Skip to main content

Full text of "Reprint of agricultural landlord-tenant relations in England and Wales and Scotland's activity in improving farm tenancy"

See other formats


Historic, archived document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 



4 




Land-Use Planning Publication No. 4a 
Reprint of 



AGRICULTURAL LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS IN 
ENGLAND AND WALES 



by 



Marshall Harris 
Land Policies Unit 



and 



SCOTLAND'S ACTIVITY IN IMPROVING FARM 
TENANCY 

by 

Marshall Harris and Douglas F. Schepmoes 
Land Policies Unit 



Washington, D. C. 
November 1936 



The demand for these two articles, which deal with the methods 
used by England, Wales, and Scotland in improving their farm ten- 
ancy system, has made it necessary that we have additional copies 
reproduced. The two publications are combined under one cover 
because of their similarity in subject matter, and because of the 
fact that they are designed to serve closely related purposes. 
Only minor changes from the original issues have been made. 



Part I 

AGRICULTURAL LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES 

* * » * 



INTRODUCTION 1 

Chapter I: LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONS AT THE 

MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 5 

Fixtures and Emblements 5 

Compensation for Improvements 6 

Freedom of Cropping 8 

Eviction 8 

Rent 9 

Game 9 

Chapter II: DEVELOPMENT OF STATUTORY REGULATIONS 11 

Early Legislative Endeavors 11 

Compensation for Improvement Made 

Compulsory 15 

Introduction of Compensation for Disturbance 

and Damage by Game and Freedom of Cropping 20 

Chapter III; PRESENT SITUATION PERTAINING TO LANDLORD- 
TENANT RELATIONS 25 

Compensation for Improvements 27 

Compensation for High Quality Farming 32 

Compensation for Deterioration and Waste 32 

Compensation for Disturbance 33 

Compensation for Damage by Game 37 

Special Compensation Provisions 

Regarding Market Gardens 38 

Freedom of Cropping and Disposing of 

Produce 39 

Fixtures and Emblements 40 

Rent Adjustment and Regulation 42 

Financial Responsibility 44 

Miscellaneous Provisions 45 

Adjustment of Differences Between 

Landlord and Tenant 46 

Chapter IV: SUMMARY 52 

SELECTED REFERENCES 80 

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT 84 



Part II 



SCOTLAND'S ACTIVITY IN IMPROVING FARM TENANCY 
* * * * 

TA BLE OF CONTENTS 

Pa^e 



INTRODUCTION 55 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 56 

STATUTORY CONTROL OF LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS 59 

The Hypothec Abolition Act 62 

The Ground Game Act 62 

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 62 

The Crofter's Holding Act 63 

The Congested Districts Act 65 

The Small Landholders' Act 66 

The Land Court 67 

The Department of Agriculture 74 

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923 76 

SUMMARY 78 

SELECTED REFERENCES , 93 

List of Tables 

Table 1 - Number and Percentage of Farms in Scotland 

by Tenure ; 59 

Table 2 - Number of Farms in Scotland by Size and Tenure 60 

Table 3 - Number and Percentage of Acres in Farms in 

Scotland by Tenure 61 

Table 4 - Rent Adjustments Determined by the Scottish 

Land Court 72 

Table 5 - Compensation Adjustments Determined by the 

Scottish Land Court 73 



Part I 



AGRICULTURAL LAND-TENANT RELATIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES 1/ 

by 

Marshall Harris 
INTRODUCTION 

The American agricultural economists who have studied the 
English and Welsh tenancy system praise it with but few reserva- 
tions, and those who have observed it in actual operation commend 
it highly. Their analyses indicate that it is well-adapted to 
those countries, and also that the American farm tenancy system 
could be greatly improved by the adoption of certain principles 
which have been developed in England and Wales. In summarizing a 
discussion regarding farm tenancy in England soon after the turn 
of the century, H. C. Taylor concluded that "the agriculture of 
England is, in many ways, worthy of our emulation, and that this 
advanced position of English agriculture is due, in a great measure 
to an excellent system of adjusting the relations between landlord 
and tenant." 2/ Several years later, after an extended visit in 
Great Britain studying agricultural conditions, Wilson and Wallace 
concluded the tenancy section of their report as follows: 

"Of the wisdom of the legislation that gives the 
tenant the legal right to unexhausted manures and other 
forms of fertility, there can be no possible question... 
During these travels we have been constantly impressed 
with the fact that the United States is traveling in the 
same direction in which Great Britain has gone in times 
past; and if we are to retain the fertility of our soil. . . 
and have a rural population on which America can depend 
both in war and in peace, we must adopt measures similar 
to those which Great Britain has adopted with success. "3/ 



1/ Reprint from Land-Use Planning Publication No. 4, July 1936. 
(Division of Land Utilization, Resettlement Administration, 
Washington, D. C . ) 

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Douglas F. 

Schepmoes, Land-Use Planning Section, in the preparation of 

this manuscript. 
2/ Taylor, H. C. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, p. 321. 
3/ Wilson, James, and Wallace, Henry. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN 

GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, p. 12. 



-1- 



Many other American agricultural economists have given serious con- 
sideration to certain principles and practices follov/ed in the 
English and Welsh tenancy system, and have commended them to Ameri- 
can legislators, landlords, farm managers, and tenants. 4/ 

The present tenancy regulations of England and Wales are an 
outgrowth of more than half a century of constant study and legis- 
lative activity. The English have followed the procedure of de- 
veloping their tenancy law out of the successful experiences of the 
better landlords and tenants. In this they have pursued the policy 
of adjusting landlord and tenant relations by placing the tenant- 
operator more and more in a position similar to that of the owner- 
operator. Throughout these adjustments they have safeguarded the 
interests of the landlord, and have afforded effective protection 
to the natural fertility of the soil and to the improvements erected 
by both the landlord and the tenant. 

This article, the second of a series which will explore the 
experience of older countries in their endeavor to improce their 
farm tenancy system, will present a summary of the maj or activities 
of England and Wales pertaining to farm tenancy legislation. 5/ 
A later Land-Use Planning publication will discuss the applicability 
of the principles underlying the English and Welsh legislation to 
American conditions and practices. In order to visualize the 
significance of the legislation under discussion, it is necessary 
to present a short discussion of the nature and extent of tenancy 
in England and Wales. 

The data available on the ownership of land in England and 
Wales, prior to the last fifty years, are scarce. The Domesday 
record, compiled in 1085 by order of William the Conqueror, xook 
complete account of all land, but a detailed analysis of the number 
and tenure of farms according to this old record has not been made. 
It appears, however, that all the land was held under some type of 
tenure very simular to that developed at the height of the feudal 
period. The type of land occupancy which existed subsequent to the 
feudal period, although not clearly determinable, was more or less 
similar to that of a restricted type of private ownership. By the 
time of the reign of Henry VI (1422-1461), "Fortescue was able to 



4/ See the writings of Gray, Black, Hibbard, Taylor, Holm.es. Case 
Falconer, Lloyd, Johnson and others cited in the Selected Ref- 
erences . 

5/ The activities of Scotland, the first article of this series, 
appeared in the LAND POLICY CIRCULAR for February, 1936, p. 10, 
and is reprinted herein. 



-2- 



boast that in no country of Europe were small proprietors so numer- 
ous as in England. For many descendants of the old villeins had 
by this time become copyholders, and entered the ranks of the 
yeomanry, which now furnished the bone and sinew of the English 
commonalty." 6/ All evidence points to the fact that up to the time 
of the enclosure acts of the eighteenth century, the ownership of 
land was generally well distributed, and the land was owned by the 
occupier. Taylor found this to be true in his study of English 
agriculture, and presents much evidence substantiating this view.Ty 

The next comprehensive information which we have respecting 
the ownership of land in England is that of the "New Domesday Re- 
cord" made by the government in 1873. The record contains many 
double entries and repetitions, but it has been studied and correct- 
ed by numerous students. The statistics which are generally ac- 
cepted as being a good picture of the situation indicate that owner- 
operation had been disappearing very rapidly, and that by 1873 about 
two-fifths of the land in England and Wales was owned by about 
1700 persons. (Statistical Supplement, Table 1). Many of these 
large landowners obtained original ownership of the land through 
the old feudal grants or through the enclosure process, and the 
earlier feudal experience furnished an excellent background for the 
development of the unregulated tenancy system which grew up subse- 
quent to the enclosures. 

The annual agricultural reports of the government, beginning in 
1887 and continuing to the present day, indicate the percentage of 
tenancy in England and Wales from the standpoint of both the number 
of farms and the number of acres. There were only 13.5 percent of 
the farms in that year which were owned by their operators, and 
these operators owned 15.3 percent of the farm land. (Statistical 
Supplement, Tables 2 and 3). Ownership declined and tenancy in- 
creased from 1887 until after the World War. Since then, there has 
been a marked increase in the proportion of the farms, and also in 
the proportion of the farm land, which is owned by the operators. 
There were 88.3 percent of the farms and 87.7 percent of the land 
in farms rented by the operators in 1919. By 1927 these percentages 
had decreased to 63.4 percent and 63.9 percent, respectively. 

The major factors bringing about the decrease in tenancy and 
the increase in owner-occupation in England and Wales may be 
summarized as follows: (a) the death of many heirs during the War; 
(b) heavy land taxes during and after the War; (c) the fear of land 



6/ Broderick, G. C. ENGLISH LAND AND ENGLISH LANDLORDS, p. 19. 
7/ Taylor, H. C. DECLINE OF LANDOWNING FARMERS IN ENGLAND. See 
his chapter beginning on page 24. 



-3- 



nationalization, and the diminution of control over the land owned 
through legislative action; (d) inflated prices during 1919 and 
subsequent years which made it possible for the original owners 
to sell land at a high price; and (e) the desire on the part of the 
tenant to buy his farm. 

There has also been a diminution in the total number of farms 
and in the total acreage of farm land since the War. In 1914 there 
were 435,124 farms one acre or more in size, while in 1934 there 
were only 384,272 farms, a decrease of almost twelve percent. (Sta- 
tistical Supplement, Table 5). Furthermore, there were 27,114,004 
acres of farm land in 1914 and only 25,030,494 acres in 1934, 
a decrease of almost eight percent. The land formerly occupied by 
these farms has been used for: (a) munition plants and other war 
purposes; (b) building sites near towns and cities; (c) increasing 
the number of gardens and allotments; and (d) increasing the amount 
of rough grazing land. 

It should be pointed out that most farms in England and Wales 
are rented for cash as contrasted with the share-renting system 
which is predominant in this country. Moreover, most farms are 
rented on yearly tenancies, that is, from year to year. It is 
generally understood that such tenancies shall continue year after 
year unless one party gives notice that he desires the lease termi- 
nated. 

The subsequent discussion is divided into the following major 
topics: (a) Landlord and Tenant Relations at the Middle of the 
Nineteenth Century; (b) Development of Statutory Regulations; and 
(c) Present Situation Pertaining to Landlord and Tenant Relations. 
The first topic will present a cross-section picture of the situ- 
ation with respect to landlord and tenant relations at the middle 
of the nineteenth century, which will include a discussion of the 
rights and duties of each of the contracting parties and a descrip- 
tion of the major inequities which accumulated under the early 
system. Then the development of legislation, which was designed to 
place the tenant-operator in a position more nearly like that of an 
owner-operator, will be discussed. This will include the activities 
of the government in (a) defining the m.any rights and duties of the 
landlord and tenant; (b) providing compulsory adherence to these 
rights and duties; (c) effecting adjustments which secure for the 
tenant farmer a relatively high degree of stability of occupancy 
and security of tenure; (d) setting up i procedure whereby fair and 
equitable rents may be determined; and (e) establishing a system 
of arbitration which facilitates the solution of differences be- 
tween landlords and tenants. The last section will include a 
detailed description and analysis of the statutory provisions which 
regulate landlord and tenant relations at present. 

-4- 



Chapter I 



LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONS AT THE MIDDLE OF THE 
NINETEENTH CENTURY 



The landlord and tenant system which grew up during the periods 
when the enclosure of the common arable fields was taking place was 
largely individualistic and unregulated. It was, at first, based 
almost wholly upon the contractual relationships between the land- 
lord and the tenant. The financial and political position of the 
landlord in comparison with that of the recently evicted or dis- 
possessed tenant was not conducive to the establishment of a well- 
balanced tenancy system. There were very few statutes governing 
landlord and tenant relations during the eighteenth century or the 
first half of the nineteenth century. Moreover, a large proportion 
of those in existence were very severe on the tenant farmer. There 
was but little homogeneity from county to county, or even from farm 
to farm, as to the rights and duties of the two parties in respect 
to many important matters. As the tenancy system became widespread 
and firmly established, there began to develop customary renting 
practices and procedures so that landlords and tenant relations, 
although determined largely by the rental contract, were eventually 
influenced by the common law customs which grew up. 

Fixtures and Emblements 

According to both the common law and the customary local prac- 
tices, the agricultural tenant did not have the right, on quitting 
the farm, to remove any of the fixtures which he had erected during 
his occupancy, nor did he have the right to emblements, that is, 
crops which he had sown but which had not been harvested. 1/ The 
statute which existed in regard to fixtures and emblements was not 
specific, and did not effectively ameliorate the common law prac- 
tice. Hence, many hardships were experienced by tenants who 
supplied themselves with necessary fixtures and later found that 
on being forced to quit the farm they could not remove them. 

Regarding the growing crops, however, the custom was fairly 
well established prior to 1850 whereby the outgoing tenant either 
held over after his lease had expired or returned to harvest the 
crops which he had sown. This custom gradually changed in some 
communities to a practice whereby the outgoing tenant was compen- 
sated by the incoming tenant for the value of such growing crops as 



1/ Spencer, A. J. THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923, p. 82. 



-5- 



/ 



were left on the farm. This was a noteworthy step in the develop- 
ment of a tenancy system which would eventually regulate landlord 
and tenant relations in an equitable manner. It did not, however, 
provide the tenant with the necessary control relative to fixtures; 
neither did it provide a procedure whereby the incoming tenant 
could reimburse the outgoing tenant for fixtures which the latter 
had effected. 

Compensatio n for Improvement s 

The first half of the nineteenth century was a period of rapid 
scientific advancement in farm.ing which necessitated many changes 
in farm practices and techniques. These in turn, coupled with a 
more competitive type of production for market, made necessary large 
investments of capital by individual tenant cultivators. The in- 
vestments were often in the nature of fixed capital, and could 
seldom yield an immediate return sufficient to cover their costs, 
but could profitably be amortized over a period of several years. 
Long-time occupancy was required if the tenant-cultivator was to 
get the full benefit of his capital and labor before quitting 
the farm. Yet a large proportion of the farms was held by yearly 
tenancies which, according to the custom of the community, could be 
terminated by either party upon a six-months' notice. This method 
of renting was preferred by the landlord because it gave him 
greater control over the land, while the tenant accepted it because 
he could not do otherwise, and because the rent was usually lower 
than if the farm were leased for a longer period. 

In regard to improvements effected by the tenant, when "a man 
improved his farm during a lease, he was obligated to pay an in- 
creased rent for it, in consequence of that improvement, when he 
renewed it for a second term. If he held from year to year, he 
either made no improvement, or, speaking generally, so little, that 
the difference of produce from year to year was so gradual and 
imperceptible that the farmer kept nearly the whole advantage to 
himself." 2/ Leases for a period of years being the exception, the 
stability of occupancy and security of tenure of a tenant farmer in 
England and Wales in 1850, and, therefore, his opportunity to re- 
coup the expenses incurred in respect to improvements, depended 
greatly upon the character of the landlord. 

In order to remedy this situation, the early experience in 
compensating tenants for growing crops was used as an excellent 



2/ Caird, James. ENGLISH AGRICULTURE IN 1850-51, pp. 508-9. 



-6- 



example and a workable background for the introduction of the 
principle of compensating the outgoing tenant for the unexhausted 
value of improvements effected by him. This practice of compen- 
sating tenants for improvements grew rather rapidly during the 
second and third quarters of the nineteenth century. In the 
counties of Surrey, Sussex, the Weld of Kent, Lincoln, North Notts, 
and part of West Riding this custom soon became binding at law. 
These few counties, however, were the only ones in which the custom 
had the force of lav/, and in some counties the practice of compen- 
sating tenants for improvements did not exist at all. When compen- 
sation for improvements was pract'^ced, it involved a payment by the 
incoming tenant or the landlord to the outgoing tenant for the 
unexhausted value of such improvements as the latter had made dur- 
ing his occupancy of the farm. The payment was made only when the 
tenant quit the farm, and for such improvements as the landlord 
and tenant had agreed upon in the original leasing arrangement, or 
at any time during the tenancy, or according to the custom in the 
community. At first, the improvements for which the tenant v/as 
reimbursed included only such items as increases in the fertility 
of the soil through the application of lime, manure, and fertili- 
zers, and such minor improvements as fences, small temporary build- 
ings, and changes in the water supply; but later large permanent 
buildings, roads, bridges, drainage systems, and the laying down of 
permanent or temporary pastures v/ere included. The value of these 
improvements was estimated by appraisers under a system of valu- 
ation which grew up without legal direction, and which was usually 
based upon the cost of the improvement. Consequently, the practice 
of valuation varied greatly in different parts of the country. 
There was, in fact, no well-designed or systematic plan for arriving 
at the value of the improvements which the outgoing tenant had 
effected. 

The poorly defined custom of compensating the tenant for the 
unexhausted improvements, even though giving him an increased se- 
curity for his investment, frequently worked great hardships upon 
him when changing farms. "The indef initeness of the 'custom' 
was also much complained of and . . . Frauds were beginning to creep 
into the system, and landlords, for their own protection, were 
obliged to limit and define the custom by special agreement." 3/ 
Caird, in studying landlord-tenant relations at the middle of the 
nineteenth century in the Welds of Surrey and Sussex where the 
com.pensative custom was most commonly used, found the state of 
agriculture extremely backward. The production of the farms was 
generally belov/ the average for the rest of the country, the tenants 

3/ Caird; James. Op. Cit. p. 506. 



-7- 



financially embarrassed, and the landlords received their low rents 
irregularly. It appeared, in fact, that no one connected with farm- 
ing was thriving, except the appraisers who were in constant em- 
ployment settling the disputed claims of outgoing and incoming 
tenants. It was evident that statutory action was necessary before 
uniformity and equity could be established, and before the tenant 
farmer could be assured of an opportunity to operate his farm 
and conduct his business in a manner similar to that of an owner- 
operator. 

Freedom of Cro^Eing 

One very strict principle of the English and Welsh tenancy 
system, which hampered the development of agriculture, was the re- 
striction placed upon the tenant in respect to the system of crop- 
ping to be followed and the manner in which he could dispose of the 
produce from the farm. The usual practice was for the landlord 
to insert into the lease a provision specifying the system of crop- 
ping which was to be followed, and also prohibiting the removal of 
hay, straw, roots and grain crops. Even when the contract of tenan- 
cy did not specify the system of cropping, the custom of the com- 
munity was so well established that the tenant was liable for 
damages if he did not follow the accepted cropping practices of the 
community . 

The situation was the basis of much complaint even as early 
as the middle of the century, and many farmers were of the opinion 
that the future progress of agriculture rested upon the recognition 
of the fact that the cultivator must be given freedom of cropping, 
and be permitted to dispose of the produce of the farm as he deemed 
advisable. It was also recognized that the land and the landlord 
would need to be protected against exploitation on the part of the 
tenant . 

Eviction 

Another important weakness in the operation of the English and 
Welsh tenancy system at the middle of the nineteenth century was 
the shifting of the tenant-operators from farm to farm. The land- 
lord could evict a tenant who rented from year to year by giving a 
six-month notice to quit, and the tenant had no recourse regardless 
of the unreasonableness of the eviction or the loss which he ex- 
perienced. The tenant who rented for a period of years was in a 
similar position when his lease expired. Neither class of tenants 
was secure enough to make long-time plans, either in its farming 



-8- 



operations or with respect to its educational, religious, or 
social relationships in the community. Without a higher degree of 
stability of occupancy and security of tenure, it was impossible 
to establish upon the soil a verile farm population, to develop 
worthy rural institutions, or to maintain a permanently productive 
agriculture. However, the experiences of seme of the more far- 
seeing landlords indicated clearly that the tenant farmer did a 
better job of farming when he felt secure in his occupancy of the 
farm. They were, therefore, introducing advanced ideas in regard 
to evictions which were to be the basis of the future legislative 
policy. 

Rent 

The tenant farmer was usually at a disadvantage in the matter 
of obtaining a fair and equitable rent. The land was owned largely 
by a few people, many of whom had an income from other sources, and 
who owned the land for reasons other than their interests in an in- 
come from farming. They could increase rent to the maximum, and 
the system even permitted them to raise the rent by virtue of the 
increased value of the farm resulting from improvements effected 
by the tenant. It was difficult, if not impossible, for the tenant 
to obtain an adjustment in the rent even when the crops failed or 
when the market price was seriously reduced. There were a few land- 
lords, of course, who made changes in the rent when production con- 
ditions and when price changes indicated that it was equitable to 
do SO- 

Ga m e 

According to common law principles, the occupier of the land, 
by virtue of his possession, was entitled to kill all game on the 
land. He could treat anyone, even the landlord, as a trespasser 
if he killed the game. By a series of acts, beginning as early as 
13S9, these rights were gradually restricted. 4/ Finally, the Game 
Act of 1S31 made it possible for the landlord to reserve for him- 
self, or for some other person, the right to kill or take all game. 
The tenant's right to game was also restricted by v/hat was known as 
"a franchise", which was a Royal Grant giving to its holder the 
sporting privilege over a certain tract of land. In actual oper- 
ation these two restrictions practically divested the tenant of 
all his rights respecting game, because the landlord usually re- 
served the game for himself or for a sporting tenant to whom he 
might rent the hunting privilege. The farming tenant did not have 



4/ The report of the Welsh Land Equiry Committee. WELSH LAND, p. 55. 



-9- 



a right to kill game even when he saw it damaging his crops. 
Neither did he have any method whereby he could be reimbursed for 
the damage suffered. The 1831 Act also introduced a system of 
licenses and closed seasons, which assured the person having the 
legal right to the game greater security in that right. These 
provisions were carried out by gamekeepers who were appointed by 
the landlords. 

It appeared inequitable to force the tenant farmer to accept a 
rental agreement under which he could neither kill game nor claim 
compensation for damage done by game, and many students of the 
problem felt that the rights which were taken from him by statute 
should be returned to him through the same procedure. 



-10- 



Chapter II 
DEVELOPMENT OF STATUTORY REGULATIONS 



The English and Welsh tenant at the middle of the nineteenth 
century, although fairly prosperous owing to general prosperity 
throughout England and Wales, was not in a position to develop a 
type of agriculture which would be permanently productive, and 
which would adequately support a worthy rural tenantry. As pointed 
out above, the tenant's position in regard to fixtures and emble- 
ments was quite precarious; he could not effect permanent or even 
semi-permanent improvements with an assurance that when he quit 
the farm he would be reimbursed therefor; he was often seriously 
restricted in regard to the cropping practices which he would like 
to follow, and in the disposal of the produce from the farm; his 
tenure of the farm was often unstable and insecure owing to a 
system which permitted the landlord to terminate the tenancy with- 
out due cause and which provided no recourse for the tenant; he 
often had to pay an unreasonable rent which was not adjusted even 
in years of droughts or greatly reduced prices, except in the few 
cases where the landlord saw fit; and the game laws were a source 
of constant irritation and loss. 

There were a few landlords, however, who followed the plan of 
fostering better agricultural methods, and amplifying the contrac- 
tual relations with their tenants. In addition, leaders in Par- 
liament and others interested in the advancement of the country 
came to realize that the relations between the farm tenant and the 
agricultui'al landlord must be regulated. They also felt that a 
virile farm population and stable rural iristitutions were essen- 
tial in a well-balanced national economy, and that such could not 
be maintained under the unregulated, highly competitive system of 
tenancy. Consequently, Parliament took definite steps to improve 
the relations between the landlords and the tenants. The change 
was slow at first, but, as experience paved the way, much progress 
was made through the concerted efforts of certain members of Parlia- 
ment, some of the more far-sighted landlords, and the organized 
tenant farmers, all of whom attacked problems from a long-time 
point of view. The following discussion pictures the major statu- 
tory changes which have resulted from their untiring efforts. 

Early L egislativ e Endeavors 

The first statutory relief from the common law custom, under 
which the tenant's fixtures, emblements, and buildings became the 



-11- 



property of the landlord when the lease was terminated, was made 
in 1851. 1/ The Landlord and Tenant Act gave the tenant, at the 
termination of the lease and on quitting the farm, the right to 
remove buildings made by him, and such fixtures as engines and 
machinery. The buildings and fixtures must have been used, how- 
ever, for the purpose of agriculture or for agriculture and trade, 
and the tenant must have received the written consent of the land- 
lord to construct them, Before the removal of the buildings and 
fixtures, he must also have given the landlord one month's notice 
of his intention to do so. The landlord was given an opportunity 
to purchase the fixtures or buildings, and if he and the tenant 
could not agree as to their value, the arbitration method of arri- 
ving at a fair value was to be used. 

