Where the buildings were not connected with any custom, there would be a scale of damages for evictions. In cases of eviction the following would be the scale :— If the holding was not valued in the public valuation over £10 a year, the judge might award the holder a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; between £10 and £50 a year, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; between £50 and £100 a year, a sum not exceeding three years' rent; and above £100 a year, not exceeding two years' rent.

aid was to be granted by loans of public | evicted for non-payment of rent, and has money to occupiers disposed to purchase not sub-let or sub-divided his holding the cultivated lands in their possession, without the landlord's consent. All arrears where the landlords were willing to sell; of rent and all damages done by the tenant facilities were also to be given to landlords to the farm may be pleaded by the landlord by means of loans to prepare waste land as a set-off, and the landlord may bar the for occupation, by the making of roads and pleading of any such custom, if he chooses the erection of necessary buildings; such to give his tenant a lease for not less than transactions were to be managed by the thirty-one years." board of works in Dublin. As strict freedom of contract had been proved to be a great evil, it might be necessary to prescribe by law in certain respects the terms and conditions on which land might be held in Ireland. With regard to occupation, the new law would be administered by a court of arbitration and a civil bill court (which would be the civil side of the court of quarter-sessions, and presided over by an assistant-barrister), with an appellate tribunal consisting of two, and in case of necessity three, judges of assize; the judges having power to reserve a case for a court for land cases in Dublin, to be composed of equity and common law judges. "At present," said Mr. Gladstone, "there are four descriptions of holdings in Ireland which I have thought it my duty to keep specially in view. The first of these is the Ulster custom. This custom, where it exists, the bill will convert into a law, to which the new courts will give effect. The second class of holdings are those which prevail under customs and usages other than that of Ulster; and these too are to be legalized, subject to the restriction that the tenant may claim the benefit of them as an absolute right only in cases where he is disturbed in his tenancy by the act of his landlord, if he has not been

The

For the purpose of promoting improvements, advances of money would be authorized to landlords, to enable them to defray any charge raised against them in the way of improvement in the case of tenants retiring by an act of their own. principle on which Mr. Gladstone proposed to deal with improvements was, that they must have a rentable value and be suitable to the holdings, and the burden of proof would be laid on the landlords. In other words, improvements would be the work of the tenant, and the landlord was to show that they were not necessary; and the measure would not be limited to future improvements, but would be extended to those already made. No claim would be allowed for any improvement made twenty years before the passing of the Act, unless it was an improvement of the nature of a permanent building, or a reclamation

The Ulster custom was the tenant-right system with variations. So long as a man paid his rent he was allowed to remain the occupier of his holding; on giving up his land he was entitled to claim compensation for unexhausted improvements, and was at liberty to sell the good-will of his of land. farm for what it would command in the market. The Ulster system was only a custom, though exercising something like the force of law. The bill of Mr. Gladstone, as we see, developed the custom into a legal institution. It failed, however, to define the Ulster custom, since that custom was not capable of definition. The Ulster custom varied

in different districts, and even on different estates, in the game county.

With regard to lands under lease, a landlord might exempt his lands from being subject to any custom except the Ulster custom, provided that he agreed to give his tenant a lease for thirty-one years;

but the lease was to leave to the tenant at turned out he should be entitled to full the close of that term a right to claim compensation for all substantial improvecompensation under three heads-tillages ments he had effected. and manures, permanent buildings, and reclamation of lands.

From the moment the bill passed every Irishman would be absolutely responsible for every contract into which he entered. Non-payment of rent would be held as a bar to any claim on the landlord, reserving, however, discretion to the courts in certain cases. Notices to quit would have to be for twelve months instead of six, and dated from the last day of the current year. In conclusion, the county cess was to be assimilated to the poor-rate. In every new tenancy it would have to be paid in moieties by landlord and tenant as the poor-rate was then paid, and in every old tenancy of £4 a year the occupier would be at once relieved.

