The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-14 00:00:00

AY MORNING, MARCH LI, 1846.

farmers was such, that, unless some remedial measures
were adopted, they would be redeeed to the utmost misery
and wretchedness. Ths accounts which he quoted of
the state of these counties were not those that had come
within his own knovsledee, but such es he had 'read, or
had been fu:nished with. It would appear that the
farmers in the county of Suffolk might be somewhat
better off than those in Not folk and Devonshire ; but
he would ask this Roust were not the Government in a
position somewhat embarrassing uron this position? He
contended that they were, and that. then-fore, they were
bound to brie g ferward some rerncelial measure upon the
subject ; end he felt quite assured that if' the Duke of
Buckingham were a Member of this Hetne, he would do
as Lord Chandos had done on a freer oeeasiee, namely,
to move a resolution to this effect.—(Hear.) The next
point he would a lvert to was, What was the present state
of agricultural distress in those counties ? In endea-
vouring to ascertain the facts on this point, he had dis-
covered great discrepancies in the various accounts, and
in the causes of it. The Bight Hon. Baronet the First
Lord of the Treasury had stated that these causes were
not owing to legislative enure, but to local causes; while
the Hon. Member for Dorsetehire contended that the
distress was great, and that it did arise from deficient
legislative measures. It had 'also been said, on the part
of the Government, that their corn law system hail been
steady in its operation, and it had been asked, had any
one been disappointed in the predictions of the
Government that such would be the result of their corn-
law measures. But at that time the price of corn was
56s per quarter, and now it was ibis n to 455.; and,
therefore, he would ask hi w that discrepancy could be
reconciled with the statement of the Government, who
had taken so much credit to theirs, Ives for havieg con-
cocted a measure which would keep the price at 56e. ?
—(Hear, hear.) He would ask, then, what was the
meaning of this declaration, if it resulted in this fluct un-
tion of prices ?—(lkee.r, hear.) There was a greet de-
lusion abroad among the farmers on this sutijs ct, and it
was the duty of that Ilou4e to dispel it. There was this
difference of opinion on that side of. the House, and
there were Members on this side representing important
eenstitueneies, who thought the farmers were sulk:Ting
because they had this legislative protection; there mere
all these differences existing, and was not that sufficient
to make it a fit and proper subject. of inquiry ? He was
ady to go into a Select Committee, and to produce
witnesses to show that the farmers had long been suffer-
ing under great evils, which he would connect with the
cern-laws, though to some they might appear alto-
gether unconnected with them. The first great evil
under which the farmers were labouring was
the want of capital. No one denied it. It was
notorious that they Ideoured under a want of capital. He
did not say this in disparagement of the farmers ; they
were of the same race, arid if placed in the same sin's-
tion as manufacturers and traders, would be as successful
as men of business. But it was notorious that the farmers
suffered under a deficiency of capital ; and he would ask
how any business could be eltrried on successfully with-
out it ?—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen acquainted
with farming would, perhaps, admit that 101 per acre on
an arable farm was a competent capital fee carrying on
the business of such a farm successfully ; that was a fair
capital for an arable farm. He had made many inquiries
in all parts of the kingdom. and it was his decided con-
viction that at that moment the farmers did not ea-craze
51. per acre of capital on their land.—(lfear, hear.) He
was speaking of England ; he would take all England
south of the Trent, and though there were exceptions—
there were in every county men of large capital, men
farming their own land—yet, taking it as a rule, he did not
hesitate to state his opinion, and he was prepared
to prove it by witnesses before the Committee, that
the farmers did not average 5/. per acre of capital. Let
them only think what an evil this was ? He gave them a
tract of country extending south and north, containing
20,000,000 of cultivatable acres, and there could be no
doubt there was a want of 100.000.000/ of capital upon
that land.—(llear, hear.) What was meant by this word
capital ? It meant more manure, more labour, more
cattle, and larger crops.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House
fancy a country in which they could say there was a de-
ficiency of one half of the blessings that might exist, and
then let them judge what must be the condition of the
labourer on it, wanting employment and food ?—(Dear,
hear.) Perhaps he should hear that capital was
abundant in the country ; then how was it in a country
pos -easing a plethora of capital. where every business
was so overflowing with it, that it went to France for
railroads, and to Pennsylvania for bonds—(Hear, hear,
a-id laughter)—when it went to connect the Atlantic and
the Pacific by canals and railways—when it was sent to
the bottom of Mexican mines? How was it, when
the country was rich with capital to overflow-
ing, when it was sent for investment to every
ce,rner of the globe, that capital did not fin I
employment in that most attractive of all forms, the
cultivation of the soil of the country. Admitting this,
they had not in England •any cause for not investing
their capital ; he believed that the measures they were
passing were calculated to decrease the popularity the
Government had hitherto obtained. Now, with regard
to leases, he had found, in one lease, that the farmer was
bound by the following covenants:—He shall pay the
landlord 201. per statute acre for every acre of ground
converted for tillage. He shall pay the landlord 5/. for
every Toed cf straw, or of manure not converted to the
uses of the farm. He shall pay the landlord la for
every tree fallen, felled, lopped or topped.'He shall pay 20/.
for every person employed by him who shall in conse-
quence gain a settlement in the parish.—(Hear, hear.)