Prior to the passage of the 1851 Act, the tenant, whose tenancy 
was terminable at the death of the landlord, or at any other un- 
certain time, could return to the farm and harvest the growing 
crops- The 1851 Act gave this class of tenant the right to remain 
on the farm and harvest the crop, and continue in the occupation 
of the farm to the end of the tenancy year. 

This Act was a step in the right direction, but it was a quar- 
ter of a century later, 1875, before the first substantial effort 
to deal generally with the position of the tenant farmer was made. 2/ 
The legislative activity of that year arose out of three rather 
v/ide-spread arguments: the first of these claimed that the tenant 
farmer was often unjustly treated by being deprived of compensation 
for the unexhausted value of improvements which he had made during 
his tenancy; the second was that the principle of compensation, as 
practiced by many leading landlords, was adapted to the English and 
Welsh agricultural economy generally ; while the third had as its 
basis the fact that the tenant farmer was too often evicted without 
due cause. The Agricultural Holdings Act provided that the out- 
going tenant should be entitled to claim compensation for improve- 
ments effected by him, upon the basis of the cost price minus a 
proportionate deduction for each year which had expired since the 
improvement was made. The improvements for which compensation was 
provided were divided into the three following classes: (a) per- 
manent improvements, such as buildings and drainage, which were to 
be fully depreciated within twenty years; (b) semi-permanent im- 
provements, such as chalking and liming of the soil, which were 
to be depreciated over a period of seven years; and (c) temporary 



1/ LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1851. 
2/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1875. 



-12- 



improvements, such as manure and artificial fertilizers, which were 
presumed to remain for two years before completely exhausted. In 
order to claim compensation for improvements of the first class, 
it was necessary for the tenant to receive the landlord's consent 
to make them, Similarly, the tenant had to give notice to the 
landlord before effecting improvements of the second class, but 
was free to make improvements of the third class without obtaining 
the consent of or giving notice to the landlord. The Act was per- 
missive, making it possible for the landlord to force the tenant to 
contract out of its provisions. Therefore, in practice, it was in- 
operative, but it effected a change in the principle of English 
law which was undoubtedly of considerable importance. Even if it 
had been com.pulsory, it v/ould not have revolutionized the existing 
system of landlord and tenant relations, owing to many exceptions 
and limitations to the general principles established. 

As pointed out above, the passage of this Act did not come 
about suddenly, nor by an inspiration of any one person. Statutory 
"tenant-right" had been discussed for over twenty-five years. Some 
students of agricultural problem.s claimed that the legalization of 
compensation for improvements by an act of Parliament was not de- 
sirable, and that the best method of protecting the capital invested 
by the tenant would be by a long-term lease, or that compensation 
shculd be provided in the leasing agreement through competitive 
bargaining between the landlord and tenant Broderick, in consid- 
eration of this subject, said: 

^ "One plea often advanced in support of compulsory 

tenant-right must at once be dismissed as untenable. It 
cannot be alleged, with any justice, that by virtue of 
their having 'a monopoly of land' , or of their superior 
wealth, or of their social ascendancy, the landlords have 
the power to force extortionate agreements upon tenants 
No doubt landed property is a monopoly in the sense that 
the surface of the soil is limited in extent ... This fact 
constitutes a sound argument for claiming and exercising 
a dormant right on the part of the State to control the 
action of the landowners, so far as public interests may 
be concerned. But it does not constitute an argument for 
treating the whole class of English tenant-farmers, num- 
bering some hundreds of thousands, like infants, lunatics, 
or persons under duress, as personally incompetent to make 
contracts with their landlords on equal terms. No one is 
compelled to hire land at all... "3/ 



3/ Broderick, G. C. ENGLISH LAND AND ENGLISH LANDLORDS, p. 375. 



There were many persons who took the same conservative view. They 
thought the existing laissez-faire policy was adequate, and that 
freedom of contract must be preserved. 

Many land nationalization societies which sprang up at that 
time, and many of the outstanding thinkers of the day, took a 
different point of view. John Stuart Mill, who had long been a 
student of land problems, became the president of the LAND TENURE 
REFORM ASSOCIATION in 1870, The principal aims of this society- 
were: (a) to make transfers of land easy; (b) to claim for the 
benefit of the state the future unearned increase in the value of 
the land; (c) to encourage cooperative agriculture; (d) to encourage 
the purchase of land by the state for the purpose of renting it to 
small cultivators; and (e) to retain for national use all land 
classified as waste. 4/ During the third quarter of the nineteenth 
century there were many other v/riters who discussed the problem 
of land ownership and tenancy, and many schemes for the solution 
of the pressing problems of landlordism were presented. These 
schemes ranged all the way from virtual confiscation to government 
purchase. It was argued that the nation should cancel the social 
contract of private property in land and reassert its right to the 
land. Another plan called for the taxing of all land to the full 
extent of the value arising from the land. A third scheme declared 
that the value of the land may be divided into three parts: (a) 
the value inherent in the soil; (b) the value created by improve- 
ments made by man; and (c) the "contingent value". Under this 
scheme the landlord would be entitled to the rent arising from the 
improved value of all the land which he holds, and he should return 
to the state all the rent which accrues from the original and the 
contingent values. The general procedure fostered by the land 
nationalization societies was for the government to make some pre- 
tense of purchasing the land, under compulsory power, rather than 
confiscate it, and should then collect rent from the person who 
uses the land. The user of the land would be guaranteed security of 
tenure, the right to any improvement which he might make, and the 
right to sublet. 

Parliament was naturally aroused by the widespread land tenure 
reform movement, and by the failure of the 1875 Act to attain the 
desired results. Disraeli's administration appointed a commission 
to study agricultural conditions and make recommendations for re- 
form. This commission, known as the Richmond Commission, reported 



4/ Orwin, C. S. and Peel, W. R. THE TENURE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, 
pp . 33-34 . 



in 1882. The future legislative program was based largely upon the 
information contained in its report and the recommendations made 
by it. There were other factors, however, influencing the ac- 
tions of Parliament at that time. The Land Enquiry Committee re- 
ported that the "writer and legislators who lived during the first 
half of the nineteenth century believed that national interests were 
best secured by not interfering with the free bargaining as between 
workman and employers, tenant and landowner. The logic of necessity 
drove Parliament to interfere first of all with the relationships 
between workman and employer. It was realized that the employee, 
faced with the alternative of taking a job or starving . was not a 
free agent, and a long series of Acts were passed regulating hours, 
factory conditions, and, in some cases, wages as well." 5/ The 
legal powers which were possessed by the landowner during that time 
were extensive, but by the second half of the nineteenth century a 
marked change in public opinion had taken place, and it "was recog- 
nized that the community as a whole had a right to safeguard its 
own interests." 6/ Many statesmen deemed it wise to regulate the 
landlord and tenant in a manner similar to the statutory safeguards 
provided in the case of the v.'orkman and employer. Thus, the Agri- 
cultural Holdings Act of 1883, which took the place of the earlier 
Act, had as its immediate foundation the Report of the Richmond 
Commission, while the general attitude of society in regard to such 
matters formed a more fundamental basis for action of this general 
character, 

Compensation for Im prov ements Made Compulsory 

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 differed from the earlier 
Act in two important particulars. 7/ First, it was compulsory 
rather than permissive. This made it possible for the tenant, on 
quitting the farm, to claim compensation for the unexhausted value 
of the improvements which he had effected, provisions in the con- 
tract to the contrary notwithstanding; thus eliminating the possibi- 
lity of the landlord's forcing the tenant to dispense with his com- 
pensation privilege, and also making it necessary for the tenant to 
bargain with the landlord in respect to the making of many improve- 
ments. The second new feature provided that the amount of payment 
for the unexhausted improvement should be its value to an incoming 



5/ The Report of the Land Enquiry Committee. Op. Cit. p. 362. 
6/ Ibid. 

7/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883. 



-15- 



tenant, rather than its cost less depreciation. This was a great 
improvement in the principles which had been followed in determin- 
ing the compensation which the outgoing tenant should receive. It 
served to protect the landlord and incoming tenant against an out- 
going tenant who was not prudent, either in the type of improve- 
ment effected or in the purchasing of material and in construc- 
tion costs. It should be noted that the statute used the terminolo- 
gy "SS incoming tenant" and not the incoming tenant. Thus, the 
value of the improvement was to be based upon its suitability to 
the type of farming which would normally be carried on, without re- 
gard to who was going to occupy the farm or how he intended to use 
it. 

In general, the classification of improvements, and the grant- 
ing of permission or the giving of notice in connection with the 
making of improvements, followed the same principles as those out- 
lined in the 1875 Act. The list of improvements for which compen- 
sation was payable, which is presented below in Table 1, was again 
divided into three categories, with similar restricting provisions. 
The 1883 Act did not, however, set up a standard for depreciating 
the improvement as was done in the 1875 Act. Such was neither 
necessary nor applicable to the new system for determining the 
amount of compensation. The landlord and tenant could agree as to 
the amount of compensation, or in case they could not agree, the 
amount of the compensation was to be determined by "reference." 
The Act provided that the landlord and tenant could agree as to a 
single referee who could proceed with the reference, or in case 
they could not agree as to a single referee, each could select a 
referee and these two could select an unpire, and the three proceed 
with the reference. The decision of these three, when legally made, 
was to be binding on the landlord and tenant. 

Table 1 - Improvements For Which Compensation Was Payable 
According to the English and Welsh Agricultural 
Holdings Act of 1883 8/ 

Part I 

IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH CONSENT OF LANDLORD IS REQUIRED 

(1) Erection or enlargement of buildings 

(2) Formation of silos 

(3) Laying down of permanent pasture 

(4) Making and planting of osier beds 



8/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883. 



-16' 



(5) Making of water meadows or works of irrigation 

(6) Making of gardens 

(7) Making or improving of roads or bridges 

(8) Making or improving of water courses, ponds, wells, or reser- 
voirs, or of works for the application of water power or 
for supply of v/ater for agricultural or domestic purposes 

(9) Making of fences 

(10) Planting of hops 

(11) Planting of orchards or fruit bushes 

(12) Reclaiming of waste land 

(13) Warping of land 

(14) Embankment and sluices against floods 

Part II 

IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH NOTICE TO LANDLORD IS REQUIRED 

(15) Drainage 

Part III 

IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH CONSENT OF LANDLORD IS NOT REQUIRED 

(16) Boning of land with undissolved bones 

(17) Chalking of land 

(18) Clay-burning 

(19) Claying of land 

(20) Liming of land 

(21) Marling of land 

(22) Application to land of purchased artificial or other pur- 
chased manure 

(23) Consumption on the holding by cattle, sheep, or pigs of cake 
or other feeding stuff not produced on the holding 

One very serious omission in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 
1883 was that it did not provide compulsory compensation in case a 
mortgagee took possession of the farm. The rules in force, with 
few exceptions, gave the mortgagee in possession the right to 
evict, without notice, a tenant of the mortgagor whose tenancy had 
been created without the consent of the mortgagee after the date of 
the mortgage. The mortgagee could also appropriate the tenant's 
improvements, growing crops, and fixtures, on the basis of a legal 
theory which held that the mortgagor could not grant a legal lease 
on the property, owing to that fact that his right in the property 
consisted only of the equity of redemption, and was, therefore, an 



-17- 



equitable estate and not a legal estate. Therefore, no contract 
existed between the mortgagee and the tenant, and the tenant could 
be considered as a trespasser. The Tenant's Compensation Act of 
1890 gave the tenant of a farm a legal claim to compensation from a 
mortgagee, and provided that the mortgagee could evict only after 
six months' notice in writing. The mortgagee in possession was to 
assume the same position as the mortgagor in regard to compensa- 
tion under the 1883 Act. 

Another omission of the 1883 Act was that it did not contain 
adequate compensation provisions in respect to farms operated as 
market gardens, that is, farms used chiefly for the commercial pro- 
duction of fruits and vegetables. In the first place, it did not 
provide compensation for several types of improvements which are 
commonly found on market garden farms. Further, some improvements, 
for v/hich compensation was provided, were classified in Part I - - 
this is, the category for which the landlord's written consent was 
necessary before the tenant could effect them and claim compensation 
therefor, when they should have been classified in Part III — that 
is, in the category which the tenant could effect without the land- 
lord's written consent and even without giving notice to him. The 
Market Gardeners' Compensation Act of 1895 remedied these two situ- 
ations. In respect to a farm operated as a market garden, it elimi- 
nated from the category of improvements, for which the landlord's 
written consent was necessary before construction, the following 
items: (a) erection or enlargement of buildings; (b) making of 
gardens; and (c) planting of orchards or fruit bushes. 9/ The 
following items were added to the third category of improvements, 
that is, those which the tenant could effect without the consent 
of or notice to the landlord: (a) planting of standard or other 
fruit trees permanently set out; (b) planting of fruit bushes per- 
manently set out; (c) planting of strawberry plants; (d) planting 
of asparagus and other vegetable crops; and (e) erection or en- 
largement of buildings for the purposes of the trade or business of 
a market gardener. 10 / 

As the advantages of the new legislation regulating landlord 
and tenant relations became evident, there was a demand for an ex- 
tension of the scope of the legislation. There were also several 
parts of the statutes which were not entirely clear, and which 
caused some difficulties in actual operation. The Agricultural 
Holdings Act of 1900 was enacted to bring about these needed 



9/ MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1895, Section 3(2). 
10/ Ibid. Section 3(3) . 



-18- 



cnanges. It clarified the meaning of the improvements to which the 
Acts applied; the method whereby the benefits given or allowed the 
tenant by the landlord for improvements effected by him should be 
offset against claims for compensation made by the tenant; and the 
methods used in evaluating manures. These clarifications did not 
involve significant changes in fundamentals, and need not be de- 
tailed at this time. 

The Act added the two following improvements to the list which 
the tenant could make without the written consent of and without 
notice to the landlord: (a) "Consumption on the holding by cattle, 
sheep, or pigs, or by horses other than those regularly employed on 
the holdings, of corn proved by satisfactory evidence to have been 
produced and consumed on the holding"; and (b) "Laying down tem- 
porary pasture with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin, or other 
seeds, sown more than two years prior to the termination of the 
tenancy." 11/ It further extended the rights of the tenant by 
providing that he could claim compensation under custom, agreement, 
or otherwise, in lieu of compensation claimed under the Act. 12/ 
This was substituted for the provision in the 1883 Act which pro- 
vided that the tenant should not be entitled to claim compensation, 
in respect to improvement to which the Act applied, otherwise than 
as provided in the Act. The 1900 Act limited the extent to which 
"penal rents" or "liquidated damages" were recoverable by the land- 
lord. 13/ It also gave the landlord or any person authorized by him 
the right to enter the farm at any reasonable time to view its con- 
dition. 

Another rather important change effected by the 1900 Act con- 
cerned the method of determining the amount of compensation in case 
the landlord and tenant could not agree. In such cases, according 
to the 1883 Act, the difference was to be settled by "reference." 
A reference could consist of one referee agreed upon by the landlord 
and tenant, or, in case they could not agree upon a single referee, 
it could consist of two referees, one appointed by each party, and 
an umpire agreed upon by the two referees. The 1900 Act provided 
that unless the landlord and tenant agreed otherwise, the differ- 
ence should be settled by arbitration before a single arbitrator. 
It further provided a definite procedure regarding the arbitration, 
both in case of arbitration before a single arbitrator and also 
before two arbitrators and an umpire. The arbitration procedure 



11/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1900. First Schedule, Part III, 

Sections 25 and 26. 
12/ Ibid. Section 1(5). 
13/ See Section on penal rents, p. 39. 



19- 



prescribed by the Act is very similar to the procedure set forth 
in the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923.14/ 

Introduction of Compensatio n for Disturbance and Damage 
by G ame and Freedom of Croppin g 

Even though compulsory compensation for the unexhausted value 
of improvements effected by the tenant had become firmly established 
at the beginning of the twentieth century, and was proving highly 
satisfactory, the English and Welsh statutes did not include an 
effective method of preventing unreasonable termination of farm 
leases. There was still a large amount of moving from farm to farm, 
and moreover, many leases were terminated without due cause. Con- 
sequently, tenants were often hampered in effectively organizing 
their farms, and in making long-time plans. The inequities of the 
law respecting the right to kill game, even though ameliorated to 
a certain degree, were still a source of trouble. Also, very little 
change had been made in the restrictions placed upon the tenant as 
to the cropping system which was to be followed and the method of 
disposing of the produce of the farm. These three problems had 
been discussed for many years and various suggestions had been made 
by which they might be solved. It was not until 1906, however, 
that they became the object of legislative action. The Agricultural 
Holdings Act of that year provided that under specific circum- 
stances the tenant farmer could claim statutory compensation when 
his lease was terminated, that he could also claim compensation 
for damages which game caused to his crops, and that he could, under 
certain restrictions, follow any system of farming he felt was best 
adapted to his farm. It also contained several minor changes of 
some importance. 

The Act provided that in the following situations the landlord 
shall pay the tenant, as compensation for disturbance, such sum as 
represented the loss or cost to the tenant of quitting the farm: 
(a) where the landlord "without good and sufficient cause, and 
for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" terminates a 
tenancy; (b) where the landlord refuses to grant a renewal of a 
tenancy; and (c) where the landlord demands an increase in rent by 
reason of improvements effected by the tenant and as a result 
thereof the tenant quits the farm. 15 / Thus Parliament took an 
important step in providing for the tenant farmer a high degree of 
stability of occupancy, and in laying the foundation for a system 



14/ See p. 45. 

15/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1906, Section 4. 



-20- 



of rent adjustment. In actual practice this provision v/as not, 
at first, as effective as was anticipated. This was due in a 
marked degree to the uncertainty of what was included in the con- 
cept of "without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons in- 
consistent with good estate management." Later operation has 
proved, however, that only a short experience was necessary to de- 
velop a well-defined understanding of what should be included in the 
above concept. This innovation has been clarified and amplified in 
later Acts, and is now an important part of the law regulating 
landlord and tenant relations. The English point of view, several 
years after the introduction of this principle, as explained by 
Lord Clinton, a large landowner, is significant in this connec- 
tion. In speaking on the subject he expressed the opinion that it 
gave "a tenant from year to year an implied right to remain on his 
farm for a longer period, or to receive compensation in lieu of 
that right. This is undoubtedly a blow at the free exercise of the 
rights of property; but in the present day, we have grov/n accustomed 
to the idea that private rights are not absolute, except in a 
limited sense; but are always to be exercised in relation to the 
wider interest of the state or community." 16 / 

Prior to 1906 the tenant was compelled, by contract and custom, 
to operate the farm according to a definite system of cropping, and 
was prohibited from selling or removing from the farm hay, straw, 
roots, or green crops. This control over the farm was asserted by 
the landlord in order to maintain the fertility of the soil and to 
afford a protection to the farm against deterioration and damage. 
The 1906 Act gave the tenant the right to follow any system of 
cropping the arable land and disposing of the produce of the farm 
he deemed best, except during the last year of the tenancy, not- 
withstanding any custom of the country or provision of the contract 
to the contrary. 17/ 

The 1906 Act also gave the tenant the right to claim compensa- 
tion for damage to his crops caused by game which he was not per- 
mitted to kill. 18 / Even though the Ground Game Act of 1880 gave 
the tenant the right to kill hares and rabbits, he still did not 
possess the right to kill such game as deer, pheasants and par- 



16/ Lord Clinton. THE POSITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL OWNER AS EF- 
FECTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ACT, 1920. Special Report of the 
Central Association of Agricultural and Tenant-Right Valuers. 
1921, p. 8. 

17/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1906, Section 3. 
18/ Ibid. 



-21- 



tridges, and, as England was a sport-loving nation, it was thought 
better to give the tenant-cultivator compensation for damage by 
game rather than give him the right to kill such game. 

The minor changes effected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 
of 1906 included (a) the requirement that all arbitration under the 
Act be preferred before a single arbitrator in lieu of the dual 
system permissible in the 1900 Act; 19/ (b) a provision whereby 
the tenant could execute any repairs to buildings necessary for the 
proper cultivation or working of the farm, when the landlord failed 
to execute them within a reasonable time after having been given a 
written notice; 20/ and (c) a method whereby either party could 
obtain a record of the condition of the farm. 21/ 

Five separate Acts, which dealt with agricultural landlord 
and tenant relations, had been enacted during a period of slightly 
more than two decades. The interrelations between these Acts were 
not always clear, and Parliament felt that they should be clarified 
by consolidating all their provisions into one Act. To this end 
they passed the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, and incorporated 
in it the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1883, 1900, and 1906, and 
certain sections of the Tenants' Compensation Act of 1890 and the 
Market Gardeners' Compensation Act of 1895. There were no new 
principles introduced by this Act. 

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908 was modified in two 
particulars before Parliament's attention was attracted by matters 
pertaining to the World War. The Agricultural Holdings Act, 
enacted in 1913, placed market gardeners holding their farms on 
a tenancy from year to year on a similar basis as other market 
gardeners. This made it possible for them to claim compensation 
for the special list of improvements which pertained only to market 
gardens. The 1908 Act had restricted the improvem.ents for which 
they could claim compensation to those applicable to all farms. 
The Agricultural Holdings Act of the following year eliminated one 
of the principal objections to the operation of the provision re- 
garding compensation for disturbance. The courts had held that the 
removal of a tenant in case the farm v;as sold was a "good and 
sufficient cause", and was not "inconsistent with good estate 
management." This decision had considerably reduced the effec- 
tiveness of the disturbance provision in the 1908 Act, and the 



19/ Op. Cit. Section 1 (2). 
20/ Ibid. Section 6. 
21/ Ibid. Section 7. 



-22- 



Agricultural Holdings Act of 1914 provided that the tenant could 
not be given notice to quit in case the farm were sold without the 
landlord's being liable for compensation for disturbance. 

Land tenure problems were brought to the attention of Parlia- 
ment immediately following the War, and although the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Fisheries Act of 1919 was not one of those per- 
taining exclusively to agricultural holdings, it contained one 
provision which was of importance. It provided for the establish- 
ment of county agricultural committees which were to act as a 
county agricultural parliament with the powers to exercise many 
of the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 
The Act specified that these committees perform two functions with 
reference to the Agricultural Holdings Acts. They were required, 
on request of the landlord, either to issue or to refuse a cer- 
tificate that the tenant was not cultivating the farm according to 
the rules of good husbandry, and they could, on application of the 
tenant, determine what part of a farm, if any, could be treated as 
a market garden in respect to the provisions of the Agricultural 
Holdings Acts. 22/ 

* 

During the following year Parliament again enacted legislation 
with reference to the agricultural landlord and tenant. The ten- 
ant's demand for stability of occupancy and security of tenure was 
not yet satisfied. The Agricultural Act of 1920 had as one of its 
major objectives the final solution of that problem. It, therefore, 
defined with greater precision the conditions under which the 
tenant might claim compensation for disturbance, and set the minimum 
payment for compensation for disturbance as one year's rent, or if 
a larger cost or loss was experienced, the amount could be in- 
creased up to, but never above, two years' rent. 

The 1920 Act completed the step taken in the 1906 Act with 
respect to adjustment of rent. Whereas the 1906 Act provided that 
the landlord could not increase the tenant's rent as a consequence 
of improvements effected by him, the 1920 Act introduced the concept 
of arbitration as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant. 
According to the Act, the tenant could demand arbitration as to 
the amount of rent which he should pay for the farm, and if the 
landlord refused, the tenant could quit the farm and claim com- 
pensation for disturbance in the same manner as if the landlord 



22/ For a detailed discussion of these two subjects, see later 
section of this chapter. 



-23- 



gave notice to quit. Although this does not provide compulsory 
rent arbitration, it has, in actual operation, proved an effective 
method whereby a fair and equitable rent can be determined in re- 
spect to rented farms. 

Another peculiarly significant provision of this Act gave the 
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, after consultation with the 
agricultural committee, the power to appoint a manager to administer 
a landlord's estate when it was necessary or desirable in the na- 
tional interest to do so, and where the estate was grossly misman- 
aged "to such an extent as to prejudice materially the production 
of food thereon or the welfare of those who are engaged in the 
cultivation of the estate." This provision was repealed before the 
Minister had exercised his right in respect to any case to which it 
applied. It is significant, however, as an indication of the trend 
of thought with respect to land tenure arrangements in England 
and Wales. 

The 1920 Act also introduced compensation for high quality 
farming. It provided that where the tenant could prove to the ar- 
bitrator that the value of the farm to an incoming tenant was in- 
creased by virtue of the continuous adoption of a system of farming 
superior to the system required by the contract of tenancy, the 
tenant should be awarded such compensation as represented the in- 
creased value to an incoming tenant. Prior to the inclusion of 
this provision in the Act, the improvements, for which the tenant 
could claim compensation under the Act, were restricted to those 
specified in the Schedule of Improvements, and no improvements could 
be claimed under the Act, except those mentioned, regardless of how 
much such improvement may have increased the value of the farm to 
an incoming tenant. 



