In sober sadness, we could almost find it in our heart to be sorry for Lord John Russell. For years past he has had it in his power very materially to strengthen his position, by acting up to the tenor of those letters which we referred to in the commencement of this article. We do not say that any such arrangement would or could have satisfied the agricultural interest; for the vicissitude which they have experienced has proved so tremendous, that no adjustment of taxation could act as a remedy for the evil. Nevertheless, it was perfectly open to the Premier to have freed himself at once from the trammels of party—to have taken a high, honourable, and bold position—and to have insisted that the interest which was made the subject of experiment should be placed as nearly as possible, in so far as regards taxation, on an equal footing with the other interests of the country. To that line of conduct, indeed, his credit, if not his honour, was pledged; and we confess that we cannot fathom the motive which has led him first to delay, and then directly to refuse, what he once acknowledged to be an act of simple justice. What ulterior views the Whig Cabinet may entertain, we have no means of guessing; but if it should be, as has already been surmised, that they calculate on maintaining their supremacy through the ruin of the most important branch of the producers of the United Kingdom, they may look for a struggle not less desperate than that which Lord John Russell has predicted as the consequence of a constitutional return to the protective system.
But, to keep to the actual question which was before the House of Commons—the question as to the peculiar burdens imposed upon the land—let us see Lord John Russell's opinion in 1851, contrasted with his opinion in 1846. He thus speaks in reply to Mr Disraeli:—"Well, but it is said that land is burdened in a special manner, and that the owners should receive compensation. Why, I remember when a friend of mine, who is now Governor General of the Ionian Islands, year after year attempted to gain a Select Committee for the Purpose of considering what were the burdens upon the land; that those gentlemen who are the most clamorous for protection never could bear to consent, and used to come forward to beg that there might be no inquiry, and to stop all attempts at investigation; and now it appears that, without any investigation at all, we are to suppose those great and unfair burdens are placed on the land." Without any investigation at all! What reduction, then, was Lord John Russell willing to have given in 1846? Was he, an ex-Prime Minister, so entirely ignorant of our fiscal system, that he did not know what were the peculiar burdens upon land? If so, it is manifest that he had not passed his apprenticeship when he was pretending to act as a master. But, in reality, the subterfuge is as mean as it is ridiculous. Never was a promise to pay more clumsily and disgracefully eluded; and we only regret that the stamp duties are not sufficiently comprehensive to include within their reach, in a legally binding form, the promises or offers of an ex-Minister who is making a violent effort to re-establish himself, his relations and friends, in the highest offices of these kingdoms.
Absolutely, however, we care nothing for what was said in this discussion by Lord John Russell or his colleagues. They have taken their part, and they are determined to abide by it; and from their hands the agriculturists need not look for the slightest measure of relief. According to the Whig creed, each fresh importation of corn, flour, provisions, and cattle, must tend to "diminishing the difficulties, and promoting the interests of agriculture," since by those means the general prosperity of the country has been attained, and it is through that general prosperity alone that agriculture is hereafter to profit. In short, the doctrine is, that an increased consumption of foreign produce in Great Britain must materially tend to the prosperity of the British agriculturist! Truly, political economy, as thus interpreted, is a great and wonderful science!
