WHAT HAS THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT DONE N OW that the
smoke and stir of the battle are over, and that the corpses of thrice-slain amendments are buried out of the way, we can see with greater clearness what has been lost and won on either side in the Agricultural Holdings Act. Looked at from the party point of view, there can be little doubt that the struggle itself has been an immense benefit to the Liberal party. It has shown that when the question at stake is a simple one of plain honesty and justice between man and man, the Conservative party, or at least the Conservative leader and one section of his party, are ever ready to uphold the wrong because the wrong is "established." It has shown that whether the scene is laid in Ireland or in England, whether the measure proposed is one which constitutes an admitted departure from accepted doctrines of State non-intervention, or is merely putting in force the common principles on which men daily act whore land is not concerned, Lord Salisbury is equally ready to fight to the bitter end, so long as his followers will follow him. The curious spectacle presented three years running of the "master of thirty legions" in the House of Lords being deserted by his legions, after they had already sacked the enemy's camp, is a very edifying one for the opposite party. The people of England in general will note that on each occasion it was a Land Bill which the House of Landlords threatened to wreck, though at the last moment they refused to stand to their guns, and left the field in possession of the enemy. But the Agri- cultural Holdings Act has not merely discredited the Con- servative leader, but it has discredited the Conservative party. Where now are the farmers' friends? Directly a small reform in the law of landlord and tenant is proposed in the interest of the tenant, the party which professes to be the friend of the tenant, and to think that the interests of landlord and tenant are identical, turns round and fights might and main against any concession. After this, the county electors will surely think once, twice, and thrice, before blindly intrasting their interests to such gay deceivers,—" both feet on the land and all at sea, to one thing constant never," if one may travesty the poet. It is extraordinary that any party should be so unwise. But it is only the latest instance of the truth of the saying of the Swedish Chancellor to his son which the English Chancellor, Brougham, was so fond of quoting,—" Go, my son, and see with how little wisdom the world is governed." But to look at the Act from the point of view of landlord and tenant, what exactly has it done for the tenant Before 1875, the agricultural tenant was subject to the strict rule of the common law. Whatever be placed in the soil, what- ever he fixed on it, or in any building on it, belonged to his landlord, when he left. There were a few trifling exceptions. The "way-going" crop he could take, according to the custom of the country ; but the way-going crop was not of much benefit to him, because, as it was said, to take it necessitated his carrying on business in two places at once. He could, under an Act passed in 1851, claim the property in a fixture erected for agricultural purposes, if erected with the consent in writing of his landlord. In a few counties, and for a few items of labour or expenditure, such as elaying, or marling, or the use of artificial manure, he could get a miserably inade- quate compensation. In the greater part of the country, and for the greater part of the improvements effected by him, he could get nothing at all. In other words, he spent money, and another got the profit ; he laboured, and another entered into the fruits of his labour. For this state of things, as de- pressing and injurious to the tenant as it was in the long-run injurious to the landlord, the Act of 1875 was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets by Mr. Disraeli. It divided improvements into three classes,—the permanent improvements, such as draining and building, which were to be considered exhausted in twenty years ; the durable, such as cluing or boning, which were calculated to last seven years ; and the temporary, such as the use of artificial manure, which 'were to be taken as exhausted in two years. The measure of the compensation to be paid was the original outlay of the tenant on an improvement, less a proportionate part, accord- ing to the class, for every year which had elapsed since it was made. No compensation was to be paid for an improvement of the first class, unless executed with the landlord's consent in writing ; nor of the second class, unless at least a week's notice in writing of the intention to execute it had been given. As regards fixtures, the Act of 1831 was practically re-enacted, only the landlord's consent was no longer necessary to their erection, except in the case of steam-engines, on which he had a veto. Holdings under two acres were wholly exempted from the Act. Practically, as every one knows, the Act was a dead- letter, because of the power given of contracting out of the Act by a mere notice in writing, the result of which was that as soon as the Act was passed it snowed notices in writing throughout the country. The main distinction between the Act of 1883 and that of 1875 is the removal of this power of contracting out of the Act. By the new Act, any con- tract, agreement, or covenant made by a tenant by virtue of which he is deprived of his right to claim compensation under the Act, "is void, at law and in equity." These be brave words, but they are in reality rather braggart than brave. For, in ease of an existing tenancy, "any agreement in writing or custom" which secures any compensation to the tenant for an improvement—while, in the case of future tenancies, any "particular agreement in writing "—excludes the Act. More- over, improvements already made are not to be paid for, if under any custom or agreement any compensation is to be paid, and permanent improvements are practically not included in the Act in any cage, as they only come under it if the landlord within a year consents in writing to the improvement. Here and there, of course, an exceptionally generous landlord will so c onsent, but as he would have probably paid anyhow, the tenants, as a rule, are not much helped.
