IRISH LAND ACT COMMISSION 
 
 ISSO 
 
 E E P R T 
 
 BY 
 
 THE OXONOR DON. 
 
 THE DUBLIX STEAM PRINTING COMPANY, 
 
 MIDDLE ABBEY STREET. 
 
 1882. 
 
IRISH LAND ACT COMMISSION 
 
 1 sso 
 
 EEPOET 
 
 BY 
 
 THE O'CONOR DON 
 
P/4 
 
PEEFACE 
 
 The creation of occupying ownership in Ireland, through 
 the instrumentality of State aid, is again occupying so 
 much public attention, that I have been urged by some 
 of my friends to republish, in a separate form, the Eeport 
 which I submitted as a member of the Bessborough Com- 
 mission. Most of the predictions contained in that 
 Eeport are every day receiving such remarkable confir- 
 mation, that I may be pardoned for desiring to extricate 
 it from the early tomb of a Parliamentary Blue-book. 
 The present circumstances of the country, of course, 
 somewhat differ from those which existed at the time 
 that Eeport was written ; and although I am not blind 
 to the fact that the difficulties in the way of my proposal 
 have considerably increased, yet I believe the scheme 
 which I recommended more than a year ago, may still 
 afford some useful hints for the only settlement of the 
 Irish Land Question which has any element of permanence 
 about it. 
 
 o'co:roe don. 
 
 March, 1882. 
 
SEPAEATE EEPOET BY THE O'CONOE DOK 
 
 The inquiry which we have been coaducting during the 
 last few months has been by the very terms of our Com- 
 mission divided into two branches : the one relating to 
 the working and operation of the existing land laws of 
 Ireland ; the other dealing with alterations and amend- 
 ments in these laws. Upon the first branch of the inquiry 
 I quite concur with my colleagues in the foregoing Eeport; 
 I also agree in several of the recommendations relating 
 to the second branch, although I differ on what may be 
 considered, and what I myself consider, very essential 
 points in regard to the remedy proposed for existing 
 evils. * * * 
 
 The first point to which I must allude, and which has 
 not received, 1 think, the prominence it deserves is this : 
 that not only is the ordinary occupying tenure of land 
 in Ireland insecure, but the ownership of land is confined 
 to a few. So far as the mere occupation of land is con- 
 cerned I do not knew that the position of affairs is worse 
 in Ireland than in other countries ; on the contrary, I 
 believe it would be found that, regarding the occupier 
 as a mere hirer of the land, his legal rights are superior, 
 and his security greater, than in most other countries in 
 Europe, whilst his practical rights — those recognised by 
 the majority of landlords, and enjoyed by the majority of 
 tenants — are in excess of the rights or the security ordi- 
 narily given elsewhere. 
 
 Ireland is peculiarly a land of numerous occupiers 
 and a very restricted class of owners — hundreds of thou- 
 sands of tenants and a mere handful of landlords ; and 
 this in a country where not only are the tenants very 
 numerous as compared with the owners, but numerous as 
 compared with the entire population. 
 
6 
 
 It is estimated that there are about 500,000 tenants 
 occupying land in Ireland — that is to say, 600,000 
 families — and setting down an average of five indivi- 
 duals for each family, this would give us at once 
 2,500,000 persons, or about half the population, directly 
 connected with the land, as occupiers of the soil ; and if 
 to these we add all the outside relatives of these families 
 and all persons dependent on them, such as the small 
 country traders and dealers, it will at once appear that 
 the strength of this class is irresistible ; that their views 
 and opinions must be the views and opinions of the 
 country ; and that no matter what the law may lay down, 
 no matter what rights it may give against them, such 
 rights, if not acquiesced in by them, can never be uni- 
 versally enforced without giving rise to a revolution. 
 
 We must also bear in mind that these people are now 
 educated, that they practically possess the highest poli- 
 tical power, that they are all able to take an intelligent 
 view of their own position, and that the view they are 
 likely to take will not be one disadvantageous to them- 
 selves. If Ireland were not united with England, if she 
 were left to herself, there can be little doubt, I think, 
 that with or without compensation, the existing rights 
 connected with the ownership of land would be swept 
 away or greatly restricted, whilst, on the other hand, if 
 •we had some hundreds of thousands of owners replacing 
 the existing 10,000 landlords, instead of restriction on 
 transactions relating to land, we should have a demand 
 for the most perfect freedom of contract. From this it 
 seems to me to follow that if we are to get to the bottom 
 of the real difficulty of Irish land tenure, and if we are 
 to settle it on any real permanent basis, it is not merely 
 the relations between landlord and tenant that have to 
 be considered and adjusted, but whether these relations 
 should be continued to the same extent as they now 
 exist, and therefore, I fear that any Act based merely or 
 mainly on proposals to modify the conditions under which 
 the occupier is brought into relation with the owner, will 
 be only like the Act of 1870, a mere temporary expedientj 
 fit for a transition period, but containing within itself the 
 
seeds of failure as a permauent settlement. Another 
 slice, and a very large slice of what is now recognised as 
 the legal property of the owner, will be taken away with- 
 out satisfying the occupiers, and above all without esta- 
 blishing any just principles on which this transference of 
 property should take place. Under these circumstances, 
 I am obliged to dissent from the recommendation which 
 places compulsory fixity of tenure in the first rank, and 
 merely deals with occupying ownership as a slow and very 
 secondary alternative. The establishment of a peasant 
 proprietary or occupying ownership, first, with facilities 
 for voluntary arrangements for fixity of tenure in certain 
 cases as a subsidiary measure, and compulsory fixity of 
 tenure and adjustment of rents as a last resort, would be 
 my remedy. Before stating how I would propose to carry 
 this out, I must deal with what I consider the serious 
 objections to the scheme from which I difi'er, and in doing 
 so I desire to deal with it generally, as submitted to us 
 by the witnesses, and not merely as recommended in the 
 Eeport — 
 
 1st. I believe it would be extremely difficult, if not 
 impossible, justly to carry it out. 
 
 2nd. Even, if established, it would not give a satis- 
 factory tenure. 
 
 3rd. If made the general rule of the country it would 
 be but the starting point for a new and most formidable 
 agitation. 
 
 And lastly. If extended to future let tings it could 
 not be maintained or upheld without the most disastrous 
 legal interference with, and legal restrictions on, matters 
 of everyday life which I could never approve of. 
 
 Obviously fixity of tenure would be an absurdity 
 without some control over rent-raising. To give the 
 occupier the right to fixity of tenure and, at the same 
 time, to allow the owner to charge what rent he pleased, 
 would be to do nothing efi'ective, as, in the words of the 
 Eeport, it would be nugatory and absurd to confer on 
 the tenant a proprietary right of which the value de- 
 pended on the will of the landlord. Indeed control over 
 rent is what has been most looked for by the witnesses 
 
who came before us, and rent-raising, rather than evic- 
 tion, has been the great grievance complained of. Al- 
 though we might have *'fair rents" without *^ fixity of 
 tenure," we cannot establish ^'fixity of tenure" without 
 *' fair rents ;" and it is in arriving at fair rents that I 
 think the greatest difficulty will be found. 
 
