The Agricultural Holdings {England) Act, 1875. 
143 
lhat in which the outlay is made. The result, multiplied by the 
number of years during which the tenancy has continued subse- 
quent to this date, will give what the tenant has enjoyed " in 
kind ;" and this amount, deducted from the original outlay, will re- 
present the compensation due from the landlord. For example: — 
100/. spent on Improvement of first class 
in year of tenancy ending .... October, 1876 
Tenancy determines October, 1880 
Improvement found to be exhausted in 
year of tenancy ending October, 1886. 
Here the 100/. has to be spread over ten years. Dividing the 
100/. by ten, and multiplying the product by the four years 
during which the tenancy continued after the improvement was 
executed, you find that the tenant has taken back 40/. out of the 
100/., and the difference between these two sums is the amount 
of compensation to be paid. In other words, the improvement 
having a life of ten years, six of which have still to run when 
the tenancy determines, the tenant leaves behind him in the soil 
10/. X 6, or 60/., which the landlord must repay. A shorter way 
of stating the process is, that the tenant here is entitled to his 
original outlay less four-tenths. It will be understood that if, 
in examining the claim, the referees or umpire find that the 
improvement is exhausted, the tenant will receive nothing. The 
absolute owner, therefore, possesses this substantive protection 
against undue claims. It is clear, too, that some of the more 
permanent improvements will benefit the land long after the limit 
of twenty years ; and as the landlord's consent must first be 
obtained, and he can either withhold it, or couple it with his 
own conditions, there does not seem to be much ground for alarm 
at the operation of the compensation clause relating to first-class 
improvements. 
If the landlord has not a disposing power over the land — if, 
for instance, as in the ordinary case of settled estates, he holds 
them merely for life — then the principle of time adopted in § 6, 
and of outlay named in the first part of § 7, is further limited by 
the principle of letting value introduced in the latter part of § 7. 
The tenant's compensation is then not to exceed " a capital sum 
fairly representing the addition which the improvement, as far 
as it continues unexhausted at the determination of the tenancy, 
then makes to the letting value of the holding " (§ 7). This 
new principle introduces an additional element of uncertainty 
into the measure of compensation. The cost price of an improve- 
ment is easily ascertained, and the assignment of the number of 
years for exhaustion may not be difficult. But there is more 
room for difference of opinion and for dispute upon the question 
whether the improvement has added to the letting value, not 
