Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

By Blair Athed.

Engraved by E Hacker.

Prince Charlie

out of Eastern Princess by Surplice

London Published by Rogerson & Tuxlord, 265. Strand, 1875

THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE.

AUGUST, 1875.

PLATE.

PRINCE CHARLIE: A THOROUGHBRED HORSE.

Prince Charlie, bred by Mr. H. Jones in 1869, is by Blair Athol, out of Eastern Princess by Surplice, her dam Tomyris by Sesostris, granddam by Glaucus, out of Io by Taurus.

Blair Athol, bred by Mr. W. I'Anson, 1861, is by Stockwell, out of Blink Bonny by Melbourne. Eastern Princess, bred by Mr. Jones in 1858, was, we believe, once shown at a meeting in Cambridgeshire, where she took a prize as brood mare,

Prince Charlie was a superior race-horse at his own distance, and won twenty-five races at twenty-nine starts, including the Middle Park Plate and 2,000 gs. Stakes. He is now at the Royal Stud paddocks at Hampton Court, at a subscription of twenty-five mares at 50 gs. each.

The owner of Prince Charlie, Mr. Jones. is a farmer in Cambridgeshire.

said well :

THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Six weeks since, that is immediately on the Agri- | value. In the Commons on Thursday, the Premier, cultural Holdings Bill passing the House of Lords, we called attention to "a radically wrong definition in the bill. Increased letting value reminds one vastly of the increment of land' as propounded by the Stuart Mill school of philosophers, or, again, of the extraordinary claims occasionally advanced on the strength of the Irish custom. Of course no valuers go far into the comparative letting value of what it was and what it is; but they simply appraise the unexhausted improvement of manure put into the land by one man and about to be enjoyed by another. This, in so many words, is Tenant-Right." As we went on further to say, "the Duke of Richmond manifestly confounds temporary improvement with esta blished improvement in value-a very different thing; while the logical' deductions of Lord Derby and the Duke of Argyll demonstrate that they have not yet mastered the charming simplicity' of Tenant-Right, which is compensation for unexhausted outlay when recognised as improvement, and nothing more. There may be many reasons or causes for raising or lowering the reut of a farm, with which an outgoing tenant would not be concerned further, perhaps, than he went out because he would not consent to any increase in the letting. Thus the two parties more immediately concerned might be often at variance, and as the words cited will introduce an element of difficulty, we hope to see them amended when the bill gets into the Commons." And the bill has no sooner got into the Commons than the words are amended.

The first of our contemporaries to follow our lead in this way was The Times, through the agency of Mr. James Caird, who, a few days subsequently, published a long letter, in which he adopted precisely the same views as to the impolicy of setting up any standard of letting OLD SERING,

|

when introducing the measure, said, and
"Having taken the letting value as the basis of com-
pensation in the first conception of the bill, we were
afterwards induced to take it, not merely as affording pro-
tection to the remainder-man, but, on the whole, as one
We were the
on which compensation might fairly rest.
more induced to do that from the fact that in the Irish
Act the same principle had been adopted. At the same
time, there is a great deal to be said in favour of the other
view-namely, that the basis of compensation should be
the sum, out and out, which the tenant has expended on
improvements. The letting value is to a certain degree
fallacious. It may be very much increased by other cir-
cumstances than the skill and capital of the tenant-for
instance, by the construction of a railroad, or the develop-
ment of some contiguous urban population. The letting
value, in fact, is a capricious and fallacious test. It has,
no doubt, the great recommendation of affording complete
protection to the remainder-man; but, on the whole,
after all the representations we have had from different
parts of the country, and after a mature consideration of
the subject, I am inclined to believe it would be better to
make the basis of compensation dependent upon the
absolute expenditure of the tenant rather than upon the
letting value of his farm." During the debate Mr.
Disraeli more definitely explained that the letting value
is taken out of the fifth and seventh clauses, and where-
ever it is made the basis of compensation; so that the
objectionable phrase, and it is essentially objectionable,
has been amended even before the bill gets into Com-
mittee.

