Monmouthshire Merlin

MONMOUTHSHIRE CHAMBER OF AGRICULTURE. A special meeting of this Chamber, convened by circular, was held at the George Hotel, Chepstow, on Monday afternoon last, for the purpose of hearing a paper read bv J. Lynch Fletcher, Esq., on Compen- sation to tenants for unexhausted improvements," and discussion thereon. The chair was taken by G. R. Greenhow-Relph, Esq., the president. There were also present John Lawrence, Esq., vice-president; Rev. Turborville Williams (Caldicot), Messrs. J. Lynch Fletcher (Chepstow), R. Stratton (Duffryn), J. Pybus (Llanvihansel), H. Higgins (Woollaston), James Till (Caerwent), Edward Ball (Crick), Samuel Perkins (Matherne), Chandler (Matherne), Chandler, jun. (Matherne), T. Wood- hall (Denham), H. S. Williams (Southbrook), George Jones (Caldicot), T. H. Morgan (Chepstow), D. Bull (Barnage), Cadle (Howick), A. E. Frost, &c., c. The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said ne would not detain them by any preliminary remarks. At a meeting held at Newport some time since, a resolution was passed to the effect that Mr. Fletcher be requested to read a paper on compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, at Chepstow, on the Friday in Whitsun week. It however, so happened that Mr. Fletcher was not at home on that occasion and it was consequently left for him (Mr. Fletcher) and the Secretaries to arrange some other day which would be convenient—hence the present meeting. The Chairman then read the notice con- vening the meeting. Mr. J. Lynch Fletcher then proceeded :— In addressing this Chamber for the first time, I desire to express my sense of the importance which attaches to meeting's of this character. The growth of Chambers of Agriculture throughout the length and breadth of the land is no insignificant feature in our times. It is a proof that the cause of the proprietors and occupiers of the soil hold no mean position in this country. The subject of Compensation for Unexhausted Improvements,' which I have your permission to introduce for discussion this evening', is of such vast importance to both landlord, tenant, and the country at large, that I trust I shall not venture an idea or express an opinion which may be detri- mental to these interests, but, on the contrary, I hope the views which I entertain upon the question may assist in its solution. I desire to keep my remarks within reason- able bounds, so as to give ample time for my hearers to criticise and to express their opinions, for the simple reason that I believe our subject is more likely to be un- derstood and the cause advanced by some of those now around me, expressing, in good practical language, the views they entertain. At no period of our history has the public mind (particularly the agricultural portion) felt more keenly the need of a well-digested tenant right than now. Chambers of Agriculture have spoken on the sub- ject of leases, tenant-right, and compensation for unex- hausted improvements, but as yet no scheme has been de- vised for recognising and regulating the value of tenants' improvements. It is impossible that matters should re- main in this state. Agricultural interests are too power- fully advocated to permit of delay there never was more capital, greater intelligence, and vigour devoted to the cause than at this period. On every side are seen im- proved husbandry, valuable live stock, a contented and well-to-do peasantry. Men are no longer content to farm as our forefathers did. Cattle must be housed and artifi- cially fed, lands drained and artificially manured, and edu- cation and energy are necessary to direct. Yet, forsooth, the one great question remains unsolved, How to estab- lish a tenant-right which should give greater encourage- ment to the expenditure of tenants' capital, at the same time that it affords security for the outlay ?', Arguments have been used ascribing the delay to in- security of tenure, the absence of leases, and an imperfect system of compensation. To these we might add the ob- jections, both felt and expressed, to putting down a largi sum on entering a farm-the want of capital at that period—and, then, again, the natural anxiety of both in- coming anil outgoing tenant to keep down expenses, and to secure themselves in every possible manner in both quitting and entering upon a farm. Also, there is so much vagueness connected with valuations, that dissatisfaction often arises to one or both of the parties negotiating. We have no scale of prices for produce, or unexhausted im- provements. Such as is acknowledged in one district is ignored in another, as if the property and operations of a tanner were such as could not be priced and the items published and paid for. I feel sure these causes produce a slackness, and retard agricultural progress. I believe many in this room will endorse these ideas. I have be- fore now met with a tenant who after having agreed to take to a farm, became so alarmed at the amount of the valuation, that he prayed to be released, and immediately afterwards I have let the same farm to the next comer without his raising an objection. I give this fact by way of illustration, for I fear it is a circumstance of too com- mon occurrence. "If it is really intended to bring about a more simple and perfect mode of action on changing holdings, we must be up and stirring, we have much yet to learn and discuss before customs become assimilated. What do we find ? Customs in some localities, none in others. Leases and agreements in existence exhibiting absurd differences in their clauses, until no two counties possess identical rules for letting land. These are points in which occupiers alone are almost entirely concerned, they are essentially tenants' questions, and they must be argued and pursued uutil a pure, general system is attained. Inasmuch as it is not likely or possible that leases will become general, or that owners will subseribe to one form of tenancy, so we must abandon our hope of finding relief entirely at the hands of the landlord. Agriculturists must unite, debate, shape, and agree upon a broad measure for compensating each other for works of improvement,' which I hope to show appertain exclusively to themselves. It has been asked what are Unexhausted Improve- ments ?' In the first instance they appear to be works of a permanent character, such as the landlord does, or should supply, or the tenant performs with the permission of the owner. They include buildings, drainage, road-. making, ponds, and construction of fences. These opera- tions should never be undertaken by an occupier, except under a distinct understanding with the proprietor. Drain- ing is best carried out at the sole cost of the owner, who charges the interest upon the tenant in the form of an in- creased rent. Where the tiles are buried and the labour is performed by the latter, a special guarantee, extending over at least seven years, should be granteil him. They are entirely matters of agreement between landlord and tenant, such as cannot be arranged or settled by us. It would occur to a man of business that operations for the mutual benefit of two individuals can be effecte 1 without consulting a third party, therefore I contend that a tenant has only himself to blame if he embarks capital on another's property, without first obtaining a guarantee that his outlay shall be secured. Believing this to be the legitimate course for arranging matters of a permanent character between the landowner and occupier. I come to the subject of game, and as far as I can judge it is a question that mu-t be settled by the same means. I do not see how the Legislature can, with justice, dictate what amount shall be kept on an estate. It is hardly policy for you to attempt to do so, but it is perfectly competent for an occupier to make terms with the proprietor which shall secure him from injury or loss. A large head of ground game is most improper a tenant should protect himself