The Mismanagement of Landed Property. 375 



for this. Perhaps, however, the chief and universal defect in 

 every agreement of the period was the absence of all reference 

 to compensation for unexhausted improvements. Without that 

 the lease, in contradistinction to the yearly agreement, was a 

 necessity ; but with the addition of a fair arrangement on this 

 head few modern agriculturists, except under unusual circum- 

 stances, will advocate any longer term of tenancy than that 

 provided by the yearly contract. In Northumberland and 

 Cumberland the tenant was compelled to lime, manure and 

 fallow one-third of the tillage lands and to lay down and keep 

 them in grass at least two or three years. In Durham he was 

 restricted in his husbandry and made to bare-fallow at fixed 

 intervals. In Yorkshire, on the estates of the Duke of Norfolk 

 and other advanced landlords, the covenants are strikingly 

 similar to those of the present day. Of course there is no 

 mention of unexhausted improvements, but the tenant has to 

 consume hay and straw on the premises, dung a part of his 

 meadow land annually, not have more than one-fourth of the 

 farm under the plough at one time, and is compelled to pay a 

 penalty of £10 per acre for all old pasture converted into 

 tillage. In Northamptonshire the tenants were restricted as 

 to their husbandry and sales of produce. In Wiltshire similar 

 regulations were in force, though the main peculiarity of the 

 leases was a clause compelling the tenant to keep up a full 

 tlock of sheep. In Somersetshire, where the grasslands were 

 most prized, the tenants were not allowed to convert tillage 

 into pasturage or meadow, or to pare or burn the turf, or to 

 mow any field two years in succession, or to plant potatoes 

 for sale. They were obliged to spend all hay and straw on 

 the premises and leave all dung and straw of the last j'^ear's 

 making for the succeeding tenant. 



Though the engrossing of farms had no deterrent effects on 

 population, it must have had on husbandry. The process of 

 consolidating several holdings into one has been already de- 

 scribed elsewhere ; its influence on cultivation was as follows. 

 One individual monopolised as many different farms as he 

 could get possession of These were often situated wide of 

 each other and were each occupied by an underling, paid at 



