44 



JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



themselves the problem of how to defeat the object of an Act of Parliament 

 when in favour of the agricultural tenant, instead of endeavouring to 

 further the object of the laws passed by the rulers of the land. In this 

 way, the object of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act has largely 

 been defeated, an Act which was by its originators intended to be retro- 

 spective ; and still the object of the last Agricultural Holdings Act is 

 evaded as regards market gardens. Thus it appears to be legally construed 

 that a market-garden farm is not a "market garden," unless the lease 

 uses the words "market garden " in reference to the farm ; and although 

 the farm may be largely planted with fruit trees and bushes, and vegetables 

 are grown for sale on a considerable portion of it, still many lawyers 

 state it does not come under the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act 

 unless the words "market garden" are to be found in the lease. This 

 interpretation seems to be in direct defiance of what was intended by 

 the movers of and those who passed the Act ; as is also the use (in 

 reference to land which is at the present time market garden) of terms 

 to exclude the Act, such as " it is hereby agreed and declared by and 

 between the said parties to these presents, that the lands hereby demised 

 shall not be deemed to be let and are not to be treated as a market 

 garden within the meaning of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 

 1895," or let "for agricultural purposes only," or again "under no 

 circumstances shall this tenancy be considered as a market garden." 



If a landowner does not wish fruit trees or bushes planted on his 

 land, he certainly has a right to prohibit them being planted, but it is 

 unjust and despicable, to want another man to plant his land with fruit, 

 thereby to raise the value of the land for sale or rental, and yet to shelter 

 himself from paying compensation by such a clause as one of the above, 

 and, to add insult to injury, perhaps make the tenant pay for the cost of 

 his lease and his landlord's counterpart. 



The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act appears to work well and 

 be properly understood in the Evesham district, but this district is almost 

 specially favoured by soil and well-wishing landlords, and to its members 

 of Parliament is the credit of having introduced the Bill after consultation 

 with the growers themselves. In some other parts of the country it has 

 caused uncertainty and friction between landlord and tenant. Let me 

 quote one example to show some of the difficulties. About four years 

 previous to the passing of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 

 a man proposed to take a farm. Most of the hardy fruits were being 

 grown on this farm as well as vegetables for market ; the proposing 

 tenant was asked if he would agree to plant so many acres of fruit trees 

 without compensation. This proposal not being accepted, the lease was 

 drawn up excluding compensation for fruit trees and bushes. Eventually, 

 after some three months' discussion on this and other points, the landlord 

 not being willing to give way, yet wanting the prospective tenant, and 

 the outgoing tenant pressing for completion, the lease was signed, it 

 being stipulated that the incoming tenant should pay the cost of the 

 lease, both for the landlord and himself. The bill the tenant had to 

 pay for the lease and counterpart and the discussion of the lease by 

 the landlord's and tenant's solicitors amounted to upwards of £50. Four 

 years after the tenancy commenced the Market Gardeners' Compensation 



