No. CCXVIII.

If any man, who pays the slightest attention to passing events, were asked what measure of importance to affect Ireland was most likely to occupy the attention of the Legislature in the approaching session of Parliament, he would answer, without the slightest hesitation, a law to regulate the relation between landlord and tenant. Men of all classes and all parties agree in attributing much of the sufferings of Ireland to the existing state of the law, and in demanding a change. But here all agreement ends, and the changes proposed are of the most contradictory nature, varying according to the interests or feelings of the class or party to which each individual belongs.

The evils complained of are principally the following:-That the competition for land has enabled the landlords to exact exorbitant rents, and that rents are generally so high as to be incompatible with the comfort of the tenantry, and to deprive them even of the means of subsistence. That the tenant has no security for the possession of his farm. That his lease, even if he have a lease, is liable to be declared void in consequence of some flaw of which a person in his condition could not possibly have been aware, and that when his lease is evicted, or expires, not only the land itself, but all the improvements which he may have made in it, become the absolute property of the landlord; and that, without the obligation of making any compensation to the tenant for improvements which may have doubled the value of the land, and exhausted the entire capital of the tenant.

On the other side it is complained that the law does not arm the landlord with sufficient power to recover either

VOL. XXXVII.-NO. CCXVIII.

his rent or his land from a defaulting tenant. That many tenants take farms, not in order to support themselves as farmers by honest industry, but with the intention of making money by taking advantage of defects in the law, and cheating the landlord of his rent, and that there are many instances of tenants running away in possession of large sums of money, and owing four or five years' arrears of rent to their unfortunate and ruined landlords.

While complaints are thus heard on every side, a confederacy has been formed for the purpose of effecting an alteration of the law, and has taken the name of the Tenant League, as it aims at establishing a general combination of the tenants of Ireland against their landlords. Were we to judge of the probable success of these men, by weighing the policy of their measures, or the justice of their arguments, we should find little to excite our apprehensions. Except their arguments, nothing can be more absurd than their projects; but this very absurdity may assist them in the accomplishment of mischief, if it induce the lovers of peace and order to feel such contempt for them as to think it unnecessary to raise a timely voice against their crazy schemes. We know how little power is necessary to enable men to do much mischief; and that the League to which we refer, however unreasonable its projects may be, is yet far from being contemptible, from the energy of its leaders or the number of its followers. We have seen theories as pernicious and as impracticable adopted for a short time by the Provisional Government of France. In a free country the opinions of large bodies of men must have considerable weight, and the danger is not slight

M

which may be apprehended from the simple and uninformed peasantry, if they daily grow familiar with all the hollow arguments which are urged on one side of any important question, without an opportunity of learning what is thought or said on the other side. How few can be expected to form a just conclusion on a question of which only one side is submitted to their view. These considerations must be our apology for replying to many arguments which our readers may think unworthy of an answer.

The objects of the Tenant League have at length obtained a definite form, and its principles are now generally embodied in three resolutions or propositions:

1st. That all tenants shall hold their land at rents not determined by contract, but by a valuation of competent

persons.

2nd. That as long as a tenant shall pay the rent so determined he shall not be disturbed in his holding. In other words, that without any regard to the conditions of his lease, his tenure shall be converted into a perpetuity.

per

3rd. That every tenant shall be mitted to sell his tenant-right to any person for such price as may be agreed upon.

This last proposition is a natural consequence of the former two, and does not add to their mischievous tendency.

