^■^1 
 
 '^'%^--'^3^' 
 
 ^"^ 
 
 ti^i
 
 /s 
 
 THE 
 
 LAND QUESTION, 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 THE WORKING 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LAND LAW ACT 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1882. 
 
 ISSUED BY 
 
 THE lEISH LAND COMMITTEE, 
 32, MOLESWOETH-STREET, DUBLIN. 
 
 DUBLIN : HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO., 104, GRAFTON-STREET.
 
 DUBLIN : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 BY PONSONBY AND WELDRICK.
 
 THE WORKING 
 
 OP 
 
 THE LAND LAW ACT. 
 
 Only a few months have elapsed since Mr. 
 Gladstone introduced his Land Law Bill. That 
 measure professed to deal with five prominent 
 points connected with the Irish Land question, 
 viz. : — ' Free Sale,' ' Fixity,' or, to use Mr. Glad- 
 stone's euphemism, ''Stability of Tenure,' * Fair 
 Rents,' ' Peasant Proprietorship,' and * Emigra- 
 tion.' All of these points, and the proposals 
 affecting them, were discussed ad nauseam, ex- 
 cept one ; and that point is now the only one 
 which engages public attention ! Foreseeing but 
 too clearly that even the present House of 
 Commons would never sanction the theory of 
 * Fair Rent ' which he had made up his mind 
 to adopt, Mr. Gladstone adroitly proposed that 
 the interpretation of the term, and its practical 
 application, should be left to the discretion of 
 the new Land Commission Court, subject only 
 to a direction that the interest of both Land- 
 lord and Tenant, and the circumstances of the 
 
 B
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 case, holding, and district, should be taken into 
 consideration. With a too fatal facility the in- 
 sidious proposal was accepted ; and the result 
 is, that this central point round which the whole 
 Land Question turns, instead of being debated 
 openly in Parliament, and dealt with, after dis- 
 cussion, by the constitutional representatives of 
 the nation, has been left to the secret deci- 
 sion of a number of mongrel tribunals — half 
 court, half valuation office — of the very exis- 
 tence of which, much less their constitution, 
 Parliament had no knowledge or conception, 
 when it handed over to them the estates of 
 the Irish Landlords to be dealt with as they 
 might think fit. Who now speaks — or even 
 thinks — of 'Free Sale,' ^Fixity of Tenure,' 'Emi- 
 gration,' or ' Peasant Proprietary ' ? Aaron's 
 rod has swallowed up all the rest ; and ' Fair 
 Rent ' alone remains to attest the divine com- 
 mission of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 Let us ask, in all seriousness, was there a man 
 in the House of Commons, except perhaps the 
 few in the immediate confidence of the Govern- 
 ment, who did not believe that in delegating the 
 functions of Parliament to the embryo Land 
 Commission Court, he was transferring the re- 
 sponsibility to the supreme tribunal, where the 
 question would be dealt with in open court, ac- 
 cording to the practice of the British Constitu- 
 tion ; and where, as was then expected, men of 
 independent character and trained judicial intel- 
 
 '''>M*\y
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 iigence, would preside ? And let us further ask, 
 how many of those who consented so to transfer 
 to the new Land Court the duty of settling the 
 principles on which the *Fair Rent' should be 
 assessed would have done so, if they had fore- 
 seen that the Land Court would, with scarcely a 
 word of direction, content itself with passing on 
 the responsibility to inferior tribunals, presided 
 over by young barristers, and country attorneys, 
 and numbering among their members persons 
 with such peculiar qualifications as being officers 
 of militia, coroners, publicans, and unsuccessful 
 farmers ? 
 
 But though Parliament deliberately abstained 
 from laying down the principles that should guide 
 the Land Court in fixing the ' Fair Rent,' it did 
 not shrink at the last moment from allowing a 
 clause to be introduced, almost surreptitiously, 
 which affirmed the principle that no rent should 
 be allowed in respect of * improvements ' sup- 
 posed to be made by the Tenant or his prede- 
 cessors in title. And, as if all this was not enough, 
 Mr. Gladstone explicitly pledged himself that the 
 persons selected to administer the Act should all 
 be in sympathy with its spirit — in other words, 
 that they should come to the discharge of their 
 judicial functions prejudiced in favour of the 
 Tenant. 
 
 In this last respect Mr. Gladstone has most 
 scrupulously kept his word. Of the thirty-nine 
 persons who compose the Chief Commission and 
 
 B 2
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 the Sub-Commissions, we doubt if there are five 
 who, by any ingenuity of misrepresentation, could 
 be said not to be predisposed in favour of the 
 Tenant ; and good care has been taken to yoke 
 the few who might be suspected of Landlord pro- 
 clivities with fellow-Commissioners of such ster- 
 ling * popular ' virtue as to render the minority 
 powerless for good or evil. 
 
 On the personal qualifications of the indivi- 
 duals appointed as members of the Sub-Commis- 
 sions we do not propose at present to offer any 
 opinion. We presume that, when Parliament 
 meets, full scrutiny will be made into this im- 
 portant matter, and each case dealt with on its 
 merits, or otherwise. But we think that, in the 
 interests of public justice and of public decency, 
 it would have been well if the sphere of action of 
 some of the Sub-Commissioners had been re- 
 moved to a distance from localities with which 
 they were personally connected. It is scarcely 
 edifying to see a gentleman who, two or three 
 months before, had been a practising solicitor in 
 a certain northern town, presiding in the same 
 town as Commissioner under the Land Law Act, 
 and his partner pleading before him as the advo- 
 cate of the Tenants. Neither is it calculated, at 
 the present time, to strengthen the confidence of 
 the public in the impartial administration of the 
 Act, to find the brother of a parish priest acting as 
 Commissioner in a town not many miles from his 
 brother's parish, and within less than ten miles of
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 his own dwelling'-house; or a publican engaged in 
 carrying out, not far from his own shop, an Act 
 of Parliament which entertains so high an opinion 
 of his calling as to make it a condition of statu- 
 tory tenure, that no public-house shall be opened 
 on the farm. There is no people in the world 
 more keenly alive to incongruities of this kind 
 than the Irish ; and if even a prophet has no 
 honour in his own country or among his own 
 people, what amount of respect will be felt for a 
 Sub-Commissioner of the Land Court under simi- 
 lar circumstances ? 
 
 But apart from all considerations of public de- 
 corum, is it just or fair towards the suitors to 
 submit their cases to the decision of men no less 
 liable than others to the influence of Jocal sym- 
 pathies and local antipathies ? 
 
 We have already spoken of Mr. Gladstone's 
 pledge that the persons appointed to carry out 
 the Act should be in sympathy with its spirit; 
 but, while we admit that the intention of the Act 
 was to benefit the Tenants, we claim that it pro- 
 fessed to do so without inflicting injustice upon 
 the Landlords. Beginning with the Queen's 
 Speech, in which Her Majesty is made to re- 
 commend the further development of the Act of 
 1870, 'which had been productive of great bene- 
 fits and had much contributed to the security and 
 comparative well-being of the occupiers of the soil 
 without diminishing the value or disturbing the foun- 
 dations 0/ property' ; we next have Mr. Gladstone
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 himself, when introducing the Land Law Bill, giv- 
 ing utterance to the remarkable statement that the 
 Landlords of Ireland * had stood their trial, and had 
 as a rule been acquitted.' All through the weary 
 debates in the House of Commons, and even 
 more emphatically in the House of Lords, mem- 
 bers of the Government and their allies again 
 and again repeated the assertion that no wrong 
 would be done to the Landlords, and no loss 
 inflicted upon them. 
 
 It may be well to quote from Hansard a few of 
 the Parliamentary utterances of Ministers and 
 their friends as to the effect of the Land Law Act 
 upon the property of the Irish Landlords. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's remarkable statement, already 
 referred to, is thus reported : — 
 
 * Well, sir, neither, I am bound to say, should 
 we think it just to propose legislation on this 
 great matter, on the ground, whether expressed 
 or implied, of general misconduct on the part of 
 the Landlords of Ireland. On the contrary, as a 
 rule, they have stood their trial, and they have as 
 a rule been acquitted. The Report of the Bess- 
 borough Commission, which certainly is not de- 
 ficient in its popular sympathies, in its tenth para- 
 graph declares that the greatest credit is due to 
 the Irish Landlords for not exacting all that they 
 by law are entitled to exact.' And again, ' It 
 may seem hard, when there are so many Landlords 
 with whom we have not a shred of title to inter- 
 fere, were it possible to sever their case from other
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 cases around them, that they must be liable to 
 interference on account of the acts or omissions 
 of the few ; but so it is, and so it must be, under 
 the iron necessity of public affairs.' (^Hansard, 
 vol. 260, pp. 892-3). Again, Mr Gladstone says, 
 * We believe that by bringing together on fair 
 conditions and in fair competition the right of the 
 Tenant to assign, and the right of the Landlord 
 to get what his land is reasonably worth, we 
 shall be able to obtain a result agreeable to jus- 
 tice, and agreeable to the interests of both.' 
 {Ibid. p. 904.) At a later stage of the debate 
 Mr. Gladstone said : 
 
 * It is said that many Landlords in Ireland 
 think fit to charge a rent lower than the law of 
 fair rents would allow them. There are,Tio doubt, 
 a number — and not an insignificant number — of 
 Landlords who are content to take, and perhaps 
 take pride in accepting, a less rent than the law 
 would give them.' {Hansard, vol. 262, p. 1856.) 
 
