REPOKT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FRUIT INDUSTRY. 527 



Mr. Bunyard, and Mr. Wheler proposed that the amount to be paid in 

 compensation should be restricted to a certain sum an acre ; Mr. Langridge, 

 that there should be a limit to the amount of fruit which any tenant 

 might plant. Mr. Wise suggested that the whole difficulty could be met 

 by the landlord raising the rent, in the case of fruit land, by a sum 

 sufficient, if invested, to meet the claim for compensation at the end of a 

 lease. But, according to Mr. Wheler, these claims often amount to more 

 than the whole rent during a term of years ; and it must be remembered 

 that fruit is often planted where there is no lease, but only a yearly 

 tenancy. 



30. The Committee have very carefully considered all the evidence 

 laid before them, and fully admit the difficulty of the question. In the 

 first place they cannot help feeling that, although the Acts have had, in 

 certain districts, a deterrent effect on the letting of land for fruit-growing, 

 and may possibly have a still greater effect in the future, the difficulty has 

 hitherto been avoided in some of the important fruit-growing districts, 

 either by the granting of leases sufficiently long to permit of the tenant 

 recouping himself for the cost of his plantation {e.g. in Kent), by the land- 

 lord selling his land in small holdings (e.g. in the Wisbech district), or 

 by the outgoing tenant making arrangements with the incoming tenant 

 (e.g. in the Evesham district). This view is strengthened by the 

 consideration that, as a matter of fact, the planting of fruit has continued 

 to increase since the passing of the Acts ; and the Acts, therefore, do not 

 seem to have materially checked planting. 



31. In the next place the Committee feel that the principle of the 

 Acts is fair. The value of land is often increased five or six times over 

 by the planting of fruit, and the landlord enjoys an enhanced rent. It 

 would be unjust that the tenant should lose the value of his improve- 

 ments on the termination of his tenancy ; and the Committee think that 

 he should not do so, even though they were made before the passing of 

 the Acts. 



32. On the other hand, they recognise that the landlord has two 

 serious grievances. In the first place, he may suddenly be called upon 

 to provide a large sum of ready money, which he may find it very diffi- 

 cult to lay his hand upon. It has been suggested by several witnesses 

 that this might be met by the State lending money to landowners at a low 

 rate of interest, somewhat on the analogy of the old drainage loans. In 

 the next place, he may suffer, and undoubtedly in many cases does suffer, 

 from improper and unfair valuation. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 

 1883, with which the Act of 1900 is to be read,, makes it perfectly clear 

 that the value taken is the value to an incoming tenant. The Committee 

 think that very often valuers act on a different system, basing their calcu- 

 lations on what the tenant has spent on his plantation, without reference 

 to the letting value to an incoming tenant. It was stated by Mr. Wheler 

 that enormous claims are sometimes made when it is impossible to find 

 an incoming tenant at all. It was suggested by some witnesses that the 

 best way to meet this difficulty of valuation would be to adopt the 

 "Evesham custom," with some modifications, as the law of the land. In 

 the Evesham district it is the almost invariable custom for the outgoing 

 tenant to find an incoming tenant who buys him out, the landowner 



