The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-04 00:00:00

a step in the right direction. If the Conservatives of Bolton
chose to put forth their hands they might gain the whole
power of the borough. As a rule the Conservatives, how-
ever,were not so much politicians asgentlemen on the other
side. If there was a room in every ward like that which
they were that night opening, a great deal might be done
towards taking power into their own hands. (Cheers.)
Several toasts followed, and the proceedings closed at a
late hour.

Lord Lichfield on the Question of Land

Tenure,

On Thursday afteenoon, at the Midland Farmers' Club,
;he discussion "On the Tenure of Land," introduced at a

former meeting in a paper by Mr. R. H. Maslen, was

resumed.

The Earl of LICHFIELD, after some preliminary remarks,
said, the club had come to certain resolutions which were

calculated, as it appeared to him and to many persons,
to interefere with the object which he had in view, rather
than to assist it. He feared there was a great deal in the

agreement they had been discussing which, if left as it was,

and if .no further notice was taken of it by himself or others,
might tend very much to deprive the tenant farmers of the
country of the advantage which he sincerely hoped they
might some day or other receive from the discussion which
that question had already undergone. He was perfectly

certain that there were both in the resolutions passed by the
club and in the agreement they had drawn up, many points
which would prevent the agreement from being generally
adopted. He wished to dispel the notion that he was op-

posed to leases and wished to set tenant farmers and land-
lords generally against leases. He was not opposed to leases,

but they would bear in mind that whenever the subject of
leases was mentioned the question of capital was always

mixed up with it, and any one who had considered the sub-
ject must admit that for leases tenants with capital must be
found. Mr. Masfen said in his paper that the capital would

be forthcoming; but he must remind Mr. Masfen of the
thing which Mr. Masfen would keep forgetting—namely,
that the agreement to be decided upon was to be placed in
the hands of existing tenant farmers, and it was undeniable
that many of them had not the capital for leases ; therefore

he was certain, and all men must be certain, that annual

agreements were matters of absolute necessity. Therefore
they had to consider a form of annual agreement, anditwas

clear that no form would be generally adopted unless it was

satisfactory not only to outgoing tenants and to landlords,
but to incoming tenants also. (Hear.) His impression,
derived from the resolutions passed by the club, from the
agreement drawn up by them, and from the discussions
that had taken place among them, was that they had only

Looked at one interest—that of the outgoing tenant. (Hear.

It was quite clear that if he was right in that impres•

sion, their agreement would not be generally adopted

and the fact that some of the members of the committee

who drew up the agreement dissented from the reso-
lution upon which that agreement was founded, was not
likely to cause the public to look with much confidence
upon the result of all their deliberations. With reference
to the remarks made by Mr; Newdegate, M.P., at the last
meeting, his lordship said the hon. gentleman did not appear
to have fully considered the agreement drawn up by the
club, nor his (Lord Lichfield's) agreement either. Mr. New-
degate said he preferred the agreement drawn up by the
club to that drawn up by him (Lord Lichfield), but he
(Lord Lichfield) thought he should be able to convince Mr.
Newdegate, if he had a short conference with him, that
that was a mistaken preference. However, the visit of the
hon. gentleman to the club had done some good, for it

had attracted the attention of the Times, and that was a

a great deal. The leading article that appeared in the
Times did not throw much light upon the subject, for
nobody could tell whether the writer of it favoured leases,
compensation clauses, or anything else. But an article in
the Times went a long way for all that. (Hear, hear.) The
article he referred to, although not very explicit, would help
to create an interest in the subject, and he for one was
much obliged to the writer of it. When Mr. Newdegate
said he was alarmed at his (Lord Lichfield's) agreement,
he must have meant that by it too many claims for compen-
sation were admitted. He agreed with Mr. Newdegate that
tenant-rights ought not to be made too heavy, so as to
throw too great a burden upon the incoming tenant ; and
therefore he could understand that Mr. Newdegate might
have been rather frightened at all the claims that might be
made for compensation. He had since written for one of
Mr. Newdegate's own agreements, and he must say that it
was a very good agreement. The only fault he found
with it was that it left too wide a margin for arbitrators,

and opened the door widely to the influence of what Mr,
Newdegate himself in his speech condemned, viz., the
"custom of the country." One of the main objects of draw-

