as can be seen from the engraving, is suitable for a variety of purposes. Chief among its uses is that for dispensing water in elegant arching spray. Nothing is more appropriate about a fernery than something of this kind. With a collection of gold and silver fish disporting themselves around its basin, it is quite entrancing. With a supply of water in

connexion with the house, or villa, or mansion, and this vase placed in the conservatory adjacent, it could be made a pleasing piece of furniture in connexion with plants. It might be used as a Fern stand, or the centre piece in any dinner-table decoration. Any ornament which is convertible into a variety of uses, makes it additionally valuable

IN

N the June issue of a periodical bearing the name of The Free West, and having for its avowed objects the dissemination of information to intending emigrants to the United States of America, there appeared an article entitled "Unjust Attack," and signed by Alexander A. Wise, the editor of The Free West, and its proprietor, we believe. Mr Wise had seen a critique on some articles written by our correspondent, "Dun-Edin," in our number for April, which critique appeared in the New York World, of the 4th of May.

It would seen that Mr Wise had not hitherto heard of us, and forthwith made inquiries from his newsagents, the result of which was the wonderful discovery that no such a serial as THE COUNTRY GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE was in existence, but that it was an advertising sheet emanating from the office of Mr W.

H. Hayward, Commissioner for the State of Nebraska, United States of America!

We have no desire to have any misunderstanding with Mr Wise, or in fact to notice a person or a periodical capable of such gross mis-statements, the more so as that gentleman has been informed of his error, and no apology has been tendered to us! This is, of itself, sufficient evidence that the amenities, to say the least, of social life are not to be looked for from The Free West, its editor or proprietor, and we dismiss the subject in fond hope that The Free West, once a weekly newspaper, and yet sending in return for two stamps a number dated November 1870, when asked for in February 1871, may, now, that it has become a monthly, be as regular in its issue, contain news of equal importance to emigrants, and be as distinguished for veracity as the June number now before us.

THE

HE Encumbered Estates Court has naturally culminated in that entitled the Landed Estates Court, and the several Tenant-right Bills and Land Schemes, with every other panacea for agrarian grievances in that unhappy country, have been absorbed into the great Land Bill of 1869-70. Nevertheless, the land question is still open in Ireland, and though we expected by this time to be permitted calmly to consider the modes of finishing stock in Ireland, and marking the points in which they differ from the customs of Great Britain, with a view at once to uniformity and reform, we are called again to contemplate the probable results of mass meetings, and weigh the prospect of agriculture in the light of the "new agitation for Home Rule." In immediate prospect of the Show, however, we shall try to forget that agitation exists, and shall, if possible, endeavour to regard, only in proportion to its effects, and not according to the noise it makes, Home Rule, that we may understand how to estimate such evidence as may be forthcoming, for or against progress, on the

occasion of the Show.

If the facts already ascertained be admissible, then we expect that in every department of agriculture some improvement has been made during the past year, except in flax-growing and butter-making, in both of which, standing still is the order of the day-which position must be considered equivalent to going back, inasmuch as in

VOL. VI!

every other country, and in all other things in Ireland, progress is being made. But must we wait for bona fide "getting on" in farming in Ireland, as the hon. member for Meath would have us to do, till Home Rule is an accomplished fact? Or does the secret of progression in agriculture lie in farmers. being ready-in numbers of 20,000-at a moment's notice, to look on, silently, or course, while evictions are being made, as the hon. member for Westmeath has been pleased to say is the right way? Or is the path of industry, as it is pursued in England, Scotland, the counties of Down, Antrim, Armagh, Tyrone, Derry, and almost all other parts of Ulster, as well as in every corner of Ireland more or less generally, the shortest road to prosperity and wealth, as far as the occupiers of lands are concerned? Or is it actually necessary that hereditary owners should be compelled to sell to those able and willing to purchase amongst the occupiers, in order that farming may be carried on-as it is desirable every other trade should-profitably?

