The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-12-27 00:00:00

MR. ARCH'S MISSION TO CANADA.

In connection with this tnuch•illscussed subject, ?he Times
has also pub.iehed the following letter :

Sir,—l may, perhaps, be allowed to say • few words in
answer to Mr. Arch

1. As wheat can be imposted cheaply from abroad
and meat cannot, the diminution of the area of tillage
is a proof of the profit of grazing, not of the unproduc-
tiveness of England. Mr. Arch and I would probably
be equally sorry to re-establish the Corn Laws, which
were in full operation forty years ago. If they were
in force now, the cultivation of wheat would doubtless
be greater, but the position of the peasant would hardly
be improved.
2. The tillage of waste lands requires capital, and
has hardly ever, within my knowledge, repaid it.
What will not pay the capitalist, who can afford to
wait, will hardly pay the labourer, who cannot. I
have known many men with money begin such at-
tempts with :Ude concern and end them with much. I
certainly dread a like fate for the isbJurer.
3. In the present condition of Europe, mcre princts
are banished than peasants. Mr. Arch is probably
right in recommending emigration' but he is scarcely
consistent in calling the use of the labourer's liberty to
go where he will be better off "banishment." The
labourer is and should be free to ask for higher wages,
and if he cannot get them in one place, to move to
another where he can; but this is certainly not banish-
ment._

4. Land seems to me to have nothing sacred or
special about it. It answers beet in the long run,
both to men and nation; to treat land like other pro-
perty. At present I quite agree with Mr. Arch, the
land In England is used ;it is subject to special ex-
penses of transfer, to special dement in case of intestacy.
Ind to the exclusive burden of rates, which personal
property ought to ohms. All this I woull gladly see
changed; but neither thee() changes nor even the
threat of revolution will prevent land ham aocumu-
letting when men with money want to buy and men
without it want to cell; will hinder people from grazing
when it pays to graze, or will save small freeholders
from the mortages and bankruptcy which, so far m
observation extends, is their usual fate.
It. TEMPLE.

Sir,—Ynureorrespondent Mr. Arch sake, "How many
(uncultivated) acres by the hundred square miles tc-
gether are to be seen in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and
Suffolk?" I can answer for Cambridgethire that Mr.
Arch has not been very fortunate in selecting that
county a! conspicnous for its quantity of uncultivated
land. If Mr. Arch will consult the agricultural returns
which he quotes from, he will find that Cambridge.
shire, with a gross area of about 525,0(0) acres, has about
470,000 acres undercrope, bare fallow, and grass. Thus
nearly 90 per cent, of the gross area of the county is
cultivated. The rem tining :-.5,000 acres (about 843
square miles) include all land occupied by towns and
villages; all land covered with houses and buildings •
all the r.lads, eullrals, canals, rivers, ;all
hcca-y arch', qu .rries, ; and all gardens aad plota
of groan] of lees than one rood.
If the whole country were divided into four-acre lots
for the settkment of small proprietors, probably 10 per
colt. of the area would be occupied by necessary
roads, fences and Laildings. The cultivated area
would be less; whether the production would be
greater is very doubtful.

A further examination of the returns will show that
of the 470,000 acres of cultivated land 130,000 acres, or
27i per cent., are wheat, and nearly 260,000 are corn.
Thus one fourth of the gross area of the county is sown
with wheat each year, and one-half (1 the county is
growing corn. I doubt whether any ether county In
the United Kingdom can show a similar state of things.
—I ME, &C., WILLIAM C. LITTLIL

snaa'shoU, March, Dec. la
P.S.—Myfigures are from returns for 1871; I have
not a copy of those for 1872 3.