A COUPLE of weeks ago I wrote about 90 per cent of farms being tenanted in the 19th century, while today the figure could be around the 30 per cent mark and falling.

There were mixed fortunes during the 1800s with prices rising in some years sufficient to fund some improvements.

You may recall me saying that the landlords provided the land, the fencing and the drainage, also the buildings, while the tenants provided the working capital, rents, it’s said, were generally high.

Then came imports of cheap grain and dairy products, with the result that farmers found it difficult to survive. Cheap imports together with several years of atrocious weather brought in a recession which in turn brought in many farm sales and, worst still, a certain amount of bankruptcies, although there were those who managed to get out with their capital intact. Some tenants got out when their lease was up in order to bide their time until prospects improved sufficiently to give the confidence to get back in.

I have pointed to what I am given to understand became quite a famous cartoon which appeared in Punch in 1879. It depicted a farmer who had given up his lease walking along the road. He met his landlord who was mounted on a fine horse and, who addressing the farmer, said: “Well Jackson, how do you like living on your capital?” To which the farmer replied, “None too well, my lord; but I find it cheaper than letting you live on it.” The coming of the railways brought many benefits to farmers such as easier and quicker movement of livestock, grain and roots, not forgetting manufactured goods and also coal.

But at the same time, they also took away many good farm workers who were attracted by higher wages both on the railways and in the towns. In fact, the number of farm workers halved between 1871 and 1911.

Some people wanted progress from farmers while others wanted tradition. Talk about history repeating itself!

Since writing last time about the two independent professors of law who, after much research, gave it as their view that the foot-and-mouth disease contiguous cull was illegal, I read that the order for the cull came not from MAFF but from 10 Downing Street no less. If I understand this correctly, it means we have a government treating some of its people unlawfully.

DEFRA appear to be rubbishing the finding of the law professors; well they would wouldn’t they? Could this also mean they are getting rattled? Could it be that someone will come forward with the money and the nous to take a test case to court? Or will a syndicate get together and have a go? You know me, I’m saying nowt, but..!

Dialect word: Stag meaning a colt or young horse.

Thought for the day: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.