 Mr. Bright, certainly no friend to Irish Land- 
 lords, says — ' My view is, that in reality the rents 
 in Ireland will, for the most part, in nine cases out 
 of ten, be fixed very much as they are now. It 
 does not follow that there will be no difference in 
 rents ; increases which are harsh and unjust will 
 no longer take place. The effect of this law 
 will be to change the position of the contract- 
 ing parties ; it will improve the position of both.' 
 {Hansard, vol. 261, p. 103.) 
 
 Let us now hear the opinion of Mr. Law, the
 
 ( lo ) 
 
 late Irish Attorney-General, and present Irish 
 Chancellor of Mr. Gladstone's Government, 
 and, next to Mr. Gladstone himself, the leading- 
 spirit of the debates on the Land Bill in its 
 passage through Parliament. 
 
 * Now he (Mr. Law) would like to know upon 
 what ground the Landlords claimed to be en- 
 titled to compensation If Landlords as a 
 
 class, or any class of Landlords, claimed to be 
 entitled to compensation, the question must be 
 decided by that House. The Government, how- 
 ever, did not admit that there would be any loss 
 to the Landlord, except the loss of a power which 
 he ought not to exercise. ... In conclusion, he 
 must repeat that, for his part, he could see 
 nothing in the Bill that interfered with the just 
 rights of the Landlord . . . ' {^Hansard^ vol. 261, 
 PP- 1377, i379> and 1381.) 
 
 Mr. Litton, now one of the Commissioners 
 administering the Land Law Act, having given 
 his opinion that * there need be no litigation, 
 except in those cases where the relations between 
 Landlord and Tenant were strained,' went on to 
 say : ' Once the Landlords adopted and carried 
 out the principles of the *' Three F's" the Bill was 
 not required. Therefore, in dealing with this mat- 
 ter a just and fair Landlord had nothing to fear, 
 and in that case things would go on just as if the 
 Bill had never passed.' {Hansard, yo\. 26i,p.324.) 
 
 Mr. Parnell, whom we do not mean to represent 
 as a friend of the Government, or entitled to
 
 ( II ) 
 
 speak for them, sums up the Ministerial decla- 
 rations as to the effect of the Bill, in a speech 
 which was not only not contradicted at the time, 
 but which elicited the incidental concurrence of 
 Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Parnell said — ' But we have 
 also the authority of the authors of the Bill as to 
 the extent of this benefit to the Irish Tenants. 
 We have, in addition, the declaration of the 
 principal Ministers of the Crown. We have, 
 first of all, the declaration of the Prime Minister 
 in introducing- the Bill, that the Landlords as a 
 rule had stood their trial well, and that he did 
 not propose to interefere with them as a body, 
 and that this Bill would not interfere with 
 the rents of the Landlords as a body [jWr. 
 Gladstone, * Except in the case of the payment 
 of excessive rent']. Just so; in other words, 
 that he did not believe that the rents of the 
 majority of Irish Landlords would be in any way 
 reduced. We have also the statement of the 
 right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary to 
 the Lord Lieutenant, to the same effect. He 
 stated that he believed that a very small minority 
 of Irish Landlords would be affected, in any way, 
 by the measure. We have also the statement of 
 the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the 
 Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bright) the other night, 
 when he said that the Bill would not reduce the 
 rents of more than one-tenth of the whole body 
 of Irish Landlords ; and certainly if I am entitled 
 to assume — and anybody can predict, what would 
 be the result of the work of this complicated mea-
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 sure — I am entitled to assume that the three 
 right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for 
 this measure know more about its probable work- 
 ing than any other Member.' (^Hansard, vol. 
 261, p. 885.) 
 
 Let us now turn to the debates in the House of 
 Lords, and we find the Lord Chancellor and Lord 
 Carlingford enunciating the same principles in 
 even stronger language. The Lord Chancellor 
 said : * I think this is a case in which one cannot 
 do wrong in trying to imagine one's-self in the po- 
 sition of an Irish Landlord. Remember the cir- 
 cumstances under which the legislation takes 
 place, and say in your conscience whether you 
 would think yourself wronged by such a Bill. I 
 can say, with a clear conscience, that I should 
 not think myself wronged.' (^Hansard, vol. 264, 
 p. 519). Again, referring to the existing agita- 
 tion. His Lordship went on to say : ' Well, our 
 object is, as far as possible, to put an end to that 
 state of things ; and by devising the best means — 
 those most likely, as we think, to work perma- 
 nently and justly — to secure and maintain the 
 value of the Landlord's interest as much as that 
 of the Tenant.' i^Ibid, p. 522). Again, even more 
 emphatically, the Lord Chancellor says : * 1 deny 
 that it (the Bill) will in any degree whatever 
 diminish the rights of the Landlord, or the value 
 of the interest he possesses' {Ibid. p. 532). Lord 
 Carlingford, who was selected to succeed the 
 Duke of Argyle as Lord Privy Seal, for the ex- 
 press purpose of carrying the Bill through the
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 House of Lords, said : ' My Lords, I maintain 
 that the provisions of this Bill will cause the 
 Landlords no money loss whatever. I believe 
 that it will inflict upon them no loss of income, 
 except in those cases in which a certain num- 
 ber of Landlords may have imposed upon their 
 Tenants excessive and inequitable rents, which 
 they are probably vainly trying to recover.' 
 (Hansard^ vol. 264, p. 252.) 
 
 It is not necessary to multiply quotations ; 
 those we have given suffice to show that the re- 
 sponsible authors of the Bill represented it to 
 Parliament as a measure designed to apply only 
 to a small section of Irish proprietors, and not 
 calculated to inflict any injury, or cause any loss 
 to the great majority of the Landlords,' against 
 whom no charge of exacting harsh or excessive 
 rents was attempted to be advanced. Accord- 
 ingly, in the Act itself, we find the rights and in- 
 terests of the Landlords provided for with apparent 
 care ; but when we come to the administration 
 of the Act, we find all the safeguards brushed 
 aside — the one avowed object being to benefit 
 the Tenants ; and the one way to benefit them 
 being to reduce the rent. 
 
 At the very first sitting of the new Land Court, 
 Mr. Justice O'Hagan, the Judicial Commissioner, 
 in his opening address, dwelt strongly upon the 
 simplicity of the procedure to be adopted, and 
 especially on the facility of access to the Court- 
 His words were : —
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 * There are no pleadings, no elaborate enume- 
 ration of particulars, no statement of claim or of 
 dispute. A Tenant, for example, desiring to have 
 a fair rent fixed for his holding, serves notice on 
 his Landlord saying so, and stating the circum 
 stances of his holding as to situation, present 
 rent, and valuation, all of which lie easily within 
 his own knowledge. He has his choice as to the 
 Court. He may either select the Civil Bill Court 
 of the county or the Land Commission. And so 
 soon as a copy of the notice is transmitted by 
 post to the Clerk of the Peace or the Secretary 
 of the Land Commission, the case is in Court, 
 and will, as early as possible, receive a trial.' 
 
 This is, no doubt, a very simple proceeding, and 
 harmless enough at first sight ; but, simple and 
 innocent as it looks, it has been the means of in- 
 flicting deadly wrong upon the unfortunate Land- 
 lords. Under the Land Act of 1870, a Tenant 
 seeking compensation for improvements was 
 obliged to serve on his Landlord a * statement of 
 claim,' setting forth the particular improvements 
 on which he relied ; and he was further obliged 
 to serve this * statement of claim ' a month before 
 the hearing of the case. But the Land Commis- 
 sion has changed all that. The * statement of 
 claim' is dispensed with, and instead, the Land- 
 lord is furnished with particulars as to the ' situa- 
 tion, present rent, and valuation' of the holding, 
 all of which he knows as well as the Tenant. 
 The result, as shown in nearly every case tried, is
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 that the Landlord learns, for the first time, the * im- 
 provements' claimed to have been made by the 
 Tenant only when the case is actually at hearing, 
 and when it is utterly impossible for him even to 
 cross-examine the witness, much less to offer re- 
 butting evidence. Those who know Ireland — 
 among whom we are willing to reckon Mr. Justice 
 O'Hagan — know how loosely Irish Tenants will 
 swear when their interests are involved. Even 
 under the Act of 1870, when the Tenants were 
 obliged to furnish particulars, and when they 
 knew that the Landlord could and would produce 
 evidence to contradict them, they were accus- 
 tomed to swear so recklessly, that it was no un- 
 common thing to find the Court cutting down the 
 claim, to the truth and justice of which they had 
 deposed on oath, to one-fourth or one-fifth of the 
 original demand. Are they likely to be more 
 truthful, or more cautious now, when the claim 
 is made for the first time on the witness table, 
 with the full knowledge that the Landlord cannot 
 offer more than a vague general contradiction in 
 reply ? 
 
