271
« else of a certain number of years’ purchase of the advancedrent offered by himself. Here, however, as elsewhere, the ab-surd policy of entail would prevent the adoption of such a schemeof improvement, as no obligation to this effect, granted by a pos-sessing heir, would, in any probability, be held valid against thechallenge of the succeeding heir. The only objection againstsuch a constitution of lease seems to be, that the farm must con-tinue for ever of the same construction as to size, <5rc. howeverinconveniently arranged in such respects, without consent of bothparties; though mutual consent to alteration, if obviously fittingthe farm for more profitable occupation, might not be of very dif-ficult attainment..
Restrictions as to management ought ever, at all events, to beclearly and explicitly expressed, otherwise the tenant must be keptin a most discouraging state of perpetual uncertainty. The re-porter of East Lothian observes, that the vague obligatory claus-es, binding the tenant in genera! to practise the rules of good hus-hniry, and not to mislabour the farm , have, in that quarter givenrise to many most unprofitable lawsuits. The various acts of Par-liament , freeing the tenant from every prestation, unless what hehas expressly stipulated to perform in his lease, might seeminglyhave rendered all such unspecific clauses of obligation unaction-ahle before a court of law. It would appear, however, that theyare held actionable. And this being the case, many questions ofcourse may arise as grounds of litiscontestation : As, first, What18 to be understood as rules of good husbandry ? Is it to be un-derstood, according to what may be reasonably supposed to havebeen conceived to be good husbandry by the parties at the time°f entering into the contract, or as what may come to be consi-dered as good husbandry during the currency of the lease 1 Ifdie latter ambulatory interpretation shall be fixed upon, may notthe tenant, at any time, be interrupted by t he landlord in his pro-ceedings, till it shall be determined whether what he proposes todo is good or bad husbandry ? which, probably, may not be de-cided till the season for performance has elapsed. * As it is pro*bable, few landholders would thus choose to intermeddle in teaz-m g the tenant in every step of his proceedings through the whole
his lease, it is probable that the question of what constitutesgood or bad husbandry, might not be agitated till towards itsClose. And here, supposing the point as to the constitution ofgood or bad husbandry to be indisputable, still a second question“bght arise, Whether the point of good or bad husbandry had
So different are the prevailing ideas -of good husbandry, that Scots tenants,took in lease farms in England, at high rents, in view of rendering themme Productive by alternate husbandry, were interrupted in breaking up oldlands, by eventual heirs of entail, upon the footing that this was commit-“S 'taste upor. tha estate. See Farmer's Manaaine.
V °L. II. S