404 



The Country Gentleman! s Magazine 



ment ought to do on the subject if it does 

 anything. Now, as to the first point, I do 

 not hesitate to say that in many, perhaps in 

 most, parts of the country game-preserving 

 has been carried a great deal too far. If a 

 man wants to carry it on to the extent that 

 some landowners do, let him take what land 

 he requires into his own hands and bear the 

 expense and loss himself. But when we 

 come to speak of legislation, I think that if 

 I were a farmer I would consider twice before 

 I asked for the repeal of the Game Laws. 

 First, because a change of that kind in the law 

 would naturally lead to a general re-valuation 

 of farms; and farms in England are habitually 

 let at a lower rate than they would fetch if 

 competed for in open market. Secondly, and 

 perhaps this is the more important reason, 

 because in a country like this you never can 

 have, you never will have, a stringent and 

 effective law of trespass. The public would 

 neither consent to its being passed, nor allow 

 it to be enforced if it were passed. And in 

 the case of a Lancashire farmer, who lives in 

 a populous district with many large towns 

 near him, and lots of idle lads about, I sus- 

 pect he would find that the liability to have 

 his hedges broken and his fields trampled by 

 every set of young fellows who took it into 

 their heads to see if they could find a part- 

 ridge or a hare on his ground, would be a 

 good deal worse than any occasional damage 

 to crops to which he is now exposed. 

 Against mischief of that kind he would have 

 no practical remedy, or none which would not 

 cost him more in law than he could possibly 

 get back in damages. That is a part of the 

 question which has not been much noticed, 

 and I think it deserves attention. Various 

 plans have been put forward for giving the 

 game— ground game at least — to the tenant 

 instead of the landlord. But all of them 

 that I have seen are open to this objection, 

 that, if the landlord and tenant are to con- 

 tract freely for the letting of farms, it is im- 

 possible for the law to prevent the landlord 

 from reserving the right of shooting; and if, 

 as some people contend, such a reservation 

 is to be made illegal, then you are landed 

 in this absurdity, that the tenant who may 



shoot on his own account, may also let the 

 shooting to any human being whom he pleases 

 to select with the single exception of his own 

 landlord. On the whole I think the matter 

 will be found a very awkward one to deal 

 with by law, and what I should wish to see 

 — what I hope to see — is, that by modera- 

 tion on both sides the necessity for any 

 large legislative measure may be averted. 



LEASES AND UNEXHAUSTED IMPROVEMENTS. 



There are two other matters which we 

 may have to discuss — the question of leases, 

 and the question of compensation to tenants 

 for unexhausted improvements. Now, as to 

 leases, I will tell you exactly what I think : 

 I hold that any improving tenant who wants 

 a lease of 14 or 21 years may fairly be 

 allowed to have one ; and I am not in favour 

 of clogging leases with more than a few simple 

 conditions. But, then, the bargain must not 

 be all on one side. If the landowner con- 

 sents to put his farm out of his own control 

 for a term of years, he must be free morally, 

 as he is free legally, to renew the contract or 

 not at the end of the term, as he thinks best. 

 In practice I cannot call to mind that on the 

 estates with which I am connected any de- 

 mand for additional security of tenure has 

 ever been addressed to me, and I gather that 

 so far as this part of the country is con- 

 cerned, there is no particular feeling on the 

 subject. So far from landowners using their 

 power harshly in respect of changes of 

 tenantry, I think they may more justly be 

 accused of erring in an opposite direction. 

 Many an incapable and nearly insolvent 

 tenant is kept on from the natural reluctance 

 to break an old connexion. And though 

 that is, perhaps, a weakness and a mistake, 

 it is a mistake which we all commit, and a 

 weakness of which nobody is much ashamed. 

 As to claims for unexhausted improvements, 

 it is scarcely possible in the time at our dis- 

 posal to discuss the limits within which they 

 are just. In some cases, as, for instance, 

 where artificial manures have been used, I 

 apprehend that these claims are regulated by 

 a local custom which is well understood. 

 Where a tenant has a lease they generally 



