execute the same, and shall be entitled to compensation therefor under the principal Act, unless the landlord shall execute the improvement himself within such time and in such manner as may be agreed upon by himself or his agent and the tenant, or as, in case of difference between them, may be determined by the referee or umpire who shall have made the aforesaid award. But if it shall appear by the award that the intended improvement is not suitable to, or that it is not likely to add to the value of, the holding, the tenant, if he executes such improvement, shall not be entitled to any compensation for the same. This amend

ment puts the Act on a fairer basis, and puts an end to the retrospective aspect of the Bill, but still preserves the tenant's right to be paid the full value of the trees and bushes, irrespective of the number of years they may have been planted and the size they may have attained to.

A gentleman representing a large number of market gardeners in the neighbourhood of Evesham suggests that fruit trees and bushes permanently planted, when they attain a girth of nine inches immediately below the branches, should pass to the landord, but that until such a girth is attained the grower should receive payment for them. This, in my opinion, would be fair to landlord and tenant, as it would fix a limit to the price to be paid for the trees and would enable the tenant to recoup himself for the outlay he had made.

The question of girth would not apply to gooseberry and currant bushes and raspberry stools. I should suggest, in regard to the two former, that after being permanently planted for five years they should revert to the landlord, and in regard to the latter that four years be the limit. Until the period named the tenant should, in my opinion, be paid for them. With regard to the vegetable crops, the Bill, as originally drafted, provided that the tenant should be

entitled to be paid for all vegetable crops; this proposal, in my opinion, would be of too sweeping a character. All annual crops should be excluded from the valuation, but for crops of a more or less permanent character, such as asparagus, strawberries, and rhubarb, the tenant should be paid. To make the Bill wholly retrospective would throw too great a financial responsibility on the landlord. If the retrospective aspect of the Bill were limited to three years prior to the passing of the Act, it would be a fair compromise. I think the tenant should be allowed to remove all trees and bushes not permanently planted prior to the expiration of the tenancy.

W. H. PROTHEROE, Fellow.

SECTION II.

COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO PAPERS IN THE "TRANSACTIONS," &c.

On Mr. Huskinson's Paper on the "Bepression in Trade and Agriculture."

("Transactions," Vol. XXVI., pp. 377-392.)

AUTHOR'S REPLY.

Referring to the Paper read at the Institution on May 21st, there are one or two points in the discussion to which the time at my disposal for reply did not permit me to refer.

First, with regard to Mr. EVERITT's pathetic appeal for the remarriage of the two precious metals, I can only reply that the present evils could be remedied without bimetallism, which involves too great a check to foreign trade.

Mr. BARR ROBERTSON seems to have inferred that I said, taking the case of India, that her exports and imports balance in spite of the "tribute." I said nothing of the sort, but that the tributary, under the supposed circumstances, had to give 60 instead of 40, at which latter figure, in a healthy state of things, he would have cleared his debts.

Further, JOHN STUART MILL and other economic writers

H H

did not mean what Mr. ROBERTSON said they did; and they were sometimes very explicit. Thus, they said :-Contingent on PEEL's policy, a surplus of exports caused by making investments abroad, and a surplus of imports through payment of interest on the same, cause the appearance of a drain of gold away from us.

AS MILL says in his strictures on the Bank Charter Act, 1844, and on the currency theorists' policy generally :"These theoretical principles and these practical arrange"ments are only applicable to a drain of gold consequent "on a rise of prices produced by an undue extension of credit, and to no other case." Even in this case the action is needlessly severe.

A Bank of England note abroad is only a bill on England; naturally, bills on England are at a premium in tributary markets (contingent on PEEL'S policy, at very high premiums, if the tributary's standard differs from ours);. therefore gold is at a premium. But for the provisions of the Bank Charter Act, and if the notes were legal tender from the bank of issue itself against a bullion reserve, the action of the tribute payments would have no effect on the price of gold and, therefore, of commodities.

THOMAS W. HUSKINSON, Fellow.

On Mr. Harold Griffin's Paper, “Weekly Property as an Investment.”

("Transactions," Vol. XXVI., pp. 331-359.)

With reference to Mr. HAROLD GRIFFIN'S Paper on "Weekly Properties as an Investment," we should like to draw attention to a class of weekly property which we think forms a very good investment.

We have put up for a client a number of double-tenancy cottages, with separate entrances, having a garden divided at the back, and forming, in fact, two flats with no communication whatever between them.

The advantages gained by this class of cottages are:— No quarrels can take place between the occupants of the two floors. Rents are paid with greater regularity. The tenements are readily lettable and payment of house duty is saved, as each house is treated as two tenements for Queen's taxes.

The cost of each house and land is, together, £355.

The Gross Rent obtained is 6s. 6d. from Lower Floor.

Deduct Poor Rate, 4s. in the £, on £19 £3 16 0

£35 2 0

During our experience, extending over a period of ten years, we have rarely had a single tenement vacant a week.

A. TAPP and T. JONES, Fellows.