This, no question, is the most important, if not the only important, feature of the debate on Thursday evening, while we may add, moreover, that in justice to our readers we VOL, LXXVIII.-No. 2.

H

have really read this through from end to end. Nothing is probably more wearisome than to have for any length of time to follow people who continue to talk on a subject with which they are but imperfectly acquainted, and this is precisely the feeling with which we rise from a study of honourable gentlemen's expressions and opinions over Tenant-Right. There is scarcely a speech but which might be pulled to pieces were it worth while to do so, as here is scarcely a speaker but who contrives to get adically wrong over one point or another. Mr. Lowe, or one, certainly educated himself as he went on, and after showing in the outset that the real effect of the bill would be to change the tenancy from year to year, and attacking an imaginary clause which was not in the bill, he proceeded to recapitulate his position, when, as Mr. Disraeli put it," he did not use a single word, expression, or argument which he had used in the former part of his speech." Then Sir Thomas Acland, himself an agricultural authority, solemnly warned the Government that "It was a delusion to pass this bill in the belief that the farmers could be induced to invest their money in the permanent improvement of the soil. A farmer had sons to put in business, and daughters to marry, or he preferred to make investments of his own selection, and he wanted to get a higher profit upon his savings. Mr. Pusey was the first to speak of Tenant-Right, but the state of affairs had changed since his time. There were more needy landlords in his day. A great deal of land had since been sold to railway companies, and had other- | wise changed hands, and as landlords as a class had now more capital than they had then, the ground for a modified Tenant-Right no longer existed." And yet at this very moment Sir Thomas Acland has a modified Tenant-Right Bill of his own before the House; while a month or two since the honourable Baronet said emphatically at a meeting of The Farmer's Club, "What the country wanted was that a man should be enabled to give up a farm in good heart and condition, and that could not be the case unless when he purchased food and manure he had some security for getting back the value of what he had invested in the soil." If this be what the country want, it goes very much to show that the ground for Tenant-Right still does exist." However, according to the Premier the honourable member for Devon is rich in a certain peculiarity of rhetoric: "The moment he sets up a position he always qualifies it. If he makes an assertion it is, to use a common expression, watered down.' For a considerable period of time he went on making wild charges against this measure, treating it with the utmost contumely, sparing no expression of scorn, and then ending by saying that he was perfectly ready to give his best exertions to render it a measure satisfactory and useful to the country." Then Mr. Hunt thought "it was an insult to the tenant farmers of this country to say they were so dependent, so ignorant, so wanting in manliness, that they could not

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

make a bargain for themselves." This sounds vastly pretty no doubt; but without going on to show with whom the insult rests, it is an indisputable fact that the great majority of tenant-farmers have no chance of making "bargains for themselves," but are compelled to take or to leave the terms as offered them. Sir W. Barttelot, another agricultural authority, has studied the question so thoroughly as to be able to declare "that the heavier compensation you give to the outgoing tenant the worse you make it for the incoming, and if you take out of the pocket of the latter the money he ought to put into the soil, he must go and borrow it. And that brought him to another argument-that the farmers would not invest their money in the soil because they had not proper security. Now, he would appeal to his honourable friends the member for Leicestershire and the member for Norfolk to say if they knew one who was absolutely and solely a tenant who had not invested all his capital in the cultivation of the land. The difficulty in the tenant's case was, not that he did not invest his money in the soil, but that he had not got sufficient capital to invest in it.' Of course much of this must be read upside down: the compensation paid to the outgoer would make it better, not worse, for the incomer, as the latter would proportionately as he paid for improvements have to take less and less out of his pocket to put into the soil, and the less time to waste in waiting-the very first principle of Tenant-Right. Again, if the tenant has not sufficient capital a proper system of compensation would afford it him; for, as Lord Leicester, quoting Mr. James Howard, said last week, "If there were ample security for capital, it would be forthcoming to an extent but little anticipated." Even further, the gallant gentleman complains how it is proposed in the bill to adopt the Lincolnshire custom, but he ventured to say that all practical men would agree with him in thinking that this custom was not and could not be made applicable to the country generally." Why not? It is the principle not the practice which the bill upholds, and there is no more intention of transferring or extending bodily the course of cultivation of Lincolnshire than there is that of Sussex-which the fates forbid. And so we might go on, speech for speech, through this very remarkable debate, wherein the counties appear to be much on a par with the towns in regard to agricultural erudition.

