NOTE ON “‘ THE RAILWAY FIRES ACT, 1905.” 75 
In its phraseology the Act seems clumsy. That woods and 
plantations should be included in “ agricultural land,” and timber 
or other woodland crops in “agricultural crops,” is a striking 
misuse of the English language. It would have surely been 
simpler and far preferable to have used the term land under 
cultivation, which would include all land used for the purposes 
of agriculture, grazing, market- and nursery-gardens, woods and 
plantations, etc., while cwdt/vated crops would, of course, mean al/ 
kinds of produce grown on land under cultivation. 
Etymologically and by customary use the words agriculture 
and agricultural have a definite meaning in the English language, 
and this new Act now gives to these terms—though only in so far 
as concerns this special Act—a judicial meaning absolutely at 
variance with their true meaning. But that is a mere verbal 
blemish, which can have no influence on the working of the 
Act. What is, perhaps, much more important is that this new 
and wrong use of the word agricultural is entirely at variance 
with the sense in which the term is used in other Acts, as, for 
example, in that giving relief to agriculture as regards assessment 
to local rates. In proof of this, one need only call attention to 
what was said in paragraph 28 of the report by the Departmental 
Committee on Forestry, 1902. 
