THE COMING TENANT-RIGHT BMA.
IT is quite possible that Tenant-right for Great Britain may occupy an unexpected share of attention in the coming Session. Many, influential politicians are pressing a strong Agricultural Holdings Bill upon the Government ; Lord Hartington promised that some measure should be brought forward; and many Liberal Members, especially from Scotland, have expressed a fervent hope that there may be no further delay. Above a]], the farmers themselves are growing enthu- siastic and angry. Their position in many districts, Essex especially, is growing worse than ever. They see no prospect of a good crop this year, prices do not rise, their capital is be- coming exhausted, and they have, especially in the South, sold and pledged their live stock, from which alone they expect profit, to a most alarming extent. They are feed- ing sheep, in particular, from which the dealers alone will reap gain. They are, moreover, suffering more and more from what we may call an imaginative cause. Farmers, though not a sanguine race, are accustomed to encounter a bad year or two, and are well aware that in their business they more than other men must rely upon averages, rather than upon the results of any special year. The long continuance of the present distress has, however, daunted them ; they have lost hope, and they are beginning, for the first time in this generation, to dread leases, instead of hankering after them. A long right of occupancy implies a long-continued claim for rent, and they think, if affairs do not improve, "a lease may prove nothing but a millstone." The larger men among them are anxiously seeking, therefore, for a tenure which shall give security, yet not involve a lease ; and they have hit upon a formula which they think sufficient. Not only the Farmers' Alliance and its federated branches, but a part of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and its federated Chambers have adopted two demands,—that they shall be entitled to compensation for unexhausted improvements, and that the landlord shall not be permitted, even under con- tract, to increase rent in consequence of such improvements. The effect of these two measures will be, they think, that they may spend their money secure of its return, and may remain, without leases, nearly secure against eviction.
The tenants will, we imagine, get a strong Bill. Part of their demand, that they should have security for unexhaubted improvements, is obviously just. A man can live in a house without improving it, and, indeed, by living there deteriorates it ; but a farmer cannot farm properly without improving the farm. It is right that he should be compensated for outlays, and as it is of national importance that agriculture be good, it may be wise to forbid individual farmers from contracting themselves out of their claim. We do forbid all other contracts to the public injury, and if that one can be shown to be injurious, it may fairly be forbidden too. That argument is strong, and so are the tenant-farmers. They send up the county Members, they are angry enough to disregard party politics, and the landlords have for the moment very little influence. They are seeking tenants, not picking them, and can no more reject applicants for holding Alliance principles than they can reject them for carrying flowers in their button- holes on Sunday. The farmers may be perfectly sure that the Government will meet their wishes to the largest extent com- patible with justice, and will do their utmost to carry a sub- stantial Bill.
We should say that, after much consideration, the whole demand of the Farmers will be made a principle of law,—that compensation for unexhausted improvements will be granted, even in defiance of contract ; and that the serious controversy will rage around the question of suspending freedom of con- tract, as regards increase of rent upon unexhausted improve- ments. That is a most grave demand, if, as we understand from the proceedings at the Alliance meeting, it is to be seriously pressed, and one which will rouse interests outside the Agricultural world. That a farmer should enjoy his improve-. ments, if he remains, without increase of rent, based upon his own outlay for the benefit of the farm, may be reasonable— though the vitality of the soil being the basis of improvement, the landlord who owns that vitality has some claim to a share—and may at all events be conceded as a principle of law ; but that a farmer should be forbidden to give a higher rent, if he pleases and has contracted to do it, is a serious demand. Let us extend it to houses. J. Smith, with a thirty years' lease of his house still to run, wants a new bath-room, and builds one at his own expense. When the lease has expired, the owner finds that the bath-room has raised the value of the house five per cent., and puts that addition upon the rent. That seems hard, but Smith knew the terms of his lease, knew that when it expired he would have no rights, and still, to comfort himself during his term, made his improvement. Can it be wise, or even just, to forbid both landlord and tenant to make such an agreement ? The landlord, it is clear, will be injured, for he will either have to forfeit his right of eviction and his higher rent, or pay for a bath-room he did not want to buy ; and the tenant will be injured, for he will be forbidden to build to his own hurt, even when desirous of so wasting his money. The effect of such a rule must be to induce the rural landlord to refuse permission to improve, lest he should lose his right of re-entrance without payment, and so to diminish the tenant's liberty to put capital in the soil. That can hardly be to the benefit of agriculture, and besides, there is a more general principle to be considered. If we are to protect a tenant, always a grown man, presumably sane, and specially acquainted with his own trade, from injudiciously investing his own money, where are we to stop ? Is the Legislature to tell Messrs. Swan and Edgar that the fancy for Japanese silks will not last, and that, consequently, they must not contract to buy those silks long in advance ? The principle is exactly the same ; and unless some great gain can be shown to arise to the community from the prohibition, it cannot be logically defended. Such gain was shown in Ireland, because the prin- cipal or sole occupation being agriculture, the farmers could not, however oppressed, throw up their farms, and society itself was endangered by their misery ; but can any such argument be pleaded for this country ? In England and Scotland, surely, farming is but one business in a hundred, and the least gainful of all ; while, as a matter of fact, farms are thrown up by thousands a year, without anybody, except the landlords, even noticing the fact. Society is not shaken, or even alarmed.
We have no wish whatever to condemn off-hand a proposal adopted unanimously by such important bodies of skilled men, but we must point out to them that they are restricting their own liberties very seriously. A farmer who may not make the contract he pleases is a farmer fettered. He may very well wish to say to a landlord, "If you will give me such and such privileges, say, the total extirpation of game, I, on my part, will, at the expiration of my term, accept any rent to be fixed by mutual consent, with- out valuation." If that suits him, why should he be forbidden to make that arrangement ? The farmers answer, "Because, if free contract is allowed, the landlord will compel us to surrender our right ;" but where is the compulsion ? The farmer has only to refuse to take the farm, and the land- lord must give way. The "pull of the market" is with the tenant, and if it were not, farmers can combine. One of the speakers at the Alliance meeting on Tuesday spoke as if any form of free contract was fatal to the farmer, and indeed said, as the Times reports, that "freedom of contract meant 'take the land on the landlord's conditions, or leave it ;' " but is that true? Of course if it is true, then, in the interest of agriculture, freedom may be limited ; but is it true? The landlords say that at present they can get no conditions at all, and the tenants say that their farms ruin them. Then where is there such compulsion to submit to the landlord; that to make agriculture possible the tenants must be deprived of their own most ordinary liberties There may be reasons for such de- mands imperceptible to us, but they certainly seem to involve in principle Fixity of Tenure, and will be resisted by the land- lords just as strenuously ; while the landlords will be supported by men who very seldom act with them, but will dread other applications of the same idea. Everything in this country is leased out, from farms to public singers, and in all cases the terms of renewal are left to depend either upon contract or agreement. The farmers wish for an exceptional law against contract, and will find that, at first, at all events, the public is not with them. It will understand very well why rent should not be raised on them, because of their improvements, without their own consent ; but it will not understand why they should wish to debar themselves from the right of consenting.
Previous page