 Fixity of tenure at fair rents has, no doubt, received 
 the sanction of the majorit}^ of the witnesses who ap- 
 peared before us, and the principle involved in it has 
 been supported by many landlords as well as tenants. 
 In short, a sort of general concensus of public opinion in 
 its favour has been claimed for it by its adherents. Una- 
 nimity of opinion which is based on such general terms 
 as ''fair" and '^reasonable" may not, however, be so 
 very real when we come to test the meaning placed 
 on these words by the different persons using them. 
 Can it, for instance, be truly said that there is any 
 real unanimity of opinion between the landlord who 
 upholds fair rents and the advocate of the tenants' 
 cause w^ho holds the same ostensible doctrine, but who 
 thinks that the fair rent of land, which a hundred years 
 ago was reclaimable waste land, should be calculated on 
 the assumption that it was still in an unreclaimed condi- 
 tion, unless the landlord could prove that all the im- 
 provements that had been made in it had been executed 
 at his expense or that of his predecessors ? A large pro- 
 portion of the witnesses on the tenants' side have told us 
 that they consider Griffith's Valuation, as it is called, 
 quite a sufficiently high standard for a '' fair " rent, and 
 nunjbers of them told us that they considered it far too 
 high, although that valuation was made on a standard of 
 prices exceptionally low, and under circumstances in 
 which it was the interest of everybody, both landlords as 
 well as tenants, to keep it as low as possible. Again, 
 rents that have not been increased for twenty, thirty, or 
 even forty years, have been protested against as rack 
 rents, and even where large sums have been paid for the 
 tenants' interest at those rents, they have still been re- 
 presented as far above the standard of fairness. Is it 
 likely that this is the meaning placed on the same term 
 
^^ fair '' by the landlords who have advocated it, and is it 
 not pretty certain that ^' fair rents," jf established, must 
 disappoint one side or the other. 
 
 It is, of course, proposed by every advocate of the 
 system that arbitrators, or a court of some sort, should be 
 established for settling all disputes as to rent, and it is 
 expected and hoped that the cases which would be 
 brought forward for settlement would be few and far be- 
 tween ; that disputes as to rent would only gradually 
 arise ; that, so arising, the decision of the arbitrators or 
 courts would become precedents, and the principles of 
 these decisions becoming generally known, some cheap 
 and summary way of settling disputes as to rent would 
 be resorted to in all ordinary cases. Were we dealing 
 with the land question in ordinary and quiet times, when 
 the prices of farming produce were up to their ordinary 
 standard, and farming profits were in tbeir normal con- 
 dition, there might be some foundation for these expecta- 
 tions, although, even then, I doubt whether the passing 
 of such a law would not lead to a general commotion, but 
 in the present state of affairs the making of an offer to 
 all the tenants of Ireland to have their rents fixed by 
 arbitration must, I apprehend, lead to a general demand 
 for this. If this arose, where could the competent and 
 trustworthy valuators or umpires be found ? To esti- 
 mate correctly even the fair commercial letting value of 
 land is not an easy task. The valuator, or, in case of 
 arbitration, the umpire, to be competent should be a 
 local man, having local knowledge of the particular land 
 he is asked to value, of its past history, and its capacity 
 for production as tested by experience ; and if he be a 
 local man he can scarcely be free from local prejudices, 
 local feelings, and, above all, from local suspicions. With 
 this local knowledge he must possess thorough indepen- 
 dence of all classes, and must be placed above the range 
 of either bribery or intimidation ; and one of the first 
 and great difficulties will be to find a sufficient number 
 of men possessing these qualifications. * * * 
 
 The ordinary difficulties of estimating the value of 
 land are also enhanced by the proposal, sanctioned by 
 
10 
 
 most of the witnesses, that the improvements, eflPected at 
 any time by landlord or tenant, and any payment made 
 for the tenants' interest should be taken into considera- 
 tion. Any one of these questions in itself may lead to 
 no end of trouble. Take, for instance, the question of 
 improvements. We know that this question has given 
 rise to an immense amount of dispute and litigation even 
 under the present Land Act ; but this can scarcely give 
 us any idea of the disputes that may, and I think must, 
 arise if from the valuation of the land is to be excluded 
 any value added to it by the occupier. How it will be 
 possible to estimate this I am at a loss to conceive, and 
 the justice of its universal application seems to me more 
 than doubtful. The records of the land courts show the 
 extravagant character of the claims made for improve- 
 ments ; but if we are to go back to an indefinite period, 
 as recommended by some witnesses, or even for thirty- 
 five years, as mentioned in the Eeport, the field for dis- 
 pute and litigation, and doubt and difficulty, will be im- 
 mensely enlarged. 
 
 With respect to some land, no one could really tell, 
 except by a guess, what its value ought to be with all 
 these deductions. Whether the improvements are to be 
 calculated at what they cost, or on their results, or on 
 both ; whether they have been made by the landlord or 
 by the tenant, are all questions on which difficulties must 
 arise. It seems to me it will be impossible to separate 
 into two distinct classes the value of land arising out of 
 its inherent qualities, and value added to it by works 
 executed thirty or forty years ago, and the effect on 
 particular farms of such general improvements as road- 
 making, main drainage, &c., will be most difficult to de- 
 termine. Even taking such an ordinary, well-defined 
 improvement as building a tenant's house, a question 
 may arise as to whether the letting value of the farm is 
 increased in proportion to the cost of the house. Then 
 there are other classes of improvements, such as those 
 executed by loans under the Board of Works, where the 
 tenants have paid all the instalments, which will cer- 
 tainly give rise to contention unless their ownership be 
 
11 
 
 clearly defiued by law. It has been held by many wit- 
 nesses that these ought to belong to the tenants — 
 although it was to the landlord the money was lent — 
 although he undertook all the risk, and although, if pro- 
 perly carried out, the land itself, by its improved value, 
 should have more than repaid the annual instalments. 
 
 I will not dwell upon the difficulties arising out of 
 payments made to previous occupiers for their tenant- 
 right. These payments have, in some cases, exceeded 
 the full value of the interest of the owner in fee, and they 
 cannot be justly excluded from the calculation of rent ; 
 but how far they should be allowed will be a matter of 
 no little difficulty to determine. 
 
 We have next to consider at what standard is the 
 fair rent to be calculated. L do not think we should be 
 justified in recommending a general compulsory system 
 of valuation rents unless we were agreed as to the prin- 
 ciples on which it should be conducted. It would not 
 be worthy of our position to recommend it in the same 
 loose and general way in which it has been recommended 
 to ourselves. This would be but shifting the difficulty 
 which we ought really to face, and would render our 
 Eeport on this point almost worthless. There is no 
 paragraph in the Eeport in which I more thoroughly 
 concur than that which states that a fair rent, as under- 
 stood in Ireland, means a very difi'erent thing from a full, 
 fair, commercial rent, as understood in England. It is 
 well clearly to understand the full force of this admission. 
 The fair rent must be something less — I am bound to 
 express my own opinion — it must be something con- 
 siderably less than the fair, commercial, full letting 
 value of the land. To impose the adoption of this rent 
 upon every owner would, in most cases, mean, not the 
 deprivation of a mere sentimental right, but the depriva- 
 tion of very tangible property, the safe enjoyment of 
 which had, in some cases, been lately guaranteed by law. 
 Private rights, I know, must give way to public neces- 
 sities, but in all cases where clearly recognised rights 
 have been taken away, rights which were given or pur- 
 chased without any qualification, the withdrawal of the 
 
12 
 
 rights or the valuable property they represented has been 
 accompanied with compensation. 
 
