14 The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906. 
This being the existing state of affairs, complaints have arisen 
in cases where the tenant did not possess shooting rights, of 
the overstocking of game, resulting in damage to the tenant’s 
crops. The presei-vation of hares and rabbits led to the passing 
of the Ground Game Act of 1880, which conferred a concurrent 
right on the tenant, in his case inseparable from his occupation, 
to shoot them. The preamble of this Act states that its objects 
were the interest of good husbandry, and better to secure capital 
and labour invested in the cultivation of the soil, and to enable 
occupiers to protect their crops from injury and loss by ground 
game. With the omission of a few words, these objects might 
be stated as reasons for the passing of Section 2 of the Agricul- 
tural Holdings Act, 1906. It will be seen, however, that this 
section does not confer upon the occupier of the land a concurrent 
right to shoot the pai’ticular class of game expressly referred 
to in the section, as in the case of ground game under the 
Ground Game Act, but entitles him to claim compensation 
from his landlord for the damage that he has sustained. The 
game expressly refei’red to are deer, pheasants, partridges, grouse, 
and black game. The specific mention of these would exclude 
any bird that does not fall within this category. Sub-section 1 
of Section 2 of the Act provides that “where the tenant has 
sustained damage to his crops from game, the right to kill and 
take which is vested neither in him nor in any one claiming 
under him other than the landlord, and which the tenant has 
not permission in writing to kill, he shall be entitled to com- 
pensation for such damage if it exceeds in amount the sum of 
one shilling per acre of the area over which the damage extends, 
and any agreement to the contrary or in limitation of such com- 
pensation shall be void.” 
It will be seen that the section contemplates the case where 
the landlord has expressly reserved the sporting rights, which 
otherwise, in the absence of such reservation, would belong to 
the tenant. It also contemplates that the tenant, who is entitled 
to compensation, shall have no shooting rights, for if he is 
empowered to kill the game he has the remedy in his own 
hands of protecting his crops. Therefore, if he has permission 
in writing to kill the game, he cannot claim compensation 
under this section. Moreover, the same reasoning applies to 
any one claiming under him other than the landlord, for if, 
having the right to kill, he chooses to divest himself of such 
right, he obviously is not entitled to relief. 
During the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords 
it was suggested that the tenant’s remedy should not be against 
the landlord when the landlord had let the sporting rights 
which he possessed, but that he should be left to bring his 
action against the lessees. Such lessees, however, often consist 
