THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



15 



LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



Sir, — The auomaloua and iusecure position of the tenant 

 farmer, as regards his relationehip with his laodlord, is greater 

 than is generally known or may be believed. It is thought by 

 those not intimately acquainted with the agricultural interest 

 that the farniero are a contented well-to-do class of men, who 

 cultivate the farms they occupy with as much spirit and skilly 

 HUd with the same confidence in the security of their invest- 

 ments, as if the land was their own. To talk of the insecure 

 position of the tenant farmer to some people would be treated 

 as a ridiculous idea; yet bold as the assertion may seem, there 

 is no class of the community who live more upon sufferance, 

 who are so shackled in the exercise of their avocations, and 

 who have so little security for the amount of capital which 

 they may invest in the cultivation and improvement of the 

 land, as the tenant occupiers of this country. 



The tenure under which the farmer holds his land is for the 

 short period of twelve months, and a tenancy of this nature is 

 contingent on sis months' notice to quit or of quitting. This 

 is the mode of tenure under which, I may venture to say, 

 99 farms in every hundred are held; and can such a system, I 

 would ask, be calculated to make the cultivator of the soil that 

 independent being he is — ironically, I presume — called? or is it 

 a system that ia likely to induce him to invest his capital and 

 employ his energies in the permanent improvement of the 

 property of which he is but the occupier for the limited period 

 of twelve months, and or which he may be deprived even at 

 six mouths' notice on the will or caprice of his landlord or his 

 landlord's agent ? A tenant " at will," as a yearly tenant is 

 denominated, and not inappropriately, may under some land, 

 lords feel himself safe of continuing upon his farm as long as 

 he lives, provided he cultivates his land in a creditable man- 

 ner, and is content to plod on in the "even tenour of his way," 

 careful to give no offence to his landlord or those under him. 

 This feeling too may be enttrtaiued by tenants under a good 

 and liberal-minded landlord, who takes an interest in the 

 comfort and well-being of his tenants, and who dees not leave 

 the absolute management of his estate to creatures who, 

 " Dress'd in a little brief authority, 



Pi^y such fantastic tricks before high Heav'n 



As make the angels weep !" 



But even under the most favourable circumstances the position 

 of the tenant-occupier is not the less insecure or the less de- 

 pendent. A tenant "at will" is in continual fear of doing 

 or saying something which might not accord with the views 

 or meet the approbation of his landlord, or more especially 

 his landlord's agent or sub-agent; and though he may not al- 

 together sacri6ce his independency of opinion or action, his 

 own self-interest will induce him to be guarded in the expres- 

 sion of the one, and perhaps prevent him from the exercise of 

 the other. The limited tenure of his hoWitig, which he may 

 for many reasons be anxious to retain, naturally renders him 

 more or less subservient to the wishes and caprices of the 

 " powers that be." And no matter whether we take the 

 tenant-farmer in his position as an occupier, a parishioner, o^ 

 a politician, he is equally dependent, or if not dependent, he is 

 at least constrained in his opinions and acts. 



It is, howewer, more with regard to the insecure position of 

 the farmer as an occupier, that I wish to treat upon. The 

 conditions upon which he holds his farm are such as must 

 necessarily prevent him from embarking his capital to the ex- 

 tent which he might under different circumstances feel dis- 



posed to do, in cultivating the land to the best advantage 

 There is a wide difference between the investment of capital in 

 ordinary commercial transactions, and in the permanent im 

 provement of land, &c.,by a tenant occupier. In the former case 

 the employment of capital is temporary.audleft toa person'sown 

 judgment and discrimination : the risk is his own, the profit his 

 own. In the latter case its employment is a matter of contingent 

 speculation, and for which no commensurate return can be ex- 

 pected for years, besides the uncertainty and insecurity of the 

 tenant's occupancy. Thus it is that a farmer who holdg his 

 land from year to year, and is subject to six months' notice to 

 quit, is deterred from investing his money in any permanent 

 improvements. His practice is — I am now speaking generally— 

 to expend no more than he can see a reasonable prospect of a 

 return, in the event of his having to quit his occupation and 

 can he be blamed for his carefulness and caution ? The agri- 

 culturists have been censured by certain parties, as slow to 

 adopt improved systems, and as not progressing so rapidly as 

 they ought in agricultural perfection. But if such be the fact^ 

 which in part, at least, is open to question, is it owing to the 

 want of knowledge, capital, and enterprise on their part, or to 

 the short and precarious tenure under which they hold their 

 farms ? I admit at once, that the energies of the English far- 

 mer, taking him as a class, have not been brought to bear to the 

 extent which may be desirable upon the cultivation of the soil, 

 nor will thsy ever be under the present system of occupation 

 from year to year. What the farmer wants is a more length- 

 ened tenancy than twelve months, and more enlightened and 

 liberal covenants. Under a yearly occupancy he has no fair 

 prospect of remuneration for his outlay, and consequently he 

 tries to make the most of the land for the time being. What 

 he puts-in one year, he, like a sensible man, takes out the next, 

 knowing full well that unless he steers his course tolerably 

 clear of the " breakers a-head" in the shape of agents and sub- 

 agents, he is the tenant one Lady- day, and kicked off the farm 

 the next. As regards liberal covenants, that is a concession 

 which the farmer must not expect under a yearly tenancy. A 

 short tenancy and stringent agreements are inseparable. Co- 

 ercion and liberality cannot go hand in hand. A " tenant-at- 

 will" is simply a tenant on sufferance ; and it is beyond the 

 bounds of common sense to suppose that he can have the same 

 inducement to properly cultivate, much less to permanently 

 improve, the property he occupies, as he would if he had an 

 interest in it for a longer period. Hence, too, the precaution, 

 under the existing system of annual tenancies, cf stringent 

 agreements — necessary perhaps for the security of the landlord 

 against a designing tenant deteriorating the land or premises ; 

 but operating m.ost injuriously against an honest man, who 

 takes a farm, as he does his wife, " for better for worse," and 

 who has no higher ambition than to live respectably, and keep 

 his home. 



The importance of the farmer is not fully recognised either 

 by his landlord or by the Legislature. The interests of the 

 landlord and the tenant are identical, yet no legislative provi- 

 sion exists for the protection and security of the latter. He 

 may expend his capital in building, in drainage, and the gene- 

 ral improvement of the laud he occupies, and enhance its 

 value from 10 tc 100 per cent. ; yet in the event of his leaving, 

 either voluntarily or compulsorily, the la^j will give him no 

 claim, no compensation for the improvements effected. It is 

 true that for labour and management applied to the land the 