against it. If he enters into an unfortunate contract re- garding game, &c., and foregoes the liberty to kill rabbits, he is undeserving pity. With hut few exceptions, the land- lords of England are just, and liberal, and reasonable in their requirements. You would not deny their right to adopt such form of letting as they choose. At the same time you hold yourself free to make the best terms in your power with them. There is no denying the fact that agriculture suffers in proportion to the desire and power of those possessing land to perform improvements. There are extensive estates but partially developed by reason of the want of funds to open them out, and on these very estates reside tenants willing to: undertake the cost and responsibility of works of improvement whose efforts are drowned by the powerless position of the tenant tor lite. He cannot charge the property with an outlay tor im- provements by himself, and the occupiers' lease is not Ion! enough to allow him to commence the work with hIS own capital. It's a matter of regret that proprietors do not avail themselves more generally of the Act of Parlia- ment which permits the employment of capital from what- ever source towards benefitting the freehold, securing the outlay by the ordinary mode of rent charge. Tracts of poverty-stricken land might be redeemed by granting leases. Tenants would be forthcoming who would pay the interest on the money expended in addition to the old rent, but these are matters hardly connected with the sub- ject we have in hand. But there is another question in which landlords and tenants are deeply concerned, not of the character of an improvement, although it is of essential importance to both parties. I refer to the agricultural products which custom requires should be left for the successor by the ousting tenant. By this I mean hay, straw, and manure, which are as necessary to the profitable working and exis- tence of the farm as food is to the support of man. No matter in what season the tenancy begins, a portion of these articles should be iB an occupation without them? Where is the man that would quietly enter upon a holding robbed of its fodder and manure ? What would be his first complaint, and what the first re- quest? There is no hay, litter, « dung. I must be allowed the equivalent thl T rent free for a period. Here, th«S^bJrTnd certam tion between the ownersh.p of f d products appertaining to it. iisJvin| in(,;Die which re- tion, we establish at once the broad quires that a reasonable Proportion ot nay^ farm-yard manure should ot necessity be j cannot owner or incomer. I say of necessity, mnforials imagine there being a doubt on the subject, t with- in question are the very life and soul of the farm- out them there could be no length of existence. know that as a rule hay, straw, and manure, in lair pro- portions are or should be left, but we also know that this rule ia most irregularly and imperfectly observed, causing dissatisfaction, and not unfrequently loss and injury to the incoming tenant. He either finds fodder in unreason- able abundance or cruelly short, and no manure, or rubbish called by that name, which he has to pay for. This unsatisfactory state of things arises from there being ao established general rule or custom in the country. "Now, it is this very word custom' which appears to annihilate all good and pure practice, and acts as a barrier o anything like uniformity of action. Why, the variety in customs°in this land would make the largest volume of contradictions ever met with. In some instances, hay, straw, and manure are valued. Again, only hay and a portion of straw and no manure, we find none of these commodities, except bay, recgguieed by tlzgee vshiiug. II will give yon a few examples from different counties, the information is derived within the last few days from friends, and I now take this opportunity of thanking them JCUSTOM CUSTOM As to manuring with COUNTIES. [Lime, Chaik, Bones, Ar- As to the Purchase or tificial Manure, an the Transfer of Hay, Straw, Consumption of Artificialiand farm yard. Manure. Food. NORTHCMBER-, No general systemof pay- Manure left, but not iiA.^n ment, nor any tenant- pant for. Nothing said ri^ht. about hay and straw, DERBY Limt considered to last & straw purchased four years, J deducted at market pile-, with yearly bones on grass, an allowance for dnli- s veil years ditto very. Farm yardma- ploughed land, three nura purchased by the years artificial ma- ton. nure, two years ditto yeilis artificial ma- ton. nure, two years ditto food, J the bill a lowel.j BUCKS !So particular etistoiii. Wheat straw goes off. That used for roots in Hay and Lent com last ytar of ten ncy, e nsumed. Manure tu I value allowed. not paid for. KEXT If crop taken after use of Hay paid for in some artificial manure, no instances at naiket allowance, nor any for! prices, soma at spend- artificial food. mg. Manure not puichased. S'ISSEX !If no crop taken afterlHay, 60s per ton; straw, application, full cost,! chxg.dis near cost in addition earri ngs of cleaning and carry- and applying; alter-1 ing com to market; wards yearly deduc-' that tli.-itche<i before tions. Consumption ufl Michaelmas paid for; artificial food, nothing manure, in heap of allowed (but ought to good quality, 3s. 6d, be). P3r J ard. RANTS No allowance for lime, Hay and fodder of chalk, or bones, or ar- straw valued. Straw tificial manure, except and dung left free. in rare cases. DORSET \n outgoing tenant gets Hay and straw consump- uo ailowar.ee, or next Hon price. Dung for to it. wha-it may be worth. SOMERSET Unexh usted manures H, y and straw consum- one third allowtd. ing price. Manure not paid for. DEVON Lime, before a crop, ful Hay dlld straw at con- c-st after one crop, sllmin price. one hlf one .n,1 a half; two to two thirds. Manure crop^one fourth: bones, not paid for. same prop it tion; gu ino and supei phosphate used in last year, two thirds of ost. provided latter does not exceed 109. HEREFORD Not at all, excepting a Hny, consuming price. special ag eemtnt. Straw i-nd manures not paid for. MONMOUTH .The s rnie, except under Ditto. sped 1 agreement. Many of my hearers will, no doubt, form notions of their own upon these diverse rules. In the meantime I must return to this question of payment for hay, straw, and dung. Now, the payment we are speaking of becomes a serious question in the event of a Michaelmas entry. I Seeing, at that season, the corn is harvested, hay abounds, there are large breadths of roots, some fallow, and yards, and boxes swelling with dung. At Lady Day the quantities of the several commodities are reduced to the lowest convenient scale, and it may happen that a careless extravagant tenant does not leave sufficient hay and straw to supply the needs of his successor. To meet such an emergency, and for the carrying out of these views, I think a limit should be named to regulate the quantity of both hay and straw which the incomer should take to at Lady Day. For every twenty-five acres of land under corn, say five tons of straw should be left; for every twenty-five acres of grass mown for hay, five tons of hay. Hay to be paid for at one-third market price; straw to be paid for at one-fourth market price. Straw is now such an important ingredient in feeding, that it must become an article of purchase, and more care it is to be hoped will be bestowed upon it. Manure properly thrown together to be paid for at the rate of 3s. per cubic yard. At Michaelmas of course the quantity of these several products would be very large, but I would adopt the same scale of payment. I believe a general system of this sort would induce greater care for both straw and manure, and that the purchaser would be the gainer. It seems unreasonable that the excrement from animals re- ceiving corn, should be left in exchange for a valueless compound of dirt and straw called manure, and yet this may occur where it is the custom to leave the