6 
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906. 
find that that school of thought which denies the existence of 
a free contract unless the parties meet on absolutely indepen- 
dent terms, claimed that they alone had influenced the passing 
of Section 3 of the new Act. The origin of the section is, 
however, more likely to be found in the desire of the tenant 
farmer to carry out his business untrammelled by unnecessary 
restrictions. He can urge, and has urged hitherto, that since 
he embarks his capital in farming the proper rotation of the 
crops is essentially a matter for him so long as the landlord’s 
land is not deteriorated in the process. 
The landlord, hitherto, has considered it necessary in many 
instances to provide for the due rptation of crops on arable 
land — and he has secured this by insisting on the tenant culti- 
vating either according to the covenants of his lease or the 
custom of the country. He has argued that past experience 
has shown the capabilities of the land, and that any departure 
from precedent in the methods of cultivation would be likely 
to prove detrimental to his interest. If Section 3 is examined 
it will be found enacted that “ notwithstanding any custom 
“of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy 
“ or agreement respecting the method of cropping of arable 
“ lands, or the disposal of crops, a tenant shall have full right 
“ to practise any system of cropping of the arable land on his 
“ holding and to dispose of the produce of his holding without 
“ incurring any penalty, forfeiture, or liability.” Before dealing 
with the provisions by which this right is secured it must be 
noticed that its apparent effect is to render all provisions in 
contracts of tenancy or agreements void in so far as they 
prescribe a specific method of cropping, but in effect this means 
only conditionally void, for when the provisos are examined 
it will be found that the right of free cropping and disposal of 
produce depends upon the fact of the tenant having previously 
made, or so soon thereafter as may be made, suitable and 
adequate provision to protect the holding from injury. If 
this is not done the penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities will 
still be enforceable. It must also be noticed that there is no 
freedom of cropping and disposal of produce in the case of 
yearly tenancies as respects the year before a tenant quits his 
holding, nor during any period after he has given or received 
a notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding, nor 
in any other case as respects the year before the expiration of 
the contract of tenancy. The effect of the section seems to be 
that neither a penalty, forfeiture, nor any liability can be 
incurred except where the tenant has failed to make suitable 
and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or 
deterioration, or during these specified periods. The suitable 
and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury is 
