2 
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906. 
It is proposed to discuss (I.) those alterations in the law 
which may be classed as strictly amendments of the Agricul- 
tural Holdings Acts, and (II.) those sections of the Act which 
embody the ideas of the school of agricultui-al reformers 
responsible for its inception, and in so doing preconceived 
notions as to their legal effect may be j)ut aside. Parliamentary 
speeches, and even the views of responsible ministers, are no 
aid to the lawyer in the interpretation of the Act. The Act 
has to be construed according to the usual canons of interpre- 
tation and these exclude approaching the matter from any 
outside standpoint. 
I. 
It may be noticed that Sub-section 1 of Section 1 of 
the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, is repealed. It is re- 
enacted in the new Act, but without the proviso “ that in 
estimating the value of any such improvement there shall not 
be taken into account as part of the improvement made bj' 
the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of 
the soil.” The section consequently now reads, “ Where a 
“ tenant has made on his holding any improvement comprised 
“in the first schedule to this Act he shall, subject as in the 
“Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 188d (in this Act 
“ referred to as “The princijjal Act”) and in this Act mentioned, 
“ be entitled at the determination of a tenancy on quitting his 
“ holding to obtain from the landlord as compensation under 
“ the said Act for the improvement such sum as fairly 
“ represents the value of the improvement to an incoming 
“ tenant.” The proviso already quoted was originally omitted 
from the Bill of 1900 in consequence of a recommendation 
made by the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression, 
and passed the Lower House without this proviso, but the 
proviso was re-inserted in that Bill in the Lords and finally 
became law. The view taken in the Upper House was that 
the omission of the proviso would induce valuers to think that 
by its omission it was intended that they were at liberty in 
assessing the value of an improvement to take into consideration 
the inherent capabilities of the soil. In one sense the value 
of an agricultural improvement is always due to the capabili- 
ties of the soil, but it is submitted that no alteration in the 
methods of valuation should now be made by reason of the 
omission of the proviso in the present Act. 
Arbitration. 
A considerable discussion took })lace in the House of Lords 
during the progress of the measure over the sub-section of the 
present Act dealing with Arbitration, but the amendment of 
the law effected by Section 1, Sub-section 2, amounts to no 