 Can it then be said that a landowner in Ireland, who 
 has let his land up to the full and fair commercial value, 
 or who purchased the land when let at that standard, 
 and has since upheld it, has committed any moral wrong, 
 or that his rent is an unjust one ? One class of owners 
 of land have, I may say, been almost wholly unrepre- 
 sented in the evidence given to us, not through any 
 fault of the Commission, for we were ready to hear them 
 if they came forward, but through their own abstention. 
 I refer to the small and new purchasers in the Landed 
 Estates Court. They are not a very popular class, 
 probably not a very deserving class> they may have kept 
 away because they might not have been able to defend 
 all their actions, but they represent, very often, thrifty, 
 hard-working Irishmen, who have, by dint of hard work, 
 laid by a competence which they have invested in land 
 in their own country, and to many of these men such an 
 enactment as lowering their rents to the standard at which 
 an easy-going, affluent, and old proprietor was satisfied 
 to let his land, would mean absolute ruin. 
 
 Whether this would be just or unjust, and whether 
 it should consequently be accompanied with or left 
 without compensation, really depends on the question 
 whether a full fair commercial rent is in itself an in- 
 justice, and it requires a stronger argument to prove 
 this than a statement of the fact that large and wealthy 
 proprietors have been content to do with less. Again, 
 what would be a fair rent at one time would be unfair 
 at another. Had rents been adjusted four or five years 
 ago, when the times were prosperous and farming profits 
 were high, there can be little doubt such rents could not 
 now be kept up, whilst if they had been adjusted in a 
 time of depression, no matter how low, they could not be 
 raised. The bargain would thus not be an equal one, 
 the very same forces which now exist to control landlords 
 from exercising their full legal rights would control the 
 exercise of any new ones, but it certainly could not be 
 beneficial to the country, and I cannot think it would 
 
13 
 
 be satisfactory to the occupiers to have to look forward to 
 periodical strikes against rent, or demands for abatements 
 in the future as in the past. Such a system is degrading 
 to the tenant, injurious to the landlord, and demoralizing 
 to the country, and, therefore, I believe that w^herever 
 the relations of landlord and tenant are to be maintained 
 at valued rents, these rents must be low, and if they are 
 to be variable, some self-acting principle such as is 
 involved in the Longfield lease would be preferable to 
 periodical revisions. 
 
 It must not either be too confidently expected that 
 those who are known as good landlords will not take 
 advantage of any rights left to them under the proposed 
 new law. There is scarcely any proprietor who will not 
 find if he takes the rents over all his property and strikes 
 an average that some rents should be raised and others 
 lowered, and if it be the right of individual tenants to 
 claim this average it can scarcely be doubted the land- 
 lord in the other instances will claim it also. 
 
 One necessary efi'ect of such legislation as is now 
 proposed and of all attempts to regulate by law matters 
 which had heretofore been left to voluntary arrangement 
 must be to make every one assert more vigorously and 
 carefully the rights and privileges which are either left 
 to him or conferred on him. 
 
 This has already been one of the effects of the Land 
 Act of 1870, and that the same effect will follow from 
 further legislation we can scarcely doubt. Give the 
 tenant compulsory fixity of tenure at rents valued by 
 law with the right of free sale, and the race of good land- 
 lords as well as of bad landlords is gone, and in place of 
 both there will be the statutory landlord until such time 
 as he becomes so obnoxious that every well-wishing man^ 
 including himself, will desire his extinction. 
 
 These are some of the difficulties which will arise if 
 universal compulsory valuation of rents be determined 
 on, and they are by no means imaginary difficulties. 
 Examples of them all have been brought before us. 
 That they have not been overlooked in framing the 
 recommendations in the Eeport from which 1 dissent, I 
 
14 
 
 frankly admit. An endeavour is there made to take tlie 
 existing state of things as far as possible as a starting 
 point, and the recommendation that rents, which have 
 been regularly paid during ten years out of the last 
 twenty, should be regarded as fair, and should not be 
 subject to immediate revaluation, except under special 
 circumstances, would go a long way in meeting many of 
 the difficulties I have suggested. Eemembering that 
 many of the rents objected to before us, were rents 
 arranged more than twenty years ago, I fear that the 
 adoption of this principle will itself give rise to new 
 difficulties and inequalities ; but, nevertheless, if the 
 scheme of fixity of tenure, and valuation rents be made 
 general and compulsory, I believe some such principle 
 must be accepted. Indeed, if I believed the tenure itself 
 a satisfactory one, I would not feel bound to urge the 
 difficulties against its adoption as strongly as I have 
 done, and where it is necessary to have recourse to com- 
 pulsory valuation of rent, I believe the scheme embodied 
 in the Eeport as good a one as can be suggested. 
 
 This brings me to my second objection, namely, that 
 the proposed tenure would not be at all a satisfactory one. 
 It has been suggested to us in a twofold character. It 
 may be a perpetuity at a fixed rent, or a perpetuity at a 
 variable rent. If the former, the landlord is changed 
 into a mere annuitant or rentcharge owner. He will no 
 longer have any interest in or power over his property, 
 his sole connection with it will be to draw out of it a 
 certain fixed payment each year. The nominal owners 
 having no other connection with their property, 
 absenteeism will most certainly increase, and in a very 
 short time this payment to the landlords will be regarded 
 as a huge tax paid by the multitude for the benefit of 
 a few, whose names will, in many instances, be scarcely 
 known to the occupiers of the soil. If, on the other hand, 
 the perpetuity be at a variable rent, and that certain 
 general rights are preserved to the landlord, the property 
 may be of more value to the owner, but it will equally 
 be very precarious in its character. In its origin it may 
 not correspond to a copyhold, but if all the occupiers of 
 
land in Ireland who now hold as tenants from year to 
 year held under this tenure, there can be little doubt 
 that before long they would all combine to have it changed 
 into a copyhold, and if they did so combine, it would be 
 impossible to resist the combination. Perpetuities at 
 variable rents wherever they have been tried have failed 
 to give satisfaction. The Trinity College leases form a 
 notable example of this. There the tenants having 
 fixity of tenure and free sale with variable rents, adjusted 
 according to the prices of agricultural produce, are 
 wholly dissatisfied with their position. The tenure has 
 not led to improvements, and is regarded as so objection- 
 able that a private Bill is about being promoted in 
 Parliament to change the variable rent into a fixed one. 
 
 Divided ownership cannot, I think, be a desirable 
 tenure universally to create, although where it is in 
 existence or entered into voluntarily it may not be 
 desirable to interfere with it. That it would be an im- 
 provement on the present system and a stimulant to 
 exertion on the part of the occupier, I admit, although it 
 would not be so great a stimulant as actual ownership, 
 but so far as the landlord was concerned it would be a bar 
 to his doing anything for the land. The owner would be 
 deprived under this system of the real position of an 
 owner, whilst the occupier would not have gained that 
 position. The magic influence of ownership would be 
 taken away from both parties, no one would feel that he 
 was owner, and one of the strongest incentives to 
 exertion would be done away with. 
 
