the cause they have at heart by recommending any general regulations as to rotations of crops. They have come to this conclusion for several reasons.

In the first place, no one system will apply generally. If restrictions on the freedom of the tenant are required-which without doubt in certain cases they are- they will not be the same for arable, grazing, and dairy farms, nor for heavy and light lands.

In the next place, they are of opinion that, in the present state of agriculture, it is unreasonable to clog a lease for twenty years with conditions proceeding on assumptions which the progress of improvements in cultivation and in manures renders every year more open to debate and question. Even in cases where a system is laid down, any relaxation sanctioned by the lessor should be made binding on his heirs and successors, that it may not be withdrawn suddenly, to the vexation of the tenant.

One suggestion, however, has been strongly pressed on the Committee, which appears in the present state of agricultural knowledge to be well deserving of consideration, and to be supported by the results of considerable experience. The suggestion is, that in lieu of a particular succession of crops, or rotation of crops, the lease should bind the tenant to leave in each year a certain proportion of green crop on the arable land to be consumed on the premises. This principle properly applied to the various soils on the farm may be capable of securing the farm to a considerable extent from impoverishment, without unreasonably fettering the discretion of the tenant.

But, thirdly, the Committee are persuaded that there is only one way to prevent tenants exhausting, as far as it is in their power to exhaust, the fertility of the soil; and that is, to make it their pecuniary interest to leave the land generally in good condition, with a fair proportion of well-cleaned root-crops.

The course of the inquiry thus leads your Committee to what they conceive to be the key to the whole question referred to their consideration, viz. :

The Mutual Obligations of a Landlord and Tenant on the Expiration of a Tenancy.

In other words, "What are the obligations under which respectively a tenant lies when he delivers up, and a landlord when he resumes, possession of a farm ?"

That there are such obligations on either side will not be denied; that they are the same now as they were formerly, will not be maintained by any one who considers the changes which have been gradually introduced into the general relation between landlord and tenant.

The general principle of the English law is thus stated by Mr. Wingrove Cooke:

"The tenancy from year to year arises wherever a landlord lets lands, and a tenant takes them, without stipulation as to the duration of the tenancy. It is the construction which the law puts on the fact of the relation between landlord and tenant, unless there be some particular agreement between the parties to the contrary.

" Formerly, such tenancies were thought to be tenancies at will; but as it was found to be extremely inconvenient and unjust that a tenant who occupied land should, after he had sown it, be turned out of possession without reasonable notice to quit, it was held that a general occupation was an occupation from year to year, and that the tenant should not be turned out of possession without reasonable notice to quit. This reasonable notice, in the absence of any express agreement upon the subject, is settled to be half a year's notice, and it must expire at the period of the year at which the tenancy commences." *

It appears further, that the law of England, even where no conditions are mentioned, annexes to the relation of landlord and tenant certain rights and obligations ;† for instance, it implies on the part of the landlord that he will give quiet enjoyment to his tenant, and on the part of the tenant a promise to manage the farm in a husbandlike manner; but when the question is asked, What is a husbandlike manner? the answer is to be sought in the customs of the district in which the farm is situated.‡

On the other hand, a great Judge once laid down the principle, in reference to a way-going crop, "The custom is just, for he who sows ought to reap, and it is for the benefit and encouragement of agriculture. It is indeed against the general rule of law concerning emblements which are not allowed to tenants who know when their term is to cease, because it is held to be their fault to have sown when they knew their interest would expire before they could reap; but the custom of a parti

cular place may rectify what otherwise would be imprudence and folly." *

But this encouragement to agriculture is limited by the local custom, and no provision is made by the law, in the absence of a written agreement, as far as your Committee have been able to learn, by which an outgoing tenant can secure to himself a reasonable share of the benefit which he has laid up in store for future crops.

It is clear that if a tenant is only to reap a return for what he has sown within his last year, and if he is liable to be interrupted in the course of his operations by a six months' notice, those operations cannot be carried on with that far-sighted enterprise which modern farming requires.