If we were disposed to discuss the merits of these several theories as to the "royal road" to agricultural profits, if there be such a thing, we would venture to predict that no argument in favour of any course but that of industry, skill, and painstaking attention to every improvement in implements and modes of husbandry, would for a moment bear analysis, however cunningly constructed or

F

sophistically stated. Should a probability to the contrary be made apparent by general testimony, unanimously leading to a common. conclusion, we shall be satisfied; but till such is the case, we shall continue to believe that in peaceful plodding industry, and not in the enactments of Parliament, lies the secret of success in farming. Is it to the effects of the special legislation of the past fifty years in favour of Irish agriculture, or to reformed modes of action, suggested often by agricultural societies, and constantly proved to be necessary by the comparisons of live stock and produce made at shows, that farmers are to attribute the actual and manifest progress of recent years? The evidence these shows affords us, which is in harmony with that which is to be had elsewhere, as the same subject establishes the fact that not to Government subsidies, so much as to greater outlay of capital by the farmer on his farm, has Ireland been pushed on in agricultural progress. We are actually in clined to have more faith in the economizing of natural fertilizers on each farm, than in low rents, or a landlord ready to suspend his rights in case of a wet season or light crops. Beyond requiring security of tenure in some equitable, rational, and permanent form, we have no idea of the occupier hanging on the owner for support, but regarding bargain as between landlord and tenant the

same for all mercantile purposes as if it were between the pig-jobber, the butter-merchant, or the corn-brøker, and the farmer. But regarding the farming interests of Ireland as much as those of the United Kingdom-as if Yorkshire or Argyllshire were in question— we think the owners of the soil have little to fear from agitation, however it may threaten to take an agrarian shape; nor have the occupiers anything to hope from agitators, whatever they may promise, whether the Parliament sits in College Green or the Rotundo. Owner and occupier have a common interest, and ought to act together for the common end of taking out of the soil the greatest possible amount of produce. Owners ought to remember that it is not those who promise the highest rents that prove the best tenants, and occupiers ought not to overlook the fact that the lands at the lowest rent per acre are not always the cheapest.

The agitator who keeps those who own and those who occupy the land of Ireland asunder, is the friend of neither; and the agitation that disturbs the one in the security of his investments, and keeps the other from his work, that he may listen to fine speeches, is the enemy of both. But agricultural progress is too strong for Home Rule agitation; and therefore we expect the Show to be a decided triumph in Ireland's staple industry -Farming.

"IF

F any gentleman will shew me one tenant who has been robbed by being turned out of his farm unjustly, I will shew fifty or sixty who have never been robbed at all." This is the statement in a paper read by the Rev. C. Neville before the Nottinghamshire Farmers' Club. It has a decidedly Hibernian flavour about it. It is as good as that of the Irishman, accused of stealing a horse, maintaining that for one witness who would swear

that he had seen him come out of the stable with the animal, he could bring a hundred to take oath they had never beheld him in so equivocal a position. Good landlords there are in plenty, no doubt, whose tenants so far from having any right to complain against them, have, in hard times, much reason to be grateful; but it is not to be disputed that there are many others who wring the last shilling of rent out of their tenants, and have

no compunction in dismissing them when more advantageous terms are offered, the rise being frequently on account of the money which the occupier has expended, out of his own pocket, on permanent improvements.

The assertion and counter-assertion of good and bad landlords have, in our opinion, really little to do with the subject at all. The true question at issue is this-Do present arrangements, as a rule, leave farmers at the mercy of their employers, and is it right that this state of things should continue?

A man of skill and capital takes a farm at what he considers to be a fair rent, having regard to the state that the land is in; but being skilful, he at the same time observes that the outlay of some capital would ensure a much larger return from the soil than it has been previously yielding. He accordingly drains, cleans his land, and manures heavily. Mother Earth, always kindly to those who treat her well, gives forth an increased bounteousness beyond all precedent on the same homestead. The agent, or factor, with his quick observant eye, notices the full crops; so also do others interested in agriculture. The amount of rent is inquired. So much say £1, 10s. or £2 per acre, as the case may be. "Ridiculous! I could easily give IOS. or I an acre more for it," exclaims an anxious searcher after a bit of ground, who had not previously seen the wretched subject upon which the occupier had to work, and knew little of the expense it took to produce the flourishing crops. The agent, of course, is anxious to bring as much as he can into his employer's coffers, and in cases is afraid that the landlord may blame him for not attending sufficiently to the interests of the estate. So he informs the tenant-with reluctance it perhaps may be admitted-that unless he advances 10s. or £1 per acre, he shall have to quit the farm, as others are after it, who are willing to pay more than the increase asked upon the original rental. What can the tenant under such circumstances do? He must perforce advance the extra money on the land, whose good crops are the outcome of his own money, or he must

83

quit, and lose the benefit of his coin and labour together. Now this is what we maintain should be prevented by law, or by arbitration. There would be little difficulty in dealing with Mr Neville or Mr Barrow, or with good landlords, such as one of the speakers, Mr Helmsley, Shelton, described. We cannot, on general principles sympathize with the sensitiveness and sentiment of the farmer of Shelton. We cannot for the life of us see that there is any insult in asking that you should be insured by agreement from loss that you might sustain; nor degradation in signing a document offered to you in order that you could with certainty rely upon compensation for the expense to which you had been put, in order to grow good crops.