 What would be the value of the perpetual or variable 
 rent to the owner, is also a matter which has to be con- 
 sidered, and unless it were adjusted at a low standard, I 
 fear it would be almost unsaleable. A perpetuity rent, 
 even of the most secure description, where the rent is 
 low and what is known as the margin of security very 
 considerable, does not now sell, and never has sold, at 
 anything like the same rate of purchase as higher rents 
 accompanied with absolute ownership. A perpetuity 
 rent near the fair letting value of the land would, in 
 reality, be subject to all the variations and fluctuations 
 
16 
 
 of the times, so far as thej^ told against the owner, whilst 
 he would be debarred from any corresponding advantage 
 when they told in his favour, as his hands would be 
 absolutely tied for ever, or during the continuance of the 
 first term of the tenure. 
 
 This is not mere theory ; it has been practically de- 
 veloped and proved by what has lately taken place in 
 Ireland. By the free will of the landlords on several 
 estates a practical perpetuity tenure at moderate rents has 
 been established, and yet, to the tenants holding at these 
 moderate rents, abatements have had to be made just as 
 in other cases. If a perpetuity rent of any sort is to be 
 established, I therefore hold that it must be at a very low 
 standard. 
 
 In the next place, this system., if universally, or even 
 generally, established, would be but the stand-point for a 
 new and most formidable agitation — this follows almost 
 necessarily from what I have already written. If the 
 tenure would not give satisfaction to the occupiers, it 
 certainly would not have diminished or decreased their 
 strength. If the same relationship as to numbers 
 between owners and occupiers were to exist in the future 
 as they now exist, the struggle for absolute ownership 
 would continue all the same. The variable rent would, 
 most certainly, have to be changed into a perpetuity, 
 which, in its turn, would have to give way to ownership. 
 Having gained so much at a time when comparatively 
 weak, can it be imagined that when strengthened with 
 more than half ownership, they would desist in the efforts 
 to get the whole, or that the whole could be kept from 
 them ? What would be left to the landlords, even if the 
 rents were to be variable, would be very little worth 
 fighting for. The first assault would be to turn them 
 into perpetuities, and this being done, their extinction 
 would be but a matter of time. 
 
 Lastly, such a system could not possibly be kept up 
 with regard to future lettings without legal restrictions 
 and interference which would be mischievous to all parties 
 concerned, useless for the purposes for which they were 
 created, and, in the end, intolerable to every one. 
 
17 
 
 Whether just or unjust, it would be quite possible at oncv'^ 
 to make all the occupiers of farms in Ireland hold by a 
 iixed tenure, and at a rent arranged by valuation, but, to 
 extend this to future lettings, would be quite a different 
 thing. If a man has now a holding of land in his own 
 possession, and if he be free to hold it or to let it, it will be 
 found in practice impossible to prevent his getting its 
 full market value when he lets it. Just as the landlords 
 in the north of Ireland who have tried to limit the price 
 of the tenant-right have failed to do so, money being 
 paid outside the office in excess of that given in presence 
 of the agent or landlord, so would the law fail which 
 attempted to fix the price to be paid for the hire or use 
 of the land. Just as the usury laws failed, so would this 
 law fail, and, instead of benefiting the persons intended 
 to be benefited, the result would be the reverse. 
 Applied to future lettings the establishment of these 
 restrictions would be a step backward instead of forward 
 — instead of freeing the transfer of land from difficulties, 
 they would create new ones, and the system could not 
 possibly last. 
 
 Even still more objectionable would be the proposal 
 of fixity or perpetuity of tenure as applied to new let- 
 tings. I cannot justify the principle that a man should 
 either keep land in his own possession or part with its 
 occupation for ever. This, in practice, would be found 
 intolerable. In the words of Judge Longfield, the public 
 would not long bear a law which prevented two men from 
 making a bargain, just in itself, useful to the public, and 
 profitable to both parties. A holds a farm which he 
 wishes to let for a short period ; for this purpose he is 
 willing to let it at a lower rent than if he let it for ever. 
 B just wants such a farm, and it suits him better thau 
 paying a higher rent or a large fine for a longer tenure. 
 Will it be tolerated that the law should step in and say 
 this cannot be permitted, and either A must continue to 
 work his farm m person at a loss, or give it up for ever, 
 and B must do without its temporary use, or pay a heavy 
 fine which he is unable to raise. The scheme of fixity of 
 tenure and valued rents must bo applied only to existing 
 
18 
 
 tenancies. Its application to them may be necessary and 
 justifiable, but with this its existence must cease, and 
 once it has established a large number of the occupiers 
 in secure occupation of their farms it must give place 
 again to freedom of contract. 
 
 For these reasons I have felt obliged to dissent from 
 some of the most important recommendations in the 
 Eeport. They seem to me to fail in having any lasting 
 basis to stand upon ; but mere dissent from them does not 
 solve the problem. The difficulty we have really to face 
 is this : we want to confer on the tenants of Ireland 
 valuable rights which they do not now possess — rights 
 possessing a considerable intrinsic and money value, which 
 the occupiers are not able fully or immediately to buy, 
 and which cannot be justly taken from the existing owners 
 without some option or compensation. Is it possible 
 to reconcile these two interests without injustice ? It 
 seems to me to be so, but not without the interference 
 of the State, and the very considerable interference of 
 the State, in the way of advancing money. I believe 
 that with a combined system of voluntary arrangement 
 between landlord and tenant for fixity of tenure, at either 
 perpetuity rents or variable rents and compulsory sales, 
 the problem can be met. 
 
 Perpetuity of tenure at low rents, rents considerably 
 under the full letting value, may be sufficient in a num- 
 ber of cases to meet the wants of the country, and where 
 the landlord was willing to grant these, he should be 
 encouraged to do so ; first, by advances to the tenant to 
 enable the tenant at once to purchase it ; secondly, if the 
 tenant did not purchase at once, by entitling the land- 
 lord to receive payment for it on the occasion of the first 
 sale of the tenant's interest; thirdly, by securing the 
 landlord in all pre-existing arrears, and by giving 
 very quick, sharp, and decisive remedies for the re- 
 covery of rent, or the possession of the land where the 
 rent was not paid. 
 
 But this, alter all, I would consider but a ver}^ small 
 portion of the scheme that would be required. Absolute 
 
19 
 
 ownership is what must be looked to as the essential 
 element of any really eifective proposal, and I do not 
 think that in order to bring this about it would be neces- 
 sary to have universal or even general compulsory expro- 
 priation of landlords. If landlords were given merely 
 the alternative of granting the perpetuities proposed in 
 the Eeport, or submitting their estates for sale, I believe 
 it would be found there would be ample field for creating 
 occupying ownership. To every tenant of an agricul- 
 tural holding, with certain exceptions to which I shall 
 refer hereafter, I would give the right to demand the 
 fixity of tenure and fair rents suggested in the Eeport, 
 and if the landlord refused to grant it, I would compel 
 him to sell to the State. The State having purchased, 
 should then, if possible, sell outright to the occupier and 
 establish absolute ownership at once, or should create a 
 tenancy convertible into absolute ownership at the earliest 
 possible date. I believe this could be done without any loss 
 to the State, without the assumption of any undue respon- 
 sibility, and without sacrificing those private rights/which, 
 without some such system, will and must be sacrificed. 
 
