It is a well-known principle in jurisprudence that a contract between two parties capable of contracting in respect to a subject matter known to both, if adhered to by either, is inviolably binding; and with the free action of this principle as between parties, except in a matter of life and death, the legislature always has had, and we confidently believe, always will have a delicacy in interfering. If there is no vital principle, or specialty in a contract between landlord and tenant in regard to an heritable subject, such as an arable farm, that necessarily takes it out of the list of ordinary contracts, no Government would seriously entertain or assist the passing of a measure for imposing fetters upon one of the parties to that contract, exceptional legislation to obtain an advantage for the lessee to the detriment of the lessor. Are there then such specialties? Tenant-farmers allege (1) that land is not an ordinary subject of contract owing to the extent being limited, and is a possession the owners of which stand in the relation merely of national trustees, bound to administer in the way most beneficial to the people; (2), that tenants are not capable of contracting on equal terms with their landlords, and that the weaker party should receive legislative protection in the shape of an inalienable right to ground game; and (3), that in being compelled to sign game preservation clauses, the subject matter of that part of their agreement is one the full extent of which must, from its nature, be unknown to them. To this reply is made--(1), That the possession of land is no more a monopoly than the possession of cattle or any other commodity, that is continually in the market and sold to the highest bidder; that the fact of the supply being limited, and necessarily in the hands of the few, in comparison with the many who wish to use it, is no reason why exceptional restrictions should be placed on its being let out for hire, but rather the reverse; as well might the possessors of money, who are few in comparison with those who wish to borrow it, be statutorily bound to lend it out at less than it would otherwise bring; and that those who invest money in land, having no contract with the State, cannot be interfered with by the State in the management of it in the way they believe most advantageous to themselves; (2), that farmers as a rule, and particularly those who make the greatest noise about the Game Laws, are quite capable of attending to their own interests in any contract with proprietors as to leasing of land; that if they are glad to obtain it on the proprietors' terms, that is occasioned by the legitimate operation of the laws of supply and demand, which equally affect all other contracts; and that to give them an inalienable right to ground game, which they would immediately convert into money value by sub-letting, would simply amount to confiscation of part of the