an illegal imposition; and not only advising the employers that it is illegal, but, so energetic are they in this crusade, that they even introduced the subject on the platform at the last general election, and assured meetings of ignorant working men-not employers-that they were the real victims.

It is nonsense, to say no worse of it, to assure these people that this mode of rating is illegal: it is legal, and the proper remedy for those who feel aggrieved thereby is to get the law altered.

At the same time, no law upon the subject is likely to improve matters in general that only deals with the question within the narrow limits of the Bills which have been introduced for this purpose annually of late. The process of pulling down the law, as at present defined, would be open to the same objections, and fraught with the same difficulties, stage by stage, as was the building of it up. The whole system of rating for the relief of the poor requires remodelling. This is not merely desirable, but urgently necessary, as a matter of common justice. The present system, as carried out, is simply a public scandal. Unfortunately, the "public are unconscious of these scandals and injustices; and therefore not likely, as a body, to move in the matter, and, until they do move in a body, there is little prospect of a thorough reform. The ignorant, the apathetic, and the generous ratepayer accepts (with or without a murmur) any assessment that may be put upon him by an incompetent rating authority: the keen and unscrupulous, on the other hand, not only resist an extortionate assessment, but even a fair one, and, like crying children, often get someting merely to pacify them-in the shape, sometimes, of a reduction much greater than that to which they are entitled.

It would prolong this Paper too much to enter upon a discussion of remedies for these abuses.

I might, however, suggest one thing that I think would go a long way in this direction, and that concerns this Institution directly as a body.

Whatever else may be done in the way of legislation, the employment of a fully qualified valuer for the purpose of fixing the assessments, not only to the poor rate, but to any rate upon real estate, ought to be compulsory; and the valuation so made (though it may be necessary to divide it) should serve equally for all such rates, whether local or Imperial.

Without attempting to lay down the necessary qualifications and conditions of such appointments, it might be remarked that, although the first requisite would be ability, it is of scarcely less importance that the valuer chosen should be a man of the highest integrity; and that, as even integrity has its market value, the payment of such a man ought to be liberal. In the smaller unions it might be sufficient to retain the partial services of a surveyor, or several small unions might club together to secure the entire services of one man; but, in the case of larger unions, it would take one man all his time, even with assistance, to keep all the assessments up to date as they ought to be.

I have had to hurry over the latter part of this Paper in a way that is not satisfactory to myself, but for a reason which will, no doubt, be accepted as quite sufficient by those who may be condemned to listen to it-namely, that it would otherwise have detained them very much longer.

It may be said that I have introduced a good deal of matter that could well have been spared, as of no consequence to professional men. This may be so, looked at from a strictly utilitarian point of view, still, I will conclude, as I began, by referring to that remark of our worthy President about the prosaic nature of a surveyor's calling.

Being myself an engineer as well as a surveyor, I am, perhaps, less likely to suffer from such a complaint. At the same time I would suggest that all these side issues constitute the lights and shades of the profession, and help to create that true interest in and love of it which is so greatly to be desired in any and every calling.

It was only the other day that I fell into conversation with an intelligent British workman on the subject of strikes and the "unemployed": and this man appealed pathetically to the absence of all interest which a workman feels in his daily task. This is only too true (sadly true): the evidence of it is to be seen on every hand; but it is not as it should be.

It is the curse, and threatens to become the ruin, of this great nation of skilled workers.

But it was not so with such men (once themselves the humblest of workmen) as THOMAS TELFORD, RICHARD BRINDLEY, GEORGE STEPHENSON, and a host of others who could be cited; who never would have risen to the proud eminence they occupy in history, had they confined themselves to a perfunctory performance of the daily tasks that were first imposed upon them.

(II.)

The Agricultural Holdings Act.

Read before the Leicester, Northants, and Rutland Provincial Committee of THE SURVEYORS' INSTITUTION, on Wednesday, March 7th, 1894, by T. A. DICKSON, Fellow.

At a Meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, on February 6th, 1894, it was decided:-" That, in the opinion of this "Council, the time has come when the Agricultural Holdings Act "requires amendment, and that a Committee of not more than fifteen "Members be appointed to consider the various suggestions made by "the Associated Chambers and Clubs, and to report what amendments "in the Act are desirable."

A Committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of two land agents, eight tenant farmers, four landlords, and the Chairman (Mr. CHANNING).

It may probably be in the recollection of this Provincial Committee that some two years ago there was a discussion upon the subject in one of our leading agricultural papers, which (as the result of the discussion, in which I see that one or two of our members took part) drafted and published a new Agricultural Holdings Bill with the title, "A Bill "to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Agricultural Holdings "in England and Wales."

Mr. CHANNING, the Chairman of the Central Chamber for the present year, who seems to have taken agriculture under his wing, introduced in the 1892 Session a Bill with the same title as the above, but with the addition of the words "and for other purposes," but in a Bill, practically the same, which was introduced in 1893 Session, these additional words have been left out, and Wales has also been excluded from the provisions of the new Bill.

Perhaps, before considering the provisions and alterations in the amended Bill or Bills, it may be well to notice the defects of the 1883 Act, and the reasons why in the opinion of its detractors it has failed in its purpose. Some contend that too low a scale is adopted by the valuers, others that the scale is too high, while others again affirm that the scale adopted by the valuers in their own district is a particularly fair one, and, worked in conjunction with local customs, has formed a very good basis for the successful working of the Act.

Others allege that the fact of the tenants having to give two months' notice of their intention to claim under the Act is frequently overlooked until too late, while those who do remember are frequently afraid to make a claim for fear of the landlords' making a counterclaim for breach of covenants or dilapidations.

