The weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1878-1881, 1881-09-13
LAND MONOPOLY IN ENGLAND.

The attention of students in domestic and
political economy is now being seriously turn
ed to the solution of the disadvantages under
which English farmers are laboring. 1t is
we'll known that American competition 4 is ma
terially interfering with, if not entirely break
ing down, the English system Of farming by
threatening the loss of all profits to those en-
gagged in it. The broad acres of the west are
overshadowing the small fields of the tenant
farmers and every one from the landowner to
the day laborer is viewing the situation with
alarm. There is certainly nothing cheering
in the prospect. American wheat is being
laid 1T their doors cheaper than they can raise
it at home. American beef is slaughtered In
London at far less cost to the purchaser than
that reared upon their soil. They are met at
every hsnd by American products and the
question is put by them What can we do?
This question is fairly and sensibly answered
in an artic,e which Recently appeared in the
New York Tribune. That journal in the dis
custom of the subject alludes to the fact that
under the present system there is a host Of
non-producers, all living out of the land and
putting nothing in 1t. First comes the land
owner, who rarely farms except for amuse-
ment, and who, until a few years ago, bad
plenty of tenants waiting for his farms and
eager to bid one against the other for them.
Behind the landlord was the lawyer, for it
was beneath the dignity of an English land
ed proprietor to manage his own estates. This
duty fell partly to the steward and partly to
the attorney, who respectively fattened On
their positions. No serf was ever more
country gentleman in the hands of his attor-
ney. The estate was always moItgaged and
the attorney generally represented the mort
gagee. Then there were other claimants, such
as the next reversioner, generally
represented by the same lawyer, but
without whose assent not a Tree
could be cut down or a gate mended
Then the ancestral homo involved a whole
regiment of n~on-producing employees, all OF
whom had to be provided for out of the land.
productive classes connected with the land,
aud when the English farmer. goes to the
wall the whole agricultural system must &c
with him.
Looking at the matter from an American
standpoint, however much we may regret the
ruin of a valuable and worthy class, the won.
der 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 handicapped by restricted covenants
as voluminous as the lawyer could make
them. He must 10; fish or shoot, or cut tim,
Der, or grow anything except stated crops in
a regular sequence. He must haul his land
lords coal and submit to a penalty of $3.50 al
acre if he ploughs up grass land. A tasl
rendered less and less easy by the competi
ton of American produce, instead of being
facilitated by the landlord and his agents, ha
been surrendered with Fictitious difficulties
The strain has come and the system is broker
down. No mere Parliamentary remedy cal
undo the evil. 1t is now apparent that onl.
one class can live out of the land. The own
er of the and must be the former. The pre-.
tense Of gentleman farming or farming il
gloves must cease. England must get rid o
her absurd objection to manuel labor, aud al
those who are to live out of the land mus
take their share in the work. 1t is only by
such a revolution as thist that American com
petition can be met, and the present distres
will 90 on till the landowner who canno
run his W farm sells out to some one VIII
can, and the British farmer takes off his Goa
and goes to work III his own fields. Whel
this shall be done American competition will
have lost its terrors. Until it be done Eng,
lish farmers and farm laborers will descen,
to a still lower plane of existence.
TIJr CTTNnA We NJ