some of the occupiers having too large an area of land. If, however, such a system were applied to small areas under hand cultivation with, perhaps, the assistance of steam or horse labour for breaking up the land after harvest, a few of the unemployed men, tested and trained upon uncultivated land, might eventually succeed as cultivators if started on this system, some advance of cash being made from time to time, in order to supply those necessities of life which cannot be grown upon the holding allotted to them. More especially might this experiment prove successful if three men, mutually chosen, were assisted to take a farm of proportionate extent.

To use, in the directions here suggested, land which has not given the late tenants profit, must be considered experimental, but at the present time it may be thought the experiment is worth making. It would at least bring into cultivation some of the wastes lying idle and unproductive, and would afford practical examples of how Essex land can be used for raising that produce which still remains profitable. The results shewn would thus be of much use to larger cultivators, without the expense of such experimental farms as Mr. PRINGLE advises. That Essex land is unsuitable for arable dairying and such minor products of the farm, is too frequently said by Essex farmers, who still seem to believe in growing corn, and who, for years past, in the words of Mr. PRINGLE in his Report, "have persisted in "growing the very crops which gave every indication of giving way before the weight of foreign competition, and "in so doing have courted and invited their own ruin."

HAROLD E. MOORE, Fellow.

P.S. Since completing this Article, I have had an opportunity of closely inspecting the crops now growing upon the marsh land of the Hadleigh Colony, formerly uncultivated, and forming part of the 95 acres mentioned in the article as having lately been brought under tillage. It would be useful to note, as shewing the fertility of these

The Agricultural Situation, 1893.*

I think no more fitting subject can be discussed by land agents than the Agricultural Situation at the end of 1893.

I need hardly remark that the depression, consequent upon a long period of low prices, was greatly aggravated by the severe drought of the spring and summer, resulting in the almost total failure of the hay crop, and in a very short supply of grass for summer keep. This disaster was aggravated by the fact that the hay crop has been precarious for several years, the last great hay season having been in 1890. There was a heavy crop in 1891, but it was seriously damaged by a wet season. The crop of 1892 was well made, but, owing to a dry, cold spring, was not more than half a crop; whilst the crop of 1893 was almost a total failure.

The loss has fallen with peculiar severity upon our western grass counties-so largely dependent upon stock and dairy produce. I will illustrate the effect upon a pure dairy farm of, say, 100 acres, carrying a dairy of 30 cows, yielding a gross produce of £500, and let at the rent of 50s. per acre to £250.

Assuming 50 acres to be mown for hay, that a late and light crop of a few cwt. per acre was secured, leaving

lands, at least in certain seasons, that a part is now growing certainly the best crop of rivet wheat I have lately seen. The straw is stiff, standing 6 ft. high, with a good yield. The adjoining field has a crop of oats decidedly beyond the average. Though laid in some places owing to the weight of the crop, it is, where standing, fully 4 ft. 6 in. high. I see from my notes that the cost of both of these fields was under £10 per acre.

H. E. M.

This article is reproduced from a Paper recently read before the Somerset, Gloucester, and North Wilts Provincial Committee.

a deficiency of one ton per acre 50 tons, worth,

at a consuming price, 50s. per ton, the loss is 50 tons @ 50s. =

Besides this, the produce of cheese was at least 25 per cent. short £500 ÷ 4 =

£125

125

£250

So that, on a moderate computation, the loss was equal to one year's rent.

On the summer grazing lands, where no hay is made, the loss in fat stock cannot be taken at less than from onefourth to one-third of the gross produce. On the cattlebreeding farms, on the hills of West Somerset, stock has been almost unsaleable at any price, so that returns from one important source have been almost entirely cut off. On the sheep-breeding farms of the Cotswold Hills and of Wiltshire, store-sheep and lambs fell to about half their usual price, buyers having to rely in great measure on purchased feeding stuffs.

Owing to the depressed state of the trade of the country, the colliery strike, and continued foreign competition, the short home supply of beef and mutton and dairy produce has had little or no effect in rallying prices, and the loss has fallen entirely on the producer.

Taking all these facts into consideration, as well as the unparalleled low price of wheat (about 3s. per bushel), and the low prices of other grain, I have no hesitation in saying that few (if any) farmers made anything towards rent last year. The extra abatements of 20 to 25 per cent. made by most landlords (many of whom could ill afford the loss of income) have but inadequately met the difficulty.

The result cannot fail to be the increased impoverishing of tenants, the vacancy of an increasing number of farms, and a progressive fall of rents.

I shall be glad to learn that any of my fellow land agents take a more hopeful view than myself.

W. STURGE, Past President.

Note on the Paper on “Rating," on p. 410 ante.

Attention has been called to a paragraph appearing in Mr. YOUNG'S Paper on "Rating," published in the last issue of "Professional Notes," in which some remarks of Mr. Justice MATHEW (sitting with Mr. Justice WRIGHT at a Divisional Court) are repeated, with reference to an important rating case then before them, to the effect that the special case prepared by the arbitrator was inadequately stated, that it was impossible to understand it, and that in all probability, from the form in which the case appeared, no appeal would lie from the decision of the Divisional Court upon it. Their lordships, it should be added, referred it back on certain points to the arbitrator. The respondents at once appealed from this decision upon the special case as it stood, and, after full argument in the Court of Appeal, the Lords Justices gave a considered judgment, deciding in favour of the appellants upon the main question raised in the case, but in favour of the respondents upon the second of the two points submitted. Under these circumstances, the paragraph obviously does injustice to the arbitrator.

The Market Gardeners' Compensation Bill, 1894.

The Bill, promoted by Sir EDMUND LECHMERE, Bt., entitled "The Market Gardeners' Compensation Bill," is a fair arrangement, subject to certain amendments.

That market gardeners should be entitled to remove any greenhouses and buildings they may have erected during their tenancy for the purpose of carrying on their business, is equitable and just. The landlord, however, should have the option of taking to them by valuation, should he desire to do so, and, in the event of his objecting to acquire them, the tenant should remove them before the expiration of the tenancy, making good any damage done by their removal.

The question of compensating a tenant for fruit trees and bushes, strawberries, asparagus, and rhubarb and vegetable crops, whether with or without the landlord's consent, is a more difficult matter. Without proper safeguards this power might be open to abuse on the part of the tenant, who might plant his land specially with a view to a valuation at the expiration of his tenancy, regardless of the suitability of the land for fruit growing.

Sir EDMUND LECHMERE has moved an amendment to the effect that the tenant shall, not more than three months nor less than two months before beginning to execute such improvements, give notice in writing to the landlord or his agent of his intention so to do, and unless the landlord or his agent shall, within one month after the receipt of such notice, give the tenant a notice in writing of the landlord's dissent from such improvement, the tenant shall be at liberty to execute the same, and shall be entitled to compensation therefor under the principal Act.

If the landlord shall, within the time last aforesaid, deliver to the tenant such notice of dissent as aforesaid, the question whether or not the intended improvement is suitable to, and likely to add to the value of, the holding, shall be determined by a reference under the principal Act. If it shall appear by the award on any such reference that the intended improvement is suitable to, and is likely to add to the value of, the holding, the tenant shall be at liberty to