The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-26 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL SIGNS OF THE TINiEs.

Notwithstar.ding the attempts the landlord politi-
cians are making to turn the discontent of the farmers
to the account of the class interest of hindlordirm,
the tendency of the agricultural mind is towards prac-
tical questions. The old cliques are at work. The
Doke of Richmond gathered about him his body
guard of sham farmers at the Bond-street Protection
Society, and some of hie followers spouted protection-
ism at the London Farmers' Club. In Devonshire too,
in the far-west, notorious for incumbered proprietors
and inferior farmers, the protectionists have tried the
experiment of a county meeting to petition the Queen
to dissolve parliament. Some efforts, too, have been
made to reconcile two sections into which the retro-
!moist politicians have split; while rumours of falter-
ing' and backelidings on the part of a few whig
peers, are confidently propagated. At the annual
meeting of the Farmers Club, Mr. Shaw, the
editor of the monopolist Mark Lane Express, myste-
riously alluded to some communications, which certain
of the Duke of Richmond's adherents had had with a
ministerial peer, who was assumed to speak by au-
thority, because his wife is one of the ornamental
members of the Queen's household ; and in the
columns of the Express of last Monday, Lord Portman
is stated to be the peer who is coquetting with the
protectionists on the subject of imposing a fixed duty
on foreign corn. Doubtless there are many whigs
who never were hearty free-traders, perhaps never
were free traders at all, and who being thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of landlordism, might not
hesitate to conspire with the protectionists to reimpose
a duty on corn. Possibly, too, these magnates may
not like the sort of tone and temper in which the
farmers are looking into the relations of landlord and
tenant, any more than protectionist fellow-landlords.
But do they suppose all the other industrious classes
they propose to pillage will submit patiently ? Are
they even blind enough to imagine that the farmers
themselves are as unanimous as formerly for the food
monopoly ? If so, they most egregiously
mistaken. The past year has been one of great
diffi"ulty to no inconsiderable number of farmer., but
that difficulty has led them to see that there are
other and better modes of providing a remedy for the
evils they endure than a return to protection. One
of these is a reduction of rents, and that is the thing
under which landowners wince. Reduced rents,
however, are only uecessary where estates have been
mismanaged—as the vast majority have been—aid
the tenants hold upon terms which preclude profit-
able farming. Mr. Shaw admitted that farmers do
not answer the protectionist whip, for he said, " it
had been his misfortune to be always complaining of
the want of unanimity amongst farmers ; and he much
feared that notwithstanding the suffering which ex-
isted there was a considerable degree of spatby. Com-
munications had been made to him within the last
week, in which the writers expressed their astonish-
ment that their brother farmers said so little respect-
ing the position in which they were placed. He
could only account for this by supposing that they
were suffering under a feeling of desperation." We
believe the apathy is caused by a " desperate" deter-
mination to apply themselves to the very obvious
and practical means of improvement which lie within
their reach, provided the landowners will deal with
them fairly and honestly. And inasmuch as the
landowners are now somewhat alarmed for their in-
comes, they are more than half inclined to be honest
and fair towards their tenants, a change of which the
shrewder farmers are quietly availing themselves.
Amongst other signs of the progress of English
husbandry are the a„ricultural exhibitions. Exposi-
tions of objects of industry are just now in fashion,
and the rural industry of this country may claim to
have taken the lead in such spectacles. Cattle shows
and exhibitions of agriculture have for some years
been increasing in interest and attractiveness,
as the crowds which flock to the annual
country meetings of the Royal Agricultural Society and
the Smithfield fat stock shows at Baker-street testify.
This season a similar exhibition has been commenc•d
at Birmingham, and has proved completely successful.
Now the most bigoted prophet of rural ruin will
admit that these shows indicate, not only a
great improvement in the character of the stock 1
shown, but also a considerable extension of good I
stock. The animals at the Smithfield show came'
from all parts of the country, and not a few of the
penman who obtained prizes are new men, not hitherto
known as breeders and feeders of good stock, whilst
most of the old names are there also. And these
things are not supported by landowners so much as
by farmers. At the Smithfield Club dinner the Duke
of Richmond " regretted that their annual dinner was
not better supported by the landowners ;" and Mr.