66

But Sir W. Barttelot appealed to the member for Norfolk, and so do we: during the greater part of the evening it is said Mr. Sewell Read was not even in the House, as of course the bill does not go far enough for him. Any chance, however, of at present making the measure compulsory is we repeat hopeless; but if the bill is to be amended in Committee, the farmers of this country cannot afford to lose the services of their one representative at a time when they must be so especially valuable, He has the power to amend, and he must use it. The Mark Lane Express, of June 28.

THE COUNTRY MEMBER

The country gentleman has always been a difficulty in the House of Commons, and with no one more so than Mr. Disraeli. The squire is a man full of prejudices, and although easy-going enough over questions which, as he may think, do not much concern him, apt to be terribly awkward and obstinate when his own particular interests are in any way touched upon. The Agricultural Holdings Bill affords strong proof of this in the number of amendments offered on almost every clause, in the time occupied in discussing these, and the more or less open hostility evinced towards the measure, So determined has

ON TENANT-RIGHT. this feeling been, that on Thursday the Premier called a meeting of the party, when he expressed his dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Government had been treated, complaining that after a general concurrence had been given, amendments more or less embarrassing had been placed on the notice-paper. He went on to say that if the bill were not accepted he would certainly not bring in another, but would leave the matter to his successors. In fact, as we have continued to point out, the chief opponents to the farmer over this business are the county members-men who, on some showing or other, having

where.

got into Parliament on the shoulders of the tenants, are, way in one place might be much better engaged elsedoing everything in their power to withhold from their constituents their proper rights.

The aim during the past week has been to talk down the bill until it should be withdrawn, by means of a majority, whose chief instincts centre on the love of game and territorial influence. From the time of the revival of the claim this party or part-party has seen that Tenant-Right Act was the first step towards the independence of the occupier, and has resisted it accordingly. Not openly, which would scarcely have answered, but the rather by proposing to amend the

measure.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

a

Over the very first clause discussed, number 3, it was aflirmed that the farmers did not want the bill, they wished to be let alone; and at other times that it was not the wish of the tenant-farmers that a compulsory bill should be passed; as, indeed, there was no very great anxiety about the bill at all. It is true that after the lecture delivered by Mr. Disraeli the tone of the opposition was not quite so strong; but still at every turn the same feeling still crops up, until if "progress" be achieved only in this way the country will become as sick of the Agricultural Holdings Bill as some of its most tiresome "supporters" could wish the world to be. Mr. Disraeli would, we believe, pass a fairly reasonable measure, if the majority on his own side of the House will only let him; and in its report the Farmers' Club scarcely gives the right honourable gentleman credit for those good intentions which we believe he has over the matter. It is well to go as far as we can with any man who means right, but who sees only too clearly that he must not go for too much, or he will get nothing. The Club report is, however, evidently hastily drawn, and not so carefully considered as it no doubt would have been had circumstances allowed of more time being given to the subMany men in the Premier's position would have thrown up the bill before now; and that which he especially requires is the support of the tenant against the opposition of the landlord.

Scarcely an amendment coming from the country side but which would tend more and more to make the thing smack of a Landlords' Might rather than of a Tenants' Right. So palpable has this at length become, that the Premier has felt it necessary to interfere, and to caution his own supporters as to the course they are taking and the mischief they are doing. No finer commentary could be offered on the conduct of the Farmers' Friends; and as Mr. Clive, a landlord, said at the dinner of the Herefordshire Society, on Wednesday, they would have been more in place on the show-ground than in the House of Com-ject. mons. Mr. Clive, like most of his fellows, is dead against the bill on any terms, and we arrive at the same conclusion from very different premises. People only in the

[blocks in formation]

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE FARMERS' CLUB ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.