But we have a few words to say with regard to another section of politicians, who were represented on this occasion by their present chief Sir James Graham. Notwithstanding the violent efforts which have been made to keep it together, that party has undergone, during the last twelve months, a very considerable modification. The great head and originator of it has been removed from this world, and many who were content to fight under his banner have not cared to renew their oath of allegiance to a less trusted and popular captain. Sir James Graham has some excellent qualities and accomplishments, but he is wanting in others. He is the very Reuben of politics; unstable as water, uncertain as the winds of heaven. With the fussy assistance of his prime janissary, Mr Cardwell, he has been attempting for some time back to intrench himself in a small camp, apart from the larger leaguers, and to maintain such a semblance of exact neutrality, that neither party, on the eve of joining battle, can confidently reckon on his support. It must be acknowledged that he is true to his hereditary traditions. The Grahams of "the Debateable Land," as that tract of country occupied by the clan was denominated, were, in the days of Border warfare, accounted neither Scots nor English. One day they appeared on the one side, and on the next they showed face on the other. That method, however, though it may have its conveniences, is not likely to meet with much approval at the present day. The Free-lance system has gone out of fashion; and we confess that we are not sorry to observe that Sir James Graham has at last committed himself so decidedly, that the country party must hereafter regard him in the light of a permanent foe. Do not let us be misunderstood. We acknowledge the great advantage of his services as a friend: we have not the least desire to depreciate or undervalue his abilities as a debater. But now, more than ever, it is important to know distinctly who are for us, and who against us. Sir James Graham, in so far as his own opinions are concerned, has left no doubt whatever on the matter. He has not only joined with Lord John Russell in denying the justice of any claim whatever on the part of the agricultural interest, but he has taken the bolder step of practically denying the existence of agricultural distress. We cannot attach any other meaning to that portion of his speech, in which he alludes to the state of his own tenantry, and the condition of the Scottish farmers. We shall transcribe it here, in order that our readers may fully understand the views of the right honourable baronet:—
"I pass from the handloom weavers to the farmers and landlords of Cumberland. I know none of the cases to which the honourable member alluded of my own knowledge; but he adverted to a farm which has been recently relet in Cumberland at a considerable diminution of rent. The noble marquis has spoken of his labourers. Perhaps I may here be permitted to say a few words of mine. I have already stated to you the infinite obligations I am placed under by the conduct of my tenantry, but I stand here this moment without an acre of land unlet which I wish to let. I have not for the last five years changed two tenants who pay me above £100 a-year, and I have not an arrear of £300 on my whole rental. That is the state of my county, so far as I am concerned. But I look to the estate of my neighbour, of my colleague, and of my friend, as I am proud to call him, the Duke of Buccleuch, one of the greatest proprietors in the south of Scotland, and one who differed from me as to the policy of Free Trade. He has not, in Roxburghshire and Dumfries, let land falling out of lease—and those leases are usually for nineteen years—at any diminution of rent. A case has been mentioned, again, of a farm in East Lothian; and I dare say some hon. member more conversant with the details of that property than I am will speak upon that point; but, as I am informed, the farm in question had been previously in the hands of the owner, and had never been let before the last letting—that it was never calculated to be worth more than £1800 a-year—that some speculative farmer took it at £2200—that he made an imprudent and improvident bargain—and that a remission, therefore, has taken place, reducing the rent below £1800 a-year, but not much. I have friends in East Lothian, and I have made it my business to inquire into these matters, and I am told farms let freely as they fall out of lease, without any diminution of rent whatever; and also I am informed that the value of the fee-simple, which is the real test among the shrewd and sagacious people of Scotland, has increased since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I have said I have no farms to let; but I have perceived that, since the repeal of the Corn Laws, there has been a competition for land, arising among a class of persons with whom there was formerly no desire to occupy land, while there was the uncertainty which attended the operation of these laws."
The natural inference from this is, that Ministers have been entirely deceived as to the condition of the owners and occupiers of land—that, notwithstanding the great fall of prices, agriculture is flourishing—and that the whole of the agitation which has been got up on the subject is no better than a gigantic imposture. We call this "the natural inference," because such undoubtedly would be the impression conveyed to the mind of any unprejudiced reader. It is very much to be regretted that such statements should go forth to the public on the authority of Sir James Graham. In so far as Scotland is concerned, they are calculated to lead to a conclusion directly opposite to the truth. It is always a delicate thing to allude to individual instances; but we cannot help observing, that when Sir James Graham cites the case of the Buccleuch property in "Roxburghshire and Dumfries," he does not add, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the locality, that the great bulk of these possessions consists of sheep-farms; and it is notorious that, owing to the price of wool, the sheep-farmers constitute the only agricultural class which has not suffered severely from the introduction of the Free-Trade measures. Of the Buccleuch estates in Mid-Lothian, where the land is entirely arable, Sir James Graham makes no mention. In the south-eastern districts of Scotland, the fall in the value of farms has latterly been remarkable. To this point we may have occasion to recur hereafter; for although we do not think that the letting of particular farms is to be