472 
May  31,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTIOULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  G A RDENER. 
where  a  landlord  would  be  justified  in  refusing  permission  would  be 
in  the  case  of  an  inexperienced  tenant  attempting  to  make  permanent 
pasture  of  poor  sand  land  which  the  landlord  might  prefer  to  plant 
with  Larch.  'I'o  meet  a  case  like  this  appeal  might  be  made  to  an 
oflficial  expert,  who  would  decide  whether  the  land  were  suitable  for 
laying  down  or  not.  On  bis  decision  would  rest  the  question  wnether 
the  wish  of  the  landlord  or  tenant  be  most  reasonable. 
Laying  down  gr<\ss  is  expensive,  and  it  is  some  years  before  the 
tenant  gets  much  benefit  from  it;  therefore  in  case  of  a  sudden 
termination  of  the  tenancy — from  death,  for  instance  the  fair 
improved  value  of  the  new  pasture  should  be  due  to  him  or  his 
representatives. 
The  right  to  build  without  the  landlord’s  consent  is,  however^ 
a  very  different  matter.  To  be  able  to  do  this  with  the  power  to 
exact  compensation  on  quitting  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  the 
right  to  spend  another  man’s  money  without  consulting  him  in  any 
way  on  the  matter.  No  doubt  the  argument  may  be  used  that  a 
tenant  laying  down  money  for  his  own  benefit  WLuld  spend  it 
wisely  and  for  the  general  benefit  of  his  holding. 
That  sounds  very  plausible,  but  farm  tenants  do  not  sit  as  long 
on  their  holdings  as  they  once  did,  and  as  you  can  hardly  find  two 
farmers  in  the  same  parish  who  are  quite  agreed  upon  the  most 
desirable  wav  to  construct  farm  b  lilcings,  every  new  tenant  requiring 
alterations  of  some  kind,  if  he  can  persuade  his  landlord  to  grant 
them,  we  might  be  treated  to  the  spectacle  of  a  landlord  paying  for 
the  building  done  by  an  outgoing  tenant  whilst  his  incoming  tenant 
requires  large  alterations  in  the  same.  Whilst  if  the  landlord  refuses^ 
what  is  there  to  [  revent  the  newcomer  after  he  has  got  settled 
down  from  building  himself  another  set  in  another  position,  or 
under  threat  of  doing  so  compelling  the  owner  to  spend  a  con¬ 
siderable  sum  in  alterations  to  premises  which  he  had  no  hand  in 
arranging,  but  has  had  to  pay  for  ? 
We  may  be  putting  an  extreme  case,  but  we  have  seen  a  good 
deal  of  tenant  farmers  and  changes  of  tenancy,  and  we  are  convinced 
that  under  the  influence  of  such  a  law  many  similar  ones  would 
occur.  There  were  great  flaws  in  the  Agricultural  Holdings  Act, 
but  in  trying  to  amend  grievances  it  would  le  a  great  pity  to 
institute  others.  We  do  not  write  as  landlord  partisans,  having 
suffered  personally  as  outtioing  tenants.  We  had  to  pay  full 
dilapidation  for  repairs  to  considerable  buildings  put  up  by  our 
own  family,  and  for  the  building  of  which  nothing  was  allowed, 
whilst  the  landlord  spent  our  money  in  alterations  to  suit  the  new 
tenant. 
Another  point  in  the  Bill  which  lias  caused  much  discussion  is  the 
clause  allowing  compensation  for  corn  consumed  by  horses  other  than 
those  regularly  worked  upon  the  farm.  We  see  that  Yorkshire 
farmers  as  represented  by  the  Yorkshire  Union  of  Agricultural  Clubs 
are  in  favour  of  extending  this  compensation  to  the  food  consumed 
by  the  working  horses  as  well,  and  we  agree  with  them  that  if  one  is 
allowed  the  other  should  be,  for  there  cannot  be  much  difference  in 
the  residuary  value.  We  ourselves  should  prefer  the  manure  from 
working  horses  to  that  from  mares  and  foals  and  young  growing  horses 
consuming  the  same  quantity  of  corn. 
