The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-14 00:00:00

like all unjust laws, really operates to the injury of
those on whose behalf it has been enacted. The law
of distress has a twofold operation;
to lead the landlord to accept a tenant,
without sufficient capital for the proper cults-
-ration of the land ; secondly, by the complete
power over the, tenant given by that law, the rela-
tion of landlord and tenant assumes the character of
a concession by a superior to a dependent, rather than
that of an equal, even-handed contract. Both sar“
to prevent capital from being attracted to husbandry,
and drive from it, as an occupation, the most enter-
prising and independent minds. The{ landowner
has apparently very little motive to require that his
tenant should be possessed of ample capital, because,
come what may, the rent is safe. It not unfrequently
happens that a man of little or no capital will offer a
higher rent than a more substantial farmer, as the
poorest tenant is invariably the most subservient
So long as the law of distress exists, landlords will
have many reasons for preferring an inferior class of
tenants. They will be politically more tractable ;
they will bear being overrun with game more pa-
tiently ; in a word, they will be more content as de-
pendents. But this tends more than anything else
to lower the standard of cultivation. It is ad-
mitted on all sides that, taking the country
through, farmers have not half as much
capital employed as they ought with a view to their
own profit. We believe the deficiency to be still
greater, and that, if most farmers were to employ
three or four times their present capital upon a given
area, their profits would be greatly increased. Nor
is this any new-fangled notion. The importance of
high cultivation has been known for centuries.
COLUMELLA illustrates the advantages of applying
abundant capital anti labour to land by*the following
story :
A rine.dresser had two daughter. and a vineyard' when his sheet
daughter married, he gave her a third of a vineyard fur a portion ;
notwithstanding which he had the same quantity of fruit as formerly.
When his younger daughter married, be gaselier half of what re-
mained, and still the produce of his vineyard (now reduced in space
by taothirds) was nut ta.aluished.
The moral of this is, that elaborate cultivation will
make good the loss in quantity of land. In short, a
comparatively small farm well cultivated is far more
profitable than a larger one indifferently managed.
If the law of distress were abrogated, and the
landlord had to depend entirely on the sta-
bility and success of his tenant for the re-
gular payment of rent, he would either require
tenants of larger capital or diminish the size of his
farms. In fact, we believe that landowners who
understand their own interest, will effect changes in
both directions. The number of farmers is very con-
siderable whose farms, if, like the vine-dresser's, re-
duced to one third, would prove far more productive
than at present. When the tenant had a greater
command of capital hie position would be more inde-
pendent, and his engagements with his landlord being
enforced only by the same legal sanctions which bind
hint to his other engagements, the tenant would
cease to adopt that cap-in-hand demeanour in his
relations with his landlord, which, by becoming a
part of the system, drives ail the more enterprising
spirits from the business of farming.
Then, as to the system by which land is managed.
We showed, in recent articles, the absolute fallacy
of those tenant-right agreements, which landlords
and land-agents are, in various districts, endeavouring
to introduce as substitutes for leases. There can be
no substitute for a lease. The right of the tenant to be
paid for all improvements according to their real
value ought not to be a matter of contract at all; it
should be provided for by a legislative enactment.
This is a point to which farmers are eareestly
directing' their attention. But it is a question
beside and beyond that of leases. Whether tenant-
right be, as it ought to be, established by law or not,
there can be no doubt about the absolute necessity for
adopting the practice of granting and accepting leases.
We have heard many landowners and some agents
say, " Oh, but the ,tannin ‘een't take leases ;"
and possibly during the uneertaintiea and fluctu-
ations caused by the Corn-laws, and the pouswsi
conflicts they led to, such a feeling was somewhat
extensively entertained amoagst tenants. But all
that has come to an cad; and we believe it may be
confidently asserted that there is no farmer who un-
derstands his business, and who ought to be permitted
to carry on his farm, by whom a rational lease would
not be accepted with eagerness. As a rule, however,
landlords do not offer reasonable leases. They are
so full of restrictions and fetters, that they have,
properly enough, been designated traps, instead
of securities, for tenant-farmers. That liberality
in dispensir.g with restrictions will best promote the
landlord's interest, as well as that of the tenant, no
one practically acquainted with good farming can
doubt; and the great obstacle to improvement in this
respect is a phantom fear which landlords entertain,
that, without strict conditions, tenants may injure the
property. This is entirely visionary, as we shall
show when treating of the principle, and, to some
extent, dictating the general form of an agricultural
lease.

