THE COUNTRY GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1871 AT THE IRISH LAND ACT. Ta time when so much is written on the subject of emigration, when our agricultural labourers are so continually allured by fairy visions of high wages and discomfort, to leave fair wages and comfort, and when our farmers are exhorted to give up the position they now occupy-sometimes rather an unenviable one, we must confess, through uncertainty of tenure and excess of game-to become landlords in some dismal swamp out west, it is pleasant to read such a pamphlet as has just been written by Mr. Robert Donnell, of Dublin, entitled "Farmers their own Landlords: a Plain Tract for Plain People, shewing how Tenants may get Farms Rent Free." This publication has been written to illustrate some features of the Irish Land Act, which the writer supposes have not attracted much public attention, viz., the purchase clauses of that Act. The object of these clauses is, by the aid of Government loans on easy terms, to enable farmers to become their own landlords. £8 12 But if, on the other hand, A. has possessed £250, for which he would receive from the bank, on an average, 2 per cent. per annum as interest, his position would be as follows:Head rent £3 10 0 Annual payment for 35 years to Government 25 o Loss of interest on £250 ... ... In Ireland, under this Act, a tenant can borrow the larger portion of the ascertained value of his farm from Government, which is repayable in a term of years. Thus, A. occupies a farm for which he pays an annual rent of £32, 8s., the estimated value being, say, £750. He can borrow from Government £500, and thus, with £250 of his own-he completes the purchase. Government asks that its loan of £500 should be repaid by annual instalments of £25. In a period of Increase of rent or charge VOL. VII. Former rent ... : 5 O O £33 10 32 8 Of course, the foregoing calculations would result more favourably for A. the less he had to borrow from the Government, and the more he had of his own. The Irish Land Act, if for no other than the purchase clauses, of which this case is an example, is indeed a priceless boon to Ireland; and Mr Gladstone, Mr Bright, and the Liberal party, may well be proud of their legislation in this respect. But while thus congratulating Government and the country in the endeavours to heal the wounds inflicted "during centuries or wrong" (to use an O'Connellism) on the Sister Island, we are led to ask if such an Act would not, in many respects, do good in Great Britain? Probably, such an Act for England and Scotland, modified to suit the different circumstances of the countries, would be productive of good to the farming interest, and in many instances, we believe, it would be of benefit to the owners of land. At all events, it might do much to soften the acrimony displayed by agitators on the land question, as opportunities would be given whereby the number of landlords would be increased. What we desire is a modification of the laws of entail, and greater facilities for the easy transfer of land, such as are given by the Act under consideration. Under its provisions, transfer is made by changing a name on the record, thus avoiding that worst of all human ills-an Attorney's Bill. FARMERS THEIR OWN LANDLORDS. WE give prominence to the following in agricultural journals, without being stigma communication from an esteemed correspondent, a tenant-farmer. He writes strongly, but in his own person we believe he has suffered much from over-preservation of game, and his remarks generally upon the question of land tenure are worthy of every consideration, in so far as they apply to the necessity of securing the tenant against loss, should he be arbitrarily turned out of his holding. We are by no means sure that it would be better for the general good to parcel out the land into small quantities; it will not be denied, we imagine, that justice between man and man demands that the tenant should be made legally as well as morally certain in dependence upon "word of honour," that the results of his toil and his expenditure should not be filched away from him on a moment's, or, what is practically the same thing, at a year's notice to quit his farm. "It is a satisfactory sign of progress in ideas and freedom of expression" (says our correspondent) "to find that remarks on questions, with the above and similar titles, are read now tized as tending to revolution, confiscation, communism," &c. "The outcry (he continues) that was raised against Mr Bright's proposal to assist the cultivator to become the proprietor of the land in Ireland, is still remembered vividly by most of us. Notwithstanding this outcry, many of the earnest, toiling farmers of England saw clearly that there could be no stimulus to exertion and improved cultivation equal to the feeling that their efforts in this direction would certainly result in the improvement of their own property, and could not be claimed by any but themselves. "Another very important view of the case is this, that the entire security of the investment of the cultivator of the land affords the best possible security to the public that 'the land shall be made to yield her increase.' The cultivator, when he feels that he is not liable to quit his farm and leave the value of his improvements behind, will naturally employ more labour and more manure. The certain consequence will be the increase of Farmers and their Landlords the wages of the agricultural labourer, and the increase of the food of the people. "The public, under the pressure of high prices, are beginning to see the necessity of the removal of all obstructions to the increase of the produce of the land. The unsatisfactory state of land tenure is the greatest of these obstructions, because it includes most of the others. The insufficient application of capital to farming is directly traceable to want of security. The action of the Gamelaws is an obstruction, because the landowner does not feel the injury that is done to the crops by hares and rabbits. This loss falls mainly upon the cultivator, but is shared in part by the consumer, in consequence of the higher prices which necessarily follow the lessened supply. "The cultivator of the land might safely be trusted to protect his crops from undue injury, but the owner who lets a farm and reserves the hares and rabbits cannot be altogether depended upon, to keep the latter, within reasonable limits. It may certainly be called imprudent to make a bargain of any sort without having any legal security for the fulfilment, further than a man's word of honour. Yet this is the case of farmers where the game is reserved by the landowners. The tenant is legally liable for the rent, whilst there is no law to prevent the owner from keeping game and rabbits sufficient to destroy nearly the whole of the produce. Can any one imagine a state of things more entirely obstructive to the increase of the produce of land than this? How can farmers, as a rule, do justice to the land, or to themselves, or to the public, under such conditions? And yet these conditions are the rule, and not the exception. 