17—1846.] THE 
AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE. 277 
do, as there was (about to be an action at law in 
the case. Now his lease happened to occupy five skins, 
upon ascertaining which he said to him—“ ‘There is only 
one chance for you, and thatis this ; I never yet knew a 
lease of five skins, the beginning of which did not con- 
tradict the end.” (Hear, and a laugh) And so it 
turned out, and that saved the action. "There was in 
almost every lease very much more formal matter than 
there need be. All that was necessary might be accom- 
plished by two descriptions of covenant ; he would eall 
the first the * covenant of forfeiture"—that was to say, 
if the tenant chose to offend with his eyes open, there 
Should be an absolute forfeiture of the lease ; because 
-they would scarcely ever find a good farmer in such a 
position. They would not find a farmer who had a 
large amount of capital, and was really able to pay his 
outgoings, put himself in such a situation where there 
Were reserved rents or penalties, as to run the risk of 
forfeiture.’ As parts of the covenant of forfeiture (al- 
though no great friend to timber), he would include the 
act of cutting down any timber without the permission 
of the landlord, or of breaking up any land without such 
permission; and also insolvency, assigment, or non- 
residence. The next description of covenant which he 
proposed should be inserted, was the “ covenant of com- 
pensation.” In that he should include only one crop- 
ping, or mowing Grass or Clover without an extra 
artifieial dressing, for he did not think it answered to 
mow twice ; but if the farmer chose to mow Grass or 
Clover twice, why then he should give the land an arti- 
ficial dressing. He should certainly also think it an 
offence if the tenant took two white straw crops. With 
regard to manure he thought the tenant onght to be 
compelled to bring upon the land a quantity of manure 
equalin value to the hay or straw which he took off 
when converted into dung. He would make the same 
covenant binding as to the green produce, the neglect of 
Scouring ditches, keeping water-courses open, &c. Now 
he was far from thinking that he had embraced all the 
Matters which ought properly to come under these two 
eads. He had merely shown that there were certain 
acts which ought to be made covenants of forfeiture, 
and certain others which ought to be matters of com- 
pensation ; and if any damage were done, it should be 
paid for by the party who did it. He thought too that 
there should be in every lease a clause allowing the 
tenant to remove all buildings which he might have 
erected upon the farm during his occupancy, if the land- 
lord and the in-coming tenant refused to take and pay 
for them, He thought it would be useful that it should 
go forth from this club as a principle, that if the tenant 
put up bullock-houses, piggeries, &c., with a view to 
making the greatest profit of the farm, and the 
in-coming tenant did not see the use of them, he should 
be allowed to take them away. Another which’ he 
Proposed to insert was what he should call the general 
arbitration-clause ; that was to say, that in case of any 
dispute arising between the landlord and tenant, that it 
should become a matter for arbitration, and not a 
matter of legal inquiry ; and he thought that they 
would find that most of their best landlords would 
readily agree to such a clause in their leases. He 
could not, for a moment, think that any landlord would 
wish to go to law with his tenant, unless he wished to 
worry, tease, and perplex him ; and on the other hand, 
he could not suppose that the tenant would desire it, 
Unless he wished to worry, tease, and perplex his land- 
lord. Of course this told both ways ; and he thought 
arbitration was much better than going to law. He 
had also drawn outa form, which he called a “ cropping 
form ;” and which, although it might not be such as to 
meet the necessities of all cases, it had been acted upon 
Without any inconvenience being found to arise from it. 
t had been agreed to in several instances, both by 
landlords and tenants; it was, in fact, a species of 
Covenant which had been in practice in some parts of 
the country for some time. He (Mr. Beadell) usually 
Mserted a general clause, binding the tenant to farm 
According to the most approved system adopted in that 
Part of the country in which the lands were situated. 
