Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE LANDOWNERS' CONVENTION IN DUBLIN

THE landlords of Ireland had long delayed in forming any sort of combination so as to state their case conjointly to the British public. In the month of September of last year they first met as a convention of representatives from each county. They then appointed an executive committee of the ablest men they could select from their body, whose duty it became to formulate their ideas, and bring them in a tangible shape before an adjourned meeting previous to bringing them before the public. This latter meeting took place just before Christmas, under the presidency of the Duke of Abercorn, and to the work done at it I propose now to confine my remarks.

The topics discussed are mainly to be classed under two heads1st, Claims for compensation in respect of the detrimental results of past legislation; and 2nd, The nature of various schemes of purchase in the future. During the discussion on these main questions two important bye issues were determined. The first was whether the landlords should claim any reduction on their mortgages, or family charges, in proportion to the reductions made upon their estates. They most honourably and unanimously decided that, under no circumstances would they repudiate their own liabilities, but would pay them to the last farthing possible, and that they would make no distinction between family charges and ordinary mortgages. The second bye issue was a clear and explicit repudiation of the conduct of those very few landlords, such as Lord Clanricarde, who have brought the very name of an Irish landlord into disrepute, and created an unjust prejudice against a whole class for the sins and shortcomings of a few. The language of Lord De Vesci on this point was very explicit, and it met with the hearty approval of all present. It was as follows:-" There was another class which comprised very few and rare instances. They were men who bore an historic name, owners of large tracts of country drawing large revenues which were sent over to them in England, and deliberately neglecting their duties duties which they should regard in themselves as privileges. Such persons as did that were not only false to the traditions of their families, but they were false to their traditions

as landowners, and, more than that, they were the scourge and curse of Ireland. But they constituted only a few rare instances, and he thought it was right that this convention should disclaim any sympathy with them."

To return to the claim put forward for compensation, and the various modes which were suggested for providing that compensation. They were stated as follows:-" Compensation is claimed because the State, for reasons of public policy, has not only deprived the landlords of valuable proprietary rights and privileges, but has also inflicted specific loss and damage upon them, chiefly in the following respects :-(a.) Rents have, in very many cases, been reduced far below what could be justified by reference to economic causes alone. (b.) The granting of fixity of tenure to the occupier deprived the owner of his reversionary interest in the occupancy of the soil, and it was recognized by the statesmen responsible for the legislation in question that that fact would constitute a just claim for compensation. (c.) Parliament sanctioned the Land Act of 1881 on the most distinct assurances of the Government of the day that it would increase the saleable value of property, and that judicial rents would be more secure and certain than the old rents. Not only have those assurances not been fulfilled, but the contrary has happened, and in 1887 the State has further interfered to lessen both the saleable and receivable value of judicial rents by making their amount for the next three years depend on the fluctuations in prices, while the security for their payment has also been seriously impaired."

The statesmen responsible for the legislation of 1881, defined the contingency in which a claim for compensation would arise. Out of many quotations I shall cite but a few. Mr. Gladstone, speaking on the 16th of May 1881, said: "I certainly should be very slow to deny that where confiscation could be proved compensation ought to follow. The proof of confiscation, the proof of damage resulting from the action of the Legislature, is the very first step that must be taken, and must be established, beyond doubt, before the House can fairly be called upon to consider whether it will grant compensation or not "; and on July 22nd, 1881, he said: "If these classes (i.e. those immediately affected by the Land Bill) have a just claim to compensation in consequence of the measure in which their rights are affected by this Bill, we are bound, as a Parliament, to give it to them. If after-experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to be, or has been, brought upon any class in Ireland by the direct effect of this legislation, that is a question which we ought to look very directly in the face"; and further: "I quite agree that if Parliament were to pass a law

providing that rents in Ireland should be universally reduced to Griffith's valuation, that would be a fair case for compensation." Mr. W. E. Forster, on the 25th of April 1881 said: "I am not surprised to hear a claim for compensation. But the English law on the matter depends upon whether damage can be proved, and my firm belief is that no damage can be proved; on the other hand, if the landlord were compensated, you would compensate him for conferring on him a benefit." Mr. Hugh Law, who was Attorney-General at the time, said: "Now he would like to know upon what ground the landlords claimed to be entitled to compensation. . . If landlords as a class, or any class of landlords, claimed to be entitled to compensation, the question must be decided by that House. The Government, however, did not admit that there would be any loss to the landlord, except the loss of a power which he ought not to exercise. . . In conclusion, he must repeat that for his part he could see nothing in the Bill that interfered with the just rights of landlords." Lord Selborne, who was then Lord Chancellor, says: "Fixity of tenure in plain English means taking away the property of one man and giving it to another. No doubt we may take a man's property, but in that case we must compensate him for it.”

