The Agricultural Holdings (^England) Act, 1875. 16i> 
in the Act to prevent the Judge from ordering, in the case of 
an absolute owner, that the repayment of the instalments and 
interest shall be spread over a period of thirty years. But in 
the case of limited owners, (1) no instalment or interest will be 
made payable in any event after the expiration of the twenty 
vears, the seven years or the two years during which the respec- 
tive classes of improvements may be deemed unexhausted under 
the Act (§ 42, sub-sect. 2). But as the award will state ih^ 
period of exhaustion, which may fall far short of the maximum 
periods in the Act, it Avill be the business of the Judge in each 
case to limit the duration of the charge to the actual period of 
the exhaustion, as determined by the award. Again : (2) the 
charge will cease when the landlord's interest ceases, " where the 
landlord is himself a tenant of the holding " (§ 44). These words 
seem to point to cases in which a tenant for life occupies his own 
land, and makes improvements upon it. The charge for such 
improvements would cease with his life, and if any instalments 
remained payable, the remainder-man would get the benefit of 
them. But the machinery for creating a charge in the earlier part 
of the Act is limited to agreements or awards as between landlords 
and tenants, and does not appear to contemplate or provide for 
improvements executed by the landlord at his discretion upon a 
holding in his own occupation. 
Another limitation upon the amount, as well as the duration, 
of the charge arises where this part of the Act is incorporated 
with any lease or special agreement, under the terms of which^ 
or by the custom of the country, the compensation allowed for 
improvements is more liberal to the tenant than the compensa- 
tion allowed under the Act. In such cases if, when the agree- 
ment is made, the landlord is absolute owner, the charge, both 
as to amount and duration, may be irrespective of the Act, sub- 
ject only to the discretion of the .ludge. But if, when the 
agreement is made, the landlord is only a limited owner, the 
Judge can impose no charge upon the holding, by virtue of the 
agreement, " greater than, or different in nature or duration from^ 
the charge" which the Act authorises (§ 55, sub-s"^ct.). Sub- 
ject to the Judge's approval, an absolute owner may take advan- 
tage of the Act to impose what burdens he pleases on the land, 
if he is of opinion that they will enhance its value. If, how- 
ever, a limited owner wishes to take advantage of the Act for 
the same purpose, he must be bound by the conditions of the 
Act, already explained, so far as they relate to the incidence 
and duration of the charge. As the charge is not to be " greater " 
than that which may be made under the Act, and as by § 42 the 
charge is to be in respect of the amount of compensation due to 
the tenant under the Act, it seems to follow that the compensa- 
tion given under the agreement must not exceed the compensation 
« 