-24- 



Chapter III 

PRESENT SITUATION PERTAINING TO LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS 



It has been shown above that at one time England and Wales 
was a land of owner-operated farms, and that during the latter part 
of the eighteenth century and the first part of the nineteenth 
century the land fell into the hands of a few landlords; also, that 
during this time there developed an unregulated system of tenancy. 
This system soon became ill-adapted to the exigencies of agricul- 
tural development, and was greatly improved, if not completely 
changed, by the development of statutory regulations. The last 
major piece of legislation regulating the relations of the agricul- 
tural landlord and tenant was passed in 1923, 1/ and brought to- 
gether the major principles of tenancy legislation that had been 
developed during the preceding half-century. The following dis- 
cussion will describe in detail the provisions and amendments of 
that Act. 2/ 

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923, which is the basis of 
present landlord and tenant law in England and Wales, provides for 
compensation for (a) improvements; (b) high quality farming; (c) 
deterioration and waste; (d) disturbance; and (e) damage by game. 
It contains special compensation provisions with reference to market 
gardens. It also contains regulations pertaining to (a) crop 
rotation and disposal of produce; (b) fixtures and emblements; 
(c) rent adjustment and regulation; (d) the financial responsibility 
of the landlord and tenant; (e) the right of the landlord to enter 
the farm; (f) notices to quit; (g) record of the condition of the 
farm; and (h) arbitration of differences between landlords and 
tenants. These provisions and regulations will be discussed in 
the order mentioned. Before they are considered, however, there are 
several important topics pertaining to all phases of the Act which 
should be reviewed. 

The Act applies to any parcel of land, however small, which is 
held by a tenant, and which is used either wholly or in part for 
agriculture or pasture, or as a market garden. All types of tenant- 



1/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923. 

2/ The numerous acts pertaining to allotments and allotment gardens 
will not be discussed in the paper. The general principles 
of compensation which are included in these Acts are prac- 
tically the same as those of the AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT of 
1923. 



-25- 



Operated farms are included under the Act and are regulated by the 
same provisions, except market gardens which are accorded special 
privileges to be discussed later. When the question arises, which 
is quite infrequent, as to whether or not a particular farm or 
garden comes under the provisions of the Act, it is a matter of 
fact, and must be decided by an arbitrator in light of the con- 
ditions existing in reference to the particular case. The Act 
provides that a parcel of land is held by a tenant when he, or any 
person deriving title from him, has a contract of tenancy for a 
term of years, either definite or indefinite, or from year to year. 
The landlord, according to the provisions of the Act, means any 
person who for the time being is entitled to receive the rents and 
profits from the piece of land. This includes, in addition to the 
common type of landlord, a mortgagee in possession, a tenant who 
sublets, and a fiscal representative of the Crown or of any public 
body. 

In contrast with the ineffective Act of 1875, the 1923 Act 
makes it impossible for a tenant to contract out of his right to 
claim compensation by declaring void that part of any contract of 
tenancy which either limits or takes away such a right. 3/ It is 
possible, however, that compensation for improvements may be pro- 
vided for in a contract of tenancy or in a supplemental agreement 
and that such compensation may be substituted for that provided 
for in the Act. The conditions under which this is possible are 
specifically defined in the Act so as to protect the interest of 
the tenant. 

Besides being able to claim compensation under the Act, and on 
the basis of the contract of tenancy or by some supplemental agree- 
ment, the tenant may also claim compensation by virtue of the 
customs of the community. He may, furthermore, claim compensation 
under all three, insofar as they do not overlap. Thus, a tenant 
may claim compensation for preparing the land for next year's 
crops and for young seeding under the custom of the community; he 
may claim compensation for landscaping according to the contract 
of tenancy or a supplemental agreement, (neither of these improve- 
ments are provided for in the First Schedule of the Act) and he may 



3/ Section 50. A mimeographed copy of the AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS 
ACT of 1923 and the amendments of 1923 and 1934 may be obtained 
from the Land Use Planning Section, Land Utilization Division, 
Resettlement Administration, Washington, D. C. 



- 26 - 



claim compensation for liming the land as provided for in the 
Third Part of the First Schedule of the Act, 

Compensation for Improvements . 

The improvements for which th"e tenant may claim statutory com- 
pensation for the unexhausted value ' thereof are specif ically' set 
"forth i-n the First Schedule of the Act. "4/ Trie Schedule is divided 
into three parts. Part I includes "th'ose improvements which are "o'f 
a more -or less permanent nature, and' which are not readily exhaust- 
ed; drainage is the only imp rcvement "dealt with in Part II; while 
Part III lists those improvements which are of a temporary nature, 
and Y/hich are rather easily exhausted. ' 

Before the tenant may claim compensation from his landlord 
under the Act; for the unexhausted value of any improvement included 
in the First Schedule of the. Act, the tenancy must have terminated 
and the tenant must have quit the farm. Both of these conditions 
must exist. This prevents the tenant from" claiming compensation 
for improvements at the end of a tenancy while he still remains, on 
the farm under a new contract. It also definitely fixes the person 
liable to the tenant, that is, the person who, for the time being 
is entitled to receive the rent from the farm, so that the tenant 
does not have to look to the landlord who held the property at the 
time each specific improvement was effected. 

Im provements Requiring Consent of Landlord . The improvements 
specified in Part I include such items as buildings, silos, perman- 
ent pasture, roads, bridges, permanent fences, orchards, ..water 
supply, removing obstructions to • cultivation, and works of irri- 
gation. Th-e tenant cannot, under the Act, claim compensation for 
the unexhausted value of such improvements unless, prior to their 
execution, he has obtained the written consent of the landlord or 
his agent. ■ In requesting the consent of the landlord, the tenant 
should, and usually is required to, specify the nature and extent 
of the improvement. The landlord may give his consent uncondition- 
ally or upon such terms as he and the tenant may agree. When the 
consent is given unconditionally,' the tenant may claim as compen- 
sation the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. V\fhen the 
consent is given conditionally, the tenant and the landlord may 
agree as to the nature of the improvement and the amount of compen- 



4/ For First Schedule of the ACT,- see Statistical Supplement,' 
Table 8. 



sation, The compensation need not be cash, but may be some other 
tangible benefit. 5/ 

When the landlord and the tenant agree as to the amount of 
compensation, such amount is to be substituted for the compensation 
arrived at under the provisions of the Act. In such cases the 
question cannot be raised later as to whether or not the compensa- 
tion was reasonable or just, but it has to be evident that some 
compensation or benefit was received by the tenant from the land- 
lord for the improvement which was effected. 

The tenant has no way, under the Act, of compelling the land- 
lord either to make the improvement or to agree to terms whereby 
the tenant may effect the improvement. Thus, apparently this part 
of the Act does not change the condition which exists under landlord 
and tenant relations in this country; to wit, they may agree upon 
terms by which the improvement is effected, the landlord may make 
the improvement himself, the improvement which was requested by 
the tenant may not be made, or the tenant may make the improvement 
and either take it with him when he quits the farm or leave it on 
the farm receiving no compensation therefor. This part of the Act 
does, however, provide a definite principle for determining the 
value of an improvement which the landlord agrees that the tenant 
should make. It declares void any contract providing that the 
tenant shall make certain improvements without compensation, and, 
in addition, has developed a greater uniformity in landlord-tenant 
relations throughout both countries. 

Even though the tenant may not be able to obtain the landlord's 
consent to the making of an improvement, and consequently is unable 
to claim compensation therefor, or may not be able to claim compen- 
sation under the custom of the community, he may be entitled, under 
another provision in the Act, to take the improvement with him when 
he quits the farm, or he may receive payment for it as a tenant's 
fixture. 6/ 

Improvements Requiring Notice to Landlord . Drainage is the 
only improvement included in Part II of the First Schedule of the 
Act. Since the Act does not specify any particular kind of drain- 
age, this section has been interpreted, throughout England and 
Wales, to mean that the tenant may effect any work which has as its 
object the freeing of the soil from water. 



5/ Section 2. 

6/ For a discussion of tenant's fixtures, see p. 40. 



-28- 



Before the tenant can claim compensation for drainage, he must 
give the landlord a written notice "not more than three nor less 
than two months before beginning to execute the improvement." 7/ 
The notice must specify the manner in which the tena.nt intends to 
do the work. Even though it is not required by the Act, the notice 
should give particulars as to the fields to be drained, the kind 
and size of drains, and other detailed matters which will give the 
landlord an accurate concept of the proposed improvement .8/ It is 
possible, under the Act, to dispense with the notice, and the land- 
lord and tenant agree as to the nature of the improvement, the time 
it is to be made, and the amount of compensation payable. Agree- 
ments of this type are valid and shall be substituted for the 
privileges which are specified in the Act, provided they are not 
in contravention therewith. 9/ When the landlord and tenant, after 
the notice has been given, agree as to the compensation, the com- 
pensation shall be substituted for that payable under the Act. 
As explained under Part I they cannot agree that no compensation 
shall be payable; neither can the arbitrator, who may be asked to 
settle the claim, inquire as to whether or not the compensation 
agreed upon is fair and just. 10/ 

After a lapse of two months but before three months have 
passed, if the tenant has not received notice that the landlord 
intends to make the improvement, or if he and the landlord have 
not reached an agreement as to the improvement, the tenant may then 
begin the work. The compensation for the improvement will be av/ard- 
ed when the tenancy is terminated, and when the tenant quits the 
farm. The amount shall be based upon the value of the drainage to 
an incoming tenant, or it shall be the amount as originally agreed 
upon. 

When the landlord decides to do the drainage work, he must 
either begin the work within two months or give the tenant notice 
of his intention to do the work, unless the tenant withdraws his 
notice. He must execute the work in a "reasonable and proper 
manner" and within a "reasonable time." The "reasonable and proper 
manner" and "reasonable time" are questions of fact, and are de- 
terminable upon the merits of each particular case. When the 
landlord executes the work, he is, according to the act, entitled 



7/ Section 3 (1) • 

8/ Davies, Clement E. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND TENANT RIGHT, 

p. 49. 
9/ Section 3 (4) . 
10/ Section 3 (2) . 



-29- 



to "recover from the tenant as rent a sum not exceeding five per- 
cent per annum on the outlay incurred, or not exceeding such annual 
sum payable for a period of twenty-five years as v/ill repay that 
outlay in that period, with interest at the rate of three percent 
per annum." 11/ The Act further provides that the Minister of 
Agriculture and Fisheries may change these percentages and the 
period as he thinks fit, having due regard for current interest 
rates. The Minister has changed the percentages four times since 
1920. He increased them in 1921 and effected three successive 
decreases in 1922, 1923, and 1953. 

Improveme nts N either R equiring C ons ent of N or Not ice to Land- 
lord. The improvements which are listed in the last part of the 
First Schedule of the Act are unlike those of the first two parts 
in that they deal chiefly with those works which are more readily 
exhaustible. The relation between the landlord and tenant in regard 
to these three classes of improvements presents another significant 
difference between them, and one which is exceptionally important 
in actual practice. In order to receive compensation for improve- 
ments included in Part III, at the termination of the lease and 
on quitting the farm, except for repairing buildings, the tenant 
must neither obtain the written consent of the landlord nor give 
him notice in writing before he makes the improvements, as was 
necessary in regard to improvements comprising Fart I and Part 11;, 
respectively. He is totally free of any legal restraint on the 
part of the land, and he can go about effecting such improvements 
with the assurance that he will receive a sum equal to their value 
to an incoming tenant at the termination of the lease and on quit- 
ting the farm. 

The improvements which are listed in Part III may be conve- 
niently divided into three classifications as follows: (a) those 
which improve the soil by adding fertility directly thereto; (b) 
the laying down of temporary pasture; and (c) the making of re- 
pairs to buildings. The addition of fertility to the soil includes 
such items as lime, commercial fertilizers, purchased manure, ma- 
nure produced from purchased feedstuff, and manure produced from 
feedstuff grown on the farm. Even though the Act does not require 
that bills, vouchers, farm production records, farm sales records, 
and other documentary evidence be kept, it has proved advisable to 
have them in order to facilitate valuation of these improvem.ents . 
In evaluating the compensation for the temporary pasture laid down, 
the value of the temporary pasture at the commencement of the 



11/ Section 3 (3) . 



-30- 



tenancy must be deducted from the value of the temporary pasture 
at the end of the tenancy. 12/ The tenant must give written notice 
to the landlord of his intention to make repairs to buildings, and 
of the manner in which he proposes to make them. He must then wait 
a reasonable time for the landlord to make the repairs before he 
can effect them and claim compensation at the end of the tenancy . 15/ 

Improvement s Made Dur ing Pr ior Tenanc ies . The tenant may 
claim compensation, not only for those improvements which he made 
during the tenancy at the end of which he quit the farm, but also 
for any improvements effected by him during a previous tenancy. 
He may also include any improvements which any preceding tenant 
effected and for which he reimbursed the preceding tenant with the 
written consent of the landlord, 14/ Furthermore, as indicated 
above, when the farm is sold and the tenant continues as a tenant 
of the purchaser, he may, on quitting the farm, claim compensation 
for improvements executed by him, both while the new owner was his 
landlord and also while the vendor was his landlord. 15 / 

Improvement s Made During the Last Yea r of Tenancy . The land- 
lord is protected against an unscrupulous tenant who might, during 
the last year of the tenancy, or after he has received or has given 
notice to quit, undertake improvements for the purpose of increasing 
his claim for compensation. In respect to all improvements except- 
ing manure, the tenant must obtain the consent of the landlord, 
either through assent or failure to object, for those improvements 
which he proposes to effect during the last year of the tenancy, 
or after he has received or given notice to quit. This time re- 
striction varies according to the type of tenancy and the pro- 
visions regarding notice to quit.. In respect to all artificial 
and purchased manure, or manure produced on the farm, the tenant 
may claim compensation* for the unexhausted value thereof without 
regard to when it was applied. This provision applies similarly 
to yearly tenancies and to tenancies for a period of years, owing 
to another provision of the Act which makes ^t impossible to termi- 
nate a tenancy without having given a notice at least one year 
prior to the termination date. 

Summarizing, it has been shown above, that the Agricultural 
Holdings Act of 1923 gives to the tenant the statutory right to 

12/ First Schedule, Part III. No. 28. 

13/ Ibid. No. 29. 

14/ Section 7. 

15/ Davies, Clement E. Op. cit. p. 60 



-31- 



claim compensation for the unexhausted value of a specific list of 
improvements which he may have effected on the farm. It, further- 
more, makes it impossible for the tenant to contract out of this 
right. In order to claim such compensation, however, the tenant 
must have complied with definite rules and regulations prescribed 
by the Act. It was indicated that he might also claim compensa- 
tion under an agreement with his landlord, or according to the 
custom of the community, or under all three insofar as they do not 
overlap . 

C ompensatio n for High Quality Farming 

In addition to the improvements listed in the First Schedule, 
the Act provides that the outgoing tenant may claim compensation for 
any increase in the value of the farm to an incoming tenant which 
is over and above what the value would have been had not the out- 
going tenant continually adopted a system of farming superior to 
that required by the contract of tenancy. 16/ 

Before the tenant can avail himself of this privilege, there 
must have been made a record of the condition of the farm, proper 
written notices must have been sent, and he must have quit the farm 
at the termination of the tenancy. 17 / Compensation cannot be 
awarded under this provision and under the First Schedule of the 
Act for the same improvement. Further, any claims for compensa- 
tion under this provision must be preferred before a single arbi- 
trator, v/ho functions according to the regulations discussed in 
detail in a later section. 18/ 

Co mpensation for Deterioration and Waste 

In order to regulate further, in an equitable manner, the re- 
lations between the agricultural landlord and tenant, the Act pro- 
vides that at the termination of a tenancy the landlord may claim 
compensation from the tenant for any deterioration to the value of 
the farm which was caused by the failure of the tenant to cultivate 
it according to the rules of good husbandry, or as provided in the 
terms of the contract of tenancy. 19/ Any claim for compensation 
under this provision must be preferred before a single arbitrator 
after proper notices have been given and other specific conditions 



16/ Section 9 (1) . 

17/ Section 9 (1) (a) and Section 32. 

18/ See p. 49. 

19/ Section 10. 



-32- 



net. The arbitrator shall award the landlord a sum such as in his 
opinion represents the deterioration of the farm. The landlord 
iray, at any time during the tenancy, claim compensation for deter- 
ioration to the farm which may have resulted from the tenant's 
exercising his right of freedom of cropping and disposal of pro- 
duce as permitted in Section 30. 

The Act further provides that any "waste wrongly committed or 
permitted by the tenant" is subject to arbitration, as provided in 
the Act, whereby the landlord may claim damages or compensation 
for such waste. 20 / The landlord may also obtain an injunction 
restraining the tenant from committing waste. 21/ 

Compensation for D isturbance 

In regard to length, leases in England and Wales are of two 
major types, as explained above. There are the year-to-year leases 
which create yearly or annual tenancies, and also the leases for a 
period of two years or upward which create tenancies for a term of 
years. The 1923 Act provides that the landlord shall not terminate 
the tenancy at the expiration of the term of the lease, regardless 
of its provisions, without becoming liable for compensation for 
disturbance unless certain conditions exist, which are explained 
below. It does not, however, diminish the right of the landlord to 
terminate the tenancy at the expiration of the term subject to the 
compensation provision. Neither does it create in any way a system 
of dual ownership, nor does it secure to the tenant fixity of ten- 
ure. It was designed to make the tenant more stable in his tenure 
on the farm, to relieve him of the feeling of insecurity, and to 
provide for just compensation in case he is unreasonably evicted. 
It apparently accomplishes these objectives to a narked degree. 

When C ompensation is Payable . Compensation for disturbance 
shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant in all cases where 
the tenancy is terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord 
which results in the tenant's quitting the farm, unless the tenant: 

(a) is not cultivating according to the rules of good husbandry; 

(b) has not complied with notice to pay rent due; (c) has not com- 
plied \\ith notice to remedy a breach of contract which is capable 
of being remedied; (d) has committed a breach incapable of being 
remedied; (e) is bankrupt or compounded with his creditors; (f) 
has refused or failed to agree to arbitration as to the amount of 
rent to be laid; (g) has unreasonably refused or failed to comply 



20/ Section 16 (1) . 
21/ Section 30 (2) . 



-33- 



with the landlord's request to execute an agreement setting out the 
existing terms of the tenancy; or (h) has unreasonably refused or 
failed to accept the landlord's offer to withdraw the notice to 
quit. 22 / Furthermore, there is a second category of exceptional 
cases in which compensation for disturbance shall not be payable: 
(a) unless the tenant has given a written notice of his intention 
to claim compensation one month prior to the termination of the 
tenancy; (b) when the tenant has died within three months prior to 
the notice to quit; (c) in respect to the entire farm where the 
notice to quit part of the farm does not diminish the size of the 
farm by more than one-fourth, or where the remaining part of the 
farm is reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate farm; 
(d) where the farm is to be used for some purpose other than farm- 
ing, if acquired for that purpose by a government authority or some 
corporation; (e) where the land is usually a permanent pasture but 
is let for cr''tivation as arable land on condition that the tenant 
shall, along with the last crop, sow permanent grass seed; (f) 
where the landlord expressly reserves the right to resume occupa- 
tion of the farm before the expiration of seven years, provided 
that at the time of the creation of the tenancy the landlord had 
been in occupation of the farm for not less than twelve months; 
or (g) in respect to the sale of goods, implements, produce or fix- 
tures, unless the tenant has given the landlord a reasonable oppor- 
tunity to make a valuation thereof before the sale. 23/ These 
qualifying provisions were designed to reduce to a minimum the num- 
ber of cases where the claim for compensation for disturbance might 
work undue hardship on the landlord. Although these exceptions 
are numerous, the cases to which one or more of them apply are 
usually clearly understood, and questions regarding them are not 
exceptionally frequent. 

The landlord shall also be liable for compensation for dis- 
turbance where the tenant quits the farm because of the refusal 
or failure of the landlord to arbitrate as to the amount of rent 
to be paid for the farm. 24/ 

Whether or not the farm is being cultivated according to the 
"rules of good husbandry", as provided in the first qualifying 
provision, is a question of fact. The landlord and tenant are 
both protected in regard to this question by the power of the land- 
lord to apply to the local agricultural committee for a certificate 



22/ Section 12 (1) . 
23/ Section 12 (7) . 
24/ Section 12 (3) . 



-34- 



that the tenant is not cultivating the farm according to the rules 
of good husbandry, and the privilege of appealing the decision of 
the agricultural committee to an arbitrator, by either the landlord 
or tenant. Subject to this appeal the findings of the agricultural 
committee are final and conclusive. 25/ 

It is not every breach of the terms of the contract or con- 
dition of tenancy which will deprive the tenant of his right to 
compensation for disturbance if the landlord gives notice to quit 
in consequence thereof. The tenant, according to the second and 
third qualifying provisions, must be in arrears of rent, or he must 
have broken a term or condition consistent with good husbandry and, 
in addition, he must have failed to remedy such breach within a 
reasonable time subsequent to a notice from the landlord to remedy 
such breach, or it must be a breach incapable of being remedied, 
according to the fourth qualifying provision. Neglecting to re- 
pair fences or to destroy noxious veeds are examples of the first 
category, while the cutting of trees or the plowing of permanent 
grassland are examples of a breach incapable of being remedied. 

The failure of either the landlord or the tenant to agree to 
arbitrate, as to the amount of rent to be paid for the farm as from 
the next ensuing date of tenancy, is an important breach in the 
condition of tenancy, provisions in the contract to the contrary 
notwithstanding. When the tenant fails to agree to arbitration of 
rent, the landlord may serve notice to quit without being liable 
for compensation for disturbance; should the landlord so fail, the 
tenant may serve notice that he is quitting, and then hold the land- 
lord liable for compensation for disturbance the same as if the 
landlord had served the notice to quit without due cause. The 
arbitration of rent will be further discussed in a subsequent 
section. 26/ 

The tenant is required to give the landlord a reasonable op- 
portunity of making a valuation of those things which might be sold 
by the tenant as a consequence of his quitting the farm in order 
that definite information may be available upon which to determine 
the loss, if any, which the tenant has experienced because of quit- 
ting the farm. 

The Act, except for certain restrictions, makes it possible 
for the landlord to give notice to the tenant to quit part of the 



25/ Section 12 (2) . 
26/ See p. 42. 



-35- 



farm without being liable for compensation for disturbance. This 
provision makes it possible for the carrying out of definite land- 
use policies of the government without serious restriction, and it 
makes it possible for the landlord to undertake certain works which 
are definitely in the public interest, and to exercise certain 
other functions which do not materially affect the farming oper- 
ations of the tenant. 27/ An exception is made where the contract, 
under certain conditions, expressly states that the landlord in- 
tends to resume possession within seven years. This is done so as 
to prevent hardship upon a person who has been occupying the farm, 
but who finds it temporarily necessary to rent the farm to a tenant. 

Aioujli of Compensation . The compensation payable by the land- 
lord for disturbance "shall be a sum representing such loss or ex- 
pense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the 
tenant may unavoidably incur in connection with the sale or removal 
of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm 
produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, 
and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the 
preparation of his claim for compensation." 28/ The Act states 
that "in order to avoid disputes" when any loss or expense exists, 
the sum shall be equal to one year's rent of the farm unless it can 
be shown that the loss and expense incurred exceed such an amount, 
in which case the sum shall be equal to the whole amount incurred 
up to two years' rent of the farm. Thus, if the tenant proves 
that some loss was incurred, a minimum of one year's rent is re- 
coverable, regardless of whether or not the loss was equal to one 
year's rent or to only a small fraction of one year's rent. 

There are two exceptions to this method of computing the com- 
pensation. Both of these exceptions involve situations where the 
notice to quit does not pertain to all the land the tenant is farm- 
ing. In the first case, if the notice relates to a specific part 
of the farm only, and the remaining part is reasonably capable of 
being cultivated as a separate farm, then the compensation shall 
be payable in respect only to that portion of the farm to which 
the notice related, regardless of whether or not the tenant quits 
the entire farm. In the second case, where the tenant rents two 
or more farms and the notice to quit relates to less than the en- 
tirety of the farms, the compensation shall be reduced by such 
amount as represents the reduction, if any, of the loss attributable 
to the notice to quit by reason of the continuation in possession of 
the other farms. 



27/ Section 12 (7) (d) and Section 27. 
28/ Section 12 (6) . 