The claim for compensation turns, therefore, on the specific proof of damage done by that legislation. Examples were quoted at the Convention, in which rents had been reduced far below Griffith's valuation. By the Act, moreover, of 1881, the landlord has been deprived of many rights of property. He has lost his control over it. He had not the power to choose his own tenants. He has lost his right of sole ownership, and even, perhaps, more important than all, he has lost, in the words of the Bessborough Commission, "his legal reversion considered as a piece of substantive property." He has lost the power for ever of resuming and working his own property for his own benefit, which has been handed to his tenant to sell for the highest price he can get for it. Another injustice has been inflicted specially on those who purchased under the Incumbered or Landed Estates Courts. The Incumbered Estates Court Act provided for the transfer of all right, title, and interest in the land in the most complete and thorough manner, and the absolute ownership of all buildings and other improvements existing on the land at the time of sale. Inducements were held out to purchasers that "the rents were low and could be raised," or that tenants held under old leases which would soon expire, "when a considerable increase of rent might be expected." The prices paid for properties, owing to these prospective advantages, were higher than they would otherwise have been, and the State reaped an advantage in the higher amount of stamp and court

duties paid on the transfer. Now the presumptive right to all these houses, &c., has been vested in the tenant unless the owner can prove that he built them himself, which is often impossible. The owners are, therefore, now put on their proof of a right which the State, through the Landed Estates Court, has deliberately guaranteed to them, and from which guarantee the State has derived a benefit in the increased stamp duty. Could there be a clearer and more palpable breach of public faith, since all these rights, including the right to re-enter and re-occupy the land for the purchaser's benefit have now been taken away without any compensation whatever, while the rest of his property has been rendered unsaleable. What proves that there has been a large confiscation of property by the recent reductions of rents in the Land Courts is that the prices given for the tenant's interest have maintained their former level, even since the most recent fall in prices, and have even gone up in many cases. The economic value. of the land has not disappeared. It is there. It is daily bought and sold, as valuable as ever. Numerous cases have been tabulated, in which, while the fee only represented eighteen years' purchase of the reduced rents, the tenant right sold for twenty-five, or even for as many as forty years' purchase. While all these attacks have been made by successive Acts of the Legislature upon the rentals of the landlords, resulting on an average in a reduction of 25 per cent. in the first instance, and of a further 15 per cent., since the charges payable to the State by these same properties. have not been reduced at all. The tithe rent-charge, while payable to the Established Church, was regulated by the price of corn, and was finally adjusted when that price was high. But in 1872 an Act was passed, which deprived the landlords of the right of having this value varied with the price of produce, and which stereotyped the then value, so that the landlords now find themselves obliged. by one Act of Parliament to go on paying the charge in full, while the rents out of which they pay it have been by another Act of Parliament reduced some 25 per cent. It may be argued that as the capitalized value of this tithe rent-charge has been merged in the Church surplus, and as this surplus has been mortaged for various State purposes, so that only £150,283 remains over at present, it is impossible to readjust this charge now. But it must be remembered that the Church surplus has had to bear charges which properly are due from the State, and not from Church funds, and that the consolidated fund was relieved from a large sum by the abolition of the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum. The trustees of Maynooth were handed £372,331, and the Presbyterians received £768,929 as compensation for the loss. of these grants; one and a half millions were paid away under the

Relief of Distress Act, 1880, and nearly a million under the Arrears of Rent Act 1883, besides some two millions more for intermediate and university education, none of which had to do with a Church surplus, which was certainly in priority liable for a settlement of the tithe-charge question. A similar claim can be made out in the case of Government loans, through the Board of Works, for improvement of estates, arterial drainage, farm building, &c., the whole burden of which is now thrown on the landlords, though the entire benefit is received by the tenants.

Major Cosby, of Queen's Co., cited his own case as an example of extreme hardship under this head. £20,000 was required to effect improvements on the holdings on his estate. The Treasury did not feel justified in lending the money to the tenants directly for these improvements, so he, as landlord, went security to the State for the payment of the instalments, being guaranteed, by Act of Parliament, the right to add those instalments to the annual rents. This contract between the landlord and the Treasury has. been rudely broken by the action of the Land Commission. The improvements shared the fate of the rest of the rent, and the instalment rent, arising from the increased value of the holdings. owing to these improvements, instead of being the original sum contracted for with the Treasury, is now a sum less than that by 25 per cent. Another monstrous anomaly has arisen, which is exercising a completely crushing influence on some estates. To facilitate the collection of poor rates on small holdings, the law requires that the landlord shall pay the whole poor rates on holdings valued at or under £4 per annum, while on larger holdings the tenant pays the whole of such rates in the first instance, and can only recoup himself again to the extent of one-half of them when he is paying his rent to the landlord. The holdings valued at £4 and under comprise one-third of all the agricultural holdings in Ireland, and in what are known as the congested districts almost all the holdings come under this category. The result has been, that while no rents have been received for some time on most of these holdings, the landlord has been obliged to pay the whole rates, and so this kind of property has become of negative value to him. One delegate gave his own case in Co. Donegall, in which, out of £100 raised in one electoral division, he was obliged to pay £90, while his tenants only paid £10, and on another estate at Gweedore, in the same county, on which no rents have been paid for some time, out of 750 holdings some 710 are under £4 in valuation.

It is related of a well-known witty Irish judge, that he has been obliged for some years back to pay these poor rates for a number of his small tenants, while all this time they have paid no rent.

« PreviousContinue »