Present Irish Questions

by William O'Connor Morris

Sixty or seventy officials of this type—the number was afterwards largely increased—were thus, in the significant words of one, ‘let loose over Ireland’ to deal with estates; it is very remarkable that they have never received instructions from the Land Commission how to perform their duties. The procedure of the Courts of the Sub-Commissions was, under existing conditions, as well devised as could be fairly expected. The three Commissioners, who formed a Court, nearly always sate together, and heard the evidence brought before them as to what were ‘fair rents;’ the legal Commissioner decided questions of law; and, this evidence having been taken, the two lay Commissioners inspected the farms, the subjects of the previous inquiries, and having conferred with their legal colleague, determined with him what should be their ‘fair rents.’ This was the ordinary if not the universal practice; if some deviations have been made from it, these cannot be deemed of very great importance. Grave complaints have been made, in not a few instances, of the lay Commissioners, when engaged in examining lands; it has been said that they often neglected and ‘scamped’ their work; but these charges have been hardly, if at all, sustained; my own experience—and it is tolerably large—is that the Commissioners performed their functions with diligence and care, and sometimes gave proof of real knowledge of husbandry.[95] But it was utterly impossible that tribunals of this kind, not composed of experts of a high order, dependent upon the breath of the Castle, without regulations to direct their conduct, and acting, without concert, in many districts, could adjust rent in a satisfactory way, and in conformity with true methods, especially as the work they had to do was excessive; indeed, they sometimes fixed ‘fair rents’ by dozens in a day. It was equally impossible that the Sub-Commissions—and to do their members justice they never made the attempt—could take into account all the manifold and far-reaching elements which enter into the question of ‘fair rent,’ and could set forth, in exhaustive judgments, the principles applicable to a most intricate problem. On the contrary, as a rule, and no doubt wisely, they avoided topics which might have tasked the highest judicial powers; they decided the cases before them summarily, and with little reflection, certainly without the protracted examination required to establish settled rules and doctrines. And the result has been that they disregarded, and even set at nought, a whole series of considerations, of supreme importance, with reference to the fixing of ‘fair rent;’ and, however unconsciously and innocently, they have been the authors, in the first instance at least, of the gravest injustice, and of wrong, done wholesale, to the landed gentry of Ireland.

To make this plain, let us glance back at the principles which assuredly ought to have been kept in view, in coming to sound conclusions on the subject of ‘fair rent.’ It will be seen that the Sub-Commissioners either gave little or no attention to these, or directly violated them in, perhaps, tens of thousands of cases. They have never attempted to establish some kind of standard, which would form a general measure of ‘fair rent;’ they have completely ignored the definition of Mr. Law, precise and most valuable as it was; they have treated ‘Griffith’s valuation’ as though it did not exist; they have regarded the Report of Mr. Gladstone’s Commission, declaring that Ireland was not excessively rented, as mere waste paper; they have apparently taken hardly any account of the well-known distinction between the low rentals of the great and old landlords, and the rack-rents too often exacted by purchasers under the Encumbered Estates Acts. So, too, it would seem, they have refused to consider the strong presumption that rents would be ‘fair’ if not raised during a long series of years, and if reasonably well paid, within that period; and they certainly have given no real weight, as an element in adjusting rent, to the agricultural progress made by Ireland since the Great Famine. Innumerable complaints have been made against their decisions as to the exemption of tenants’ improvements from rent; but my belief is that they gave great attention to this subject; the wrong that has been done was owing to the difficulty of the law, and of its application to given cases; and the law, besides, was not, I think, just. On the correlative and most important question of the deterioration of farms through the default of tenants, they have hardly ever inquired into this; they have repeatedly done the landlords wrong; they have made grave and palpable mistakes; and in many instances they have made no allowances for the expenditure of landlords upon their estates. Having thus refused to follow the principles which ought to have been their guide, they have widely deviated in the actual fixing of ‘fair rents’ from rules and methods they should have observed and made effective. They have given too much weight to the class of evidence that was least important and most open to question; they have attached little and sometimes no value to the class of evidence by far the most trustworthy, and that ought to possess the greatest influence. This has especially been the case, as we shall see, with respect to the sums paid on the transfer of farms, the strongest possible indication that their rents must be ‘fair,’ on the ordinary principles of human nature, and giving the purchasers credit for the simplest common sense.

