The following Paper was read:

"On the Organisation, Strength, and Cost of the French and By Colonel W. H. Sykes, M.P.

English Navies in 1865."

Fifth Ordinary Meeting, Tuesday, 20th March, 1866.

William Farr, Esq., M.D., in the Chair.

The following Gentlemen were elected Fellows of the Society, viz.:Charles Wentworth Dilke, Esq., LL.B.

Démétrius Bikélas, Esq.

The following Paper was read:

"On the Statistical Progress of the Kingdom of Italy." By Samuel Brown.

Sixth Ordinary Meeting, Tuesday, 17th April, 1866.

Lord Houghton, President, in the Chair.

The following Gentlemen were elected Fellows of the Society, viz.:

Joseph d'Aguilar Samuda, Esq., M.P. |

The following Paper was read:

William Cotton, Esq.

"On the Frequent Autumnal Pressure in the Money Market." By Professor W. S. Jevons, M.A.

Seventh Ordinary Meeting, Tuesday, 15th May, 1866.

Colonel W. H. Sykes, M.P., Vice-President, in the Chair.

The following Paper was read:

"On the Budgets and Accounts of England and France." By Major-General Balfour, C.B.

Eighth Ordinary Meeting, Tuesday, 19th June, 1866.

William Farr, Esq., M.D., in the Chair.

The following Gentlemen were elected Fellows of the Society,

"On the Economic Condition of the Highlands of Scotland."

By the Duke of Argyll.

THE following article appeared in the Saturday Review under the title of "Agricultural Customs:"

"In the year 1818, a committee of the House of Commons presided over by the late Mr. Pusey collected evidence from almost every county in England upon the subject of agricultural customs, and the result of their labours was to show that there are as many customs as counties, or, indeed, considerably more. The report of this committee has lately been reprinted, for the sake probably of throwing light upon the tenant-right question of Ireland. It presents an interesting picture of the condition of agriculture in England immediately after the repeal of the corn law; and it is also valuable as showing that the demand for tenant-right, which was urged by many witnesses before this committee, amounts to a proposal to make good landlords by Act of Parliament.

"As all parts of this report possess nearly equal interest, we will take for example the first county which offers. It happens to be Berkshire, which is described by Mr. John Houghton. This witness occupied land in several counties to the extent of 4,000 acres. He owned a farm in Berkshire, part of Bagshot Heath, which was in a state of nature when he bought it. He had expended large sums of money upon it, and had made part of it bring good crops. The custom as to compensation as between outgoing and incoming tenants was entirely different in the adjoining counties of Berks and Surrey. Surrey is the most expensive county in England. I do not think any outgoing tenant could complain of Surrey. He is paid for his dressing and half dressing and clover-lay.' In Berkshire, on the other hand, the outgoing tenant is only paid for acts of husbandry.' He is not entitled to compensation for drainage or for chalking-that is, spreading chalk over sand or clay-land. The crops are very deficient as compared with what they would be if the land were well drained and chalked. A tenant from year to year could not prudently undertake these operations; and even if landlords were willing to grant leases, it appears that at that time, when the corn law had recently been repealed, tenants were indisposed to take them. In Lincolnshire, which appears to be the model county, the tenants get allowances for their improvements;' and this is what the witnesses desire to see established in other counties. But the committee ask how this is to be done, and the witnesses answer this-which is the vital question-very imperfectly. In Lincolnshire, says Mr. Houghton, where tenant-right exists, great improvements have gone on. There was no compulsory law in that county to make landlords improve their property, but they have done it in the voluntary endeavour to accomplish the most they could for their own and the public good. In that county a very liberal tenant-right exists upon the voluntary principle.' The witness proposed that a yearly tenant should give notice to his landlord of intended improvements by draining, &c., with a view to charge the landlord or the land with the amount expended; and if the landlord dissented, then that some tribunal shond

decide as to the expediency of the proposed works. But, being asked whether he would take from the landlord the power of giving notice to quit, he answered, 'Certainly not. Other witnesses were conducted by the committee, by slightly different roads, to the same result; and, on the whole, it appears that the evils complained of, which undoubtedly were very general and serious, could not be remedied by the legislature without an interference with the rights of property, which the witnesses themselves disclaimed all intention of recommending. Mr. Houghton was asked whether, as he wished a tribunal to regulate the terms of tenure, he would also limit the power of landlords to raise their rent ; and again he answered, Certainly not. He expressed very strongly his feeling of the necessity of having the inferior grass-lands of England broken up—a feeling which possibly subsequent experience may have modified-and he considered it proper for the legislature to say that such land should not be allowed to remain in a state of unproductiveness. But, said the committee, it might be thought that other owners of capital did not do the best with it, and would you like any tribunal to interfere with them? and if not, consider whether a landlord is not in the same category.

