The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-30 00:00:00

THE: .iXPRSS,

his case to the Inspector of the Board of
Works and received the sanction of the Commis-
sioner, may make improvements without the
consent of his landlord. But since he cannot
retain his holding without the consent of
his landlord, the liberty given amounts
to nothing more than the privilege of
improving himself out of his farm. If he
escapes this fate—if notice of improvement is not
followed by service of ejectment, his prospects
will not necessarily be much brighter. As each
improvement is made and valued year by year, it
will be in the landlord's power to raise the occu-
pier's rent year by year to precisely the same I
extent ; so that, as the O'CONOR Dos argued in
his closely-reasoned speech, the tenant-at-will,
though he may be secured from loss, will have no
certainty of profiting by his investments, and he
will scarcely go through all the labour imposed
upon him by Lord NAAS'S Bill in order to leave
matters precisely where they were before. The
remedy is to be found, where Mr. GREGORY'S
amendment looks for it, in the promo-
tion of leases. It is matter for regret that Mr.
GREGORY was not more explicit as to the means by
which he would attain this end. Ile left the
question unanswered how landlords who do not
want to give leases—who prefer a dependent and
unimproving tenantry to tenants who, though
they may pay higher rents, will be in a position to
call their votes their own—can be brought into a
different state of mind. Lord NAAS'S Bill will
certainly not contribute to their conversion. A
tenant-at-will, who improves without his land-'
lord's consent, can be summarily dealt with.
But a tenant with a lease, who calls
in the Inspector and the Commissioner,
and gains their sanction for works which his lease
does not contemplate, and which his landlord may
disapprove, will stand in a very different position.
To avoid this intervention of Government officials
with his property, the landlord, in most cases, will
refuse to give leases at all. If this indirect but
certain consequence of Lord Nsaa's measure was
contemplated by its framers, they may reasonably
have considered Mr. GREGORY'S amendment as hos-
tile to it. To give the farmer the protection of
the law for the investments of his industry and
capital is one thing ; to make him and his trade
subject to a Department is another. The true prin-
ciple would be to leave the tenant to improve as ,
the exigencies of his business and his own skill Eng- I
gest, and to give him on ejection a title to the'
value of his improvements, so far as he has not re-
couped himself for them during his occupancy.'
This system once established would lead the
Irish landlords to exercise more discretion than
they now often exhibit in the choice of tenants ;
would check arbitrary ejectment", since they might I,
be followed by an inconvenient money payment,
and would possibly lead to the granting of leases
on conditions admitting preliminary adjustment;
and for a term of years sufficient to enable the
tenant to repay himself in the shape of returns to
his investments. Lord Nsas'a Bill, in its prac-
tical operation, will concede no present boon, and
will shut the gate on future improvement.

the partifd mutiny wilitessed last night, 'The bill was
happily characterised as a feeble bid for popularity. The
strongest charge brought against it by those best qualified
to discuss it was, however, that it would stop leasing
altogether, and consequently place the tenants in a worse
position than before.

The Star also condemns the bill. Mr. Disraeli thinks to
conciliate the Irish people by dangling before them a
sordid money boon, and be is enabled to do so cheaply :
first, because he knows the measure will not pus ; and
secondly, because if it did, it would only be practically
available to persons who do not want it. A grant of
money ought to be the very last expedient resorted to for
the relief of an ill-governed country.