These are grave charges against quasi-judicial bodies; let us see if they are not completely justified. The Sub-Commissioners, I have said, have taken no heed of Mr. Law’s definition of ‘fair rent;’ but they have acted as though they set it at defiance; they have ignored the principle of competition in fixing ‘fair’ rents. Unquestionably, as Mr. Law pointed out, a deduction should be made from a competition rent, regard being had to ‘the tenant’s interest,’ that is, to his rights in respect of improvements, and perhaps to his rights on account of his tenure, a lease renewable every fifteen years, when a ‘fair rent’ is being fixed on his farm; but why the very idea of competition, that is, of market value, was to be excluded as an element in estimating ‘fair rent,’ is what men of common sense have never understood. This, in fact, was a portentous mistake, with consequences of a far-reaching kind; you might as well argue that because two partners had an interest in a fee simple estate, or two peasants had each a share in a cow, the price of the land or the cow was not to depend on what would be given for it at an auction mart or a county fair. Yet this was a position the Sub-Commissions have always taken; they have always insisted that competition had nothing to do with ‘fair rent.’ The evidence on this subject is conclusive; I can only take a few samples from the statements of a cloud of witnesses, who really seem to make a boast of their faith. Colonel Bayley, a Sub-Commissioner of large experience, has laid it down that the ‘difference between a competition rent and the fair rent would be more than 20 per cent.; it would, I think, be more than that; there would be between 30 and 75 per cent. difference between the fair rent and the competition rent.’[96] Mr. Roberts, another Sub-Commissioner, has deposed to much the same effect: ‘Decidedly, I believe that if the land was put in the market it would bring 25 per cent. more than the rent I put on.’[97] So, too, Mr. Bailey, a legal Sub-Commissioner, very much respected, has alleged: ‘It would be most misleading to take the evidence of letting value in the neighbourhood, thus bringing in competition value, which we rigorously exclude in fair-rent cases.’[98] Mr. Bomford, a well-known Sub-Commissioner, has said, in much the same sense: ‘We do not take the competition rent, and cannot take it into consideration, when fixing what the fair rent should be. Then you utterly exclude, when you come to the fixing of the fair rent, the element of competition?—Yes, except in one matter, when we have town parks.’[99]

Let us now see what distinctions, in fixing ‘fair rents,’ the Sub-Commissioners have drawn between landlords whose rentals were low and landlords whose rentals were really high; and how they have dealt with rents, paid for a long space of time, without having been raised; this is a fair index of the equity of their proceedings. It should be remarked, at the outset, that it soon appeared that rents had only been increased in comparatively few instances, going back over a series of years; yet, as a rule, nearly all rents were indiscriminately reduced. No attempt has been made, by any official of the Land Commission, to answer this damaging charge made, in 1897, at a judicial inquiry held upon the subject: ‘The result of that calculation, the accuracy of which cannot be challenged, shows that, as the result of all the cases that were heard, in only 8 per cent. of them was any increase of rent for many years prior to 1881 proved. But whether the Sub-Commissioners are dealing with an estate on which for centuries the rents had remained unchanged, and on which the tenants had been fairly treated, or whether they were dealing with estates that had come into the hands of speculators by purchase in the Landed Estates Court, in all cases the average result was the same. They deducted something between 15 and 20 per cent. from the existing rent, no matter how long it had existed, and no matter upon what estate it was being paid.’[100] This significant evidence, too, points to the same conclusion: ‘There is nothing to justify the reductions that have been made in the rents of good landlords, who did not raise their rents in the good years. In fact, the landlords who did raise their rents got off a great deal better, at the hands of the Sub-Commissioners, than the good landlords who did not raise them.’[101] And Mr. Lecky, a calm-minded observer, if there ever was one, has added these striking and pregnant remarks: ‘The landlords who have suffered least have probably been those who simplified their properties by the wholesale evictions, the harsh clearances, that too often followed the Famine. Next in the scale come those who exacted extreme rack-rents from their tenants. These rents had been received for many years, and though they were ultimately reduced more than rents which had been always low, they still, in innumerable instances, remained higher than the others. The large class who regarded land simply as a source of revenue, and, without doing anything harsh, or extortionate, or unjust, took no part in its management, have suffered very moderately. It is the improving landlord, who took a real interest in his estate, who sank large sums in draining and other purposes of improvement, who exercised a constant and beneficent influence over his tenants, who has suffered most from the legislation that reduced him to a mere powerless rent-charger, and, in most cases, rendered the sums he had expended an absolute loss.’[102]

