The Agricultural Holdings (^England) Act, 1883. 
11 
of the situation are not less in 1884. No period of exhaustion 
is fixed for any improvement. Valuers will not now be con- 
trolled by definite rules as to limit of time and tenant's 
outlay. So far, however, the experience and intelligence of 
valuers may be safely trusted for dealing with any questions that 
may arise with a sort of rough justice, and by the light of 
common sense. Every day, under local customs or agreement, 
they have to assess the value to incoming tenants, of acts of hus- 
bandry, manuring, and drainage. Such questions are familiar 
to them, and are disposed of without much friction. Under the 
new law no material differences are likely to arise concerning 
permanent improvements ; for these will hardly ever be made 
by tenants except under agreements specifying the compensation 
to be given for them. Drainage, too, as will presently appear, 
will generally be provided for in like manner under the alter- 
native powers given by the Act ; so that the chief business of 
valuers will be that of assessing compensation for the eight 
temporary improvements, which involve points of everyday 
practice. 
A difficult duty, however, now cast upon valuers is that of 
distinguishing for what part of any improvement a tenant shall 
receive compensation, and what part "is justly due to the 
inherent capabilities of the soil." Here again we may expect 
that, as to permanent improvements and drainage, valuers will 
rarely be called upon to make such an apportionment. If this 
be so, their task will be considerably lightened. Even then 
complicated questions enough will arise as to the results of 
boning, chalking, clay-burning, claying, liming, marling, and 
manuring. When any or all of these improvements have been 
made upon different kinds of soil, with materials and manure 
varying in quality and price, applied with different degrees of 
skill, and varying also in their manurial value in wet or dry 
seasons, what share of the compensation must be credited to the 
tenant for skill and outlay, and what to the owner to whom 
belong the inherent capabilities of the soil ? So wide a ques- 
tion may well present itself in different ways to different minds ; 
and, at first sight, it would seem to present wide openings for 
dispute and litigation. " The inherent capabilities of the soil," 
it has been said, are what the tenant pays for in his rent ; they 
ought not therefore to be used as a set-off against his improve- 
ments. True, he pays for them in his rent ; and so long as he 
continues to pay rent he continues to enjoy them. When he 
ceases to pay rent, he has no right to take away with him in 
cash the value due to inherent qualities of the soil, whatever 
such value may be ; this must be left behind for the benefit of 
the new rent-payer. Such seems to be the purport of the Act. 
