Chapter V (2)

These considerations indicate, to some extent at least, the nature and especially the value of these appeals. But this was not all, or nearly all; there was a grave miscarriage of the simplest justice in this important province. Appeals, I have said, came in, in thousands; the work thrown on the Land Commissioners was immense; as one of their present successors remarked, 'If proper consideration' (had been) 'given to all the appeals you would' (have) 'wanted ten Appeal Courts to do it;'[116] as was said again substantially, 'Appeals would have crushed the Land Commissioners, had they not been crushed by them.'[117] In this position of affairs, the Land Commissioners, no doubt with no bad or sinister purpose, adopted what must be called a device, to enable them quickly to dispose of appeals, nay, almost in a summary way. They were empowered, under the Act of 1881, to appoint 'independent valuers' to examine lands, and to report on the subject of their 'fair rents;' it was never contemplated that statements of this kind were to dispense with the duty of hearing appeals in detail, and pronouncing solemn judgments upon them; but, practically, the Land Commissioners, in the great mass of instances, when adjudicating on appeals, as regards 'fair rents,' almost wholly relied on the reports of these valuers, who, be it observed, were in no sense witnesses, and were not subject to examination on the part of the suitors before the Court. In a word, the Land Commissioners did not exclude other kinds of evidence; but unquestionably the dicta of the valuers, as a rule, determined the decisions they made on 'fair rent.' This expedient greatly accelerated appeals; but it reduced the right of appeal well-nigh to a sham; and this procedure was by many degrees more repugnant to justice than that of the Sub-Commissions. In an inquiry held before the House of Lords in 1882, an eminent member of the Irish bar remarked, 'It was the most unsatisfactory tribunal that I ever was before. What occurred was this: they took up the figures of the old rent, which we will say was L100, and the valuation L70, and the new rent L80. Then they took up the valuer's report, which was a document concealed from the parties. It was entirely for the information of the Court, and they turned round to me, as the landlord's counsel, the landlord being the appellant, and said, "Can you go on with this appeal in the face of this document?" and they would show me the document.'[118] And in the inquiry I have often referred to before, another distinguished lawyer has said, 'I have been in cases where, in order to overcome the difficulty, I marshalled a perfect phalanx of witnesses, for the landlord, but it was all no use. They listened to them, I admit,--they suggested that I was wasting time, but I am not stating they did not hear them,--but in the end, in the morning, the announcement was made that the judicial rent was confirmed.'[119]

As the general result these appeals, as it has been said, 'were strangled;' in thousands of instances they were withdrawn, the decisions of the Land Commission being final; expedition was attained; but it was only attained at the cost of gross wrong done to the landlords, a singular exhibition in a Court of Justice. I quote the following--and it should be borne in mind that the Land Commissioners have never attempted to explain this conduct, though the amplest opportunity was afforded, a few years ago: 'The extraordinary and anomalous state of things is that the valuers, not being assessors, do not sit with the Commissioners, and do not hear the evidence, and yet they are not witnesses in the proper sense of the term, because they are neither examined nor cross-examined. Common sense and justice revolt at the idea, when it is the duty of the Land Commissioners, upon the rehearing of a case, to sit and go through the proceedings _de novo_, that they should receive the evidence of valuers, which is not laid before the parties, and that those valuers should not be examined and cross-examined in the regular way. There is another matter to which I would refer. You will find, what is, indeed, what you might expect, that when the Commissioners go to Dublin, or Cork, or elsewhere, with a list of two or three hundred cases to be heard by them, involving, it may be, thousands of pounds a year of rent, that list is gone through in two or three days, and why? Because all the parties present know that they are taking part in what really is a solemn farce, and that what will happen in the morning after the hearing of their case is just this: John Brown, landlord, James Fogarty, tenant; judicial rent affirmed; John Robinson, landlord, James McNorth, tenant; judicial rent affirmed.'[120]