We  have  never  set  a  high  value  on  horse  dung,  and  seeii  g  how 
beneficial  cattle  grszinj,  and  how  detrimental  l^horse  grazing  is  to 
grass  land  (in  s  me  grazing  districts  horses  are  forbidden  on  the 
feeding  pastures),  we  cannot  see  that  agriculture  as  a  whole  is  going 
to  benefit  by  making  outgoing  allowances  for  horse  corn.  The  only 
effect  that  we  can  see  will  be  to  make  a  present  to  sitting  tenants, 
who  \\ill  get  paid  when  they  quit  for  that  which  they  got  for  nothing 
when  they  entered.  It  is  only  another  addition  to  the  capital  sunk 
in  tenant  rirht,  of  which  there  is  already  far  too  much.  There  will 
certainly  be  nothing  gained,  for  the  alteration  in  the  law  will  make 
no  difference  to  the  quanri'y  of  corn  the  working  horses  will  get,  and 
any  large  substitution  of  horses  for  cattle  in  English  pastures  is  not 
likely  to  benefit  either  the  land  or  the  tenant. 
One  great  improvement  might  be  made  in  the  Act  by  extending 
the  perijd  of  unexhausted  fertility  of  manures  applied  to  pastures  and 
meadows.  Of  course  in  case  of  meadows  manures  purely  nitrogenous 
would  be  excepted,  and  in  pastures  very  slight  extension  would  be 
advisable,  but  compensation  for  all  slow-action  manures  should  be 
spread  over  a  much  longer  period  than  at  present. 
Another  desirable  addition  to  the  Bill  would  be  a  provision  to 
compensate  the  tenant  for  the  young  seeds  which  having  been  once 
grazed  have  not  been  ploughed  up  for  corn,  but  left  in  a  profitable 
condition  for  another  year’s  grazing.  As  a  system  of  grazing  seeds 
two  years  prevails  largely  in  England  at  the  present  time,  and  is 
likely  to  increase  under  the  difficult  conditions  as  to  labour,  such  a 
very  sensible  addition  should  be  sure  of  acceptance  by  Parliament  if  it 
is  found  possible  to  get  a  Bill  through  at  all. 
Another  question  mentioned  at  the  second  reading  by  Major  Rasch 
is  that  of  freedom  of  cultivation  and  sale.  Such  freedom  is  much 
more  common  nowadays  than  it  used  to  be,  and  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  land  which  could  not  be  let  on  any  other  terms  ;  but  it  would  be 
easy  to  make  it  universal  ^without  risk  to  the  owners  of  the  soil  by 
allowing  dilapidation  for  undue  drawing  off  of  crops  without  pro¬ 
portionate  return  in  purchased  manure. 
Work  01]  the  Home  Farm. 
At  last  we  have  a  change  to  more  summer-like  weather.  We  have 
had  a  nice  warm  rain,  and  there  really  seems  to  be  a  prospect  of  the 
temperature  remaining  at  a  higher  figure  than  we  have  enjoyed  since 
last  summer.  We  fancy  there  will  be  a  good  deal  of  spraying  for 
Charlock  this  summer.  The  few  local  experiments  which  were  made  last 
season,  though  not  entirely  successful,  were  sufficiently  encouraging  to 
warrant  repetition  on  a  more  extended  scale. 
Messrs.  Strawson,  who  are  the  chief  authorities  on  Charlock 
spraying,  claim  on  the  authority  of  a  large  number  of  farmers  who 
have  tried  it  that  it  has  been  a  great  success,  that  Charlock  can  be 
killed  if  50  gallons  2  per  cent,  solution  of  pure  sulphate  of  copper 
per  acre  be  used.  The  operation  should  be  performed  when  the  plants 
are  from  2  inches  to  6  inches  in  height,  and  to  complete  the  job  it 
should  be  repeated  in  a  fortnight.  Early  sown  Turnips  are  coming  up, 
and  already  there  are  complaints  of  fiy. 
