Tlie Agricultural Holdings {England) Act, 1875. 197 
J understand this to mean, that the time for which an improve- 
ment is deemed for the purposes of the Act to continue un- 
exhausted, is a question of fact which (unless settled previously 
fey contract) is to be determined in the case of each improve- 
ment bg the referees, subject only to the maximum limit imposed 
by the sixth section. (I am not speaking here of the limited 
owner.) 
The 31st Clause of the Act imposes on the referees the duty 
«f finding and stating the time at which each improvement in 
respect whereof compensation is awarded is taken to be exhausted. 
To apply this to the case under the second class suggested 
nbove. Suppose the two tenants to have each laid out 70Z. in 
bones or lime in the year ending Lady Day, 1876. Suppose 
their tenancy to determine at Lady Day, 1880. In one case the 
referees may consider that the tenant has been repaid in four 
years ; in the other case they may consider the tenant entitled 
to the full compensation allowed by the Act. If the referees are 
to act on their own judgment, one tenant would receive 70/., less 
-fths of 70/., or 30/. ; the other would receive nothing. Does the 
Act require them to award the same amount to both ? 
I have endeavoured to put the point at issue clearly before the 
readers of the Journal. They will be able to form their own 
judgment, or to consult their professional advisers. It would be 
presumptuous in an unlearned person to argue a point of law, 
nor would the Journal be the place for the argument. I could, 
I believe, support what I have stated by a reference to what took 
place while the Bill was in committee — to the nature of the 
objections urged and the assurances and explanations by which 
they were answered. But after all, the Act as it passed is the 
law of the land, and will be interpreted by the proper tribunals. 
Meanwhile it is important that the Act should not be needlessly 
misunderstood. It is also very desirable, if the ostensible pur- 
pose of the Act is not to be defeated, that undue expectations 
should not be raised, nor groundless alarms entertained. 
Let it be borne in mind what were repeatedly stated to be the 
oTjjects of the Act, namely, to promote good written contracts, 
and to define the limits within which these contracts might be 
so made as to be binding on successors. 
I have purposely omitted all reference to the letting value in 
the case of the limited owner, as that subject would only intro- 
duce a needless element of complication. 
Nor have I touched on the question, whether an absolute 
owner who is willing to grant compensation beyond the number 
of years fixed by the Act, or for improvements not named in the 
Act, can avail himself of its machinery for either of these 
purposes. 