Then the land was divided into certain portions, it 
Might be four, five, or six ; he had taken one-fourth of 
fallow with or without green crops, one-eighth in Clover 
mown only once, one-eighth in Beans and Peas, another 
Mm non-exhausting crops, and three-eighths in Wheat 
Crops, They must all know that there was much land 
that was better adapted to the growth of Barley than 
of Wheat, and he therefore thought that it ought to be 
left to the discretion of the tenant, whether he chose to 
have Wheat, Barley, or Oats; and he could not, for 
ais own part, sce that more mischief was likely to be 
done to land by one crop of white straw than by another. 
‘hey must bear in mind that, although there they were 
all good farmers and excellent fellows, there were such 
Persons as bad tenants. No lease in the world would 
, ver bind a bad tenant; and a lease became a one- 
Sided doeument where a tenant could not farm well. 
He begged also to say one or two words respecting per- 
Sons who farmed without capital ; they were the greatest 
enemies the good farmer had. They. increased the rent 
which the legitimate farmer had to pay ; and, supposing 
they had to go abroad to purchase corn, they just gave 
e foreigner a premium to the extent in which the 
Were themselves deficient in growth. .. He thought, 
therefore, that the bad farmer was a great injury to 
ae legitimate farmer, and wherever there were bad 
rmers, he hoped there would be those that would give 
them the hint: let it be remembered that where they 
had less twitch, they could grow a greater quantity of 
orn, With ‘regard to improvements, there was cer- 
tainly a difficulty on that point ; he could hardly see 
how the subject of improvements could be dealt with in 
been mown twice, and both crops sold ; they were sold 
by auction, and therefore did not fetch more than a fair 
leases. His notion of p p was, 
that they should be carried out by the landlord, and 
not by the tenant, In taking land which required 
draining, and would involve an outlay of 37. 10s. or 47. 
per acre, it was necessary to consider how many acres 
could be managed with the capital. He was talking the 
other day to à large landed proprietor, who told him 
that he was perfectly satisfied in buying land, provided 
he could make 3} per cent. of his money. He (Mr. 
Beadell) said—“ I don’t think you ought to be satisfied 
with 3% per cent. ; I think you ought to make more; 
I think you ought to make 6 per cent. It is much 
better to buy less land, improve it permanently, and 
make 6 per cent. of your money, than have a large 
quantity of land, and only make 34 percent.” Ifa man 
took the worst of land, wood-bound land, or land with 
water on it, and drained and improved it, what was the 
consequence ? Why, the tenant, who would not look at 
it before, was glad to take it then; and thus land which 
had been a byword and a reproach, was often brought 
into the best possible cultivation. —The Cuamman said 
he had drawn up a form of lease for the purpose of sub- 
mitting to the meeting on this occasion, and as the ob- 
ject wasto arrive at à form of lease securing to the 
tenant his rights and. interests, and at the same time to 
prevent any deterioration of the property of the land- 
lord, he thought it necessary that the lease should go 
prineipally to those two points. He had endeavoured 
to show, at the meeting of the club at which the sub- 
jeet of tenant-right was discussed, that there was great 
injury done to the property of the landlord by tenants 
endeavouring to get their improvements out of their 
farms before they left them, in consequence of their 
knowing that they should not be paid for them. It 
must be evident that the improvements of one tenant 
were the stepping-stone to those of another ; and surely 
it must be better for the incoming tenant to take and 
pay for these improvements than to allow the soil to be 
exhausted by the efforts of the outgoing tenant to get 