"Let us now see what was the state of things in the model county of Lincoln in 1848. Mr. Hesseltine told the committee that he occupied about 1,500 acres at Worlaby, in North Lincolnshire, of which 1,000 acres were arable, and the remainder grass. In 1812, when his father took this farm, it was in a very bad state of cultivation, only just broken up from heath, and not fit for growing corn. By chalking, this farm had become capable of bearing good crops of wheat and turnips. The crops of turnips were very good indeed, and the witness was able to winter upon his farm 2,500 sheep; whereas it would not before 1812 have kept above onefourth of that number. This operation had been beneficial to a large tract of country from the Humber up to Louth. The land was generally held on yearly tenancy, and the tenants engaged in the large outlay required for chalking in reliance upon the security given to them by the custom of the country. The custom was that whatever money the tenant laid out in chalking should he divided over a period of seven years, and if he quitted the farm before the expiration of that period he would receive in proportion, according to the number of years unexpired. The custom also gave an allowance for bones used as manure. The effect of this manure was supposed to last three years, and if the tenant quitted before he had enjoyed the full benefit of it he was allowed a proportional compensation. There was also compensation for improving peat land by claying it. This process had been generally adopted on the fen lands, which had thereby been made capable of growing good crops of wheat. The benefit of claying was supposed to be exhausted in five years, and the compensation was regulated accordingly. There was also a customary allowance for oilcake purchased for cattle. It is supposed that one portion of the cake consumed on a farm is represented by beef and mutton, and the residue by manure, and for this latter portion the out-going tenant receives compensation. It is considered that a tenant is entitled to an allowance for the oilcake which he has given to his own stock, because it improves the manure so much; the better the stock is kept, the better the manure is.' The various improvements which were based upon the Lincolnshire tenant-right had increased the productiveness of the light soils to the extent of at least one-fourth, and rents had risen in proportion. It appears that the custom of tenant-right was of modern origin. The witness, being asked whether there was any custom in existence that would have secured to his father any payment under the head of chalking, claying, or bone manure, answered, "There were not any customs then.' Improvements were generally made in the district between 1812 and 1826, but the agreements subsisting at the beginning of this period did not contain provisions for compensation, and these improvements took place antecedent to the customs.' The tenants either had confidence in those whom they held under, or the profit of farming was so great that they made those improvements without the recognition of the custom. It thus appears that in Lincolnshire the custom of giving compensation for improvements grew out of the improvements themselves, which the tenants made through confidence in the continuance of their holding. Another witness, Mr. Beasley, speaking as to the custom of South Lin

colnshire, says, 'We have found it desirable to promote the tenant-right as much as possible.' And there can be little doubt that this so-called custom was in fact made by the land-valuers of the district, just as the common-law of England has been made by the judges who profess merely to declare it. Indeed, a witness being asked what was the custom as to guano, auswered, 'The principle is not established for what time guano is to be allowed for.' Mr. Beasley, being asked what had been the increase of produce in the heath lands of Lincolnshire in consequence of improved farming, answered, "The increase has been from almost nothing to 32 and 36 bushels of wheat to an acre. It was formerly little more than a rabbit-warren, only thirtyfive years ago.' This witness stated that the custom as to drainage in his district was to allow the out-going tenant for the expense incurred in draining divided over five years. He believed that both landlords and tenants were perfectly satisfied with the allowances made in Lincolnshire. The custom of the country was so well ascertained and understood that the practice on many of the best estates was to farm without any lease or agreement of any kind. He considered that a lease of upwards of fourteen years would give the farmer equal inducement to improve as he had under the tenant-right. The witness stated that he had occupied for thirty years, and had made great improvements without having any agreement or lease, and he had a great objection either to grant or to take a lease. The landlord's objection to a lease is that the first part of the term is spent in getting up the condition of the land, and the latter part in lowering it. The tenant's objection seems to be that at the end of the term the bargain is also at an end, but if it is from year to year, neither party thinks of a change.'