-36- 



The Act contains special provisions relating to land attached 
to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and to cottages, 
including the garden, occupied by a workman employed on the farm. 
In regard to the former situation, the principles of "good and 
sufficient cause" and "good estate management", as first laid down 
in 1906, are generally adhered to, while in respect to cottages, 
special provisions are made. 29/ 

Ccm pensatio n for Damage by Gam e 

According to common law precepts the tenant originally had the 
exclusive right to the game on the farm occupied by him. The Game 
Act of 1831 made it possible, however, for the landlord to reserve 
to himself the right to game. Following this Act, the right to 
kill game was generally reserved by the landlord, and the tenant 
could not kill gam.e even though he saw them destroying his crops. 
A partial remedy to this situation was made by the Ground Game Act 
of 1880. This Act made it impossible for the landlord to reserve, 
or for the tenant to alienate his right to kill ground game. It 
did not, however, afford the tenant any remedy regarding damage 
by winged game. The tenant is not at present permitted to kill 
winged game, but he can claim compensation from the landlord for 
any significant damage done by such game. This provision was first 
introduced in 1906 and has been included in subsequent Acts. 

When Compensatio n is Payable . Com.pensation for damage by game 
is payable only when the right to kill the game "is vested neither 
in the tenant nor in anyone claiming under him other than the land- 
lord", and when the damage exceeds in amount the sum of one shilling 
(approximately 25 cents) per acre for the area over which the damage 
extends. 30/ 

When the tenant is not prevented by the lease, or if prevented 
by the lease and subsequently is given written permission to kill 
the game, he has the remedy in his own hands to prevent the game 
from doing dam.age to his crops, and therefore he cannot claim com- 
pensation from the landlord. Also, where the tenant transfers to a 
third party his right to kill the game, he must claim damage, if 
any, from the third party and not from the landlord, and under his 
agreement with the third party and not under the Act, provided the 
third party arrangement is not with the landlord. The Act specifi- 
cally states "other than the landlord" in order to prevent the land- 
lord from letting the tenant have the right in the first instance. 



29/ Sections 13 and 14, respectively. 
30/ Section 11 (1) . 



-37- 



and then compelling the latter to sublet the sporting right to him, 
thereby relieving the landlord of any responsibility for damage by 
game. 

The landlord and the tenant cannot contract out of these pro- 
visions of the Act; neither can they limit in any way the amount 
of the landlord's liability for damage by game. The Act makes the 
landlord liable for damage by game not only when he retains the 
shooting right but also when such right is let by him to a shooting 
tenant. 

Amount of Compensation , The parties may agree, subsequent to 
the damage, as to the amount of the compensation payable under the 
Act. In default of agreement the amount shall be settled by an 
arbitrator. The arbitrator has full and entire discretion, upon 
hearing the evidence brought before him by both parties, as to the 
extent of the damage and the amount payable to the tenant. No 
compensation shall be recoverable unless the tenant gives the 
landlord a written notice as soon as possible after the damage was 
first observed, and unless he presents a written claim, with par- 
ticulars, within a month after the end of the calendar year, or 
some other twelve-month period substituted therefor by the land- 
lord and tenant. 

S pecial Compensation Provisions Regarding Marke t Gardens 

The 1923 Act not only applies to farms, but also to market 
gardens. All that has been written above regarding agricultural 
farms applies with equal force to market gardens, regardless of 
how small they may be. Therefore, the market gardeners have all 
the rights conferred upon them that are given other tenant farmers. 
But over and above these rights, the market gardeners are given 
special privileges. 31/ Because of the wide variety of gardens and 
allotments of various sorts in England and Wales, a detailed defi- 
nition of what constitutes a market garden is an essential part of 
the Act. The specific provisions pertaining to market gardens are 
set forth in the Act in more or less detail. It does not appear 
worthwhile to discuss these definitions and special provisions in 
this paper; it is sufficient to point out that in addition to the 
list of improvements comprised in the First Schedule of the Act, 
the market gardener may claim compensation for improvements listed 
in the Third Schedule of the Act as if they were comprised in Part 
III of the First Schedule — that is, the tenant may make those im- 



31/ Section 48. 



-38- 



proveraents and claim compensation therefor without regard to ob- 
taining the written consent of the landlord or to the necessity 
of giving notice to him. 

Freedom of Cropping and Dispcsal of Produc e 

It is customary for leases in England and Wales to limit the 
freedom with which the tenant may determine what crops shall be 
grown and the manner in which the produce of the farm shall be 
disposed. Furthermore, the custom of the community in many cases 
limits the freedom with which the tenant may act in these regards. 
The Act provides that the tenant may follow any cropping system or 
practice which he chooses, notwithstanding an agreement or custom 
to the contrary, provided he protects the farm against injury or 
deterioration. In the case of disposal of the produce from the 
farm, this protection consists in returning to the farm the full 
equivalent manurial value of all crops removed from the farm in 
excess of the agreement or the custom of the community. 

The freedom of cropping which is granted under this provision 
applies to arable land only. Meadow or pasture land and woodland 
are expressly excluded from this provision. Throughout the Act, 
it appears that every reasonable endeavor has been made to protect 
the meadow or pasture land and the woodland from injury on the part 
of the tenant. 

When the tenant exercises his rights under this provision in 
such a manner as to injure the farm, the landlord shall be entitled 
to recover damages at any time in respect to such injury. He may 
do so without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to 
him; and in case of anticipated injury of a flagrant nature, the 
landlord may obtain an injunction restraining the tenant from ex- 
ercising the rights given him under this provision. Any damages 
due the landlord may or may not be determined by arbitration. In 
case of dispute regarding the amount of the damage, the landlord 
has the privilege of using arbitration, but the provision does not 
require that he do so. Therefore, he may carry the dispute to 
either the County Court or the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Of 
course, the burden of proof in such cases is always on the land- 
lord. 32/ 

It should be noted that the provision granting the tenant 
freedom of cropping and disposal of produce does not apply during 



32/ Section 30. 



-39- 



the last year of a tenancy. This is a direct endeavor to decrease 
the number of cases in which disputes may occur, owing to acts on 
the part of the tenant which may be committed after notice to quit 
has been served. The Act further protects the farm and the land- 
lord during the last year of the tenancy by making it unlawful for 
the tenant to remove from the farm any manure or compost, or any 
hay grown during the last year of the tenancy, unless the tenant 
has given the landlord or the incoming tenant a reasonable oppor- 
tunity to purchase such products at their fair market value. 35/ 

Fixtures and Emblements 



The fixtures and emblements which the tenant may have effected 
on the property are no longer subject to the old maxim that what- 
ever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil, or whatever a 
tenant affixes to the soil or to something attached to the soil, 
he cannot afterward remove without committing waste. The Agri- 
cultural Holdings Act of 1923 expressly gives the tenant permission 
to remove the fixtures which he has constructed. It makes it pos- 
sible for him to remain on the farm until sufficient time has 
elapsed during which he is able to harvest any crops which he may- 
have planted, or it provides for compensation for any crops which 
he may not be able to harvest. 

Before the tenant can remove any fixtures or any buildings for 
which he may not claim compensation as provided in Part I of the 
First Schedule of the Act and not commit waste, the following con- 
ditions must exist: (a) the tenant must pay all rent owed by him, 
and he must meet all other obligations to the landlord in respect 
to the farm; (b) the removal of the fixtures or buildings must not 
unavoidably damage other buildings or any other part of the farm; 
(c) in case any damages occur, the tenant must repair them immedi- 
ately; and (d) the tenant must give written notice to the landlord 
of his intention to remove the fixture or building at least one 
month prior to the date of such removal. 

The landlord may, at any time during the one-month period men- 
tioned above, give notice to the tenant of his desire to purchase 
any or all of the fixtures or buildings mentioned in such notice, 
in which case the fixture or building becomes the property of the 
landlord. The landlord must pay the tenant the fair value of such 
improvement which is determined either by agreement or arbitration, 

53/ Section 31. _. . _ 



-40- 



and which represents the value of the improvement to an incoming 
tenant . 

In case the landlord does not signify his intention to pur- 
chase the fixture or building, they are, according to the Act, the 
property of the tenant, and they may be removed by him not only 
during the currency of his tenancy, but also within a reasonable 
time after the termination of his tenancy. What constitutes a 
reasonable time is a matter of fact, and must be determined in the 
light of the conditions surrounding each case. It should be noted 
that the landlord and tenant may contract out of the provisions 
pertaining to fixtures. 54/ 

The Act contains three important provisions in regard to em- 
blements — i.e., those crops or products which ordinarily repay 
the labor by which they are produced within the year in which that 
labor was bestowed. The first provision makes it possible for the 
tenant, in case of death, to pass to his heirs all emblements, 
even though they are still affixed to the soil. The second pro- 
vision requires that the landlord give the tenant at least twelve 
month's notice before the end of the then current year of tenancy 
in case he decides to terminate the lease. This makes it possible 
for the tenant to obtain full value for any labor which he may put 
upon any crops. 35/ The third provision pertains to a mortgagee 
who comes in possession of the property subsequent to the commence- 
ment of the tenancy. It provides that the mortgagee shall not be 
able to obtain possession of the farm without giving the tenant 
a written notice six months prior to the date on which he desires 
possession. It also provides that when the lease is terminated 
before the tenant has an opportunity to harvest all his crops, the 
mortgagee shall compensate the tenant for the unharvested crops, 
and also for any expenditure which he has made upon the land with 
the expectation of remaining on the farm for the full term of his 
contract of tenancy. 36/ 

The Act further provides that when either a mortgagee or a 
tenant's heirs shall come into possession of a farm, the conditions 
and restrictions apply during the continued occupation in the same 
manner as they would have applied between the original landlord and 
tenant . 



34/ Section 22. 
35/ Section 25. 
36/ Section 15. 



-41- 



Rent Adju stment and R egu l ation 



The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923 contains two important 
provisions in reference to the amount of rent paid for agricultural 
properties. It voids all contractual provisions requiring penal 
rent or liquidated damages, when such rent or damage is in excess 
of damages actually experienced, and without setting up a rent 
tribunal, it provides for an indirect method whereby rent may be 
adjusted. The latter provision is in sharp contrast with prac- 
tices in respect -to rent adjustments in Scotland, where the Scot- 
tish Land Court can adjust rent, upon the application of either 
party. 37/ 

In respect to penal rent and liquidated damages, it has been 
the practice in England and Wales to insert in the contract of 
tenancy a provision which requires the tenant to pay a definite sum 
or an increased rent for the non-performance of certain phases of 
the rental agreement, or the obligation for non-performance may be 
a dei'inite sum for the amount of the damage caused by a specific 
breach. Generally, the former type of payment is termed "penal 
rent", while the latter is spoken of as "liquidated damages." The 
Act provides that the landlord shall not be entitled to recover, 
by distress or otherwise, any sum in consequence of any such breach 
or; non-fulfillment in excess of the damages actually suffered, by .him 
notwithstanding any provision in the contract to the contrary. It 
does make exceptions, however, in regard to the breaking up of 
permanent pasture, the grubbing of underwood, the felling or in- 
juring of trees, and the burning of heather. For allother breaches 
or non-fulf ilment , an inquiry into the amount of the damages must 
be made, and the landlord can recover the- amount so ascertained, 
and no more. 38/ 

-The adjustment of rent under the Agricultural Holdings Act is 
closely related to the rights and privileges of each party when the 
lease is terminated. In the first place, a tenant may claim com- 
pensation for disturbance in event the landlord refuses a request 
that there should be an arbitration in respect to the amount of rent 
.payable, and in consequence the tenant quits the farm. In .the 
secant place, the landlord is not liable for compensation for dis- 
turbance in event the tenant refuses or fails to agree to a request 

37/ ^See the LAND POLICY CIRCULAR, February 1936, pp. 25-26. (Pub- 
lished by Division of Land Utilization, Resettlement Adminis- 
tration, ?vashington, D. C.) 

38/ Section 29. 



of the landlord that there should be an arbitration in respect to 
rent, and in consequence the landlord gives the tenant notice to 
quit. The demand for arbitration as to rent is void if it is made 
in such a way that the increase or reduction in rent would take 
place before the expiration of two years from the commencement of 
the tenancy, or from the date on which a previous increase or re- 
duction took place. Thus, the English tenancy system provides a 
method v/hereby rent can either be adjusted by arbitration as often 
as each second year; or whereby the requesting party, if he be the 
tenant, can terminate the lease and claim compensation for distur- 
bance from the landlord when he will not agree to arbitration; and, 
if the requesting party be the landlord, he can terminate the lease 
and not be liable for compensation for disturbance when the tenant 
will not agree to arbitration. 

In ascertaining what rent is properly payable when the land- 
lord and tenant agree to arbitration, the arbitrator must not take 
into account any increase in the rental value of the farm which is 
due to the tenant's own activities, whether it be an enhancement of 
the rental value due to improvements or a diminution of the rental 
value due to deterioration, The procedure with respect to arbi- 
tration in regard to the amount of rent payable is the same as that 
followed when arbitrating other differences between the landlord 
and tenant. 



Table 2 - Adjustment of Rent in England and Wales as 
Provided in the Agricultural Holdings Act 59/ 







Number of cases 




Net 


Year 










Reduction 




Total 


Reduced 


Increased : 


Unchanged 


( percent ) 


1929 


39 


36 


1 


2 


14.2 


1930 


37 


32 


2 


3 


12.1 


1931 


36 


33 


2 


1 


15.2 


1932 


44 


43 




1 


13 . 6 


1933 


38 


35 


2 


1 


: 14.7 


1934 


35 


: 32 


: 2 


1 


: 12.1 



39/ ANNUAL REPORT of the Work of the Land Division of the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Fisheries. Data for earlier years are not 
available. 



-43- 



In case the landlord and tenant cannot agree as to the arbi- 
trator, after they decide to arbitrate as to the amount of rent 
payable, the Act provides that the Minister of Agriculture and 
Fisheries shall appoint the arbitrator. It is infrequent that the 
Minister is requested to perform this function. Out of approximately 
250,000 tenant-operated farms there have been, on the average, less 
than 40 such cases each year during the period for which data are 
available. (Table 2). In the majority of these cases the rent was 
adjusted downward, while in some cases the rent was increased, and 
in still others it remained unchanged. The amount of the net re- 
duction, considering all cases for each year, ranged around 12 to 
15 percent. Data are not available as to the arbitration proceed- 
ings when the landlord and tenant agree as to the arbitrator. 
Neither is there any indication as to the- number of cases where rent 
v;as adjusted without arbitration, and which would remain unadjust- 
ed without the influence of these provisions in the Act. 

Financial Responsib i lit y 

The provisions in the Act which pertain to the financial re- 
sponsibility of either the landlord or the tenant deal only with two 
situations, namely, arrears of rent and claims for compensation. 
In respect to the former, the Act decreases the length of time 
during which the landlord may distrain for rent, and more clearly 
defines the property which is distrainable . In regard to the latter 
the Act provides a definite procedure whereby the tenant and the 
landlord may collect such sums as are legally'' due them. 

According to the laws of England and Wales, when a tenant is 
in arrears with his rent, the landlord may either bring legal ac- 
tion for its recovery, or he may enter upon the demised premises 
and seize various goods to satisfy the debt. Prior to 1883, the 
landlord could avail himself of either of these privileges without 
regard to how long the rent had been in arrears. The Real Property 
Limitation Act of that year made it impossible for the landlord to 
distrain for rent for a period longer than six years after the rent 
became due. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 192-3 further de- 
creased this period by making it unlawful for the landlord to dis- 
train for rent which became due more than one year prior to the 
making of the distress. 

The Act provides that where livestock, belonging to another 
person has been taken by the tenant to be fed at a given price, the 
landlord shall not distrain the stock for rent when there is other 
sufficient distrainable property to be found. It also safeguards 



-44- 



the interest of the party to whom the livestock belongs in case 
other sufficient distrainable property cannot be found. The Act 
further makes it impossible for the landlord to distrain for rent 
any machinery or livestock on the farm which is the property of 
some person other than the tenant, provided that the machinery is 
on the farm under an agreement whereby the tenant may use it for 
the conduct of his business, and where the livestock is on the farm 
solely for breeding purposes. In any case, where the landlord has 
distrained for rent and a dispute arises as to his right to do so, 
the Act provides that the dispute may be settled in the County 
Court. This relieves the tenant of the necessity and expense of 
carrying the case to a higher court. 

In respect to any claim for compensation under this Act, it 
is provided that in case of non-payment of the sum when due, such 
sum shall be recoverable upon an order made by the County Court in 
the same manner as any other sum ordered to be paid by the County 
Court under its ordinary jurisdiction. According to the statutes 
governing orders from the County Court, the sum may be recovered 
by an execution against the goods of the debtor, by garnishees, or 
by imprisonment of the debtor. 

The Act gives the landlord the right to charge the outlay for 
compensation for improvements against the farm. This makes it 
possible for a landlord, who has a limited right in the farm, to 
hold the farm financially responsible for the improvement rather than 
pay the sum out of his own personal estate. It even makes it 
possible for an owner in fee simple to protect his personal fortune 
against any liability for compensation for improvement placed on 
the farm. Any capital money may be used by trustees for the same 
purpose. 40/ 

Misc e llaneous Provisions 

Right of Entry . Prior to the Agricultural Holdings ^ct of 
1900, a landlord had no right to enter upon the premises let to his 
tenant, except as such right was expressly reserved by him in the 
contract of tenancy or given him by the tenant. If he did enter 
without permission, he was liable for trespass, regardless of the 
unreasonableness of the tenant's attitude. 

The present Act states that the landlord or any person duly 
authorized by him m.ay at all reasonable times enter on the farm 



40/ Sections 20 and 21. 



-45- 



for the purpose of viewing its condition. It is, therefore, no 
longer necessary to reserve this right in the contract of tenancy. 
It should be noted that this provision gives the landlord the right 
to enter to view only. Thus, if the landlord desires to reserve 
the power to enter for any other purposes, he must expressly state 
it in the agreement, otherwise the tenant can treat him as a 
trespasser, 

liP.i.i5§. is §llii- ^ notice to quit a farm is invalid if it pur- 
ports to terminate the tenancy earlier than twelve months from the 
end of the then current year of tenancy. Thus, if in July a land- 
lord desires to have the tenant quit the farm at the end of the 
tenancy year, and gives a notice to the tenant to quit, the notice 
cannot, for example, terminate the tenancy the following March, 
but it must be so stated as to clearly indicate that the tenancy is 
to be terminated in March of the second year following — that is, 
over one and one-half years later; otherwise the notice is invalid. 
Exceptions are made to this provision in respect to notices given 
in behalf of the Admiralty, War Department, Air Council, a corpora- 
tion carrying on transportation, a notice given in respect to a 
contract which states that possession is to be resumed for some 
specified purpose other than agriculture, and a notice given by a 
tenant to a sub-tenant. 

Record of Farm, A case may arise, similar to that indicated 
in the paragraphs pertaining to compensation for high quality farm- 
ing, in which a record of the condition of the farm is highly de- 
sirable. The Act provides that either the landlord or the tenant 
can require that such a record be made. The record is made by a 
person agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, and in default 
of agreement the person is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture 
and Fisheries. The cost is to be borne equally by both parties, 
in case of disagreement as to who shall bear it. The condition of 
buildings, fences and gates, roads, drains, ditches and cultivation 
are essential, and in addition, the tenant may require that a 
record be made of the condition of any im.proyement for which he 
may be compensated at the end of the tenancy and of any fixtures 
Yfhich he may be entitled to remove. 

Ad,1 ustment of Differences Between Landlord and Tenant 

There are four ways of adjusting landlord and tenant relations 
in England and Wales: (a) by agreement between the two parties; 
(b) by agreeing to accept the valuation method; (c) by arbitration; 
and (d) by court action. It is impossible from the available 



-46- 



records to determine the proportion of the cases which are handled 
by each method. It appears, however, that the statutes are so 
arranged that the landlord and tenant understand their rights and 
duties and agree upon most points in the lease. There are very 
few cases taken to court. The cases which are taken to court are 
held to a minimum owing to the compulsory arbitration procedure 
provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act. It appears that most of 
the problems upon which the landlord and tenant do no+ fully agree 
are determined by the valuation method in which two valuers, some- 
times assisted by a third valuer, agree as to the problems pre- 
sented. 41 / The arbitration method is quite frequently used, es- 
pecially when there is a dispute between the two valuers. The dis- 
tinguishing difference between valuation and arbitration is that 
whereas arbitration is used to settle differences or disputes, valu- 
ation is used to prevent them. The valuation procedure will be 
discussed first, and then the provision of the Act regarding arbi- 
tration will be reviewed. 

V aluation . Even before the first Agricultural Holdings Act 
in 1875, the custom of the country and the common type of agreement 
between the landlord and tenant accorded the tenant certain rights 
at the termination of the lease. It was necessary that a value be 
assigned to these rights. There was a tendency for certain well- 
informed farmers to be used in making these valuations. As tenant 
rights were greatly expanded by the various Agricultural Holdings 
Acts, there naturally evolved a semi-professional group who followed 
the business of making valuations. This growth has persisted until 
at present there is an association of agricultural valuers in most 
of the counties of England and Wales which is affiliated with a 
national organization known as the Central Association of Agri- 
cultural Valuers. 

These agricultural valuers meet periodically to discuss meth- 
ods, procedures and practices, and to study their problems to- 
gether in order better to qualify themselves for the duties which 
they are called upon to perform. The valuers, through their local 
associations and with the assistance of the agricultural experiment 
stations and their central association, have fairly definite sched- 
ules which they use in evaluating certain improvements. For their 
schedules regarding the residual values of feeding stuff and ferti- 
lizers, see Table 6 and Table 7 in the Statistical Supplement. It 
is from this group that the landlord and tenant usually select 

41/ Jackson, T. C. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923, p. 84. 



-47- 



valuers to solve, in an amicable manner, problems arising from the 
leasing agreement, 

When the two valuers are duly appointed by the landlord and 
tenant, they meet at the farm to carry out their work. The valuer 
for the outgoing tenant usually submits the claim and produces such 
schedules and records as are available. Then, the two valuers go 
through the documentary evidence and inspect the stock, supplies, 
buildings, fences and the land. They then, either individually or 
together, determine upon a valuation for each item set forth in the 
claim. When they cannot agree as to the valuation they may call in 
a third party, who is usually another agricultural valuer, to de- 
termine the valuation. In some cases, however, the difference is 
so great or involves such matters as to make it advisable to call 
in an arbitrator. In the former instance, the procedure is strictly 
one of valuation, and the methods followed do not conform to those 
required by an arbitration procedure, which is explained below. 

Arbitration . As a general rule, the major differences or dis- 
putes which arise between the agricultural landlord and tenant in 
England and Wales are settled by the arbitration method before a 
single arbitrator, Where there is no difference or dispute between 
the landlord and tenant, the two parties agree as to the amount of 
compensation, or they agree to accept the verdict of two valuers, 
as has been explained above. In cases where there is a difference 
and where the arbitration method is not compulsory according to the 
Act, the difference may be settled through ordinary court procedure . 

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923 specifically requires 
that certain differences which may arise under the Act, the leasing 
agreement, the customs of the community, or otherwise, shall be 
settled by arbitration, and by no other method. For example. Sec- 
tion 5 provides that if the claims for compensation for improve- 
ments comprised in the First Schedule of the Act cannot be agreed 
upon between the landlord and tenant the difference shall be settled 
by arbitration. Section 16 (1) lists a large number of differences 
which may arise, and which must be settled by arbitration when such 
differences arise. In various places throughout the Act, it is 
provided that in default of agreement as to the particular pro- 
vision under discussion, the matter shall be determined by arbitra- 
tion. And finally, the rules as to arbitration are set forth in 
the Second Schedule of the Act, and the Minister of Agriculture and 
Fisheries is given power to make such regulations as he thinks 



-48- 



desirable for expediting and reducing the costs of arbitration 
proceedings. 42/ 

Appointment of an Arbitrato r . When the landlord and tenant 
cannot agree as to any question arising under the Act, they get 
together, and in writing appoint an arbitrator. In case of dis- 
agreement as to arbitrator, either party may make a written ap- 
plication to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who will 
forthwith appoint an arbitrator. In either case the decision of 
the arbitrator, if legally made, shall be binding on both parties, 
and neither party can revoke the appointment. Both parties may, 
however, by mutual consent, revoke the appointment of an ar- 
bitrator. 

When the Minister of Agriculture makes the appointment, he 
must select the arbitrator from a panel consisting of such persons 
as may be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England. The only 
qualification of the arbitrator set forth in the Act states that 
when an arbitrator is appointed by the Minister for work in Wales 
or Monmouthshire he must posses a knowledge of Welsh agricultural 
conditions and, if either party requires, have a knowledge of the 
Welsh language. In general practice, however, the Lord Chief 
Justice's panel is usually composed of men who have a wide knowledge 
of agriculture, actual experience in making agricultural valuations 
and appraisals, and considerable knowledge of the law governing 
the agricultural landlord and tenant. 

The County Court may remove an arbitrator who has misconducted 
himself. Misconduct in the legal sense occurs when the arbitrator 
fails to abide by the rules and regulations promulgated by the 
Minister, the principles set forth in the Act, the general rules 
of the Arbitration Act of 1889 insofar as they apply, or otherwise 
conducts himself in an unbecoming manner in the performance of his 
duties . 