The Committee of the Farmers' Club having considered the various amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill that have been placed upon the notice paper up to Friday, July 9th, they desire to report as follows: In respect of

CLAUSE 3.-The Committee object to Sir G. Jenkinson's first amendment, on the ground that many of the written agreements in existence are old-fashioned documents, often drawn up by the family lawyer, and totally unsuited to the requirements of modern agriculture.

CLAUSE 4-(This mark indicates where a new clause or amendment is suggested by the Committee). * In reference to Sir G. Jenkinson's amendment to this clause the Committee recommend that on page 2, line 1, the word "recognised" should be inserted before" agent," and the words "authorised in writing" be struck out. They approve of Mr. Egerton's amendment, if its object is to remove the "letting value" test of the worth of an improvement from the bill. The same remark applies to identical amendments proposed by Sir G. Jenkinson and Mr. Pell.

CLAUSE 5.-The Committee object to Mr. Storer's amend ments, because they are of opinion that it is improvements only, and not outlay, that should be paid for. They object to Sir T. D. Acland's various amendments to this clause, and prefer the schedules as they stand in the bill. They consider Mr. Staveley Hill's amendment unimportant. They object to Mr. Chaplin's first amendment, as they see no necessity for four classes of improvements. The same remark applies to Mr. Welby's identical amendment. They object to Mr. Pease's proposal to have two only instead of three classes. They disapprove of the amendments of Sir G. Jenkinson and Mr. Egerton, proposing to remove "laying down permanent pasture" from the first class into the second, regarding it amongst the permanent improvements of a farm. They object to the proposals of Mr. Assheton, Mr. Egerton, and Sir W. Barttelot, the liming of land, whether arable or pasture, being a durable improvement. Sir W. Barttelot's proposal to restrict compensation for chalk to its application to pasture shows a strange ignorance of the system of improving arable land by chalking, so extensively pursued in Essex, Suffolk, and other counties, and deemed by practical farmers to be one of the most im

The Committee

portant of improvements on many soils.
strongly object to Mr. Egerton's proposal to insert" provided
that the pasture land has not been mown," for however much
may be said in favour of such a limitation in respect of im-
provements of the third class, it would be unjust in the case of
the more durable improvements of the second class. The
Committee approve of the addition of the words "paring and
burning," as recommended by Mr. Storer, considering that it
may safely be left to referees to decide when that operation
has been an improvement. They do not see the necessity of
Sir G. Jenkinson's amendment relating to manure made on
the holding, since the selling of the manure off the farm would
be rightly considered "waste." They object to Mr. Chaplin's
proposal to restrict compensation for purchased manure to that
used with green crops. They object also to Mr. Chaplin's
other proposal, for in addition to raising the, at times, difficult
question as to what can or cannot be produced on the holding,
it would limit the tenant's choice of feeding stuffs to be used.
The Committee maintains that the main principle to be kept
in view as to compensation should be, to pay for anything that
is brought upon the holding, and which enriches it. The ques-
tion whether the commodity can or cannot be grown upon
the holding is an immaterial one; the farmer should in this
respect be unfettered. The Committee see no reason for Mr.
Jackson's addition, as the word "purchased" applies as much
to "other" as to "artificial," but to remove all doubt "arti-
ficial or other" might be struck out; the word "artificial,"
as applied to manure, being now regarded by scientific men as
a misnomer. Mr. Storer's amendment to line 3 would, in the
opinion of the Committee, be improvements. The Committee
take objection to Colonel Brise's amendment, as its adoption
might lead to doubt in the minds of referees. The principle
should be to pay compensation for what is brought upon the
holding, and that only. To Mr. Egerton's amendment the
same argument applies as to Mr. Chaplin's. The Committee
approve of Mr. Halls's amendments to allow compensation
for corn produced upon the holding-inasmuch as it would be
vexatious to the farmer to be enforced to sell his crop and buy
similar produce back. The Committee would further point
out that it would be incumbent on the tenant, in order to

