The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-11 00:00:00

not only at meetings but in prominent cases of pd.
vete conduct and example that proofs appear of hey
little stress is any longer laid upon protection, mad
how much it is in the farmers own hands to not
themselves both with their landlords and
with
tax-gatherers.
Take the Cue of MLWILLIAM BENNETT, at whose
request we inserted his long final litter to the Deka
of BEDFORD, wherein he virtually rejects the dye
made to relieve him from his farm; fur the terms ow
which he offers to relinquish his lease amount in eith,
stance to a refusal to give it up.
Here we have a practical proof that one of the
most noisy clamourers against fm-trade in corn
trig
not accept a release from his farming engagemelt;
with an equitable compensation for exisnditure made
under the protective system. This will be useful is
the rural community. Everybody who knows any.
thing of the state of English husbandry is awue that
all free trade has had to do with agriculture'
distress—such in it is—is that it has prevented fool;
from rising to famine prices. That it has prevented
such a calamity is, in fact, the complaint of /dr.
BENNETT and his clique; for nothing short dandle
—real or artificial—that would have driven up the
price of bad grain to an enormous extent, mild hays
made the produce of last year "remunerative*
to the south of England fanner. We my
advisedly that the only farme.s who ententia
any serious apprehensions of the effect of free trade
upon their business, are such as are farming with M.
sufficient capital, and such as are subjected to land-
lord-created burdens which prevent them from using
their laid advantageously. In all such canes the
parties must adapt themselves to the new state of
circumstances, by procuring more capital or by Qom
pying lets land, and by revising their contracts with
the owners of their farms, whilst as electors sod
Englishmen they ought to demand cheap govern.
meat.

The Duke of BEDFORD'S correspondence with Mr,
BENNETT, and a letter from Mr. JOHN NEEDIS d
Frocester, in Gloucestershire, lately published in oar
colamna, afford an insight into the relations of Ism.
lord and tenant in England, which, though not site.
factory, is instructive. Mr. BENNEreti case has beta
sully before our readers. Mr. Neems's is somewhat
different. That gentleman, holding a farm as yearly,
tenant from Earl FITZHARDINGE, took part with
lordship's brother, Mr. ORANTLEY BtRKELET, who
he rebelled against the head of his family and hie
political patron ; and the consequence was that Me.
Names was turned out of his farm. The case having
been mentioned in the House of Commons, °spina
BERKELEY, on b, half of Earl FITZHARDINGE, dined
that Mr. NEEMS had refused to live in the boos' ge
his lordship's farm, and that he had been Kg.
victed before a magistrate of lopping timber, and
was in consequence dismissed from his farm in 1818.
Now, it seems that, for the last sixteen
years Mr. NREKB had lived on an adjoining fine;
that the house on Earl FITZHARDINGE'S farm wY
unfit for his use ; and that the story about courictioa
for lopping timber was a pure invention—an after
thought, when some plausible explanation for Mr.
Negras' dismis•al from his farm bad to be made in
the House of Commons. But the real moments
shows, more plainly than even the notice to quit, the
sort of subservience in which it is the practice
of English landowners to keep their tenants.
Here we have two landowners, both of what are called
liberal politics, who may probably be placed at the
opposite extremities of the scaler f good and bed land.
lords, and both interfering, each in his own maser,
with the tenants' freedom of action in matters which
nothing hap:terfovrecrnantocedoowf
tihthe
cothne ctracatltisvuahe4thgtka
between landlord and tenant. The Duke of BEhroth

is known to be a good landlard ; he distinctly an.
nounces that be does not seek in any way to control
the political or other opinions of his tenants, and is
Sir. BENNETT'S case (probably in all cases) he has
granted a lease. The Earl FITZHARDINGE has as
high reputation as a landlord, he grants no leamq
his own 'evidence before the gamerlaw oommiths
shows him to be unimproving and domineering; and
he, without much circumlocution, claims to direct the
political opinions of his tenants. Ya in spite of them
differences we find both noblemen, in tact, inteiferiag
with the opinions of tenants when opinion takes the
form of action.
The question then to be considered is : —the bulimia
of cultivating the soil, the duty of raising food from
it for the population and an honest profit for him who
undertakes it, is this to be clogged and fettered by
private and political subserviency ? Is a lease not tolm
granted and is outlay of capital to be prevented beams
of the determina. ion of the landlord to wield electoral

influence by di,tating opinions t> his truant? Ito
agricultural interest pleads that it cannot compete
with the foreigner on account of As peculiar borders.
Let it begin by oilskin; off this, its sorest burdened
impediment, and let it combat free trade by allow*
• little free will and wcurity to the rac on which it
totally depends for existence and for prosperity.