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.
SATURDAY MORNING.
Although the question of the Spanish marriages
has been exhansted, its consequences have not. The
French journals, accordingly, are engaged even with
more asperity than ever, in the polemic to which
the rupture or suspension of the entente eorcliale
has given rise. The ministerial press of Paris
assails Lord Palmerston, and declare that the
peace of Europe is suspended on his dis-
missal from office. The Opposition journals
assails with equal fury M. Guizot for sacrificing the
interests of the country, and wantonly compromising
the in'ernational relations fur the sake of a measure,
the advantages of which arc exclusively dynastic.
These theses form the most prominent topics in Paris
at present.
" For six years past, says one of the leading organs of the
opposition, e Siecle, a grand policy has prevailed. The
Minister 1: L
as been by England loudly proclaimed great, wise,
moder.te, and pacific, and yet now this same England pro-
claims this same minister a cheat and a traitor! The grand
policy consisted in maintaining the English alliance by the
sacrifice of our most legitimate susceptibilities, and our best
national interests. Today, behold this alliance broken, and
for what ? For an interest purely dsnastic, which it is
admitted cannot affect our national position. It is not then
true, as was so emphatically asserted, that the maintenance
of !mace was identified with the presence cf this or that
statesman in office. It is not true, as we were
f .rfnerly told, that with one :he country would be
agitated and disturbed, with the other tranquil and secure.
Is it not agitated now ? and yet it is M. Guizot who governs.
This very statesman, whose word was the pledge of peace,
and who, from the tribune, reproached his predecessors
that no faith was given to them in England. ' I spoke,'
said he, in your name: I repeated your declaration : I
affirmed : I invited—hut no one believed ire!' And yet
this very M. Guizot, who was himself to inspire such confi-
dence, now speaks, affirms, and protests in his own name,
and no one believes him."

•
The Opposition journalist proceeds to prove that
M. Guizot is now towards England in a situation
a thousand times worse, and less excusable, than that
of M. Thiers, whom he displaced.
" Behold his former panegyrists signalise him as a man
without probity, and denounce him to the indignation of the
world as a hypocrite and impostor!—behold, cast upon
him all the misfortunes which would attend a rupture
and war! What would this. great minister think if
France should smite its voice with England to condemn
him. If his own agents bore witness against him ; if those
in whom he confided, and who followed his policy, turned
against him with violence, and joined in one common excla-
mation' Peace—what have you done with the peace? what
has become of our security ? why have you broken that
entente cordiale ," And if, on his own side, he should encoun-
ter a man who, finding the opportur.i,y favourable for seizing
on office, should make a scape-goat of him, and, accusing
him in the face of Europe with having compromised the peace
of nationsby his intrigues, should charge himself with the duty
of repairing hiserrors, the' is to say, of immolating him to the
s.lf-love or to the resentment of the English minister?
What judgment, we ask him, would he form of such a man ?
Who knows ? We shall, perhaps, witness this expiation, and
it will then be curious to observe what liaises in the soul of
)1. Onizot."
Although it is well known in Paris that the para-
graph which appeared in Galignanis Messenger re-
specting the presentation of Lord Normanby to the
French princes on Tuesday, was communicated from
the British Embassy, to prevent the object and chn-
raaer of that prc.ceeding froth being misumlerstooo,
the agents and confidunts of the ministry still