It is on the first proposition, that of fixing rents by a compulsory valuation, not by contract, that the Tenant League chiefly depends; and in defending it, the itinerant oratorsexpend all their powers of sophistry and declamation. To declaim on the subject is an easy task. It requires more capability of reasoning than will always be found in an excited audience, fully to appreciate the expediency and justice of freedom of contract, and general competition, and, therefore, every shallow meddler with political subjects finds a ready audience, when he proposes that the law should interfere to regulate the price of any commodity in general demand. It is only necessary for him to know whether his auditory is composed of buyers or sellers, and to expound his views accordingly. Thus, laws have, from time to time, been passed to controul the rate of interest for money, the rate of wages, the price of food, &c., until, at length, experience confirmed the arguments of

those who pointed out the inexpedience and inefficiency of such legislation. Wiser notions have, at length, prevailed. In the late famine no body of men was so foolish as to call for a law to limit the price of food, or to have it fixed by a valuation. It is, indeed, desirable that every thing should be bought and sold at its fair value; but it is certain that such a result can never be so well attained by other means as by the permission of unrestricted freedom of contract, and the general spread of knowledge and education; and, perhaps, there is no article to which a general compulsory valuation is less applicable than to land.

When the value of land becomes the subject of legal controversy, every spectator observes, with astonishment which even daily experience of the fact is not sufficient to suppress, how discordant is the evidence of even the fairest and most intelligent witnesses. Questions respecting the value of land arise on various occasions. Is a lease made at the utmost value within the leasing powers of the landlord? Has the tenant such an interest in the land as to entitle him to be registered as a freeholder? What value should be put upon the land for the purpose of taxation ? What price should be paid for it when purchased by a railway company? Whoever has heard the evidence given by surveyors and valuators, when such questions arise, will recognise the injustice of substituting a compulsory valuation for a free contract respecting land. If an arbitrator would award that to be the fixed value of land, which, in evidence, he swears to be its value, then the result must depend on the accident of the person chosen as judge or umpire. One man will fix a value three or four times as great as another.

It seems unnecessary to give any recorded proofs of a fact so notorious as the disagreement generally found to exist in the evidence of surveyors and others respecting the value of land; yet it may not be amiss to refer to the "Blue Book," to show how little reliance can be placed on the justice of any valuation. On the evidence of surveyors, we think it sufficient to refer generally to the evidence given before the committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the fictitious voters in Ireland, and to copy one question and answer, which

show the agreement in opinion on this point between Mr. O'Connell, who put the question, and Mr. Battersby, who answered it :

"Q. 14,291. Mr. O'Connell-You know there is no point upon which surveyors differ so much (we have it in the opinions of our own profession) as in valuing land?

"A. No doubt of it, and more than that, a surveyor brought up generally goes further than he ought to do for the party producing him.

"Q. You are aware in this country it is so, the equity suits shew it, the reports over and over again shew it, the judges treat the evidence given by surveyors (without imputing perjury to them) as very contradic. tory?

A. Every body who has any experience in the profession must say it is."

The result is equally unsatisfactory when a valuation is to be made for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties whose land is to be valued. In many cases when a tax is imposed, it is not deemed of much importance that the valuation should be adequate, provided it is made upon a uniform scale. But in the case of the poor-rate, the valuation determines the proportion, in which the burthen shall be borne by the tenant, the landlord, and the clergyman, or owner of tithes, and accordingly the Act of Parliament points out with precision the principle on which such valuation should be made :—

"And be it enacted that every such rate shall be a poundage rate made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto; that is to

ssy, of the rent at which, one year with another, the same might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, the probable annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditaments in their actual state, and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any, except tithes, being paid by the tenant."

Under this act valuations were made of the tenements comprised in the several unions, and the manner in which this was done may appear from a report made by the orders of the government, and laid before the House of Commons in the year 1841. The gentlemen employed to inquire and report upon the poor-law valuation were Messrs. Haig and Deasy, both barristers, the latter gentleman now

a Queen's Counsel of high and welldeserved reputation.

