THE LANDLORDS AND NOT THE TENANTS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXVIII, Issue 48, 29 November 1900, Page 10

THE LANDLORDS AND NOT THE TENANTS

w v,o nrn roopnnoihln for +V ronpflninnf of th« lnnrt qnention. After the Morley Committee and the passing of the Land Act of 1896, with both of wh\fh T br>d '•om "thing to do, T, ar l^t, was prepared to await what I knew would be the irresistible pressure of land purchase I knew that the result of the first statutory period was a reduction of 20 per cent, in the Irish rental. I knew that the second period would not result in less— it haa actually resulted, so far, in an average reduction of 22 per cent. And I felt assured that this pressure which was just, and could not be got rid of, would force sale and purchase upon a large scale. Nor have I been disappointed. Purchase is proceeding apace. Then, it may be said, why not let things proceed after this fashion 1 1 could easily show that the very success of the Purchase Acts has made delay difficult, but, apart from this reason, the Irish landlords have Bettled the matter. The ink was scarcely dry upon the Act of 1896 before the landlords demanded, and the Government granted, a Vice- Regal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts. This, be it remembered, was only two years after the Parliamentary Inquiry by the Morley Committee. There was not a single representative of the Irish tenant-farmers upon this Commission It was presided over by a distinguished Englishman who had filled a great judicial position— Sir Edward Fry. And it issued a report to which, if I may say it without disrespect, nobody save the landlords paid much attention. lam of opinion that the Land Commission is to-day engaged in knocking the bottom out of the Land Act of ltf%. I will give four illustrations, and they are only illustrations, of what I mean. Adams and Dunseath is a case known far and wide. It arose, out of a trine of 40 shillings. It dealt a deadly blow at the tenants' property all over Ireland. I can explain its kernal in a sentence. Parliament enacted in 1881 that no rent was to be placed upon improvements created by the tenant or his predecessor in title. What did the Irish Court of Appeal say ? Did they bay. ' This is a great healing measure intended to undo great wrongs. We shall construe it, as far as possible, in accordance with that policy > Not at all. With the instinct of pedantic lawyers they proceeded to ask what Parliament meant by ' improvements.' What Parliament meant by improvements was plain enough. Lord Chancellor Law, who helped to draw and carry the Act, and who was one of the Court, told them what was intended. But instead of taking the large and plain view intended by Parliament, these karned judges proceeded to sugared and devise limitations upon the w onL And so, one shoit year after the passing of the Act of 1881, the Court ot Appeal drove a coach and four right through the heart of the raea-ure. It was all a case of ' property, property, property ' And, of course, as Mr. Lecky put it, the idea of a tenant having legal property in and upon the soil was a thing hard for Irish judges as well as Irish landlords to understand. There had been