 Except in this indirect way, I do not propose any 
 compulsory sales. Compulsory sales in certain cases 
 have been advocated by some of those who have ap- 
 peared before us, but it strikes me it is not so much 
 compulsory sales as compulsory purchasers that would be 
 required. No one, I presume, would say it would be 
 just to compel any proprietor, whether individual or cor- 
 poration, to sell, unless he or they were secured in the 
 full value of their property. 
 
 In every proposal that has been mooted in regard to 
 compulsory sale, it is always presumed that the State, 
 which for the good of the public, compels sale, will step 
 in and purchase on behalf of the public, and that the 
 seller will get the full value of the property. If this be 
 secured to the seller I do not see any unwarrantable in- 
 terference with his right in compelling him to sell, es- 
 pecially if this be accompanied with the alternative of 
 granting to his tenants that security of tenure, which, 
 looking to the general good of the country, seems to be 
 
20 
 
 required. Certainly an owner with this option pre- 
 sented to him is not at least in a worse position than if 
 he were compelled without an option to give the tenure 
 above referred to, and therefore, so far as the owner is 
 concerned, he would have far less reason to complain of 
 unjust interference with his rights than if he had forced 
 on him, without any alternative, the granting of the per- 
 petuities. 
 
 There is, no doubt, involved in this a very much 
 larger question than the rights or interests of the owner, 
 and that is the responsibility of the State ; and the ques- 
 tion arises, whether if all the owners of land in Ireland 
 were willing to sell their estates at their fair value, the 
 State ought to become even the intermediary purchaser, 
 and buy them up with the view of selling them to the 
 occupiers, or making these occupiers tenants on tenures 
 that would be more conducive to the good of the public 
 at large. There is also involved in this the ascertain, 
 ment of what would be the real fair selling value of the 
 property ; and it may be urged it would be as difficult to 
 ascertain the fair selling value as the fair letting value, 
 that the one hangs upon the other, and that all the diffi- 
 culties I have enumerated, in regard to settling the fair 
 rent, would have to be encountered in settling the fair 
 selling value. 
 
 With regard to the first question — the responsibility 
 of the State — I think it is to be regarded in two aspects. 
 First, Is it a just responsibility ? is it one that the State 
 ought justly to undertake ? Secondly, Is it likely to be 
 of an overwhelming character ? With regard to the first 
 point it seems to me to be a most just responsibility. 
 The position of affairs is this : — Under the existing law 
 certain persons, called landlords, have the ownership of 
 the land of the country guaranteed to them. They have 
 certain rights in that land, as owners, which it is con- 
 sidered expedient for the public good to do away with ; 
 and if the deprivation of these rights depreciates the 
 value of their property, it is in accordance with all the 
 practice of British legislation to give compensation 
 to the persons deprived of these legal rights, or to 
 
21 
 
 take up from them tlieir property at its pre-existing 
 value. 
 
 If the granting of the new tenure would not depre- 
 ciate the value of the landlord's property, there could be 
 no great risk involved in taking it off his hands, granting 
 the perpetuity, and then re-selling to the outside public. 
 Until the last year or eighteen months there was no lack 
 of purchasers for Irish landed property when put up for 
 sale ; and if the new tenure gave satisfaction, and that 
 it did not materially depreciate the value of the owner's 
 property, there would be no great responsibility or loss 
 involved in buying up all the property offered for sale 
 under such circumstances. In any case, it seems to me 
 that the change in the position of landlord and tenant 
 being effected for the public good, and not for the good 
 of the individual owner, any loss, should loss arise, should 
 be borne by the public ; and that therefore the respon- 
 sibility is one that might justly be accepted by the 
 State. 
 
 It has been suggested that this responsibility would 
 be of enormous magnitude. I cannot join in this appre- 
 hension. I do not believe that all or the great majority 
 of the landlords of Ireland, sooner than grant fixity of 
 tenure at valued rents, would rush in and demand that 
 their estates should be purchased. But if there were 
 grounds for this apprehension, nothing could more clearly 
 show the adverse opinion entertained by these owners as 
 to the effect which the new compulsory tenure would 
 have on their relations with their tenants. It must also 
 be remembered that the utmost responsibility accepted 
 by the State, even in such a case, would be an obligation 
 to grant this very same tenure to the occupiers ; and if 
 the tenure did not depreciate the value of the property 
 there surely could not be much risk in the transaction, 
 as the State, having granted the perpetuity, could at 
 once re -sell to the highest bidder. 
 
 The experiment, so far as it has been tried in Ireland, 
 has, I think, been a great success. Evidence was given 
 to us, showing that the vast majority of the owners 
 
22 
 
 created under the Church Act and the Land Act have 
 been proKspering, and are contented ; and the year which 
 we have lately passed is one which must have severely 
 tried the system. On all sides tenants, holding at the 
 most moderate rents, were receiving abatements, arrears 
 were growing apace, and rent-paying in many cases had 
 altogether ceased ; yet no abatements were made to these 
 purchasers, and the remarkable fact remains, that out of 
 a rental, largely paid by very small occupiers, only ten 
 per cent, of arrears appeared to be due to the Church 
 Commissioners at the end of the year 1879, and the 
 whole of this they expected to recover. In some indi- 
 vidual cases the purchasers have failed, some have sold 
 their purchases, others are in debt, and will have to sell. 
 This was to have been expected ; but these cases are the 
 rare exceptions, and that they should be so few after 
 such trying times, and that those few should leave their 
 holdings quietly when they found themselves unable to 
 retain them, are the strongest arguments in favour of 
 the system. 
 
 I consider the option of sale, or offer to purchase on 
 the part of the State, the most important portion of my 
 proposal, and by itself I think it would accomplish much 
 of w^hat is wanted. Quite apart from the disadvantages 
 arising out of insecurity of tenure on the part of the 
 occupiers, I believe the disadvantages of having the 
 ownership of land held by a mere handful of the popula- 
 tion are in themselves most serious. Security of tenure 
 has long been the demand of the occupiers ; it will soon 
 be the turn of the owners to cry out for the security of 
 their tenure, and their security will be most unsafe unless 
 it be largely participitated in by the mass of the popu- 
 lation which now really governs the country. 
 
 In undertaking such a purchase, the State must of 
 course be secured against having to pay more than the 
 real value of the land, and one of the first conditions 
 ought to be that the purchase-money should not be of a 
 character to tempt the owner to part with his property 
 mainly with the view of getting a fancy price for it. In 
 arriving at the value of an estate offered for sale it would 
 
not be fair to proceed altogether on the basis of the ex- 
 isting rental, and, therefore, it would be necessary in 
 some cases to have a valuation of the land irrespective of 
 that rental, and here we may have to meet with the same 
 difficulty as would arise in valuing for a fair rent. The 
 difficulty is undoubtedly of the same nature, but not at 
 all to the same extent. The valuation of a rent for the 
 purpose of purchase will be found much more easy than 
 a calculation of rent for the purpose of an annual pay- 
 ment. One of the greatest difficulties in arriving at a 
 fair rent as between landlord and tenant, on a uniform 
 scale all over Ireland, will be that such uniform scale 
 would necessarily result in many raisings of rents. This 
 difficulty certainly will not exist to the same extent, and 
 it may not exist at all in regard to lands purchased by 
 the State, and that because the State can afford to take 
 much lower rents than anyone else, and to do this with- 
 out any loss. The difference in the rate of interest at 
 which the State can raise loans and that required by any 
 private individual being the explanation. 
 