taken as a criterion of the general condition of agriculture, still we are desirous that the public should know how the case really stands. It is quite true that, until lately, instances have occurred of farms being let without any diminution of rent; nor is this the least surprising, considering the language which was employed so late as last spring by Lord Lansdowne and other members of the Government, as well as by individuals of considerable station, influence, and intelligence, like Mr W. E. Gladstone. The whole tenor of their addresses was calculated to persuade the farmers that the depreciation of prices then existing was attributable to an excellent harvest in 1849, and not at all to foreign importation. They scouted the idea that the averages of wheat could remain permanently at or near 40s.; and they prophesied a speedy rise. It is no great marvel if these representations induced some people to offer for farms which were falling out of lease. A farmer cannot, from the nature of his profession, be idle. He must have ground whereon to place his stock, unless he chooses to sell it off; and as the value of stock had also greatly fallen in the spring of last year, few were willing to part with theirs, and so virtually to abandon their profession. But it is a gross mistake to suppose that, in the majority of cases, the reletting of a farm in East Lothian or Roxburghshire, at the same rent as formerly, is to be taken as evidence of continued agricultural prosperity. During the last nineteen years, the common period of the endurance of a lease, the land in these counties has been so much improved by a liberal expenditure of capital, that a considerable rise of rent was anticipated, and would have been obtained but for the operation of the new commercial measures. Be that as it may, we are assured by the most competent authorities, that since last harvest there has been a general disinclination on the part of farmers to offer for land, except at greatly reduced rates; and we have heard of instances in which the highest offers did not reach two-thirds of the previous rental. We are speaking just now of the best arable land in Scotland. It is commonly and currently stated, and has never yet been contradicted, that elsewhere the depreciation is at least as great. Earl Grey, perhaps, may be able to afford some rather startling instances of the decline of rents in Northumberland. In the cattle-breeding districts of the north and Argyleshire, tenants have almost entirely ceased offering for vacant farms. They consider their occupation gone; and many of the best and most prudent of them are either on their way or preparing to emigrate to America. As for the islands, they are now no better than so many districts of pauperism.
Perhaps, however, we are attaching too much importance to this statement by Sir James Graham. So far as we can see, he now stands alone, a solitary believer in agricultural prosperity, whilst every one else has admitted the distress, though differing as to the nature of the remedy, or even denying the propriety of administering a remedy at all. From what is passing in England, we should imagine that the distress among the agricultural classes there is of unexampled severity. We read in the Times of 17th February—the last number which has reached us—a curious account of the South Nottinghamshire election, which has resulted in the return of Mr Barrow. As one paragraph bears directly upon the point which we are now discussing, and as it, moreover, contains a wholesome warning to such landlords throughout the country as have chosen to stand aloof from the tenantry during this momentous struggle, we shall here extract it.
"The result astonishes everybody, even here; and that, in the most aristocratic county of England, with the landlords almost to a man banded together in support of their nominee,—a scion of one of the largest landed proprietors in the county should be defeated by a plain country gentleman, a retired solicitor, with scarcely an acre of his own in the county, appears truly marvellous. It can only be accounted for by the fact of the losses of the occupiers during the last two years rendering them indifferent as to whether they be expelled from their homesteads or not; even though Mr Barrow has for many years presided at and taken part in their farmers' clubs and other meetings, and Lord Newark has never been seen by one elector in a thousand until this contest."
Assuming this account to be true—for we have no other knowledge of the case—we rejoice that the electors of Nottinghamshire have acted so independent a part, and returned to Parliament a gentleman who has made their grievances and condition his especial study. Such men are wanted at the present time, and it is to such we look for the firm vindication of the rights of an injured tenantry. But what degree of agricultural prosperity is implied by the previous statement?
Of course it is very easy for Sir James Graham, holding such views, to descant on the impolicy of any return to protection. If no injury has been inflicted upon any one, and if all interests are prospering, there certainly can exist no conceivable motives for a change. For, not to mention the obvious difficulties which lie in the way of a reversal of the present commercial system, what chance should we have of persuading any one to join us in such a mad crusade, if there indeed exist no grievances of a weighty and intolerable character? According to Sir James Graham, the landlord is receiving the same rent as before, the tenant is equally comfortable, the labourer much more comfortable than he was under the system of protection—grant all this, and no censure, no reproach, can be severe enough to stigmatise our conduct. Unfortunately for his theory, the Knight of Netherby has to contend against something more stubborn than arguments. Before he can establish his conclusions, he will in the first place demonstrate that 38s., the present average price of the quarter of wheat, is equal to 56s., the former remunerative rate. Next, he must explain and make clear to the comprehension of the farmer, how all public and private taxes, imposts, and obligations, can be discharged by the same amount of produce as formerly, that produce having fallen upwards of thirty-five per cent in value. And lastly, rising to economics, he must show us how the home trade can be improved by the depression of the principal customer. When these points are satisfactorily disposed of, we promise to give in; for why should we prolong a contest, to our own great discomfort, for no substantial reason?