 We repeat that it is almost impossible to esti- 
 mate the amount of wrong done daily to Irish 
 Landlords, by allowing the Tenants to with- 
 hold all information as to the * improvements' 
 in respect of which they intend to claim a re- 
 duction of rent, until the case is actually at hear- 
 ing. Besides, such a mode of procedure is 
 wholly foreign to British law. Fancy a statute
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 passed enabling a tradesman to sue a cus- 
 tomer for a bulk sum on foot of an account 
 without furnishing particulars before the trial ! 
 Fancy the worst criminal that ever disgraced 
 humanity, learning for the first time, when given 
 in charge to the jury, the offence of which he is 
 accused ! No nation, though just emerging from 
 barbarism, would tolerate for a moment a pro- 
 ceeding so repugnant to even the most elemen- 
 tary notion of justice ; but, under the * simple 
 procedure ' of the Irish Land Court, the Land- 
 lords are hourly required to meet claims for im- 
 provements by Tenants of which they have had 
 no previous notice, no * statement of claim' what- 
 soever, and, consequently, no possible opportu- 
 nity of testing their reality, or rebutting them, if 
 unfounded. And this denial of justice is paraded 
 as a merit of the Tribunal which sanctions it ! 
 We are entitled to ask if Parliament, when pass- 
 ing the Land Bill, had any idea of the possibility 
 of such a mode of procedure being adopted. That 
 it found no place in Mr. Gladstone's original con- 
 ception of the Land Court is plain from the fol- 
 lowing extract from his speech introducing the 
 Bill, as reported in the Times of April 8th, 1881 : — 
 * There is another condition which I cannot help 
 mentioning, and it is this — we cannot have a one- 
 sided Court. If the Court is to interfere, it must 
 be for the purpose of doing justice ; we cannot 
 lay down the proposition that it is to interfere for 
 the protection and advantage of the Tenant alone.
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 We cannot make those who occupy the seat of 
 justice forget justice, even for promoting objects 
 so highly important as Land Reform.' 
 
 It is strange that these words, of which any 
 statesman might be proud, are not to be found 
 reported in Hansard. 
 
 Let us now see how the Sub-Commissioners 
 have discharged their trust. So far they have 
 been occupied solely with settling the ' Fair Rent ' 
 — an operation which they have reduced to a sys- 
 tem of the greatest simplicity. It would seem 
 as if it was part of their commission to reduce 
 rents everywhere, and under all circumstances. 
 In the cases already decided by them, the num- 
 ber in which they have increased the exist- 
 ing rent could almost be counted on the fingers ; 
 and in some of these cases they have added 
 only a few shillings — six shillings in one case, 
 and half-a-crown in another — to the rent paid 
 previously. In one instance the addition was 
 made avowedly in the Tenant's interest, so 
 that he might reap, at an almost nominal cost, 
 the whole advantage of the Landlord's outlay on 
 drainage during the past two years. Various 
 explanations of this uniform action in lowering 
 rents have been given. The Land Leaguers say 
 the rents are too high, and have not been reduced 
 half enough. The apologists for the Commis- 
 sioners say that the first cases brought into Court 
 were necessarily those most loudly demanding in- 
 terference with the present rents. Others, admit-
 
 ( 18 ; 
 
 ting the suspicious aspect of the case, plead that 
 it is necessary to entice the Tenants into Court 
 by liberal reductions in the earlier instances, and 
 assert that the more flagrant decisions will be set 
 right on appeal. The Commissioners themselves 
 scorn to give reasons for their decisions. They 
 have excellent reasons, they say, * plentiful as 
 blackberries ; but they won't give them on com- 
 pulsion.' In some cases the presiding Sub- Com- 
 missioner pronounces a formal judgment after the 
 orthodox fashion ; but, if the Court is in a hurry 
 to dinner, or wants to value a few farms before 
 dark — and darkness sets in early in January in 
 our latitude — he contents himself with reading 
 out the figures without note or comment. 
 
 In no instance, however, has any Sub-Com- 
 missioner committed himself to a definite enun- 
 ciation of the principles by which he has been 
 governed in arriving at the judicial rent, although 
 to ascertain and define those principles is the 
 very duty which Parliament delegated to the 
 Land Commission Court ; and although it would 
 be of the last importance to Landlords and 
 Tenants anxious to come to a settlement — if 
 any such be left — to know exactly what they 
 might expect in the event of litigation. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Litton, in a lengthened 
 judgment, delivered by him at Belfast, in the 
 case of Adams v. Dunseath, professes to give his 
 opinion as to how the fair rent should be ascer- 
 tained ; but we must confess that, though we have
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 read this judgment more than once, we have not 
 risen from its perusal with any clearer notions on 
 the subject than we had before. Briefly stated, 
 Mr. Litton' s opinion is, that the ' Fair Rent' is the 
 * Commercial Rent' reduced by the annual value 
 of the Tenant's improvements. Let us grant, for 
 argument's sake, that such a rent would be fair ; 
 let us grant that such a rent is that contemplated 
 by the Act — though to neither proposition can 
 we give our entire assent — and how are we 
 assisted or advanced in our effort to ascertain the 
 'Fair Rent' by Mr. Litton' s formula? The funda- 
 mental difficulty still remains — what is the * Com- 
 mercial Rent'? Mr. Litton expressly states that 
 it is not the 'Competition' Rent. What then is 
 it ; and how is it to be estimated ? Until we 
 know this, Mr. Litton' s elaborate effort to define 
 the principles for ascertaining the ' Fair ' Rent 
 affords really no assistance to either Landlord or 
 Tenant anxious to avoid litigation by coming to 
 a settlement out of Court. It is the old Hindoo 
 theory of the universe over again : the world rests 
 on the elephant, the elephant stands on the tor- 
 toise, the tortoise stands upon — what? *Fair' 
 Rent depends on 'Commercial' Rent; but what 
 does 'Commercial' Rent depend upon? We in- 
 fer from Mr. Litton' s quotation from the Report 
 of the Bessborough Commission that it depends 
 upon the gross produce of the land ; but neither 
 Mr. Litton nor the framer of the Bessborough 
 Report attempts to define how the Commercial
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 Rent is to be deduced from the gross produce. 
 The truth is, that * Commercial' Rent and 'Com- 
 petition' Rent mean exactly the same thing — the 
 terms are strictly convertible ; and the only true 
 way in which the value of land can be ascertained 
 is by free competition between those who wish to 
 have it. Some glimmering of this fact seems to 
 have dawned upon one of the legal Sub-Commis- 
 sioners, who has refused to assess the value of the 
 Tenant's saleable interest in his holding, on the 
 express grounds that it cannot be ascertained 
 until the holding is actually in the market for sale, 
 when the highest sum bid for it must be regarded 
 as the true value. This is precisely the ' com- 
 petition' or 'commercial' value of the Tenant's 
 interest in the holding; and supposing the sale and 
 bidding to be bondjide^ it is the true value ; and the 
 Tenant, under the Land Law Act, is entitled to get 
 it, subject to any claim the Landlord may have for 
 rent, &c. On the same principle, the Fair Rent of a 
 farm should be its bojidjide 'competition' or 'com- 
 mercial' value, subject to any well-founded claim 
 the Tenant may have for improvements. The 
 strange part of the matter is, that the Sub-Commis- 
 sioner who is unable to assess the value of the 
 Tenant's interest, without submitting it to the test 
 of public competition, has no hesitation whatever 
 about fixing the amount of the Landlord's rent 
 after a trifle of hard swearing by interested parties, 
 and a cursory view of the land as he drives from one 
 town to another. So far from admitting competi-
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 tion as a guide to rent, he expressly excludes it, 
 the value of the farm, in the shape of rent, being 
 not what an ordinary Tenant would gladly pay for 
 it, but what he thinks the Tenant ought to pay. 
 
 It is worthy of note that Mr. Commissioner 
 Litton, when quoting the principles of * Fair ' 
 Rent from the Report of the Bessborough Com- 
 mission, omitted to refer to the remarkable limita- 
 tion in paragraph 55, which will be found a little 
 farther on. 
 
 But though the Sub- Commissioners so persis- 
 tently refuse to state the principles by which 
 they will be governed in fixing the * Fair Rent,' 
 they have not been equally reticent as to the 
 principles by which they will 710^ be guided. For 
 example, no length of time during whit:h a rent 
 has been paid without a murmur, and during 
 which generations of Tenants have ' lived and 
 thriven ' upon a farm, will be accepted as pre- 
 sumptive evidence that it is a * Fair Rent. ' Rents 
 that have been paid for twenty, thirty, fifty, aye 
 even for an hundred years, have been cut down 
 as ruthlessly as if they had been raised but 
 yesterday. 
 
