should have been necessary to provide means for purishing a tenant who determines a tenancy by withholding from him capital that he will require elsewhere. Surely the bill should not treat the giving notice by a tenant to quit a farm as something like a crime.

CLAUSE 42.-The Committee consider Mr. Monckton's amendments undesirable, and that the power should rest with the Charity Commissioners, which body is a responsible one. CLAUSE 43.-The Committee approve of Mr. KnatchbullHugessen and Mr. McLagan's proposal of a two-years' notice to quit, and, looking to the limited area of the kingdom, consider it not too long a time to give a tenant to break up his home, and to find another suitable holding. Again, with a two-years' certain tenure, a tenant would be likely to embark more capital in improvements than when subject to a shorter notice to quit. They consider the amendment of Sir G. Jenkinson, Mr. Egerton, and Mr. Tennant to be unnecessary or objectionable, and they strongly object to the condition proposed by Colonel Dyott, upon the ground that cases in which a tenant dies suddenly or prematurely are often peculiarly those in which a lengthened notice to quit is requisite, in order to protect his survivors from the loss occasioned by an unexpected quittance of the farm, and for reasons already stated they object to the omission of the clause, as proposed by Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Monckton.

CLAUSE 44.-The Committee have no objection to offer to Mr. Tennant's amendments, which appear to be reasonable. CLAUSE 45.-The Committee desire earnestly to support the proposal of Mr. Pease for the omission of this clause, being of opinion that a purely permissive Act will prove of very little value. If, however, Parliament is determined not to make the bill simply compulsory, the Committee strongly urge the acceptance of the substitutional clause they hereafter suggest. If that also be refused, then they advise the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, or that of Sir T. Acland, or that of Mr. Dodson. They would add, or that of Mr. Beach, if it included improvements specified in class 1. Colonel Brise's amendment, in the opinion of the Committee, does not go far enough, and Mr. Seeley's is immaterial. They do not regard Mr. McLagan's amendment as satisfactory, because a two-years' notice to quit is not a fair substitute for compensation for unexhausted improvements, aud it would not tend to the improvement of the soil-one of the main objects of the bill-so much as security for compensation. The Committee desire to express their strong sense of the necessity of at least so amending this clause as to secure an improving tenant his just claims for his improvements. In its present form the clause would greatly discoarage improvement by tenants, even where it does not render the Act entirely a dead letter.

CLAUSE 46.-The Committee consider the amendment of Sir W. Barttelot to be extremely objectionable. They approve of Mr. Pease's first amendment (to line 2), as complemental to his proposal to omit the previous clause, but they do not see the need of his second amendment (to line 7). But if, instead of simply omitting clause 45, without inserting anything in its place, the new clause suggested by the Committee be adopted instead of it or any one of the other amendments to that clause favourably spoken of by the Committee be accepted, they suggest that the following alteration be made in clause 46: Page 13, line 1, omit from "contract" to "tenant" in line 2, both clusive, and insert "such lease or agreement as has been specified in the preceding clause." If neither of the above alterations be adopted, the Committee desire to support the amendment of Sir G. Jenkinson. The Committee are of opinion that the words proposed to be left out by Mr. Gregory should be retained, in order that the yearly tenant under an existing agreement may not be obliged to ask for a new agreement before coming under the Act. They disapprove of Mr. Assheton's amendments, and regard that of Mr. Hall as un

necessary.

CLAUSE 47.-The Committee see no objection to Sir A. Monck's amendment, for if passed as the clause stauds, Parliament would be open to the charge of neglecting the interests of the small occupier. The clause is quite sufficient without

the limitation.

NEW CLAUSES PROPOSED.-The new clause proposed by Mr. Staveley Hill instead of clanse 7 would, in the opinion of the Committee, be an improvement; but they prefer the clause amended as they have proposed. They do not see any necessity for the new clause which Mr.Hill proposes to insert after