 This may be illustrated by an example : Let us 
 take the cases of two holdings on different estates of 
 really the same value — the one let at £90 a year, the 
 other at £110 — the true letting or fair rent of each let 
 us suppose to be £100 a year. If perpetuity of tenure 
 at fair rents were to be established, the one tenant's rent 
 would have to be raised £10 a year, whilst the other 
 would be lowered £J 0, and even if this gave satisfaction 
 to the one man the other would be certain to be dissa- 
 tisfied ; but if instead of this the State were to purchase 
 the two holdings at 22^ years' purchase of the fair rent, 
 and to charge interest say at four per cent., there would 
 not be the same dissatisfaction. Each holding woidd 
 cost £2,250, and four per cent, on this would equal £90, 
 so that the one tenant would have his holding for the 
 future at the same low rent as before, and the other would 
 
 have a very considerable reduction — from £110 to £90. 
 ****** 
 
 What I therefore suggest is, that a commission should 
 be appointed, with ample funds guaranteed by the State, 
 
24 
 
 to purchase up, at a fair selling value, all the estates 
 offered for sale by the existing owners ; that, having 
 purchased these lands, they should be resold to the occu- 
 piers wherever the occupiers could pay down in cash 
 one-fifth of the purchase-money, four-fifths being ad- 
 vanced at annual payments, such as would extinguish 
 the principal and interest in a given number of years, 
 w^hich I would suggest to be thirty-five. 
 
 Where the occupiers are not able to provide one-fifth 
 of the purchase-money, they should either have perpe- 
 tuity grants made to them of the lands at a fair rent, and 
 these perpetuities should be sold to the public, or the 
 perpetuity grants should be made to them at an annual 
 payment which Avould repay four-fifths of the purchase- 
 money, interest and principal, in thirty-five years ; that 
 this should be paid to the Commission simply as interest 
 or rent, until such time as the first sale of the tenants' 
 interest took place, when, out of the purchase-money, 
 realized by such sale, the original one-fifth should be 
 paid to the Commission, and that from that date the 
 repayment of principal should commence. I propose 
 this mode of repayment because I believe that although 
 many occupiers could not now, or at once, advance any 
 portion of the purchase-money ; yet, on the first sale of 
 their interest in the land, ample funds would be forth- 
 coming. In proof of this I refer to the enormous sums 
 now paid for the tenants' interest in Ulster.* Under 
 this proposal, taking the example I have already given, 
 if a holding worth £100 a year were purchased fur 
 i^2,2o0, and the tenant was not able to pay one-fifth of 
 the purchase-money, or £450, his annual payment should 
 be fixed at five per cent, on £1,800, or £90, which 
 should be regarded simply as interest or rent, until such 
 time as the £450 was paid to the Commission, after 
 
 * Inasmuch as five per cent, on four- fifths of the purchase- money- 
 would be the same as four per cent, on the whole, I have taken this 
 example to show, that so long as the occupier had made no repayment 
 on account of the purchase-money, the State would be in receipt of four 
 per cent, interest on the whole money advanced, and as soon as the one- 
 fifth was repaid, the very same annual payment would wipe off principal 
 and interest in thirty-five years. 
 
25 
 
 which time the repayment of principal should commence, 
 the payment of the c£450, if not previously made, being 
 obligatory on the first sale of the occupier's interest. 
 
 The probable immediate results I would anticipate 
 for this scheme are the following : — First, that a very 
 large quantity of land would be at once brought into the 
 market, and rendered available for peasant proprietary. 
 Secondly, that the land so brought into the market would 
 to a great extent be the property which it would be most 
 desirable to take from its present owners. Thirdly, 
 that these operations would not be confined to any par- 
 ticular district or portion of Ireland, but would be 
 general, and make its influence felt everywhere. And 
 lastly, that the absolute ownership thus conferred on 
 such a large number of proprietors would have such a 
 general wholesome effect, that even the relations between 
 the occupiers and owners where sales did not take place 
 would be greatly benefited. That a large quantity of 
 land would at once come into the market for sale, and 
 that on very reasonable terms, cannot, I think, be 
 doubted. But if, by any chance, this turned out not to 
 be the case, I would be quite prepared to go further and 
 compel sales. Where a property was incumbered to a 
 certain proportion of its absolute value, I would compel 
 its sale, and then the requisite amount of land for peasant 
 proprietary could be easily got, but before having resort 
 to this compulsion, the offer of general purchase should 
 be first tried, and I cannot doubt it would be found quite 
 sufficient. 
 
 In the next place the estates that would be offered for 
 sale would be just those which it would be most de- 
 sirable to have sold. Most probably if the alternative 
 of granting perpetuities at fixed or variable rents to the 
 tenants, or of selling to the State, were offered to all pro- 
 prietors, the old established residential owners, between 
 whom and their tenants, feelings of good-will had 
 always existed, and who had always asked for only low 
 rents and permitted practically fixity of tenure to exist, 
 would come to an arrangement voluntarily wath their 
 tenants, and would grant legally what they had 
 
26 
 
 previously been in the habit of allowing. Neither 
 landlords nor tenants in such cases would like to part 
 company. Some general rights of ownership, such as 
 rights of shooting, rights over bogs, quarries and 
 minerals, could be reserved to the owner, which would 
 give him an incentive to retain his land even on the 
 altered conditions. Lowness of rent and fixity of 
 tenure being secured to the tenant, he, too, would be 
 satisfied to remain in his present position. 
 
 The case would be different with the new purchasers ; 
 the men known as the rackrenters. Those who had no 
 interest in the possession of the land, beyond that of 
 getting the most they could out of it. They would be 
 almost certain to sell even if they had to sell at a loss 
 compared with the prices which they themselves had paid. 
 The first loss to them would be better than a perpetual 
 loss in getting only a low rate of interest for their money, 
 and having all the expenses and perplexities of collecting 
 an unwillingly paid rent. Again, where estates were 
 heavily incumbered, most probably an amount sufficient 
 to pay off the incumbrances would be sold, and one of 
 the greatest disadvantages of the present system, where 
 land is nominally owned by one man, and is in reality 
 the property of another, would be done away with. 
 Outlying townlands, distant from the residence of the 
 owner, and the estates of absentee proprietors who took 
 no interest in their property, would probably be amongst 
 the first to be sold. 
 
 This would also take place all over Ireland ; it would 
 not be confined to any particular district or county, and 
 everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the 
 land, occupying owners would be established, influenced 
 by every feeling that actuates the human breast to main- 
 tain and to uphold the rights of property, a state of 
 things which could not but affect even the relations 
 between landlord and tenant where these relations still 
 continued. 
 