 In the following Tables will be found a few 
 specimens of the manner in which old rents have 
 been reduced. We have arranged them in three 
 periods, for the purpose of comparison ; and we 
 give none except such as had been paid for at 
 least twenty years prior to the passing of the 
 Land Law Act. 
 
 c 2
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 Table I. — Cases in which Judicial Rents have been 
 fixedly the Assistant-Commissioners^ the Old Rents 
 having been fixed prior to 1840. 
 
 Province. 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Judicial Rent. 
 
 Per 
 
 Centage 
 
 Reduction. 
 
 Ulster, . . 
 
 2 
 
 £ s. d. 
 77 19 II 
 
 SI ^ ^ 
 
 26.8 
 
 Leinster, . 
 
 5 
 
 121 17 
 
 99 3 3 
 
 18.6 
 
 MUNSTER, . 
 
 I 
 
 80 10 
 
 66 
 
 18.0 
 
 CONNAUGHT, 
 
 II 
 
 89 12 9 
 
 66 
 
 26.4 
 
 Total, . 
 
 19 
 
 369 19 8 
 
 288 5 I 
 
 22.1 
 
 Table II. — Cases in which Judicial Rents have bee^i 
 fixed by the Assistant-Commissioners^ the Old Rents 
 having been fixed between 1840 and 1850.
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 Table III.— C/^.y^^ in which Judicial Rents have hee7z 
 fixed by the Assista?it-Co?mnissioners, the Old Rents 
 having been fixed hetwee^i 1850 and i860. 
 
 Province. 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Judicial Rent. 
 
 Per 
 
 Centage 
 
 Reduction. 
 
 Ulster, 
 
 I 
 
 £ s- d- 
 47 
 
 £ S' d. 
 35 
 
 25-5 
 
 Leinster, . 
 
 3 
 
 76 4 II 
 
 58 5 9 
 
 23-5 
 
 MUNSTER, . 
 
 15 
 
 599 12 8 
 
 441 18 
 
 26.3 
 
 Conn AUGHT, 
 
 5 
 
 114 7 8 
 
 86 14 3 
 
 24.2 
 
 Total, . 
 
 24 
 
 ^Zl 5 3 
 
 621 18 
 
 25-7 
 
 Summarizing the foregoing Tables, we find that 
 in the 55 cases tabulated, an aggregate rental of 
 ^1469 55., which had been paid for not less than 
 twenty, and in 19 cases for over forty years, has 
 been reduced to ^1121 195. \d. — being a reduc- 
 tion of ^347 5^., or 23.6 per cent. — the standard 
 reduction where judicial rents are declared. 
 
 It may be said that the number of cases tabu- 
 lated is small ; but the answer is, that they form 
 no inconsiderable percentage of all the cases 
 dealt with ; and that they establish a precedent 
 fraught with danger to the most deserving class 
 of Landlords in Ireland — the very class with whom 
 Mr. Gladstone said, when introducing the Land 
 Bill, that Parliament ' had not a shred of title to 
 interfere.' Contrast these sweeping reductions of 
 old rents with the principle laid down by Lord
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 Bessborough's Commission, which says (Report, 
 p. 24, par. 55): 
 
 ' It must not be supposed that the whole of this 
 process will require to be gone through in all 
 cases. It will generally be possible to start from 
 some time when the rent was, in the opinion of 
 both parties, considered fair, and to confine the 
 investigation to the circumstances alleged, on 
 the one side, as altering the conditions then 
 existing, or, on the other, as a set-off against 
 these circumstances. It will be expedient^ further, 
 to lay dow7i that a rent which was paid at any time 
 within the last twenty years, and which contimied /or 
 not less than ten years to be regularly paid, shall be, 
 in all cases, taken to be such a starting point.^ 
 
 Again, no amount of negligence or waste on 
 the part of the Tenant, even though he may 
 have exhausted the soil of his farm to the point 
 of sterility, is to be taken into account in fixing 
 the * Fair Rent.' The farm is to be valued in its 
 present condition, and the Landlord, who was 
 powerless to prevent the waste, is mulcted in a 
 certain percentage of the rent in favour of the 
 Tenant who caused it. That a Tenant should 
 not be required to pay rent upon bond fide im- 
 provements made by himself, for which he has 
 not been compensated, is a principle which no 
 one dreams of disputing ; and the very argu- 
 ments by which this principle is supported appear 
 to ordinary minds to be equally cogent in support 
 of the correlative principle that a Tenant who
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 ignorantly or designedly allows his farm to go 
 to waste should not be recouped at the expense 
 of his Landlord. 
 
 A third principle, which is not recognised 
 by the Sub-Commissioners in fixing the * Fair 
 Rent,' is, that the usufruct of improvements 
 for a certain number of years compensates the 
 tenant for any outlay he may have incurred 
 in making them. This principle is studiously 
 ignored, even in cases where no additional rent 
 has been imposed since the improvements were 
 executed. How it can be contended that the 
 rent of a farm is to be reduced because of im- 
 provements, no matter how beneficial, executed 
 by the tenant since the farm was let at that 
 rent, passes ordinary comprehension. The tenant 
 has had all the benefit of them, the Landlord 
 none ; but, notwithstanding, the rent which the 
 Tenant contracted to pay for the farm in its 
 unimproved state is to be diminished in pro- 
 portion to the advantage which he alone has 
 derived from the outlay : contrary to the homely 
 proverb, the Tenant is * to eat his cake and to 
 have his cake,' and that at the expense of 
 the Landlord, who has had no cake at all — 
 not even a slice ! On this point, namely, that a 
 compensating term is sufficient to recoup the 
 Tenant for his outlay on improvements, the Bess- 
 borough Commission speaks very plainly, and 
 suggests (Report, p. 24, par. 54) that a term of 
 thirty-five years should be fixed as that beyond
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 which the presumption should be, that the im- 
 provements were not made by the Tenant. 
 * Otherwise,' adds the Report, ' the rent of an 
 ancient farm might in many cases be liable to 
 reduction to the value of so much waste land.' 
 
 There is another class of cases in which the 
 Landlords had of themselves reduced to a consi- 
 derable extent rents previously paid ; but these 
 fare no better at the hands of the Commissioners 
 than Landlords who had raised their rents during 
 the prosperous years. The consideration shown 
 by them is held to justify still further reductions. 
 We give a few such cases in tabular form : — 
 
 Table IV. — Showing Voluntary Reductions which had 
 been made by Landlords prior to the passing of 
 the Land Act [at various dates\ and the further 
 Reductions by the Assistant-Commissiojiers. 
 
 These Landlords had already voluntarily re- 
 duced their rents by nearly 14 per cent. ; but the
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 Sub-Commissioners are not satisfied, and a fur- 
 ther average reduction of 22.5 per cent, is forth- 
 with decreed. 
 
 But perhaps the most flagrant injustice — cer- 
 tainly the most obvious — is that done to pur- 
 chasers in the Landed Estates Court. We do 
 not refer to the speculative purchasers, who 
 bought with the intention of raising the rents, 
 and so getting a larger percentage on their out- 
 lay — though even for these much can be said on 
 the ground of abstract justice — but we refer to 
 bond fide investors, who bought with no intention 
 of seeking a high percentage for their money, and 
 who did not raise the rents above the point at 
 which they stood when they purchased ; nay, who 
 had even in some cases reduced them. The fol- 
 lowing Table shows how they have been dealt with 
 in the Land Court : — 
 
 Table Y.—Showt7ig Rent of Holdings at time of 
 purchase in the Landed Estates Courts the Rent in 
 Originating Notice^ a7id the Judicial Rent. 
 
 Province. 
 
 No. of 
 Cases. 
 
 Rent at time 
 
 of 
 
 Purchase. 
 
 Rent in 
 
 Originating 
 
 Notice. 
 
 Judicial Rent. 
 
 Percent- 
 age of 
 
 Commis- 
 sioners' 
 
 Reduction 
 
 Ulster, . . 
 
 I 
 
 £ ^. d. 
 
 31 8 6 
 
 27 6 
 
 d. 
 
 
 25 
 
 s. 
 2 
 
 d. 
 
 
 8.0 
 
 Leinster, . 
 
 6 
 
 222 19 10 
 
 222 19 
 
 10 
 
 157 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 29.2 1 
 
 MUNSTER, . 
 
 II 
 
 404 5 8 
 
 377 19 
 
 6 
 
 295 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 21.8 
 
 CONNAUGHT, 
 
 10 
 
 135 I 8 
 
 135 I 
 
 8 
 
 97 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 28.1 
 
 Total, . 
 