material without payment. Too much encouragement cannot be given towards maintaining a higher state of fertility at the termination of a tenancy, and therefore I argue strongly in favour of payment for indispensable produce, such as has been named to you. I have given you my ideas on the principles which should regulate arrange- ments between landlord and tenant in the matters of per- manent improvements as well as on the absolute purchase of certain farm products by the owner, or incomer, at the termination of a tenancy. If I have failed to convert any of my hearers, I have, nevertheless, started subjects worthy your consideration, and upon which I hope we may hear valuable opinions this evening. I now invite your attention to what I feel is the important part of the question—viz., the necessity for recognising and defining what are the remaining unexhausted improvements and the ragulations you would establish between the outgoing and incoming tenant, for maintaining the condition of the soil and for fairly remunerating the former. The meaning of Unexhausted Improvements,' as concerns an occupier, I take it signifies 'an existing in- terest in an investment which cannot be immediately realised. These investments take a varle y of forms, their effects are unequal in duration, and the cost of employing them differs, more or less, according to circumstances. They purpose to impart condition and fertility to soils, and there is no doubt that, under proper management, the investments become highly beneficial and valuable. We are accustommed to speak of them as acts of husbandry, cultivations, manuring with lime, chalk, bones, rape cake, and various artificial compounds such as guano, superphos- phate of lime, &c., and the spending of cabe and corn in yards and upon the land. Acts of husbandry and tillages, when carried out in reasonable, workmanlike order, are of the utmost importance and advantage to an incoming tenant, and subject to limitations, they might be legally and regularv performed by the outgoer at a published scale. As for the manures and other material just named they have become the chief elements in modern farming; the necessity for them is best evidenced by the extensive manner in which they are adopted, and it is a matter of national regret that a check to their use should ever occur. That it does happen we all know too well, for it is the common habit, long before the term for quitting a farm arrives, to discontinue the use of artificials. Pro- fesser Low in speaking of tenure says No farm can be cultivated in a suitable manner unless the farmer can look forward to a future time in which he can recover with a profit the capital expended by him.' Now, it is most desirable that all farms should be cultivated in a good and proper manner, and that their fertility should be preserve,), and if this can only be at- tained through a system which recognises a tenant's out- lay and provides for the repayment of it, the sooner a scheme to effect such a desirable end is framed and adopted the better. Cultivations and acts of husbandry assume almost the same form throughout the country, now that the imple- ments employed are so similar, that a universal scile of prices suited to all localists might be agreed upon for steam and horse labour, and other ordinary work of till- age, care being taken that only a reasonable number of plouo-hmgs or other costly operations would be sanctioned. Since steam has effected such marvellous works of cultivation, some of its operations would need to be specially considered for instance, smashing up heavy clays by Fowler's digger, or subsoiling with steam culti- vators, are tillages which confer lasting benefit on such soils, and they should be valued accordingly. The old system of summer fallow is rapidly disap- pearing. Where it still exists, the ploughings should be confined to not more than three. 1 remember pursuing a lease in Surrey, in which no less than five ploughings to fallows were covenanted to be done by the outgoing tenant. I did not hear that the farm though was let upon those terms. The outlay for cultivations and acts of husbandry would vary according to the season a tenant entered on his farm. I am decidedly of opinion that Ladyday, the 25th of March, and Michaelmas, the 29th September, are in every respect the fittest periods for dating a tenancy, and of these seasons I prefer Lady-day. The bulk of the material grown on the land is then either consumed or sold the interest of the outgoing tenant is comparatively simple to value, and that most undesirable practice of tenants sharing the same house and homestead is avoided. '■ In districts where chalk, lime, marl, and bones are applied, the utility and value of these substances are well known' and appreciated you could only frame a table of payment for them on assumptions, since the quality of the materials themselves and the properties of the soil to which they are applied have no uniformity of action. Nevertheless, the matter is capable of adjustment, and prices mi,ht be agreed upon in localities where such things are used which would satisfy the man who incurred the cost of the operations, be perfectly fair to his successor, and of great benefit to the community. Guano and superphos- phate of lime should be allowed for under certain circum- stances. For instance, where either or both are applied to the root crops, and the acts of husbandry and cultiva- tion to that crop are charged, in the case of the roots themselves being valued, manures are not calculated. I have never detected lasting results where these manures are used they appear to act as a stimulant, and no doubt do largely increase the bulk of the root crop, but the benefit to cereals and grasses may be purchased at the expense of the soil, and for that reason I am not sure that I should allow anything for their use any more than I should for nitrate of soda or sulphate of ammonia. I have no doubt that these opinions will be unpalatable to some of our great experimentalists and theorists, and whilst declaring my great respect for their talents and labours, I cannot forget that we have yet to debate and pass a scheme—to deal with plain simple facts-and that until this is carried, it is impossible to go into the far deeper question of top dressings and their influences. The consumption of oil cake and corn on land has a highly beneficial and comparatively a lasting effect, such as warrants a valuer in taking cognizance of it. So much depends upon the quality of the cake and corn used that I submit an analysis of them should accompany the invoice. This course would prevent the employment of inferior food. Most of us have tried and discovered the manurial effects of these feeding substances, whether on paeture or arable. Poor grass land has been improved 200 per cent., and shallow, hilly ploughs have been profitably cultivated since the secret of feeding oil cake and corn on them has been discovered. Permanent benefit has been produced on meadows by the use of oil cake, and heavy crops of barley and seeds have followed the use of it on inferior Arable land. Who could, I ask, deny the right of au out- going tenant (consuming such food within the last year of his term) to remuneration ? Surely not the man who suc- ceeds, and will therefore reap the fruit of the practice. Feeding and penning land is viewed as one of the most beneficial acts a farmer can pursue. The animal penned becomes the vehicle by which you manure. On our hills sheep previously folded on sainfoin or ley, are given a pen of rape or turnips, or corn is given to the flock folded alone on turnips. Either process enriches the land, the benefit being valued at from 30s. to 50s. per acre sometimes more. Green crops, when only partially fed, such as old or new seeds, not depastured after June, and vetches or rape ploughed in, may fairly be reckoned in a valuation. Before quitting the subject of cultivations, acts of