Powers and Dutie s of the Arbitrator . It is the duty of the 
arbitrator first to ascertain what his powers are in respect to the 
particular case, and to determine, in detail, the nature of the 
difference submitted to him. He has full discretion as to time and 
place of the arbitration, except that he must meet the time limits 
set forth in the Act. As to the details of the procedure, the ar- 
bitrator can, within limits, expedite the matter in any way he 
thinks fit. He usually hears the claimant and his witnesses, then 



42/ Section 17 (1) . 



-49- 



the respondent and his witnesses; then the respondent suras up his 
case and the claimant makes his reply. The arbitrator can refuse 
the active use of a counsel by either party, but he cannot prevent 
a counsel from being present and advising his client during the 
proceedings. He may allow a solicitor or a valuer to conduct the 
case on behalf of a party, but he is not obliged to do so. In 
general it appears that valuers are used quite generally, while a 
counsel is seldom used. 

In the presentation of the relevant information in respect to 
the case, the claimant and the respondent may use witnesses, sam- 
ples, deeds, books or any other documentary exhibits. If there is 
other information which the arbitrator feels he needs, he can re- 
quire that it be presented. He may subpoena witnesses and docu- 
ments, subject to legal limitations, and according to an amendment 
passed in 1934, a prisoner who has been confined by any civil action 
may be brought up for examination. 43/ 

The arbitrator takes notes, and usually has a brief written 
record regarding the hearing. He must follow the same rules in 
regard to evidence as courts of law, but has considerable latitude 
in hiR conduct of the hearing. In making his award he must weigh 
all of the evidence before him and adhere strictly to the question 
or questions submitted to him. When his verdict is arrived at in 
a legal manner, it is final and no appeal is possible. The arbi- 
trator may of his own initiative, however, state, in the form of a 
special case for the opinion of the County Court, any question of 
law arising in the course of the arbitration. Upon the application 
of either party the Court may direct him to so state a special 
case, in which event he is compelled to do so. The decision of 
the County Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals, from whose 
decision no appeal shall be taken. 

The Award . The Act provides that the award shall be made with- 
in twenty-eight days of the appointment of the arbitrator, subject 
to an extension by the Minister. It is seldom that extensions are 
made, however. 

The arbitrator shall state separately in his award the amount 
awarded in respect to the several claims referred to him. The ar- 
bitrator must fix a day, not later than one month after the award 
is made, for the payment of money awarded as compensation, costs 
and otherwise. He may, if he thinks fit, make an i nterim award for 



43/ ARBITRATION ACT, 1934. 



-50- 



the payment of any sum on account of the sum to be finally awarded. 
The award is final and binding upon all parties, provided there is 
not some obvious mistake, new evidence or misconduct. The County 
Court has authority in regard to such matters. 

The cost of the arbitration, the making of the award and the 
arbitrator's fee may be. and is in practice, determined by the ar- 
bitrator. The cost of making the award, and of the whole arbitra- 
tion as determined by the arbitrator, has in the past been divided 
equally between the two parties. There is. however, a trend toward 
apportioning the cost according to the reasonableness of the claims 
and the mode of presenting the evidence. The arbitrator's fee is 
based on the time required, the importance of the questions involved 
and the amount of the award. If the fee as fixed is not satisfac- 
tory to either party, it is determined by the County Court Regi- 
strar. The arbitrator's fee is recoverable as a debt from either 
party. 



-51- 



CHAPTER IV 



SUMMARY 



Many American economists who have studied the English and Welsh 
tenancy system, and those who have observed it in actual operation, 
commend many of its principles and practices to American legisla- 
tors, landlords, farm managers, and tenants. A later Land Use 
Planning publication will discuss the applicability of the prin- 
ciples underlying the English and Welsh legislation to American 
conditions and practices. In order to visualize the significance 
of the legislation under discussion, it was felt necessary to pre- 
sent this short paper on the nature and extent of tenancy in England 
and Wales. 

The tenancy system in both countries is praised with particu- 
lar reference to the effectiveness with which it places the tenant- 
operator in a position similar to that of an owner-operator in 
respect to his operation of the farm and his participation in the 
activities of the community. The tenancy system of England and 
Wales is based upon a long and varied experience in adjusting the 
relations between the owner of the farm and those who do the actual 
cultivation of the soil. 

Feudalism and the manorial type of agricultural organization 
furnished experience in landlord and tenant relations, and proved 
important in shaping English and Welsh agriculture during the 
following centuries. With the disintegration of feudalism and the 
manorial system, England and Wales became a land of small owner- 
operators. But the Black Death, the forerunner of the enclosures, 
the commercialization of agriculture, and the concentration of 
wealth proved too much for the small owners, and an unregulated ten- 
ancy system took the place of owner-operation. Under this system 
the soil resources were depleted and the rural tenantry seriously 
exploited. Out of the enlightened interests of Parliament for the 
English and Welsh tenant farmers, and based upon the experiences 
of leading landlords and tenants, there was developed a system of 
statutory regulations which has practically displaced the self- 
destructive, individualistic system which grew up under the policy 
of laissez-faire . 

Under the unregulated system, the rights of the tenant were 
very limited. At the termination of the lease, he could not remove 



-52- 



fixtures, emblements or other improvements which he had effected 
during his occupancy of the farm. Neither could he force . the land- 
lord to compensate him for such items. The landlord could evict 
the tenant without due cause, and the tenant had no recourse. He 
could increase the rent required of the tenant, even on improvements 
made by the tenant, and the latter could pay the increased rent or 
move on. By law, the fundamental rights of the tenant to kill 
game, even for food for his family or to protect his own crops, 
were abrogated. The system of farming and the disposal of the pro- 
duce could be completely dictated by the landlord. In fact the 
landlord reigned supreme as if through some divine right. There 
were a few landlords, however, who did not take advantage of this 
opportunity of exacting the last pound of flesh, and it was upon 
their advanced ideas that the legislative policy was based. 

The first statutory approach to adjust the rights of the two 
parties equitably was made about the middle of the nineteenth cen- 
tury. It gave the tenant at the termination of the lease the right 
to remove fixtures, emblements, and buildings erected by him. Then 
Parliament in 1875 really attacked the problem of the agricultural 
landlord and tenant. It enacted the first of the Agricultural 
Holdings Acts which provided compensation for the unexhausted value 
of a specific list of improvements effected by the tenant. The 
Act was permissible, however, and many landlords soon forced their 
tenants to accept contracts which circumvented its provisions. 
The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 remedied this situation by 
making it impossible for the tenant farmer to alienate the rights 
afforded him by the Act. This Act was amended from time to time so 
as to include, in addition to compensation for improvements, (a) 
compensation to the tenant when a mortagee took possession of the 
farm just the same as if the mortgagor was in possession; (b) 
compensation to market gardeners for a special list of improvements 
which they are likely to make; (c) compensation for disturbance; 
(dj compensation for damage by game; and (e) freedom of cropping 
and disposing of produce. The 1883 Act and its amendments were 
finally consolidated by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, 
Again there was a series of amendments which added compensation 
for high quality farming and an indirect method of adjusting rent, 
and which changed several minor details. During this half century 
there developed a method of arbitrating differences between land- 
lords and tenants, and a refinement of the concepts of what con- 
stitutes deterioration and waste. There were also introduced from 
time to time regulations pertaining to many of the minor problems 



-53- 



arising out of landlord and tenant relations. Finally, all of these 
provisions were brought together in the Agricultural Holdings Act 
of 1923. As a result of these legal regulations, the tenant farmer 
has been assured that he will be justly reimbursed for any increase 
in the value of the farm which results from his own efforts, he 
has a relatively high degree of stability of occupancy and security 
of tenure, and he may organize and operate the farm as he thinks 
best so long as the demised property is not deteriorated. 

In retrospect, it is now evident that throughout the long 
development of legislative activity, Parliament followed the policy 
of placing the tenant farmer in a position as near that of an 
owner-operate r as is reasonably possible. This policy has been 
carried out by a line of action which was possible only through a 
growing recognition on the part of national leaders that, in order 
to maintain an equitable economic system and a permanently pro- 
ductive agriculture, society must often exercise control over both 
landlords and tenants to a greater degree and in a different manner 
from the social control inherent in common law doctrines. The 
English regulatory measures have been based upon experience, and 
have been revised as new problems have arisen and as experience has 
pointed the way. Throughout this half century of developing land- 
lord and tenant statutes, Parliament has never discarded a funda- 
mental change which was begun. It is significant that each succeed- 
ing statute accorded enlarged privileges to the tenant farmer, 
either through defining more precisely existing regulations, or 
by providing regulations for landlord and tenant relations which 
had not been previously the subject of statutory control r 



-54- 



SCOTLAND'S ACTIVITY IN IMPROVING FARM TENANCY 1/ 



Marshall Harris and Douglas F. Schepmoes 



INTRODUCTION 

Much has been written during recent months regarding the 
shortcomimgs of the tenancy system which exists in the United 
States. Although some of the literature has been concerned with 
other tenure groups, the plight of the Southern sharecropper has 
received major consideration. The discussion has centered largely 
around the present economic position of these share-cropping 
tenants, and has included material regarding their low social 
status; some mention has been made also of the relationship between 
the tenancy system and erosion and depletion of our soil resources. 
According to many writers, the way cut of the present tenancy situ- 
ation is through a more widely diffused ownership of land by farm 
tenant operators. Few other remedies have been given serious 
attention . 

A study of the experience of older countries in their endeavor 
to establish upon the soil a virile farm population, to maintain a 
permanently productive agriculture, and to foster and preserve 
worthy rural institutions should prove invaluable in helping us in 
the solution of the tenancy problems in this country. Some of the 
more important phases of these experiences which should be consid- 
ered are as follows: (a) those which assure tenant farmers stabili- 
ty of occupancy and security of tenure; (b) those which tend to 
prevent the exploitation of the tenant by the landlord, and to pro- 
tect the landlord against acts of the tenant; (c) those which pro- 
tect the soil against depletion and erosion by either or both 
parties; (d) those which have been designed to decrease the number 
of misunderstandings which arise between landlord and tenant; and 
(e) the special type of legal machinery which has been set up to 
meet the peculiar problems arising out of landlord and tenant re- 
lationships . 



1/ Reprint from LAND POLICY CIRCULAR, February 1936. (Division of 
Land Utilization, Resettlement Administration , Washington, D.C.) 



-55- 



HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 



The land tenure history of Scotland is divided into two lines 
of development: that of the southern, or Lowland, section which 
borders England, and that of the northern, or Highland, section and 
the Islands. The system of land tenure in Scotland as it exists 
today is the outgrowth of a process of evolution begun in very 
early times, but for the purpose of this study it is convenient to 
begin with the institution of feudalism, which introduced a com- 
paratively new tenurial arrangement. 

The prevailing land tenure system of the greater part of Europe 
during the Middle Ages was of a feudalistic nature. With the 
coming to power in 1124 of David I, feudalism was introduced into 
the Lowlands of Scotland. The new king surrounded himself with a 
nobility composed largely of Normans, but also including many of 
the Scottish Celtic Clan Chiefs. The land was divided among the 
nobility, and re-divided among the serfs on the feudalistic con- 
dition of military service in time of war, and the payment of rent, 
in the form of services and goods, at all times. Thus feudalism 
in the Lowlands completely displaced the clan system which prevailed 
at that time, and which was based upon the family relationship, 
with the chief holding the land as the head of the family. In the 
Highlands, clan tenure was not displaced by feudalism, but with the 
extension of David's government into the Highlands, there came 
to be accepted a general application of some of the principles of 
feudalism. The Anglo-Norman institutions, however, were alien to 
the conservative nature of the Gaelic Clans. The clan system was 
only modified by feudalism, and it survived in an attenuated form 
until its final extinction in the eighteenth century. 

Feudalism reigned supreme in the Lowlands for over 200 years, 
but began to decline early in the fourteenth century. The lords, 
the immediate feudal tenants of the king, gradually became more or 
less independent of the military protection afforded under feudalism. 
Along with this change came an omission of the essential military 
features of the tenurial arrangement, and a general commutation of 
these services to the payment of rent in other forms. By the fif- 
teenth century the change was practically complete, and outright 
tenancies based upon the payment of goods, services, and money as 
rent were the rule. This change was in some respects an advancement 
for the serf. He was partially emancipated from the physical 
servitude which he owed to the lord. It also had an educational 
effect in that it familiarized him with money, and gave him some 



-56- 



concept of the comparative values of different kinds of labor 
and commodities. 

Following the disintegration of the feudal system in the Low- 
lands, and the establishment of a stronger central government, 
together with a more closely knit social order, there developed 
in Scotland an unregulated, individualistic system of tenancy. 
The fixity of tenure which was an integral part of feudalism was 
no longer present. Under feudalism it was to the interest of 
the lord to keep the serfs in good condition in the same manner 
as he did his horses and equipment, but under the new system of 
tenancy the landlord exploited his tenants, and often the soil 
resources, under a common law concept which gave him complete 
jurisdiction over both. Owing to superior competitive position 
and political power, the landlords took advantage of the tenants 
in many ways. The latter were forbidden to hunt game for their 
own consumption or even to kill it to protect their own crops. 
They were not permitted to remove any fixtures or improvements which 
they had effected during their occupancy of the farm , even though 
the landlord evicted them without due cause. Neither did the 
landlords pay them for such improvements. Exorbitant rent was 
often required and the landlord could collect it under the law 
by seizing the property of the tenant. Evictions were not uncommon. 
The only recourse which the tenant had was to obtain a favorable 
contract, specifying his rights and duties. Although contracts 
were enforceable at law, they did not afford the tenant the neces- 
sary security, as practically no one could afford to risk a law- 
suit against his landlord. It must be said, however, that some 
landlords did not attempt to take all rights away from their ten- 
ants, but the fact remains that the tenant had no security, and 
was wholly dependent upon the character of his landlord. 

Some of the far-seeing landlords, however, envisaged a more 
constructive role in the agricultural economy, and came to under- 
stand that their interests and those of their tenants were not 
inimical. They amplified the contractual arrangement so that the 
soil was adequately conserved; collections of rent were not forced 
during unfavorable production conditions; a relatively high degree 
of stability of occupancy was develop-^^d; and tenants came to have a 
sense of security. Finally, during the first half of the nineteenth 
century, they encouraged tenants to make improvements, both to the 
soil and to the farmstead, and assured them just recompense when 
they moved. During the early steps in this development there were 
many mistakes, and the establishment of a definite system was slow, 
owing to the desire of many landlords to take every possible 



-57- 



advantage for their immediate gain. It was plain, however, that a 
more equitable system, patterened after that developed by some of 
the better landlords, was essential to the continued improvement of 
agriculture, and as economic integration progressed, it appeared 
that compulsory action might be necessary to assure equitable leas- 
ing conditions for landlords and tenants, 

In the Highlands, the situation was significantly different, 
The modified clan system existed almost to the nineteenth century. 
The land was let runrig, that is, in strips reallocated periodical- 
ly, and the pasturage was held in common. Leases, as we know 
them today, were practically unkno^'vn, the tenant held the land at 
the will of his landlord and paid rent in goods and services. 
The Napoleonic Wars stimulated the demand for wool, which caused 
sheep raising to expand very rapidly. The Scottish Highlands were 
exceptionally well adapted to sheep production, and the clan chiefs 
found it to their immediate economic advantage to let their lands 
in large tracts to sheep herders. The agricultural economy was 
transformed from a large number of small farms, tilled by tenants, 
to a small number of large sheep ranches. The small tenants without 
statutory protection were evicted en masse, and forced either to eke 
out a meagre existence on the barren seashores, or to migrate to 
America and to the British colonies. The conditions in the High- 
lands soon became acute owing to the continually recurring famines 
caused by the failure of the potato crop, upon which the extremely 
poor tenant class of farmers depended. The growing population, 
crowded together on the poor and limited area of cultivable land, 
looked jealouslA^ at the large uncultivated sheep farms. Tenants 
banded together, refused to pay their rents, and seized parts of 
the sheep farms to use for cultivated crops. 

The constant disorder and social strife in the Highlands, 
together with the inequitable leasing arrangements and unsocial con- 
ditions in the Lowlands, did much to impress the statesmen with the 
necessity for statutory action. During the latter part of the nine- 
teenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. Parliament en- 
acted various statutes which were designed to accomplish the follow- 
ing four major objectives: (a) to describe and define in detail the 
rights and duties of landlords and tenants, and to make provisions 
for compulsory adherence to these rights and duties; (b) to set up 
a court procedure for the purpose of determining fair and equitable 
rent, and to secure a relatively high degree of stability of occu- 
pancy and security of tenure; (c) to establish a system of arbitra- 
tion which would facilitate the solution of differences between 
landlords and tenants; and (d) to provide for governmental assis- 
tance to worthy tenants who desired to become landlords. 



-58- 



STATUTORY CONTROL OF LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS 



Before the individual statutory provisions are discussed, 
it should be pointed out that tenant farming predominates in Scot- 
land. Although there are no data readily available as to the 
proportion of tenancy during the first part of the nineteenth 
century, it is clearly evident from all of the literature that 
owner-operators were uncommon, and that a very large proportion 
of the farms were operated by tenants. This concept is substanti- 
ated by the data presented in Tables 1 and 2, which indicate that 
over 90 percent of all farms were operated by tenants from 1887 to 
1891 and subsequent to 1912. (Tenancy data are not reported between 
1891 and 1912) . The percentage of land operated by tenants (Table 3) 
is smaller than the percentage of farms operated by tenants , there- 
fore, tenant-operated farms are much smaller than owner-operated 
farms. The decrease each successive year since 1912, both in the 
percentage of farms and the percentage of land operated by tenants 
indicates part of the results which have been attained by positive 
legislative action regarding the problems involved in agricul- 
tural land tenure. Most of the farms in Scotland are rented for 
cash, as contrasted with the share-renting system which predominates 
in this country. It should also be pointed out that Scotland is ap- 
proximately the size of South Carolina and has a population al- 
most three times as large. 



Table 1. — Number and Percentage of Farms 
in Scotland by Tenure 1/ 





Total 


Farms 


Ov/ned 


Farms Rented 


Farms Part Owned 


Year 


Number 




„ , 












of 


Number j Pe 


rcentage 


Number 


Percentage 


Number 


Percentage 




farms 














1887 


81,291 


5,995 1 


7.4 


74,870 


92.1 


426 


0.5 


1888 


82,193 


6,044 1 


7.3 


75 , 665 


92.1 


484 


0.6 


1889 


82,453 


6,054 1 


7.4 


75,889 


92.0 


510 


0.6 


1890 


83,006 


6,049 i 


7.3 


76,393 


92.0 


564 


0.7 


1891 


83,548 


6,555 { 


7.8 


76,384 


91.4 


629 


0.8 



1/ Agricultural Statistics. Department of Agriculture for Scotland. 
Edinburgh . 



-59- 



Table 2 - Number of Farms in Scotland by Size and Tenure 1/ 





Total 


















Number 


Size 


and Tenure of Farms 


Total Number of 


Percentage of 


Year 


of 


Under 


dO Acres 


Over 50 Acres 


Farms by Tenure 


Tenancy 




Farms 


Owners 


Rent6r<=3 


Owners 


Renters 


Owners 


Renters 




1912 


77,662 


3,014 


1 48 852 


237574 


22 , 222 


5,236 


72,426 


93.3 


1913 


77.388 


3,278 


1 48 336 


2 , 370 


23,404 


5 , 648 


71 , 740 


92.7 


1914 


77,150 


3,420 


1 47 927 


2,471 


23,332 


5,891 


71,259 


92.4 


1915 


77,108 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 

SI/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


1916 


76,754 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


1917 


76,440 


2/ 


1 2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 1 


2/ 


1918 


75,982 


2/ 


1 2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


1919 


75,843 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


2/ 


1920 


75,902 


3,335 


1 46 8] 8 


2.883 


22T865 


6.218 


69 , 684 


91.8 


1921 


76,003 


3,926 


46,371 


3,628 


22,078 


7,554 


68 . 449 


90.1 


1922 


76,001 


3,873 


146,405 


3.951 


21,772 


7,824 


68.177 


89.7 


1923 


76,134 


4,052 


1 46, 370 


4,329 


21,383 


8,381 


67,753 


89.0 


1924 


76,210 


4,316 


46, 229 


4,708 


20.957 


9,024 


67,186 


88.2 


1925 


76,161 


4,303 


1 46, 233 


4,986 


20,639 


9,289 


66,872 


87.8 


1926 


76,017 


4,834 


1 45, 615 


5.534 


20,034 


10,368 


65,649 


86.4 


1927 


75,866 


6,556 


1 43 , 784 


6,364 


19,162 


12,920 


62,946 


83.0 


1928 


75,812 


7,409 


42,936 


6,876 


18,591 


14,285 


61,527 


81.2 


1929 


75,746 


7,821 


1 42, 525 


7,087 


18,313 


14,908 


60,838 


80.3 


1930 


75,678 


8,628 


41,680 


7,469 


17,901 


16,097 


59,581 


78.7 


1931 


75,850 


9,346 


1 41 , 149 


7,784 


17,571 


17,130 


58,720 


77.4 


1932 


75,911 


9,517 


41 , 073 


7,898 


17,423 


17,485 


58,496 


77.1 


1933 


75 , 642 


9,900 


1 40, 502 


8,091 


17,149 


17,991 


57,651 


76.2 



1/ Agricultural Statistics. Department of Agriculture for Scotland. 

Edinburgh. Scotland. 
2/ Not reported. 



-60- 



Table 3 - Number and Percentage of Acres in 



Farms in Sco t land by Tenu re 1/ 



Year 


Total 
Acreage 
Farmed 


Acreage Owned 


1 

— 

i,e;e 


Acreage 


Rented 




Number 


Percenta 


Number | 


Percentag 


,e 


■ 

1887 


4 


864 


881 


617,768 


12 . 


7 


4, 247 ,113 


8 f . 


'-7 




1888 


4 


878 


514 


626,557 


12. 




4, 251 , 957 


r . 


z 


1889 




838 


,425 


625, 699 


12 


8 




r . 




<c 


1890 


1 , 

|4 


,896 


,000 


617,660 


12 


6 


4, 278 , 340 


8 f 


4 


1891 


[4 


,917 


,380 


625,964 


12 


7 


4, 291 , 416 


87 





1892 


4 


901 


543 


615,840 


12 


6 


4, 2oo , 7Uo 




A 

4 


1893 


4 


,890 


, 175 


614,856 


12 


. 6 


4, 275, 319 


87 


A 

4 


1894 


4 


892 


, 183 


608, 179 


12 


4 


4 , 284, 004 


87 


. 6 


1895 


4 


894 


466 


606, 176 


12 


4 


4 , »c8o , 29U 


87 


.6 


1896 


4 


896 


734 


604,973 


12 


4 


4, 291 , 761 


87 


.6 


1897 


4 


892 


906 


613,293 


12 


.5 


4,279,613 


87,5 


1898 


4 


892 


,767 


613, 629 


12 


. 5 


4,213 , 138 


87 


.5 


1899 


4, 


897 


690 


617, 340 


12 


. 6 


4, 280, 350 


87 


.4 


1900 


4 


899 


256 


612,952 


12 


5 


A T r\ A 

4, 286, 304 


87 


.5 


1901 




900 


131 


621 , 651 


12 


.7 


4, 278, 480 


87 


.3 


1902 




897 


169 


617,921 


12 


6 


4 , 279 , 248 


87 


.4 


1903 


4, 


891, 


79$ 


603, 138 


12 


3 


4, 288, 661 


87 


.7 


1904 


4, 


888 


638 


600,989 


12 


3 


4, 287, 649 


87 


.7 


1905 


4, 


880 


985 


606,878 


12 


4 


4, 274, 107 


87 


6 


1906 


4, 


873 


039 


601 , 548 


12 


3 


4, 271 , 491 


87 


7 


1907 


4, 


866, 


478 


597, 523 


12 


3 


4, 268 , 955 


87 


7 


1908 


4, 


863 


473 


593,475 


12 


2 


4, 269 , 998 


87 


8 


1909 


4, 


859, 


609 


584, 094 


12 





4, 275 , 515 


88 





1910 


4, 


853, 


342 


578,470 


11 


9 


4, 274, 872 


88 


1 


1911 


4, 


845 , 


r~\ T r— 

835 


569, 881 


11 . 


8 


4,275,954 


88 


2 


1912 


4, 


821 , 


334 


475 , 125 


9 . 


9 


4, 346, 209 


90 


1 


1913 


4, 


797, 


919 


507, 683 


10 . 


b 


4, <cyu , doo 


89. 


4 


iyi4 


4, 


786 , 


TOT 

181 


526, 557 


11 . 