clause 8. They see no objection to the insertion after clause 10 of the clause to be moved by Mr. Egerton, with respect to improvements carried out after notice to quit has been given; but they are of opinion that the necessity for the new clause to follow clause 35, proposed by Mr. Egerton, is doubtful. The Committee, whilst approving the principle of the new clause relating to damage done by game, proposed by Mr. Storer to follow clause 13, consider that the question could be better dealt with in a separate bill. They do not object to the new clause which Mr. Pell proposes to insert after clause 32, but they hope that it will be rendered unnecessary by the amendment of the bill as already suggested. The Committee do not object to the principle of the new clauses proposed by Mr. Seeley to follow clause 43, but are of opinion that the expense of a referee to assess the value of unexhausted improvements in a small garden would swallow up any benefit that the outgoing cottager would be entitled to, and might even in some cases put him to an expense that he could ill afford. The Committee are further of opinion that the question could be better dealt with in a separate bill, and desire to point out that the provisions would not be in harmony with clause 47. The new clauses proposed by Sir T. Acland being inconsistent with recommendations already made by the Committee, they see no use in discussing them, particularly as they destroy the framework of the bill under consideration. The Committee see no advantage in the introduction of Mr. Knight's new clause, the principles of which have been already dealt with. The Committee strongly approve the principle and advocate the acceptance of Mr. MacLagan's new clause relating to farm-buildings, provided that it is not rendered unnecessary by amendments made in the bill. They also approve of the new clause to be moved by Mr. Pease. The Committee approve of the following proviso to clause 45, which they learn will be moved by Mr. Phipps, provided such agreement is in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Committee, highly approving of the arrangements made by the Earl of Leicester with his tenants, strongly recommend the insertion in the bill of the following clause, as embodying in the main principle adopted by a landlord and tenantry inferior to none in the kingdom: "A tenant of a holding under a lease made after the passing of this Act, for a term certain of not less than 20 years, shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of improvements of the first class and of the second class, unless it is specially provided in the lease that he shall be so entitled. Nevertheless, he shall be entitled to compensation in respect of improvements of the third class."

The half-yearly meeting of the Royal Chamber of Agricul ture for Scotland was held at Perth, when the attendance was large, and Mr. Cunningham, of Shields, Ayrshire, the President, occupied the chair.

Mr. M'NEEL CAIRD, of Genoch, said: When the Agricul tural Holdings Bill was first issued it contained some obnoxious provisions which 1 had to crititise somewhat sharply. Chief of these were the specifications of tenants' dilapidations, which I ventured to describe as a new Decalogue for farmers. These were promptly and quietly struck out of the bill by the Government. I think the Government deserve great credit for it; for their Parliamentary opponents said never a word on the subject. In the same way they of their own action amended a very unfair provision of the bill by which landlords would have had undue advantage over tenants in regard to appeals. I wish I could speak as favourably of their action in regard to other parts of the bill. In regard to the general questions raised by the bill, I have no fault to find with the principle that there should be entire freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. I think it is by carrying out that principle fully that we shall soonest find a sound solution of existing difficulties, for there is not free contract now between landlord and tenant. I do not refer to the disparity arising from the landlord having a limited commodity to dispseo of which the tenant desires to get. That, no doubt, gives a great advantage to the landlord, but it is an advantage legiti mately due to his right of property in the land, and that right

so interwoven with the whole system of society in this country that it cannot be invaded without risk of producing greater evils than benefits. What I do point at is the artificial disparities created by law between landlord and tenant when they come to make their bargains. One of these arises from

the privilege or priority for rent over the effects on a farm given by law to the landlord. This preference, available in

timid by limiting the possible amount of claims under the bill. If the bill had provided that the total claims should be limited in proportion to the rent-so many years' rent, or even, for a beginning, one year's rent-the system up to that limit would have had fair play; and if it were found to work as well as its advocates expect, the limit could be enlarged at some future time, with the concurrence of the landlords who had found its action beneficial. But by applying the limit not to the amount but to the period of expenditure the Government have unconsciously taken effectual means to make the system work for mischief, and not for good to either landlord, tenant, or country. This bill cannot settle the question; and the wisest thing they could do would be to drop the bill for this session and bring up a new bill next year. At a later stage of the meeting I propose to move a series of resolutions in support of the views I have just stated.