It appears therefore that the law, while it jealously guards the owner of property from waste, also recognizes the claim of the tenant to reap the fruits of his own labour and seed; but by calling to its aid the local custom as the interpreter of good husbandry, and by assigning a practical limit to the period over which the calculations of the farmer are to run with a view to a return for his outlay, the law virtually burdens the land which it means to protect, and leaves the farmer open to the charge of " imprudence and folly" if he leaves an expensively-grown crop of turnips on the land, or a yard full of dung made by cattle fed on oil-cake.

The Committee think the remedy is to be found in a more extended construction of the mutual obligations of landlord and

tenant.

In the first place it may be observed that the relation of landlord and tenant is a matter of contract, and the terms of the contract are liable to be affected in each particular case by many circumstances; as for instance, by the length or permanence of the tenure, the amount of capital laid out on the farm by the landlord or by the tenant, the amount of the rent, not to mention local peculiarities affecting the personal comfort and feelings of either party.

But after making allowance for all attendant and modifying circumstances, there are some general principles to be deduced from the actual practice of landlords and tenants in districts in which farming has advanced to its highest perfection.

-These general principles rest for their support on the following facts:-That Agricultural operations, including tillage, cattle feeding, and manuring, require a considerable period for their full development; That capital must be invested in the ordinary process of good farming, which does not yield its full commercial profit under two or even four years, and once sunk in the land it is irremovable. Either, therefore, the farmer must be able to reckon with confidence that a sufficient time will be allowed for him to reap when he has sown and manured, or that he will be paid by the incoming tenant the value of what he leaves for the future benefit of his successor; or, failing both these suppositions, the natural consequence follows that it may be "imprudence and folly" to invest capital in the land from which no return can be relied upon. It follows as a further consequence that the owner, the occupier, the labourer, and the consumer suffer by the produce of the land being less than it might be under good farming.

On the other hand, it is alike reasonable and expedient that a landlord who lets his land to a tenant should secure himself against injury to his property; and landlords not unnaturally view with distrust and alarm schemes of compensation, which may burden their property with indefinite charges, and give to the owner no adequate security against serious damage to his property arising from neglect or fraud. It is notorious that a mere right of action against an outgoing tenant for breach of covenants, founded on the custom of the country, is worthless as a security to the landlord.

The remedies which your Committee propose for these evils

are

First. To define more clearly the obligations of tenants.

Second. To encourage tenants to farm well, by enabling them to obtain repayment for the crops and manure they leave behind them, when they leave their farms in consequence of notice from the landlord.

Third. To protect both landlords and tenants by covenants capable of being easily enforced.

First. The Committee are of opinion that before a tenant can establish any claim to be reimbursed for what he leaves in or on the land, he should be in a condition to prove that he has fulfilled his ordinary obligations. These obligations include the following points* :

1. When an outgoing tenant quits his farm he is bound to leave it free from weeds [understanding by weeds not annuals, but perennials].

2. He is bound to leave the land in such a state as to tillage as not to cause loss in cultivation for the next crop. (This includes such cases as bad or inefficient ploughing, or ploughing at an improper time.]

3. These two obligations ought to be indispensable in all cases, and without reference to the state of the farm at the commencement of the tenancy.

The Committee attach great importance to the last words, as they cut at the root of all pretence to make ordinary clean farming a ground of claim for compensation. If a man takes a foul farm, he either takes it at a lower rent, or sees his way to repay himself in time for the expense of getting it clean. The expense is undeniable, but this is a matter to be settled before coming in, not on going out.

If legal forms can be devised to give effect to these suggestions for protecting landlords against the damage that may be done to their estates by bad farming, landowners will manifest less reluctance to offer encouragement to good farmers by the recognition of the landlord's obligations.

For, Secondly, in the opinion of your Committee, there are corresponding obligations equitably incumbent on a landlord towards an outgoing tenant who has fulfilled his side of the agreement.†