The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 17, 1670.

manner, that the Government would feel compelled
to regard the alterations as a party defeat; but it
is none the less certain that if the Ministry accep*
this programme the nation, and especially the Irish
portion of it, will evince the most unbounded aston-
ishment. The amendments are seven in number. They
are designed to abolish the occupancy compensation; to
cut down the provisions of the bill which regulate
contracts between landlord and tenant; to reduce the
compensation for improvements ; to reverse the pre-
sumption that improvements shall be held to have
been made by the occupier, unless the owner
can prove the contrary ; to establish a limit within
which compensation for improvements may be claimed;
and to effect one or two alterations of less impor-
tance. No doubt the Act which would be the result
of the bill after these alterations would be quite in
accordance with Conservative principles ;

measure, in: fact, would Le whiltbd down to: one
of a very neat Conservative character; but
the two schemes are quite different, neither can the y
be reconciled. The Opposition amendments would
strike out of the bill all that is characteristic, and
reduce it to an embodiment of those wretched

platitudes about compensation for improve-
ments with which we were bored by

cautious M.P.'s during the recess. It was long
ago decided that a measure which granted merely
compensation for improvements would be little

better than nothing. The great want of the Irish
occupier was security against arbitrary eviction.; and
the Government have sought to gain this end
by striking the mean between fixity of tenure and
the present uncontrolled power of the landlord.
They propose to legalise the custom of Ulster, and
in those parts of the country where no custom
exists it is designed to check evictions by giving

the occupier a moderate recompense for disturb-
ance in his holding, over and above the
payment for improvements. The Opposition wish
to omit this provision. They have no objection to
giving the force of_ law to the. Ulster practice of
the outgoing tenant selling his right, to the
incoming tenant ; at least we hear of
no objection; but the payment for distur-
bance in occupancy,- which is designed to supply
• the place of tenant-right in other parts of the
country, is to be tabooed. Protestant Ulster must
be taken care of, but Catholic Munster, Connaught,.
and Leinster are left out in the cold. Is it not pos-
sible to keep down the old spirit of ascendancy even
in dealing with land ? It wall expected and
urged in many quarters that the Ulster tenant right
'would be extended to the whole island. Instead of
taking this course the Ministry established the eviction
payment for those districts where no custom prevails.
It is clear . on every principle of equity that if the
privileges granted to such districts be withdrawn,
the legalisation of the Ulster tenant-right must be
withdrawn also. To take one and leave the other
would be sheer madness. It is a mistake to conclude

;hat the tenant, whether he be bad or good,

old, can claim a sum of
money "which may amount to a third of the
value of the fee simple." The amount is to be such
as the court may think just, and the maximum sum
will be paid only in cases of serious loss and hard-
ship. Give up the Ulster custom, and the occu-
paucy right, and what part of the principle is
left ?

new or

It is not likely that the Government can look with
greater favour upon the Conservative scheme for pro-
moting "free contract" in land. This part of the
Opposition programme is deemed of even greater
importance than the preceding. The Con-
servatives object to the interference between
landlord and tenant, especially in the matters of
leases and tenancies from year to year. But it is
just the' occasional abuse of landlords' ppwer over
yearly tenants that has made the land qubstion what
it is. If any interference by Government is tolerated
at all, the yearly holdings are precisely

thOso which require it. As to leases, it is ob-
vious- that no landlord is obliged to consent
to them. It is in the power of owners to escape the
occupancy payment by grouting a lease, and it is
clear that, unless the leases given upon such terms were
of fair length, the disturbance claim 'would
be of no value whatever. The proposal
to restrict the amount paid for improvement
is a minor matter, but it may be cited as another
evidence of the Conservative determination to reduce
the bill to nothing. A 3 to the objection to the
stipulation that improvements shall be deemed to be the
work of the tenant unless the landlord prove they are
his, it is sufficient to say that improvements are, as a
rule, effected by occupiers, and it is just to throw the
burdon of proof, not upon the rule, but upon the
exceptions. There can be little doubt as to what the
House of Commons will do with Mr. Disraeli's
scheme, but the course 'Which the Peers may take is
a serious question.