44 ^'^ Buifetl'uig of Land. Jan. 



rer, and by what means, the boor procures his livelihood, fo 

 he do but regularly pay his obrok^ or rent 5 and that, under this 

 adjuftmcnt, the latter is in fome fort his own mafter, being 

 free to difpofe of his activity, as well as of the (hare of the 

 foil committed to him. Were tenants in this country allowed 

 in like manner to alienate their property, and to change their 

 fituation, they would certainly poflefs no more right than is 

 already enjoyed by the reft of the community. 



But what injury would the landed intercft fuftain from the 

 exercife of fuch a right ? Would the rent be lefs fecured, or 

 the preftations of the leafe more imperfectly implemented, 

 when the tenant alienated and difpofed his leafe in favour of 

 another ? An unprejudiced perfon would rather be led to 

 think that additional obligations would create additional fe- 

 curity for the faithful difcharge of the burthens originally 

 contracted, as that any injury would be fuftained by the alie- 

 pation of the leafe, and the change of the tenant. 



We come now to the remark — That the withholding a right 

 to fubfet is founded on good fenfe and found policy \ — and 

 we may inquirpj where the fenfe or the policy of the refufal 

 is to be found. In no refper t can the landlord's intereft be 

 injured ; on the contrary, as already faid, it is additionally 

 protected, by two or more ptrfons being concerned in the 

 tranfaCtion. The refufal, therefore, is rather an inftance of 

 a lack, than a proof of fenfe j and as for the policy of with- 

 holding the right, it is equally undifcoverable. It is obvious, 

 that the majority of fubfets would proceed from the inabili- 

 ty of the original tenant to keep his poffeirion, or from a de- 

 fire to change his fituation in life. In the firft cafe, the farm 

 cannot be properly cultivated ; and in the other, the tenant 

 may leave the premifes under the management of a fervant ; 

 rJgainft which praCtice, no law has as yet been eftablifhed. 

 In both cafes, the property may be deteriorated, and at any 

 rate it will not be improved 5 whereas, if a fubfet had been 

 allowed, a fuperior tenant might have been procured, whofe 

 capital was fufficient for the undertaking, and whofe incli- 

 nations led him to follow after rural affairs* Again, in the 

 firft cafe, a perfon is obliged to continue in poffeffion till his 

 affairs are totally embarraffed ; and, in the other, he muft 

 abide like a fixture upon the premifes, or commit his affairs 

 to the direction of others. Let thefe things be duly confi- 

 dered, and the impolicy of withholding the right contended 

 for, will be clearly difcernible. 



Under every view of the matter, the landlord cannot be in- 

 jured by the exercife of this right. It may be faid, he is enti- 

 tled to chufe his tenant •, and that, by fubfetting, he may get 

 a difagreeable perfon upon his eftate. Thefe objections have 



UttlQ 