husbandry, manures, and artificial food, I wish to explain that I have avoided entering into detail upon their cost or agricultural value, because I felt it would be presumptuous, and of no avail for me to attempt to introduce a scale of payment for them. The precise worth of these operations is still a matter of doubt, as the reports you have had read to you this afternoon prove. It will require the knowledge and experience of the first agricultural authorities to compile a just and acceptable table of payment for such things. My object has been to draw your attention to those matters which bear more immediately on the question be- fore us. I don't care to enter upon a series of calculations and iyures, at all time& distasteful enough, and which, at the present moment, are useless. This business, I trust, will follow a few such debates as these. It is enough for us to ascertain and declare that certain facts require to be placed on a satisfactory footing, and, having discovered what that should be, to invent proper means for effecting it. I want this meeting to affirm that most or all of the points referred to form a basis or framework for a broad system of tenant right if we once get this idea accepted by the majority of our agriculturists, the machinery for working it out lies in our Chambers of Agriculture. Here the landlord and tenant meet for the purpose of dis- cussing their mutual interests-one and all of them are deeply concerned in the settlement of our subject of to-day, ind their united efforts and wisdom must produce a scheme which shall grapple with the difficulties of our situation, and give us the benefits we have a right to demand. Suppose we take a view of their several interests. The landowner is personally concerned in securing liberal treatment and good management to the soil, the rent and facility of letting depend upon the condition in which a farm is left. It is no uncommon circumstance for a pro- prietor to allow half-a-year's rent", or the equivalent in money, for an exhausted and ill-managed holding. It would be to his interest if custom became legalised, and a stop were put to the wretched course of running out, and otherwise abusing his land. Far better that the owner should take his share in a measure, which would insure a more equitable and profitable working of his estate. What if he consented to take all reasonable cultivations, fodder, ) and manure, at the expiration of a tenancy the step is to his advantage. No tenant can object to take such matters off his landlord's hands, Beyond the responsibi- lity, he would rarely have to find money to pay the valua- tion. the latter being transferred to the new occupier. Next, take the tenant. Surely, it is not to the inte- rest of either outgoing or incoming tenant to treat for a wilderness far better for both that there is something to bargain for. A man on quitting a farm might do worse than think of his successor that too common practice of neglecting cultivations, hoeing, and dispensing with corn for stock in the last year of a tenancy is not always pro- fitable. As I have before observed, there is a vagueness attached to valuations of which we cannot now explain. I take it that many is the pound the tenant has lost through his mistaken economy on leaving. Valuers are good judges and observe how land is left and make their calculations accordingly. There are too many instances of farms given up in woeful condition and disorder ,whieh would scarcely be the case if those quitting them could claim com- pensation for better management—not that I am inclined to recommend payment for fences, roads, watercourses, gateways. These tilings should, as a matter of course, be regularly kept up, and any neglect to do so should be a penalty on the outgoing tenant. See, again, of what ad- vantage it would be to the incoming tenant to succeed to clean fields, rich in manure, sufficient portions of well- stored fodder and straw. His course is thenceforth clear, there is no interruption to ordinary rotations nor check to his energy, but an immediate opportunity for commencing operations with fair promise of success. Surely these are circumstances of no small importance, nor can I ima- gine there is a farmer in this kingdom who would object to a fair payment for a farm so left. Whilst boasting of our supremacy as agriculturists, it is remarkable, but nevertheless true, that the first and grand rule acknow- ledged by the earliest nations is neglected in this genera tion. I refer to the importance of maintaining the fer- tility of land. I was much interested by some remarks in an agricultural work by Pliny, who is reported to have lived A.D. 35,upon this very question of condition in land. He obs rves, Many hold opinions that negligence and ill-husbandry of the former tenant is good for him that shall come after,' but he goes on to say, Nothing is more dangerous and disadvantageous to the incomer than land so left to waste and out of hpart.' Besides other valuable maxims in this book, one other particularly struck me, which I must give to you. The great Cato being asked what was the most assured profit arising out of land,made this answer-' Tofeed cattle well.' It might be well to remember these plain practical re- marks, although uttered by men in the first days of the Christian world. Mechanics and chemistry rendered but little aid then. Yet their ideas and practices for giving and securing condition to the soil were identical with our own, with this exception that the ancients tilled and pre- served the qualities of the land, whilst we till and some- times lose them. There is a class that I have not yet referred to, whose very existence and prosperity is so essential to the safety and success of the proprietor and occupier that agriculture ¡ would cease without them—I mean the labourer. We must acknowledge the importance of good and compe- tent hands, and the necessity for retaining in our employ those who labour cheerfully and manfully for us. As a rule, we find the best and most intelligent workmen in districts noted for the superiority of their agriculture. Here the enterprising tenant follows his pursuit with vigour; there is constant occupation for the labourer, who prospers with an enlightened system of farming. Take another view of the working-man's state. We have a wild ill-managed district, sluggishly and wretchedly farmed, neither capital nor energy with the tenants. Farms only half cultivated, and the peasantry lowly paid and unemployed; occupations change hands, the fields are left to slumber, and the labourer starves. Then follows crime and all its attendant horrors. Now, as 'tenant right' becomes general, this melancholy, but too true picture, will alter. Land will not then be allowed to de- teriorate, capital will be poured into it (now that it is se- cured), and constant employment will be found for the labouring man. A great authority wrote many years ago, That the I wealth of a nation takes its decisive turn in proportion as the earth is well or ill-cultivated.' This is precisely what we are now seeking to do. It is our desire this evening to pronounce an opinion in favour of a general scheme,' to promote the better tillage of the land, and to secure the cultivator in his outlay on it. To the best of my ability I have endeavoured to define what unexhausted improvements' are, distinguishing those of a permanent character appertaining to the landlord, from others of a less enduring nature, belonging almost entirely to the occupier. I have made an effort (a feeble one I fear) to press upon you those features of my subject, which appear of most importance, viz., the necessity for recognising certain operations and treatment of soils, with the view of preserving their fertility, and remunera- ting those parties who performed the work and incurred the expense. "I have spoken of the advantages to both landlord, tenant, and peasant, which would arise in the event of a broad