184 AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION 



the mercy of their landlords, though to a certain extent 

 protected by a custom which allowed something like free 

 sale of improvements, as between outgoing and incoming 

 tenants. There was, legally, no property right to these 

 large investments, and they were at any time liable to 

 have their rent raised on their improvements, which was 

 in fact frequently done. The market gardeners argued 

 that whether the object of letting was specified in the 

 agreement or not, it was quite understood that the land 

 was let for this purpose, and that the act of letting ought 

 to carry with it the landlord's consent to all improve- 

 ments suitable for their business. 



The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895, gave 

 the sanction of Parliament to this contention. The 

 Act provides, as regards holdings in future specifically 

 let as market gardens, that the planting of fruit trees, 

 bushes, strawberry plants and asparagus, and other 

 vegetable crops, and the erection and enlargement of 

 buildings for the purposes of the trade or business of a 

 market gardener, shall be placed in Part III of the 

 Schedule, and the tenant will be entitled to compensa- 

 tion without having obtained the consent of the land- 

 lord. Further, this provision is applied retrospectively 

 to all existing holdings now in use as market gardens, on 

 which such improvements were executed before the Act, 

 unless the landlord has, prior to the execution of any 

 such improvement, dissented in writing. The consent 

 of the landlord is also dispensed with, in section 56 of 

 the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the outgoing tenant 

 can thus transfer his property right in his improvements 

 to the incoming tenant without the intervention of the 

 landlord. 



The importance of the principles thus recognised for 

 the first time by the legislature cannot be exaggerated. 

 In my opinion, the only ground for distinguishing such 

 cases from any other kind of agriculture is, that the 

 money outlay exceeds the average outlay in ordinary 

 farming. But this is clearly not a distinction in kind 

 but in degree. There can be no reason in the relations of 

 the parties, and the nature of the rights and claims 