Some, again, assert that the Act is unfair in its provisions, and does not encourage good farming or allow the tenants, on leaving after having improved the farm, anything like sufficient compensation for the capital expended.

Then, in many cases the valaers, more especially the older ones, have set their faces against the Act from the first, with the result that in some parts of the country it has been completely boycotted. Such are some of the complaints against the Act.

What are the remedies suggested in the Bill of Mr. CHANNING'S and that of the agricultural paper referred to?

In each of the proposed Bills the words in Section 1, "on quitting his holding" are struck out, with the idea of securing compensation for improvements to a tenant who remains in his holding at the determination of his tenancy.

Whatever may be the case with leases, the principle of compensating the "sitting tenant" where the tenancy is an annual one is open to many serious objections, which must suggest themselves readily to all who have to do with the letting of farms.

In Mr. CHANNING'S Bill Part 1 of the First Schedule of the 1883

Act (Improvements to which consent of landlord is required) is done away with altogether, and the number of first-class improvements for which compensation is payable mentioned in that schedule is increased by the addition of some fresh items, and all are put on practically the same footing as drainage under the Act of 1883. So that a tenant will be able to carry out any first-class improvement on giving the statutory notice to his landlord, and to obtain compensation for such improvement if it adds to the value of the holding for agricultural purposes, while the landlord on receiving notice will have the opportunity either of carrying out the improvement in his own way or of having a reference under the Act on the question, whether such improvement is likely to increase or decrease the value of the holding for agricultural purposes.

In the case of drainage there is no provision for a reference.

Touching, first, the question of drainage, which is an extremely difficult one. Possibly the landlord may not have the money to do the work himself, and accordingly, he has, practically, no alternative but to let the tenant do the work.

Now, it is extremely difficult to assess the value, after some years, of drainage, even when well done; but when the drains are carelessly laid, and, as is frequently the case, not laid to a proper fall, more harm than good may be done; so that one of two things must happen. Landlords may have to pay for some work which, instead of being a benefit, is really an injury, or the tenant does not receive anything like what he has spent in drainage, and so the Act is blamed and spoken of as worthless. In such a case, when the landlord cannot afford to do the draining, he ought certainly to make arrangements that a competent person nominated by him lays all the drain pipes.

Then, as regards some of the other items mentioned in the schedule, as, for instance, the erection or enlargement or improvement of buildings. One tenant may go in for rearing horses, and, with that end in view, put up a number of boxes with small paddocks attached; his successor may not care for such a style of farming, and prefer to go in for dairying, and put up or alter a number of cow-houses and buildings suitable for this line, and on his leaving, the landlord, as in the previous case, may be asked to pay the value of these alleged improvements, which are supposed to add to the value of the holding. This, unfortunately, the state of the market tells him, more forcibly than the valuer has been able to do, is not really the case, as the only eligible tenant who applies is, perhaps, a man who goes in for rearing and feeding stock, to whom the buildings put up by the previous tenants are not at all suited, but who, on going round the farm, points out to the landlord or his unfortunate agent the result of milk-producing, when all the produce in the shape of milk is sold off the farm, and no adequate return in the shape of phosphates, food, or manure is made. Or, again, you may have the case of a tenant who, living within easy distance of a village, is unable, from, say, incompatibility of temper, to live on good terms with his men, so that his only way of obtaining labour to work his farm is to have cottages on

his farm, over which he has full control and which he puts up at his own expense. On leaving, the landlord may be called upon to pay for the erection of these cottages, although the new tenant assures him that there is plenty of good labour to be had at the adjoining village, that he finds it extremely difficult to obtain good men to live at outlying cottages, and that he certainly shall not pay any extra rent for this accommodation.

These may, possibly, seem extreme cases, but they are cases which, by the provisions of Mr. CHANNING'S Bill, might easily occur, and by which the landlord-hardly enough hit already-might be mulcted to a serious extent.

In the Mark Lane Express Bill the First Schedule is divided into three parts, the first of which comprises eleven items of first-class improvements. The landlord has the right to veto the execution within two months after receiving notice from the tenant, and this seems much fairer than that of the Bill in which the tenant has practically carte blanche to do what he likes.

I will most readily admit that there are cases where the tenant has, by judicious expenditure, improved the letting value of the farm, and, when such is the case, he most certainly ought to receive the value of the improvements, and this I should say was more especially the case in some of the Northern and North Midland Counties.

Notice of Claim.

In the Mark Lane Express Bill (sec. 8) a tenant claiming compensation has to give notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make such claims before the termination of the tenancythe "two months' " notice, as in the present Act, being abolished.

The landlord, within 14 days after the receipt of such notice-not within 14 days after the determination of the tenancy-may give a counter notice, in writing, to the tenant of his intention to make a claim in respect of any waste or breach of covenant or other agreement.

This, I think, is fair, and there is hardly any necessity to extend the time within which the tenant may make the claim up to the end of two months after the determination of the tenancy.

I am informed that, in some parts of the country, in the case of a Lady-day tenancy, when a tenant has much stock in his yards, it is impossible for him to tell exactly the amount of cake he is likely to consume during the last two months of his tenancy, so much depending upon the weather, and he is, in consequence, not able to make out an account of claim for cake consumed, as he is obliged, under the present Act, to send in his claim two months before the termination of his tenancy.

I do not think the idea of sending in a claim and a counterclaim on the same day would be found to work well in practice, as each side would scrutinise very carefully the points on which he thought the other side had failed in his agreement, and this would have a great tendency to make both claims and counterclaims extravagant, and