measure of tenant-right being framed and enforced and, in drawing my paper to a close, I would allude to the national importance of such a law. We have just observed that a nation suffers if its agriculture fails, which signifies, I take it, that it is to its disadvantage and loss if any portion of the cultivated area is imperfectly tilled or allowed to run to waste, and this is undoubtedly the case with us. Had we statistics of the quantity of land depre- ciated or thrown out of cultivation by reason of the terms of letting and change of tenancies in one year, I believe' it would be astounding. What occurs in our immediate neighbourhood, happens,, of course, elsewhere. We daily see the evil consequence of no tenant-right and removal from farms and therefore you will believe reports which I now lay before you from other parts of the kingdom as to the condition in which farms are left:— Questions as to custom of termination of Tenancies. Are cultivations, fiU'ra*< as Is the Fallow-manuring, and t d COUNTIES, shift usually left roots wiHingly „ Ht; on a in good order? paid for by in. coming tenant ? y j 1 NOR rrium- The terms bsinf? For the samel am sorry to BERLAND. in March or May ivason this is ay it is so on the tallow-shiitjnot necessary, s me es'.aies. is taken by the incoming tenant.! DSEBV Very often lett.Entirety left to Depends upon tnanuasatisfac the valuer. The the agreement, tory condition. incomer has no or chance 01 power to obj"Ct. compensation. BUCKS Usually good. I believe they Only in I-xcep- are. tional instances. KENT Good. Yes. 0 SUSSEX Ditto. Ditto Not run out, and generally left in good tder. tder. HA^T3 Landlord or in- Landlord or ten- Where capital coming tenant ant puis in roots, needed on land or enters upon it. over-rentsd, it is run out. DOKSBT Usually in very As a rule unwil- Decidedly so. bad order. lingly. SOMERSET .As there is sual- Taken to at val- As a rule, I ly a certain por- uation as a ne- know the tenant tion of Roing off cessity. usually looks to crop it is taken himself. on tke fallow, which is put in 'good order. PEVOV Bad generally. Yea. Yes. HERifj\i'KD. Bad lYes, when stipu-Yes, and until llated for under n more tquit- .special agree- able arrange- ment. ment than that of the custom of the county i-i pursued, it is natural it should be so. MONMOUTH Depends upon This depends on Yes, and we circumstances circumstances want a more an outgoing ten- there is no claim liberal arrang ant does not ge—good tenants ment of competi- nerally trouble, lprefer to pay. sation. I The facts come from the same source as the particulars on customs which you haTe already heard. Accepting these reports as a fair reflection of what prevails through- out the land, we have good cause for urging this question not only amongst ourselves but for the consideration of the legislature. The question, I maintain, is of na- tional importance, when it is shown that the producing area of the country is being constantly reduced from causes which are not in themselves insurmountable. As we should seek to remedy this evil, by recognising and remunerating a higher and continuing condition of agri- culture, so we ought to provide retributive measures against all those who wilfully neglect their duties as husbandmen. I have before observed that we possess the machinery for carrying out our object in these Chambers of Agricul- ture. In the first instance it is necessary that all prevail- ing customs should be as nearly as possible assimilated. One way of achieving this is by the appointment of ex- perienced men in every county to collect facts relative to the customs of that county for the respective Chambers to review and debate upon. So soon as these meetings come to a decision, commissions might be appointed to assemble at the Central Chamber in London, there to compare their several reports, and to urge the opinions of the several bodies who delegated the task to them. An agri- cultural assemblage of this charteter-tikin,- for their guidance the Lincolnshire form of tenant-right—could surely produce a practical, comprehensible measure, pro- posing a national and permanent tenant-right, which Parliament might be petitioned to legalise in those par- ticulars where its influence was necessary. I do not mean that the Government should interfere between proprietor and tenant; but there are certain operations which go towards increasing the fertility of the land vf this country, which need encouragement and Legis- lative protection to ensure their permanency. If it became law that a tenant could claim payment of his successor for unexpired investments in his occupation, we should hear less of insecurity of tenure, unremunerative compensation, and there would be few (if any) exhausted farms or complaining occupiers. I would remark that the words Compensation and Improvement, as composing part of the title of this paper, appear totally to misrepresent the case. For Compensation I would use the word Payment; there is no need for compensating a person for what be can legitimately sell. The term is vague, and suggests a doubtful claim. So again the term Improvement; for this I would substitute Interest. As a rule men do not care to pay for another's improvements. What one deems an improvement another condemns. Far better that we speak of a bond fide interest, such as the Legislature and custom declare is marketable. and therefore I submit that it iB more correct and preferable to speak of Payment for Unexhausted Interests.' —Having stated his views thus far-and he would yet read a resolution he had prepared—he would leave the question in the hands of the meeting, assured it would receive that attention it merited. Supposing on that occasion they did not forward the question about to be discussed, Monmouthshire would have no cause to regret being one of the first counties to speak out on a question of national and local impor- tance. Before submitting the resolution he would ask the President whether he was correct in doing so. The President thought resolutions bad been sub- mitted at prior meetings, but from the numberof queries contained in Mr. Fletcher's remarks, he thought several gentlemen would have questions to ask and remarks to make upon the suggestions he (Mr. Fletcher) had offered. Mr. Fletcher had framed a resolution, but he did not wish to submit i I; without hearing their views first. The Chairman We should be glad to hear the re- solution, I think. Mr. Fletcher Then it is this-That it is expedi- ent to recognise, frame, and adopt, a general national system of payments for unexhausted improvements in land, as between outgoing and incoming tenants. (hear, hear.) Mr. Stratton dissented. It was almost impossible to form one code for the whole country—because the circumstances in different parts of the country were so totally different. If he understood rightly, Mr. Fletcher intimated one system. Mr. Fletcher did not mean one system because cir- cumstances, as remarked, were different in certain parts of the country but he wanted one general system whish should be applied according, to circum- stances. A Voice There can be no objection to that, I am sure. Mr. Fletcher repeated his remarks. Mr. John Lawrence (Vice-president) would, with their permission, offer a few remarks. He had listened with great attention to the observations of Mr. Fletcher, and, in the main, he could not but confess that he very much agreed with him. He thought it a very important thing that the country should recog- nise the principle—that the tenant had an interest in unexhausted improvements but whether it was pos- sible for the Legislature to lay down any law with re- gard to that or not, he was not prepared to say. He confessed he had the strongest personal objection to the dabbling of Parliament between landlord and tenant. (Ilea?, hear.) He thought that was calcu- lated to cause a great deal of mischief and ill feeling and he should be very sorry indeed