ing up an agreement was to get rid of " the custom of the
country" altogether, and this could only be done by making
the form of agreement complete, and then confining the
arbitrators strictly to it. This could only be done by pro-
viding compensation in the agreement for everything for
which the tenant could possibly claim. He now came to
the objections he had to the agreement of the club. In the
matter of repairs, they had put so much on tho landlord
that they might as well have said at once that the landlord
must do everything. The .tenant had only to provide the
workmanship for the inside and for the gates, stiles, and
fences. The landlord was to do everything else. This was
contrary to the system hitherto pursued, and it was a very
heavy obligation to put upon landlords at once. He could
not say whether they would not be able to obtain these
terms eventually under an improved state of agreements ;
but for the present the landlords would not, he thought,be
willing to undertake such heavy obligations. Again, in case
of fire, the landlord was to do everything, although he was
convinced that in nine cases out of ten fires were owing to
the negligence of the farmer or his servants. He provided
in his agreement that the tenant should draw the materials;
and, considering what he had just stated, he did not think
this was unreasonable. He did not provide in his agree-
ment that the tenant should insure, because he thought the
landlord ought to be his own insurer. They proposed to
allow the landlord to inspect the buildings and everything
about the farm, but not to give him power to put anything
into repair if the tenant neglected it. It was no very great
privilege to allow him to see things in a bad state of repair
if he could do nothing to put them right. The noble lord
next referred to the clause about rabbits, and said the
course adopted by the club with reference to this subject,
so far from facilitating a satisfactory settlement of the ques-
tion, would have a contrary effect. They proposed that the
tenant should have the right to kill rabbits in any way he
liked. There must be an end to game preserving, for no
landlord could preserve game if any other means than dig-
ging and ferreting were allowed for the destruction of rab-
bits. He was perfectly certain that no tenant who wished
to be on good terms with his landlord would think of killing
rabbits in the hedgerows and every place else at the time of
year when game was breeding. Why, then, should they ask
this privilege, seeing that he was sure none of them would
make use of it ? Ought they not ratherto be willing to give
the landlord power to protect himself against tenants who
might not be actuated by any such good feeling ? No such
provision for the destruction of rabbits as that contemplated
by the club could be satisfactory to anybody. It would give
rise to endless disputes between landlord and tenant. He
declared that his experience was that those cases were
quite exceptional in which game was preserved to an un-
reasonable extent, and he denied that as a rule the game
question had interfered between landlords and tenants.
What he proposed in his agreement was that the landlord
should undertake to kill the rabbits both on the farm and
in the covers, giving the tenant the power of protecting
himself during certain months, and also giving him com-
pensation for damage done by game. But he wished it
provided that notice of any intended claim for damage
done by game should be given when the crops were
in their early state, in order that the valuer might be able
to distinguish between bad farming and what was eaten
by game. He was advised by many that the question of
damage done by game had far better be left alone,
but he thought not, being convinced that, as he should
place the agreement in his tenants' hands, that clause
would never be acted upon. Now he came to the subject
of restrictions, and he found that the club proposed to do
away with restrictions altogether. He thought they had
acted unwisely. Much had been said about agreements
being for good tenants, and not for bad ones; but he thought
that unless they made agreements for bad tenants they
need not makelany at all. With the best tenants he would
not care for any agreement. With regard to hay and straw,
he was surprised to see that the club proposed to allow
them to be sold without anything being brought back
instead of. them. He provided in his agreement that the
hay and straw should not be sold except with the con-
sent of the landlord, and good rotten manure being
brought back instead. With respect to cropping, he
thought it should, for the sake of the incoming
tenant, be laid down very clearly the state in which
the farm should be left in the last year. The strongest
objection ho had to the club agreement was to the last
clause which the schedule attached to it. It would not be
possible for a man, having a schedule put into his hand
describing the condition of a farm 10 or 15 years ago, to
make anything like a fair estimate of the improvements or
deterioration that might have taken place since. As re-
garded this part of the agreement, he would never adopt it
himself, and he was certain that scarcely a landlord in the
country would do so. He was now sorry that when he
attended the first meeting he did not propose that his
agreement should be discussed, and that amendments
of it should have been suggested. He thought it would
have been desirable if the club had confined them-
selves as far as possible to the discussion of his agree-
ment instead of drawing up an agreement of their own.
If they had taken that course he might have been
able to alter his agreement very much in accordance
with their opinions ; but in drawing up an agreement
such as the club had thought fit to draw up they had inter-
fered with the object he had in view. He firmly believed
that the opinions embodied by the club in that agreement
were not the opinions of the majority of the tenant farmers
of this country—that was to say, of the tenant farmers who
had really well considered the matter. (Hear, hear.) For
the last two years he had received numerous letters from
the best farmers in every part of the country, and although
he acknowledged not one of them approved
nonfdatlhl,eytheeeyrtawinierye
the whole of
approved
his
rhaoeg
ee
deamit
main in
thee tr ,
ef
sayet,tv
him with reference
r euttriaokon
sif nagil
n 1 ttthrhoeedoucpcl inenu sdi oble lys 8,