contributes an important element to the value of landed property, and reconciles the purchaser to the low rate of interest proximately derived from it.[1] But let us regard Mr. Butt's proposal from another point of view. Probably, if asked for a justification of his measures, he would allege the right of the tenant to the enjoyment of his "improvements," and on that head perhaps my ideas are as liberal as his own. But how about the improvements which have not been made by the tenant, or which have been bought up by the landlord, or which though effected by the tenant have been executed under express contracts, and in consideration of reduced rents or long leases?[2] By what canon of justice does he expropriate these? Surely, if a tenant have an equitable claim for compensation, or to extension of occupancy in lieu of compensation, for money he imprudently risked on the prospective chance of his landlord's liberality, the landlord himself has a right to be continued in possession of that to which his equitable claim is as good, and his legal right so much better?
But it will be said, "the improvements on farms in Ireland are invariably made by the tenants." In a great number of instances this is the case. But
- ↑ "In such a measure, there would not have been any injustice, provided the landlords were compensated for the present value of the chances of increase which they were prospectively required to forego."—Mill, Polit. Econ. p. 410.
- ↑ A large proportion of the farm steadings on my own estate have been erected in accordance with the provisions of the beneficial leases, under which the farms were held.
