AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



afterwards found defective and erroneous. That 

 particular covenants in a lease are obstacles to 

 improvements cannot be disputed; for the very 

 nature of a covenant supposes that the practise to 

 be regulated by it had arrived at its ne plus ultra, 

 and could not be mended. These covenants or 

 restrictions subsist more or less in every lease we 

 heard of; and the shorter the lease the more nu- 

 merous they are. . . . General rules of manage- 

 ment are very proper in leases, such as, to keep the 

 farm in good order, to consume all the straw 

 raised upon it, and to sell no dung. These restric- 

 tions we will allow; and every good farmer will 

 follow them whether he is bound to do so or not. 

 Nay, we will go farther if leases of a proper 

 duration were granted, it is very reasonable that 

 the property of the landlord should be protected 

 by restricting clauses for the three years previous 

 to their expiration. But after all, it will be found 

 that no clause can be inserted, besides the general 

 ones already mentioned, that will serve to enhance 

 the value of the land, except obliging the farmer 

 to leave a proportional quantity of such land in 

 grass at the expiration of the lease, and specifying 

 the manner in which that land is to be sown down. 

 Other clauses serve only to distress the farmer, 

 but will never promote the interests of the land- 

 lord." 1 



All the agricultural writers of the time were by 



1 Agricultural Survey, W. R. Yorkshire, pp. 42-44. 

 298 



