LEASEHOLD TENANCY.

The writer of this is himself a lessor or landlord, but he heartily deprecates the gross injustice of legalized landlordism, which gives the landlord the house that the tenant has built, and seizes everything in it to pay rent before other debts. Debts for food and clothing should have an equal, if not a prior claim, as those things are more necessary to life than house shelter. Besides this, there are the other evils of the leasehold system, with the landlord's abuse of power under restrictive covenants; which power should only be used by local authorities elected by the residents in the neighbourhood. By the leasehold system, the landlord is not content with taking the house that he did not build; he also takes the good-will of the trade attached to the house, and, on renewing a lease, extorts a heavy payment for allowing the tenant to continue to enjoy his own business which he has brought to the house, under the hard penalty of being turned out of the house altogether. The landlord's lawyers and agents are also allowed to make the burden heavier, by adding new restrictive covenants to a new lease,

with fees to be paid to them for the tenant asking permission to use the premises in any way that these restrictive covenants may prohibit. It is all cant to talk about freedom of contract, where a tenant would be ruined if he did not submit to his landlord's terms. The writer of this was concerned in a case in which, after a tenant's family had occupied some premises on a duke's estate in London for above sixty years, one out of thirty-six new restrictive covenants which were added by the duke's lawyer in a new lease, prohibited (amongst many other trades) that of wine, beer, and spirits, so that an eminent firm of winemerchants, who wished to take an under-lease and use some extensive vaults connected with the premises as wine-vaults, was refused permission by the caprice of the duke's agent. The consequence was that the premises, which cost £9000, were sold for £4000, and the duke's lessee lost £5000. Many other cruel cases have come to the knowledge of the writer. By the substitution of STATE MORTGAGES for landlords' leases, the abuse of restrictive covenants in leases would be obviated. Locally elected COMMITTEES OF SURVEY, whose acts were open to public scrutiny, would best control the class, character, and condition of houses in their

own neighbourhood. For example, the residents who occupy a row of houses ought to have the right to choose what sort of houses should be allowed in the row, and not the landlord, for the matter most concerns the residents. The opinion

and preference of the residents of a neighbourhood with respect to the general appearance of buildings and roads ought to be consulted, and this opinion cannot be anticipated before the houses are built and occupied; therefore it is impossible that the restrictive covenants of a lease or deed can adequately provide suitable control to protect the rights of the residents. A landlord and his agent may like one thing, and the residents who live in the houses may like something that is directly opposed to the landlord and his agent. Is it to be allowed that the arbitrary will of an unreasonable landlord, or the pecuniary interest of his agent, should cause painful suffering to a whole neighbourhood? If so, after the tenants have expended their money on building, and virtually tied themselves to the spot, the landlord might basely abuse the power given him by the lease or deed. He might defy his tenants by receiving a large sum of money for letting or selling land to some public body, who might build a small-pox hospital in

their midst. The residents in a neighbourhood ought to have the power to protect themselves; the majority of them are the best judges, and the COMMITTEE OF SURVEY elected directly by them is likely to be most reasonable.

BUILDING LEASES.

The usual British building lease differs from that of all other civilized countries. It is worse for the builder, the tenant, and the public. It causes jerry-building. If the builder could buy the land-through the State Land Bank-before he built on it, he could profitably expend more in building in a better manner, because a freehold would be a more saleable property than a leasehold. Expensive sanitary plumber's fittings, which would last a long lease and become the landlord's, might be bought by a freeholder, but not by a lessee.. This affects the health of all classes.

The law, as regards landlords' rights, is different in all other countries. In several European countries, the tenant who builds may take away every brick of his building at the end of the lease. Why

should not the owner of £100 worth of land, who is paid 3 per cent. per annum as ground rent for its use, be as content to take back his £100 of land alone, as the owner of £100 of consols is to take his £100 of money alone? As the builders should not steal the land at the beginning of the lease, so the landlords should not steal the houses at the end of the lease.

The British system of building leases is unjust, inequitable, and opposed to public policy.

The following extract, which appeared in a leading article of the high-class London newspaper, The Observer, on September 23, 1888, fairly reflects the general opinion of the best-informed classes of society on the subject of the London and suburban

SYSTEM OF BUILDING LEASES :

"It is, in the first place, evident that the system in question, however convenient for the parties prominently concerned, is one which leaves the interests of the public entirely out of view, for the sole concern of the public in the terms of a building, as of an agricultural lease, is that the land which is the subject of the lease shall be turned to the best account; or, in other words, that as, in the latter case, it is desirable that the contract between the parties should be one cal