The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-19 00:00:00

ired I eakwflaallirid:
trieuweibiss : Aylerem te-
recal:"lnat.." 'Aar% es:
Teuß el +Ai& I 112120 ye bias "
ETeediAThe wfdlaimmareittilrk
caboa. 1 islet la es we
I ma liemag arbo
Mak elreantr; 'neve eta elsela t• meat, fa
order tkaaistbeee sae Se me adeteke, ilia the ststmeat
alluded to as imailmed iavessios, SS I appose ea la-
vender sot up Ip sees the perpoes of tae items&
We tenet that Mr. Duna= will believe tint It is
in no apkit of gamiliwal Inetility to Ida that- we ester
upon o eirmt Mallet the bete of this natter, as they
are not nenaft bows. in his own neighbourhood.
As far 111 be in bedeeraed, it. is if no importance
to any am whether hie rents are raised
ar not 1 Vat tie between the free trade party
and tines 'wily demand a retort to a
tem

Wire of Ai gesateA
--iguanas that we should explicitly
whether the root of land is greater or less now than
it was at a period when a duty was imposed on the
importation of foreign wheat, and When, conse-
quently, the farmer supposed himself in a better
position than he is at present.
Now the facts of the Buckinghamshire case are
these. The estate of Hughendoe, not far from Chip-
ping Wycombe, was formerly posesesed by a gentle-
man of the name of NORM, Who died late in 1845,
or early in 1846. The soh-in-law and executor of
Mr. NORRIS was a Mr. WROUGHTON, a large landed
proprietor in Oxfordshire. On succeeding to the pro-
perty, Mr. Wacittorrrox caused a valuation to be
made, with a view to sell. There were two
tenants upon the estate holding farms on a
two years notice. Them tenants were respec-
tively named GUY and OILLxTT. Upon the
valuation with a view to sale, Messrs. GUT and Gm-
hart were informed that their rents would be ad-
vanced at the rate of about 7s. pee Sere—GILLETT,
who paid 2001. per annum, being put up to somewhere
about 2751., and Our in the same proportion. At
the same time these tenants severally received notice
to quit at the expiration of two years : all these
arrangements being evidently made with a view
to effect a more advantageous sale. The est its was
then put up to auction, but not finding a purchaser, it
was bought in.
Some time prior to the dissolution of parliament in
1847, it was understood that Mr. DISRAELI had his
eye on Backe. Bat his position in that county was
not favourable to his pretensions, inasmuch as at that
time his only interest in the district was his residence
at a place called Brsdeaham, which he held
upon a lease. Mr. DISRAELI, it seems, was
desirous to purchase prop!rfy in Bucks. He
consequently opened a negotiation for the property
at Hoghendon. In the course cf these negotiations
one of the tenants, it is said, was applied to as to the
value of the land. His answer was, that he advised
Mr. DISRAELI to =keno purchase at that time, as no
doubt he would be able by delay to secure the estate
much cheaper. To this it was observed," Oh, a few
thousands are no object to us, and we want imme-
diate possession :" thus showing that the estate was
as much a political se a commercial investment, and
that the return upon the purchase-money was cot the
first object of consideration.
Mr. DISRAELI ultimately ruchased Hoghendon
for 32,000!., the tenants, Messrs. Out and GILLETT,
continuing. in possession of their farms at the amount
of rent originally paid to Mr. NORRIs. The time,
however, has now expired when, in conformity with
the notices given by Mr. Witouonrox, they are
either to pay an increased rent or to surrender their
• Being now Mr. DISRAELI'S tenants, and
wing his sympathy for the farmer, they ea:orally
enough concluded that they would be permitted to
remain on the old terms, there being no objection to
them as tenants, as Mr. DISRAELI'S agent intimates.
In their very reasonable expectations, however,
Messrs.OUY and GILLETT have both been disappointed.
Mr. DISRAELI does insist on the increased rents
fixed by Mr. WRoUGLIToIe ; rents, be it remembered,
one-third higher than the rents paid under a system
of protection. Rather than submit to these increased
rents Mr. DISRAELI'S tenants choose to quit ; and we
have reason to believe that in these " very depressed
times," when "the termer is ruined," Sze., &c., Mr.
DISRAELI is about to let his lands to new tenants
who will pay him one-third more than he or any-
body else has ever previously received for the same

re P rt Y.
visibly Mr. DISRAELI may, in the strict use of
terms, be justified in saying, There is no farm in
my possession the rent of which I have raised one
sixpence." But we are glad of an opportunity of
correcting the painful impression such an assertion
might leave upon the public mind, that " the farmer's
friend" was suffering by what he calls " the pressure
of the times." And weakest candidly own that we think
Mr. DISRAELI would have done well to have made a
more full and complete statement respecting the case
than that which was elicited by the pressure evi-
dently put upon him by a tenant farmer at Great
Adarlow. Wby have hesitated to tell the whole
truth? Or why permit such an evasive letter to be
published as that which we find addressed by Mr.
published as that which we find addressed by Mr.
DISRAELI'S agent to the paper which gave currency
to the assertion P
TO ERZ EDITOR OF TEE ROCKS ADT/IE"
BURY NEWS.
Sir,—The statement m.de by you in the last week's News,
headed " Mr. Disraeli end bit Tenants' Advance of Rent,"
I think, requires from me, as that gentleman's agent, some
notice. Permit ma therefore to say, that the tenants you
refer to are yet holding under agreements entered into by
Duns before Mr. Disraeli purchased the Ilughendon
peateestate
that they have had red offers of continuing upon the old
terms, and that no advance of rent has been asked or agreed
to be given, as you stated, by the new tenants.—l em, sir,
your obedient servant, Gxciaoa VERNON.
High Wycombe, Jan. 7, 1860.
Here, we most say, is not a very creditable trifling
with the truth. The " agreements entered into prior
to Mr. Distthera's purchase," the " old terms," and
the denial that there is any " advance of rent," are
worth nothing if they do not cover the fact that there
is no difference between the rent demanded now,
when corn is cheap, and the rents demanded four or
five years back, when corn-was dear.
As an individual, Mr. Duman.' is to be com-
mended, not blamed, for making the most of his pro-
perty. We congratulate him that under a system of
free trade he is able to make more of his laud than
his predecessor was able to make of it under a system
of protection. But, as between Mr. Disitsui and his
party, some further explanation may be required
concerning the valuable fact that his estate is yield-
ing additional rent at a period when he and they are
making so great an outcry about " agricultural de-
pression." However, that is no matter of ours :. we
leave the protectionists and Mr. DISRAELI to settle
that account between themselves.

AND ATIZS-