enjoyment of property, and in effect amount to depriving proprietors of a considerable part of the equivalent for which they gave their money; and (3), that when a tenant makes an acceptable offer for a farm, he does so after the fullest investigation as to its capabilities and disadvantages, and with a good knowledge of the amount of game on the ground, and the damage likely to be occasioned thereby; and, as thus, the amount of rent offered is fixed by him after all these points have received due consideration at his hands, he is precluded from afterwards crying out against the one-sidedness of his contract. It will thus be seen that there is just as much to be said on the one side as the other; and clamour notwithstanding, we believe, the day is still distant when the legislature will step in to interfere with free contract between landlord and tenant, by laying down conditions which even both parties with their eyes open, and of mutual consent, will not be allowed to alter. In other words, in an age when the cry is for freedom from all special advantages to owners of land, such as hypothec and entail, so as to place it on an open footing with all other subjects, it would be strange, indeed, were exceptional legislation required for the lessees of land to give them the special advantages which the spirit of the age denied to their landlords. Are we to have landlord right levelled down while tenant right is to be levelled up? We have yet to see it. It cannot, however, in fairness be denied that there are certain circumstances in which the tenants' third complaint above-mentioned is just and reasonable. While a tenant is strictly tied down under the conditions of his lease to a certain rotation of cropping, and various other regulations regarding his use of the land, the proprietor is left practically unfettered as to the extent of increase of game that he may allow to take place. Immunity in such an event is secured to the latter, either by a clause to that effect in the lease or by the prudent reluctance of the tenant to pursue his landlord through court after court in the knowledge that even the extra-judicial expense of such procedure would quickly amount to more than the ultimate damages awarded, if awarded at all, and that the feelings engendered by the contest would stand in the way of a renewal at the expiry of the lease. There is here, undoubtedly, a manifest hardship to the tenant, for which the legislature would be justified in passing a remedial measure. It would quite consist with the acknowledged and equitable principles of jurisprudence that cheap and speedy redress for the tenant against such uncontemplated and undue increase of game should be provided by legislative enactment. All wrongs have their remedies; but the remedy in such a case is not the giving an inalienable right to ground game to the tenant, as that would amount to a wronging of the landlord, who might