The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, lB7O.

et those cliques WllO mannuiy talk eacn otner out
when religious questions are on the way.
The first clause applies only to the Ulster custom,
which now attains the force of law. The
second, which still awaits decision, affects
those customs which prevail out of Ulster;
and it is the intention of the Government to move
that such usages as resemble the Ulster tenant-right,
though without the nine Northern counties, be
treated on the same footing as the tenant-right
itself. The third clause, dealing with those holdings
on which no custom has gained a footing,
has been the great bone of contentian.
It has undergone woeful mutilation, and
yet remains incomplete; but the Government
have succeeded in retaining their original idea. The
purpose of the third clause was and is to secure un-
protected tenants compensation for improve-
ments on the land made by themselves, and in addi-
tion a recompense for eviction considered merely
as dispossession of the occupier, unless some good rea-
son can be shown for the exercise of the landlord's
right. As the clause stood in the original bill, it
was proposed that great improvements—permanent
buildings and land reclamations—should be paid for
separately, and in addition small improvements
and the eviction payment were to be assessed accord-
ing to a scale, by which the compensation was
limited to seven years' rent for holdings under £lO
ayear, five years' rent for holdings between £lO and
£5O, three years' when between £5O and £lOO, and
not more than'two years' when above £lOO. It was
declared to be impossible for a tenant to conclude a con-
tract with his landlord so as to deprive himself of the
claim to these advantages. On the other hand the
landlord by offering a 31 years lease', could redeem
himself from obligation. Very different in form is
the scheme as it now stands. Instead of minor ire-
provementsaud eviction being paid for toge ther,the two
assessments are separated. Further precision is thus
given to the theory that the tenant has a right in his
occupation of which he shall not be deprived without
good cause. With separate claims for minor im-
provements, the payment for eviction is now fixed at
a maximum of one year's rent when the
holding is worth above £lOO, two years"
when between £5O and £lOO, three years' when be-
tween £4O and £5O, and four years' between £3O and
£4O. Tenants under this line have a choice. They
may either claim separately for minor improvements
and eviction, or lump the two together. Thus
a tenancy between £lO and £3O gives right
to a maximum of four years' rent with a
separate claim for minor improvements, and five
years' without; under £lO, five years' efith separate
improvements, and seven years' without. The abso-
lute power given to a landlord to bar the eviction claim
by a lease of thirty-one years, has been withdrawn.
Tho prohibition of free contract is now limited
to a space of 20 years, and above the range of £5O
tenancies, all restrictions upon contracts is removed.
A tenant above that line may surrender the
benefits offered in the bill, if he thinks it to his
interest to do so.
There is much to be said in favour of this revolu-
tion in the third clause. The separation between the
claims for minor improvements and for eviction more
precisely defines the great principle of the measure,
which is that the landlord who evicts, except
for non-payment of rent or other cause of like
magnitude, must pay a heavy fine for doing so. The
power of eviction remains, but the tenant is
protected by its being rendered costly. This a novel
principle in English law; but if the necessity of the
case demands it—and beyond doubt it does—there is
nothing to be gained by any hesitating, half-con-
cealed definition. It may seem ihconsistent
that poorer tenants should have the power
either of making two separate claims, or of lumping
the two together. This safeguard could not, how-
ever, be dispensed with, for it often happens that
the small holder makes minor improvements which
are not marketable—which cost much labour and are
yet not capable of proof in a court of
law. Clearly a poor tenant ought to have
the option of standing upon such improvements
separately, or of classing them with his eviction
claim. Mr. Gladstone proposes to allow tenants
above £5O to contract themselves out of the bill; but
this concession is made with great reluctance, and
only. In the face of severe pressure. The plea foz
preventing tenants from foregoing the advantages
furnished in the measure, is that if they were left
free in this respect landlords might exert pressure to
get clear of the bill, and the last state of the tenant
would be worse than the first. And it is clear that
if holdings above £5O be exempt from the
prohibition, landlords will have a temptation
to consolidate their territory into large farms, to the
prejudice of the small holders. The danger is no

DISFRANCHISEMENT.

The bill for punishing the electoral offences 01
Beverley and Bridgwater is, as was expected,
A mere measure of disfranchisement. No
attempt is made to deal with the seats.
One clause states that Bridgwater and
Beverley are to cease to return members, and two
others provide that the voters of each place who
were guilty of bribery in 1808 will not be allowed to
vote for the Western Division of the county of
Somerset and the East RidinT, of Yorkshire, respec-
tively. Another bill disfranchises a number of the
Norwich electors.

great, but it is a danger. It would have been much
greater, had Mr. Fowler's amendment, altogether
excluding holdings above £5O from the compensa-
tion clause, met with the acceptance of the House.
Such a stipulation would positively have bribed
landlords to consolidate into large farms, and

would have destroyed the bill. And yet it was mo-.

jected by only 32 votes. The withdrawal of the

option granted to the landlord of escaping the bill
by offering a thirty-one years' lease is not a serious

disadvantage to owners, because Mr. Gladstone

has explained that if a tenant is actually offered a
fair lease and refuses it, that circumstance will
tell in moderation of his compensation claim.

clai.s© as

Uanada has been sttiaiodsly kept - out o=
sight by emigration agents, and asks intending
emigrants to seriously ponder on a few facts. These
facts are that both men and women's clothes are
double the price of such things in England ; gro-
ceries, crockery, and fuel are dearer than in Britain,
while the severity and length of the winter renders
far more firing necessary than at home. The in-
feriority of beef and mutton in Canada should, he
observes, he considered as a set-off against lowness of
price. The able bodied alone, says the rev. gentlentan,
should come, as many will have to endure great
hardship at most difficult and laborious work, under
a burning heat in summer, and in winter terrible
cold.