46 



gift to his saccessor. Still less can the glebeownei' obtain 

 compensation for di-ainage, or for a long course of liberal 

 farming, for bones, chalk, clay, artificial manure, or feeding-stuffs 

 consumed on the holding. The Legislature has admitted that 

 the maxim, " Quicquid plantatur solo accedit solo," is absurd in 

 its application to tenants ; it compensates the tenant for the 

 additional value which his enterprise and capital has bestowed 

 upon his land ; it has practically conceded that without this 

 compensation agriculture cannot be successfully practised. 

 Yet for the unfortunate glebeowner the Legislature retains 

 in all its vigour this obsolete maxim ; and legislators denounce 

 glebe farms as a standing reproach to English agriculture. It 

 penalises the clergy by an excessive handicap, and sneers 

 because they are last in the race. Shall we apportion the 

 blame? How many of the assailants would have done what 

 the abused class of glebeowners have done? It is no slight 

 proof of the public spirit by which glebeowners have been 

 animated, that they have sunk so much private capital iu the 

 land — an outlay which cannot benefit their children, an outlay 

 for which they have no security, which yields the smallest and 

 most uncertain interest, and which by the operation of the 

 Dilapidation Acts is often the source of further loss. The 

 majority have struggled, though their loss was certain and 

 immediate, to keep the land going and to restore it to better 

 condition. Another circumstance renders this outlay still 

 more unselfish. In ordinary tenancies there exists an implied 

 contract to cultivate in a husband-like manner. The tenant- 

 farmer is open to a counter-claim on the part of the landlord 

 for a breach of this implied covenant. No such contract 

 exists between an incoming and outgoing incumbent. If the 

 land is allowed to fall out of cultivation the outgoing incumbent 

 incurs no liability to his successor. 



While the Agricultural Holdings Act thus dangles before the 

 eyes of the glebeowner a security which his tenant enjoys, but 

 from which he himself is debarred, the Act has in another 

 resiDCct proved an unmixed evil to the parson. Not only does 

 it refuse to relieve him of the millstone round his neck, but 

 it hangs a fresh weight thereon. In all contracts with 

 regard to the land it arms the tenant-farmer with a weapon 

 which makes him master of the situation. Suppose a living 

 changes hands. The new incumbent goes to the tenant, and 

 says, " Well, Mr. A., I suppose you will go on on the old terms." 

 " Oh, dear, no," says the farmer, " I want a reduction of so 

 much per cent, on my rent, and such and such improvements." 

 " I can't do it," replies the parson. "Very well," retorts the 

 farmer, " then I throw up, and bring my claim for nnexhausted 

 improvements against you." If the parson refuses to 



