AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS 301 



The Act also effected three other important alterations in 

 the law ; first, as to ' Notices to Quit ', a year's notice being 

 necessary where half a year's notice had been sufficient, 

 though this section might be excluded by agreement ; 

 secondly, after January i, 1885, the landlord could only dis- 

 train for one year's rent instead of six years as formerly; 

 and thirdly, as to fixtures. These formerly became the 

 property of the landlord on the determination of the tenancy, 

 but by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25 an agricultural tenant was enabled 

 to remove fixtures put up by him with the consent of his 

 landlord for agricultural purposes. Now all fixtures erected 

 after the commencement of the Act were the property of and 

 removable by the tenant, but the landlord might elect to 

 purchase them. 



This Act was amended by the Act of 1900 (63 & 64 Vict, 

 c. 50), and has been much altered by the Agricultural 

 Holdings Act of 1906 (6 Edw. VII, c. 56), which has treated 

 the landlord with a degree of severity, which considering the 

 excellent relations that have for the most part existed between 

 English landlords and tenants for generations, is utterly un- 

 warranted. In several respects indeed he has been treated 

 by the Act as if the land did not belong to him, while freedom 

 of contract, until recent years one of the most cherished 

 principles of our law, is arbitrarily interfered with. The chief 

 alterations made by the Act of 1906 were : — 



I. Improvements. — By the Act of 1883, in the valuation for 

 improvements under the first schedule, such part of the im- 

 provement as is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the 

 soil was not credited to the tenant. This provision is repealed 

 by the Act of 1906, in reference to which it must be said that 

 the latent fertility of the soil, sometimes very considerable, 

 may be developed by a small outlay on the part of the tenant 

 for which outlay he is certainly entitled to compensation. 

 But the greater part of the improvement may be due to the 

 soil which belongs to the landlord, yet the Act credits the 