(J 


4, /COy , 0/c4 


89 





lyio 


4, 


781, 


397 


2/ 


2/ 




2/ 


2/ 




lyib 


4, 


775, 


506 


2/ 


2/ 




2/ 


2/ 






4, 


776, 


323 


2/ 


2/ 




2/ 


2/ 




1918 


4, 


761, 


101 


2/ 


2/ 




2/ 


2/ 




1919 


4 , 


751, 


475 


2/ 


2/ 




2/ 


2/ 




1920 


4, 


739, 


046 


606, 007 


12 


8 


4, 133, 039 


87 


2 


1921 


4, 


729, 


604 


756, 663 


16 





3, 972, 941 


84 





1922 


4, 


725, 


499 


820,749 


17 


A 

4 


3,904,750 


82 


6 


1923 


4, 


724, 


438 


883, 558 


18 


7 


3,840,880 


81 


3 


1924 


4, 


715, 


290 


950, 190 


20 


2 


3,765, 100 


79 


8 


1':'25 


4, 


705, 


197 


993, 593 


21 


1 


3,711,604 


78 


9 


1926 


4, 


693, 


170 


1, 094,706 


23 


3 


3, 598, 464 


76.7 


1927 


4, 


681 


221 


1,226,393 


26 


2 


3, 454, 828 


73 


.8 


1928 


4, 


665, 


462 


1,318,859 


28 


3 


3 , 346 , 603 


71 


7 


1929 


4, 


652, 


988 


1, 350, 091 


29 





3, 302, 897 


71 


.0 


1930 


4, 


640, 


718 


1,410,619 


30 


4 


3,230, 099 


69 


.6 


1931 


4, 


632 


200 


1,460,446 


31 


5 


3 , 171 , 754 


68 


.5 


1932 


4 


622 


217 


1,482,088 


32 


.1 


3,140,129 


67 


.9 


1933 


4 


613 


708 


1,510,786 


32 


.7 


3,102,922 


67 


.3 


1934 


4, 


600 


440 


1,503,291 


32 


.7 


3,097,149 


i 67 


.3 



1/ Agricultural Statistics, Department of Agriculture 

for Scotland. Edinburgh. 
2/ Data not reported. 

-61- 



The Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) Ac t_^ 1880 

Prior to 1880 the landlord held an absolute right to enter 
upon the tenant's farm and seize his property for the payment of 
rent. This right was abused by many landlords, and in an attempt 
to alleviate the condition, the Hypothec Abolition Act of 1880 was 
passed by Parliament. This Act purported to abolish the land- 
lord's right of hypothec (a type of security given by the tenant) 
for the rent of land. It did not apply to any claim due or becoming 
due under contracts already entered into. This was in practice a 
rather limited gain for the oppressed tenantry. It marked, however, 
the beginning of sweeping changes in landlord-tenant relations. 

The Ground Game iSco t land). Act^ 1880 

According to an Act of 1621, any one owning less than one 
hundred acres of land was forbidden the right to hunt game. The 
majority of agricultural leases expressly reserved all game to the 
landlord, and prohibited the scaring of the game by the tenant, 
even to protect his crops against damage. It was not uncommon for 
the tenant to see game destroying his crops, and all that he could do 
was to stand by and watch, without the right to protect his own 
property. 

The interdependence between agriculture and other indus- 
tries was being more completely understood, and the townspeople 
joined v/ith the farmers, both in the interest of good husbandry and 
for the protection of capital and labor invested by the occupiers 
of land, in requesting Parliament to enact the Ground Game Act of 
1880. Under this Act the tenant-occupier was given the right to 
kill rabbits and hares to protect his crops against damage. This 
right was guaranteed to the tenant by the voiding of all contracts 
to the contrary, and he was limited only in that he could not hunt 
at night or kill game with poison. The Act was instrumental in re- 
moving the feeling of injustice on the part of the tenant, and also 
served to improve his economic standing. 



Agric u ltural Ho lding s (Scot land) Act_^ 1885 

The concept of an outgoing tenant being entitled to com- 
pensation for improvements which had been effected by him on the 
landlord's property was foreign to the laws of Scotland before the 
passage of the Agricultural Holdings Act in 1883, even though some 
agricultural leases had provided for compensation prior to that 
date. The compensation provisions which were written into private 



-62- 



leases were very diverse, and therefore worked hardships upon some 
tenants who changed farms. Parliament selected the best of the 
compensation provisions and put them together in a unified whole 
which applied equally to all farms in Scotland which were used 
for agriculture or pasture. Compensation was provided, by the 
Act, for a specified list of improvements which may be conveni- 
ently divided into three categories: (a) permanent improvements, 
such as buildings, for which the landlord's consent was necessary 
before the tenant could effect such improvements; (b) drainage, 
for which notice to the landlord was required; and (c) exhaustible 
improvements, such as increasing the fertility of the soil, which 
the tenant could effect without consulting the landlord. The amount 
of compensation was to be the value of the improvement to an incom- 
ing tenant . In case the landlord and tenant could not agree upon 
the value of such improvement, it was to be determined by a system 
of arbitration provided for under the Act. This Act was a great 
step forward in the evolution of tenant rights, and removed many 
causes of disagreement between landlord and tenant. 

The Crofters ' H oldings (S cotland) Act . 1886 

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 applied to the whole 
of Scotland, but it was thought that it would not relieve the agrar- 
ian crisis in the Highlands. The Napier Commission was appointed in 
1883 to study the leasing conditions, and to make recommendations 
for improving them. The Commission made a very comprehensive report 
with appropriate recommendations. This report led to the passage of 
the Crofters' Holdings Act, which gave the crofting tenants security 
of tenure, fair rent, and facilities for the enlargement of their 
farms. 

This Act, and its amendments, applied only to the parishes 
of the Highlands in which there were crofting tenant farmers. A 
crofting tenant was defined by the Act as a person who, at the pas- 
sage of the Act, y;as a tenant from year to year, residing on his 
farm, paying an annual rent of not more than thirty pounds, and sit- 
uated in a crofting parish, or the successors of such persons. A 
crofting parish was defined as a parish in which there were at the 
beginning of the Act, or had been within the past eighty years, 
farms consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in 
common, and in which there still were tenants from year to year pay- 
ing an annual rent of not more than thirty pounds per farm. 

The principal provisions of the Act were as follows: (a) 
a crofter should not be removed from his farm except for the breach 



-63- 



of a specified statutory condition; (b) he should have a fair rent 
fixed by public authority; (c) on moving or being removed from his 
farm the crofter should receive compensation for improvements ef- 
fected by himself or his predecessors in the same family; and (d) 
crofters were provided with facilities for enlarging their farms. 

For the purpose of carrying out these provisions, the Act 
established the Crofters' Commission. The Commission consisted 
of three members having the full power upon application to de- 
termine the statutory rio-hts of landlords and tenants to which the 
Act applied. The task of determining the parishes which conformed 
to the definition of the Act was left to the Commission. It was 
decided that 151 of the 163 parishes in the crofting counties were 
crofting parishes, and the Commission began it work in October 
1886. During the Commission's long existence from 1886 to 1911, 
when it was superseded by the Land Court which will be discussed 
later, the Commissioners traveled throughout almost every part of 
the mainland and the islands where there were crofting tenants. 
Hearings were held, and the crofts (farms operated by crofting 
tenants) inspected in connection with the applications of landlords 
and tenants for adjustments of their statutory rights. The out- 
standing features of the work of the Crofters' Commission were its 
adjustments of rent and arrears of rent, and its enlargements of 
crofters' farms. The adjustments of rent made by the Commission 
were binding, and could not be changed for seven years. Arrears 
of rent in these counties were very common, and about two-thirds 
of them were cancelled. This appears to be a large amount, but, 
as the Commission pointed out, the arrears consisted of the accumu- 
lations of generations, and in many cases they arose from unfair 
rent, and although they could be regarded on paper as assets, they 
were really irrecoverable. 

In dealing with applications for enlargement of farms, the 
Commission worked under certain handicaps. Ov/ing to the limi- 
tation of "available " land and funds, it did not have the power 
to enlarge crofts or to form new ones everywhere they were needed. 
The Commission repeatedly pointed out these limitations in its 
annual reports, and Parliament appointed a committee in 1892 to 
consider the question of land available for use as farms for the 
crofting tenants. The Committee reported that over a million and 
a half acres were suitable and could be made available for this 
purpose. As a result of its report an Act was enacted by Parlia- 
ment in 1897, establishing a special organization, the Congested 
Districts Board, with power and funds to assist migration of tenants 
from the congested sections to new farms established by the Board. 



-S4- 



The most important improvements which resulted from the Crof- 
ters' Act were the marked increase in the stability of occupancy 
and security of tenure and the adjustments of excessive rent and 
arrears of rent. The diminution of rent gave direct relief to the 
population of these districts, where cash income available for the 
payment of rent was not large. There was a marked improvement in 
the housing and the social conditions of the crofters. The Crof- 
ters' Act was generally successful in spite of its obvious failure 
to correct completely the land tenure problems of the Highlands. 

The Co ngested Districts .(Scotland.) Act^ 18S7 

This Act provided for a board which was composed of the Sec- 
retary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, the chairmen of 
three of the administrative bodies concerned with the districts in 
which it was to operate, the Crofters' Commission, and others des- 
ignated by Parliament. It was empowered to aid in the development 
of agriculture, fishing and home industries, to facilitate migration 
from the over-populated districts, to establish new farms, and to 
provide public works. For these purposes an annual sura of 35,000 
pounds was made available. The sphere of their operations, as de- 
fined by them, extended to 65 of the 151 crofting parishes. The 
operations of the Board continued over a period of more than four- 
teen years. The policies of effecting new land holdings were car- 
ried out by the purchase of estates and by cooperation with land- 
lords. Six estates, with an area of 84,000 acres, were purchased 
at a total cost of 129.000 pounds. These were divided into farms 
of varying sizes and sold to tenants at the purchase price, plus 
the cost of transfer. By cooperating with landlords many large 
farms were sub-divided. Altogether they assisted in providing 
640 new farms, 1,100 existing farms were enlarged, making a total 
of 1,740 cases, which represents over 2 percent of all the farms 
in Scotland, and more than 5 percent of all the farms in the dis- 
tricts in which the Board operated. Relatively large sums were 
also expended by the Board on public works of various kinds in 
the congested districts. The assistance thus given usually took 
the form of advancing three- fourths of the cost of such works to 
the local authority, which executed the work and provided the 
subsequent upkeep. In promoting agriculture, particularly among 
the families which it resettled or rehabilitated, the Board worked 
mainly to improve the livestock, as the Western Highlands and 
Islands v/ere more suited to pastoral farming than to the growing 
of crops. Under these plans the Board purchased 697 bulls and 
loaned them to the committees in charge of common grazing on con- 
dition that they be properly cared for and wintered. Two thousand 



-65- 



three hundred rams, the property of the Board, were also loaned 
in the same way, and a number of pony stallions was provided. Im- 
proved seeds and eggs, for hatching, were made available at a small 
charge. Further encouragement was given by grants-in-aid to local 
agricultural shows. 

The work of the Congested Districts Board was moderately 
successful. Its main function, that of effecting new tenurial 
arrangements, was limited by the funds made available, and by the 
necessity of purchasing the land. As a result of the policies of 
providing breeding stock, a marked improvement took place in the 
quality of the livestock in many of the congested districts. 

The Small Landholders' (Scotland) Act^ 1911 

A partial solution of the problems of le.r.d tenure which were 
peculiar to the small tenant-operated farms in the Highlands was 
provided for by the Crofters' Holdings Acts and the Congested Dis- 
tricts Act. All of these Acts were limited in their scope by 
lack of authority and funds. They were, however, successful, and 
there was a popular demand for the extension, to the other dis- 
tricts, of the many benefits which tenant farmers enjoyed in the 
Highlands. As early as 1895, a bill v/as introduced in Parliament 
for the purpose of extending the Crofters' Acts, in an amended 
fprm, to such counties north of the Tay River which were not al- 
ready included, and to the county of Bute, but it failed to pass. 
Other bills were introduced in successive years from 1906 to 1911 
at which time the Small Landholders' Act became a law. This Bill 
was bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party at every stage in 
its procedure through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. 
The Liberal Party, however, persistently pushed the measure and 
succeeded in having it passed, The long struggle between 1906 and 
1911 undoubtedly weakened many of the original provisions of the 
measure, but in order to pass the bill, the Liberal Party then in 
power had to accept the amendments to meet the objections of the 
Conservative Party. Despite these amendments, the Act, as passed 
in 1911, still remains the foundation of modern land tenure legis- 
lation in Scotland, and stands as a constant tribute to the en- 
lightened interests of the Liberal Government for the Scottish 
tenant farmer. 

The purposes of the Small Landholders' Act of 1911 were: 
(a) -to extend the provisions of the Crofters' Holdings Acts and 
the Congested Districts Acts throughout Scotland; (b) to establish 
the Scottish Land Court; (c) to create the Board of Agriculture; 
and (d) to encourage the formation of small agricultural farms. 



-66- 



The restricting of the farms to which the Crofters' Acts 
applied, to those renting for 30 pounds or less, was liberalized 
under the Small Landholders' Act by increasing the limitation to 
50 pounds, and also by making the Act apply to any farm which was 
not larger than 50 acres in size, regardless of the rent paid; 
except in the Island of Lewis, where these limitations were 30 
pounds and 30 acres, (Farms thus defined are hereafter called 
"small farms.") Farms included under the Act were: (a) crofters' 
farms under the 1886 Act; (b) small farms anywhere in Scotland 
other than the crofts, on which the tenant provided the greater 
part of the improvements; (c) similar farms on which the greater 
part of the improvements was furnished by the landlord; and (d) 
new small farms constituted under the Act. The tenants whose 
farms were in classes (a), (b), and (d), were called "landholders", 
and those with farms in class (c) were known as "statutory small 
tenants." The operators of the farms in class (a) became land- 
holders at the comraencment of the Act; those in class (b), be- 
came landholders at the commencement of the Act, if their tenancy 
was a yearly one, while other farmers in this class became land- 
holders at the expiration of their leases; those in class (c) be- 
came statutory small tenants at the commencement of the Act; and 
those in class (d) became landholders from the date of their reg- 
istration as new holders. 

The essential difference between the two classes of ten- 
ants - the landholders and the statutory small tenants - was in 
the matter of who furnished the buildings and fences. Those ten- 
ants who were termed landholders furnished all buildings and fen- 
ces, while the landlords furnished only the land. In the case 
of the statutory small tenant, the land and the buildings and 
fences were furnished by the landlord. The landholder enjoyed 
greater freedom in the operation of his farm, he had a more se- 
cure tenure, and paid a lower rent than the statutory small ten- 
ant. Landholders were more numerous than statutory small tenants, 
and it appears that their relative importance will continue to in- 
crease. 

The Land Cour t . The Land Court was established as the ju- 
dicial tribunal for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The 
Court superseded the Crofters' Commission, which had been a land 
court in everything except name, and took its function of de- 
ciding differences between landlords and tenants on small farms. 
The powers and duties of the Court are more inclusive than were 
those of ths Commission, and its authority extends throughout 
Scotland. It is a body corporate, with a common seal, and all of 



-67- 



its orders and determinations are accepted by other courts without 
further proof. The Court has full power and jurisdiction to de- 
termine all questions under the Crofters', Congested Districts, 
and Small Landholders' Acts, whether of law or of fact. No other 
court can review such determinations, except on questions of law 
where an appeal to the Court of Sessions may be permitted by the 
Land Court. 

The Land Court is composed of five members appointed by the 
King. The member who is designated as the chairman of the Court 
has the same rank and tenure of office as a judge of the Court 
of Sessions. The other members hold office at the discretion of 
the Secretary of State for Scotland, subject to the approval of 
Parliament, and are chosen from expert agriculturists with wide 
experience as practical farmers and valuators. 

The Act provides that the Court shall make its own rules 
of procedure, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. 
Its rules of procedure in determining cases are much the same as 
those of other courts in Scotland, These rules provide that all 
applications to the Court for determination of cases arising out 
of relations between landlord and tenant, be made through the of- 
fice of a sheriff-clerk. Application forms, which are prepared 
and issued by the Land Court, are obtained by the applicant from 
the sheriff-clerk in his district or county. There are over thirty 
application forms issued by the Court to be used in its various 
powers. When the sheriff-clerk receives an application and is 
satisfied that it is in the proper form, he notifies the respond- 
ent and transmits the application to the Principal Clerk of the Land 
Court. The time and place for the hearing of the case is announced 
by the Court. The Court can summon any necessary witness, and re- 
quire the production of necessary documents. Any witness, summoned 
by the Court and failing to appear may be found liable for payment 
of the expenses occasioned by any adjournment which his failure to 
appear renders necessary, and may be found guilty of contempt of 
Court. 

The headquarters of the Court are in Edinburgh, but most 
of the work is done locally by divisions, one member and an asses- 
sor being a duly constituted division. Each division makes periodic 
circuits through particular areas of the country, trying cases, in- 
specting farms, and issuing decisions on cases heard. 

During its first year of operation, the Court made many im- 
portant decisions in interpreting the Small Landholders' Act. Many 



-68- 



of the cases arose because of a lack of understanding of the Act, 
but of more importance were those of intentional misinterpretation. 
The popularity of the Court was not great among the owners of land. 
Many applications were filed with a view toward limiting the scope 
of the Act by various interpretations of the clause, "either wholly 
agricultural or wholly pastoral, partly agricultural and as to the 
rest pastoral." One applicant would have excluded all farms 
with buildings on them, contending that the farms must be used only 
for agriculture or pasture. The Court, however, ruled that the 
purpose of the Act was to benefit the small agricultural tenant, 
and that it was improbable that Parliament intended to exclude the 
majority of these persons in whose interests the Act was passed. 

The rights of the landholder and the statutory small tenant 
are somewhat different under the Act. As already pointed out, 
the chief difference between these two classes of small agricul- 
tural tenants is that the landholder has provided the buildings on 
his farm, whereas the statutory small tenant has had his buildings 
provided by his landlord. The landholder who applies to the 
Court to have his rent adjusted for the first time must prove that 
he belongs to that class of tenants. In ascertaining the amount of 
rent which a landholder should pay, the value of the buildings and 
improvements made by the tenant is excluded. The rent thus set 
by the Court, which is called the "first fair rent", is binding 
on the parties concerned, and cannot be altered for seven years, 
at which time the farm can be, upon proper application to the 
Court, revalued and the rent adjusted. Security of tenure is 
guaranteed the landholder, and under no condition can his tenancy 
be terminated without his consent or without an order from the 
Land Court. If a landlord has an objection to the tenant, he 
must apply to the Court and prove that the tenant is causing de- 
terioration of the farm, is not cultivating it according to the 
rules of good husbandry, or that he has some other reasonable 
cause for removal of the tenant. The landholder on moving or 
being removed from his farm is entitled to receive just compensa- 
tion for the buildings and improvements, including increases in 
soil fertility, made by him on the farm. The amount of compensa- 
tion is determined by the Land Court as the fair value of the im- 
provements to an incoming tenant. The improvements for which com- 
pensation is payable are not limited except that they must add to 
the value of the farm; the determination of value is subject entire- 
ly to the discretion of the Court. Another right of which the land- 
holder has availed himself is that of assigning his farm to some- 
one else in case he is not able, for any reason, to cultivate the 
farm. 



-69- 



It is provided under the Act that statutory small tenants 
may apply to the Court for a determination of what is called an 
"equitable rent." The rent on their farms is based upon the value 
of the land and buildings, but improvements made by the tenants 
are not taken into consideration. The tenants of this class can 
apply to the Court for revaluations and rent adjustments at the 
end of their leases. They also are granted security or what is 
called by the Act "fixity of tenure." A landlord must prove 
reasonable grounds for objecting to the tenant when he does not 
desire to renew the lease; otherwise the tenant is entitled to a 
renewal. Claims for compensation are made by him, and settled by 
arbitration, as provided under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. A 
tenant of this class has, however, the right to have his farm 
kept in good repair by his landlord. The Land Court does not have 
the direct power to compel a landlord to keep the house and other 
buildings in good condition, but the remedy provided by the Act 
is sufficient. If the landlord refuses to make the necessary re- 
pairs and improvements, the tenant can apply to the Land Court 
and be declared a landholder and have "fair rent" fixed, which 
would be considerably less than the "equitable rent" that he has 
been paying. The landlord is, however, relieved of all future 
obligations to provide or maintain the buildings and equipment, 
after his tenant has been declared a landholder. 

Compensation to landlords for deterioration caused by ten- 
ants is provided for under the Act, and the amount is determinable 
by the Land Court. However, compensation for disturbance, either 
to the landlord or to the tenant, is not recognized by the Small 
Landholders' Acts. Both the custom of the country and the statutory 
security of tenure granted by Acts made this unnecessary. 

When the Land Court assumed its duties on April 1, 1912, 
it has 634 cases left over from the Crofters' Commission, and 
during the first year of its operation, 1,808 new applications 
were received. Of these about five-sixths were from the crofting 
counties. This is explained by the fact that the larger number 
of landholders are found in these counties, and also by the crofters' 
having been familiar for twenty-five years with the privileges 
granted by the Crofters' Act ,so that they immediately availed them- 
selves of the extended rights conferred by the Small Landholders' 
Act. 

From the beginning of its operation, in 1911, through 1933, 
the Court adjusted rent on 2,822 landholders' farms. (Table 4), 
The existing rents on these farms were reduced, on the average. 



-70- 



about one-fourth, and many were still further reduced when they 
were revalued at the end of the required seven year period. In 
dealing with arrears of rent on landholders' farms, the Court can- 
celed over half of them and ordered the remainder to be paid. 
In adjusting statutory small tenants' rights, the Court reduced 
rent nearly one-fifth in the 1,287 cases with which it dealt. 
(Table 4) . About one-tenth of these cases again came to the Court 
to be revalued at the end of the lease, and the rents were slightly 
increased. 

A large and important part of the work of the Land Court has 
been in connection with the regulation of tenants' rights to se- 
curity of tenure. Compensation for improvements is one of the 
major means whereby the feeling of security is increased. Ad- 
justments of compensation by the Court, however, did not form an 
important part of the cases handled until after 1919. ■ From 1914 
to 1933 the Court awarded compensation to 938 applicants, who 
claimed an average of 284 pounds and were awarded an average of 
179 pounds. (Table 5). This does not include data for 1921 and 
1922. 



-71- 



Table 4 - Rent Adjustments Determined by 
the Scottish Land Court 1/ 



First Fair R e nts 2/ [ First Equitable Rents 3/ 



Year 


Number 

of 
Cases 


Old rents 
in pounds 
4/ 


Adi usted 
rents 4/ 
in pounds 


Numbs r 
Of 

Cases 


Old rpnt'=; 
in pounds 
4/ 


Ad i ii^t-pd 
rents 4/ 
in Dounds 


1912 


256 


2,227 


1 , 568 


89 


1 , 582 


1,180 


1913 


523 


5,398 


3,515 


170 


3,307 


2,447 


1914 


388 


3,271 


2,374 


271 


6, 131 


4,828 


1915 


430 


3, 695 


2,748 


243 


5.248 


4,194 


1916 


139 


1 , 558 


1,214 


112 


2,383 


1 ,944 


1917 


160 


1.216 


1 , Oil 


45 


1, 127 


922 


1918 


76 


625 


538 


56 


1,556 


1,352 


1919 


170 


2,050 


1,842 


75 


1,483 


1,435 


1920 


236 


1,669 


1,563 


59 


1,013 


1, 036 


1921-22 5/.... 


125 


1, 149 


1,064 


52 


1, 181 


1,205 


1923 


41 


504 


442 


15 


495 


463 


1924 


48 


386 


359 


14 


367 


334 


1925 


30 


273 


229 


12 


216 


190 


1926 


57 


406 


384 


6 


178 


169 


1927 


23 


136 


121 


8 


124 


' 105 


1928 


21 


200 


172 


13 


318 


290 


1929 


19 


139 


102 




252 


230 


1930 


21 


280 


' 235 


8 


176 


145 


1931 


19 


135 


116 


11 


260 


210 


1932 


17 


173 


[ 161 


1 14 


395 


367 


1933 


23 


178 


145 


7 


178 


151 


Total 


2,822 


25,668 


19,903 


1,287 


27 , 970 


23,197 



1/ Annual Reports of the Scottish Land Court, Edinburgh, Scotland. 
2/ Fair rents adjusted for the first time by the Land Court for a 

landholder and based only upon the value of the land. 
3/ Equitable rents adjusted for the first time by the Land Court 

for a statutory small tenant and based upon the value of the 

land and buildings. 
4/ The power of exchange of the pound sterling during the major 

part of this period was about $4.8666; the present power of 

exchange is approximately $5.00. 
5/ The annual reports for 1921 and 1922 did not contain these data. 

They were calculated from a summary of the activities of the 

Court which was made in 1933. 



-72- 



Table 5 - Compensation Adjustments Determined 
by the Scottish Land Court 1/ 





Number 


j Amount 


Amount 


Year 


of 


i Claimed in 


Awarded in 




Cases 


1 pounds 2/ 


' pounds 2/ 


1915.. 