AVarm  showery  weather  should  prevent  much  damage,  but  where 
the  attack  is  serious  the  following  is  a  good  device  to  -destroy  the 
insects: — Make  a  light  frame  long  enough  to  stretch  across  five  or  six 
rows  and  18  inches  wide,  light  enough  for  two  men  to  carry  easily. 
Over  this  stretch  old  sacking  or  carpet,  cover  the  upper  surface  of  this 
material  with  gas  tar,  and  keep  the  surface  moist  and  sticky.  If  this 
frame  be  carried  close  over  the  rows  of  young  Turnips  the  flies  will 
rise  when  disturbed,  a  large  proportion  will  fall  on  the  tar  and  remain 
there,  while  those  flying  forward  will  be  again  disturbed,  and  few  will 
escape. 
Fortunately  there  is  no  very  urgent  necessity  for  hoeing  either 
Wheat  or  spring  corn,  as  both  are  clean,  and  in  neither  are  there  many 
Thistles.  Still  the  flelds  must  be  looked  over,  and  any  stray  weeds 
grubbed  up.  Even  this  is  not  easy  of  accomplishment,  so  scarce  is 
labour  of  all  kinds.  Two  or  three  years  ago  there  would  be  in  each 
parish  gangs  of  men  who,  having  been  employed  in  draining  and 
assisting  in  thrashing  operations,  were  ready  to  undertake  hoeing  or 
similar  urgent  farm  work  by  the  piecs,  would  make  long  days,  thus 
earning  good  wages  by  overtime,  and  filled  a  most  useful  place  in  the 
economy  of  the  parish.  Such  little  coteries  have  almost  disappeared, 
farmers  have  largely  had-  to  help  each  other  with  the  thrashing,  and 
now  if  corn  must  be  hoed  the  horse  hoe  is  the  only  kind  possible. 
A  good  horse  hoe  well  handled  is  very  efficient,  but  the  grain  requires 
careful  drilling  with  a  view  to  its  use  for  really  good  work  to  be  done 
without  damage.  They  work  well  on  Wheat  that  has  been  sown  with  a 
press  drill  after  a  good  ploughman. 
- 4.#** - 
Bogus  Butter  Abroad. ^The  U.S.  Consul  at  Bordeaux  sends  to 
the  State  Department  the  cheering  intelligence  (though  it  is  really 
more  important  to  the  would-be  consumers  of  butter  in  France  than  to 
anybody  else)  that  the  laws  against  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter  are 
now  coming  to  be  very  well  enforced.  The  French  statutes  are 
sensible  and  moderate,  being  intended  merely  to  prevent  fraud  on  the 
purchaser  or  eater — nothing  else.  They  prohibit  not  only  the  offering 
for  sale  as  butter  of  products  not  wholly  composed  of  milk  or  cream, 
but  make  every  butter-maker  and  butter-seller  liable  for  having  such 
product  in  his  possession,  however  the  same  may  be  labelled.  If 
enforced  this  will  drive  such  compounds  out  of  all  groceries  and 
markets  where  butter  is  offered.  As  a  consequence,  no  dealer  in 
oleomargarine  or  any  similar  article,  whether  wholesaler  or  retailer, 
can  have  genuine  butter  on  the  same  or  adjoining  premises.  If  they 
deal  in  this  product,  which  is  not  forbidden  to  be  sold  as  such,  it  must 
be  as  a  separate  and  independent  trade.  The  terms  of  the  law  are 
wide  enough  to  embrace  hotel  and  restaurant  keepers.  Strictly 
construed  it  would,  says  a  contemporary,  effectually  prevent  not  only 
dealers,  but  users,  from  having  both  butter  and  oleomargarine  on  their 
premises  at  the  same  time. 