So far so good; but on a closer examination of the details of the measure the Conservative party found certain objections, which they did not hesitate to bring forward. First, it was complained that the Ulster tenant right had not been clearly defined; and the absence of such explanation would lead to great difficulties. "If it was left," said Mr. Henley, "to the courts of law to determine what was the principle of tenant right in each particular case of dispute, all he could say was God help the tenants and the landlords who fell into the hands of the lawyers to settle the meaning of custom or usage." Then the clauses as to "disturbance" and "eviction" were disapproved of. It was declared that the bill left the landlord in such a position There was no opposition on the first that his tenants might be doing every act reading of the bill. In the absence of Mr. which they ought not to do, and yet the Disraeli, owing to temporary indisposition, | law left the owner no power of interference, Mr. Gathorne Hardy again undertook the except under a penalty which in many duties of the leader of the Opposition. He refrained from discussion until the details of the bill were before the House. It was, however, his wish and that of the Conservative party generally, he said, to deal with the measure in a candid and conciliatory spirit. The scheme of Mr. Gladstone possessed one great advantage; it was very simple and easy to be understood. The slowest mind could without difficulty grasp what the Irish land bill proposed to do. It upset the theory that the landlord was the absolute master of his property, in admitting the tenant to a certain partnership in the land he cultivated. The tenant had the power to claim compensation for improvements when disturbed in the possession of his land, and all improvements were judged the work of the tenant unless the landlord could show cause to the contrary. In fact, the clauses of the bill were drawn up with the one object, that as long as the tenant paid his rent he should not as a rule be turned out of his holding; and even when

cases might be ruinous. No man, it was said, could call himself master of his own land if he could not remove a tenant except by paying a certain portion of the value of the land. In forcing from the landlord the fine on eviction they were, pro tanto, confining the right of the landlord with regard to his property. The bill, too, it was argued, put a penalty upon the indulgent landlord, and gave a premium to the hard and grasping landlord. The Ulster tenant right was also considered both stupid and unjust. "It was stupid," it was said, "because it professed to give a man an interest in the land, whereas it really made him bury his capital during the whole time of his occupation, and in all probability prevented him from cultivating the land as he should cultivate it. Again, as to selling the goodwill of the farm, the tenant was selling that which he had no right to sell, and therefore the custom was unjust." Yet the creation of a system analogous to the Ulster tenant right was attempted by the bill of

Mr. Gladstone. The principle also was not enter, or attempt to enter, into the long

questioned of presuming that all improvements were the work of the tenant, unless the landlord could prove the contrary. As a matter of fact, it was argued that improvements were seldom solely the work of the tenant; in the majority of cases, though the tenant supplied the manual labour, the materials required for the improvements were furnished by the landlord. It was also suggested that there should be a limit in point of time, after which the tenant should not be entitled to claim compensation for improvements. It was feared that the bill would introduce an enormous amount of litigation. Ireland, under the provisions of the bill, would, it was said, be very much like a cow with the landlords holding the horns, the tenants the tail, whilst the lawyers filled their pails with the milk. Still, in spite of these objections, Mr. Gladstone had no reason to complain of the reception his measure had met with.

catalogue of the various and complicated causes which have brought Ireland, so far as the relations between the proprietor and the occupier of the soil are concerned, into such a position that it becomes the duty of the minister and of parliament to legislate, or propose to legislate, upon the subject. But although I shrink from, and from fear of wearying the House avoid that topic, I may be permitted, I hope-speaking, as I trust I shall to-night, with the utmost impartiality, and not appearing here, as some hon. gentlemen do, as the advocate either of the tenant or the landlord in particular-I hope I may be allowed to congratulate the landlords of Ireland upon this, that the result of all these investigations, of this protracted discussion, and of the scrutinizing mind of the public of this country being brought to bear on this subject, has been that it has greatly cleared their reputation and strengthened their position. They cannot be accused of rapacity who, it is proved, receive a lower rent than the landlords of England; they cannot be accused of ruthlessness when the solitary instances, with pain and difficulty brought forward against them, are instances of a very few men of crazy imagination and conduct; and if we were to make a selection in England in the same spirit we might perhaps find a few individual proprietors influenced by similar feelings."

