THE WEST SUFFOLK ELECTION AND TENANT-RIGHT.
I T would be quite useless to deny, even if we wished to deny
it, which we do not, that the result of the West Suffolk Election is a considerable triumph for the Government. An important constituency, mainly controlled by farmers, has been asked fairly and squarely whether the Tory Ministry have for- feited their confidence by their Agricultural Holdings Bill, and whether -they care enough for Tenant-right to break through party lines for its sake, and have given an emphatic reply in the negative to both questions. Mr. Easton had very little time, and is a new corner in the county, but he was a present- able candidate, he appealed to the voters distinctly as Tenant- farmers, he put the issues with unusual plainness, and he was beaten in the most conclusive style. The usual vote of West Suffolk is not heavy, about 4,100 out of 6,000 electors having gone to the poll in 1868, and 3,841 recorded their votes on this occasion. Of these, 2,780 supported Colonel Wilson, the Tory, who was also the landlords' nominee, and only 1,061 Mr. Easton, the Liberal and the tenant-farmers' candidate, so that although neither candidate polled a clear half of the electors, the Liberal was beaten by nearly three to one. Even if we add the whole of the additional 300 who voted in 1868 to Mr. Easton's roll, as men who would have supported him if they
had had the courage, his opinions still do not attract a fourth of the electorate, or a third of those who usually record their votes. On the contrary, they appear to alienate electors, for while the highest Tory in 1868 had only 2,441 votes, in 1875 he had 2,741. Very little need be allowed for personal claims, for Colonel Wilson's popularity was affected by a rumour, probably calumnious, that he was friendly to co- operative stores, and Mr. Easton was injured by an unfounded report that he was the candidate of the Agricultural Labourers' Union. The deduction scarcely needs to be drawn in words. The farmers of West Suffolk are not angry enough with the Agricultural Holdings Bill to punish Government for its introduction, and are not eager enough for tenant-right to take the subject out of the landlords' hands. They prefer to leave things in their old groove, to wait on the Tory leaders a little longer, and to be represented by the class and in the way which has hitherto been usual. Their decision may be regrettable, or may be temporary, or may be accidental, but it is unmistakable, and for the present, it sets Government free to act. Mr. Disraeli can withdraw the Agricultural Holdings Bill, or he can pass the Bill as it has come down from the Lords, or he can restore the Bill to its older and simpler form, without fear of the constituencies, or, we may add, of the Liberals, who cannot fight for men who tell them so distinctly that they do not choose to be fought for. There may be reason for the Government to dread the County Members, but there is none to be afraid of the county electors. If the latter are un- moved in West Suffolk, they will be unmoved in counties where grievances about tenure have been a less prominent topic of discussion.
Upon the whole, we think, though with some regret, that the Government will do most wisely to drop the Bill for the Session, and use the time so gained in preparing a somewhat simpler measure, such as an extension of the Lincolnshire Custom, or as the one promised by Mr. Disraeli and recom- mended this week by Lord Leicester—who has spent a quarter of a million on improving his farms—the grant of an absolute right to two years' notice of eviction for any cause except non-pay- ment of rent. Very little will be gained to the country from a tenant-right law out of which every great proprietor can con- tract himself, and there is not the slightest chance that the clauses conceding the freedom of contract will be removed, or even seriously attacked. The Liberals cannot move in this Parliament without the Whigs, the Whigs do not like tenant- right, and the last motive likely to induce the latter to submit to a disagreeable necessity has ended with the West Suffolk election. The Bill, it is true, lays down a principle which may hereafter be productive of great results ; but it is very doubtful whether this principle is well defined, and certain that the landlords in the House of Commons if disposed to be ob- structive—as they may be, for they do not, like the Peers, represent the larger landowners, who are not afraid of possible expense, if only they can retain power—have one argument to produce which will bear indefinite discussion. The point at which Sir T. Acland has been hammering ever since the Bill came out, and which interested the Peers till they were almost prepared to encounter the horrors of an adjourned debate, is the vagueness of the compensation conceded to the farmers. The idea of the framers of the Bill appears to have been that if tenants improved the letting value of their farms, they should have their reward either in money or length of occupation ; and that seems fair, but the difficulty is to decide on the causes of "letting value." Suppose, for example, the occupier of Greenfields has built some barns, just as a railway formerly nine miles off is brought past his own doors,—is he ten years afterwards to have the whole of the in- crement of letting value ? That is not fair, for the freeholder whose land is crossed, and who probably subscribed for un- profitable shares in order to build the railway, has the first claim. He must at all events have a part, and who is to settle what part? The valuers will hardly be trusted in such a matter, and the County-Court Judges will be overloaded with litigation and abuse. The dispute affects, in fact, the whole of that most difficult question,—the right to unearned increment of value ; and in some places, such as the six Metropolitan counties, Lancashire, Warwickshire, and indeed any county with a great city in it, might involve most serious amounts. The unearned increment of value, for example, in a place like Mill Hill, Middlesex, has within the last fifteen years probably increased till it exceeds threefold the price of 1860. Clearly any Bill affecting property like that will be most bitterly fought, and give rise to what might prove an. evil outweighing the value of tenant-right, incessant litigation between the occupier
and landlord. A right to litigate must primd facie be in the landlord's favour, as the richer man and the man with heavier interest in the soil ; while it will be observed that the tenant encounters another risk, that of finding that, owing perhaps to a fall in the price of corn, his improvements have not increased the letting value, and his money has been entirely thrown away. That risk, a formidable one to a man who wants to use his money as the tenant does, and not merely to get interest for it, is aggravated greatly by the immense importance which the Bill will give to land-valuers, a class of men who include perhaps a wider range of characters than any other, and who in many places are notoriously divided into "honest men, buyers' valuers, and sellers' valuers." What with the landlord's doubt about his increment of value, and the tenant's doubt about his compensation, the Bill is sure to give but imperfect satisfaction, and might wisely be withdrawn.
But the principle ? The principle can wait another year very well. It is in no manner of danger at all. No right can be more clear than that of a tenant to reap the benefit of his improvements, either in compensation or in security of tenure; and with a Parliament in which tenants hold the balance of power so completely in their own hands, no claim of theirs is likely to be forgotten. The moment they are in earnest they can early a just Bill, and we question if it is wise to lay the foundations of a novel system while they are not in earnest. Some blunder is sure to be made, which it may cost years of troublesome legisltion to amend. If the West Suffolk elec- tion had been decided in favour of Tenant-right, the aspect of affairs would have been different. It would have been clear that the farmers were determined either to be heard or to upset the Government, and a settlement of the tenure-grievance would have become the most pressing of political questions. It is not pressing now, and as the Bill is a poor one, as the landlords distrust it, and as the Chambers of Agriculture denounce it, it would be wiser to let public opinion ripen a little more. The Government cannot feel any shame in withdrawing their Bill, for their rdle ever since they took office has been to do as little as their con- stituencies will allow, and their constituencies on this Bill welcome their feebleness as beneficiaL If they persist, they will have to accept amendments in the way of restrictions which will make their Bill a misery to all who have to interpret it, or force it through by a use of their majority which will be resented even by those who so obediently do their bidding. The indifference of the Tenant-farmers would be no reason for delaying a reform certain to improve their condition, but it is a reason for delaying a change about which all concerned seem 4Ioubtful, and those most so who have the responsibility of agreeing that it shall be law.
Previous page