"It may occur to a reader who does not know much of farmers that if they want these compensations they should stipulate for them when they take their farms. But a perusal of this report will show that what appears simple and obvious is very difficult. A farmer who went to a landlord's agent to prescribe the new conditions on which he would take a farm would be told that, if he did not chose to take it upon the old conditions, some other farmer would. Improvement must originate with landlords who have intelligence to see what is wanted, and pecuniary means to accomplish it. Notwithstanding the great advance which English agriculture has made since 1848, there are probably many districts which might be benefited by adopting the methods of improvement described in this report, which is also valuable as showing the most hopeful remedy for the ills of Ireland. Both countries want landlords like Lord Yarborough, who transplanted the Lincolnshire tenant-right, with modifications, to the Isle of Wight. Mr. Gibbons, the agent for Lord Yarborough, told the committee, In Lincolnshire we do not allow anything for linseed-cake for sheep. I have introduced it in the Isle of Wight.' Again, he said, 'I know what the general feeling about our Lincolnshire tenant-right is, and where I think they have not been quite liberal enough, I have made them rather more liberal.' This witness objected to the sort of legislation which other witnesses desired, on the ground that it would enable a tenant to make experiments at his landlord's expense. I know,' said he, very clever men whom I would not trust to spend my money.' But without legislation there is so much common sense in favour of this principle that it will make its way.' The witness would not assert that the Lincolnshire tenant-right had been upheld in any trial at law, but it had been frequently submitted to upon arbitration. A lawyer who was examined before the committee cited the legal definition of a custom, as that which has prevailed immemorially; but the custom of the country' with reference to husbandry means no more than the existing prevalent usage of the district. In Lincolnshire the valuers have from time to time settled the principle,' and perhaps between 1848 and the present year they may have been doing the same in the Isle of Wight. Experience has justified the opinion expressed by this committee, that a liberal system of compensation to the outgoing tenant is beneficial to agriculture, to the landlord, and to the farmer; that it leads to great increase in the productiveness of the soil, and to extended employment of the rural population. But any attempt to make the general adoption of such a system compulsory would be met with great practical difficulties, and the committee could do no more than

express their hope that it would be adopted by voluntary arrangement between landlords and tenants. This is the only reasonable answer that can be given to the demand for statutory tenant-right, whether in England or in Ireland."

The subjoined extract relates to the same subject as the foregoing; it recently appeared in the Economist as a contribution to the Agricultural Section of that paper:

"A more striking illustration of the stagnant condition of all, or nearly all, that concerns the management of land in England could scarcely be found than the fact that the report on agricultural customs contained in a recently-issued blue book is merely a re-issue of the report of Mr. Pusey's committee of 1848. Mr. Pusey, as we all know, was himself an earnest improver, and he thought he could induce the landed interest to consent to give their tenants legal right to be paid for certain improvements, without abandoning that quasi-feudal domination over tenants so dear to the English landowner. Mr. Pusey found all his efforts to be labour in vain.

"The re-issue of that report, and its 'mild' conclusions, would show that the landlord mind now imagines the question may be taken up where Mr. Pusey left it. Farmers may have facilities to improve, if they be not rendered independent. An agricultural contemporary - whose views seem at times to halt between two opinions, the progressive and the stand-still, and remain, a kind of moral miracle, suspended between them-vouches for this fact, and says that the re-issue has been made at the instance of Mr. Newdegate. He also says, and rightly, that that part of the report which recommended the assimilation of the law as to agricultural fixtures to that of trade fixtures has been accomplished. It is well to remind the world of that infinitesimal progression, for in all else this report might as well have been made now as eighteen years ago, for all the good which has resulted from it to the agriculture of this country. It was then, as it is now, one of the makeshifts and make-believes by which the landed proprietors and their apologists have long striven, and still strive, to induce farmers to risk their capital in high farming, without the only securities which as prudent men they ought to require, i. e., long and rational leases. Farmers may be certain-and there are few districts in England which have not afforded sad examples-that any reliance on customary allowances, whether of the old or new pattern, will be as unsafe in fact as it is unsound in principle. We know that many who seek to delude farmers, and perhaps themselves, by a sort of mock liberality, represent such allowances as equivalent to a lease, but let any farmer holding his farm under such terms try it. Let him quarrel with the gamekeeper-let him interfere with the game bred on his farm and fed on his crops for his landlord's profit-let him vote against his landlord's candidate at the county election—and he will then test the real value-the no value of the tenant-right' panacea. We know such out-spoken truths are not well received in some quarters, but it is time that, in the best interests of agriculture-in the true interest of landlord and tenant-that they should be frequently spoken until they are, as they will be, generally accepted.

"The following extract from a letter to the Times, by Mr. Sanderson, a very able land agent, comes apropos to a comment on the I-will-and-I-won't' system of land management which would cajole tenant-farmers into yearly holdings with tenant-right agreements. In a former letter Mr. Sanderson has made a remark which had provoked adverse comments, and was to this effect, That were leases granted landlords would nearly double their incomes; farmers, by getting a fresh spur to exertion, would rapidly improve their position; while every class of the community would rejoice in the increase of native produce.' With respect to the first proposition, viz., that landlords would nearly double their incomes; which, if established, proves the others, it cannot be denied that the rental value of land is much higher when let on lease than from year to year. For my own part, whereever I fix farm rentals I put from 5s. to 78. 6d. per acre more upon land of medium quality farmed under the security of a lease than if occupied on the system of