establish the claim, to prove to the referees the consumption of the corn produced upon the holding. The Committee regard Sir G. Jenkinson's proposed addition to line 5 as entirely unnecessary. The Committee see no advantage in the amendment to line 7 recommended by Mr. Egerton. Having regard to future discoveries and improvements, and to the varying conditions of agriculture, the Committee recommend the adoption of Sir A. Monck's amendment. For reasons before given, the Committee do not approve of Mr. Storer's addition to line 8. The opinion of the Committee as to Mr. Assheton's proposed alteration in relation to the liming of arable land has already been expressed.

CLAUSE 6. The Committee do not approve of Mr. Welby's amendments, which appear to be intended for the previous clause, nor of Mr. Storer's proposed additions to lines 9 and 12. They see no advantage in Mr. Knight's amendments to lines 12 and 14. For reasons before given, the Committee take exception to Mr. Pease's amendments to this clause. *With respect to improvements of the second class, the Committee earnestly recommend the substitution of ten years for seven years as the term within which claims for such improvements are to be recognised. Such improvements as chalking, claying, marling, &c., are not nearly exhausted in seven years, and the Committee are of opinion that ten years is the shortest term that can be regarded as satisfactory. The Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture and several others have advocated this extension. The Committee object to Mr. Chaplin's amendments to the first, because it is not desirable to have four classes of improvements; and to the second, because a two-years' term is quite short enough for improvements of the third class to be limited to. *They would have preferred that the referees should have had power to ascertain the annual expenditure during the last four years of the tenancy, and to have awarded a sum not exceeding the annual average amount, or a moiety of the last two years' outlay. This would have enabled the referees to come to a safer conclusion as to the condition of the holding, and as to how far the improvements had been exhausted. They object to Mr. Storer's amendment to line 15, being of opinion that the residue of purchased manure, after a crop of corn or potatoes has been taken, is, as a rule, of little value to the incoming tenant; and they are further of opinion that the addition of the word "hay" after "corn," as proposed by Sir W. Barttelot, would be advisable, with a further addition after "potatoes" of the words "sold off the holding." Committee see no objection to Mr. Hall's amendment, but recommend the addition of the words "or any crop left upon the holding." They think it undesirable to strike out clause 6, as Sir T. Acland advises, because with defined periods for each class of improvements, landlord and tenant would know what to expect.

*The

CLAUSE 7.-Of the various amendments to this clause the Committee choose, first, those proposed by Sir G. Jenkinson with "one-tenth" instead of "one seventh" in line 20, and the insertion of the words, "the owner or" before" the succeeding tenant." Next in order, the Committee prefer the amendment of Mr. Pell, and are of opinion that the additional words at the end of the clause proposed by Mr. Hall should in any case be inserted. They do not approve of Mr. Staveley Hill's or Sir T. Acland's proposal to omit the clause, the principle of which is founded on the well-tried Lincolnshire custom.

CLAUSE 8.-After a full consideration of the numerous amendments to this clause, the Committee have come to the conclusion that nearly all of them are either unnecessary, impractical, or unjust, and are therefore unable to recom. mend the adoption of any, except that the word "hay” should be inserted after" corn" on page 3, line 31, and again on page 4, line 3, as proposed in the latter case by Sir W. Barttelot.

CLAUSE 9.-The Committee strongly disapprove of Colonel Dyott's and Mr. Assheton's proposal to insist on the landlord's consent being necessary in respect of improvements of the second class as well as of the first class, and are of opinion that, if that alteration should be made, the bill will lose much of its value. They regard Mr. Egerton's or Mr. Hall's proposed additions as superfluous, inasmuch as the value of the improvements would of necessity depend upon their condition. They do not object to Mr. Chaplin's amendment, if the clause is to stand, but prefer that the proposal of Sir T. Acland and Mr. Pease to omit the clause be accepted. The Committee

would call attention to the fact that the bill, by clause 45, i permissive in principle, and they fail to see the necessity of again providing for permission in clause 9. Should, however, Mr. Phipps' amendment to clause 45 be carried, the Committee fully approve of clause 9 as it stands.