The first set of Land Commissioners passed away; they were succeeded by a second Land Commission, the president of which was Mr. Justice Bewley, an accomplished, if not a very eminent, lawyer. This Commission, like the other, was composed of honourable men; it is only just to remark that it was bound by the bad precedents made by the tribunal which it had replaced. The procedure of the Sub-Commissions was, in some degree, improved; but the methods of the second Land Commission differed for the worse where they differed from the methods of its predecessor. The Land Commissioners appear to have not at all regarded the general principles in fixing 'fair rent,' which ought to have had effect on their judgments; they gave less weight, than Mr. Justice O'Hagan, and his colleagues did, to the most important evidence, in this province, to which I have adverted before, and laid too much stress on the least important evidence. As has been truly remarked, 'We believe that much more attention was paid in the early days of the Land Commission to the remaining kinds of popular evidence than has been the case of late years; and we are assured by one of the head Commissioners that the Act of 1896 has made a great change in the fixing of fair rents by placing an emphasis on the technical evidence, and throwing the popular evidence into the background.'[121] The Commissioners, too, followed the bad example of the first Land Commission, in the province of appeals; they practically disregarded almost everything but the reports of their valuers, unchecked statements made by men who were not even witnesses, were not sworn, and were not examined--a procedure worthy of the Council of Ten at Venice; as before, the result was that appeals were made all but fruitless, in the Court of which the decisions were, in this respect, final.

There was, too, another grave miscarriage of justice caused, perhaps, by a mistake made by the head of the second Land Commission. The Act of 1881 provided that 'fair rent' should be fixed, having due regard to the 'interest' of the tenant on the land, that is, to his improvements, and perhaps to the mode of his tenure. Mr. Justice Bewley seems to have decided that another element ought to be taken into account, and should effect a reduction of rent; the tenant had 'an occupation right' in his favour, over and above the 'interest' the law gave him; by reason of this he had a right to have his rent cut down. The only plausible ground alleged for this doctrine was that landlords would usually accept a lower rent from a 'sitting' tenant in possession than from an incoming tenant; in other words, their good nature was turned against them, and was to be made a pretext for their being despoiled. It is just to observe that Mr. Justice Bewley's colleagues dissented from this curious view of the law; and the claim for 'occupation right' has since been blown to the winds in the superior Courts of Ireland. But though many faint denials were made, some of the Sub-Commissioners acted upon Mr. Justice Bewley's doctrine; the evidence is conclusive that this imaginary right was made the means of considerably reducing rent. Mr. Justice Bewley candidly admitted: 'From the commencement, apparently, a number of the Sub-Commissioners have acted on the principle that there is a certain occupation interest, which every tenant has, varying according to circumstances, not any fixed amount, but varying, and that that is to be taken into account in fixing the fair rent.'[122] This statement has been confirmed by a host of witnesses by no means willing in not a few instances. 'Would you make a difference between the assessment of the fair rent in the case of a sitting tenant, and in the case of an incoming tenant--a stranger? Certainly. Can you give us any idea what that difference is, expressed in percentage?--I could not very well answer that question. It is a mental calculation, and a good deal would depend upon the length of the tenure of the tenant.'[123] And again: 'In your experience of the Land Commission Court, do you find the "occupation interest" has been taken into account in fixing the fair rent?--Yes, I cannot account for the reductions that have been made, except on that supposition.'[124] And again: 'As far as your experience goes, do they invariably value the holdings on the principle of giving an occupation interest to the sitting tenant?--Yes, the tenants' valuers, as a rule, give 40 or 50 per cent. as the interest of the sitting tenant.... Do you find that the Sub-Commissioners fix the rent on what the valuers state?--Well, no; that would be going too much out of the way.'[125] And again: 'Have you any doubt that the rents are fixed on the basis of the occupation interest in the sitting tenant?--I have none. I do not know how else the rents could have been arrived at.'[126] And once more: 'Did the Sub-Commissioners invariably take the occupation interest of the sitting tenant into account?--I think so.' I conclude with these remarks of Mr. Barnes, one of the best and most impartial of Irish valuers: 'When I came to give evidence in Court I found that nothing else would be accepted as evidence unless based on occupation interest. It was almost the first question.... Whenever there was an answer made that the valuation was based on what the landlord would get for the land in his own hands, it was discounted at once.'[127] No wonder that it has been alleged by the highest authority with respect to this claim, since proved to have been unfounded, guarded and cautious as the language is: 'There is, however, reason to believe that this notion of an occupation interest existed in the minds of some of the early valuers, and did, in fact, influence them, and it is very possible that some cases in which the reductions there made appear startling, may be, in part, attributable to this doctrine.'[128]