 Of course in opposition to this the financial 
 difficulties of carrying it out have to be considered. For 
 the State all at once to become as it were the landlord of 
 
27 
 
 the majority of the tenants in Ireland would be a most 
 serious responsibility, and if the occupiers were to refuse 
 to pay the Government, a very serious state of affairs 
 might arise. 
 
 This is really not to be apprehended, and it could be 
 met effectually, if apprehended, by placing a limit on the 
 price beyond which the State would not go in purchasing- 
 property. Assuming, however, as we are bound to 
 assume, that a very large amount of property would 
 be sold, where is the money to come from, and how is 
 the repayment of interest and principal to be secured ? 
 I believe a great deal of the money could be found in 
 Ireland itself. A large amount of money is now lodged 
 on deposit at very low interest at the banks, and if land 
 debentures were created, guaranteed by the Government, 
 and bearing interest say at three and a-half per cent., 
 and issued for very small sums, I believe they would be 
 largely taken up through the country. 
 
 In order to secure this it might also be provided that 
 the landowners selling their property should take a con- 
 siderable portion of the purchase-money in these deben- 
 tures. What is wanted is not so much a large amount 
 of money as the guarantee of the State, and if this were 
 once given there would be little difficulty in finding 
 capital. 
 
 The next question which arises is. Whether this 
 could be safely given ? If it were necessary that the 
 Government should directly stand in the position of 
 landlord to a vast number of occupiers, I think the objec- 
 tion would be a serious one, but here again I think local 
 machinery might be introduced. The example of other 
 countries might be imitated in this respect. In the 
 evidence given to us by Lord Dufferin, the course 
 pursued by Eussia under somewhat similar circumstances 
 was quoted to us, and by making some such local unit as 
 the poor law union responsible for the payment of the 
 annual instalment, I think this difficulty could be got 
 rid of. 
 
 The course which should have to be provided would 
 be to transfer to the union authorities the duties of 
 
2S> 
 
 collecting the annual payment from the occupiers, and in 
 default of payment by ruj individual occupier, to make 
 the rateable property within the poor law union re- 
 sponsible, giving of course to the authorities the most 
 summary powers of seizing and selling the interest of 
 any defaulter. 
 
 The result of this proceeding would be to make every 
 occupier of land within the district, and every man who 
 had paid his own instalment, interested in having the 
 payments punctually made ; and, instead of public 
 sympathy running in favour of the defaulter, it would 
 run in exactly the opposite direction. Moreover, every 
 man who had invested his capital in any of the deben- 
 tures, would also have a stake in the country, and 
 become little desirous to see any revolutionary changes. 
 
 When once these perpetuity holders or occupying 
 owners are established, other difficulties will still have to 
 be met. Every one interested in the well-being of Ireland 
 must desire that some check should be placed on sub- 
 division or subletting. Excessive subdivision of land 
 has been in many instances one of the greatest curses of 
 the country ; yet it will be extremely difficult to prevent 
 it unless the habits of the people change, and that 
 greater intelligence and foresight is produced by the new 
 position in which they will find themselves. Subletting 
 might possibly be prevented during the time that any 
 instalment of purchase money was due to the State, and 
 both it and subdivision should be strictly prohibited. 
 
 Theoretically, I am opposed to any unnecessary in- 
 terference with the rights of the new owners, in disposing 
 of their property, and practically I fear it will be next to 
 impossible to prevent subdivision so long as the people 
 themselves look to it as a means of providing for their 
 families, and to a change in their habits and views we 
 must look, in the long run, for a remedy. 
 
 One of the curious anomalies of the present state of 
 affairs is, that whilst the Landxlct places penalties upon 
 subdivision and subletting, the common law of the country 
 seems to encourage subdivision. The Land Act makes 
 subdivision penal, and yet it has created a property, 
 
29 
 
 wliieh, by the common laAv of the countiy, is divisaLle, 
 in case of intestacy, amongst all the children of a deceased 
 tenant. When a tenant dies intestate, if the land be not 
 divided amongst all the family, it must be sold, and the 
 profits of the sale divided amongst them, so that either 
 division of the land, which is subject to penalties, or sale 
 of the holding, to which the tenant has no right, should 
 legally be resorted to in many cases. The difficulties 
 arising out of this have been adverted to by many wit- 
 nesses, and these difficulties will exist with regard both 
 to perpetuities and ownerships, unless by law one person 
 is made to inherit the whole. 
 
 This brings prominently forward a fact which is well 
 worth noting, and that is — that with a perpetuity tenure 
 and free sale, and a prohibition against subdivision, the 
 land of the country, unless the law of primogeniture pre- 
 vents it, will in a very short time be held at its full 
 market competitive value. Landlordism, with its full 
 rights, is the only system under which, in the long run, 
 land, without subdivision, can be held by the occupiers 
 at a less rate than its full competitive value. With free 
 sale replacing the landlord's control, on the death of every 
 occupier, where no will is made, either the holding must 
 be subdivided, or it must be put for sale, or one of the 
 family may get it, paying to the other members of the 
 family its full market value. 
 
 As a check against subdivision it has been proposed 
 that power should be left to the landlord to prevent it, 
 either b}" ejecting the tenant or compelling a sale. It is 
 worthy of notice, I think, that this very provision may 
 have the opposite effect to that which is intended. It is 
 intended as a check against subdivision, yet it gives to 
 the landlord what may turn out to be an inducement to 
 permit it. To him is still left the privilege of prohibit- 
 ing subdivision on the part of the tenant, but this is a 
 privilegewhich of course could be waived, in considera- 
 tion of a money payment, and it may turn out that it 
 will be the only real means left to a landlord of getting 
 an increased payment for his land under a perpetuity at 
 either variable or fijxed rent. There can be little doubt 
 
30 
 
 that in many cases the tenant, anxious to subdivide, would 
 be willing to make a payment for it ; and, under the 
 nominal prohibition, there is, therefore, so far as a 
 landlord is concerned, a sort of premium on sub- 
 division. 
 
 Subdivision or subletting, where the State either 
 directly or indirectly stands in the position of the land- 
 lords, will, I admit, be very difficult to prevent. It would 
 probably be most effectively prevented by giving a legal 
 right to the sub-tenant or persons with whom the land 
 is divided, to claim the whole holding, but whether such 
 a severe remedy as this would be thought just or expe- 
 dient, I do not undertake to determine. 
 
 If any of the proposals which I have recommended 
 be adopted, it is scarcely necessary to add that very en- 
 larged powers of sale must be given to limited owners, 
 that the interests of remaindermen and mortgagees will 
 have to be carefully looked after, and that all the pro- 
 posed proceedings will have to be carried out through a 
 Court specially provided for the purpose. Even the 
 establishment of these occupying owners will not be 
 nearly sufficient if the laws relating to the charging and 
 transfer of land remain as complicated and expensive as 
 they are, and no reform of the Land Question in Ireland 
 can be complete without a very great simplification of the 
 law relating to land transfer. This in itself is such a large 
 question, and it has occupied the attention of so many 
 special commissions, that it would be impossible to deal 
 with it properly here, although it is by no means one of 
 the least important questions which have to be dealt 
 with. 
 