28 


1 3,661 


1.720 


1916.. 


14 


1 2,519 


1.385 


1917.. 


9 


1 1.527 


i 833 


1918.. 


13 


1 2 , 260 


1 1,136 


1919.. 


14 


1 3,733 


1,933 


1920.. 


45 


1 11.163 


1 6,015 


1921.. 


32 


1 3/ 


5,726 


1922.. 


3/ 


i 3/ 


3/ 


1923.. 


43 


6.284 


4,529 


1924.. 


61 


15,360 


7.719 


1925.. 


81 


21.389 


12,199 


1926.. 


61 


13.514 


7,140 


1927..' 


52 


8.764 


7.093 


1928.. 


64 


23.394 


12,257 


1929.. 1 


91 


23.562 


17,570 


1930.. 1 


100 


32 , 976 


25,430 


1931 j 


96 


32.373 


22,782 


1932.. i 


91 


32.103 


19,612 


1933.. 1 


75 


31,468 


18,299 


1 

Total] 


970 


266,050 


173.378 



1/ Annual reports of the Scottish Land Court, Edinburgh, Scotland. 
These data represent compensation for improvements which were 
effected on small farms under the jurisdiction of the Land 
Court. They do not include any compensation claimed under 
the Agricultural Holdings Acts. 

2/ The power of exchange of the pound sterling during the major 
part of this period was about 14.8666; the present power of 
exchange is approximately $5.00. 

3/ Not available. 



-73- 



Applications from the Department of Agriculture for orders 
to compel landowners to- txirn their holdings into small farms is 
another important part of the work of the Land Court. In exercising 
its compulsory powers of ; sub-dividing large holdings, the Court 
created 1,157 new farms and affected 341 enlargements of existing 
farms. In addition, it brought into existence 3,760 new farms, and 
enlarged 1,428 existing farms by agreement with estate owners. 
The following text table is a summary of these types of cases 
handled by the Court: 







Cases handled 


Types of 


Cases h-andled under 


through agree- 


cases 


compulsory power 


ments with 






owners 


Adjustment of rent 






Landholders 


2 , 822 




Statutory small tenants...... 


;: : 1,287 




Compensation 


970 




Establishment of new farms 


1,157 


341 


Enlargement of existing farms.,.. 


3; 760 


1,428 


Total cases 


9,996 


1,769 



The Departme nt of Agriculture : Although the Department of 
Agriculture was not organized until 1928, when it took over the du- 
ties and powers of the Board of Agricult-ure, which had been created 
in 1911, the following discussion will use the term "Department of 
Agriculture" to apply to both organizations. Since its inception, 
the Department has been engaged in a wide variety of activities 
similar to those of the Department of Agriculture in this country. 
Moreover, in 1911 the -powers and duties of the Congested Districts 
Board were extended to apply throughout Scotland, as they had there- 
tofore in the congested districts, and the functions of that organi- 
zation were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Further- 
more, powers and duties were given "the Department by the Act of 
1911 for the formation and enlargement of small agricultural farms 
and the preservation of existing small farms. 

The creation of new farms and enlargements of existing farms 
are carried out by the Department through cooperation with estate 
owners or by compulsory orders. A person desiring a new farm or an 
enlargement of an existing farm may apply to the Department, and if 
the latter is satisfied that there is sufficient demand for small 
farms, it selects suitable land available for the purpose, and then 



-74- 



notifies the landowner, who is usually an absentee landlord, that 
it is in the public interest for one or more new farms to be con- 
stituted on his land. Opportiinity is given to all parties concerned 
for considering and adjusting the plans. If the Department and the 
landowner cannot arrive at an agreement, the plans can be carried 
out by compulsory order. Prior to 1919, compulsory orders for 
creating new farms or enlarging existing farms were made by the 
Department only through the Land Court; since then they have been 
made by the Department without reference to the Court. 

The estate owner is entitled to compensation for damages caused 
by the formation of farms on his estate. Compensation is payable 
for the costs incurred by the landowner, and any damage done to 
the letting value of the estate. Prior to 1919 compensation could 
be claimed for injury to the selling value of the land or to the 
sporting rights. The Land Settlement Act of 1919 abolished com- 
pensation for injury to the selling value, and limited compensation 
for sporting-rights-injury to an amount by which the value of such 
rights might exceed the value of the land if it were put to its 
"full use." The Land Court has the power to determine what the 
value of the land would be if it were in "full use." The 1919 Act 
also changed the method of determining compensation for such claims 
from that of arbitration to that of hearing and decision by the 
Land Court. 

The amalgamation of small, tenant-operated farms was pro- 
hibited by the Small Landholders' Act, and the Department was 
given power to enforce this provision. The landlord of a small 
tenant-operated farm must notify the Department of Agriculture when 
the farm becomes vacant or is about to become vacant, and without 
the consent of the Department it cannot be used for any purpose 
other than a small tenant-operated farm. The disposition of a 
vacant farm otherv/ise than in compliance with the Act can be de- 
clared null and void, and under such situations the Department is 
empowered to use it for a new farm or for enlargement of neigh- 
boring farms, without payment of compensation. 

The work accomplished by the Department (to 1933) in effecting 
new land tenure arrangements for small tenant farmers includes 
the purchase of large amounts of land; the Department is now the 
largest landowner in Scotland. Including the 84,500 acres trans- 
ferred from the Congested Districts Board in 1912. the Department 
owned 426.370 acres of land in 1933. Of this area 267,174 acres 
had been used in creating 1,889 small farms; in bringing about en- 
largements of 397 small farms; and in providing pasturage held in 



-75- 



common by groups of tenants. The settlements carried out on pri- 
vately owned estates involved an area of 352,698 acres, on which 
were set up 1,584 new farms, and included 1,546 enlargements of 
existing farms. The total number of new farms and enlargements of 
existing farms, brought about by the Department of Agriculture 
during this 21-year period, was equivalent to about 7 percent of 
all farms in Scotland in 1933. 

Ag ricultural Holdings ( Scotland) Act , 1923 

Laws regulating agricultural landlord and tenant relations 
on farms other than small farms, were expanded through a series 
of Agricultural Holdings Acts from 1883 to 1921. The repeals 
and amendments made by each successive Act caused a great deal 
of confusion and misunderstanding. Parliament was long urged 
to unite all of the Acts into one which would state clearly and 
concisely the many rights and duties of landlords and tenants. 
In answer to this need the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923 was 
passed. This Act, as amended in 1931, is the principal act gov- 
erning the rights of tenants who do not come under the provisions 
of the Small Landholders' Acts- The Act applies to all land which 
is let to a tenant for a year or more, and is used for agriculture, 
pasture, or market gardens. The chief object of the Act is to 
provide compensation for improvement, deterioration, and disturb- 
ance. 

Under the Act a tenant is entitled to receive compensation 
for a specified schedule of unexhausted improvements on quitting 
his farm. The amount of compensation is based upon the value of 
the improvement to an incoming tenant as agreed upon by the landlord 
and tenant. In case they cannot agree, the claim is referred either 
to an arbiter, or, since 1931, to the Land Court. 

The schedule of improvements for which compensation is payable 
is divided into three parts according to the nature of the improve- 
ments, and to the restrictions which are placed upon the tenant. 
The first part of the schedule includes the more permanent and more 
expensive of the improvements which are generally made by Scottish 
farmers, and it requires that the tenant obtain the written consent 
of the landlord before he begins the improvement. The second part 
includes those improvements which are less expensive and less per- 
manent than those in the first part of the schedule, and it re- 
quires that the tenant give the landlord a written notice of his 
intention to effect the improvement. The landlord can, if he so 
desires, effect the improvement, but if he has not begun it within 



-76- 



t 



d specified time, the tenant may then carry out his intention. The 
third part includes improvements involving a large amount of labor 
in relation to the amount of capital which is required, and it 
provides that the tenant can effect them without the consent of 
or notice to the landlord. A comparison of this schedule with the 
corresponding schedule in the 1883 Act reveals two significant facts: 
first, a much wider range of improvement is included in each part 
of the schedule than was included in the 1883 schedule; and second, 
many of the improvements which were included in the first part of 
the earlier schedule are now included in the second part of the 
present schedule, and so on. 

A high degree of stability of onoupancy and security of ten- 
ure is assured through granting the tenant the right to claim com- 
pensation for disturbance, and through requiring the landlord to 
renew the lease of the tenant unless: (1) the tenant fails to 
pay his rent; (2) the tenant fails to cultivate the farm according 
to the rules of good husbandry; (3) a breach of contract occurs 
which cannot be easily remedied. If the landlord, without reason- 
able cause, notifies his tenant to move at the end of his lease 
he must pay compensation for disturbance. The compensation allowed 
is a very substantial sum; usually it is equal to one year's rent 
or, if the tenant can prove the expenses are greater, two years' 
rent may be allowed. The compensation provision also insures the 
tenant against an unfair increase in rent, by allowing him to claim 
compensation for disturbance when the landlord attempts to raise 
the rent and refuses to refer the matter to arbitration. A landlord 
can obtain compensation from the tenant for deterioration in the 
value of the farm when it is due to the failure of the tenant to 
cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry. Such compen- 
sation is ascertained by arbitration, or, since 1931, by the Land 
Court, at the termination of the tenancy. 

Arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Acts is referred 
to a single arbiter or to the Land Court, except in the valuation 
of stock and crops transferred to the landlord or to the incoming 
tenant, in which case it is referred to two arbiters and an oversman 
to the Land Court . The arbiter or arbiters are agreed upon by the 
parties concerned, or they are appointed by the Department of Agri- 
culture from a panel of arbiters selected by the Court of Sessions. 
The procedure of arbitration is left largely to the arbiter, and is 
not necessarily formal. It is usually conducted by hearing the 
parties concerned and by inspecting the farm. The decisions of the 
arbiter are final except on questions of law, which may be appealed 
to the Sheriffs Court and the Court of Sessions. The award must 



-77- 



be made by the arbiter within twenty-eight days, and includes the 
expenses of the arbitration, which is divided between the parties 
as determined by the arbiter. In cases of award of money , the date 
of payment is set and must be paid within one month after that 
date, and is enforceable in the same manner as any other debt. 

SUMMARY 

The clan system of land tenure in the Lowlands of Scotland 
was completely displaced by feudalistic tenure during the twelfth 
century. It survived, in the Highlands in an attentuated form 
until the eighteenth century. Both the feudalistic tenure system 
and the modified clan system were displaced by an unregulated, 
individualistic system of tenancy under which the soil resources 
and the rural tenantry were seriously exploited. The leaders in 
Parliament and the townspeople soon realized that a permanently 
productive agriculture and a virile farm population were essential 
to the best interests of the country as a whole, and that such could 
not be established and maintained under the existing system. There- 
fore, beginning in 1880, a series of Parliamentary acts designed to 
correct the many evils which had grown up under the self-destructive 
policy of laissez-faire were passed. 

The first approach was to diminish the right of the landlord 
to seize the tenant's property for the payment of rent, and to 
give the tenant permission to kill game and protect his crops. Then 
Parliament, in 1883, passed a far-reaching agricultural landlord- 
tenant statute. This legislation, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 
provided for compensation to an outgoing tenant for improvements 
which he had effected upon the landlord's property, and for a sys- 
tem of arbitration to facilitate the solution of differences between 
landlords and tenants. It was amended from time to time until it 
also assured the tenant a relatively high degree of stability of 
occupancy and security of tenure. This was accomplished by provid- 
ing for compensation for disturbance in case the tenant was re- 
quested to vacate the property without sufficient reason. The 
landlord was also protected by a provision in the law compensating 
him for deterioration caused by the tenant. The legal machinery 
necessary for the proper execution of the provisions of these Acts 
was provided. 

The Agricultural Holdings Acts were designed to deal with the 
general problem of tenancy. There was, however, a large number of 
tenants, who operated small farms in the Highlands, whose problems 
were distinct enough to warrant special consideration. The Crof- 
ters' Holdings Act of 1886 was passed by Parliament to meet this need. 



-78- 



It provided for security of tenure, adjustments of rentals by a pub- 
'lic authority, governmental assistance to worthy tenants who desired 
to become land owners, and means whereby farms of an uneconomical 
size could be enlarged. The powers and duties thus provided were 
expanded by the Congested Districts Act of 1897. extended to all 
of Scotland by the Small Landholders' Act of 1911, and subsequently 
amended to meet new needs as they arose. Parliament also estab- 
lished the Land Court and the Department of Agriculture, and vested 
in them the authority to carry out the provisions of these Acts. 

- 00 - 



-79- 



Part I 



AGRICULTURAL LANDLO RD-TENANT RELATIONS IN 
ENGLAND AND WALES 



SELECTED REFERENCES 
English Publications 



Adkin, Benaiah W. A HANDBOOK OF LAW RELATING TO LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
The Estates Gazette, Ltd. London. 1932. 

Bright, Tom. THE AGRICULTURAL VALUER'S ASSISTANT. Crosby Lockwood 
and Son. London. 1910. 

Broderick, George C. ENGLISH LAND AND ENGLISH LANDLORDS. Cobden 
Club. (Printer Cassell, Petter, Galpin and Company). London. 
1881. 

Caird, James. ENGLISH AGRICULTURE IN 1850-51. Longman, Brown, 
Green, and Longmans. London. 1852. 

Central Association of Agricultural Valuers. ANNUAL REPORTS. W. H. 
Lead (Printer) Leicester. 

Clinton, Lord. THE POSITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL OWNER AS AFFECTED 
BY THE AGRICULTURAL ACT 1920. Central Association of Agri- 
cultural and Tenant-Right Valuers. Leicester. June 9, 1921. 

Davies, Clement E. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS, 1908 to 1920. The 
Estates Gazette, Ltd. London, 1921. 

Davies, Clement E. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND TENANT RIGHT. The 
Estates Gazette, Ltd. London. 1935. 

Jackson, Thomas Calice. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923. Sweet and 
Maxwell, Ltd. London. 1924. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. 
London . 

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE 
LAND DIVISION. London. 



-80- 



Orwin. C. S. "Land Tenure in England," PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST 
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMISTS. George 
Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Wisconsin. 1929. 

Orwin. C. S. and Peel, W. R. THE TENURE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. Cam- 
bridge University Press. Cambridge. 1925. 

Spencer. Aubrey John. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT. 1923. Stevens 
and Sons, Ltd. London. 1931. 

Spencer, Aubrey John. THE SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS ACTS, 
1908-1926. Stevens and Sons, Ltd. London. 1927. 

The Land Enquiry Committee. THE LAND. Hodder and Stoughton . London, 
1913. 

Welsh Land Enquiry Committee. WELSH LAND. Hodder and Stoughton. 
London. 1914. 

English and Welsh Statutes 

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1851. 14 & 15 Vict., ch . 25. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1875. 38 & 39 Vict., ch . 92. 

GROUND GAME ACT, 1880. 43 & 44 Vict., ch. 47. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883, 46 & 47 Vict., ch. 61. 

TENANTS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1890. 53 & 54 Vict., ch. 49. 

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1895. 58 & 59 Vict., ch. 27. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT. 1900. 63 & 64 Vict., ch . 50. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT. 1906. 6 Edw. VII., ch . 56. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1908. 8 Edw. VII., ch. 28. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1913. 2 & 3 Geo . V., ch. 21. 

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1914. 4 & 5 Geo . V., ch . 7. 

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES ACT, 1919. 9 & 10 Geo. V., 
ch. 91. 



-81- 



AGRICULTURE ACT, 1920. 10 & 11 Geo . V . , ch . 76 . 
AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1921. 11 & 12 Geo. V., ch. 17. 
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923. 13 & 14 Geo . V., ch . 9. 
AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1923. 13 & 14 Geo . V . , ch . 25 . 



ARBITRATION ACT, 1934. 24 & 25 Geo. V., ch . 14. 

Note: A mimeographed copy of the Agricultural Holdings 
Act of 1923 and the amendments of 1923 and 1934 may 
be obtained from the Land Use Planning Section, Land 
Utilization Division, Resettlement Administration, 
Washington, D. C . 



American Publications 



Bal linger. Roy A. STOCK SHARE RENTING IN VIRGINIA. Virginia Ag- 
ricultural Experiment Station, Virginia. Polytechnic Institute. 
Bulletin 271. Blacksburg, Virginia. May 1930. 

Case, H. C. M. AN ANALYSIS OF FARM LEASES FOR THE CORN BELT AND 
WHEAT BELT STATES. American Life Convention. St. Louis, 
Missouri. October 1, 1932. 

Cavert, William L. SUGGESTIONS ON FARM LEASES. University of 
Minnesota. Special Bulletin 153. St. Paul, Minnesota. Aug- 
ust 1932. 



Falconer, J. I. METHODS OF RENTING LAND IN OHIO. Ohio Agricultural 
Experiment Station. Bulletin 348. Wooster, Ohio. May 1921. 

Harris, Marshall and Schepmoes, Douglas F. "Scotland's Activity in 
Improving Farm Tenancy." LAND POLICY CIRCULAR. Resettlement 
Administration. February 1936. 

Hibbard, B. H. and Black, J. D. FARM LEASING SYSTEMS IN WISCONSIN. 
Agricultural Experiment Station of University of Wisconsin. 
Research Bulletin 47. Madison, Wisconsin. October 1920. 



-82- 



Hibbard. B. H. and Howe. Harold. THE FARM LEASE IN WISCONSIN. 
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin. 
Bulletin 391. Madison, Wisconsin. February 1927. 



Holmes, C. L. DRAWING UP THE FARM LEASE. Agricultural Experiment 
Station, Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 
Circular 87. Ames, Iowa. August 1923. 

Gray, L. C. INTRODUCTION TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. The Macmillan 
Company, New York. 1924. 

Gray, L. C, et al . "Farm Ownership and Tenancy." United States 
Department of Agriculture YEARBOOK 1923. 

Gray, L. C. and Turner, H. A. THE FARM LEASE CONTRACT. United 
States Department of Agriculture. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1164. 

Johnson, 0. R. THE FARM TENANT AND HIS RENTING PROBLEM. Agricul- 
tural Experiment Station, University of Missouri. Bulletin 
315. July 1932. 

Lloyd, 0. G. FARM LEASES IN IOWA. Agricultural Experiment Station, 
Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. Bulletin 
159. Ames, Iowa. September 1915. 

Riddell, F. T. FARM LEASE SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN. Agricultural Ex- 
periment Station. Michigan State College of Agriculture and 
Applied Science. Circular Bulletin 102. East Lansing, Mich- 
gan. May 1937. 

Roosevelt, Theodore. "Tenancy a Menace to America." THE PRAIRIE 
FARMER. Chicago, Illinois. March 22, 1919. 

Taylor, H. C. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. The Macmillan Company. 
New York. 1905. 

Taylor, H. C. THE DECLINE OF LANDOWNING FARMERS IN ENGLAND. Uni- 
versity of Wisconsin, Bulletin 96. Madison, Wisconsin, 1904. 

Walker, W. P. and DeVault, S. H. FARM TENANCY AND LEASING SYSTEMS 
IN MARYLAND. University of Maryland, Agricultural Experiment 
Station, College Park, Maryland. July 1933. 

Wilson, James and Wallace. Henry. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN GREAT 
BRITAIN AND IRELAND. (No date or publisher given) 



-83- 



AGRICULTURAL LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS IN 
ENGLAND AND WALES 



STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT 



Table 1 - Number of Landowners and Acreage Owned by Each 
Class in England and Wales, 1873 1/ 





1 Number of 


Extent in 


Average 


Class of Owners 


1 Owners 


Acres 


Acreage 2/ 


Peers and Peeresses 


1 400 


5.728.979 


14,322 


Great Landowners 


1 1 , 288 


8.497,699 


6,598 




1 2,529 


4,319.271 


1,708 




1 9,585 


4.782,627 


499 


Lesser Yeomen 


1 24,412 


4,144,272 


170 


Small Proprietors 


1 217,049 


3,931,806 


18 




1 703,289 


151.148 


3/ 


Public Bodies 


1 14,459 






The Crown, Barracks, Convict 








Prisons, Lighthouses, etc 




165.427 




Religious, Educational, Philan- 












947.655 




Commercial and miscellaneous 




330,466 








1,524,624 




Total 


1 973,011 


34,523,974 


35 



1/ Broderick, G. C. ENGLISH LAND AND ENGLISH LANDLORDS , p . 187 . 

2/ Averages were computed. 

3/ Approximately one-fifth of an acre. 



-84- 



Table 2 - Number and Percentage of Farms 
in England and Wales by Tenure 1/ 







Farms Owned 


Farms Rented 


Farms Part Owned 




1 Total 


1 Par- 




Per- 




Per- 


Year 


1 Number of 


Number 1 cent- 


Number 


cent- 


Number 


cent- 




! Farms 2/ 


i age 




_age_ 




age 


1887 


. 481.8283/ 


64, 588 i 13.5 


393 . 047 


82.5 


18.991 


4.0 


1888 


1 488, 013 


67, 389 j 13.8 


400 . 297 


82.0 


20,327 


4.2 


1889 


1 492 . 387 


66, 385 1 13.5 


405.859 


82.4 


20, 143 


4.1 


1890 


1 494. 835 


66, 130 : 13.3 


408.040 


82.5 


20,665 


4.2 


1891 


1 494 , 926 


68. 923 j 13.9 

1 


404,630 


81.8 


21.373 


4.3 





1 


Farms owned and | 
Mainly Owned 1 


Farms Rented and 
Mainly Rented 






Number 


Percentage 


Number 


Percentage 


1908 


430,081 


54 . 869 


12. 


8 


375,212 


87.2 


1909 


430.812 


55,920 


13. 





374,892 


87.0 


1910 


431 , 674 


55,433 


12 


9 


376 , 241 


87.1 


1911 


435,308 


54.176 


12 


5 


381,132 


87.5 


1912 


435.886 


50 , 972 


1 11 


7 


384,914 


88.3 


1913 


435,677 


48 , 760 


1 11 


2 


386,917 


88.8 


1914 


435 , 124 


49 , 204 


! 11 


3 


385.920 


88.7 


1919. 


416,668 


48,665 


1 11 


7 


368,003 


88.3 


1920 


417.991 


57,234 


1 13 


7 


360,757 


86.3 


1921 


420,133 


70 , 469 


1 16 


8 


349,664 


83.2 


1922 


414.715 


62,680 


1 15 


1 


352,035 


84.9 


1923 


411,673 


i 87.894 


1 21 


.3 


1 323,779 


1 78.7 


1924 


409.383 


94.236 


1 23 


.0 


' 315,147 


[ 77.0 


1927 


401,754 


146,907 


! 36 


.6 


254 .847 


1 63.4 



1/ Agricultural Statistics for Great Britain. 

2/ A farm means a parcel of land one acre or larger used for 

farming purposes. 
3/ Includes 5,202 farm.s not distributed according to tenure. 



-85- 



Table 3 - Number and Percentage of Acres in 
Farms in England and Wales by Tenure 1/ 



Year 


Total 

Acreage 
Farmed 2/ 


Acreage Owned 


Acreage Rented 


Number 


Percentage 


Number 


Percentage 


1887 


27.800,4333/ 


4,216,689 


15 


3 


23,291,376 


84 


7 


1888 


27,805,885 


4,283,519 


15. 


4 


23,522.366 


84. 


6 


1889 


27,844,932 


4,226,526 


15. 


2 


23,618,406 


84. 


8 


1890 


27,872,335 


4,225,848 


15. 


2 


23 , 646 , 487 


84. 


8 


1891 


28,001.134 


4,192,594 


15 





23,808,540 


85. 





1892 


27,784,007 


4,090,839 


14. 


7 


23,693,168 


85 


3 


1893 


27,753,534 


4,057,221 


14. 


6 


23,696,313 


85. 


4 


1894 


27,737,672 


4,034,969 


14. 


5 


23,702,703 


85. 


5 


1895 


27,683,047 


4,033,867 


14 


6 


23,649,180 


85. 


4 


1896 


27,665,625 


4,043,621 


14. 


