difference it can make to the tenant where the money comes from, whether from the landlord's own private means, or from money raised on his own personal security, or whether it be borrowed from the Board of Works on the security of the land. I have not yet heard of any parallel case in England-viz., that if improvements are carried out with money lent by 'Land Improvement Companies,' the English tenant is in the habit of claiming the improvement as his own, if he be called upon to pay an increased rent. I believe, too, that it will be found, on the large estates especially, that 'bonâ fide' improvements by the tenants are the rare exceptions, and that landowners in this respect hold their own with their compeers in England and Scotland. On the estates in the West, occupied wholly by cottier tenants, and where also the burden of the poor-rate on holdings rated under 41. is borne entirely by the landlord, there is naturally no incentive for him to improve, as he would do so at an expense disproportionate to any benefit conferred on the estate generally. Moreover, it is difficult in England to realise the opposition raised by the tenants of this class to permanent improvements, such as drainage, or the demolition and straightening of the huge and tortuous fences, mostly measuring from -seven to ten yards in width, which were so strongly condemned by Lord Spencer during his viceroyalty.

There is, too, a great deal of loose talk about the reclamation of waste land. Putting aside the half-drained land, that would pay well to thoroughly reclaim, it would be manifestly absurd and throwing money away to attempt to reclaim the surface of the peat-bogs so long as there is an average depth of from twelve to twenty feet of pure peat underneath; moreover, from their being the chief source of fuel supply, it would be waste of labour to reclaim the surface which would be cut gradually away as the turf-banks encroach. The surface, too, of cut-away bogs barely repays the outlay of reclamation. It would be better and more for the benefit of the country if they were, as wisely recommended by Mr. P. J. Smyth, M.P., largely and systematically planted.

i

The so-called advantages of tenant-right to the tenant are well known. The outgoing tenant is almost certain, after paying the unpaid balance of rent, of receiving a sum of money sufficient probably in all cases to enable him to emigrate or otherwise to provide for himself.

Tenant-right, too, would be acceptable to the majority of absentee landlords, and to a great number of the land agents. It would be acceptable to those landowners whose only interest in, and connection with, the land is the punctual and certain payment of their rents, without any care for the character or suitability of their tenants or for the improvement of their properties. In this category I do not include the large absentee proprietors, on whose properties the outlay is as large and as judiciously applied as on their estates in England.

But I refer more particularly to the smaller absentees, many of whom are English, unwilling and unable to grant reductions when the pinch of bad harvests and low prices is felt by their tenants; to these I believe the establishment of tenant-right, with the certainty of recovering the unpaid rents out of the purchase-money paid by the in coming tenant, would be a boon. For this same reason also tenantright might be acceptable to some of the land-agents. It would probably also relieve them of the preparation and carrying out of improvements, which would be obviously arrested and discouraged on the estates where tenant-right was introduced; they would be left with no duties to perform, save the collection of the half-yearly rents, but they forget that the natural outcome will be that proprietors will employ a lower class of agent at a reduced cost to themselves. In writing this I do not wish to cast a slur on a body of gentlemen who have so honourably and zealously endeavoured to do their duty, both to their employers and also to the tenantry under their charge, often at great personal risk.

The disadvantages of tenant-right can hardly be said to apply personally either to landlord or tenant, but to the soil itself; where an incoming tenant has to pay a large, and in some cases a disproportionate, sum for the interest in a farm, and in doing so exhausts not only his own capital, but also all the means that he can raise, frequently at exorbitant interest, it is plain that the soil cannot receive that cultivation and proper application of manures necessary to preserve its inherent fertility.

