CONFERENCE ON FRUIT GROWING. 



51 



nominee, the compensation be paid directly by the new tenant to the 

 old tenant, but that the landlord have the right to refuse to accept 

 the outgoer's nominee, in which case he must pay compensation to the 

 outgoer under the provisions of the existing law." So far as the landlord 

 is concerned that is absolutely fair, and so far as the tenant is concerned 

 I do not think we can raise any objection. If he has got his garden and 

 his ground into such a condition that he cannot get the incoming tenant 

 to take it, I think it would be pretty certain that he is not entitled to much 

 compensation. But of course that touches the large question of agree- 

 ments. For my own part, and for those I represent, I always like to see 

 the landlord do more in helping the tenant so that he should not have 

 such a large capital outlay, and to charge a fair rent for it. I am sure it 

 would be better both for the landlord and the tenant where that could be 

 done. Of course this is only a general recommendation. It is impossible 

 to discuss agreements for every district. But it would apply equally well 

 wherever there are leases. 



The next suggestion, No. 10, runs : " That the Board of Agriculture 

 should appoint experts in fruit valuation, and should call them together 

 for the purpose of formulating general rules for estimating the amount 

 of compensation to be paid to an outgoing tenant of a holding under 

 the Agricultural Holdings Acts on the basis of the value to an incoming 

 tenant." We all agree to that. 



The next recommendation, No. 11, is: "That the State should be 

 empowered to lend money to landowners who grow fruit on their estate, 

 subject to suitable conditions, for the purpose of supplying the ready 

 money required for the payment of compensation at the determination of 

 a tenancy." I know it is very easy to say lend money to the landlords 

 with fruit on their farms, but the question that always comes in is the 

 question of security. If the landlord could offer further security than 

 the actual ground under fruit cultivation it is a very easy matter. But it 

 is not so easy a matter if you borrow entirely upon the value of the 

 ground under fruit cultivation on account of the variation in the value 

 of the fruit from year to year ; and we must always keep that in mind. 

 It is the first point one naturally looks to when lending money. 



The next suggestion, No. 12, is : " That it would be to the advantage 

 of landowners and tenants in fruit districts if, under the provisions of 

 Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, they settled the basis 

 of compensation by the particular agreement therein referred to." Of 

 course, instead of leaving things to arbitration, it is much better, as far 

 as possible, that a definite agreement should be made before any tenancy 

 is put into force, and especially in cases where a certain amount is done 

 by the landlord and a certain portion by the tenant. 



Suggestion No. 13 reads : " That a Bill should be passed for facilitating 

 the purchase of small holdings by tenants, with assistance from public 

 funds, somewhat on the lines of the measure brought in by the Right 

 Hon. Jesse Collings, M.P., in the session of 1904." The difficulty at 

 once is the security for the money. We have from time to time had 

 suggestions made that the Government should lend landowners money 

 for building cottages, and for various improvements. It is all very well 

 to lend money for any specific purposes of agriculture. Looking at it 



E 2 



