132 The Agricultural Holdings {England) Act, 1875. 
" annual artificial profit. It is otherwise of fruit-trees, grass, 
and the like, which are not planted annually at the expense and 
labour of the tenant, but are either a permanent or natural profit 
of the earth ; for when a man plants a tree, he cannot be pre- 
sumed to plant it in contemplation of any present profit, but 
merely with a prospect of its being useful to himself in future, . 
and to a future succession of tenants." Thus the law did not 
recognise the tenant's right to do more than was necessary to 
raise one year's crop. He might live, or farm, from hand to 
mouth ; but if he planted, or built, or treated the soil with a view 
to future benefit, he did so at his own risk, and must trust to the 
generosity of the owner. And the strongest testimony we can 
have to show that the ancient trust thus reposed by English tenants 
in English landlords was not on the whole misplaced, is the fact 
that statutory compensation for unexhausted improvements could 
have been so long delayed. If any considerable number of the 
owners of the soil had stood on their strict rights, and taken such 
advantage of tenants' improvements as was permitted them by a 
too rigorous law, that law would have been swept away years 
ago amidst heart-burnings and indignation which would have 
survived for generations. 
It was felt at length — and not too soon — that the new class of 
interests which had sprung up in the soil should not be left 
<lependent on the good feeling and forbearance of any class, 
however disposed they might be to do substantial justice between 
themselves and the persons who had created these interests. 
There was a time, as we have seen, when the maxim that whatever 
is annexed to the soil belongs to the owner of the soil, was not 
necessarily harsh or inapplicable. Then came the doctrine of 
emblements, the first legal recognition of tenant-right, a rough 
but probably on the whole a satisfactory solution of the difficulty 
as it then existed ; and this doctrine was followed by the judge- 
made law which adopted and confirmed local custom, in defence 
of the undoubted personal interests of tenants and in furtherance 
of public policy. Next in order come the attempts made in 
1843 by Lord Portman, in the Upper House, and in 1847-9 by 
Mr. Philip Pusey,* in the House of Commons, to supplement 
by a general law that which had become of partial application 
in English agriculture by force of custom. 
* Readers of tho ' Journal ' will be fjlad to be reminded of the Prime Minister's 
culogium : — '' Mr. Pusey, who was, both by his linrap;e, hia estate, his rare accom- 
plishmi nts, and fine abilities, one of the most distinpjuislied country gentlemen 
who ever sat in tho House of Commons." — (Speech of Mr. Disraeli in moving the 
Second Reading of Agricultural Holdings Bill, June 21, 1875). Mr. Pusey told 
tho present Fiibt Ministi r, tlmt the fiiet that a tennnt-at-will liad no security 
for tho ciipital wliich he ouglit to be oncourugcd to invojt in the soil, was " Ihe 
only blot in tlio agricultural hierarehy." 13ut Mr. Pusey, while u vigorous 
suii|)erter of trnant riglit, wn.s an op]xment of leases, which, in his opinion,\voidd 
lend to tho brenkiiig-iip of estates, and destroy the infltienee of landlords. 