one

Mr. GEO. HOPE, of Bordlands, spoke of the name which of old the Scotch farmers gained for their excellence in farming. This, he said, was owing to their being secure in their farms. Within the last twenty or thirty years a new order of things had, however, arisen with the introduction of foreign manures and the general practice of feeding stock with cake; and that neworder required other conditions to keep them still prosperous. Tenants whose leases were nearly run out, and who did not wish to renew, allowed the manure on the land to be exhausted. Even when it was intended to renew the lease the landlord usually employed a valuator to fix the value of the farm; and what could the valuator do but fix it according to the condition in which he found it. There was thus an alternate improving and impoverishing of the land continually going on, and what the country wanted was that this should no longer continue. The bill introduced into Parliament was, he thought, well described by Mr. M'Combie, as a most harmless measure, giving nothing to the farmers and taking nothing from them. He did not think Scotland tenant in would take advantage by it. According to the bill, if a tenant at the beginning of a nineteen years' lease put up buildings, at the end of it he would be entitled to a twentieth part of the total cost. It would be more like justice, he held, if the tenant was allowed to remove the materials. The property would then be made bis, and not the landlord's, and the latter would then be willing to allow something like its full value. The bill also provides that if a tenant wished compensation twenty-oue days' notice has to be given ere lime was put in the ground. He supposed that every time a farmer drove a load of lime to the field he would have to give notice either by a policeman or by letter. He believed that an incoming tenant would willingly pay for all improvements in the farm for the previous four or five years rather than go into an exhausted one. If tenants wanted justice done they must send members to Parliament who understand the requirements of agriculturists. He regretted that they had not carried the abolition of the Law of Hypothec. So long as it continued he was not surprised that farmers were only looked upon as serfs. He was against compulsory legislation with regard to contract between man and man. At the same time he strongly insisted upon the abolition of Hypothcc. He then read his resolutions as follow:

That the Chamber approve of the leading principle of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill as originally introduced -viz.: Where a tenant executes on his holding an improvement adding to the letting value thereof, he shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the improvement;" and they lament that that provision has now been withdrawn from the bill.

That the bill is unjust in withholding from a tenant the right to remove erections made by him without objection by the landlord (the tenant making good all injury) where the landlord does not choose to purchase them on the tenant's removal.

That the enactments proposed by the bill that buildings, drains, and other permanent works shall be held exhausted in twenty years, and lime, chalk, &c., in seven years, are greatly contrary to fact and experience.

That the enactment that undissolved bones applied to pasture are to be held exhausted in seven and to tillage land in two years, or by one crop of corn or potatoes; is flagrantly cpposed to truth, justice, and policy. That these provisions will tend to discourage the use of bones, and to substitute less durable manures in their place, to the injury of both landlord and tenant.

That the whole provisions of the bill as to enrichments of tillage land are so unhappily conceived as to discourage the tenant who desires to keep his land at all times in the bes

condition, while they offer facilities to a system of farming to quit.

That there is great unfairness in the manner in which letting value," at the close of the tenancy, is employed in the bill as recently altered, to restrict the tenant's claims, while the bill now denies him any corresponding benefit, however great may be the increase of letting value resulting from his improvements. And again, if claims of dilapidation are made against the tenant under the bill no consideration is to be given (in regard to such claims) to any increase of letting value, however large, which may have resulted from his management on the whole.

That the Chamber will cordially concur in securing to landlords compensation for waste, but that such compensation ought to be subjected to similar safeguards and limitations as are imposed on compensations to the tenant for improvements. That to develop the food-producing power of the country it is for the public interest that any measure on the subject should apply to lands under lease (as well as those of yearly tenure), and that a proviso as to lands under lease, that the landlord may, by notice within a time limited, exclude the application of the bill during the lease, would sufficiently protect his existing interests, and permit the law to compensation to be more generally and speedily introduced.

That the rules now prescribed by the bill as to the form and conditions of awards impose difficulty and unnecessary duties on arbiters, and will lead to frequent challenge of awards on the pretext of invalidity, and to much litigation and unsatisfactory discussions and inquiries under appeals to lawyers on questions of practical agriculture; and that there should be no appeal against any award, except on the ground of misconduct on the part of a referee or umpire.

That, although this Chamber earnestly desire that the whole relations of landlord and tenant should be based on true freedom of contract, they cannot fail to see that, while landlords are entitled, by the Law of Hypothec in Scotland and the Law of Distress in England, to encourage, at the risk of others, the competition for farms of persons who would not be accepted as tenants without the fictitious security so created by law, and who are consequently reckless about conditions in order to obtain a temporary living at the cost of their creditors, those who pursue the legitimate business of farming are placed at an unfair disadvantage in making their contracts; and that, so long as these laws of privilege are maintained, a merely permissive measure of compensation for tenants' improvements is likely to have very limited effect.

That while the Chamber are strongly of opinion that all the laws of privilege which dislocate the relations between landlord and tenant ought to be speedily abolished, they suggest, as an intermediate measure, that a landlord who chooses, under the powers reserved to him by the bill, to exclude its compensation provisions should be held to have thereby abandoned all right thenceforth to resort to the Laws of Hypothec and Distress.

