiest
years of his life in a Wiltshire farmhouse, so he
might be said to have a direct interest in the
question. The great question before the country now
was, was the Bill to be compulsory or permissive?
Since the Club had last discussed the question, the
House of Lords had entered on the debate, and as he
read that debate he was forcibly impressed, with the
peculiarly unfortunate position of the farmers in that
the Bill should have been first introduced into the
House of Lords, for the Lords had to deal with the
matter without knowing what were the views of the
farmers, which they would have learnt if the measure
had come through the House of Commons, and they
would then have had something to guide them as to
the farmers' opinions. The marked feature in the
debate in the House of Lords seemed to be the idea
that the question was to be disposed of by appealing
to phrases. (Laughter and "Hear, hear.") The Lords
: seemed to think it was enough to say that the " principle
of freedom of contract was sacred, and must not be
infringed." But a great question could not be settled
by appealing to phrases, for it was the duty of states-
men to see in what way principles could be modified to
meet public wants. (Cheers.) There was no prin-
ciple of universal application in politics. (Hear.) So
far as his own views went, he disliked Government
nterference and State meddling, and had objected to
t over and over again, and this when such things had
been done by those who now appealed to the "sacred
principle " of freedom of contract. He did not look
upon this interference as a good thing, but when
a class asked for the intervention of the State, then
it was for those who asked to prove the need,
and, the need being proved, for the State to grant
it. Of such a character were the compulsory
education principle and the regulations as to juvenile
labour the need of State interference being
proved, the State was bound to comply. So in
the case of Tenant Right—if it were proved that the
tenant would not invest, because he had not security,
his capital in the soil, then there must be the conclu-
sion that not only did the tenant suffer from the want
of profitable employment for his capital, not only did
the labourer suffer from the want of employment which
that capital would afford, but there was a wrong done
to the community in keeping from the people the
produce which the earth would have afforded. Re-
Iferring to the debate in the House of Lords, he passed
in review the Duke of Argyll's speech, and dwelt upon
the illustrations which his Lordship brought to bear
in support of his argument as to what harm would be
jdone by a farm being let to a man who desired to spend
Ino capital upon a farm in preference to one who de-
sired to lay out £5,000 on its being secured to him.
IThe harm, the speaker said, was incalculable. The
Iland was kept out of the hands of the man who
!would have done the best for it that could be done,
and who had special qualifications for dealing
rwith ..it, and the mischief did not rest there.
The large part of the additional capital would have
been spent in labour, enriching the working popula-
tion, and it would have produced more food from the
same soil, thus lessening the Struggles of those who
live by toil; but, owing to their being no security
given for the capital, perhaps this went to swell the
streams of English gold to the "foreign loans" to
bankrupt States, or to add to the gains of those who
concocted joint-stock companies. ("Hear, hear" and
cheers.) He justified exceptional legislation in regard
, to land, for, he said, the holding of land was a
monopoly; but in regard to houses there needed no such
tenant right, as the public generally was not affected
by the relative positions of landlords and tenants of
tenements. He warned his hearers that this question
would extend itself and be heard, not only in Parlia-
ment, but among the constituencies.
Mr. C. S. Read, M.P., who was cheered on rising,
said he most cordially agreed with the eloquent Pro-
fessor in his views as to the necessity for a compulsory
measure, and his own opinion was unchanged as to the
necessity for a compulsory measure, as in the Bill Mr.
Howard and he had introduced. But he was one of
those who, if they could not get all they wanted, would
take what they could get, and he felt bound to ask
himself, if that measure were rejected, would there be
a chance of getting any better legislation. (Voices,
!'No,”.and "Yes.") Perhaps the gentlemen who said
" Yes " would say how it was to be done, for in the
House of Lords there was only one member, he believed,
in favour of compulsion.; while in the House of Com-
m:ma only ten of the English county members were in
favour of it. Compulsion would never be got from the
present House, and, as it seemed the fashion to have per-
missive legislation, this might be taken, and a future
Parliament asked to make it compulsory. He ex-
pressed himself as sorry that the Duke of Argyle had
not heard Professor Fawcett's speech, and said the
present state of things was that half the farmers of
England were holding their farms on a six months'
notice to quit without any agreement for unexhausted
improvements. He characterized Sir Thomas Acland
as a Rip Van Winkle, who had slept for twenty-five
years after Mr. Pusey's Bill had been in the House,
and as having suddenly awakened to bring in another
now that the Government had moved in the matter.
He then proceeded to defend the changes made in the
Bill since it had been first introduced as improvements,
, though he ,owned he should like to see the 37th and.
38th clauses out.
Mr. J., Howard spoke against the Bill, and said it
would be better for the farmers that it should be
rejected, for the present very imperfect measure would
be taken as a settlement of the question, while if it
were rejected the minorities, by, the pressure of other
land questions, would be turned into majorities. As

to the election for Bedford, he said while the cost of
elections was au enormous the power must rest in one
or two families, and it was nonsense to talk of having
tenant-farmer representatives.
Mr. Charles Howard, Captain Dashwood, and other
members spoke, and the motion was carried.
On the motion of Mr. Neild, seconded by Mr. J.
Howard, the following rider was added
"This Club also desires to express its conviction that any
legislative measure which unsettles the existing relations
of landlords and tenants, and does not at the same time,
fix them upon a secure and uniform basis, is more likely to
prove injurious than beneficial to the great body of tenants
holding from year to year."
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the
reader of the paper.

At a meeting of the Council of the Central Chamber
of Agriculture on Tuesday, a motion was adopted, con-
curring in the main principle of the Agricultural Hold-
ings Bill, so far as it provided that compensation
should be given to the tenants for improvements unem-
hausted at the close of their tenancies.