DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0263
CONTRACTS FOR THE USE OF LAND. 247
with which it has followed up agricultural improvements, and for
the entirely successful and satisfactory relations which it has
established between the landlord and his tenants. Now I am
told that the principles of Lord Leicester's lease are as follows.
The tenant takes a lease for, say, twenty-one years, entire discretion
being given him as to the course of cultivation, and as to sales
from the land. At the conclusion of a part of the term, the
duration of the lease is extended at the pleasure of the tenant,
the basis of the new rent being taken from an average of agri-
cultural prices at or about the time of the renewal, so that the
rent is continually adjusted, for though prices do not determine
profits, they aid usefully in interpreting them. As I have been
told, during the term the tenant is allowed a discretion in cul-
tivating his land and selling his produce, but if he elects to run
his lease out he is very properly put under restrictions during
the last three years of his holding. I am told that the system has
operated to the satisfaction of all parties, nor do I doubt that Lord
Leicester deals very generously and wisely with his tenants when
they undertake permanent improvements of an obvious kind.
Now ;his lease, the particulars of which, as far as my memory
goes, I heard from my friend, Mr. James Howard, embodies every-
thing which, in concert with some of my colleagues in the House
of Commons, I strove in vain to urge upon Parliament, when
the Agricultural Holdings Act was in Committee. But the
failures of some people are the successes of others, and I do not
doubt that in course of time its natural complement will be added
to English and Scotch legislation. But even then, I fear, for
reasons already given, the recovery will be slow. The British
farmer is more given to illusions than any of his countrymen.
Next to him is the ordinary landowner. But this may be con-
fidently alleged, that in matters of high public interest the
obligation on Parliament to revise and regulate contracts is
measured by the stupidity and wrongdoing of those who enter
into and make them.
with which it has followed up agricultural improvements, and for
the entirely successful and satisfactory relations which it has
established between the landlord and his tenants. Now I am
told that the principles of Lord Leicester's lease are as follows.
The tenant takes a lease for, say, twenty-one years, entire discretion
being given him as to the course of cultivation, and as to sales
from the land. At the conclusion of a part of the term, the
duration of the lease is extended at the pleasure of the tenant,
the basis of the new rent being taken from an average of agri-
cultural prices at or about the time of the renewal, so that the
rent is continually adjusted, for though prices do not determine
profits, they aid usefully in interpreting them. As I have been
told, during the term the tenant is allowed a discretion in cul-
tivating his land and selling his produce, but if he elects to run
his lease out he is very properly put under restrictions during
the last three years of his holding. I am told that the system has
operated to the satisfaction of all parties, nor do I doubt that Lord
Leicester deals very generously and wisely with his tenants when
they undertake permanent improvements of an obvious kind.
Now ;his lease, the particulars of which, as far as my memory
goes, I heard from my friend, Mr. James Howard, embodies every-
thing which, in concert with some of my colleagues in the House
of Commons, I strove in vain to urge upon Parliament, when
the Agricultural Holdings Act was in Committee. But the
failures of some people are the successes of others, and I do not
doubt that in course of time its natural complement will be added
to English and Scotch legislation. But even then, I fear, for
reasons already given, the recovery will be slow. The British
farmer is more given to illusions than any of his countrymen.
Next to him is the ordinary landowner. But this may be con-
fidently alleged, that in matters of high public interest the
obligation on Parliament to revise and regulate contracts is
measured by the stupidity and wrongdoing of those who enter
into and make them.