Deuce (a farmer) said " he felt that now, more than
ever, was the crisis at which the farmers of England
should vigorously put their shoulders to the wheel.
Above all things, they must look for good blocd for
their stock, and thus obtain for the people the greatest
quantity of food at the least expense." And that is
the spirit in which the great body of our intelligent
farmers regard the pre-ent state of farming business.
At the Farmers' Club dinner, before referred to, Mr.
Baker, of Essex, an earnest protectionist, thus ex-
plained one of the causes why capital was often de-
ficient in the farming business. Ile said :
They were often taunted with not having developed the
resources of the soil, and with not having employed sufficient
capital for that purpose. Why, was capital to he talked of as
if it were a portion of tha soil itself, as if it could be dug up
like chalk or marl, and spread over the land ? Was not
capital a thing of slow growth ? Had not the cipital which
was now employed in the cultivation of ageleultuas
arisen gradually out of its improvement? instead
of capital berg in the tenant's pocket, avail-
able to him at any moment, it was paa-
rally incorporated with his occupation, and if he left that
occupation he frequently rts:gned his capital to his successor. I
being himself almost a ruined man. The out-going tenant
left his capital in the soil, land the in-coming tenant, who'
was so an
in times of competition to obtain a farm,
anticipated the opportunity of absorbing that which his'
predecessor had leftin the land. That wu one of the train
causes of the competition which was taking place for farms.
Can there be a more flagitious system than that
ben described? Yet it is that the political landlords
would move heaven and earth to maintain, to support
which they now seek to re-tax the nation's food.
Sounder and better views have been put forth by
some landowners, amongst whom Mr. Edward Hol-
land deserves honourable mention. At the Gloucester
agricultural meeting his speech contained the
boldest and best exposure of the wants and weakness
of English husbandry. Two of the speakers, farmers,
had observed that the landlord must carry the tenant-
farmers through the difficulties of the times. Now
this habit of relying on anything or anybody rather
than their own foresight and energy is the besetting
defect of English farmers, and it was very well re-
buked and exposed by Mr. Holland, who said, " his
duty as a landlord was very simple and plain ; it was
to make the most of the raw material which belonged
to him. He maintained that if a man had the dis-
position of any raw material, whether it be capital,
manufactured goods, or land, his duty was plain ;
it
was to do what everybody else would do, in as fair a
way as he could, to make the most of that raw
material." This is just and reasonable. Fairly and
frankly to get as much for his land as it is worth is
the landlord's legitimate object. But then as Mr.
Holland said, he must not insist on reserving that
with which the tenant could not interfere, nor must
he require to influence his tenants' votes, and so forth;
that
ht
ththee
stentichalthi.” npit hhaedwneoetehei,ngebtaado
onraewabniusea-
begets the other. If tenants will make such impra-
vident engagement*, that with every depression in
business—to which all industrious occupations are
alike subject—they must run to the landlord, and
appeal to his forbearance, not to enforce his full
demand, they_ cannot expect to be free from the
vexatious and humiliating semi-feudal hardens which
form the objects of complaint at three-fourths of the
market tables of England. On the other hand, if the
landlord will insist on game and votes, as well as
rent, he must not be surprised that when prices fall,
he may still retain his sports and his political in-
' dunce, but finds some shortcomings with respect to
rent. In fact, both parties are interested in getting
rid of the present vicious system ; and until it is
got rid of husbandry, will never be in a sound
and healthy condition. And landowners should re-
member, with Mr. Holland, that " the landlord could
not take a large estate into his own hands, and culti-
vate it ; the landlord, in truth, was more dependent
on the tenant than the tenant on the landlord, be-
cause the tenant could always get another landlord.
while the landlord would not like to lose a good
tenant. Now, it was the interest of the landlord to
throw away all care for game or politics, and to get
the best price he could for his land." And, by the
best price, he did not mean that the landlord should
accept the highest rent any reckless or ignorant man
would offer him, as has been but too often the case.