 To recapitulate, then. The scheme which seems to 
 be most likely to meet the present wants of the country 
 is one — first, securing occupying owners on a large scale 
 throughout every part of the country ; secondly, securing 
 a certain class of tenants fixity of tenure at low rents, 
 with the right of free sale ; thirdly, simplifying as far as 
 possible the dealings in connexion with the transfer of 
 land. 
 
31 
 
 The case of leaseholders is far more difficult to deal 
 with, and here I cannot concur with my colleagues. On 
 the one side it would seem unreasonable that a man who 
 had entered into a specific contract to surrender the land 
 at a given time, and who, in consideration of that con- 
 tract, had received the land and had perhaps held it on 
 most favourable terms, should have the right to demand 
 that the terminable tenure should be changed into a per- 
 petuity, and that whilst he had secured to himself and 
 enjoyed all the benefits of the contract in lowness of rent, 
 he should now get rid of the consideration on account of 
 which he received these benefits. On the other side it 
 may appear equally unreasonable that the man who has 
 no tenure at all beyond that limited by twelve months' 
 notice to quit, should have perpetuity secured to him, 
 whilst the owner of far larger interest in the land should 
 be deprived of this. 
 
 This shows one of the great difficulties which seems 
 to me inherent in trying to settle the question on the 
 basis of compulsory fixity of tenure. I acknowledge 
 myself wholly unable satisfactorilj' to get over this diffi- 
 culty. It seems to me that the one condition of the lease, 
 that the lands should be surrendered at the end of a cer- 
 tain term, is, or ought to be, just as binding as the other 
 condition, that no more rent shall be asked for it than 
 the tenant has contracted to pay, and I would be unable 
 to defend the proposition that a tenant who perhaps held 
 the land under lease for the last forty years at a rent 
 extremely below the equitable price of the day, should 
 have a right, whilst having enjoyed the advantages of one 
 part of the contract, to get rid of the other, and to demand 
 that the terminable interest should be converted into a 
 perpetuity. 
 
 The principle which I prefer to compulsory fixity of 
 tenure would here come in to help us, and get us out of 
 the difficulty. The owner's interest in a terminable lease 
 is something which could be accurately valued, and if a 
 sale of the owner's interest took place, and the sum paid 
 were the full value of such interest, he would have no 
 ground of complaint. In such cases the leaseholder should 
 
 o" 
 
32 
 
 have no claim for perpetuity of tenure, unless lie were 
 himself willing to purchase the fee. 
 
 I have now dealt with the general question of land 
 tenure in Ireland, and with the remedies which I think 
 necessary in order to put things into proper condition ; 
 but something still remains. There are parts of Ireland 
 in which the condition of things is such that no altera- 
 tion in the tenure of land or the amount of rent could 
 really accomplish any lasting effect. There are portions 
 of Ireland in which the land is so bad, and is so thickly 
 populated, that the question of tenure and rent are mere 
 trifles. If the present occupiers had the land for ever, 
 and for nothing, they could not in the best of years live 
 decently, and in bad years they must be in a state of 
 starvation. Here we have a totally different problem to 
 meet from that which prevails elsewhere. From these 
 districts there must be either emigration or migration. 
 A very large proportion of the population must go to 
 foreign and more fertile countries, or they must be re- 
 moved to other portions of this island. 
 
 One alternative to meet this over population on the 
 bad land is reclamation of land on a large scale. I wish 
 I could believe in the success of this, but I feel bound 
 to say I do not. That there is much reclaimable waste 
 land in Ireland I quite believe ; that most of what is 
 called reclaimable land could be reclaimed I admit ; but 
 the real question is : could it be reclaimed at a profit, 
 and on a large scale ? What is far more wanted than 
 reclamation of waste land is the proper cultivation of 
 land already under cultivation ; and it would be far more 
 profitable to undertake to put the land now under culti- 
 vation into a proper state than to commence operations 
 on what is commonly called waste land. If tenants have 
 waste land attached to their holdings, and are able, year by 
 year, to reclaim little patches, and let them into their 
 holdings, that I believe to be effective and profitable ; 
 but I do not believe that if the Government were to take 
 up large tracts of waste lands in Galway, or Mayo, or 
 Clare, or Kerry, and plant down upon them some of the 
 
33 
 
 surplus population of these counties, that they would 
 succeed. I am not a believer in Government work being 
 done more economically or better than work done by 
 private individuals or companies, and I have come to the 
 conclusion at which I have arrived in regard to waste 
 land from experience of previous efforts in this direction. 
 We have had brought before us several cases of large 
 reclamation schemes, and none of them appear to have 
 been crowned with success. At the same time I sympa- 
 thise very much with the desire of those who see in the 
 reclamation of waste lands a means of keeping our people 
 in their own country ; and as I may be wrong in the 
 gloomy views I take of the proposal, I will be very glad 
 to see the experiment tried, and I quite concur in saying 
 that I believe even its partial adoption would gratify a 
 large body of public opinion in Ireland. 
 
 Voluntary emigration is the only other remedy which 
 has been suggested to us, but the sort of voluntary emi- 
 gration that has of late years been going on is not what 
 a well-wisher of the country would like to see. The 
 strong, and active, and intelligent youth of the country 
 have been leaving, and if State-aided emigration be 
 thought of at all, it should be conducted on a system 
 under which whole families should be taken out, and 
 preparations made beforehand to receive them. -- 
 
 That some remedy is wanted to prevent the recur- 
 rence of periodical distress in certain parts of Ireland I 
 very strongly feel. We have had abundant evidence to 
 show that the rents in these localities have had really 
 little or nothing to do with the destitution. Evidence 
 on the subject is scarcely necessary. The simple fact 
 that the rents in many localities average <£3 and £4 a- 
 3^ ear, and that the lowest annual amount which an average 
 family would require to support themselves is £G0 or 
 £70, must be convincing proof that the doubling of the 
 rent or its totol abolition could not make the difference 
 between even moderate prosperity and destitution. The 
 loss of a small pig or of one rood of potatoes would be a 
 greater loss to one of these tenants than even the doubling 
 of his rent, whilst the production and good sale of one 
 
34 
 
 firkin of butter would be worth more to many of them 
 than the forgiveness of a whole year's rent. 
 
 These men, in the majority of eases, are not really 
 tenant farmers at all ; they are labourers who give the 
 greater part of their labour in England or other parts of 
 the country, and who have merely residences and patches 
 of poor land in some of the western counties. In good 
 years, when the potato crop succeeds and wages are high, 
 they get on fairly well, but in bad seasons they are in 
 utter destitution, and except by taking them out of their 
 present wretched holdings, in some way or another, there 
 does not seem to me much chance of their improving 
 their condition. 
 
 In the conclusion of the Eeport I most cordially join, 
 and although I may differ in some points as to what the 
 Irish occupier most wants, no one is more desirous than 
 I am that he should receive everything to which he is 
 justly entitled, and no one is more decidedly of the 
 opinion expressed in the Eeport, that unless the expected 
 new Land Bill is a full and exhaustive one, going to the 
 root of the whole matter, and settling it permanently, it 
 would be better not to interfere with it at all. 
 
 O'COl^OE DON. 
 
 lOth January^ 1881. 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 llllllllilllllllll " 
 
 3 9031 026 89169 7