New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-29

most serious fOrebOdings are entertained even
by authorities which, like The London Times,
may be expected to take a favorable view of
affairs. One moro bad harvest will bring agri-
cultural matters to crisis. In sixteen counties
it was admitted that the ruin of the British
farmer was complete. But, said The Saturday
Review, in commenting on the position, ga
good harvest may save u.s." With for
bearance on the part of the landlords,
and disposition to share the losses over
many shoulders, the crisis might be passed
through and the worst avoided But another
bad harvest will render recuperation under the
present system impossible, because the class
on whom all depends-the only producing
class associated with the land-will be elimi-
mated. As The London Times very properly
remarked the other day: "The situation of
"Our farmers is dismal. For many Of them
chad harvest must mean absolute ruin. Farm
cling is highly skilled enterprise, and if the
"present race Of farmers succumb and are
driven out of their business, there will
"be no others capable of succeeding them"
Under the present system there is host
of non-producers all living out of the land and
putting nothing into it. First comes the land
owner, who rarely farms except for amusement,
and who until five years ago had plenty of
tenants waiting for his farms and eager to bid
one against the other. Behind the landlord
was his lawyer, for it was beneath the dignity
of an English landed proprietor to manage his
own estates. This duty fell partly to the
steward and partly to the attorney, who re-
spcctively fattened on their positions No
serf was ever more at the mercy Of
another than was the English country
gentleman in the hands of his attorney. The
81, h.,
generally represented the mOrtgagee. Then
there were other claimants, such as the next
reversioner, generally represented by the same
lawyer but without whose assent not q tree
could be cut down or q gate mended. Then
the ancestral home involved whole regiment
of non producing employees, all of whom had to
be provided for out of the land. The farmer
and his laborers are the only productive
classes connected with the land, and when the
English farmer goes to the wall the whole
agricultural system must go with him.
Looking at the matter from an American
point of view, however much we may regret
the ruin of worthy and valuable class the
wonder is not that the system has broken
down, but that it has lasted so long. The farmer,
the real producer, instead of being allowed to
do his best and offered every inducement, has
been handcuffed by restricted covenants as
vOuminous as the lawyer could make them. He
must not fish or shoot or cut timber grow any
thing except stated crops in regular sequence.
He must haul his landlords coal and submit
to penalty of $3.50 an acre if he ploughs
up grass land. A task rendered less and less
easy by the competition of American produce,
instead of being facilitated by the landlord
and his agents. has been surrounded with fac
titious difficulties. The strain has come, and
the system has broken down. No mere Parla-
mentary remedy can undo the evil 1t
is now apparent that only one class
can live out of the land. The owner
of the land must be the farmer. The
pretence of gentleman farming or farm
ing in gloves must cease. England must get
rid of her absurd objection to manual labor,
and all those who are to live out of the land
must take their share in the work. 1t is only
by such revolution as this that American
competition can DO met, and the present dis
tress will go on till the land owner who can
not run his own farms sells out to someone
who can, and the British farmer takes off his
coat ana goes tO"wOrk in his own fields.