20 ON THE HISTORY OF LEASES OF LANDS 



restrictive conditions, the tenant is as much to blame as the 

 landlord ; for the contract is not — or at all events, should not 

 he — unilateral. But the progress of agriculture in more en- 

 lightened times seems to demand lease-clavises leading to farther 

 improvement, rather than those retrograde ones to which refer- 

 ence has been made ; and in that direction notice will be taken 

 of some clauses which either in themselves or through the law 

 which regulates them are highly prejudicial. 



The clause of destination requires scrupulous examination ; for 

 a tenant for a term not exceeding twenty-one years, even althougli 

 assignees and sub-tenants be not excluded, cannot assign his in- 

 terest in the lease. He cannot, even by will, alter the destination 

 from the heir-at-law without the landlord's consent. As any- 

 thing which lessens the tenant's interest in the holding neces- 

 sarily reduces its value to him, so a lease which gives the power 

 to assign and sublet will be more valuable than one in which 

 such a privilege is withheld. It is not even clear that with this 

 privilege the landlord's interest could more than ordinarily suffer, 

 tor the assignee is liicely to be drawn from the same class, and he 

 certainly will be bound by the same conditions as the assigner. 

 Perhaps the greatest security of all would be that the success of 

 the assignee runs parallel with the interests of the landlord, in 

 addition to which the assigner would in most cases, as much as 

 the landlord, be interested in the assignee being an eligible tenant. 

 But rather than tliat this privilege should not be conceded by 

 law, aiid the exclusion of assignees and sub-tenants withdrawn 

 from the conditions of lease, the assigner should become bound 

 with his assignee. Trustees for behoof of the tenant or bona fide 

 creditors should also participate in the benefits of assignation ; 

 for misfortune may come upon any one, and if friends or relations 

 interpose for the purpose of extricating the sufi'erer it is not easy 

 to perceive that the landlord would be anything the worse of 

 such an arrangement. 



Game has perhaps more than anything else caused ill-feeling 

 and litigation between landlord and tenant, and as yet no 

 adequate remedy has been afforded by legislation. The Game 

 Bill of 1877 is bad in principle, for it first allows the damage to 

 be done, and a claim for compensation is almost certain to cause 

 annoyance, repeated litigation, and in the end insufficient re- 

 muneration. Mutual rights to the game seem the only satis- 

 factory settlement, and as regards its working, the writer is 

 assured by a landlord of considerable experience that the dis- 

 charge of his gamekeepers, and trusting his tenants instead, 

 resulted in as good sport and the cementing of better relations 

 lietween them. It is not generally known that in Scotland the 

 right to game — apart from agreement altogether — is inherent in 

 the proprietor, and consequently does not require to be reserved. 



