INJUSTICE TO SITTING TENANT IO5 



years, and paid rent for years, is a better judge of what is 

 a fair rent than the landlord. When bad times come and 

 grow worse, such a tenant asks for a moderate reduction 

 and is refused. He goes on — " during the last fourteen 

 years on encumbered and badly managed estates, old 

 tenants have been got rid of because the rent which they 

 considered fair was not so regarded by the landlord or his 

 agent. Others have been leant upon because they were 

 known to be well to do, attached to their farms, and 

 accordingly likely to pay excessive rents rather than 

 leave." Farms so vacated have been worked by the 

 owner at a loss, or let to some new man, with the result 

 that the rent promised was not paid in full, and the farm 

 deteriorated. Again " so many cases were related to me 

 of big reductions having been made to new tenants, and 

 even to sitting tenants who had let their farms down, but 

 either refused in toto, or extended in lesser quantity to 

 the better class of tenant, that it is clear the latter is 

 helpless. Under present conditions, the landlord is at 

 the mercy of the unscrupulous tenant, but has the honest, 

 upright man in his clutches. At present there is, on 

 many estates, a distinct penalty attached to good farming, 

 and a clear incentive to bad farming." 



Mr Rew reports a striking case from Devonshire. An 

 occupier of 500 acres for thirty-five years had his farm 

 on lease till five years ago. It was then re-valued by a 

 well-known valuer at ;^520. But the agent compelled 

 the tenant to pay ;^570 on renewal (yearly agreement). 

 The last three years an abatement of 10 per cent, has 

 been granted, but a permanent reduction of 15 to 20 

 per cent, is refused and the tenant told he may go. 



Mr Cooke gives the case of two farms in Cheshire. 

 In one the old tenant left and two successive new 

 tenants -have got reductions and heavy outlay by land- 

 lord in improvements. On the adjoining farm, where 

 the tenant has been improving all the while, he cannot 

 get a reduction at all. 



In a case like this, it is plain that the good tenant has 

 not only been paying too much, but has been paying for 

 the losses caused by the bad farming of his neighbours. 



