Philip Pusey / [Sir Ernest Clarke].

  • Clarke, Ernest, Sir.
Date:
1900
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Philip Pusey / [Sir Ernest Clarke]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/24 page 12
    improvements; but they did not meet with much sympathy from the Uppsr House, so that Pusey prepared a very modest measure, which he submitted to the House of Commons. It was a private member’s Bill; it was attacked vehemently by Colonel Sibthorp and other members of the same school ; in 1847 it was withdrawn ; in 1848 Mr. Newdigate forestalled Pusey by moving fora Select Committee to consider the whole subject; in 1849 the Bill passed the Commons, and got as far as a second reading in the Lords ; in 1850 it again passed the Commons—much mutilated—and in the Upper House Lord Portman moved, not very enthusiastically, the second reading. Lord Beaumont, however, thought1 “ the Bill so objectionable that it was not worth going into committee upon,” and it was resolved, without a division, that it be read a second time that day six months. Pusey did not try the fortunes of the Bill again, but the Select Committee of 1848, of which he was Chairman, collected a body of evidence, and presented a report of great value, which, after a lapse of twenty-seven years, reaped its reward. Mr. Disraeli, in moving the second reading of the ministerial Agricultural Hold¬ ings Bill on June 24, 1875, paid a warm tribute to Mr. Pusey’s exertions in the matter, observing that “ Mr. Pusey was the first person to introduce into this House the term ‘ tenant right,’ ” and detailing his efforts towards legislation on the subject. The Prime Minister observed : “ When he ultimately relinquished the struggle, he said to me, ‘ it was the only blot in the agricultural hierarchy ’—the fact that the tenant-at-will had no security for the capital which he ought to be encouraged to invest in the soil.” And Mr. Disraeli added—what is perhaps Pusey’s best eulogium—“ Mr. Pusey was, both by his lineage, his estate, his rare accomplishments, and fine abilities, one of the most distinguished country gentlemen who ever sat in the House of Commons.”2 It is significant that the original champion of Farmers’ Tenant Bight should have been a typical landowner ; but the fact is that at the time of the original agitation for the alteration of the law of agricultural tenures, the demand did not proceed from the tenant farmers. It is clear from Pusey’s writings that the soil in different parts of the country urgently needed improve¬ ment in various directions, such as draining, marling and chalk¬ ing, and that a magnificent return was anticipated for those who embarked their capital upon such operations. Indications of the groove in which Pusey’s mind was running on the subject of 1 Hansard, vol. cxii. p. 855. 2 Ibid, vol. ccxxv. pp. 450-7.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3