 28 
 
 793 15 8 
 
 7^3 7 
 
 
 
 575 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 24.7 !
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 Let us recall briefly the circumstances under 
 which these Landlords acquired their estates. 
 After the great famine, caused by the loss of the 
 potato in 1846 and following years, the Govern- 
 ment of the day introduced a Bill for the Sale of 
 Incumbered Estates in Ireland — a very sweeping 
 measure, and one that was administered in a very 
 sweeping manner. It would be tedious to go 
 through the history of the Act and its operation, 
 nor is it necessary for our present purpose. Suf- 
 fice it to say, that the great difficulty was to find 
 purchasers for the numerous estates suddenly 
 thrown on the market. Previously the only me- 
 dium of sale was, in most cases, through the Court 
 of Chancery, by a tedious and expensive process 
 — so expensive that, on small estates, the legal 
 costs sometimes exceeded the purchase-money 
 when the estate was at last brought to the ham- 
 mer. Obviously, it was necessary to get rid of 
 this cumbrous machinery, and to give the pur- 
 chaser — who alone was considered then, as the 
 tenant alone is considered now — a simple and per- 
 fect title at the least possible cost, and with the 
 least possible delay. The plan adopted was to pro- 
 vide that every purchaser under the Court should 
 get a Parliamentary Conveyance, absolutely inde- 
 feasible under any circumstances whatever ; and 
 so sacred was this title held that where, in a well- 
 known case, portion of another man's estate was 
 erroneously included in the conveyance, it was 
 held by the Court of Appeal that there was no
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 remedy — that the conveyance could not be dis- 
 turbed. 
 
 The Incumbered Estates Act provided for the 
 transfer of all right, title, and interest in the land in 
 the most thorough and complete manner. Every- 
 thing in and upon the land was conveyed to the 
 purchaser, including, of course, the reserved rent, 
 which was fully set out in a schedule attached to 
 the deed of conveyance, and the absolute owner- 
 ship or reversion of all buildings and other im- 
 provements existing on the land at the time of sale. 
 Further, the notices of sale, authorised by the 
 Court itself, and signed by its officer, frequently 
 held out, as inducements to the purchasers, that 
 the rents were low, and could be raised ; or that the 
 Tenants held under old leases which would soon 
 expire, * when a considerable increase of rent 
 might be expected.' The right to this increase 
 of rent was one of the things conveyed by the 
 Court in solemn form, and guaranteed to the 
 purchaser by a special enactment of the Legis- 
 lature, which has never been repealed. If ever 
 a nation entered into a specific contract to main- 
 tain the security of property, the British nation 
 did so with the purchasers in the Incumbered 
 Estates Court ; and it scarcely redounds to the 
 credit of the British Parliament that, under its 
 apparent sanction, those purchasers should be 
 deprived of the property thus solemnly guaran- 
 teed. We say advisedly that Parliament had 
 no more right to authorise the Land Com- 
 mission Court to reduce the rents sold in the
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 Landed Estates Court, and conveyed to the pur- 
 chasers by Parliamentary Title on which the 
 ink is scarcely yet dry, than it would have to 
 pass a law ordering the persons among whom 
 the purchase-money was divided by the Court to 
 refund one-fourth of it to the defrauded purchasers. 
 We dwell upon this branch of the case, because 
 it exposes, in the most glaring light, the vicious 
 principle that underlies the whole Land Law Act, 
 namely, that the property of one class can be 
 transferred to another without compensation. The 
 contract of the State with its members to main- 
 tain the security of property is as binding in the 
 case of inherited as it is in the case of purchased 
 property — as binding in the case of land as in that 
 of houses, or money, or merchandize ; and if the 
 State requires the property of any section of its 
 members for the benefit of any other section, it is 
 bound to pay for it honestly in one form or other. 
 Owing to the number of Sub-Commissions re- 
 cently let loose on the country, and to the differ- 
 ent and distant localities in which they have been 
 at work, it has been a matter of great difficulty to 
 collect trustworthy statistics of their operations ; 
 but the Land Committee has succeeded in obtain- 
 ing details of the decisions in 1 164 cases in which 
 judicial rents have been declared, being very 
 nearly the entire number as yet adjudicated on. 
 In the following Table, these 11 64 cases are 
 arranged by Provinces ; and no trouble has been 
 spared to present the particulars tabulated as 
 accurately as possible.
 
 -s 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 t2 Q 
 
 to 
 
 ^ 
 
 f5< 
 
 •jo ►<i 
 
 <:s 
 
 to 
 to 
 
 V 
 
 00 
 
 •<Sk O 
 to 'O 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 ntage 
 uction 
 iginal 
 nt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tn 
 
 vO 
 
 ON 
 
 VO 
 
 r<^ 
 
 (WV ±> <U 
 
 *ri- 
 
 b 
 
 N 
 
 t^ 
 
 r<-> 
 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 ^ N 
 
 vO 
 
 O 
 
 VO 
 
 N 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ !:! 
 
 t^ 
 
 o 
 
 vO 
 
 vO 
 
 >-i 
 
 ^-4 
 
 ^1^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^-i 
 
 N 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 t-> 
 
 «^ 
 
 r-» 
 
 . 
 
 '^* H, 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 . o 
 
 <-( 
 
 t^ 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 
 e-j 
 
 '-' 
 
 1^ 
 
 '-' 
 
 
 :3 
 
 _ 
 
 N 
 
 f<^ 
 
 tJ- 
 
 N 
 
 4> 
 
 ^:;^ 
 
 ON 
 
 fl 
 
 i-i 
 
 lO 
 
 P^ 
 
 t1- 
 
 vO 
 
 ON 
 
 vy-i 
 
 r^ 
 
 •"" 
 
 N 
 
 
 r~^ 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 VO 
 
 o 
 
 vO 
 
 r^ 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <-> n 
 
 ^ t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 r~~ 
 
 r^ 
 
 ;:; 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 t^ 
 
 ID 
 
 ON 
 
 ^c^ 
 
 -:J- 
 
 m 
 
 a- 
 
 t-- 
 
 
 r- 
 
 t~^ 
 
 rr> 
 
 ^ 
 N 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 LO 
 
 oo 
 
 N 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 f<^ 
 
 N 
 
 ON 
 
 ON 
 
 C3 C 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 -J- 
 
 00 
 
 S ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 O t— 1 
 
 O rt 
 
 Ph> 
 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 HH 
 
 t-- 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 oo 
 
 O 
 
 ON 
 
 t< 
 
 
 t~~- 
 
 ^ 
 
 r- 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 
 -^^ 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 
 . M3 
 
 N 
 
 lO 
 
 ro 
 
 OO 
 
 .4_j 
 
 «-3 (I 
 
 
 H^ 
 
 H-« 
 
 
 
 »-l 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 r-- 
 
 o 
 
 P^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 m 
 
 vO 
 
 o 
 
 r^ 
 
 •^J 
 
 N 
 
 ro 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 
 t-- 
 
 hT 
 
 m 
 
 n" 
 
 
 "-• 
 
 
 '-' 
 
 
 tn 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 o 
 
 -i- 
 
 r<-i 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 r^i 
 
 
 •- 
 
 N 
 
 •siii 
 
 (4 o 
 
 ►- 
 
 <^ 
 
 N 
 
 m 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 rrj 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 >-l 
 VO 
 
 lO 
 
 tn 
 
 N 
 
 
 <^ N 
 
 OO 
 
 >-i 
 
 lO 
 
 oo" 
 
 
 ''^ 
 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 tn 
 
 ;h v) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <U <U oj • 
 
 O 
 
 lo 
 
 OO 
 
 i-t 
 
 tI- 
 
 C! CS Cj ■*-• 
 
 LO 
 
 o 
 
 VO 
 
 Ti- 
 
 vO 
 
 Td- 
 
 M 
 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 
 =3 i4-i 13 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ , 
 
 ^ ° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 H 
 
 • 
 
 H 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 . 
 
 O 
 
 
 P(5 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 P4 
 
 H 
 1^ 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 <; 
 
 Ph 
 
 1— < 
 W 
 
 tJ 
 ^ 
 
 W 
 
 Si
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 This Table demands most attentive considera- 
 tion. It is to be observed, in the first place, that 
 the holdings dealt with did not consist of spe- 
 cially poor soil ; on the contrary, it was con- 
 siderably above the average in point of quality. 
 The average Poor Law Valuation of all Ireland, 
 excluding the towns, is los. i^d. per statute acre; 
 the average valuation of the farms in respect of 
 which a Judicial Rent has been pronounced is 
 IIS, 4^d, per statute acre, or i^. 2^d. per acre 
 above the average of the whole country. In 
 other words, the valuation of the lands included 
 in the Table is a little over twelve per cent, 
 above the average valuation of all Ireland. It is 
 important to bear this fact in mind. 
 
