402 CONCLUSION 



Evidence was offered, not only on the harshness with which the legal 

 presumption operated, but on the small degree of protection afforded 

 by existing customs. It appeared that in most districts no allowance 

 could be claimed for such permanent improvements as drainage, or 

 for those of a durable character like marling, liming, claying, or 

 burning, or for those which were more temporary in their nature, 

 such as the use of purchased manures, or the consumption on the 

 land of oil-cake and other feeding-stuffs. In 1850 legislation was 

 again refused. For twenty years the subject slumbered in Parlia- 

 ment. Meanwhile, outside the House, the question was rapidly 

 becoming a burning one, and the foundation of the Central and 

 Associated Chambers of Agriculture in 1866 gave strength and 

 cohesion to the opinion of agriculturists. At last the principle was 

 recognised in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. Though the 

 measure, from its optional character, was only indirectly effectual, 

 it proved the starting-point of future legislation. To men of that 

 generation compulsion was still unfamiliar. They thought it more 

 essential to preserve freedom of contract, and it was on this ground 

 that notable agriculturists, like Albert Pell, 1 resisted the compulsory 

 recognition of tenant-right. 



Since 1875 legislation has been active in securing to tenants the 

 right to recover, as compensation for any improvements legally 

 made by them on their holdings, the full remaining unexhausted 

 value of those improvements. To-day farmers are practically safe- 

 guarded for their outlay by custom, agreements, and Acts of Parlia- 

 ment. They are generally satisfied with the conditions of their 

 tenancy, and ask nothing better than its continuance. But, recently, 

 the break-up and sale of large estates, and compulsory acquisitions 

 of land by public bodies under the Small Holdings Act, have rendered 

 the holdings even of the best and most valued tenants insecure. 

 In these new circumstances, the demand for another form of com- 

 pensation has been revived. It is urged that, in addition to the 

 claims already conceded, farmers should be entitled to compensation 

 for continuous good farming in excess of the standard which tenants 

 are bound to maintain. The proposal bristles with practical 

 difficulties. In the tenant's own interest, it is doubtful whether it 

 would be wise to impose upon a landlord a new and uncertain burden. 

 Wherever an estate is mortgaged, more land would be forced upon 

 the market, and in self-defence every landlord would be driven to 

 1 The Reminiscences of Albert PeU (1908), p. 280. 





