•22 



JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



customs which have survived from the old times when the tenant was 

 usually dependent on his lord for the necessaries of this kind, i.e. before 

 railways and other means of transit for building materials were in 

 existence. It will be observed, however, that the rights in question are 

 really matters of agricultural necessity, and with all due diffidence I 

 venture to suggest that the ordinary private householder would find it 

 difficult to assert any rights of this kind in the present day. 



It will be seen therefore that unless our amateur makes a special 

 bargain with his landlord he is bound almost hand and foot. He must 

 not cut down, nor, strictly speaking, may he even transplant the trees, 

 even those which he may himself plant during his tenancy. He must 

 not cut down or remove the plants or bushes, and in short he must do 

 nothing but take those steps which are calculated to improve the growth 

 of whatever he may find growing in the garden or afterwards plant there. 

 For instance, it has been held that a tenant must not grub up or destroy 

 a quickset hedge of white thorn even if he replaces it with something 

 else ; though, on the other hand, he may cut a quickset hedge and may 

 keep the trimmings, "because the hedge will grow better by reason 

 thereof." (Although this is good husbandry one must remember that the 

 agricultural rules as to "good husbandry" do not apply to private 

 gardens, and it w T as held a hundred years ago that they do not even 

 affect nursery gardens.) The tenant has, however, the right to windfalls 

 of decayed timber and of such trees as are not timber ; but sound timber 

 which has fallen belongs to the landlord, " because it is useful for 

 building." 



Timber. 



It frequently happens that in a lease of a house with ornamental 

 grounds the landlord reserves all rights in respect of timber and timber- 

 like trees. This should be objected to by the tenant if possible, because 

 it would enable the landlord to enter and cut down such trees as he 

 thought fit without paying the tenant any compensation. In certain old 

 cases it has even been held that a landlord may erect saw-pits on the 

 tenant's land, so as to cut up this timber, provided he does not take an 

 unreasonable time in so doing ; but I confess I should not care to advise 

 the landlord of the present day to attempt to take liberties of this kind 

 with his tenant's garden. Where, however, the landlord reserved the 

 right to timber trees, but the tenant expended money with the knowledge 

 and consent of the landlord in laying out and improving the grounds on 

 the assumption that certain trees, on which the beauty of the scheme of 

 improvement depended, should be left standing, the Court interfered to 

 prevent the landlord from cutting down those trees, thus making a useful 

 exception to the general rule. 



This brings us to the question, " AY hat is timber in the eyes of the 

 taffi ? " and at once we are carried back to a very ancient period of history. 

 In the ancient feudal times of which I have already spoken one 

 must remember that houses were not made of brick, but of wood. 

 Consequently trees which were suitable for building purposes were 

 extremely valuable and were jealously guarded by the law, so that 

 although a tenant was entitled to his " betes," or right to take wood in 



