the landlord being fairly safe under the clause that no compensation is due unless it is an improvement.

26. No holding over by the tenant beyond Lady Day, of any part of

the premises.

The outgoing tenant to do all cultivations and other things as if he were a continuing tenant. The incoming tenant not to enter any part before Lady Day. No part of this holding at any time to be con

sidered as coming under the Market Gardeners' Act.

COMPENSATION.

This part of an agreement is that which gives rise to most disputes. So far as I can see, it appears that the landlord and tenant can, under the Act, make any arrangement they like between themselves, but if this arrangement does not include everything in the Act, then the tenant can claim under the Act for that which is left out, and, as a result, the agreement come to would be of no avail, as not being a proper substitute for the Act. Consequently, one must practically incorporate all the Act schedules and arrange a schedule of compensation. This means a very long agreement, so perhaps it will be better to put in no schedule of what is to be paid for, neither any schedule of the price to be paid, leaving the tenant to claim under the schedule of the Act, and leaving the valuer to determine from the facts of each case what the value of the improvement (if any) is to the incoming tenant. But in order to simplify the claim a clause must be put in so as to exclude the custom of the country and to limit all claims to the agreement and the 1900 Act, the tenant to be paid the cost of all the usual and necessary cultivations, the benefit of which the incoming tenant reaps.

ARBITRATIONS.

We have now to consider whether it is advisable that a provision should be inserted in the agreement to govern the arbitration (see Section 2), or whether the arbitration should be as defined in the Act, Schedule 2.

2nd Schedule, Part I., provides for a single arbitrator.

2nd Schedule, Part II., provides for two arbitrators and an umpire. Under either of them all claims are taken into consideration, and one award made to cover everything, no appeal being possible, except on a point of law arising during the arbitration.

The difficulty in accepting the arbitration clauses of the Act seems to be in the fact that an arbitrator cannot compel a witness to attend or give evidence.

It appears to me to be better to say that the arbitration shall be under the 1889 Act, the procedure of which is familiar to valuers, and which has worked fairly well in the past.

This is a question on which I hope light will be thrown by some Members present.

Lastly, there is the re-entry clause, and the schedule of lands, stating arable, permanent pasture, buildings, roads, and woods. Under pasture would come, downs, moors, &c., to break up which the consent of the landlord would be required.

Scale of Compensation Values of Cattle Foods consumed.

Prepared by a Sub-Committee of the Counties Palatine Provincial Committee of The Surveyors' Institution, and adopted by the Committee, at a meeting held at Liverpool on December 9th, 1901.

SUB-COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that compensation representing the value to an incoming tenant should be based on the original manurial value and not on the cost price of the food consumed.

For this purpose we recommend the adoption of Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert's Table 10, as published in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, December 31st, 1897, and that the relative compensation values be subject to an annual average price of Ammonia, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash, and we further suggest that this table be applied in the following manner :

1. The compensation to apply to the last two years' consumption only, but if the outgoing tenant is paid for manure left in the yards, he shall not be entitled to be paid for feeding stuffs consumed otherwise than on the land during the last year of the tenancy.

2. The compensation to be at the rate of one-half the original manurial value for the last year of the tenancy, and one-third of the original manurial value for the last year but one.

3. No compensation for feeding stuffs to be paid on a quantity exceeding the average consumption for the three years immediately preceding the last year of the tenancy.

W. E. MILLS, Chairman.

CHAS. LINAKER.

S. HARGRAVES.

J. MARCUS B. REA.

JOHN WHITE.

J. HERBERT HALL.

THE TABLE REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING REPORT.

(Reprinted by permission, from the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 8, page 704.)

TABLE X.-PLAN AND RESULTS OF ESTIMATIONS OF THE COMPENSATION VALUE OF UNEXHAUSTED MANURE, STARTING FROM THE ORIGINAL MANURE VALUE, THAT IS THE VALUE, DEDUCTING THE CONSTITUENTS OF INCREASE IN FATTENING LIVE-WEIGHT ONLY.

Foods.

Original

manure

value, deducting increase in liveweight only.

Last

year.

Compensation value of unexhausted manure.

DEDUCT OF ORIGINAL MANURE VALUE THE LAST YEAR, AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

DEDUCT OF ORIGINAL MANURE VALUE THE LAST YEAR, AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

DEDUCT OF ORIGINAL MANURE VALUE THE LAST YEAR, AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

Statistics.

RETURN OF THE AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN, IMPERIAL MEASURE, AS RECEIVED FROM THE INSPECTORS AND Officers OF EXCISE DURING THE UNDER-MENTIONED PERIODS.

PROFESSIONAL NOTES.

SECTION I.

SHORT PAPERS.

Fishery Rights,

Of recent years no class of rights connected with land have risen more in value than sporting rights, in respect of shooting or fishing. A really good salmon river is as valuable a property as can be found, and the value of good trout-fishing is not to be despised, especially if near London. To give one instance: A farm on the chalk downs, let in the early seventies at £130, has flowing through it a very good trout stream, where the dry fly-fishing is excellent, the trout being large and most sporting. The farm will not now let, but the owner gets £200 for the fishing and complains of agricultural distress! It would possibly not be easy to find another exactly similar case, but there are plenty of places to which fishing rights belong which are now either of no value or of very little value to their owners, and which at a small outlay might be made substantially to contribute to the rental of the estate. In order that this may be done two questions have to be considered: (1) What are the owner's legal rights? and (2) how can those rights best be turned to account? This Paper deals only with the first point.

It should be premised that what is about to be said

I