 The next thing that strikes us is the remark- 
 able correspondence between the Judicial Rents 
 and the Poor Law Valuation. In Ulster, the Judi- 
 cial Rents are less than two and a-half per cent, 
 above the valuation ; in Leinster, about eighteen 
 per cent. ; in Munster twenty-four per cent. ; 
 and in Connaught nine per cent. For all Ire- 
 land, the Judicial Rents, so far as they have 
 been pronounced, exceed the valuation by not 
 quite 13.7 per cent. 
 
 We have no desire to re-open the controversy 
 respecting the Poor Law Valuation as a basis 
 of rent. The question was fully discussed in 
 one of the earlier publications of the Irish Land 
 Committee,* and was finally disposed of by the 
 
 * * Notes on the Government Valuation of Ireland, com- 
 monly called Griffith's Valuation.'
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 Reports of both the Richmond and the Bess- 
 borough Commissions, published last year. 
 
 The Duke of Richmond and Gordon's Com- 
 mission reports (page 8) that — 
 
 * Difficulties have been raised regarding the 
 assessment made by the late Sir R. Griffith, 
 called *' Griffith's Valuation," by the endeavour 
 to set up this valuation, which was based on prices 
 current thirty years ago, as a standard of rental 
 at the present day. The circumstances under 
 which the valuation was made are set forth in the 
 evidence of several witnesses, and it is conclu- 
 sively proved that the annual value, as set forth 
 in that document, was not intended to represent, 
 and did not represent, at the date when the valua- 
 tion was made, the rental value of the property. 
 The increase which has taken place in the prices 
 of all kinds of agricultural produce by the intro- 
 duction of railways, steam, and other develop- 
 ments since the valuation was made is so great 
 that, even after making allowance for the increased 
 cost of production, we are led to the conclusion 
 that the valuation is not a trustworthy guide to 
 the present rental value.' 
 
 The language of Lord Bessborough's Commis- 
 sion is even more explicit. The Report says, 
 paragraph 64, page 26: — 
 
 ' If anything has been clearly established in 
 evidence during this inquiry, the fact that the 
 present Government valuation is not a trustworthy 
 standard for the settlement of rents has been most
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 thoroughly demonstrated. Fair as it may have 
 been for the purposes of local taxation in the 
 years when it was made, the evidence shows that 
 even then it was considered as below the fair let- 
 ting value of the land. Those who argue to the 
 contrary ignore the fact, that while there was 
 nowhere any motive at work to cause the officials- 
 employed to value too highly, there was a uni- 
 versal pressure to force down the valuation, to 
 which it was not unnatural for the valuators to 
 yield. No injustice was done to anybody, while 
 everybody was satisfied so long as the under- 
 estimate was general and uniform.' 
 
 Sir R. Griffith himself declared that S3 per 
 cent, should be added to the valuation to arrive 
 at the fair letting value ; and Mr. J. Ball Greene, 
 the present Head of the Valuation Office, has 
 put in evidence Tables showing how much the 
 valuation of other parts of Ireland should be 
 increased to make it uniform with that of Ulster, 
 which is admitted to be relatively higher than 
 the rest of the country. No one at all acquainted 
 with the subject regards the Poor Law Valuation 
 as a guide to the letting value of land; and, in 
 the face of a fact so well established and so 
 notorious, it is strange indeed to find the Sub- 
 Commissioners under the Land Law Act following 
 so very closely upon the lines of that valuation. 
 
 But the most remarkable, and the most dis- 
 couraging feature disclosed by the Table, is the 
 wonderful uniformity in the amount of reduction
 
 V 35 ) 
 
 made by the Sub-Commissioners in the rents that 
 have come under their review. A reduction of 24.3 
 per cent, in Ulster ; of 20.6 per cent, in Leinster ; 
 of 22.9 per cent, in Munster; of 27.6 per cent. 
 in Connaught ; and of 23.3 per cent, for all Ire- 
 land, is not more startling by its amount than by 
 its marvellous uniformity. Let us examine the fact 
 a little more closely. There are no less than twelve 
 Sub-Commissions now in full work, each consisting 
 of three members. The president of each is a 
 lawyer, either a barrister or an attorney, who a 
 priori knows nothing of the value of land : the 
 other members of the Sub-Commissions are re- 
 cruited from all sorts and conditions of men, 
 whose varied antecedents agree in nothing except 
 that, as a general rule, they have had na profes- 
 sional experience as practical valuators. We use 
 the word ' professional ' advisedly ; the valuation 
 of land is a profession as much as that of an 
 engineer or a lawyer; and a man requires long 
 and varied experience before he can hope to rise 
 to eminence in it. The best and most painstaking 
 Valuators will differ in their estimate of the value 
 of a farm — sometimes differ considerably — just as 
 men in other professions will differ in opinion ; and 
 we may go so far as to say that independent profes- 
 sional Valuators will seldom agree exactly. But 
 here we have thirty-six amateurs, with no profes- 
 sional training, and, in many cases, with but little 
 practical knowledge of land ; they go north, 
 south, east, and west ; they visit farms at a 
 
 D
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 gallop, at the most unsuitable season of the year, 
 even when the ground is frozen hard ; and so 
 wonderful is their instinctive knowledge, that, 
 next day, they assess the value of each farm with 
 the utmost minuteness ; and when their decisions 
 are tabulated, behold they correspond almost to 
 a decimal ! And yet some of these men assert 
 that they got no instructions — that they are per- 
 fectly unfettered in their judgment ! 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, as we all remember, made short 
 work of the laws of political economy when they 
 ventured to differ from him; but unless he can 
 dismiss with equal facility the law of averages 
 and the doctrine of chances, he will scarcely be 
 able to persuade the public that thirty-six men 
 of the class of his Sub-Commissioners, working 
 by threes in different parts of the country, could 
 have arrived at identical results on such a matter 
 as the assessment of rent, without previous con- 
 cert or direction. 
 
 Mr. Litton, Q.C., one of the Chief Commis- 
 sioners specially appointed to lay down rules for 
 fixing the fair rent, thus speaks of the difficulty 
 of arriving at anything like unanimity on the 
 point. In the case of Adams v. Dunseath, already 
 referred to, he says : * Now, I do not affect to 
 define a fair rent — to do so is almost, if not alto- 
 gether, impossible ; and for this reason, if for no 
 other, that a different estimate of what is fair as 
 regards almost every action in life will be arrived 
 at by different men, as the character of each may
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 have been formed under those influences which 
 conduce to make some men instinctively reason- 
 able and just, and others exacting and ungenerous. 
 The question of rent forms no exception to the 
 general rule, and the estimate of a fair rent is, 
 within certain limits, as uncertain as the character 
 of the man to whose judgment the question is 
 submitted.' 
 
 If we were to reason analytically from the 
 results to the principles that underlie them, 
 we might venture to conjecture that two of 
 the * principles ' laid down by the Land Commis- 
 sion for measuring the * Fair Rent ' were, first, 
 to follow generally the lines of Griffith's Valua- 
 tion, making the necessary deviations in different 
 parts of the country ; and, second, so to conduct 
 their proceedings that an average reduction of 
 twenty-five per cent, should be made in the rental 
 of Ireland. These ' principles ' might have been 
 carried into effect in the General Valuation Office 
 in Dublin, without any Land Court, and at the 
 hundredth part of the cost of that expensive tri- 
 bunal. 
 
 The proceedings of the Sub-Commission Courts 
 afford abundant matter for criticism, which they 
 will no doubt receive in due time. The hostile 
 attitude towards the Landlords, contrasted with 
 the eagerness not alone to benefit the Tenant, but 
 to make him feel that the mission of the Court is 
 to benefit him ; the burlesque of evidence by 
 tenants who, while waiting for their own cases 
 
 D 2
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 to be heard, come forward to testify for their 
 neighbours as to the * fair rent ' of their hold - 
 ings ; the dictatorial and bullying airs of some 
 practitioners towards the Court, submitted to with 
 becoming meekness ; the frequent applause, and 
 not infrequent manifestations of personal hosti- 
 lity ; the edifying spectacle of a Court of the 
 Land Commission making a triumphal entry into 
 a town in Mayo, preceded by the Land League 
 band, and serenaded nightly by the same tuneful 
 brethren ; the judicial dignity of a legal Sub-Com- 
 missioner, and a Queen's Counsel to boot, speak- 
 ing of a nobleman whose case he was trying as 
 * this man,' * and asserting that his superiors, the 
 Triumvirate of Merrion-street, would not have 
 the * spirit of a mouse,' if they did not do some- 
 thing to ' this man,' which the law would not 
 allow either him or them to do : these and many 
 similar peculiarities will no doubt receive their 
 full meed of attention in due season. For the 
 present we must content ourselves with recalling 
 to memory some remarkable judicial utterances 
 which it would be a pity to let die. 
 