to see a disposition on the part of the Legislature to interfere, unless it seemed absolutely necessary, with regard to the ques- tion of landlord and tenant. Yet he felt, and could not but strongly feel, that the present uncertain and -Y indefinite custom existing between the out going and in-coming tenants was an evil that could scarcely be exaggerated. (Hear, hear.) No doubt parties under cIg notice to quit a. farm resorted to schemes for the pur- pose of expending manure—and really they could not be blamed, for there was no proper protection for them. He could not but say-although the views Captain Fletcher had thrown out appeared to him many of them practicable and excellent-he differed in one point. He could not see how it would be possible to define any fixed principle of compensation he thought that would afterwards be a fit subject for valuation. For instance, they knew manures were more expensive one year than another— commodities varied in many ways sometimes hay was more expensive than straw, and so on. All those things, if he understood rightly, were proposed by Mr. Fletcher to be remunerated by a fixed uniform scale, and that he considered would be impracticable- Mr. Fletcher intimated that it was only for cultiva- tion—cases of husbandry. Mr. Lawrence Well, even in cases of husbandry, they all knew one piece of ground might be worth ten shillings per acre, and another only five shillings. He thought those were subjects that should be left to the practical judgment of the valuer, and they should be bound by his decision. Now they might establish a rule beyond all question or doubt for unexhausted improvements-such, for instance, as if a man broke up a hedge or fence, that might run, say, of the width of the room they were then sitting in—where a man broke up such a fence, and brought it into a state of cultivation lor crops, that would be a reasonable instance for compensation—unless he had some time yet to hold the land, and therefore could be fairly remu- nerated by the term of occupation. But, supposing the principle to be established that the outgoing tenant was entitled to reasonable compensation for having on the land anything, whether, inexhausted manures or improvements he should say that the tenant would be as fairly entitled to it as he would be to the value of a crop of wheat or any other thing on the farm. (Hear, hear.) He sincerely hoped they might construct some scheme by which such a principle might be established and he was sure, if they were to do so, it would be a great and a permanent good to the country. They all knew perfectly well that by certain systems of cultivation the land produced what it ought not. It was a great national evil, and any- thing which would prove a satisfactory remedy for that evil, would be indeed a great object. (Applause.) Mr. Higgins, in response to an invitation from the President to offer some observations on the subject, said in the remarks he was about to offer the foremost must be a sentiment which he was sure would be expressing the feeling of the meeting, in thanking Captain Fletcher for the very excellent paper he had read -(applause)- upon a question that had much occupied the agricultural world. And not only that body, but the Press and even the Legislature, at the present time, were debating the very question they had before them that afternoon for their sister country, Ireland. Now he thought if they could manage that matter between themselves—between landlord and tenant-it would be far better than going to legislation for a remedy. He could not un- derstand how any landlord could object to the rea- sonable, practicable, and very full manner in which Captain Fletcher had touched upon that all-important question. He really thought it was his moderation in dealing with the subject that formed its great re- commendation and for his own part he would again repeat, with confidence, that it was the landlord's interest to recognise this. (Applause.) There was nothing in it that they ought to set their face against. It was a matter more between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant than a case for the landlords. The landlords, however, were especially interested in this measure being carried out, inasmuch as it was a, se- curity for his farm being always left in good condition. (Hear, hear, and applause ) They would not ifiiagine the evil, injustice, and inconvenience connected with the system of the six months' notice, which, by-the- bye, he should have been very glad to have heard his friend, Captain Fletcher, touch upon for it Nas one of the many evils they had to contend with. For instance, in the Candlemas taking—and they should take a view of that first-a man received his notice to quit on the first of August, and the landlord, if he were so disposed, could hide his intention up to that day. Well, the whole of the operations of the farm were completed-such as the cultivation for roots-this was in a great measure (on heavy land) completed—all the necessary operations were gone through. The tenant received his notice to quit on the first of August, and quitted on the second of February. Now was it reasoaable to suppose any man could farm scientifically, properly, or advan- tageously if he were with an uncertain landlord ? (Hear, hear.) If he were with such landlords-as he was proud to admit this country possessed, and where he would be safe under reasonable circumstances- then it was another affair. With the best of land- lords sometimes circumstances arose for a sale-an absolute necessity for the sale of their estates-or there would probably be some changes or circum- stances or other, which would render it necessary to give the tenant notice to quit; but if they once re- cognised the principles they had been discussing that afternoon the outgoing tenant would never fear keeping his farm up to the proper mark. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Fletcher.) Those were the observa- tions he had to make, and he hoped they would be accepted as practicable. There was one thing upon which he did not agree with Mr. Fletcher. So far as his memory served him Mr. Fletcher did not recognise compensation for outlay as regarded guano and superphosphate of lime. Now with regard to superphosphate—if bone superphosphate-he could not but think the tenant should be entitled to com- pensation for that. (Hear, hear.) But with regard to nitrate of soda, he would say "No," because he considered that exhaustive, and if he ran his farm out to the last year he would give it a good dose of that. The President Pickle it with that. Mr. Higgins Just so and he hoped and trusted the excellent paper just read would go forward to the public, and that the landlords of that and other coun- ties would read it and see the moderation with which Mr. Fletcher had treated it and the way in which the tenant farmers present had received it. That landlords should suppose that the tenant farmers wished to be destructive to the landlords' interest was most absurd he could never entertain such a sugges- tion, because he thought their interests were identical —for without one profiting the other certainly could not. With regard to Mr. Fletcher's resolution he did not see there was any alteration to be made in it. (Applause.) The Rev. E. T. Williams (Caldicot) referred to the question of compensation, and the difficulty of satis- factorily adopting a fixed system in that respect unless there was a general system with regard to the valua- tion of land. They would remember, when the dif- ferent valuations were taken for the unions, there were great complaints made of the wide variations in respect of one parish as compared with another. Now let them suppose three parishes A B and C. They would perhaps find county A below par, and the valuation of C above par—so that unless there was one general system of valuation carried out in this compensation proposal, they would find themselves very