APPENDIX.

ON THE AFORAMENTO IN PORTUGAL.

IN the following note are collected some highly interesting particulars of this mode of tenure, for which I am indebted to a Portuguese economist, Mr. Venancio Deslandes.

The aforamento is very much like the Beklem-regt, in Groningen, i.e., an hereditary lease by which the right of occupation is granted indefinitely in consideration of an annual rent fixed once for all, which the landlord can never increase. This right passes on to the heirs, who, however, cannot subdivide the estate, the aforamento being essentially indivisible; therefore one of the heirs must take it as his share, and indemnify the others. Where this cannot be done, and the heirs do not agree, the aforamento is sold, and the purchaser then holds it subject to the same conditions as the seller. If there be no next of kin and no legatee, the aforamento expires, and the landlord reenters into possession.

Again, if the hereditary tenant allows the land to deteriorate so as to reduce its value to one-fifth over and above the capitalized rent, the landlord resumes the right of possession without any compensation to the tenant.

Besides the yearly rent the landlord was formerly entitled to levy a duty, whenever the land changed hands, which was called luctuosa, if the change took place in consequence of a death, and landemium, if in consequence of a sale. The new civil code in force since July, 1867, which in many instances betrays, like its French prototype, a hostility to everything pertaining to the ancient régime, has done away with these dues as feudal charges.

Another and severer blow has been dealt to the aforamento system, by the new code prohibiting a holder from bequeathing the sole right of occupation to the one of his children he might designate. The division of all property into equal shares being

made compulsory, and the aforamento being indivisible, a conflict arises between the two principles. The aforamento is then sold, and taken from the family who had held it perhaps for centuries.

The aforamento dates from the earliest times of the Portuguese monarchy. It was introduced by monastic orders, especially the Benedictines, on the lands they owned, and since then has gradually become general throughout Portugal north of the Tajo. Even down to this day, contracts of this kind are made between private parties; and if townships let common lands to the inhabitants, this is often done by aforamento.

Private persons let land at fixed rents, and in consideration of the fixity of tenure they grant, the payment of a certain sum of money is stipulated for, which represents the price of perpetual enjoyment by the tenant without increase of rent; by submitting to an immediate sacrifice, he gains perfect security for the future. The people used to have, and have even at this day, a great predilection for this kind of contract; both farmers and landlords agree in appreciating the great advantages it offers. These are especially evident in the province of Minho, so celebrated for the perfection of its husbandry, the well-being of its inhabitants, and the magnificent appearance of the country. There all lands are held by aforamento, and by this system of hereditary tenure its prosperity is accounted for.

I met with aforamento very frequently in the environs of Lisbon, especially in the magnificent country adjoining the Cintra Road.

Unfortunately legislation, prompted by French ideas, has declared war against this excellent system of tenure, with a view to carry out what is called the liberation of the land, i.e., the reconstitution of absolute property, and the adoption of the common kind of lease. This is an error; for every institution is excellent which is calculated to give security of possession to him who cultivates the land.

V.

THE AGRARIAN LEGISLATION OF PRUSSIA DURING THE PRESENT CENTURY.

BY R. B. D. MORIER, C.B.

IN treating of the agrarian legislation of Prussia during the present century, it is important to guard against a prevalent misconception, to the effect that this legislation is something "sui generis," and different in kind from that of any other European State. The contrary is the case legislation similar to that we are about to describe has in some form or other marked the history of every German State during the last sixty years, and analogous legislation has marked our own history, and we may add that of every other State of Teutonic origin.

For every Teutonic community has been evolved out of a germ identical in its rudimental construction with that of every other, and therefore containing within itself the laws of a similar growth. The history of this growth is recorded in the history of the occupation of land; for, in contradistinction to the citizens of the antique world, the Teutonic race is essentially a race of landfolk.

I. The original Teutonic community is an association of freemen, a "Gemeinde," a commonalty or commons (not common people in contradistinction to uncommon people, that is, a privileged class, but a body of men having property in common), amongst whom the private right of property in land is correlative to the public duty of military service and participation in the legislative and other political acts of the community. These public duties are of a comparatively simple kind; the

agricultural relations of the community, on the other hand, are of a comparatively complicated kind. The district, or Mark (i.e., the geographical area marked out and appropriated by the community), consists of three distinct parts; first, the Common Mark (the Folcland of the Anglo-Saxons), owned jointly by the community; secondly, the Arable Mark (Feldmark), cut out of the Common Mark, and apportioned in equal lots to the members of the community (the Anglo-Saxon Boc land); and, lastly, the Mark of the township (Dorf, thorp, villa), also divided into equal lots, and individually appropriated.

The individual marksman, therefore, stands in a threefold relation to the land occupied by the Gemeinde. He is a joint proprietor of the common land; he is an allottee in the arable mark, and he is a householder in the township. In the first case he owns "de indiviso," and his rights are strictly controlled by those of his co-marksmen. His cattle grazes on the common pasture, under the charge of the common herdsman; he hews wood in the forest, under the control of a communal officer.

In the Arable Mark he has a distinct inheritance, and can call a certain number of square roods his own; but he must cultivate his lot in concert with his associates, and the community at large determines on the mode of its cultivation. The whole Mark is divided into as many parts or Fields ("Fluren," "Campi ") as the rotation of crops and the alternation between fallow and plough requires. Usually into three such "commonable" Fields, cach Field lying fallow once in three years, the community having rights of pasturage on the fallow as well as on the stubbles of the land under the plough.* To obviate the possibility of the individual allottee finding

*It is these common rights of pasturage on the Arable Mark which it is of importance to note, for it was from these rights, and not from the right of pasturage on the common pasture, that mediaval agriculture derived its distinctive character. The obligatory cultivation on the "Three Field system," the common temporary enclosure of the commonable Field (not of the individual parcel), whilst the crop is growing, the removal of that enclosure after harvest, the prohibition against permanent and individual enclosures, are all of them results which flowed from the common right of pasture on the fallow and stubbles.