 At the very first sitting of the North-East Sub- 
 Commission in Belfast, on the 31st of October 
 
 * It is right to say that Mr. Foley, the Sub-Commissioner referred to, 
 has since publicly disavowed this expression, and we have no doubt has 
 forgotten that he used it, however inadvertently. But the consensus of the 
 reporters present is against him ; and he has not disavowed the still more 
 striking words in which he expressed his opinion of the courage of his 
 superior officers. We may add that we took the expression <'this man'* 
 from the Freeman's Journalm
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 last, Counsel for the Landlord in one of the cases 
 
 * asked a number of questions as to the surround- 
 ings of the holding and its situation ' ; we quote 
 from the FreemarC s Journal of the following day : 
 
 * Professor Baldwin said all these accidental cir- 
 cumstances were unnecessary. What they wanted 
 was to get at the agricultural value of the land 
 pure and simple.' Such may be Mr. Baldwin's 
 opinion, but the Act of Parliament, which he 
 is bound to administer, authorises him to fix 
 the ' Fair Rent,' only ' after hearing the parties, 
 and having regard to the interest of the Landlord 
 and Tenant respectively ; and considering all the 
 circtcmstances of the case, holdings and district,^ 
 These words seem plain enough ; but Mr. 
 Baldwin declares judicially that these ** circum- 
 stances' are 'accidental' and 'unnecessary,' and 
 proceeds to adjudicate accordingly. 
 
 The same gentleman lays down the very dan- 
 gerous doctrine that * skill in farming must be 
 eliminated' from the estimate of the ' Fair Rent.' 
 We do not mean to assert that a higher rent 
 should be imposed on a good farmer because he 
 is a good farmer ; but we most emphatically 
 dissent from the doctrine implied in the dic- 
 tum, that the rent of a farm is to be fixed 
 below its intrinsic value because the Tenant is 
 a bad farmer. No one knows better than Mr. 
 Baldwin that the ' fair average tenant,' of whom 
 he speaks, is generally a very indifferent farmer ; 
 and it is pushing the principle of protection to
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 Tenants a little too far to take their want of agri- 
 cultural skill and knowledge into account, as a 
 justification for reducing the rent of their farms. 
 There are tens of thousands of Tenants in Ireland, 
 who, if their farms were valued in proportion to 
 their agricultural ignorance and want of skill, 
 would pay no rent at all. 
 
 Another rather startling proposition was af- 
 firmed by the Western Sub-Commission in the 
 case of Malone v, Thompson. 
 
 In this case the Tenant said he was not ready 
 to go on. He could not get a surveyor. All the 
 surveyors had been taken up by the Landlords. 
 The Chairman, Mr. J. G. McCarthy, late Home 
 Rule M.P. for Mallow, replied, * It will be some 
 comfort to you to know that we do not attach much 
 importance to the evidence of paid valuators.' 
 
 The Tenant, be it observed, wanted not a 
 valuator but a surveyor, probably to measure his 
 holding; and, from Mr. M'Carthy's reply, it is to 
 be presumed he would attach as little importance 
 to the evidence of a paid surveyor as to that of a 
 paid valuator. No doubt he would rely implicitly 
 on the estimate made by his colleagues of the size 
 as well as of the value of a farm ; and we readily 
 admit they would be as likely to be right in the 
 one case as in the other. 
 
 But perhaps the most remarkable of the judi- 
 cial utterances of the Sub-Commissioners were 
 those at Urlingford, County Kilkenny, by Mr. 
 Reardon, Barrister-at-Law, and his colleagues,
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 Messrs. Cunning-ham and Mowbray. It is right 
 to observe that Mr. Mowbray is one of the few 
 practical valuators who has found his way into 
 the Commission. 
 
 Mr. Reardon said — * In these cases, as there is 
 a difference of opinion amongst us, and as my 
 brother Commissioners desire to make some 
 observations, I shall review the evidence and 
 state what in my opinion the fair rent of the hold 
 ings should be. The holdings are situated at a 
 place called Damerstown, about a mile from 
 Castlecomer. As far as we know, or have been 
 informed, the rents have not been altered within 
 the century, and they appear to have been paid 
 with tolerable regularity except in some rare in- 
 stances, and in bad years. The lands have been 
 described to us as having been originally wheat 
 lands, and there is some vague tradition that the 
 rents were fixed at the time of the wars of the 
 Great Napoleon, when the price of wheat was 
 exceptionally high. 
 
 * No evidence has been given to us as to what 
 state the lands were in when they were originally 
 let, but there is the clearest evidence in the soil 
 of the lands themselves that they always have 
 been of excellent quality. Improvements in the 
 way of building houses, making fences, and some 
 not very extensive draining, have been proved to 
 have been made from time to time by the Tenants 
 and their predecessors in title, and no claim to 
 these improvements has been made by or on behalf
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 of the Landlords. In considering, therefore, what 
 the fair rent of the holdings should be, we have to 
 give the Tenants credit for the value of such im- 
 provements. The holdings are bordered on two 
 sides by a river, a circumstance which for farming 
 purposes is well known to be of great advantage. 
 Moreover, we find that the Tenants and the Land- 
 lords were on the best of terms, and, as far as we 
 could discover, no unpleasantness had ever oc- 
 curred between them with respect to the rents 
 paid. We have it also that when one of the 
 holdings became vacant within the last year it 
 was purchased by one of the tenants at the old 
 rent for a considerable sum of money. All the 
 facts appear to point to one conclusion, and that 
 is, that the rents on this estate are fair, and that 
 we shall accordingly so declare. I have not, 
 however, been able to come to this conclusion, 
 for there are other circumstances and other evi- 
 dence in these cases which lead me to believe we 
 should be doing an injustice to the Tenants if 
 we did not make some reduction in now fixing 
 the rent to be paid by them during the judicial 
 term. In my opinion a fair rent should be such 
 as, having due regard to the property and inte- 
 rests of the Landlords, an intelligent and indus- 
 trious Tenant can pay out of the return from 
 the labour and capital expended on his holding, 
 through good years and through bad, without 
 having to apply in bad years for any abatement 
 or redaction, while it leaves to the Tenant a fair
 
 ( 43 ) ■ 
 
 average remuneration for the labour and capital 
 invested. I am satisfied the present rents are not 
 fair rents according to my interpretation of the 
 term, and in coming to this conclusion I am greatly 
 influenced by the conduct of the landlords and 
 the condition of the Tenants. There is evidence 
 that the Landlords gave the Tenants a substantial 
 reduction in a bad year. It appears to me that if 
 they thought a reduction proper to be given to them, 
 it is sure evidence that the present rents are too 
 high to be paid by the Tenants through bad years 
 and good. Mr. Maher, on behalf of the Landlords, 
 and Mr. Bradley, on the part of the Tenants, valued 
 the lands at a figure not much exceeding the Go- 
 vernment valuation. It is true Mr. Nolan repudiated 
 Mr. Maher, but still the fact remains. It appears 
 to me from the evidence and from personal inspec- 
 tion, that though the Tenants have paid the rents 
 they have not thriven. Taking these circum- 
 stances, with the fact that the Government valua- 
 tion of the land, made by sworn and skilled 
 valuators, is little more than half the rental, the 
 rental being ^209 12^. id., while the Government 
 valuation of the land is only ^ 1 25 95. , I cannot help 
 thinking that it is incumbent on us to give Tenants 
 some relief I now come to consider the measure 
 of that relief. The Landlords and Tenants have, 
 I think, supplied us with a kind of measure by 
 which a Fair Rent can be fixed, and that is the 
 amount of abated rent which the Landlords offered 
 to take and the Tenants were able to pay, after 
 the bad season above alluded to, taken with the
 
 ( 44 ) 
 
 offers the Landlords have here made to reduce 
 the rent. Making my calculation on this basis, I 
 have come to the conclusion that the following" 
 are the Fair Rents which ought to be fixed': — 
 
 [Mr. Reardon then proceeded to announce the 
 Judicial Rents, the details of which it is not neces- 
 sary to give.] 
 
 Mr. John Cunningham — *I concur in the judg- 
 ment of the Chairmain. As, however, our brother 
 Commissioner Mowbray dissents, I wish to make 
 a very few observations. After considering, with 
 what care and judgment I could bring to bear on 
 the task, the circumstances of these cases, the 
 holdings and districts disclosed by the evidence^ 
 and by a careful, personal inspection, my inde- 
 pendent estimate of a Fair Rent, to be paid for 
 fifteen years, is about six per cent, below the 
 amount announced by the Chairman. While I 
 regret that I am thus below my brother Commis- 
 sioners as regards my valuation, I have some 
 compensating support in the fact that, much 
 further below mine, I have both the Government 
 valuation and that of the two arbitratory valuators 
 chosen by, or on behalf of the Landlords and 
 the Tenants respectively. As skilled valuators 
 frequently differ in the value they set on agricul- 
 tural holdings, I have no hesitation in adopting 
 the valuation of the Chairman. Looking at the 
 general "decline in rents over the United King- 
 dom, I confess I should examine and re-examine 
 with anxiety any estimate which would saddle 
 Irish Farmers over a whole estate for fifteen years
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 with rents forty-two per cent, over the valuation 
 of the sworn and independent valuators of the 
 Government made thirty years ago. To adopt 
 the offer of the Landlord would have that effect 
 in these cases. The Land Act of 1881 directs 
 that no rent shall be made payable in respect of 
 improvements made by the Tenant which the 
 Landlord has not compensated him for. In my 
 valuation I measured the Tenants' interests in 
 their holdings at eight shillings per acre, and I 
 deducted eight shillings per acre per annum from 
 my estimate of the competition rent. As to the 
 other general bearings in these cases, I cordially 
 adopt the summary given in the judgment just 
 delivered by the Chairman.' 
 
