THE IRISH LAND BILL r will E Irish Land Bill is
going to pass. Possibly it wi have to be cut down, and a certain number of the contentious clauses omitted, but that it will not be wrecked by obstructive opposition seems clear. The fact is a curious proof of the power of the Irish in Parliament. The regular Opposition want to wreck this like every other Bill brought in by the Government, while a large section of the supporters of the Government are indif- ferent, or indeed hostile, to the Bill, partly because they think it is taking property from the landlords unfairly, and partly because they are jealous of Ireland monopolising so much of the time of the House of Commons. Lastly, the Irish landlords are sincerely alarmed at the Bill, and would be immensely pleased to be able to get rid of it. They look upon it as little short of a measure of confisca- tion. Yet, since the Nationalists approve of the Bill passing, it will, as we have said, become law, in spite of the congestion of business and the other difficulties in its path. That is a great proof of the power of the Irish at Westminster. We say this not with regret or alarm but with sincere satisfaction. It is a proof of what we have always held to be true,—namely, that the Irish represen- tatives are not depressed or robbed of their legitimate in- fluence at Westminster, but that they can exercise quite as much power and authority as is their due in the Legislature of the United Kingdom.
As our readers know, we believe that Mr. Gerald Balfonr's Bill is a necessary measure, and one conceived in a spirit of large and fair-minded statesmanship,—a good Bill and a far-reaching one. It is, however, like all Irish Land Bills, open to the objection of complexity, perplexity, and obscurity. Though the drafting of most of it is, as Mr. Healy admitted, exceptionally good, there is one, and that the most important, clause which contains ambiguities both latent and patent. The improvements clause is not as clear as it ought to be, and as, we venture to feel confident, Mr. Gerald Balfour would admit it ought to be. Mr. Morley never said a wiser thing than when he quoted Professor Richey's opinion that what was wanted was a codification of the land-laws of Ireland which would enable a decently educated tenant or landlord to under- stand his position without reference to expert advice. Unfortunately, however, that is an ideal which cannot be carried out in its entirety. It would take a whole Session of all-night sittings, and kill the Chief Secretary and even the Irish law officers, to codify the Irish land-laws. Still. something may be done piecemeal in the direction of codifi- cation. Take,for example, the question of improvements. We hold that Mr. Gerald Balfour should not allow the Bill to be reported until the improvements clause has assumed a shape which makes it clear to the non-legal mind exactly what is the law in regard to tenants' improvements, and what the fixers of fair rents are to do when they go upon a farm to settle the rent. There ought to be the clearest possible understanding as to what improvements are and what are the tenants' interests therein. We do not ignore the extra difficulty of passing the Bill which will arise from a rigid insistence on lucidity. You may get two antagonists to agree on a slightly ambiguous formula, whereas they will fight to the death when the meaning of the words is unmistakable. Each man fancies that the ambiguity can be twisted in his favour, but clearness takes away all hope from one of the two parties and leaves despair to the vanquished. Hence the temptation to the Minister in charge to insert clauses "facing both ways at once." Anything is better than leaving doubts as to the meaning intended by the words of a clause. It would be better to wreck the Bill even at the eleventh hour than to leave its meaning ambiguous. We are perfectly sure that Mr. Gerald Balfour is much too honest and able a man not to agree with this view of the case. Our only fear is lest his legal advisers and the im- portunities and distractions of midnight debates may prevent him from insisting upon lucidity. Let us implore him before the improvements clause has finally passed through Committee to challenge it line by line and ask,— " Is it absolutely clear how the Commissioners and Sub- Commissioners are required to act when they go on the land and hear the case ? "
We are not experts, and therefore shrink from offering advice in regard to the details of the Bill. At the same time we cannot resist saying something as to Mr. Healy's proposals in regard to tenants' improvements. These proposals on the surface sound reasonable enough, and have the advantage of simplicity, but we cannot help fearing that if adopted they would work injustice. What Mr. Healy said in regard to the matter was, shortly, this. If, he argued, the presumption was in favour of the tenant in regard to the making of improvements, without any limit of time, as he suggested it should be, it would not hurt the landlord. " It was amazing to think that any land- lord should not deem himself amply protected in the matter of improvements by Sub-sections 5 and 6, which he was willing to allow to stand." These sub-sections, he declared, provided, first, that where the Court was of opinion that it had been proved that it was the practice on the holding, or on the estate of which the holding formed a part, for the landlord to make improvements, and, secondly, that where from the entire circumstances of the case the Court was reasonably satisfied that such improvements were not made by the tenant or his predecessor in title, the presumption in favour of the tenants should not apply. Was there any fair-minded man, he asked, having regard to the notorious facts in Ireland respecting the origin of the improvements, who did not think that those two sub- sections gave the landlords ample protection, and that all the others might well be swept away ? " Every member of the Land Commission was appointed by the present Tory Government. Why then should they not be trusted to administer the law within the scope of those two sub- sections ? That reasonable and moderate change would make the provisions much more workable, and at the same time be extremely fair to the landlords." As far as we can see, this proposal would be reasonable enough, provided the definition of "improvements" was sufficiently explicit and sufficiently restricted. All depends on that. It is clear that if the word "improvements" was allowed its widest scope, the absence of any limit to the presumption in favour of the tenant might give the land- lord nothing but prairie value. Suppose the Sub- Commissioner were forced, when he got on the land, to say This land, my geological and geographical know- ledge tells me, was once open bog. To effect the change from bog to farm land a great many things have been done. Banks and hedges have been made, drains have been cut, walls built, and a host of other and smaller things done. Without these things the land would be worth from 3s. to 5s. an acre. But there is no evidence that the landlord ever did any of them. Therefore they are all tenants' improvements, and he must be charged no rent upon them. Therefore the fair rent of this holding is merely the prairie value, or 3s. or 5s. an acre, as the case may be.' Now clearly this would be most unfair. The sitting tenant cannot claim to have the benefit of all improvements made since the time when " Malachi wore the collar of gold that he won from the proud invader." There must be a limit to this assumption of ownership in improvements, especially as it is an assumption which may vest property in a man who only took to farm- ing twenty years ago, and may take it away from a person who, in fact, bought the holding from an owner-occupier, and so a person in whom the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest were merged. No doubt such cases might be rare, but they might exist, and have existed. Some limitation, then, must be placed upon the presump- tion as regards tenants' improvements. The form of limitation adopted by the Government is to say that the presumption that all improvements are tenants' improve- ments shall only apply after the year 1850. On the whole, we are inclined to think that the limitation is a wise one, but at the same time we see certain advantages in Mr. Healy's scheme. Possibly the Government may be able to think out some other plan of avoiding the in justice of prairie value, and so may be content to accept Mr. Healy's suggestion. We confess we do not see how they will be able to do so, but perhaps that is our lack of imagination, and not an inherent impossibility. We have only one thing more to say on the Irish Land problem, and that is to urge the Government to stick to their admirable purchase clauses at all risks, and especially to those dealing with the Encumbered Estates Court. Even if the Bill were to dwindle down to these purchase clauses, which it will not, we feel sure it would be worth having. The condition of the land in the En- cumbered Estates Court is a gross scandal, and offers a magnificent opportunity for the application of a purchase scheme. It was a blot upon former Administrations that this evil remained unabated. We sincerely trust that this declaration will not have to be repeated in regard to Mr. Gerald Balfour's tenure of office.
Previous page