What amount of the rental of Ireland was unlawfully cut down owing to the theory of 'occupation right,' it is, of course, impossible to ascertain. Reductions of rent, too, were probably unjustly made through the ignorance of the Land Commission as to agricultural matters. I refer to a grotesque instance of this: 'You have marked a passage there in the judgment, which, according to you, shows that owing to their ignorance as experts they entirely mistook what six-course rotation meant?--Yes. The fact is they took it to be the same crop in the whole seventy acres, that instead of having so many different crops in this portion of the ground, it was to be put into one crop for the year, and that is what they call "rotation" in the Court of Rehearing.... It is plain enough, from the authorised report of the judgment, that they made that mistake?--It is clear as possible, and it was upon that that they threw me out. The tenant himself knew that it was all absurdity and mistake.'[129]

A remarkable incident occurred in 1897 which threw a strong, if not a complete, light on the proceedings of the Land Commission and its Sub-Commissions in the adjustment of rent. In 1896 the time had come for renewing the first statutory leases, under the Act of 1881; the Commissioners suddenly made such enormous reductions of rent that persons who knew Ireland were simply astounded. The Irish landlords naturally were indignant; after some hesitation, and with plain reluctance, the Government gave its consent to a very imperfect inquiry. A Commission, presided over by Sir Edward Fry, a judge of the highest eminence, retired from office, and composed of four additional colleagues, two being well-known agricultural experts, was appointed to investigate the subject on the spot; but the scope of the inquiry was limited in the extreme; it was confined, in this respect, to examining the procedure and practice adopted in fixing 'fair rents;' it did not extend to the conduct generally of the Land Commission and its dependent tribunals. The Commission was engaged nearly three months in its task; it held its sittings in different parts of Ireland; it had before it 183 witnesses; and restricted as it was in this province, it pronounced, in grave and judicial language, a marked censure on the methods that had been followed in fixing 'fair rents' in Ireland. In fact, Sir Edward Fry and his colleagues confirmed, in many respects, the charges which I have made with regard to this whole system. No doubt they reported, in very guarded words, 'that they were unable to conclude that the machinery of the Land Statutes has been uniformly worked with injustice towards landlords;'[130] but as they pointedly refused to rehear a single case, in which the Land Commission and the Sub-Commissions had fixed a 'fair rent,' this statement, ambiguous as it is, is of no real importance. In other particulars the expression of these opinions cannot be mistaken; to impartial minds it will appear decisive. They evidently thought that such wrong had been done to landlords owing to the want of a definition of 'fair rent,' that they actually framed a definition of their own, in order to establish some kind of standard; this did not widely differ from that of Mr. Law, which, I have said, would have made things very different had it been adopted.[131] They pointed out that the Land Commissioners should have assisted the Sub-Commissions in fixing 'fair rents,' and should not have left them 'like ships without a rudder or a compass on a stormy sea;' it is 'a subject of regret,' they reported, 'that in the early days of the system the Land Commissioners were unable to take a part in the tribunals of first instance; and that the whole original business was left to Sub-Commissions.'[132] They strongly condemned the nature of the Sub-Commission Courts, as being composed of members inadequately paid and mere tenants at sufferance; and they put forward an elaborate scheme to make the administration of justice in these tribunals more above suspicion.[133] They evidently believed that the Land Commission and the Sub-Commissions did not give due weight to the class of evidence that was most important, and gave too much weight to that which was the least; and they made significant observations on this subject.[134] On the whole, they arrived at the conclusion that the fixing of 'fair rents' 'gives opportunity for dissatisfaction, and leaves much more for improvement; ... and that the settlement of fair rents has been effected in an unsatisfactory manner, with diversity of opinion and practice, sometimes with carelessness, and sometimes with that bias towards one side or the other which exists in many honest minds.'[135] But their strongest animadversion was found in the system, through which, I have said, the Land Commission really 'strangled' appeals, though in this province its decisions were final: 'An almost universal dissatisfaction is expressed with regard to these appeals, a dissatisfaction felt by some at least of the Commissioners themselves. No witness, with, perhaps, a single exception, spoke in favour of the existing system.'[136]