147 "What one would desire to see is, that landowners should address themselves to the consideration of this state of things in a fair and impartial spirit, not only in the interest of the public, but also in their own. A more liberal course of dealing with their tenants in the matter of tenure, would improve both their rent-roll and their position in the country; whilst their continuing to ignore the claims and necessities of the cultivators, and the public, may drive the latter to seek for a remedy which may eventually lessen the influence of the landowners. "It will be a most unwise step to drive the tenant-farmers to the conclusion that they and the public are unfairly treated by the operation of the land-laws. There is already a strong party agitating this question. If the landowners desire to maintain the laws as they are, they should avoid driving the tenant-farmers to join the towns in asking for a change. Farmers are not very active in promulgating their views, and perhaps not very clear, and not very united on many subjects; but there is one subject on which they are agreed, and that is, that the produce of the land, the food of the people of this country, may be enormously increased, and that under a good system of land tenure, such increase would certainly arise. "I leave it to the public to judge of the good or ill effects of a more plentiful supply of food, of an increased employment of agricultural labourers at increased wages, and of the keeping at home of many of our farmers, to employ their energy and industry with comfort and profit to themselves, instead of sending them out of the country with the feeling in their hearts that the land system of England has not given them fair play." WE MANAGEMENT OF REAPING MACHINES. E have now all but got out of the thick of the agricultural meetings of the season, and recovered our usual equanimity, and feel quite able to look things agricultural particularly bearing on implements, with more composure than we could when hurried and worried by the whirl of endless examination of machines at the Royal of England and the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland's annual exhibitions. We cannot say that we would not experience more pleasure in treating of one class of machines necessary to the farm more than of others; but as we do not mean to look to our own convenience or pleasure, so much as to the benefit which our readers may derive from what we write, we are upon this occasion to treat of reaping machines, now become a necessity in farming economy. Not that we at the present time intend to enter into the question which is the best machine for any particular locality or farm, as we think our readers will have made up their minds on this point. We intend to give what our experience enables us to do some reasons why the reaping machine has not given that general satisfaction which it ought to have done, and the best way to attain this end now. In the first place, the machine was not so well manufactured as it is now, and being placed in the hands of inexperienced ploughmen, ignorant of the first principles of mechanism, and to whom therefore no blame could be attached. The machine was used as if composed of materials which it would be impossible under any usage, however rough, to put out of order. Such, however, was not the case, and hence the implements often came to grief, and ultimately were thrown aside as useless, the blame being lavished upon the manufacturers, or agent who sold the machine, while this was due alone to the proprietor of the machine, or his servant, who might or might not be prejudiced against it. Time, however, changed all this; and the machine is now placed in the hands of men who have been to a certain extent educated to understand that it is not made to do an impossible amount of work, but to do so much and no more, and that with careful treatment of its different parts, which are now turned out so perfect and little liable to go out of order, it may pass through a succession of harvests without being perceptibly injured, except in such wearing parts as knife, sections, or bushes, which are easily replaced. The question is-How is or can this be attained? First of all, we must premise that the machine is placed only in the hands of a workman who has passed through an apprenticeship of how to deliver the sheaf properly (we speak of a manual back-delivery reaper), as this is a most important point; indeed, without the proper use of the rake, no machine however good can cut well. The workman must not trifle with this most important part of his work; his eyes, as well as hands, have quite enough to do, more particularly when the grain is not standing erect or leaning to the machine, which will be the exception this year, and when it will be necessary to watch every part of the knife, to see where he can assist its cutting power by judicious manipulation of his hand rake. Then, in the actual delivery of the grain, or "tilting" of the platform, the hand must act in unison with the foot, or else the sheaf will not only be badly delivered, but straws left straggling on the ground; and others finding their way in and around the carrying parts, render the machine more difficult to draw, and racking its finer parts. Another most essential part is the knife, which must be kept properly sharpened, and on this account two sets of knives are absolutely necessary to avoid any chance of hindrance in the field. The knife must also now and then be removed, more par Management of Reaping Machines 149 ticularly where the crop is grassy, to free it from saving of oil, time, tear and wear of the We have often wondered, when passing through some of the best farmed districts of England and Scotland, to see reaping machines lying in the fields long after the grain was safe under thatch and rope. "Surely the owners of these machines have no intention of using them again," we said to a friend who was travelling with us. His reply was that such was not the case, and that it was not an exceptional occurrence at all to see them lying outside the farm or stack-yard, well on to winter. We would say to these gentlemen, take our advice, and immediately after you finish the cutting of your crops, remove the reapers to the farm-yard, have them at once taken to pieces, properly cleaned and oiled, and laid aside. You will have not only the satisfaction of destroying the hopes of the manufacturer or his agent, who have hitherto been looking on your mismanagement, in pleasant expectation, on their part, of you being compelled to order a new machine; but you will have your reapers in good order, ready to take the first favourable opportunity of mowing the next year's hay crop-remembering that time is MR MR MECHI'S NOTIONS OF SEWAGE. R MECHI is an indefatigable supporter and exponent of the value of town sewage. The "sharp" alderman, as we have heard him styled, has done a vast deal of good to the slow people in this country. For many years, it was stated that Tiptree flourished only on the "tips" that were given, and successfully so, from Regent Street-that Regent Street, in fact, paid for Tiptree. This was a mistake altogether, so far as we understand Mr Mechi's farming. He is, to our thinking, a man who has done more good in the way of promoting agricultural improvements than any one within the last quarter of a century. He is an Arthur Young in his way; and his name, we believe, will appear in agricultural history, whenever the doings of the last twenty-five years come to be recorded. In a letter to a contemporary, The Agricultural Gazette (why does Mr Mechi give it the special advantage of his adumbrations ?), Mr Mechi writes, in reply to a German correspondent, whose name is not mentioned, |