much abroad in the matter. Mr. Chandler thought that if a system were laid down for valuation, it must be that of leaving it to the valuer himself, and for him to give judgment accordingly-whoever that valuer might be. The President It is always done now. Mr. Chandler Always done with respect to ma- nures. He quite concurred that they ought to be valued. They should also take into account the quantity and quality. Mr. Fletcher would agree with him that they should recognise the cake system. Mr. Fletcher assented, remarking that was one of his chief points. Mr. Chandler Then the value of the manure would be very much enhanced by the amount of cake given. Where cake was given he certainly thought it would be well to give compensation for the manure. Mr. Fletcher That is my argument; and I would have all manure paid for, so as to encourage a more careful system with the manure. The President: But with regard to, the valuation I think it must be left entirely to the valuer as to the amount of work done I don't think you could lay down any scale at all. Mr. Higgins asked with reference to the cake, did not Mr. Fletcher think it would be better that the va- luation of the cake should be given to the landlords— because the prices of the cake would pretty well mea- sure the quality of it. Mr. Fletcher replied in the affirmative, and, having referred to the various prices of manures; said it was a good suggestion, but those were new things cropping up, and would be matters for after consideration. Many things were introduced in connection with mo- dern farming which perplexed valuers themselves. Mr. Till thought the matter they were discussing that afternoon was not merely a matter for landlord or tenant, but a matter of national importance. If they would cultivate their land by a system of proper tenant right, as between the in-coming and out-going tenant, they would find more food for the nation and he was sure the property of the landlord would be much increased in value. He thought it was a ques- tion that a landlord ought not to feel a delicacy upon. He agreed with Captain Fletcher to a great extent in respect to being paid for cake but, he could not agree with him in not being paid for dissolved bone and guano- and for this simple reason that by using a liberal portion of guano or bone, as the case might be, they could get a large proportion of roots, which would bring a greater fertility on the ground. Now he thought they should go back on that point, and say, for guano and bone, take a certain proportion one year, aud a certain proportion the second, and so on that would better meet the case. With regard to the hay and straw, he thought if a tenant were paid fairly for his manure he ought not to expect more than a fair price for straw and hay. They were speaking just now with respect to game. Now he thought a large amount of game was a great nuisance. (Hear, hear.) Why any tenant who had the interest of his landlord at heart would offer him at any time, a good day's shooting-he would do anything in his power to keep a stock of game for his landlord's enjoy- ment but there was certainly a class of men they could well do without, and that was the game-keepers. They were men he did not care about, and he thought the masters of packs of fox-hounds were sometimes not much good. (Loud laughter, in which Mr. Lawrence heartily joined.) He was, however, fond of providing a good day's shooting for the landlord, and perhaps going a day's hunting, if there was a good opportunity for much scent The President: Are you not going a little off the j scent now ? Mr. Till then referred to drainage and new build- ings. That was more a landlord's question than a tenant's and if the landlords would construct build- ings—the tenants should pay a certain amount of interest, as their capital could be better employed on the cultivation of the soil. That was all he had to say. (Cheers). The President did not think he could throw much light on the discussion they had intered into, for they had launched into it very fully. He took it for granted that the object of Captain Fletcher's paper was to induce such an agreement between tenants that the full productive power of the land might be maintained up to the last hour of tenancy of the out going tenant. He quite agreed with Mr, Higgins that they ought not to weary Parliament in the matter-that it was competitent for the farmers of England themselves to make such agreements as should be satisfactory to one another. The law of the country was sufficient now to enforce contracts that might be made. They need not go to Parliament to seek additional powers. He thought they need not go even to en- force a general system of compensation—or to get stated in any Act of Parliament what were the means properly belonging to the tenant himself. They were agreed that for unexhausted improvements the tenant, at the expiration of his term, was fairly entitled to receive compensation. Now the object with which they were met that day, and the object of the various Chambers who met on the same subject, was to elicit agricultural opinions on the subject. Dis- cussing there, as other Chambers would in their own districts, what tenants ought to do, and what tenants ought to be paid for improvements—the time would soon come when the Central Chamber in London would gather those opinions, and, after considering them, would disseminate their views in the different dis- tricts and upon that they would be ready to act. That was the advantage of those meetings. It was said that wherever they bought artificial food for their cattle, the manure derived from the cattle so fed was more valuable than the manure derived from cattle fed with turnips, grass, hay, and so forth, and that farmers were entitled to some compensation for the first year on that item—some compensation for the second and third year, and some people went as far as to say that the fourth year did not exhaust 1 Z7, the advantage. So that there was a declining scale of compensation going on from year to year, and that it was for them to decide amongst themselves what they thought that declining scale ought to be. It was just as much to the interest of the outgoing tenant to act up to an agreement as it was for the incoming tenant—because what one had to pay for here the other would have to pay for there. It was to the advantage of the incoming tenant to know that he would step into a farm well tIlled; but he would tnuch prefer that the landlord always paid the out- going tenant for his unexhausted interest in the land, and that he (the landlord) should, for such outlay, receive for a certain number of years an increased payment from the incoming tenant. There were, comparatively speaking, few tenants who could afford to give heavy compensation on coming to a farm —for they limited their capital too much—so that they were working for a number of years with their heads under water-working against the tide—never stemming it. Other gentlemen, however, who could go on a place with plenty of capital, would prefer to compensate the outgoing tenant. But he thought that, as a rule, they must take tenants' as they were —they had not, aa a rule, sufficient capital to work their land with advantage, therefore a larg0 encumber them more, if they had o p amount of compensation to outgouig e g0jjje the landlord should look to that, a landl"^ arrangement be entered into between inl- and the incoming tenant as to the me w-oul^ provements left by the outgoing tenan • suggest that as a fit scheme, and 0116 JP <rofc fairl? operate. It was true if that scheme w j^ing juS into force, a tenant coming to a farmer, frotO I left another, might get so much conipe bi, him to the farm he has come from, as would en conieg to! pay for all improvements on the farm & «-eC £ h# and that being the case, it would no #<$> capital; but, there were cases where !u?f0 I be the case and they must take that in 0rii^^ ation. He looked upon the power to e rC £ 0 parfi*' contracts as quite sufficient, without o011!