back his capital. In Essex a tenant takes a farm for 14 
years ; at the end of seven years it will be in excellent 
order for producing, but at that very period he begins 
to hesitate whether he shall go on, or whether it would 
not be wiser then to begin and take out the improve- 
ments; for if he allows them to remain to the end of 
theterm, they will induce others to offer a greater amount 
of rent for the farm than he can afford to give ; and 
he, therefore, in nine cases out of ten, sets about to 
reduce the farm to the same state as that in which he 
found it. Now, it must be perfectly manifest to every 
one that both the landlord and the tenant would be 
greatly benefited if they could be allowed to remain in 
the land, and if a fair compensation were paid for them, 
the rate of compensation being governed by the price 
of grain. The price of the quarter of corn would show 
what the landlord or in-coming tenant could afford to 
pay. But if there was a fixed money rent, and the 
di ply i 
price of corn was gly high or gly lo 
much injurymightbe suffered. In the formof lease which 
he had prepared, he had had a special eye to prevent- 
ing this.* It would be found that he had made several 
notes at the foot of the form of lease, respecting build- 
ings put up-by the tenant witliout the consent of the 
landlord, and that his proposition was, that either they 
should be removed by the out-going tenant, or taken at 
the value of the materials only. There were other 
clauses, about hay and straw: for instance, he had 
made no restriction regarding Clover ; but he had laid 
it down with respect to straw, that for every so many 
tons of straw carried away, so many tons of manure 
should be laid down, He had mentioned tons instead 
of loads, because the word “load” was indefinite and 
ambiguous ; what was a load in one place was not a 
load in another, There had been an objection raised 
with regard to a corn-rent, on account of the difficulty 
of fixing it equitably. But all difficulty might be ob- 
viated by taking an average of three years ; this would 
always form a fair basis of rent. In reply toa question, 
he here stated that he proposed, in reference to ma- 
nuring, that 1 ton of lime should be laid down for every 
ton of straw sold. There was another covenant re- 
lating to a corn-rent, according to which the rent would 
be represented by a certain amount of produce in corn. 
He had also laid down the principle that the tenant 
should not exhaust the land, but receive compensation 
for improvements effected ; and if, on the other hand, 
the tenant caused any deterioration in the value of 
the landlord’s property, then a deduction should be 
made upon a valuation; the object being to protect 
the landlord as well as to give security to the tenant. 
There was one matter of considerable importance 
upon which he differed in opinion from Mr. Beadell 
and many other gentlemen, namely, that with re- 
gard to the mowing of Clover a second time. All 
leases restricted.the tenant from mowing’ Clever more 
than onee. Now,he had seen as good Wheat grown 
after mowing the Clover twice as after feeding it. There 
was thing so peculiarly 2 to the land in 
the shading of Clover, as to make the second mowing 
fully commensurate with feeding. . There was not the 
amount of advantage derived from feeding in regard to 
manure that was generally supposed, for the dung de- 
posited was nearly all evaporated by the heat of the 
sun, (Hear, hear.) Asan evidence of the correctness 
of his views, he might remind them that Clover was 
not worth more than from 30s. to 50s., or at the most 
60s. an acre ; and he knew a case of 20 acres having 
* For form of lease see another page, 
pr both crops sold for 365/. Now, he wished to 
ask whether, in cases where they could mow, anything 
in the shape of feeding could compensate for this. Why, 
the Clover paid for the crop of Wheat itself, whereas, if 
it had been fed, it could not have produced SJ. per acre. 
