Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 1.djvu/443

Rh LAND TENURE.] AGRICULTURE 407 increase of outlay in proportion to the extent, and the need for closer superintendence, it seems likely that, in future, the size of arable farms will not further increase, but may rather be expected to approximate towards that which at present obtains in suburban districts. Farms are held either by yearly tenancy or under leases for a specified number of years. The latter plan is that upon which nearly the whole lands of Scotland are let ; and it obtains also to a considerable extent in the northern counties of England, in West Norfolk, and in Lancashire. But with these and other exceptions, amounting altogether to about a tenth part, the farms of England are held by yearly tenancy, which can be terminated by either of the contracting parties giving the other six months notice to that effect. This precarious tenure has been attended by far fewer changes than a stranger might suppose, owing to the highly honourable conduct for which English pro prietors as a class have long been noted. On all the large estates it is quite common to find families occupying farms of which their ancestors have been tenants for generations, or even for centuries. The mutual esteem and confidence which usually subsist between such landlords and tenants are undoubtedly much to the credit of both, but not the less has the system, as a whole, operated unfavourably for all concerned ; for however numerous and striking the excep tions, it is yet the fact that under this system of tenancy- at-will less capital has been invested in the improvement of farms, less labour has been employed, and less enterprise displayed in their ordinary cultivation, less produce has been obtained from them by the occupiers, and less rent has been rsceived for them by the owners, than in the case of similar lands let on leases for a term of years. These different results ensue, not because tenants with leases are abler men or better farmers than their neighbours who are without them, but solely bcause the one system re cognises certain important principles which the other ignores. It is contrary to human nature to expect that any body of men will as freely invest their capital, whether in the shape of money, skill, or labour, in a business yielding such slow returns as agriculture, with no better guarantee that they or their families shall reap the fruits of it than the continued good- will of existing proprietors or those who any day may succeed them, as they will do with the security which a lease for a term of years affords. It does therefore seem strange that a majority of the farmers of Great Britain should be tenants-at-will, and still more strange that they should be so of choice. It is nevertheless true that a considerable portion of the tenantry of England are even less disposed to accept of leases than their landlords are to grant them. The latter cling to the system because of the greater control which they thereby retain over their estates, and the greater political influence with which it invests them : the former do so because low rents are one of its accompaniments. Since the removal of restrictions on the importation of foreign agricultural produce, there are indications that neither landlords nor tenants are so well satisfied with this system of tenancy-at-will as they once were. Not only is the granting of leases becoming more common than it has hitherto been, but there is a growing desire on the part of tenants to obtain the benefit of that guarantee for the realising of their capital which tenant-right affords to en terprising farmers who may have unexpectedly to quit their farms. In certain districts of England this claim, called tenant-right, has been recognised so long that, apart either from written stipulation or statutory enactment, it has, by mere usage, attained to something like a legal standing. In Lincolnshire an out-going tenant can, by virt ie of this isage, claim from his landlord or successor repayment, in certain definite proportions, of the cost of such ameliora tions of a specified kind as he may have made during the last years of his occupancy, and the benefits of which his removal hinders him from realising in the natural way. Tenant-right is certainly a valuable adjunct to tenancy- at-will, but still it does not meet the real exigencies of the case. There are feelings inherent in man s nature which cause him to recoil from exertions the fruits of which are as likely to be enjoyed by a stranger as by himself or his family. This repugnance, and its paralysing influence, is not to be removed by a mere &quot; right &quot; to pecuniary com pensation. It is certainty of tenure so far at least as human arrangements can be certain which will really induce a farmer to throw his whole heart into his business. It is accordingly to this principle that leases owe their value, and by it also that the only weak point in them is to be accounted for. The first years of a lease are usually characterised by an energetic performance of various improvements, whereas towards its close there is usually such a withdrawing even of ordinary outlay as is unfavour able to the interests of both landlord and tenant. There is at present a very generally entertained opinion that this inconvenience would be obviated by engrafting the system of tenant-right upon that of leases. So strongly has the current of opinion been running in this direction that a bill has been submitted to the legislature for the purpose of conferring on out-going tenants a legal claim to compensation for certain specified investments which may have been made by them, but of which their removal hinders them from reaping the benefit. This bill further provided that in the event of a tenant having erected buildings for his own accommodation without the sanction of his landlord, he should have a right to remove the materials if the landlord or incoming tenant declined to purchase them. Through accidental circumstances this bill was withdrawn without being discussed, but it is certain to be re-intro duced, and sooner or later to be passed. It is now admitted on all hands that land cannot be cultivated to its full measure of productiveness without a large investment of capital, and that this outlay, when once incurred, cannot be recouped for several years at the least. It is in vain, therefore, to expect that these so much needed investments will be made until those who should make them are secured against having their property confiscated by a six months notice to quit. It seems to be generally admitted that twenty-one years is the proper duration for an agricultural lease. Such a term suffices to give confidence to the tenant in embarking his capital, and secures to the landlord his legitimate control over his property, and due participation in its varying value. It is generally felt by tenants that the lease or document in which their agreement with their landlord is engrossed might with advantage be much shortened, as well as simplified in its terms. When treating of the succession of crops we have already expressed our views regarding those restrictive clauses which usually occupy a prominent place in such writings. Such restric tions are of course introduced with the view of guarding the property of the landlord from deterioration ; but when he is so unfortunate as to meet with incompetent or dishonest tenants, they entirely fail to secure this object, and yet are a hindrance and discouragement to enterprising and con scientious tenants. It is probable that the existence of the laws of distraint in England and hypothec in .Scotland, which give to landlords a lien over the effects of their tenantry in security for the payment of the current year s rent, has had its influence in adding to the number and stringency of these clauses, and has encouraged the practice of letting lands by tender to the highest offerer. For the law in question, by rendering landlords to a considerable extent independent of the personal character and pecuniary