368 = 102 English Land Law. 
hesitation. On the other hand, rents were paid more punctualb 
and were increased at intervals without much complaint ; whil 
the community benefited from the tenant's enterprise, whic 
furnished more abundant crops, and filled the markets with f; 
sheep and cattle. 
Thus we have seen that the principles of English law wc 
against the right of a tenant to any. interest in the soil farmi 
by him, even though created by his own capital, labour, ar 
skill. The presumption was that all things annexed to the so: 
or indistinguishable from it, belonged to the landlord. Th 
general presumption, it has been shown, was limited only by t 
rule as to emblements, and by the prevalence of local custom, t 
Legislature recognising no right on the part of the tenant to \vl 
was termed the unexhausted improvements made by him at t 
end of his tenancy. It was felt at length that the new intere: 
which had sprung up in the soil should not be left to the go 
feeling and forbearance of any class, however well-disposed, 
a rule, they might be towards the persons dependent upon the 
After repeated discussion, therefore, and prolonged inquiry 
Select Committees, Parliament adopted, in 1875, the princij 
so often insisted upon, that a tenant should be encouraged ■ 
invest his capital in the soil by having statutory security for i 
much of that capital as may be reasonably supposed to rem: i 
in the soil at the end of his tenancy. This is what is kno i 
in England as the tenant's interest in unexhausted improvemi 
made by him. Such was the object of the Act we are i 
considering* and its leading principle will be best underst I 
when we state that it is based upon freedom of contract. ''. e 
Act is permissive, not compulsory, and recognises throughout s 
provisions the perfect competency of tenants as well as landli 
to manage their own affairs and make their own bargains. If i 
think fit to exclude the operation of the Act altogether, t 
are free to do so by written contract, and each may, as heretol 
make the best terms he can for himself, or lay down the ( i- 
ditions which in his opinion best meet his own case. If ic 
tenant chooses to forego all claims to compensation, he nia;lo 
so ; on the other hand, he may exact more liberal compensa >a 
than any which the Act allows. If the landlord assents, 
may contract themselves entirely out of the Act in either ( ■e, 
for nothing in the Act prevents a landlord and tenant, or per as 
contemplating this relation, fiom making any agreemeut ey 
think fit, or will interfere with the operation of such agreei nt 
(Section 54). 
As the freedom of contract just described existed befon hf 
• ' Tho Agricultiual Holdings (England) Act, 1875 ' (38 & 39 Vict. cn. 
