LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE IRISH LAND BILL.
[To re■ EDITOR. or isr " EPSCTATOR Sra,—I hope you will permit me, as a constant reader and admirer of the Spectator, to venture upon a few criticisms of your article on the Irish Land Bill in the issue of Jane 13th.
In the first place I am delighted that you confess " We are not experts," and I therefore gather that it is more with a general desire to see finality in Irish land legislation that you hope this Bill will achieve that object, and therefore you praise its provisions. An expert (and I venture to believe I am one in Irish land legislation) would tell you at once that the Bill will produce no finality. Its complexity, its very bad drafting (Mr. Healy was merely having his little bit of fun when he praised it), and the fact that it will give rise to endless litigation is known and realised by every expert, legal or lay, throughout Ireland. I believe that the clauses have been framed ambiguously to try to suit both sides, and that the result must be litigation. As it stands, it is not a neces- sary measure, as it cannot effect its object. That object is, I suppose, to frame a final measure which will ultimately dis- place dual ownership with justice to both landlord and tenant by creating peasant - proprietorship. On every platform before the last Election this was announced as the policy of the Unionist party, and I am convinced that it is the right one. What does this proposed Bill do ? It seeks to perpetuate dual ownership with the following provisions ambiguously framed and artfully concealed under much verbiage. It induces the tenant and landlord to go to law over the rent whenever they like ; it proposes a quinquennial revision of rent according to prices ; and it offers the utmost inducement to the tenant to claim improvements he has never made, and warns the landowner to make no further improvements for any tenant. These provisions, therefore, make it certain that the gravest uncertainty mast exist, both in the minds of owner and occupier, as to what the actual value of their interests in the land can be from year to year. This uncertainty will inevitably preclude all possibility of purchase, as the tenant will keep hoping that he can buy cheaper every year, and the owner will be unable to fix a fair value on the commodity he has to sell.
So much for the first part of the Bill. The " admirable purchase clauses" are certainly an improvement on the foolish Act of 1S91, but they are not far-reaching ; they are very badly drafted, and some of the useful provisions of earlier Acts have been omitted and discarded for no reason whatever. There can be no objection to passing this portion of the Bill, as some of the clauses may form the basis of a good Bill in the future, but the sections which you apparently approve very highly, viz., the Encumbered Estates Clauses, are to my mind so mischievous that every effort should be made to defeat them. In these clauses new germs of bad legislation are introduced. Compulsion on the tenant to purchase, and compulsion on the land Judge to sell a depreciated property at the lowest price to one bidder only, the value of the saleable asset being first depreciated by the rent-fixing department of the Land Commission. An analogous and equally unjust case would be as follows. A and B are part-owners of a house which is under Chancery juris- diction. B lives in the house and pays a rent for it. The Court suddenly orders B to pay a less rent, and orders A to accept the reduced rent. The Court then values the house, using the reduced rent as the basis of valuation. The Court orders A to sell his share to B at the reduced value. Is this fair, or could such a perversion of justice be attempted anywhere except in Ireland? Yet this is exactly what the Encumbered Estates Clauses propose to do. If it is advisable to put an end to the Encumbered Estates management, it could be easily effected by utilising Continental methods of land transfer, especially as the money and the machinery are in existence and available. In conclusion, may I ask, is it wise to force through such a measure at the fag-end of a Session ? It would be far better to refer it to a Committee of both Houses, or to a Select Commission of experts, with a view to making it a useful Bill, and one which may (as you so rightly desire) contain within its purview the merit of finality.— of Upper Ossory.
Previous page