Mr. Justice Bewley has retired from office, and has been replaced by Mr. Justice Meredith, a capable and experienced lawyer. He has done, probably as much as in him lay, to alleviate some of the wrong done to Irish landlords; and for this he has been subjected to violent abuse, especially on the part of an advocate of Ulster farmers, whose tongue is at odds with his trade in temperance. But he is bound by the precedents set by those who have gone before him; and though the work of the Land Commission is now better done than it was before the Report of the Fry Commission appeared, and its general procedure has improved, little change has been effected in the reduction of rent in Ireland. The Government, as I have pointed out in a preceding chapter, has made a few administrative reforms in the composition and the arrangement of the Sub-Commissions; but it has not taken a single step to give effect to the recommendations made by the Fry Commission, so far as these are of real importance; it has refused to legislate on the subject, and to bring in the measure that was required; it has even refused to set a further inquiry on foot. The general results of the labours of the Land Commission and of its subordinate tribunals in fixing 'fair rents' may be summed up in a very few sentences. According to the Report of the Fry Commission, the tenants of rural holdings in Ireland are about 486,000 in number; 328,720 of these have had 'fair rents' fixed, between August, 1881, and the end of March, 1900.[137] The tenants, who have not had 'fair rents' fixed, are probably either tenants of lands not within the Land Acts, or 'future tenants' since 1881-82, or tenants too poor to pay law costs; but these, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, have indirectly had the benefit of the law, and have had their rents reduced like those of the large majority, by voluntary concessions on the part of landlords. The great mass of 'fair rents' has been fixed by the Land Commission and its dependents, and the proceedings of these tribunals have, beyond question, formed a standard for the adjustment of rent; whether 'fair rents' have been fixed by the County Courts,[138] or by agreements between landlord and tenant, they have, in the main, conformed to the measure established by the Courts set up in 1881. The reductions of rent made, in every way, in the first statutory leases, were, on an average, rather more than 20 per cent. on the old rental;[139] but those on the second statutory leases have been 22 per cent. more,[140] that is, the fixing of 'fair rents,' so far as it has gone, has reduced rents rather more than 42 per cent. It may be asserted, with some confidence, that through the operation of the new Irish land code, taking in tenancies of all kinds, Irish rents have been cut down nearly 40 per cent.; little doubt can exist that they are now lower than they were in the day of Wakefield, and in some instances in the day of Arthur Young, when the price of Irish agricultural produce was less than half what it is at the present time.[141]

The agricultural rental of Ireland, therefore, in all probability, has been reduced almost 40 per cent., or will be in a short space of time; and as long as the present system of fixing 'fair rent' continues, however it may be lowered, it will certainly not be raised. The Act of 1881, I have already said, would, by itself, necessarily reduce rents; but the faulty administration of it, on which I have dwelt, has reduced them far more than ought to have been the case. In fact, disguise it as you may, an immense confiscation, gradual, indeed, and veiled, but not the less real, has been made of the property of Irish landlords, even on the principles of a bad law; the evidence of this is, I believe, conclusive. Rents have been cut down indiscriminately in the great mass of instances; for example, rents in country districts only opened to good markets of late years, have been reduced quite as much as rents around Dublin, which had almost a monopoly of the best market until about 1855-60. But the proof of this spoliation is made most apparent by taking into account a single fact, and drawing the natural inference from it. The value of the landlords' interest in the land, before 1881, was from 20 to 25 years' purchase; it is now between 15 and 18; at the same time the value of the tenants' interest has, in thousands of cases, enormously increased. I refer to a few examples out of scores to be found in the evidence given to the Fry Commission. I take first an estate in Ulster: 'I only remember one case of a holding before 1881 that went up (in a sale of the farm) to anything like 20 years' purchase of the rent, and I have several cases since then that have gone beyond it. I remember one case that struck me very forcibly because of the great amount the man got--20 years' purchase. Since then I have known, 29, 35, 36, 34 years' purchase to be given.' I turn now to two estates in the south of Ireland: 'Charles Bolster, 112 acres; rent L79 5_s._; sold for L570 in 1889. Daniel Buckley, 9 acres, at rent of L3 3_s._; sold in 1889 for L45. Christopher Crofts, 131 acres; old rent, L86; judicial rent fixed in 1893, L80; sold in 1889 for L120. Timothy Reefe, 5 acres; rent, 29_s._; sold in 1891 for L47.' I pass on to the second estate: 'Next case, 65 acres; old rent, L60; judicial rent, L56 14_s._, fixed in 1883 by agreement; sold in 1883 for L330. Next, 76 statute acres; old rent, L115; judicial rent fixed in 1885 at L108; sold in December, 1885, for L1600.'[142]