The first fact that strikes the reader of this Report is, that the valuators, or the guardians in revising the valuation, seem to have never paid the slightest attention to the provisions of the sta tute, or have been guided in their valuations by the rents actually and regularly paid. We strongly recommend the entire of this Report to the attention of such of our readers as may desire to know what faith is to be placed upon a valuation by authority, when it is to affect the relative rights of landlords and tenants; but as their Report may not be within the reach of all, we shall give a few extracts, which may show some of the mistaken views too generally entertained upon this subject. The Report proceeds according to the unions. În page 2 it states that "in Balbriggan the valuation was reduced by guardians and rate-payers to nearly half the rents actually paid." And it appears that a number of £10 registered electors were rated so low as two or three guineas for the tenements out of which they were registered as deriving a profit of £10. Thus, on one side, a farm is valued at £2 2s. ; and, on another side, the same farm is valued at £10 more than the rent actually paid. One valuation being about seven times as much as the other. In page 15 it is observed that the mode of valuing the land depends on the scale of living the valuator thinks proper to assign to the peasantry. The evidence of the valuator, Alexander Wallace, is :"That he has valued many estates for proprietors; in poor-law valuation his estimate is less by one-fourth or onefifth than what the tenements would let for; estimates on a return of 10 per cent. for capital; thinks that the lowest that ought to be obtained, but thinks that competition has reduced the amount below 10 per cent."

It is stated that the difference of rent in large and small holdings arises from the difference of living. Notwithstanding the greater produce obtained by holders of large farms, the rents paid by them are lower than by smaller holders.

Again, it appears that in the union of Parsonstown the estimate was onethird below the rents actually paid. The valuators estimated the produce and expense, and left a surplus on

which the tenant could afford to live decently. They give an example of the details of one valuation, which we shall give, as we think this model-valuation may be useful as a warning, although not as an example:-Page 28. Wheat is supposed to be at £1 5s. a barrel, and other produce in proportion. This farm consisted of 24 acres, of which there were 12 acres of tillage, wheat land producing six barrels per acre, or five barrels after deducting seed, and 12 acres of mere marshy land used for grazing, the produce of which could not be calculated at more than £1 per acre. The calculation then proceeds:

We shall call attention to only a few of the blunders in this model-valuation. The entire of the tillage land is supposed to bear wheat every year. We may observe that it is throwing away money to sow wheat at all in land which gives a produce of only sixfold. Next, no allowance is made for any profit on the capital of the tenant. On the other side, the expenses are calculated on an enormous scale, utterly disproportioned to the size of the farm, or the quantity of tillage land. It is admitted that the valuator estimates the expenses of a horse at 2s. 6d. instead of 2s.; that is 25 per cent. too much, but the error in quantity is still greater than the error in price. A farm of double the size could be effectively cultivated with the amount of labour of man and horse charged in the estimate for cultivating that farm.

In the union of Lurgan the valuator goes into more minute detail. He divides the gross produce into the following parts :

1. "Interest on capital.
2. "

"Wages to farmer of 1s. a-day all the year round.

3. " "Wages at 8d. a-day to other members, allowing two persons to ten

acres.

4. "Expenses of carting and plough.

ing, at 2s. 6d. a-day for three months,

on ten acres.

5.10s. an acre to lay by.

6. "The balance is rent." The authors of the Report remark on this :

"That the foregoing mode of estimating the fair rent between landlord and tenant, however excellent in itself, and well adapted to enable a just and liberal landlord to ascertain at what rent he ought to set his property, is not at all founded on any estimate of the market value at which the land will let; but entirely upon a view, and, very probably, a just view, of the amount of burthens which a landlord is morally justified in imposing upon his tenant."

