146  Supplementary  Memoranda  to  the  Report  of 
(2.)  That  tlie  same  rule  should  apply  where  the  outgoing  tenant  has 
made  improvements  upon  his  farm,  the  effect  of  which,  though  not 
so  lasting,  yet  continues  for  some  time,  such  as  those  called  “im- 
provements of  the  second  class”  in  the  above-mentioned  Act;  for  it 
has  been  proved  by  the  evidence  not  only  of  scientific  hut  also  of 
practical  witnesses,  that  the  application  to  the  land  of  substances 
enumerated  in  the  second  class  of  improvements  in  the  Agricultural 
Holdings  Act,  if  made  judiciously,  may  be  far  more  beneficial  to  the 
landlord  or  incoming  tenant  than  is  provided  for  in  that  Act ; and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  no  benefit,  but  possible  injury,  may  accrue 
to  the  landlord  if  the  tenant  should  have  improperly  used  or  applied 
them.* * * § 
8.  The  differences  of  soil  and  climate  and  the  varying  duration  of  the 
action  of  manures,  preclude  the  possibility  of  prescribing  accurately  any 
limit  of  time  for  their  exhaustion  which  is  generally  applicable  throughout 
the  country. f 
9.  't  he  principle  which  the  Agricultural  Holdings  Act  J prescribes  for 
ascertaining  the  amount  of  the  tenant’s  compensation  in  respect  of  the  appli- 
cation to  land  of  purchased  artificial  or  other  purchased  manure,  and  in 
respect  of  the  consumption  on  the  farm  by  cattle,  sheep,  or  pigs,  of  cake  or 
other  feed ing-stu ft's  not  produced  on  the  farm,  viz  , “such  proportion  of  the 
sum  properly  laid  out  by  the  tenant  on  the  improvement  as  fairly  represents 
the  value  thereof  at  the  termination  of  the  tenancy  to  an  incoming  tenant,” 
appears  to  me  to  be  eminently  just.  But  as  scientific  and  other  evidence 
goes  to  show  that  nitrogenous  manures,  such  as  nitrate  of  soda  and  sulphate 
of  ammonia,  do  not  convey  any  permanent  or  lasting  fertilising  property  to 
the  land,  but  merely  cause  it  to  produce  a larger  crop  in  the  year  in  which 
they  are  applied,  no  compensation  should  be  allowed  to  an  outgoing  tenant  in 
respect  of  the  application  to  the  land  of  such  manures.  § 
10.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  several  witnesses, |j  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
ascertain  the  intrinsic  value  to  an  incoming  tenant  of  the  unexhausted  residue 
of  purchased  manures  and  feeding-stuffs,  which,  as  a rule,  have  been  applied 
to  the  land  or  consumed  by  the  live  stock  of  the  farm  respectively  many 
months  before,  and  are  necessarily  underground,  and  consequently  not 
visible  or  tangible  at  the  time  of  valuation.  The  genuineness  of  these  sub- 
stances— many  of  which,  when  offered  for  sale  in  the  market,  are  often  adul- 
terated and  sold  at  a price  greatly  in  excess  of  their  true  value — and  their 
proper  use,  increase  the  difficulty  in  arriving  at  an  equitable  valuation 
between  an  incoming  and  outgoing  tenant  as  regards  them. 
11.  For  these  reasons  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  amount  of  compensation 
to  be  awarded  to  an  outgoing  tenant  in  respect  of  the  use  of  purchased 
artificial  or  other  purchased  manures  or  feeding-stuffs  converted  into  manure 
can  be  more  correctly  ascertained  by  a valuation  of  the  crops  of  the  farm  to 
which  they  have  been  applied,  than  by  taking  into  account  the  actual  outlay 
upon  them,  or  otherwise  estimating  their  unexhausted  value ; the  crops  being 
visible  and  tangible,  which  is  not  the  case  with  the  manures  or  feeding-stuffs 
* 57,507-18  (The  Hon.  Ed.  Coke).  57,005-67  (Sir  J.  B.  Lawos).  57,157- 
7,102  (Dr.  Yoelcker). 
f 43,722-24  (Earl  of  Airlie).  40,973  (W.  C.  Little).  00,869,  00,903  (J.  Prout). 
% Agricultural  Holdings  Act,  1S75,  clause  9. 
§ 35,308  (S.  Rowlandson).  49,349-50  (VV.  Frankish).  57,001-9  (Dr.  Voelcker). 
42,346-50,  42,405  (J.  Biggar).  30,236  (T.  Mylne). 
11  39,220-23  (A.  Bruce).  66,885  (J.  Clutton).  40,777-80  (J.  Melvin).  43,939 
(J.  W.  Barclay,  M.P.).  45,280  (P.  McLagan,  M.P.).  50,958-02,  50,984,  57,343 
(Dr.  Yoelcker).  68:21G  (II.  M.  Jenkins).  67,719-27  (J.  Coleman). 