This great fall in the value of the fee simple in the Irish land, and this great rise in the value of the tenant right, coinciding with the general fixing of 'fair rents,' distinctly point to a plain conclusion: the interest of the Irish landlord has been enormously reduced, a result never contemplated by the author of the Act of 1881. In truth, there has been little or no decline in the market price of land in Ireland; but property that ought to belong to the landlord has been improperly taken from him, and has been transferred to the tenant who had no right to it. Excuses, however, have been made for this wholesale abolition of rent; they are worthless, but may be briefly noticed. Ireland, it is said, is suffering, like England, from the agricultural depression of late years; and rents in Ireland have not been cut down more by the act of the State than they have been reduced in England by the voluntary acts of landlords. But agricultural depression in Ireland, a land of small holdings, and of pasturage, to a considerable extent, is not, by many degrees, as severe as in England, a land of large farms and largely of cereal culture; a signal proof of this is that, while in England, tenants have, in hundreds of instances, thrown up their farms, there has hardly been a case of the kind in Ireland, as appears from the Report of the Fry Commission. Besides, if agricultural prices have fallen in Ireland, compared to what they were, say, twenty-five years ago, they are higher than they were in the years, say, 1850-55, not to take into account the progress made by Ireland, in the last half-century, in crops, farm machinery, and the breeds of farming animals. As to the reduction of rents in England and Ireland, the supposed analogy completely fails. The rental of England rose greatly from 1850 to 1880; there was no corresponding increase in Ireland; there was thus a margin for reduction, in the greater island, which in the lesser did not exist. Again, no comparison can be made between State-settled Irish rents and English rents lowered by the voluntary acts of landlords. 'Fair rents' have practically been reduced for all time; the reduction of English rents is temporary, and can be at once annulled; this difference makes a supposed resemblance a very striking contrast. As to the argument that the Courts which have fixed 'fair rents' have been composed of honourable men, and that it is extremely invidious to make charges against them, mere leather and prunella may be brushed aside. No one disputes the honour of the Land and the Sub-Commissioners, but it does not follow that they have not done injustice; no one has disputed the honour of the Commission which carried out the Encumbered Estates Act, and yet it repeatedly sold estates at less than half their value.

The Irish landlords, I repeat, have been iniquitously despoiled; a huge confiscation has been made of their property. If the simplest right is to be done in this province, their claim to compensation has been rendered complete--apart from the utterances of Mr. Gladstone; should this be disregarded, Parliament will have been chargeable with a grave breach of faith, and a precedent will have been set from trampling on the just rights of property in the Three Kingdoms, which will be dangerous in the extreme. I pass on to consider the Irish land on the side of ownership, and the administration of the system of so-called 'land purchase.' Of the total of L40,000,000 alone available, some L20,000,000 appear to have been expended; some 50,000 tenants have been made owners of their farms, without having paid a shilling of their own, that is, rather more than one in ten of the whole tenant class in Ireland. The politicians who declared against 'dual ownership,' that bugbear of self-sufficient ignorance, can find little consolation in these figures; I shall comment afterwards on what this state of things has produced. The Government of Lord Salisbury still proposes to seek to accelerate 'land purchase' of this kind; and loud complaints have been made of the law's delay in not having made the process more speedy. I have had no experience in this matter, and shall, therefore, give no opinion on it; but it appears to me that there has been some want of care in making advances to these so-styled 'purchasers;' not a few were insolvent when they acquired their farms, and many are now on the verge of bankruptcy. This, however, was perhaps inseparable from the system that has been pursued; it is only an additional proof of its essential vices.