^ cc0' ment to ask them for any national pensation. They knew that buildings, r £ j;but, other things properly belonged to the landio ^'gped^l the tenant choose otherwise, he should Tha" arrangement with the landlord aecor^jr to was a matter of contract—they had ,t.e tenan* 3 with that. Then with regard to defining. ^jetcher' improvements—though he thought Capta11^, Mr. Higgins, and others had fairly stated with regard to inexhausted manure, and f0r left in the shape of labour upon the laud ¡Ø1lut6 future crops-likewise hay,straw,&c.—still tn e d was a different question.. Capt. Fletcher explained that that 1ue? rice, be left to the valuer. He proposed a fixed p yond which it should not go. te a qUI1' The President would go further, and state tity beyond which it should not go. After e ^QjSl gfl his reasons, and pointing out the evils arisjU^ undue accumulation of manure, the speaker e jjnixt that in his county (Westmoreland) there bead, the manure to be left. Mr. Higgins sho°K,^eT0 but he could assure him such was the case- \}ec £ a certain quantity the incoming tenant shoU>j ,(the upon to pay for, and no more and that made he con' f the g speaker) suggest it to them. In this part of c tiy they perhaps thought there was no fear ° fyrfieTS too much. Whether they were more liber £ l, ^ey here than in Westmoreland, he could not say~7, eJ.e found it necessary in the North to see that t ^-r fof no greater quantity on the farm than would he the incoming tenant to pay for—therefore they jJ1' lished a limit there as to how much n0tbet coming tenant should pay. There subject of very great importance.. was done or agreed to, as between in-coming ,^1/ and landlords, their arrangement should he set forth in writing so that there should be no gT iff for doubt at the eud of their term as to the poSlVeJr.) which they would find themselves. (Hear, He exhorted them not to adopt the old style of j So and So, you are an honourable man, ^0' another, and we understand each other as to the ^gji ner in which we ca ngo on we shall set all right we part." Now he thought the sooner that "0|of # able feeling was done away with the better, Mile always ended in a mistake. In whatever W06S 10 a, let it be made a matter of business—as betwee0, lercl and tenant, brother and brother, father j.jj iff let it be made a matter of business, and put i .et^e black and white. (Hear, hear.) Let them pro kot$l friendship, however, as well as preserving P? tgjfl He did not quite agree with the resolution Fletcher had proposed. He (Captain Fletche suggested that they should go to Parliam j&l/ rtf61 establish a national system. Now he was j averse to going to Parliament. He conS* matter could be arranged without going. thl sýstettl he did not see how they could enforce a nation? —for that was the term used, if he recollecte (Cheers.) not> Mr. Higgins Well, whether we do °r become a Parliamentary question. bted fact that Mr Pybus stated that it was an und0^ 0f in Lincolnshire they had laid down a sc'ie w^ich pensation for unexhausted improvement3". ,irobahtf now become the law of the county, and whie 1 ii&e' no other county in England had at the i Everything worked well so far, and it was Mr. Lawrence How do you mean made law tb^ Mr. Pybus A custom in force m the county. to be Mr. Lawrence replied that there were customs t" J found in Monmouthshire, but it was from a vrao proper attention to an established system that many existed. arislJ The President: We have a custom in every P in the County. (Hear, hear from Mr. Lawreuc Yer Mr. Pybus concurred. He presumed Mr. F|e jjg pointed to a remedial measure for that evil made u e of the words "national custom,"which z remunerate the tenants oil all improvements j# made, and which should cause a better feeling *!Le« better security of tenure than at the present t.jju Mr. Fletcher spoke of a list of compensations Lincolnshire, but he had not heard it given °u, e [M' Mr. Fletcher here produced the scale of tbe colnshire custom, published last week. could Mr. Pybus could not help saying that if thed tbo lay down a law in Lincolnshire, and it ans", cl not purpose there, he could not see why it woUl_ coUnty Monmouthshire—because he did not know all^evVp°r^ in England with a country like that between ^fici^ and Chepstow, where there was more a manure used thau in that district. jji^e Mr. Lawrence remarked that they could g jjo law without going to Parliament, but there gjjde"' doubt that the one remedy was that TeC°,X^ by their worthy President—namely, that pr0Pef going into occupation should take care to ha^e written agreement defining their rights, i0' one of the great evils was the custom, ? deed, were so vague and uncertain that know how they would get over certain without legislation. Their President had re hie u0 vT them to throw aside the custom of honottr a.tid k6 standing, and make it a matter of busineS9 > was certain that would be the best way. c-eei cllSj Mr. Pybus did not think there was' any "%v-oul^ torn in Monmouthshire there might be, but 1 be confined to a certain district. L&nS3' Mr. Lawrence knew that in the parish jevaud, stone, there was one custom, and in L911 ag parish close by, there was another cu5tolu. ,hes lIe as possible, and so in several other par thought Mr. Jones might probably know Mr. Jones and other gentlemen a3SM^enne observa- Mr. Higgins did not quite agree w*n00n in fact, tion made by the president ^^ughter.) they had disagreed before that, i & noW was the The President would be glad to hea time to go into the matter- question of co^j Mr' Higgins Now he belief peraatl„„bel„glettothel» je irom an observation tneii mi-voi0? thought the payment should be made to the outg^0 with the tenant whether he wou Mr. Higgins thought it would be far better tor tenant to pay for the iniprovementeiumself.th^ have the rent increased by the landlord, inasm g that would be an inducement for men to take, I with smaller capitals than tney should, (hear he 4 and that was the foundation of the evil they in bad farming, men taking more land than they capital to work. of The President: That arrises out of the distress. ^$0 Mr. Higgins contended that they would that evil by having the payment made by thes jf lord instead of by the tenaut. Whereas the te^ fce he had to pay for improvements himself, v"'c\ jx0 only induced to take such an amount of lan had capital to work.. Mr. Lawrence quite agreed with Mr. 0f manure indeed was as much the stock in tra 0tber, tenant as any part of his holding. He thou? gjjoii were in error upon the terms at which tenan ^giUo enter farms. He thought, instead of ^pita1' tenants to get into farms with too 0f th they should act on the contrary for it was ^eC*- greatest evils of the day, and he thought uS- put upon such a system would be advaptag? enc0 The President explained that he w ece3 if a rage nothing of the sort. In some ents, all b* raer had to pay for unexhausted inopr°veli^ioa he capital was absorbed and ia that con q £ no chance of farming. It was to meet » w £ iSt th^ sort that he offered the suggestion—whi _rge> be » the landlord might pay. It would, or aIid th arrangement between the incoming te o0 Ba.c landlord-whether it would be aperc,^Lht thf amount paid or not; but such, e on justi » would all say, would be nothing narties- i and would tend to the interests o P -n3 »P After a brief conversation between Mr. HigS the President, r d to 26rks tb Mr. Fletcher read by him- l»%\ had been P^ence had objected to the <^ er pWn iJt the "te6, queStC seemed to him t^ the valuer the Ju,4s™ethere could be no reason ^y ^s, should not be a scale framed for^ locaiitieS. to meet the circumstances of diffe on3 famiJJ(j (hear, hear,)-such to be fraJ?el £ fU?ies. HeZrd^ with the circumstances of such 1 fine(j sta»da^ go say that it was their not kept thegf » their having no general seal g0 w much in the back ground. Ui --1111