It is amusing to observe that the same persons who are anxious to mitigate the effects of competition by imposing on the owner of the land a rent fixed by Act of Parliament, always contend that the person in whose favour this beneficial interest is to be created should have the right to dispose of it to the highest bidder:[1] that is to say, though I am to be precluded from receiving the market value of my land,—my tenant is to be allowed to do so, by extracting a fine from whoever may be induced to make the most extravagant offer for his goodwill. It is hardly perhaps to be expected that the advocates of such measures should condescend to show how far their proposals are compatible with justice, and the narrowest interpretations cf the rights of property, but at least they ought to prove them conducive to the agricultural prosperity of the country, and consonant with public policy.
- ↑ The Church Temporalities and Landlord and Tenant Questions.—Drogheda, March 11th.—"At a very full meeting of the Drogheda Board of Guardians—Patrick Matthew, Esq., J. P., in the chair—the following resolutions, in connexion with the above questions, were unanimously adopted:—"That we petition the Legislature to pass such a law of landlord and tenant as will give a fixity of tenure of from 61 to 100 years, according to the relative number of reclaimed acres of land in each holding, fixing rents by adding one-fourth or one-third to the present Poor Law valuation, making that sum the rent. No compensation save for permanent improvements made within fifteen years prior to the expiration of term; also, giving a right to tenant or occupier to sell the good-will of the holding, if anything should occur to oblige him to take such a course." Northern Whig.
