GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 315 



persevered in developing and maintaining the 

 highest standard of good farming — under dis- 

 abilities which ought to be removed. 



(20.) The procedure of the Act is costly and un- 

 satisfactory, the rights of tenants to compensation 

 are frequently defeated by unreasonable counter- 

 claims and by penal and restrictive covenants, 

 and the administration of the Act is largely in the 

 hands of valuers of inadequate knowledge, in- 

 dependence, and responsibility. 



(21.) The Act is incomplete, and does not cover all 

 the matters which should be covered, and leads 

 to the defeat of justice by frequent appeals. 



(22.) The Act gives no sufficient protection to the 

 landlord against dishonest and depletive farming. 



(23.) It is contrary to the interests of agriculture to 

 restrict the cultivation of the land in the way 

 which may be found to pay best under present 

 circumstances, or the sale of produce so long as 

 the soil is thoroughly worked and manured. 



(24.) It must be to the benefit of all interested in the 

 land that all reasonable and suitable improvements, 

 which tend to increase the value of the land for 

 the purposes for which it is let, should be en- 

 couraged by giving freedom of action to tenants 

 and compensation for any remaining value of 

 such improvements, and that the recent recognition 

 of this principle in the Market Gardeners' Com- 

 pensation Act should be extended to all kinds of 

 farming. 



(25.) The preferential right of the landlord to distrain 

 for rent has been and is prejudicial to the 

 interests of agriculture. 



The following changes of the law and improvements 

 in -its administration may therefore be recom- 

 mended. 