The Sub-Commissions dealt with the subject of the exemption of tenants’ improvements from rent, on the whole, as fairly, I think, as could be expected; and on the different questions of law that arose, appeals ran from them to the Land Commission, which usually investigated these cases at length. But this part of the law, really an excrescence on the Act of 1881, was unfair to the landlords, in the circumstances in which they were placed; they were confronted by innumerable and often obsolete and worthless claims, which they had only seldom the means of refuting; and if the demoralisation and false swearing under the Act of 1870 was bad, they were infinitely worse under the Act of 1881. A witty Irishman, indeed, once said that he could wish no severer punishment for Mr. Gladstone than to see him in a Sub-Commission Court listening to those wrongful statements; the mischief has, of course, been aggravated since the Act of 1896 has made the basis for the exemption larger and more ill-defined. The Sub-Commissions, I have said, were gravely in error, almost, as a rule, with respect to the deterioration of land, as an element to be considered in fixing rent; in this respect gross injustice has been done to landlords. There is scarcely any proof that, even in a single instance, the Sub-Commissioners valued land ‘for fair rent,’ as in its normal state; and yet, assuredly, this was what ought to have been done, if a premium was not to be put on misconduct, and because farms had been injured and exhausted in hundreds, throughout Ireland. The deterioration was usually of two kinds—wilful waste committed in order to work down rent, and passive waste caused by negligence and bad farming. Out of many instances, under the first head, I shall refer to one; the Sub-Commissioners usually gave little or no attention to wrongs of this kind; in this instance they enabled the tenant to make money by his own misdeeds; they reduced the rent nearly 30 per cent.: ‘The dykes were full of stuff and choked, and the sluice-gate, which we had repaired at our own expense, was all choked up, and the water had been left on the land as long as it could stay on it. I complained and remonstrated with the tenant. I sent for Madden, and in Mr. Lyle’s presence I stated this to him. His answer to me was that he was not such a damned fool as to have his land looking well when the Commissioners came to look at it.

‘Sir E. Fry: Did that case come before the Sub-commissioner Court?—It did.

‘Did you give evidence of what the tenant said?—Yes, sir....

‘Mr. Campbell: I will tell you, sir, what they did.

‘How much did they reduce the first judicial rent?—They reduced the first judicial rent; they cut it down from £70 10s. to £51.’[103]

As for passive waste, that is, the bad cultivation of farms, the proof is conclusive that it has been seldom, if ever, considered by the Sub-Commissions in fixing ‘fair rents.’ If we bear in mind that many thousands of acres in Ireland have been well-nigh destroyed by the burning done by tenants, and that hundreds of thousands have been run out by slovenly farming, the injury thus done to landlords has been enormous, especially as tenants’ improvements have been exempted from rent against them; the ‘candle,’ it has been justly said, ‘has been melted down at both ends.’ I cite two instances, out of hundreds, of the injustice thus done; it has been proved over and over again that, in the case of two adjoining farms, in all respects of the same natural quality, the rent on that which was deteriorated was fixed at a much lower rate than the rent on that which was in good heart; in other words, the landlord was despoiled of the difference, and the tenant had the benefit of his bad husbandry. I take, almost at random, a case in Ulster: ‘The Commissioners always value the land as they see it. I have two cases on my property in one townland. One tenant was an industrious, hard-working man, who had his farm in very good order. The second tenant, his wife had died, he was in poverty, with a lot of young children, and he himself was not quite “all there.” These two holdings came at the same time before the Sub-Commissioners, and the rents were cut down in each case. When the thing was over, I said to Quinn, who was one of the tenants, “Are you satisfied with your reduction?” “How can I be satisfied,” he said, “when my rent is at the same rate as Hurson’s rent?” I looked at the return and saw he was quite right.... The deteriorated farm was cut down considerably more than the cultivated farm.’ Another remarkable case occurred in the west: ‘I had a case, I think decided this year; a farm that was divided between two sons fifteen or twenty years ago; the father divided the land before I came into the management of the property.