The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1870-03-27
The Irish Land Bill.

In our article upon this subject last week
we showed the great partiality and injustice
of the bill, in 1egalizing the tenant-right
custom of Ulster, which contains the great
majority of the Protestant tenantry in
Ireland, and refusing to recognize the tenant
right custom of the other three provinces,
Leinster, Munster and Connaught, where
the great majority of the tenantry are Ca
thoiic. If it was really the desire of Mr..
Gladstone to make such q bill as would
satisfy the wishes and the wants of the
Irish people, why deny to the great ma
jority-the Catholic tenantry of three pro-
vinces-what he colfers, as an advantage,
on Che small minority-the Protestant ten
antry, of the fourth 2 The distinction
which he makes in this part of the bill
proves conclusively, not only that he has
falsihed his promises, but that when he
made them he never intended to keep them.
Mr.. Gladstone is neither honest nor sim
cere. He worships power, and on it's altar
he is ready to sacrifice honor and truth.
Instead of administering the government
in accordance with the Wishes of the Irish
people, he is but carrying out the old, long
established policy of England towards Ire
land. In refusing to the three provinces
the small measure of justice he extends to
the one, he only adds insult to injury. But
when he affects to believe, and tries to make
the people of Ireland believe, that he is
fully carrying out the promises he has
made, and is making great concessions to
the Irish tenantry, he overrates his own
cunning as much as he does their simplicity.
His affectation of great liberality in pro-
missing loans of public money to poor ten
ants to enable them to purchase the lands
they actually occupy, if the landlords are
willing, when he knows they will not be
willing, while, by way of making things
equal, he promises similar loans to the
landlords, who can avail themselves of
them, and make them profitable, shows
that he deems hypocrisy a more useful in
strument in the policy of minister than
truth and justice.
In regard to compensation, where the
tenant, evicted from his holding, has a
claim for compensation under an old tenant
right usage in either of the three provinces,
he will be entitled to such compensation as
the court might find to be payable to him,
with three provisoes: 1. Out of any money
payable to the tenant, all arrears of rent,
or sums claimed by the landlord in respect
of any deterioration of the holding from
non-observance of any agreement between
them, shall first be paid to the landlord.
According to this bill, when the landlord
contends that any alteration in the holding
is q deterioration, instead of the landlord
being required to prove that it is so, the
tenant is required to prove that it is not.
2. Where the tenant subdivides Or sublets
without the landlords consent, or lets in
conacre after being forbidden, he is en-
titled to no compensation. If the landlord
purchase the right of the tenant under the
usage, the usage will cease. Under the
fear of eviction he can always do this, and
set the price himself. 3. Where the tenant
cannot claim compensation under any ten
ant-right usage, he will be entitled under
this bill to compensation for the loss of his
holding, such as the court may think just,
SO that the award may not exceed seven
years rent in small holdings of ten pounds
and under, five years in holdings of from
ten to fifty pounds, three years in holdings
of from fifty to one hundred pounds, and
two years for all over one hundred pounds
Under this section the tenant may claim
separate compensation for permanent i'm
such as buildings, reclama-
tiOns of land etP. No tenant holding
under lease of thirtySone years, shall be
entitled to any compensation under any
usage, or on account of eviction, except for
permanent improvements; nor when any
is forbidden in writing by the
landlord. No tenant elected for non-pay-
the landlord to dispose of his Improvements
to an incoming tenant, and has not done
so, shall be entitled to any compensation.
But in no case can the tenant secure COM
when the landlord disputes the
claim, except through court of law.
The whole bill is a fraud. Instead of
ixity of tenure, such as a l6Ase for sixty
years or for lives, this bill makes tenure
ess secure than before. The landlord is
lnder no obligation to give leases at all.
The right of eviction and the right of dis
ress remain as before, while the right to
is so hampered with provisoes,
and restrictions as to be utterly
worthless to the poor yearly tenants who
heed it most. When the land is improved
~ the labor of the tenant, there is no
e..