If, however, it is considered necessary to extend tenant-right, in a greater or lesser degree, over the Southern and Western provinces of Ireland, it would be well to refer to Mr. Justice Longfield's very able article in the Fortnightly Review for August, in which he proposes a novel system of tenant-right. The writer appears to me at the outset to dismiss, without adequate reason, the possibility of enabling occupiers to become owners of the fee-simple of their farms. He clearly points out the reasons for the popularity of tenant-right with land-agents, and he also shows plainly the objects and advantages of the office rules on the estates in Ulster. His proposed plan (p. 143), as to the buying out of the tenant by the landlord, in the event of disagreement as to the rent, appears very feasible; but I think his plan for regulating the rent, when it can be proved that the improvements have been made by the tenant, is complicated. In that case it would be simpler to deduct a certain rate of interest on the value of the unexhausted improvements from any increased rent demanded by the landlord, leaving, however, the option to the latter of paying down the said unexhausted value, and of thenceforward receiving the full rent.

When the question of extending the Ulster tenant-right arises, it will be well to call to mind the dissatisfaction felt by the tenants

who live under it, which is expressed with moderation by those who live in the more orderly counties. The causes of dissatisfaction are the rules existing on some of the estates; such as the right of veto on the incoming tenant; the limitation of the number of years' purchase of the rent; and the occasional revaluation of the same. Concerning the first of these causes of dissatisfaction, it is difficult to understand why, if the landlord is supposed to retain any interest in the management of his property, not only for his own sake, but also in the interests of the remainder of his tenantry, he should not have the power to object to a man, who may be of bad character, ignorant of agriculture, or unprovided with sufficient capital to work the farm. As to the second one, it is obvious, as I have before pointed out, that the land must suffer if the incoming tenant be permitted to exhaust the whole of his capital by paying an exorbitant price for the tenant-right. Besides, cases may arise, such as that of a farm in the neighbourhood of a rising town, where, if the landlord wishes to resume possession of the holding for the purpose, say, of granting building leases, it would be obviously unfair that he should be called upon to pay his tenant a larger sum than what really represents the inherent value of the farm as an agricultural holding. With regard to the third, it is the fashion, occasionally, to talk of landlord and tenant as coequal partners, yet at the same time, one of them, the landlord, is to be denied his share in the increased value of his property arising from enhanced prices and the depreciated value of money.

There is another solution to the land question which is supported by the party represented in the press by the Freeman newspaper : "Fixity of tenure, Fair rents, Free sale,' a bill of fare so lengthy that it is popularly expressed as the three F's; perhaps I may be permitted to suggest another term more intelligible to English ears— namely, 'Leases for ever."

6

But, if we take the three F's one by one, I think we shall find that the first, Fixity of tenure,' exists all over Ireland, North and South, except in the case of non-payment of rent. It is, I believe, the very rarest exception for a yearly tenant to be evicted for any of the reasons for which he would be in England or Scotland, such as bad or slovenly farming.

'Fair rents;' if by this proposal is meant that the rents should be submitted to arbitration, I feel sure that it would be welcome to the great body of Irish landlords; in the case of the majority of them, their incomes would probably be increased by half as much again.

Free sale;' if by this is meant that the interest in a holding may be sold to the highest bidder, irrespective of control, I think it objectionable for reasons I have given before. It is indeed hard to understand what is meant by the expression. The agent for Lord

Cork's estates in the county of Cork is reported to have said, in his evidence before the Land Commission, that he was in favour of free sale, but he qualified this statement by saying afterwards that the landlord should be allowed a veto on the incoming tenant.

Finally, the question remains, whether, if tenant-right is to be extended to the Southern and Western provinces of Ireland, it is to be a gratuitous concession from the landowner to the tenant, or whether the latter is to be called upon to pay a sum down, in the nature of a fine, of so many years' purchase of the rent, such calculation to be the limit for the future of the sum recoverable from the landlord, in the event of his wishing to resume possession of the holding. Lord Lymington, in his article in the Nineteenth Century for October, 1880, on the Portsmouth Custom,' omits to state whether the tenant-right was freely granted, or whether it was purchased by the grantee. I shall not further allude to his article than to call attention to his tacit admission (p. 674) that the improvements are not as satisfactory as if they had been made by the landlord, and also to the fact that a right of veto is reserved by the landlord.