If they brought this matter prominently forward they would compel them to discuss it, for though that is not a right and full remedy it would be a very important step in that direction. If a landlord chose to put himself outside the one he would walk outside the other. He considered it of great importance that it should be discussed, and that members of Parliament should consider it, and he did not think there was one whe would not admit the justice of tenants being allowed at least to carry off the materials of their improvements. He moved the adoption of the resolutions.

Mr. HOPE seconded.

Mr. A. E. MACKNIGHT, advocate, Edinburgh, said the bill was certainly a most important one from its effrontery. When the Duke of Richmond, in bringing the bill into the House of Lords, said that it would give satisfaction to the country, he was perpetrating no less than a most impudent hoax. He supposed the bill for Scotland was kept back till it was seen how they would receive an English one. They had got their answer in these resolutions. They should take their stand upon this-that they shall not in Scotland accept any hoax, and that any bill brought forward for Scotland shall be at least an honest bill, which this bill was not. Let them take it if it is only a step in the right direction, but let them take care that it is one in advance, and not simply, as this bill is a retrograde one.

Mr. ALEX. BETHUNE, Blebo, did not quite agree with Mr. MacKnight in describing the bill as dishonest. Nor did he think it a retrograde step. He thought it was a step in the right direction to get any Government in this country to acknowledge the principle for which they had so long been contending. He agreed, however, with most of the remarks made by Mr. Caird and Mr. Hope.

Mr. GEO. MILN, Rosehill, opposed the last of Mr. Caird's resolutions. He did not think they should have anything to do with the Law of Hypothec either one way or another but

very precarious, and all working expenses so very much increased of late. I have also seen the advantage of two green crops in succession, where annual weeds or wild oats prevailed; but where a tenant is strictly tied down by his lease to a certain rotation, whether suitable for the soil and climate or not, he cannot do these things, though it were to benefit the land more than himself. With these dry seasons, it is quite impossible to grow turnips on a very large proportion of East Lothian, and it is surely absurd to be bound to grow a crop that one is certain can't be grown but with a loss. Having lately to do with a new lease in an adjoining county, the factor had the lease written out in the stereotyped form of no two white crops in succession, but the farm being of very various qualities of soil, and some of it fitted to grow some kinds of crops but not others, 1 suggested that on that account I would much prefer not be bound by any prescribed rotation, but that I would agree to have not more than haif the farm in white crop; and the factor, being a practical man and farmer himself, at once consented. I feel convinced that this would be a capital practical clause in most leases, and would be suitable to a large part of this county.

Mr. SMITH, factor (Whittinghame), had listened to Mr. Paton's paper with pleasure. It was quite apparent that as there was a variety of soil and climate, there must necessarily be different rotations as suitable to the different circumstances. Hence there should be no stereotyped rotation. But the subject for discussion was a very wide question. It dealt with the best rotation for cropping. Now, if it was the case that there was no special rotation suitable for all circumstances, it was difficult to deal with the subject. But supposing they had a rotation to suit certain circumstances or even certain districts, it must be clearly defined that that one rotation was not suitable for all farms or localities, and it might be not even for one farm if it was of any large extent; for it was well known that there was such variety of soil that the rotation for one portion of a farm was frequently not adapted for the other portion. All that was in favour of variety of rotation. There must be a definite understanding when they entered into a bargain about how the subject was to be dealt with, and how it was to be returned to the owner; at least if it was not so particularly defined through the lease there should be unquestionably a fixed rotation understood to take effect at the end of the lease. But while they made a special rule-and rules undoubtedly had exceptions-suited to one particular farm, there might be circumstances, such as failure of grass, over growth of weeds, and prevalence of finger-and-toe in a field, and many other such things that might demand and warrant a departure from even a fixed rotation. That also was in favour of dealing with the subject in a liberal view. At the same time it must be admitted that there was great difficulty in framing, or entering into an agreement, with a lease to contain the precise terms of a suitable rotation, and so arranged as to give expansion and free play to the action of the tenant, and yet secure the fair and legitimate interests of the owner of the land. He thought, in special circumstances, when it was once understood what was a suitable rotation for a particular farm, or portion of a farm, it was a somewhat erratic idea to change that rotation. He held it would not be so profitable to the man who occupied that farm. It could not be otherwise, because he was so dependent upon the seasons and prices. It would be nothing short of pure speculation if a man had a farm suited for a certain rotation to change it; and the great bulk of farms were quite easily defined in this respect. One year might turn out good and another the very reverse it was always safest for the farmer to have his kinds of produce well proportioned as regards quantity, so as to run no chance of any serious loss, unless he was able not only to change his return, but also to regulate the seasons and prices that were to follow. If he could not foretell what was to be next year, then he (Mr. Smith) would say it would be a clever thing to adjust himself to the circumstances of the times, but those were constantly ghanging, and when, if they did change, he would be out-witted. While a great deal might be said in taking a popular view of the case it was also well to consider whether or not it was profitable upon the whole to be too erratic in the method of managing and farming land.

