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

farmers was such, that, unless some temedial measures
'were adopted, they would be reduced to the utmost misery
and wretchedness. The accounts which he quitted •cf
the state of these counties were not. those that had come
within his own knowledge, hut such as he had reed, or
had been furnished with. It would appear. that. the
farmers in the county of Suffolk might be somewhat
better off than those in Norfolk and D.'voushire ; but
he Would ask this House were not the Government in a
position somewhat embarrassing upon this pesition? He
contended that they were, and that, ther.fore. they were
beund to brieg forward some remedial measure upon the
subject ; and he felt quite assured that if the Duke of
Buckingham were a Member of this House, he would do
as Lord Charidos had done on a fertner occasion, namely,
to move's,at resolution to this effecta—(Hear.) The next
Point he would advert to was. What was the present state
of agricultural distr, ss 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-Hight Hon. Baronet the :First
Lord of the Treasury had stated that these causes were
not owing to legislative errors, but to local causes; while
the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire 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 had 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 down to 45;.; 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 the.eselves for having con-
cocted a measure which would keep the price at 565. ?
—(fleer, hear.) He would ask, then, what was the
meaning of this declaration, if it resulted in this fluctua-
tion of prices ?--(Hear, heae.) There was a great de-
lusion abroad among the farmers on this subject, and it
was the duty of that House to dispel it. There was this
difference of opinion on that side of the House, and
there were Members on this side representing important
c .inseituenries, who thought the farmers were sufferieg
because they had this legislative protection; there were
all these differences existing, and was not that sufficient
to make it a fit- and proper subject of inquiry ? He was
ready to ge into a Select Committee, and to preduce
witnesses to show that the farmers had long been suffer-
ing under great evils, which he would connect with tae
cern-laws, though to some they might appear alto-
gether unconnected with them. The first great evil
under which the farmers were lehourina was
the want of capital. Ni ' one denied it. it was
notorious that they lthoured under a want of capital. He
did not say this in disearaleement of the farmers ; they
were of the same race. arid if pieced in the same sites-
tion as manufacturers and !riders, would he as su-cessful
its men i'f business. But it was notorious that the farmers
suffered tinder at deficiency of: capital ; and he would ask
how any basin=s eoulil c'rrie'l on successfully with-
out it ?—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen acquainted
with fat-miler would, perhaps. admit that 10/ per acre on
an 'arable farm was a competent • aph el I r 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 average
51. per acre of capital on their lend.—(Henr, hear.) He
was speaking of Englatid ; he would take all England
south of the Trent, and though there were exceptions—
there were in every county men o' large capital, men
farming their own land—yet, taking it as a rule, hedid not
hesitate to state his opinion, and he was prepared
to prove it by witnesses before the Committee, that
the farmers did notatverage 5/. per acre of capital. Let
them only think what an evil this wet ? 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.(Hear,hear.) What was meant by this ward
capital ? It meant more manure, more labour, more
cattle, and larger crops.-7-(llear, hear.) Let the House
fancy a country in whirls they could say there was a de
ficiericy 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 ?—(Hear,
hear.) a Perhaps he should hear that capital was
abundant in the country ; then how was it in a country
posieseing 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,
and laughter)—when it went to connect the Atlantic and
the Pacifie 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
center of the globe, that capital did not find
employment in. that. most attractive of all forms, the
cultivation of the -soil of the country. Admitting this,
they had not in Eagland 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 20/. per statute acre for every acre of ground
converted for tillage. He shall Illy the landlord 5/. for
every load of straw,' or of manure not converted to the
uses of the faim. lie shell pay the landlord 101. for
every tree fallen, felled, lopped or topped. He shall pay 20/.
nor every person emplo) ed by him who shall in conse-
quent!, gain a s ttiem-nt in the parish.—(Hear lnear.)
He shall pay 101. per statute acre for every acre that he
shall under- t.— (Hear, hear.) He shall 'perform six-
teen days' work in the year for the iandlord. He shall
keep for the landlord one clog one cock, and ene hen.—
(Laughter.) He shall make ne marl without the land
lord's consent in, writing, and shall fill up the pit,
whenever called upon so to do. He -hall kill no sheep,
but such as is used fir the consumption of his family.—
(Hear, hear.) New, whet was such an in .trument a-
that. It was a trap for the unwary.—(hear, hear.) It
was a barrier against men of intelligence and capital.
—(Hear, hear.) It was it barrier ileionst free men.—
(Hear, hear.) So man could farm property under such
a :ease —(tiear, hear.) It, was a pereet
What were these lie in fact ? They were pi-rf etly
antediluvian. When a. lento was required to be drawn
up, a la eyer's clerk ,ones from a piee on-hole one of these
eiitiquated foetus, which had been in us- for centuries,
and copied into it all these absurd restrictions. They
did not give the farmer credit for the introduction of any
improeemeet. In tapt, the c-wenants or these leases were
'such as absoletely to rohieit atiy attempt at improve-
ment. Now, he observ:d the lion. Member fir the Repe
of iirarnlier cheering while he was stating the covenants
in this lease. Now, let that HOn. Member leek over his
own leases, and altheugh , 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 hid drawn the attention of the House.
Why did they net make these leases in the same matinee
as they made leeses' for manufactories or for
plants of business ? Why should - not . farmers
be permitted to in-prove if they were desirous of
so doing? 'He knew many men who t-ok
leases of manufactories for which they paid 1,000/. a
year. He knew some Who paid 4,000/. a year. There
was an lion. Gentleman near him who paid 4,000/. n 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 spindle was to make in a minute ?
(Cheers and lauehter.) He was rather disposed to think
that the Anti Corn law League *es likely to form a
joint-stock association, and have nobody but free-trailers
_members of it. They would have a model-farm in the
'Kest princely agricultural county in England, in which,
.no doubt, there was the greatest need of it—perhaps
in Buckinghamshire.—(Laughter.) They would have
a , model homestead, a model cottage, a model
garden, and would place the whole in the hands of a
mart 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 rent. The lease would be
Without clause or covenant, and if the tenant should
niike 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.—(lronicel 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 manner. The
tenant would of course 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 a ould give a
pewer of making him pay the amount of deterioration.
If on the contrary, the land was in a superior condition,
he would oblige the landlord to remunerate him.—(Hear,
hear, from the Opposition benches.) He would 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 rent 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 bad 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 1 The feet itself shows that the
absence of leases may render a tenantry ignerant of the
means of employing their own capital with advantage—
indisposed to the exertions which improvemi nts 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-
laws or protection. Ile had received the following
letter on the subject, from Mr. Hayter, M.P., which he
would read. Mr. Hayter says," The more I see of, and
practise agriculture, the more firmly am I convinced
that the whole unemployed labour of ehe country could,
-under a better system of husbandry, be advantageously
Pat into operation ; and moreover, that the corn-laws
'have been one of. the principal causes of the present
system of hetel farming, and consequent
epaurriem.
Nothing sheirt of their entire removal will ever induce
the 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 corne
laws, create a price which will make bis rent easy. The
day 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, heir.") 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 necessity of his entering into these arguments.
After thirty- Tearihtrial, whit could be said aof these
corn-laws ? Film they had been a cause of the de-
pression whick:prevailed-iu :agricultur4l.-dißtricts and