6 


23,622,004 


85 


4 


1897 


27,627,170 


4,012,142 


14.5 


23,615,028 


85 


5 


1898 


27,584,264 


3,906,659 


14 


2 


23,677,605 


85 


8 


1899 


27,559,417 


3,800,700 


13 


8 


23,758,717 


86 


2 


1900 


27,538,130 


3,725,988 


13 


5 


23,812,142 


86 


5 


1901 


27,517,314 


3,668,908 


13 


3 


23,848,406 


86 


7 


1902 


27,490,790 


3,604,668 


13 


1 


23,886,122 


86 


9 


1903 


27,451,780 


3,554,877 


12 


Q 

v/ 


23,896,903 


87 


1 


1904 


27,428,972 


3,521,095 


12 


8 


23,907,877 


87 


2 


1905 


27,405,847 


3,484,729 


12 


7 


23,921,118 


87 


3 


1906 


27,393,716 


3,413,472 


12 


5 


23,980,244 


87 


.5 


1907 


27,376,969 


3,334,508 


12 


.2 


24,042,461 


87 


.8 


1908 


27,347,913 


3,333,828 


12 


.2 


24,014,085 


87 


.8 


1909 


27,323,464 


3,337,456 




.2 


23,986,008 


87 


.8 


1910 


27,292,588 


3,329,015 


12 


2 


23,963,573 


87 


.8 


1911 


27,248,823 


3,246,971 


1 11 


.9 


24,001,852 


88 


.1 


1912 


27,174,690 


2,954,491 


10 


9 


24,220,199 


89 


.1 


1913 


27,129,382 


2,890,559 


' 10 


7 


24,238,823 


89 


.3 


1914 


27,114,004 


2,961,979 


10 


.9 


24,152,025 


89 


.1 


1915 


27,053,100 


3,092,302 


11 


4 


23,960,798 


88 


.6 


1916 


27,074,084 


3,085,099 


11 


4 


23,988,985 


88 


.6 


1917 


27,081,481 


3,018,314 


11 


1 


24,063,167 


88 


9 


1918 


26,987,512 


3,161,584 


11 


7 


23,825,928 


88 


3 


1919 


26 , 747 , 953 


3,296,452 


12 


3 


23,451,501 


87 


7 


1920 


26,507,011 


4,102,556 


15 


5 


22,404,455 


84 


5 


1921 


26,144,071 


5,231,847 


20 





20,912,224 


80 





1922 


26,025,793 


4,639,615 


17 


8 


21,386,178 


82 


2 


1923 


25,943,261 


6,273,109 


24 


2 


19,670,152 


75 


8 


1924 


25 , 876 , 797 


6,574,044 


25 


4 


19,302,752 


74 


6 


1927 


25,590,330 


9,225,734 


36 


1 


16,364,596 


63 


9 


4/ 



















1/ Agricultural Statistics for Great Britain. 

2/ Acreage in farms includes only crop and grass land. 

3/ Includes 292,395 acres not distributed according to tenure. 

4/ Total acreage farmed in 1934 was 25,030,494 acres. 



-86- 





1 Ui 


ICD 




lO 




rH 


rH 


rH 






CM 


o 


CD 




to 


CM 


rH 


CM 


in 




! cu 


f-i! .-H 


cn 




CD 


in 




cv 


in 




in 






in 


CD 




in 


t>- 






1 


CDl 00 




t- 


CO 


in 




Q 


00 


in 


to 


rH 


CM 


CD 


CD 




CO 


CM 


CD 




! o 


>l - 




00 






CO 






CO 






CO 
















1 <i 


OI rH 

1 


C\2 

r-H 




rH 


CV2 

rH 




CM 


iH 
rH 


CM 


fH 

rH 




CM 


CD 




CM 


O 

rH 






1 o 


T31 






































1 o 


CI 






































1 to 


tdl 






































j 

1 0) 


i 






































1 (D 




CO 


to 




to 


OJ 


CD 

rH 


CM 




to 


in 


in 


o 


CM 


o 


CO 




CD 




ItD 








O 








CM 


00 




£> 


in 




CD 








(J) 


— ! CV 


to 


rH 


>o 


cv 




CM 


.H 


CC 


to 


to 


in 


rH 


CD 


o 




CM 


rH 




CV 


m! - 




CD 






(D 






CO 






00 






00 






CO 






031 to 






to 








to 




m 


rH 






00 




CD 


03 






1 




to 






to 






to 






to 






CM 






CM 








OI 




































o 


<;! 






































LO 


1 






































rH 


1 






































Oj 


1 









































it" 


1—1 


to 




<£) 


to 


to 


in 


to 


in 


to 


rH 




CD 




to 


1 — 1 


rH 




jCD 








O 


CD 






00 


rH 










c- 


O 


■ 

to 






Mi 


o 


rH 




rH 


rH 




00 


03 




CO 


CD 


00 


^ 


rH 


to 


in 




1 — ! 


O! - 




CD 






CD 






CO 






CO 






CO 






CO 






f-.|CV2 


05 






05 




to 


00 






t>- 




in 


CD 




in 


CO 






1 


OI 


OJ 






CV2 




CM 






CM 






CM 






CM 








<i;i 




































O 


— H 




































! n 


O 


1 




































1 Oi 


i—i 


1 




































no 








































CT) 


1 


















— — 


















1 ^1 




-HO) 


CO 


0> 




o 


in 


O 


03 


in 




to 


CD 


03 


CM 






t> 


o 


1 a 


CD 


ml <T) 


00 






CD 




CO 


CM 




in 






CO 


to 


to 


o 


CD 






CD 


(DI to 


00 


O 


CD 


00 


c 


to 


rH 


CD 


rH 


in 


CD 




CM 




!> 


03 




i 

i Ui 




!-.| . 




CD 




■■ 


CD 


- 


00 


* 




00 


* 


* 


CM 




■ 


CO 


1 M 


1 


o! in 


to 




in 


to 


CD 






00 


CM 




o 


O 


CO 


UJ 


O 




1 *r-| 












in 




in 






in 




rH 


in 






in 






O 
LO 


■ — 1 
1 




































Oi 


1 








































to 






rH 


to 


t> 


CD 


in 


to 


CO 




CM 


CD 


00 




rH 










col 0") 


to 




£> 


00 




iH 


00 


in 




CO 


CD 




CD 


o 


in 






(Dl O 


CD 


o 


O 


to 


CD 


to 


CD 


CD 


H 


f) 


t- 


o 


00 


to 




t> 






^1 - 




00 


■ 




CO 


" 


00 






00 






CO 






UJ 




1 
1 


0| CO 


Ol 




00 


o 




00 


CD 




o 


CD 




to 


c~ 




1 — 1 


UJ 








<;i 


CD 












CD 




rH 


CD 




rH 


CD 




r-H 


tr\ 
mJ 






o 


'i 






































1 








































1 












- 




— — 











— 
















—i 


to 


(D 


in 


iO 




CD 


CO 


CO 


o 




CM 


in 




O) 


03 


CM 


£> 




O) 


ml rH 


O 








CO 


CM 




00 


to 




to 


CM 




rH 


00 






i-H 


(HI CO 


to 


t~ 


CD 












c- 




CD 


CO 


in 


to 


"J 


CD 


in 






t-ij . 




co 






CO 


- 


- 


CO 






CO 


* 


* 


00 






00 




1 
1 


o| 








CD 




lO 


o> 




in 


CO 




00 






\D 


C~ 










o 




—i 


O 




rH 


CD 




rH 


CD 




rH 


CD 




rH 


CD 






LO 










rH 




























CD 


-H CD 


CO 


to 


CD 




C\2 


to 


o 


rH 


CM 


in 




00 


CD 


CM 


03 


in 


in 






Wl o 


0") 




(D 






in 






in 


uo 




CM 


00 




01 


CD 








CDi (£) 


cu 


<£> 


in 


CD 


CD 






t~ 


CD 




CO 


o 


r—i 


in 


CO 


CD 


CD 






U\ - 




CO 






CO 


■ 




CO 






00 






00 




■ 


00 




1 


OI C\J 


03 






00 




o 


o 




o 


CD 




CM 


CD 






CO 








<!l >— 1 


c~ 




rH 






rH 






rH 


CD 




rH 


CD 




rH 


CO 






1 1 


— i 






































1 o 


^- 


00 




o 


t- 


in 


to 


to 




t- 


to 


CD 




Cv2 


o 


in 


CD 




r-H 


ml CD 






o 


CM 




CD 


o 




to 


in 




CO 


CD 




OJ 


to 


«*H 






El {> 


O) 


(X) 




CD 


CjO 


CD 


o 


CO 


CM 




to 


XT' 


CD 


to 


Co 


o 






u\ ~ 




00 


* 


" 


00 




" 


CO 


* 


* 


CO 




■ 


CD 


■■ 




00 




o 


ttii 00 


CD 






lO 




00 


00 






o 




o 


CD 




CM 


CM 








Ct-I 

1 


(jO 
f J 






00 

to 






CD 

to 




li) 








to 




CO 


in 
to 








0)1 




■ 




































bfl 




































1 O 




<i31 










73 






T5 






Xi 






. 

T3 






. 


u 




-fl 










































1 n 


a 


CI 








T3 






T3 


+-> 












HJ 




'O 




' c 




0i t3 












c 




O 




T! 





c 







a 







a 







0| CD 


+^ 
























■)-' 





















E- 




S-t| 


C3 


OS 


C! 




vc 






OS 






OS 






rv' 




c 








nil 









rTi 











J* 
























0-1 O 




O 


05 




o 


OS 


CJ 


OC b^ 


o 


DC 


b^ 


o 


CiS fe^ 






tnl 


















O 






iH 






CM 










01 






rH 






iH 






C\2 






CM 






CM 














(D 






cn 






a> 






01 






O) 
















rH 






rH 






rH 






rH 






rH 









tsi 

w 

;Q 

CQ 
<X> 
iH 
d 
& 

n 

G 

ce 

rH 

bO 
Ed 

■H 

e 

u 

O 

CD 

s 



lO 



1 m 

I a-' 
I 

1 o 



I to to 

S-l rH rH 

>l - . 

Oi ^ 



lo Til 

10 ai 

I to ctil *- 

I 1 

I • -H to lo 

I CD m cj) ,-1 

I en ®1 LO CO 

lev s-l - - 

11 oi t- 
oJltO to 



o^tocncv!-02^w^(oooovco!>K)^io^:oo 

'st'^J*'sr^tOtOc>J'(^i(^'(;y,^CVWC\icV(^jCV(N2(^ 



'I 



lO 

IS 



LOOCO'-'OOCOCVOaLOrHrHtOr-.rHCNjt-lOCV^t-- 
fT) M u:) O Cvi rM (X) 00 r~l L- W C\2 lo ^ CV !> ^ 00 

CDCX)|--tDtOi>cOb-LO'^^W'~^'-HO"'Cnt>-CD'^j 

IT) in lo LO LO to in in lo lo \r ! 

to to t'O to to to to to t^'J to f ■) '" J t<0 CO to KJ to to to 



I en 



100 o in 

-H to to 

ml 00 00 o 
- . . 

!-l| rH r-H CV! 

oi to to 
«aJI 

—I 



(D^tOOCoOO-^-^OlDtD^OlOC-OOCVintOin', 
■^(D^tOcVoCOOOO^OOt-O^OOOOCT/OOr- 



_ . , . - .1 

WOjOJCVCVOJrHrHi-Hr-li-H'-lrHnHrHCVCVCVCVjl 

to KJ to to to to to £o to to to to to to to to to to 



raloo rH lo 
0)1 cv in CO 

OICD Oi (J) 

<iilin in in 



I 

rHLOCV2<J)t>r-)(DtDrHMtO!>OOCT)tOrHCOOrH 

r-i (XI in to o 



t-a)COtoc£irHcr)cr)oin\rooi>-i 

CDb-!>CT)OtOtOCDt~-CDCVtOtO( 



I 

OOOOOrHOOOOrHrHrHnHrHrHCVJCJCVl 



gj „ 

cr> I ~ ' 

• -Ht^-^ot~-a)COrH(A2!>.Lntn!><7)t--'^cDLno'si'cvjrHcri 
a> mic\2iotoooco{>cD'^eDtDC£)t-':>rHC\iin^(T>t--!>-cvocv 
1-^ ©lo^^3<inc\2oocr)Ln(j)rHoomrHoocDinrH(x»tocv2CDo 



I 



! I 



oioDoocooooo{>t~cr>oocna5cr)oococooo!>t-t>CDcD 
1 <l^-^-t>£>^-^-^-^--ooco^-t-^-^-^-^^- 
o 

lev I 



10) I ' 

1 •'H{>oO(£i"^-^^f"^fi>a)rHcr)'v!<in^tocDOJ^(T)CDrHuD 
ICD miMa)rHCOo<X)rHnHino^iocorH^ojin!>to->*cj)to 
IrH oirHcctD»-'oo'^inrHoocDt'jcooorH(j)cy)to^mco 
I !-l . . . , 

I O|CVrHO00(D^t0'<^CD'^t0rHO00!>-t-LOt0CVrHO00 

<3|CVCVCVrHMrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHOOOOOOOOCD 
lO— IrHi-Hf-lrHT-HrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHtHi-HrHrHrHrHtHrH 



I I'* 



\ I 



Cm 

I O 

IrH 

t cd (- 

|h-> CD 

I O Xi 

IE-" S 

I ^3 

I s 



micvotocv'^cvtot--(>'^-^cr)toinrHCDtO'si<^'^-<;t'^l 
cDiot-^otxicncDtOrHCDt^inooootoinoooootr-cD'^l 
s-|tointDincvitOrH{>-cvtotDoocvr-ito^rH(T)CVcDcoinl 
oi - I 

«<ICVrHOt>^tOrHOrHCDt-CDin's!''=d'^'vl'CVrHOCr)COl 

-Ha)a)CDOOoococoeoco!>t^i>-{>t~t--t-tr-{>-!>t>(£>cD( 

_ — I 

l{>-^toincotDOOrHtointotooooO'^intr-tOrHcy)tocvl 
mit>cvincvrHcvtDcr)tOrHt--cootoin(j)^cv'*cDtot- 
an£>rHto'^c~rHU>cj)rHt--(£)toi>cDt-cocvoocn^'?j'cvl 



fnl 

cdjiointocoLoo(Dc~o^rHcr)LncvrHocDinrHooo-^M 

li.ltOtOtOCV(MC\i.HrHCVrHrHOOOOOa5CDCDCnOOCOl 

l'^-sr^'^^'^'=i*'=^'^-^^}'"^''vf'^'^'^totototototoi 
i I 



u 



ito^rin(D!>ooa)OrHcvto"^incDt-cocnorHcvto^ 

IrHrHrHrHrHrHrHCVCVCVCVOQCVCVCVCVCVtOtOtOtOtO 
Ir— lrHrHiHrHrHiHr-lrHrHrHrHrHrH,HrHrH,HrHrHtH,H 



•H 

cd 

-P 

•H 
!-i 

DQ 

-P 

c3 

0) 

O 

o 

Cm 

m 
o 

•H 
-P 

c« 

•H 
-H 

ce 



CO 
S-, 

pi 
+J 

rH 

^3 
O 
•H 
P. 

bO 
< 



00 
00 



I rHl 



Table 6 - Compensation Values of Feeding Stuff Used in England 

and Wales 1/ 



Feeding Stuff 



Decorticated cotton cake 

Undecorticated cotton cake (Egyptian) 
Undecoricated cotton cake (Bombay) 

Linseed cake 

Linseed 

Soya-bean cake 

Palm-nut cake 

Coco-nut cake 

Earth-nut cake 

Rape cake 

Compound cakes, meals, etc. 

15 to 20 percent Albuminoids 

20 to 25 percent Albuminiods 

25 to 30 percent Albuminoids 

30 percent Albumnoids 

Beans 

Peas 

Wheat 

Barley 

Oats 

Maize 

Rice meal 

Locust beans 

Malt 

Malt culms 

Bran 

Brev/ers' grains (dried) 

Brewers' grains (wet) 

Clover hay 

Meadow hay 

Wheat straw 

Barley straw 

Oat straw 

Mangels 

Swedes 

Turnips 



Compensation value for each ton 
of feed consumed before one 
crop has been sold or reraoved2/ 



Shil lings j _._Pence 



48 
28 
26 
33 
26 
44 
16 
26 
47 
35 

23 
27 
30 
36 
26 
23 
12 
11 
13 
11 
12 
10 
12 
30 
25 
20 

5 
18 
13 

5 

5 

6 

2 

2 

2 



i Dollars3/ 


3 


11.99 


11 


1 7.19 


6 


1 6.59 





i 8.20 





1 6.46 


7 


1 11.08 


10 


1 4.18 


11 


1 6.69 


8 


1 11.85 


2 


1 8.74 



A 

4 


on 


1 


C '7'Z 


iU 


' . Ob 


J. X 


9 17 


11 


6.69 


2 


5.76 


8 


3.15 


9 


2.92 





3.23 


1 


2.75 


1 


3.00 


6 


2.61 


11 


3.21 


9 


7.64 


6 


6.34 


9 


5.16 


2 


1.28 


4 


4.56 


10 1 


3.44 


5 1 


1.35 


8 1 


1.41 


4 1 


1.57 


7 1 


.64 


2 1 


.54 


1 


.50 



1/ Davies, C. E. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND TENANT RIGHT, p. 303. 

2/ The value after one crop has been grown or removed is one-half of 
the value shown here. 

3/ Calculated on the basis of the power of exchange of the pound ster- 
ling for March 1936 as $4.97. 



-89- 



Table 7 - Compensation Values of Fertilizers Used in 
England and Wales 1/ 



Fertilizers 



Superphosphate 

Basic slag. Ground Phosphate 

Bones (raw and steamed) 

Dissolved Bones 

Bone Manures 

Compound Manures not Con- 
taining Bone 

Peruvian Guano 

Fish Guano 

Meat Meal 

Shoddy and Wool Waste, Fur 
Vi/aste, Hair, Hoofs, and 
Horns, Greaves, etc 

Manure Cakes 

Dried Blood, Sulphate of 
Ammonia, Nitrate of Soda, 
Nitrate of Lime, Cyanamide 

Kainit and Potash Salts 

Lime 



Proportion of original cost after re- 
moval of specified crops 



On arable land 



1st 


2nd 


3rd 


1st 1 


2nd 


2/3 


1/3 


1/6 


2/3 


1/3 


2/3 


1/3 


1/6 


5/6 


2/3 


2/3 


1/3 


1/6 


2/3 


1/2 


1/2 


1/4 


1/12 


1/2 


1/4 


2/5 


1/5 




2/5 


1/5 


1/3 


1/6 




1/3 


1/6 


1/3 


1/6 




1/3 


1/6 


1/3 


1/6 




1/3 


1/6 


1/3 


1/6 




1/3 


1/6 


1/2 


1/4 


1/8 


1/2 


1/4 


1/5 


1/10 




1/5 


1/1( 


None 






None 




1/2 


1/4 




1/2 


1/4 



On grass land 2/ 



3rd 
1/6 
1/2 
1/3 
1/12 



1/8 



The cost of 4 cwt. of pure lime, or 7 
cwt. of carbonate lime (chalk) to be 
deducted per acre each year after appli- 
cation until the amount originally ap- 
plied is exhausted. This is to be in- 
dependent of the amount of pure lime or 
chalk applied. 



1/ Davies, C. E. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND TENANT RIGHT, p. 298. 

2/ The Valuer must exercise his discretion as to the suitability 
of these manures when used upon grass land. When grass land 
is mown, this is equivalent to the "removal of a crop" and the 
values as set out for arable land would apply. 



-90- 



Table 8 - Improvements for Which Compensation is Payable in England 
and Wales According to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 

1923 1/ 



First Schedule 



Part I 

IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH CONSENT OF LANDLORD IS REQUIRED 

(1) Erection, alteration, or enlargement of buildings. 

(2) Formation of silos. 

(3) Laying down of permanent pasture. 

(4) Making and planting of osier beds. 

(5) Making of water meadows or works of irrigation. 

(6) Making of gardens. 

(7) Making or improvements of roads or bridges. 

'8) Making or improvement of watercourses, ponds, wells, or 
reservoirs, or of v/orks for the application of water power or for 

supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes. 

(9) Making or removal of permanent fences. 

(10) Planting of hops. 

(11) Planting of orchards or fruit bushes. 

(12) Protecting young fruit trees. 

(13) Reclaiming of waste land. 

(14) Warping or weiring of land. 

(15) Embankments and sluices against floods. 

(16) Erection of wirework in hop gardens. 

(17) Provision of permanent sheep-dipping accomodation. 

(18) In the case of arable land the removal of bracken, gorse, 
tree roots, boulders or other like obstructions to cultivation. 

(N.B. — This part is subject as to market gardens to the provisions 

of the Third Schedule.) 



Part II 

IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH NOTICE TO LANDLORD IS REQUIRED 
(19) Drainage. 



1/ AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1923. 



-91- 



Part 111 



IMPROVEMENTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH CONSENT OF OR NOTICE TO LANDLORD 

IS NOT REQUIRED 

(20) Chalking of land. 

(21) Clay-burning. 

(22) Claying of land or spreading blaes upon land. 

(23) Liming of land. 

(24) Marling of land. 

(25) Application to land of purchased artificial or other pur- 
chased manure. 

(26) Consumption on the holding by cattle, sheep, or pigs, or by 
horses other than those regularly employed on the holding, of corn, 
cake, or other feeding stuff not produced on the holding. 

(27) Consumption on the holding by cattle, sheep, or pigs, or by 
horses other than those regularly employed on the holding, of corn 
proved by satisfactory evidence to have been produced and consumed 
on the holding. 

(28) Laying down temporary pasture v/ith clover, grass, lucerne, 
sain-foin, or other seeds, sown more than two years prior to the 
termination of the tenancy in so far as the value of the temporary 
pasture on the holding at the time of quitting exceeds the value of 
the temporary pasture on the holding at the commencement of the 
tenancy for which the tenant did not pay compensation. 

(29) Repairs to buildings, being buildings necessary for the 
proper cultivation or working of the holding, other than repairs 
which the tenant is himself under an obligation to exceute: 

Provided that the tenant, before beginning to execute any such 
repairs, shall give to the landlord notice in writing of his inten- 
tion, together with particulars of such repairs, and shall not exe- 
cute the repairs unless the landlord fails to execute them within 
a reasonable time after receiving such notice. 



Third Schedule 

IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN THE CASE OF MARKET 

GARDENS 

(1) Planting of standard or other fruit trees permanently set 
out . 

(2) Planting of fruit bushes permanently set out. 

(3) Planting of strawberry plants. 

(4) Planting of asparagus, rhubarb, and other vegetable crops 
which continue productive for two or more years. 

(5) Erection or enlargement of buildings for the purpose of the 
trade or business of a market gardener. 

-92- 



PART II 



SCOTLAND ' S ACTIVI TY IN IMPROVING FARM TE NANC Y 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Blackie. John Stuart. THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS AND THE LAND LAWS. 
Chapman and Hall. London. 1885. 

Campbell. Lord Colin. THE CROFTER IN HISTORY. William Brown. 
Edinburgh. 1886. 

Commission of Inquiry Into Conditions of Crofters and Cotters of 
Scotland. REPORT OF COMMISSION. Neill and Company. Edinburgh. 
1884. 

Congested Districts (Scotland) Board. ANNUAL REPORT. Glasgow. 
1898-1911 . 

Crofters' Commission. THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF LEWIS 
IN 1901. AS COMPARED WITH TWENTY YEARS AGO. H. M. Stationery 
Office. Glasgow. 1902. 

Crofters' (Scotland) Commission. ANNUAL REPORT. Glasgow. 1886- 
1911. 

Department of Agriculture for Scotland. ANNUAL REPORT. Edinburgh. 
1912-1933. 

ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. Edinburgh. 1912-1933. 

Leigh, M. M. "The Crofting Problems, 1790-1883," SCOTTISH JOURNAL 
OF AGRICULTURE. Vol. 11 (1928) and Vol. 12 (1929). 

Marshall, David. AGRICULTURAL OUTGOING CLAIMS. William Hodge and 
Company. Edinburgh. 1929. 

Nicholson, J. S. TENANT'S GAIN NOT LANDLORD'S LOSS. David Douglas. 
Edingburgh. 1883. 

Reid, J. S. C. THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1923. 
William Blackwood and Sons. Edinburgh. 1923. 

Royal Commission (Highlands and Islands), 1892. REPORT OF COMMIS- 
SION. Neill and Company. Edinburgh. 1895. 



-93- 



Scott, James. THE LAW OF SMALL HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND. W. Green and 
Sons. Edinburgh. 1933. 

Scottish Land Court. ANNUAL REPORT. Edinburgh. 1912-1933. 

RULES OF THE SCOTTISH LAND COURT. Edinburgh. 1912 and 

1932. 

Scottish Land Enquiry Committee. SCOTTISH LAND. Hodder and Stough- 
ton. London. 1914. 

Scottish Liberal Land Enquiry Committee. THE SCOTTISH COUNTRYSIDE. 
Scottish Liberal Federation. Glasgow. 1928. 

Statutes 

THE HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1880. 43 Vic, Ch. 12. 

THE GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1880. 43 & 44 Vic, Ch . 47. 

THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1883. 46 & 47 Vic, Ch. 
62. 

THE CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886. 49 & 50 Vic, Ch . 29. 

THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897. 60 & 61 Vic, Ch . 53 

THE SMALL LANDHOLDERS' (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1911. 1 & 2 Geo . V., Ch . 49. 

THE LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1919. 9 & 10 Geo . V., Ch . 97. 

THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1923. 13 & 14 Geo. V., 
Ch. 10. 

THE SMALL LANDHOLDERS' AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 
1931. 21 & 22 Geo. V., Ch . 44. 

- 00 - 



-94-