Mr. SMITH (Stevenson Mains) had not followed any par ticular rotation, but more especially the generally prescribed rotation in leases. He happened to farm under a liberal landlord, who allowed him to work his farm as he liked, so long as he paid his rent. The subject, as Mr. Smith had

stated, was a very wide one, but the great complaint of many of the farmers was that they had not liberty to take the rotation of crops which they thought best. On different soils no doubt different rotations had to be adopted, but the prescribed rotation did not vary much. It was generally either a fifth or a sixth course. Now there were many farms in the middle district of the county that would be much better if farmed with two white crops in succession than under the regular rotation. As regards his own experience he grazed one-half of his grass break three years, and the other half of the break he made hay of. After grass had been down three years he made potatoes, then, in succession, wheat, beans, wheat, turnips. Sometimes he had wheat and then barley; so that he had never followed any prescribed rotazion. He did not think it was right for tenants to speculate, and to have a large quantity of one kind of produce the one year and small the next. It was the safest plan for the farmer to have a fair proportion of each kind of crop each year. With regard to embodying certain rotations in leases he thought it would be a much better plan to stipulate that there should be only onehalf of the farm under white crop, and the other half under any description of green crop. He thought that would bind the tenant just as well as any other form of lease; for he had never seen any form of lease sufficient to make a bad farmer a good one, or vice versa.

Mr. DURIE (Barniemains) said the question of rotation was of great importance, but he thought too much importance was attached to it. Since these cropping clauses were introduced-and they had been very little altered-the system of farming had changed tremendously. In fact it was not the same farming now as it was since he began it. Instead of having clauses binding them to grow a certain quantity of grain crops every year, he thought one clause which required them to farm according to the rules of good husbandry, or according to their own judgment, might serve for the whole lease. If the landlord selected a proper tenant, he would farm it right; and let him leave it at the end of the lease with a certain proportion of it in grass and fallow, and a certain quantity under white crop. But during the currency of the lease he did not think the tenant ought to have any prescribed rotation at all, or else he was not worthy of being a tenant; because there was no man worthy of the name of a farmer, if he intended to finish his lease, would commence a system of cropping that would ruin the land. A great many people seemed to make much of the principle that no more than the half of the farm should be under white crop. Now, it would be positively suicidal for a man to have more than the half of his farm under white crop. For himself he never had half of his farm under white crop. So that this principle was not of so much importance as some people made it. Now, their green crops were what they had to depend upon, and the more green crops they had on their farm the lighter they were farming. Why factors and others should wish to enforce this principle was a mystery to him. The only persons who received advantage from all these clauses were those employed to write them out. It cost a little for the learning of this, and of course there was something to pay. Mr. Smith was quite right in saying that no fixed rotation would serve any district-that even almost no fixed rotation would serve any farm. It would only serve one kind of land, and of it there was great diversity. For instance, in Berwickshire they were under the fifth rotation. On light soil that suited pretty well, but people were finding out that even ou light land a variation of the rotation was better, and many farmers were varying it now, and making it three years' grass instead of two.

Mr. ROBERTSON (Newmains) remarked that a great deal had been said in reference to clauses in leases that were thought to be detrimental to agriculture being carried out to that perfection and advantage which it ought to be. He must say that he had had a great many leases through his hands, and there was more liberality in them than they got the credit for. He thought the great thing for the proprietor was to select a first-class tenantry-men who thoroughly and practically knew their business, and he had no hesitation in saying, from what he had seen in coming in contact with the aristocracy and gentlemen proprietors of the different counties, he never saw any obstacle thrown in his way if he represented that he had any mode or plan to be carried out. The proprietors had as good a right to protect their property as tenants had to extract liberal leases. He had very little