THE AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE. 





• 





nd, 2dly, to those impr 

 odied with the Land as to 



r ith regard to the first Clas 



incapable of separa- 



niformly proceed on the principle now adopted 



ver, siuce the time of Lord Holt it has beei 



iered settled Law that the exception applies t 



purposes of Trade or Mannfac 



nost solemnly decided that it does not apply t 



.■■•:-, 

 '..:. i i mati t i,1 i; > ^'-ht difficulty to draw th 

 Btween these two species of Fixtures. In case 



: Land itself, the Fixtures en j>l< yed for that pur 



- : .. • 



4cep*iun widely, in favour of the Tenant. Thu 



of a Farm— a Cidei 

 planted T'ShZon 



.t even a Nursery. 

 a Carpenter's Shop 



' :••-.' 



of the adoption of a funda- 



•oneous principle. They consider that, as 



. - r 



id on precisely the same foot- 



ant, and they think that the Farmer and 

 i> less protection shall be given to him 



l opinion by observing that Lord Ellenborot 



rights and interests he 

 s and Tenants." Hac 

 tark might have had i 



Jse concerning a Lime-kil 

 e principle adopted by yo 



lent in as good, but in : 



[Nov. 13, 



™n Ve arth t e h remo V va 



either to prevei 



atitled. They thin! 

 -ught only to beal 

 ■e there is good reas 



mages oiight to be the injury dene ti 

 it ought in no case to include th 



to leave any Fixtures, (though removable during hi 

 tenancy,) as a gift to the Landlord ; and the bette: 

 opinion seems to be that this presumption woul< 



holding, as well as in the c 



rfc&iM 



nfirmed in these conclui 



Agricultural Tenant Right in England and 

 buildings, framed upon the principle i 



Inly c vryir.i 



y be < 



Iany of the above observ, 

 sted, by any Tenants, agri 



ndlord would geue- 

 lan he could otherwise obtain for it, and would still 



eons bargain for himself. 

 Many „i the .-hove observations apply to all fixtures 



Ived in much g 



ng whether the land shall con- 

 i W, to put him in 



ledtohuwlv 



we linprovemei 

 not the Landlo] 



f these questions are of great nicety, i 



more than England : in most parts of that country the 

 enormous demand for land, the consermpnt M.ZL.Z 



The first question,' viz., whether a Landlord o 

 be obliged to pay for a bene!;: 

 gained for, is a very in portant «>ne it a c ui. - 



contained in, or deducible from it ; a law compelling 

 the landlord to pay for an improvement which he does 



not v ■,!■ to j urc! :ise, would be of this kind, i d c >. 



srence is made oul 

 i these points, K 

 wners, your Committee 



xpedte 



that the general 



i practicable 



relates to the natm 

 ments which are to be the subjects of compensation. 



1st, buildings ; 2nd!y, fences, roads, works 'jj^g 

 soil ; 3dly, the application of lime, marl, and other 

 year ; and 4thly, the application of guano and other 

 foreign or artificial manures, the effect of wnich » 

 46 Wklfregard to the fi „ t class it is unnecessary to ay 



:oughout England for the Lan 



s the general prance 



ially with regi 





fleet a great change on one rod 

 nother; or the change may be V^ a ^'f\ ]ie opera- 

 dace, temporary in the second } oir one£ ])er ^ 

 ion may be difficult and expensive, on ■ ^ 



and cheap, so that no uniform statutory Ruto^ ^ 

 species of Improvement could oe ^ 8 V^mittee »*• 



■ ' ■ :■■■ '- ' 



obviously be partial and m i 