Clover, carried into the yard, would maintain a vast 
quantity more stock than it could possibly maintain 
by feeding, and therefore it was that he thought the 
tenant should not be prevented from mowing twice, 
if he thought proper. — Mr. Hurrry said: With 
reference to Mr. Baker's form of lease, he could not 
agree to the principle of giving up all rights to game in 
favour of the landlord, which he regarded as giving the 
independent tenants’ right away- He thought they 
ought to recomaend that which was useful and bene- 
ficial. The tenant ought to preserve and take care of 
the game for the landlord, but he was as much entitled 
to kill it as the landlord himself ; he held that the man 
who maintained the game ought to be allowed to shoot 
it.—'The Cuarrman said he believed it had been held in 
all cases that, unless the lease reserved to the landlord 
the entire right to the game, and precluded the tenant 
altogether from sporting, he (the tenant) was not pre- 
cluded. They could not suppose that a gentleman who 
was fond of game would give up'his right in this re- 
spect; a gentleman often invested his money in an 
estate for the sole pleasure of shooting ; and it he bad 
an estate which he was about to let, he would certainly 
reserve this right. He would not preclude the tenant 
from shooting, but he would reserve the right for him- 
self also.—Mr. Tuomas next rose, and after some pre- 
liminary remarks, said, a new plan had recently been 
adopted of letting farms on a 16 or 20 years’ lease ; and 
the rent of the first four years was assessed at a certain 
number of quarters of Wheat or Barley, according to 
the price of the period. At the expiration of the first 
four years, the price of corn was taken from the ave- 
rages published in the Gazette, and the rent again 
fixed ; and so on at the end of each four years until the 
term of the lease had expired. This plan had not been 
adopted without very long and very mature considera- 
tion ; and he must say upon reflection, that he did nos 
think a system more honest and more satisfac- 
tory could be found. Now with regard to the 
period for which a lease ought to be granted, 
he thought it must be clear to every one, that a 
term less than 16 or 20 years was scarcely suflicient to 
allow the tenant to reap the reward which he. ought to 
receive for his exertions. He ought to have that fixity 
of tenure which would inspire every farmer with hope, 
and give him a pleasure, in cultivating his farm, which 
he could not have if he thought it would pass out of his 
hands. In leases of farms upon which there was land 
which wanted draining, the landlord might, in default 
of the tenant doing it, enter upon tbe farm, drain tbe 
land, and charge him 6 per cent. for the outlay ; and 
he did not think that the tenant could complain of the 
, | outlay which his own neglect had caused his landlord to 
make for him. With regard to the sale of straw and 
hay on the farm, the practice with him was to bring 
back a certain quantity of dung in lieu of it, On the 
subject of mowing Clover twice, he begged to say that 
in the ease of red Clover, he had found it more profit- 
able to mow it than to feed it down with sheep ; indeed, 
he never in one instance found that the crops of Wheat 
had not been finer and larger than when fed down by 
sheep. Respecting the question of game, he must say 
that he felt strongly : to introduce an enormous quan- 
tity of game on a farm was, in some instances, almost 
equal to doubling the rent ; and when a landlord chose 
to keep a large stock of game, the efforts of the farmer 
must become almost paralysed. He trusted that he 
should never hold up his hand for a lease in which the 
landlord kept a quantity of game, and claimed the right 
of killing it all himself. A plan had recently been hit 
upon in his neighbourhood, which was found to work 
very well: it was an arrangement to the effect that the 
landlord should shoot all the feathered game, and the 
tenant all the quadrupeds ; and this appeared to give 
satisfaction to both parties. He thought this was sound 
in principle, and calculated to keep up good feeling 
between landlord and tenant.—Mr. Woop said with 
regard to a corn rent—1 think there are many means 
of preventing loss by inerease or decrease in the value 
of money. We all know that many persons have been 
ruined by the fluctuations in the value of money, and 
not by their own want of providence or skill, I think 
it might be defined in this way—I won't state this- 
as my own notion: it was mentioned to me by a 
friend of mine, as a plan for paying a fixed money rent 
half-yearly, of a certain sum, say 250/. At the end of 
five years, take ihe average Gazette prices of so many 
bushels of Wheat, Beans, Oats, or Barley, according to- 
the nature of the land; then strike a balance between. 
the amount paid in pounds sterling, and the amount. 
aecording to the value of the corn, the landlord or 
tenant paying the difference as the case may be. I 
think this would be a very good way of obviating any 
difficulty with respect to manures, draining, and general 
improvements of the farm ; these may easily be come 
at; and the value might be arrived at with greater ac- 
euracy, if the tenant, in carrying out his manures, sent 
in from time to time an account of the same, so as to 
enable the landlord to ascertain the quantity and quality, 
as also of the value of the draining, in respect of which 
compensation would be claimed. Y perfectly coincide 
in all that has been said about game and farm buildings. 
I have merely thrown out the suggestion for sending in 
