346 
Agriculture of Norfolli. 
besides the objection to them already named, they are objected to 
on this principle — as being binding on the landlord in times of 
high prices, but not on the tenant when agricultural produce is 
depreciated in value. This objection (of their not being binding 
on the tenants in times of low prices) is, I believe, seldom made 
by those possessing sufficient practical knowledge of cultivation to 
enable them to appreciate properly the great advantages of having 
a farm in high condition — which I suppose it would be in if held 
under lease, or covenants of security to the tenant's capital. In- 
deed, I would venture to submit, that if Great Britain were divided 
into three parts, and each let separately under one of the following 
agreements, all the land might be cultivated in the highest possible 
manner ; for, although this division would allow each owner and 
each tenant to select the one agreement best suited to his own feel- 
ings, all would be so far founded on justice to the party who ex- 
pended his capital for the improvement of the soil, as to insure the 
most liberal outlay of it. 
1st. Leases. 
2nd. Insert a clause in the lease granted, under which the 
owner should have the power to cancel it, on giving 
18 months' notice, and paying to the tenant such sum 
as two arbitrators (one for each party) should think a 
fair compensation to the tenant for his permanent im- 
provements, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the 
case affecting landlord or tenant. 
3rd. By giving the tenant a clause, under an agreement as a 
yearly tenancy, by which he would be entitled to a fair 
and equitable allowance, for all permanent improvements 
made at his expense, but with the sanction of the owner, 
on written notice of such intended improvements having 
been given to the latter or his agent, and not having been 
answered within a given period, or in time to prevent 
that outlay which the owner of the land would not 
sanction. 
I have known an instance in Lincolnshire in which some large 
farms were held by one person as yearly tenancies, but with a 
covenant similar to the last above suggested ; and in 21 years the 
whole of the land was chalked, without costing the owner 6J. 
The tenant's rent had been gradually increased, from time to time, 
so as to be nearly double what it was at the commencement ; but, 
from the high state of cultivation into which the soil was brought, 
under the protection of the covenant alluded to, the tenant thought 
it judicious to submit to that increased rent, because he could afford 
to pay it ; and I have little doubt he made much more money by 
his farms than he would have done had he held them during the 