A landlord's life is no more secure than a tenant's. The best of landlords die as well as the worst. Nay, if we are to believe Wordsworth, the best die soonest.

"Oh, sir, the good die first,

But those whose hearts are dry as summer's dust,
Burn to the socket."

Seeing, therefore, that there is no lease of life for landlords, the cultivator of the soil who desires to do good to himself and his country-the one predicates the othershould make sure by the lease of his farm for a period of years, or by a lease giving fair value for the money he has sunk in the ground, that he shall not be at the mercy of any new king arising who may be unacquainted with, or who does not care to recognize Joseph.

Mr Neville's remarks, upon which we have been commenting, were to the following effect:-The reverend gentleman said he did not attend there with the intention of giving them a lecture on the taking and holding of farms, but he came with the idea of raising a discussion. He would not rise to speak on the point, except in the expectation that it would elicit some observations from some other gentlemen besides himself, and especially from tenants, because the parties who were most deeply affected were the landlord who let the land and the tenant who took it.

His notion was, that both parties had to be considered. With that little preface he would move a formal resolution, which he had hastily drawn up :- "That a yearly tenancy, with six months' notice to quit on either side does not in all cases give sufficient security to the tenant for the investment of his capital in the due cultivation of his farm." This might be a matter of opinion; but, as a matter of fact, he certainly did know many cases where the tenant had cultivated his farm very highly, and had invested a good deal of capital, and from some, perhaps accidental circumstances, had received notice to quit at six months, and could not possibly get his capital out again. No man in his senses, who knew anything about farming, would disagree with him when he said it was impossible, if a man received notice to quit in October to go out in April, that he could get his capital out of his farm, for he must leave a great amount of artificial manure and other things in and on the land. He thought, therefore, that it was unjust to the tenant and injurious to the country; and he maintained that it would be a good thing if an arrangement could be made by lease, tenant-right agreement, or anything else, to render such an injustice an impossible occurrence.

JUSTICE TO LANDLORDS: THE IRISH LAND ACT.

He, as a landlord, did not approve of the views of the democratic party in London, though he was a great Liberal, for they spoke of landlords as trying to rob the tenants, and that sort of thing. This was all a heap of rubbish.

The majority of landlords did nothing of the sort. He knew estates of 500,000 acres where the landlords were as honest and liberal as possible, and did not want to do anything wrong. If any gentleman would shew him one tenant who had been robbed by being turned out of his farm unjustly, he would shew fifty or sixty who had never been robbed at all. Of course, if a tenant had been robbed of £1000 or £1500, it was no consolation for him to be told that there were others who had not been robbed

at all; but as a landlord, he declared he should be glad if some agreement could be hit upon to suit all parties, and to render it possible for the tenant to feel that, in any event, he would be fully compensated. The difficulties at first sight seem enormous, but when the Government were obliged to do it, they did it, for they granted a measure of great security to the Irish tenants. He did not approve of the whole of that Irish Bill, but he approved of the principle of it, and as an honest man he could not see why if the Irish tenantry were to be rendered secure from any casualty, the English tenantry should not have the same advantage. He had been all over Ireland three times, and knew a great deal about the country, but the only difference he found between the Irish and the English was this, that the Irish tenant farmed a great deal worse than the English; that the Irish tenant shot his landlord, while the English did not ; and that the Englih tenant paid his rent a good deal better. These were the only differences he could see, and so far from sanctioning their going on year after year without trying to do anything, he thought that if landlords had honour and honesty about them, it was a reason why they should exert themselves more. The better their tenants behaved, the better they ought to try to behave to them in return, and for his own part he was very willing to bring forward the subject on which he had made a motion. He had hoped it might receive some consideration at Worksop, and he was glad to find Mr Foljambe, who was a larger landowner than himself, express his willingness to enter into any discussion of the sort, so as to grant the tenant greater security. He thought he had now satisfied them, or any reasonable person, that the object was a good one, and he would therefore go on to consider what would be done towards giving the tenant the security neces

sary.

LONG LEASES DISADVANTAGEOUS: CROPPING.

The Scotch plan was that of a lease of say twenty-one years, but this involved some other conditions. He found the Scotch