Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 November 1879 — Why English Farmers Emigrate. [ARTICLE]

Why English Farmers Emigrate.

A succession of bad seasons has, it must be admitted, had much to do toward making English fanners discontented, and awakened them to a sense of their true position. Following in the wake of these bad seasons has come a sharp competition of the United States, which has had the effect of depressing the price of all kinds of farm Eroducts, the losses from short crops at ome in no way affecting the price as formerly, when a few ship Toads of grain or meat from America made good tne deficiency and fully met the demands of the market. The first attempts at shipping live stock and dressed meat to Europe were not sufficiently successful or remunerative to. cause any serious alarm among the, farmers of Great Britain, and they all thought these shipments were only one of those chimerical Yankee experiments which would end in loss, and have no permanent effect upon the price of home products. But with every vessel sent out from our ports there was a gain in practical experience if nothing more, and soon shippers had acquired sufficient knowledge of this comparatively new branch of business to enable them to avoid the losses to which they were at first subjected; and now there are no more doubts in regard to our being able to send live stock, dressed meats, butter, cheese and similar articles to Europe than of our ability to produce them in almost unlimited quantities. The lowering of the price of farm products in Great Britain through the sharp competition from this oountry, and the succession of bad seasons and

ruined crops at home, are two powerful causes of what is termed the agrieukor*i depression on the other side of the Atlantic; but there are also others which are too important to be overlooked. These are the laws and diatoms under whioh the English farmer most struggle for existence. First among his grievances are the game laws, which protect hares, rabbits and other animals that prey upon farm crops, for the use of the gentry and landowners who may a few days in the year desire a little sport in shooting these pests, and at the same time ride down die farmers’ crops in pursuit of game. The farmer may see ids wheat, oats and other crops laid waste by the hares and rabbits, but cannot protect himself, because the “ game is preserved,” and if he complains at the loss, he is curtly told to go and do better if he can—just what many have done, and more will do, unless these laws are abolished.

Not only is the wild game kept in the preserves destructive to the crops on the cultivated farms, but there are thousands of acres reserved for their sole use which might be employed to raise food for the naif-starved millions of the surrounding country. A few deer, pheasants, and a hundred or two hares often occupy more land and oost the country more than it would require to feed and clothe a good-sized village of hard working mechanics and their families.

The farmers of England are kept down ip a hundred ways unknown in this country, and the only wonder is that they have survived so long or made so little resistance. They are not even permitted to use their own judgment and knowledge of agriculture in managing the land for which they pay rent. The kind of crops they shall cultivate, the number of acres of each, and how often any one kind shall occupy the same plot of land, are, as a rule, indicated, and put in the lease at the time of its execution; consequently the tenant is compelled to work in ruts made for him by persons competent or otherwise. If tne tenant puts his private capital into improvements, making the land yield more than it otherwise would, his rent is likely to be raised accordingingly, thereby compelling him to pay for increasing the value of property which is not nis qwn. If he grumbles, he is told that the land will fetch the increased rent, and he can pay it or leavo. This is no fancy supposition, but an actual fact which is of almost daily occurrence. In a late issue of the Farmer (London), a tenant of an excellent farm of some 800 acres, gives his experience within the past twenty years, which is a fair showing ■ of hundreds and thousands oi: farmers in England to-day. He commenced with $20,000 capital, paying in rent, tithes, and other taxes, $3,000 a year for his 800-acre farm, the best he could find at the time for this sum. First, he found that the land had been run down by a former tenant, and much of it was too wet for grain, and needed underdraining, which, if done, must be at his own expense. Then he found there were far too many hares and rabbits on the farm, all of which were of course preserved; and when he complained of this nuisance to the agent, he was informed that if the place did not suit he could leave. After he had held the farm ten years and pnt nearly his entire $20,000 into improvements, such as underdraining ana manure, the owner died, his successor raised his rent $750 a year, and the farmer either had to pay the increase or go and lose the money invested in the permanent improvements. He decided to hold on; but now, after Fen years more of hard work, he says: “I have given my landlord notice that I should leave next Michaelmas, going out with the loss of nearly my entire capital and twenty years’ hard labor.” The farmers of the United States have no such difficulties to encounter as those of England, for most of them own the land they till; and if crops are poor or low in price, there is no heavy rent to pay, and taxes are, as a rule* exceedingly low in comparison with those of other countries. Even if one fails to pay these, he cannot be ejected from nis home after a six days’ or six months’ notice. In fact the farmer in America is about as independent a human being as can be found anywhere in this world, although he exercises his privilege of grumbling to the fullest extent. There is, however, room for more good farmers in every State and Territory, and the more of the good, steady Englishmen, with or without capital, that come to our shores the better.— N. Y. Sun.