The House of Commons agreed to that amendment of the
Lords on the Agricultural Holdings Bill which extends the provision against -compensating the tenant for improvements -causing an increased return,—so far as the increase is -really due to the intrinsic qualities of the soil,—to the boning, manuring, and other operations included in the third section of the schedule. But they disagreed with the amend- ment to the second clause, which would have had the effect of 'Leaving in full force every agreement already in existence between landlord and tenant that the tenant should not be entitled to be compensated for any special class of his already effected improvements. To this the Commons -demurred, although any valuable consideration given by -the landlord would be taken into account under the Bill, -as against the compensation for these improvements. Lord Salisbury, nevertheless, insisted on his amendment, though -the Duke of Richmond and Gordon opposed him, and Lord Salisbury was only rowed from defeat on an equal -division by the rule of the House, which makes it necessary to reject a proposal on which the vote is even. When it was next proposed to carry Lord Salisbury's amendment substan- lively, an additional Tory vote was found, and it was carried by a majority of one. The Commons, of course, declined to defer to this majority of one, and we were not able before going to press to hear how the controversy was settled. Doubtless, Lord Salisbury has given way. He could hardly defeat such a measure with a majority of one only at his back, except at the -cost of his whole influence with the country.
Previous page