The next great change in the present Act is that no definite time is now laid down within which an improvement is to be exhausted, but the measure of compensation to be paid is in all cases to be the value of the improvement at the time of quitting to an incoming tenant, without reference to the original outlay, or the time which has elapsed since it was made. This is a clear and simple principle enough, and no practical valuer would find any difficulty in settling compensa-
tion on that basis. But "there shall not be taken into tcoount, as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capacities of the roil." Now, there are cases, such as draining and fencing, in which it is easy to draw the sound distinction between the increase of -value given to good land, and the increase given to poor land, by the improvement. But how any one is to separate the effect of "the inherent capacities of the soil" from that of a judicious boning or marling, which the Lords insisted on including under Allis rule, it is hard to see. The valuers will have to be hereditary, or else to be scientific analytical chemists of the highest order. Probably, however, they will find their way out of the difficulty by quietly ignoring it, as, happily, they are not obliged to specify it in their award.
The third change of importance is that neither the consent of or notice to the landlord is required before the execution of an improvement in Part III. of the schedule of improvements, which includes Classes H. and III. of the Act of 1875. The consent, however, is still necessary to permanent improvements, such as building and reclamation of land; while, in ease of draining, notice must be given, and the landlord has then an option to execute the proposed drainage himself, and charge the tenant with the cost and 3 per cent. interest. Then, as regards fixtures not included in the scheduled list of improvements, the Act of 1875 is re-enacted, but with the omission of any conditions as to consent or notice. Lastly, the Act applies to all holdings, however small, so that Mr. Arch's clients, the small allotment-holders of half an acre, will be as much benefited by the Act as the large farmer with his thousand acres. A novel part of the Act is that limiting distress to one year, and fixing the costs of levying it. But this part is not of great practical importance, except as a step to the total abolition of this absurd preference given to a creditor who is alike, as a rule, the strongest creditor, and most in a position to take care of himself.
What, then, are the total results of the Act ? The general law of fixtures is for agricultural tenants permanently placed on a rational basis. That which a man places on property which is his own for the time being is not henceforth to go to another as of right. The landlord is given a right of pre- emption at the end of the term which is fair enough, and beneficial to the tenant, as a fixture is, of course, of more value in its place than when removed. As regards that special and most important class of fixtures which are called permanent improvements, the principle of property in the tenant is recognised, though it is rendered of less avail, owing to the restrictions of consents and notices with which it is hampered in practice. As regards less permanent improve- ments, the principle is fully and freely recognised. That which the farmer sows, henceforth he shall reap. He is no longer discouraged from improving by the fear that he will not get value for value given. The misapplied jargon of the Roman lawyer, which has been the curse of agriculture, is now rendered obsolete. It is no longer true to say,—"Quicquid plantatur, seritur, vel inaedificatur, omne solo cedit," at least in the sense that it goes to the lord, and not to the tiller of the soil.
But though much is done, something remains to do. The farmer will get value, but while the restrictions mentioned remain in force, he will hardly get full value for his im- provements. The landlord's consent will have to be bought. The inherent capacity of the soil may swallow up a consider- able part of the improvements on it. Moreover, the fact that compensation is restricted to scheduled improvements is hardly favourable to the unrestricted development of scientific agri- culture. Most, if not all, of the improvements in Part III. of the Schedule were unknown before the middle of last century. Already, since 1875, Part I. has been increased by the addition to the list of the formation of silos, and embankments, and sluices against floods. It is eminently unsatisfactory to the public, which is interested in the greatest possible production of food from the soil, that the adoption of fresh improvements in the methods of stimulating that production should be hindered by the farmers' being afraid of not getting a full return for his experiments.
Still, on the whole, a considerable benefit has been con- ferred upon the tillers of the soil by the Bill. It is, perhaps, just as well they should not get all they want, or all that is necessiry, at once. If the Act does not work as well as it ought, and needs amendment, if its extension proves to be necessary to ensure its professed ends, the Farmers will have at least learnt to which party, and which wing of the party, they are to go to get it ; and of which party the rule holds good, "Expect nothing, and you shall not be disappointed."
Previous page