 Mr. Seymour Mowbray. — * I regret !• am un- 
 able to concur with my brother Commissioners in 
 the decision they have come to. It is quite clear 
 under the Land Act that we are sworn to take 
 into consideration all the circumstances connected 
 with each case. I find the estate of Damers- 
 town most favourably situated, being little over a 
 mile from the town of Castlecomer, where there 
 is a weekly market, besides the usual monthly 
 fairs. It is also situated on both sides of the 
 high road to Kilkenny, which is some nine miles 
 distant. These I consider great advantages. It 
 appears there has not been any rise of rent on 
 this estate for generations, and the Tenants have 
 always paid their rents regularly. .This I con- 
 sider some proof that they are not over-rented. 
 We are all aware of the adverse seasons of 1878
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 and 1879, when agriculturists in all parts of the 
 country suffered considerably, and when it be- 
 came necessary for many Landlords to give a 
 temporary reduction of rent to their Tenants. 
 This estate was no exception to the rule, as we 
 find that a reduction of 35. in the pound was 
 given. Mr. Nolan, one of the Landlords, stated 
 he offered 5^. an acre reduction to some of his 
 Tenants, and 7^. 6^. to others. After a careful 
 inspection of the holdings, I came to the conclu- 
 sion that the rents were not excessive, and that 
 any reduction I could make would not be equal 
 to the liberal offer made by the Landlords. Wish- 
 ing, however, to give the Tenants the full benefit 
 of their Landlords' offer, I am of opinion the 
 rents should be fixed at the reduction offered by 
 Mr. Nolan.' 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to comment upon this 
 judgment. Mr. Reardon, in his opening remarks, 
 states the case for the Landlords so forcibly that 
 the conclusion, to which he admits the facts point, 
 seems irresistible There was evidence that the 
 rents had not been disturbed within the cen- 
 tury ; that the land was of excellent quality ; that 
 Landlords and Tenants had lived on the best of 
 terms ; that in a bad year the Landlords had 
 come to the Tenants' aid by a liberal abatement ; 
 that only last year a vacant holding was pur- 
 chased by one of the Tena^its for a considerable 
 sum of money ; in fact, as Mr. Reardon candidly 
 said, all the facts appeared to point to the one
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 conclusion that the rents were fair. But, as a 
 Sub-Commissioner, he was bound to reduce them 
 — else why was he there? — and accordingly reduce 
 them he did by over sixteen per cent. ! 
 
 The excuses — we cannot call them reasons — 
 which he gave for this reduction would be simply 
 amusing, if the matter were not fraught with such 
 grave issues to the country. They were three- 
 fold : first that there was * some vame tradition that 
 the rents were originally fixed at the time of the 
 wars of the Great Napoleon, when the price of 
 wheat was exceptionally high' ; second, that ' the 
 Landlords gave a substantial reduction in a bad 
 year' ; and third, that he had ascertained, by ' per- 
 sonal inspection, that though the Tenants had 
 paid the rents they had not thriven.' 
 
 It is difficult to read this judgment with pa- 
 tience. With all \\i^ facts admittedly pointing to 
 the irresistible conclusion that the rents were fair, 
 Mr. Reardon decides that they must be reduced : 
 his remarkable words are that ' it is incumbent 
 on us to ^\s^ the Tenants some relief.' Surely 
 Mr. Reardon, as a lawyer, will admit that ' some 
 vague tradition ' should not be accepted as evi- 
 dence, even by a Sub-Commission Court under the 
 Land Act ; and he will scarcely deny that the fact 
 that the Landlords gave a substantial abatement 
 in one bad year out of a hundred does not logi- 
 cally lead to the conclusion that the Tenants who 
 had paid the rent for the other ninety-nine 
 years could not pay it for fifteen years more.
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 It is almost childish for Mr. Reardon to talk of 
 his * personal inspection.' All we can say is, that 
 if he knows so little of Irish Tenant-farmers of the 
 smaller class, as to suppose they would allow him 
 to see signs of prosperity at his ' personal inspec- 
 tion,' he \^ prima facie unfit for his position. 
 
 He might have remembered the fact which he 
 quotes in his Judgment, that, so recently as last 
 year, one of these Tenants, * who had not thriven,' 
 paid a * considerable sum of money ' for a farm 
 which had become vacant on the estate ; and that 
 at the old rent. 
 
 This case is one of several in which the kind- 
 ness and forbearance shown by Landlords to their 
 Tenants have been wrested into arguments 
 against themselves, and their desire to come to 
 an amicable arrangement made the grounds for 
 depriving them of justice. Whatever may have 
 been the previous relation of the parties, or what- 
 ever offer the Landlord may have made out of 
 Court, as soon as the case is at hearing the sole 
 duty of the Sub-Commissioners is to ^y. the * Fair 
 Rent.' In some of the few cases in which rents 
 have been raised by the Sub-Commissioners they 
 expressly declared that they would have added 
 more but that the Landlord had expressed his 
 willingness to accept a small increase. That was 
 a plain dereliction of duty. They are bound to 
 fix the * Fair Rent,' and should do so irrespective 
 of any. private feeling of the Landlord ; they are 
 not so solicitous to consult his feelings when they 
 are reducing the rent.
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 If the principles enunciated by Mr. Reardon in 
 the Urlingford case are allowed to form a prece- 
 dent, no Landlord in Ireland is safe from a reduc- 
 tion of his rents. We doubt if there be a Land- 
 lord in the country who has not at some time for- 
 given rent or made abatements to his Tenants 
 in bad years. This, which has been hitherto con- 
 sidered a praiseworthy act, is now declared by a 
 Court of competent jurisdiction to be one deserv- 
 ing of punishment; and the more liberal the 
 abatement was, the more severe the penalty will 
 be! 
 
 We conclude, for the present, by repeating the 
 question. Had Parliament, when it delegated to the 
 Land Commission the duty of defining the prin- 
 ciples on which the Fair-Rent should be fixed, the 
 remotest conception of the manner in which the 
 trust would be carried out ? And, if it had not, 
 we further ask, Is it not the duty of Parliament, 
 whose confidence has been betrayed, to interpose 
 before it is too late, and remedy the grievous 
 wrong that its too-confiding legislation has in- 
 flicted on the Landlords of Ireland ? 
 
 Postscript. — Since the foregoing was written, a 
 Parliamentary Return has been issued giving the 
 details of the Judicial rents declared up to 28th 
 of January, 1882. This Return shows results so 
 nearly identical with those ascertained by the 
 Land Committee, as given in Table VI. ante, that
 
 ( 50 ) 
 
 the observations in the text will be found equally- 
 applicable to both. 
 
 The following is the Government Return, to 
 which we have added the percentages : — 
 
 Summary showings according to Provinces, the Number 
 of Cases in which Judicial Rents have been fixed by 
 Sub-Commissioners, and also the Acreage, Tenement 
 Valuation, Former Rents, ajid Judicial Rents of 
 the Holdings. 
 
 Provinces. 
 
 No. of 
 Cases in 
 
 which 
 
 Judicial 
 
 Rents have 
 
 been fixed. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Tenement 
 Valua- 
 tion. 
 
 Former 
 Rent. 
 
 Judicial 
 Rent. 
 
 Per- 
 centage 
 of Re- 
 duction 
 
 on 
 former 
 Rent. 
 
 Ulster, 
 Leinster, . 
 connaught, 
 
 MUNSTER, . 
 
 530 
 258 
 221 
 
 304 
 
 14,282 
 
 11,595 
 
 5,033 
 11,892 
 
 9,800 
 6,618 
 1,877 
 
 7,554 
 
 12,958 
 9,620 
 
 2,866 
 11,997 
 
 9,796 
 
 7,541 
 2,050 
 
 9,199 
 
 24-4 
 21-6 
 
 28-5 
 23-3 
 
 Total, . 
 
 1,313 
 
 42,802 
 
 25,849 
 
 37,441 
 
 28,586 
 
 23-6
 
 ^: 
 
 H 'V 
 
 ^■^ 
 
 
 ^1 
 1 a 
 
 t0^> 
 
 '**■ 
 
 '>m 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 *i*i'k..^\* 
 
 ^ 
 
 'tt4^S-'"*?> 
 
 'm 
 
 
 '. ■Wr-v' ■ 
 
 'feV 
 
 i 
 
 ^ll 
 
 
 r-