The obvious advantage to an absentee landlord of having a large and certain income free from deductions for improvements is plainly stated, and it is not unnatural to surmise also that it is to the palpable benefit of the Portsmouth estate in England.

It should be remembered that, by Section 2 of the Land Act, when a tenant of a holding outside the province of Ulster can prove the existence of tenant-right, he is entitled to the same advantages as if he lived in Ulster. It would be well if, instead of registering this tenant-right in the Landed Estates Court, tenants could be called upon to do so before the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, at a much smaller expense. Registration of improvements also, under Section 6, whether by landlord or tenant, should be carried out before the same authority: this would probably encourage both parties to register more freely than they do at present. It must be apparent that the bias of my remarks is opposed to the establishment of tenantright where it does not already exist, but I hope that it will not appear to be from any selfish feeling as an Irish landlord, but purely from the injury that I believe tenant-right will cause both to the inherent virtues of the soil, and to the progress of agriculture. Lord Palmerston said once, Tenant-right is landlord wrong;' I believe it would be more accurate to say, 'Tenant-right is land wrong;' and I look forward with dismay to the further separation it will cause between landlord and tenant, severing the former from all interest in the development and improvement of his property, converting him into a mere rent-charger, and being a distinct incentive to absenteeism on his part.

6

I now come to the third subject of consideration-namely, the conversion of the present occupiers into freeholders, through the

medium of what are popularly called the Bright Clauses of the Land Act; and, looking to the vast body of evidence that has been adduced proving the content, love of order, and respect for the law, shown by small proprietors of France and Belgium, I do not think that I am too sanguine if I look forward to a similar result following upon a gradual extension and development of these clauses. I am fully aware of one strong objection, viz., that the first idea of many of the smaller occupiers would be to sublet or subdivide their holdings, and I acknowledge that, if no check for this could be devised, it would be a most serious objection, and a great evil. The penalty for this (since amended) proposed in the 44th Section of the Land Act, as it stood, was excessive and impossible to carry out.

I propose, instead, that when any occupier under these clauses expresses a wish to sublet or subdivide, or is detected in so doing, before the expiration of his rent-charge, he should be called upon to pay up in a lump sum the whole of the unpaid balance of the rentcharge, according to the scale alluded to in Section 51 of the Land Act. I believe this would deter most from wishing to proceed further, and it is probable that at the expiration of the term of the rent-charge, the then owner would see the advantage of keeping his holding intact and undivided.

One other advantage, too, in the interest of the due cultivation of the land, may be expected, and that is, that when left to their own resources, the idle, ignorant, and unthrifty will be eliminated, and give place to a more capable, more solvent, and more law-abiding class. I hope, too, that all classes of occupiers will avail themselves of the benefits of these clauses as opportunity offers; for, though excessively large holdings are a mistake, yet surely something more is required than that a man should only be able to produce from his holding sufficient for the bare necessities of life; he should be able to afford himself some small luxuries, and have the means, if need be, for advancing his children in the battle of life. I look forward, in fact, to the gradual formation of a class of 'yeomen' proprietors. Some slight difficulties must arise, which are little more than matters of detail, such as the purchase by occupiers who at present hold in rundale'-this would have to be considered, but I do not believe the difficulty to be insurmountable.

It has been objected that, under these clauses, the Executive takes the place of the landlord, and that as a matter of course it will be impossible to collect the rent-charge in hard times. I cannot see that there would be any greater difficulty than in collecting quit rent or any other fixed charge on the land. If, with the extension of the Bright Clauses, the reform affecting the laws of settlement, &c., and which is shortly expressed by the term 'Free land,' is carried, it will be found that there are many proprietors, particularly absentees, who would, if times improve, be ready and anxious to sell, and who