After eulogizing the accuracy and exhaustiveness of the report of the Devon commission, Mr. Disraeli turned upon Mr. Horsman, who had declared that ever since the issue of that report the land question in

Mr. Disraeli did not address the House until at the close of the debate on the second reading (March 11, 1870). The bill, he said, was not an agricultural, but a political bill. He did not mean that it was a revolutionary bill; but it was a bill the object of which was, not to improve the cultivation of land, but to improve the relations between important classes of Her Majesty's subjects. And he congratulated the Irish landlords as a body of coming so well out of the inquiry. "Now, sir," he said, "a minister who would come forward and propose to deal to meddle, I would rather say with the relations between landlord and tenant, would undertake a Ireland had been trifled with by successive task from which, I think, the most ex-ministries. "That is a very grave accusaperienced and most resolute man would tion to make against public men," said Mr. shrink, unless there was an urgent necessity Disraeli. "Having been connected with of state for doing it. I myself acknowledge two ministries who have endeavoured to that the circumstances of Ireland are such deal with this question, who have given to as not only to justify the minister, but to its consideration great thought and labour, call upon him to ask the attention of Par- and who were prepared to stand or fall by liament to this question, and invite it to the measures which they introduced, I must come to some decision upon it. Sir, I will-though, I hope, with good temper

1852 which gave compensation to the ten- | much doubt the propriety, as a general ant for improvements, and retrospective principle, of legalizing customs. The moment compensation. Nor had he, frankly avowed you legalize a custom you fix its particular Mr. Disraeli, changed his opinions. In 1852 character; but the value of a custom is its he had been in favour of giving compen- flexibility, and that it adapts itself to all the sation to the Irish tenant for his improve- circumstances of the moment and of the localments, and within due limits and with ity. All these qualities are lost the moment necessary conditions of prudence and dis- you crystallize a custom into legislation. Cuscretion he was in favour of retrospective toms may not be as wise as laws, but they compensation; and he was still influenced are always more popular. They array upon by those opinions. Those compensation their side alike the convictions and prejuclauses which had been suggested in the dices of men. They are spontaneous. They bill of 1852 he saw inserted in the measure grow out of man's necessities and inventions; now before the House, and that alone was and as circumstances change and alter and sufficient for him to assent to the second die off, the custom falls into desuetude, and reading of the bill. we get rid of it. But if you make it into a law, circumstances alter, but the law remains, and becomes part of that obsolete legislation which haunts our statute-book and harasses society. Therefore, I say, as a general principle, I am against legalizing customs. You cannot, if you are to legalize custom, legalize the custom of Ulster, because it does not exist. But if it did exist, what is the reason that you should have special legislation for the custom of Ulster? These agricultural customs exist in other parts of Ireland; you have provided for them in your bill. Why should there be two clauses-one for the Ulster and one for the other customs? Protesting against legalizing customs, I say that if the House in its wisdom decides upon that course, it will be expedient to get rid of this special legislation for Ulster, and to support a general clause upon the whole subject of legalizing the agricultural customs of Ireland."

Still, though he gave his assent to the principle of the bill, Mr. Disraeli did not approve of all its details. He did not approve of the provision which assumed that all past improvements had been made by the tenant, instead of by the landlord. Such a conclusion was an impolitic act, and would be an injustice to the landlord. The wisest course he suggested would be to fix the onus probandi on neither party. He also objected to the proposition of the government relating to the Ulster custom. "What," he asked, "is the first clause of the bill respecting the legality of what is called the Ulster tenantright custom? It is neither more nor less than asking parliament to legalize the private arrangements of every estate in the North of Ireland. What is the Ulster custom? No one has pretended to tell us. There is no such thing as an Ulster custom. There are a variety of customs as respects tenant right in Ulster, as there are a great many such customs in the other parts of Ireland; but there is no gentleman who can tell us what the Ulster custom is. . . . No one pretends that there is any custom of Ulster. There is no prescription, because it is not ancient; there is no certainty, because it varies under every rule. Then I want to know in what manner you will deal with this question of Ulster custom. Besides, even if it were a custom, I very

Continuing his criticism, Mr. Disraeli said he objected to the clause in the bill relating to the compensation to be given for occupation; such a clause in his opinion terminated at one fell swoop all moral relations between the owner and the occupier. It was not possible to convert the relations between landlord and tenant into a purely commercial relation; there was something in the inevitable consequences of local circumstances and local influences that