We shall presently state our reasons for not concurring in this view of the matter; but we must proceed with the Report on the Lurgan Valuation. The valuator considers that his view may be tested in a certain sense by the market value. He thinks the rent which a solvent tenant would agree to pay, supposing him, on getting possession, to pay £10 an English acre for the good will, would be the value, according to his estimate. But the next moment he destroys this test of rela tion to the market value, by saying that he means by £10 an English acre, as a purchase, not what the good will would actually bring, for that is raised by competition of persons wishing to have the land for the accommodation of its being near their own farm; but he means £10 an acre given as a reasonable sum, a curious notion to have of the meaning of the words market value. Again, the same gentleman, Mr. Whiteside, says, "There is land near Lurgan which would bring £10 per English acre as a purchase, supposing it were leased at £2 an English acre." He valued that land at from 27s. 6d. to 32s. He says, "there is no such thing as getting a farm at a reasonable rate, except by purchase, or by legacy, or by descent." "He did not take the rack-rent at all into consideration. He took first what rent would be paid by a solvent tenant paying £10 an acre as a purchaser, and then deducted from that a sum, such as to reduce the rent to what he considered a landlord ought, as between landlord and tenant.” Our readers will not fail to observe how completely this valuator has lost sight of the very idea of value.

Nor were these false valuations al

ways made in ignorance of the effect which they would have in throwing upon the landlord or tithe owner a greater proportion of the tax than the legis lature intended he should bear. On the contrary, in some instances, this very injustice was a motive with the valuators or guardians for making or sanctioning a false valuation. Thus

in the Scariff Union, the valuation, low as it was, did not satisfy the guardians, and they reduced the value by one-sixth. In page 69, we have the evidence of Maurice O'Connell, one of the guardians, on this point :

"He approves, however, of the present valuation, because, upon reflection, he thinks that the valuation ought to be considerably under the rent. The people are not able to bear any additional taxation."

When such were the results of a general valuation, made by men who were under no strong motives to act corruptly, and who seemed even to think that they were acting fairly and justly, and who were directed by the Act of Parliament to take the market value as their guide, we may judge what would be the effect of a valuation made under the auspices of the Tenant League, flushed with victory.

It is

It would be an utter confiscation of the landlord's property, a transfer of it to the tenant for a nominal consideration. And this is in fact sometimes avowed by the League orators, who suggest a rent of 1s. an acre as the utmost which a landlord is entitled to receive. the expectation of this result that induces the tenant to join the League, and devote his time and money to its objects. To him it is socialism, presented in an attractive form-in the only form in which man becomes a sincere socialist. It is the robbery of those above him for his benefit, without permitting those below him to participate in the advantages of the revolution.

The Tenant League is a combina. tion of men who are unwilling to fulfil their engagements, or pay their debts. With such men it would be as vain to reason, as it would be to

prove to a pickpocket that he has no lawful claim to his neighhour's watch or pocket-handkerchief. But their harangues receive a greater air of plausibility, in consequence of some mistaken views which are held respecting the relation between landlord and tenant, which, therefore, it may not be out of place to expose here. The relation is a voluntary contract between, on the one hand, a man called the landlord, who finds it more profitable or more convenient to receive a fixed annual sum, instead of keeping his land in his own hands, or cultivating it by means of a bailiff or overseer; and, on the other hand, a man called the tenant, who considers it for his advantage to occupy the land for a certain term, under an engagement to pay a certain annual sum for the enjoyment or use of it. But, although it is a mere contract of hiring and letting, subject to the same general laws as all other contracts, yet at every moment we meet with propositions and doctrines which no man would think of applying to any other kind of contract. Thus, in the report from which we have made so many extracts, we find it stated, that a large farm yields a smaller rent in proportion than a small farm; because, in the latter case, the tenant, although he obtains a smaller produce from his farm, has yet a greater surplus produce, because he is content with a lower scale of living; and this is brought as an example to illustrate the false and mischievous doctrine, that rent depends upon the scale of living which prevails among the tenantry. We shall presently prove that this proposition is false. We deem it mischievous, because it turns the attention of the tenant from the true mode of bettering his condition, by obtaining a greater produce from his farm, to the impracticable project of obtaining a reduction of his rent. It tends to distract the peasants' thoughts from profitable industry to fruitless agitation, and to set the landlord and tenant at variance, though their interests are in reality identical. The amount of rent, it is said, depends upon the scale of living adopted by the tenant; and the small farmer pays a larger rent, because his scale of living being lower, he can afford to pay a larger