1803. Review of Air BelPs Treat ife on Leafes* 33|^ 



do fo where it is conneded with his own convenicncy ; of courfe, he 

 mull be entitled to make a road for himfelf through the moil conve- 

 nient part of the farm. But this will fcarcely be faid to be within the 

 power of the landlord ; and yet the power of excluding the landlord 

 from ufing a road, implies in it the power of excluding him from thofe 

 individual aAs of trefpafs, of which the road is the aggregate ; or we 

 muft fay, that a landlord, though he cannot pafs through the fields of 

 his tenant for his convenience, may do it for his amufcment. 



* It may perhaps appear to be a flrong argument in favour of the 

 landlord, that no oppolition to the excrcife of this privilege lias hither- 

 to been made by the tenantry of this country. But when the fitua- 

 tion of that tenantry, and the ftate of huftsandry, is confidercd, it ought 

 not to appear furprifing, that a queftion oF tliis kifx5 fliould occur on- 

 ly when attention begins to be paid to the true interefts of agriculture ; 

 and the fame found policy which at one lime prescribed hunting as a 

 means of national llrengt^, ought now, with the fame view, to pro- 

 teft with equal care the of>erations of the farmer. But how can fuch 

 an argument have weight, when it was only laft day that Lord Breadal- 

 bane vindicated, for the firft time, the right of proprietors, and, by the 

 the deciiion of a Court, protected their unenclofed property from the 

 foot of the hunter ? 



* It were ftrange, indeed, (hould the law prote£l the moft barren 

 hill In the Highlands, a property incapable of damage, while It is un- 

 able to proted the rich enclofed held of the farmer from the deftru(flive 

 intrufion of men, and horfes and dogs, and all thoi'e followers who do 

 not fail to attend on fuch occafioiis ; intrufions, which muft derange 

 the operations on which the individual fuccefs of the farmer, as well 

 as the advantage of the country at large, muft depend. It Is true, he 

 would be entitled to redrefs, but that redrefs which a tenant might find 

 in a Court of law, is one to which no prudent man will retort. And 

 whether a burden of this kind ought, in the prefcnt ftate of huft^andry, 

 to be impofed on the operations of the farmer, is a queftion that merits 

 a very ferious and deliberate difcufilon. 



« This is a point which being once fuggefted, the peace, as well as 

 the intereft of the parties requires that it ihould be put to rtft by a 

 judgment In the laft refort ; it will other ways remain as a fource of dif- 

 pute, to which the landlord or tenant may equally refort, as a means of 

 gratifying ill humour. ' 



Chapter Sixth treats of tlie means by which the tenant's in- 

 4erell in the leafe is transferred, viz. i. By affignation, of which 

 a form is given, and analyfis of the claufes of it j and, 2. By 

 fub-leafe. 



The Seventh Chapter explains the rules of fuccelTion to the in- 

 terefts of landlord and tenant in the leafe, and the nature of the 

 title required in the perfon of the heir of tlie tenant. Some nice 

 queftions are here confidered with regard to vhat the executors 

 of a landlord are entitled to fucceed to of tb.e -rents, and v/hat 



H h h 4 the 