He shall pay 101. per statute acre for every acre that he
shall under-let.--(Hear, hear.) He shall perform six-
teen days' work in the year for the iandlord. He shall
keep for the landlord one dog. one cock, and one hen.—
(Laughter.). He shall make no marl without the land
lord's consent in writing, and shall fill up the pit,
whenever called upon so to do. He shall kill no sheep,
but such as is used for the consumption of his family.—
(Hear, hear.) Neer, what was such an instrument as
that. It was a trap for the unwary.—(Hear, hear.) It
was a barrier against men of intelligence and capital.
—(Hear, hear.) It was a barrier against free men.—
(Hear, hear.) No man could farm property under such
a lease.—(llear, hear.) It was a perfeet absurdity.
What were these leases in fact ? They were perfectly
antediluvian. When a lease was required to be drawn
up, a lawyer's clerk took from a pigeon-hole one of these
antiquated forms, which had been in use for centuries,
and copied into it .all these absurd restrictions. They
did not give the farmer credit for the introduction of any
improvement. In fact, the covenants of these leases were
such as absolutely to prohibit any attempt at improve-
ment. Now, he observed the Hon. Member for the Rape
of t'iramber cheering while he was stating the covenants
in this lease. Now, let that Hon. Member look over his
own leases, and although they might contain nothing
about dogs, or cocks, or hens, yet the covenants in them
would be found to be not one whit the less absurd, or the
less obstructive of all improvement than the covenants
to which he had drawn the attention of the House.
Why did they not make these leases in the same manner
as they made leases for manufactories or for
plants of business ? Why should not farmers
be permitted to ireprove if they were desirous of
so doing? He knew many men who took
leases of manufactories for which they paid 1,000/. a
year. He knew sonic who paid 4,000/. a year. There
was an Hen. Gentleman near him who paid 4,000/. a year
rent for his manufactory. Now, what was the nature of
his lease ? Did they think that there was any covenant
introduced into that, stating the exact number of revo-
lutions that every epitelle was to make in a minute ?
(Cheers and laughter.) He was rather disposed to think
that the Anti Corn law League was likely to form a
joint-stock association, and hsve nobody but free-traders
members of it. They would have a mods-1-farm in the
most princely agricultural county in England, in which,
no doubt, there was the greatest need of it—perhaps
in Buckinghernshire.—(Laughter.) They would have
model homestead, a model cottage, a model
garden, and would place the whole in the hands of a
man of intelligence, skill, and capital. But his great de-
sire would be to have a model lease. When this security
would be given to him, he would not have the slightest
fears for the payment of the rant. The lease would be
without clause or covenant, and if the tenant shonld
make more by ploughing it, why let him plough it. And
if he.wished to grow white crops every year, he should
be at liberty to doso.—(lronical cheers from the Ministe-
rial benches.) Honourable Members did not seem
to approve of this, but he knew several farmers
in this country who farmed in this mariner. The
tenant would of coulee be required to leave the land in
as good condition as when he became possessed of it;
and if it were deteriorated in value, he 1...mi1d give a
paever of making him pay the amount of deterioration.
If on the cnntrary, the land was in a superior condition,
he would oblige the landlord to remunerate him.—(Hear,
hear, from the Opposition benches.) lie wonld give the
tenant absolute 'control over the wild as well as over the
tame animals. There would be no gamekeeper or
sportsman prowling about to annoy him. He would
make the payment of rant the sole test of the tenant's
well doing. It had been said by an Honourable
Member on a previous occasion, that it was very
well to preach about leases, but some farmers would not
have leases.—(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen might cheer
that, but what was the fact—the tenant did not choose
leases because he _had been rendered servile and de-
graded by their abject treatment, and did not want to
be independent. Professor Low said, " The argument
has again and again- been used against the extension of
leases that the tenants themselves set no value upon
them ; but to how different a conclusion ought the ex-
istence of such a feeling amongst the tenantry of a
country to conduct us I The fact itself shows that the
absence of leases may render a tenantry ignorant of the
means of employing their own capital with advantage—
indisposed to the exertions which improvements demand,
and better contented with an easy rent, and dependent
condition, than with the prospect of an independence, to
be earned by increased exertion." It might be said
this state of things. was not connected with the corn-
law sor protection. He had received the following
letter on the subject, from Mr. Hayter, M.P., which he
woe ld read. Mr. Hayter says," The more I see of, and
pram ttise agriculture, the more firmly am I convinced
that the whole unemployed labour of the country could,
undt -r a better system of husbandry, be advantageously
pee ;into operation ; and moreover, that the corn-laws
ha ye been one of the principal causes of the present
sy 'stem of bad farming, and consequent pauperism.
Nothing short of their entire removal will ever induce
be average farmer to rely upon anything else than the
Legislature for the payment of his rent ; his belief
being that all rent is paid by corn, and nothing else than
corn, and that the Legislature can, by enacting corn-
laws, create a price which will make his rent easy. The
das of their (the corn-laws) entire abolition, ought to
be a day of jubilee and rejoicing to every man in-
terested in land."—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would
not stop to connect the cause and effect, whether the
corn-laws were the occasion of the absence of capital
among the farmers and their want of leases. They
adopted a system of legislation in that House which pre-
cluded the necesaity of his entering into these ereuments.
After thirty years trial, what could be said of these
cairn-laws ? That they had been a cause of the de-
pression which prevailed in agricultural 'districts, and