The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-02-28 00:00:00

THE bills now before Parliament, proposing

to legislate in various ways in respect o
the landed interest, are a strong testimony
to its value and importance as a great factor
in contributing to the wealth of the com-
munity In the case of agricultural indus-
try rent, wages, and profits are nearly always
in this country allotted to three distinct
classes—the landlords, tenants, and laboureis
It mast, however, be born in mind that in
other countries different modes of distribu-
tion prevail. In many parts of the contin-
ent the same individuals frequently possess I
all three of the agents of production. Land,
labour, and capital being in this case., pro-
vided by one person called • a peasant pro-
prietor, he derives all the wealth which
they are capable of producing, viz., rent,
wages, and profits. In different countries
land, labour, and capital are thus owned by
different combinations of persons; or, in
other words different, tenures of land pre-
yail. In England where the three profits
are made out of the land, rent is that share
of it which is claimed by the owner of the
soil, and the price paid to him for its use.
The rent of land, which is regulated in some
.countries by custom, i$ in England a matter
of competition. The landlord will let his
property to the farmer who offers him the
best price for it. Where rents are deter-
mined in this way there is virtually a bargain
between landlord and tenant, just as there
is between the buyer and the seller of any
ordinary commodity. Land being absolutely
limited in quantity, and the demand for it,
except in times of deep depression, being
very general, the owners of land can nearly
always obtain a rent for it.
To anyone who has given the slightest
attention to this question, it must be obvious
that the rent of agricultural land is regulated
by two circumstances—the fertility of the
soil and the convenience of situation. When
either of these conditions is altogether
agent, land can command no rent. Thus,
no one will pay rent for land w hi, h is so
barren that the produce yielded by it is in-
sufficient to remunerate the capital and
labour expended in its cultivation. On the
other hand, the most fertile soil sometimes
yields no rent onacconut of the inconvenience
of the situation in which it is placed. Large
tracts of land in America and in Australia
are in this condition; they are far .removed
from the great centre of .population ; roads,
railways, and water carriage all being absent,
there is no means of disposing of the
abundant crops which the land is capable of
producing. Such land as this consequently
yields no rent. Of course land in all
countries varies greatly in fertility and in
convenience of situation ; and its ont, where
it is regulated by c )mpe than vari( sin
exact proportion with the produetiveness of
the soil.

Turning from the general question to the
particular legislation now b •r,,re Parliament
may be noted that the object of one of the
bills is to render provisos in a lease for for-
feiture and re-entry invalid if the exact
amount of injury sustained can be ascertained
and compensation made. Leasehold property
passes very freely from hand to hand, and it
is a usual condition that the assignor of a
lease shall simp!y covenant that he has a
good title, while the assignee, on his part, is
bound to make no further requisitions.
Hence conditions, or as they are termed,
covenants in pre,ioLs leases may at any
moment entail immediate forfeiture in spite
of any premium which the tenant may have
paid, and notwithstanding that he may
have been acting in perfect good faith. In
only two cases will a 'court of _ equity give

him- any assistance, no matter lioN-v irev-ions
may be the hardship inflicted upon him.
Where the re-entry is for nothing more
than non-payment of rent, or failing to
keep on foot h policy of fire assurance, and
where by payment of the rent, or the insti-
tuting a fresh insurance, the defendant can
fully reinstate the plaintiff in his original
position, equity will not allow a forfeiture.
But in other cases, as where for instance
there has been breach of a covenant not to
make any structural alteration, or in other
conditions which might be named, there is
no defence whatever to a snit for forfeiture.
It is proposed in the measure alluded to
above that in all such cases the exact amount
of damage which the plaintiff has incurred
sfiall be assessed, and that upon its pay-
ment the forfeiture shall cease to be en.
forceable. The Bill has already passed a
second reading ii the House of Commons ;
and after a sitting at the hands of a Select
Committee may perhaps find its way upon
the Statute Book with some of the other
land legislation which so prominently
characterises the final session of this long
Parliament.