CLAUSE 10.-The Committee, having preferred the omission of clause 9, would express their approval of Mr. Pease's amendments to clause 10. But, if clause 9 be retained, they advise the omission of clause 10, as proposed by Colonel Dyott, Mr. Assheton, and Sir T. Acland. It would be vexatious and unnecessary for the tenant to be required to give notice to his landlord before using, say a ton of chalk, lime, or bones, and the stipulation would un. doubtedly frequently become an impediment, and prevent improvements that would otherwise be made. The other amendments to this clause are unsatisfactory, and some of them are mischievous. The Committee would remark that similar provisions have never been found necessary during the long experience of Lincolnshire customs.

CLAUSE 11.-The Committee fail to see the necessity for any alteration in this clause, and consider the amendments proposed to be all, more or less, objectionable or unnecessary. CLAUSE 13.-The Committee would strongly object to Mr. Egerton's amendment, as it would open the door to endless dispute.

CLAUSE 16.-The Committee cannot believe with Mr. Jackson that this clause should be struck out. They are at a loss to know what the honourable member would substitute for the procedure clauses, the omission of which he has proposed.

CLAUSE 17.-The Committee do not consider that Colonel Dyott's amendment is at all a desirable one, but that of Mr. Knight the Committee approves, so far as it substitutes the Inclosure Commissioners for the County Court.

CLAUSE 19. The Committee are of opinion that the clause needs no alteration, and that the amendments of Sir G. Jenkinson are undesirable.

CLAUSE 24.-The Committee prefer and desire to support Mr. Storer's amendment, considering that the clause will be greatly simplified and improved by the omission of all words after" awarded," in line 4. The Committee would again repeat that the stipulations in clause 24 of the bill are not required, and are not found necessary under the Lincoln

shire customs.

CLAUSE 27.-The Committee strongly oppose the omission of this clause, as proposed by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gregory. CLAUSE 29.-The Committee are in favour of an amendment of this clause by the insertion of a provision making the decision of the arbitrators, or their referee, final. Neither Mr. Gregory's nor Mr. Jackson's proposal for omission simply would be sufficient, and the Committee desire, therefore, to suggest that the clause be amended as follows: Line 37, after "valid" leave out the rest of the clause and insert "it shall be final." The Committee are strongly of opinion that there should be no appeal to the law courts. The Landlord and Tenant Bill, the Agricultural Tenancies (the Central Chamber of Agriculture) Bill (as amended), as well as Mr. Pusey's original bill, all arranged for the final settlement of claims by arbitration. The Committee would again refer to Lincolnshire, and call attention to the fact that claims have been so settled in that country, to the general satisfaction of parties concerned. The adoption of the above amendment would involve a verbal alteration in clause 30 (" or ordered on appeal") and the omission of clause 33.

CLAUSE 34.-The Committee see no necessity for Sir W. Barttelot's, Mr. Storer's, or Mr. Seeley's amendment, since the limited owner is prohibited from charging improvements on his land for a longer term than that within which they are held to be exhausted, and no stipulation is required in the case of an absolute owner. They would urge the acceptance of Mr. Hall's amendment, as it would enable owners to charge land with the cost of improvements made under written agreements as well as those made under the Act. If written agreements are to be allowed to set the Act aside, this alteration is highly important. They see no objection to Mr. Gregory's proposed addition.

CLAUSE 35.-The Committee desire most earnestly to support the proposal of Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Halsey, and Mr. Ryder to omit this clause, which, in their opinion, is flagrantly unjust to the tenant, and utterly unnecessary for the protection of the landlord. They are entirely at a loss to imagine why it

[ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »