Thirdly, if a tenant finds it necessary or convenient to leave his farm, he may sell his tenant right, with the approbation of his landlord. This approbation is not to be capriciously refused; but, on the other hand, the tenant is not at liberty to select any substitute that he thinks proper, irrespective of his character, and possession of sufficient means for the efficient cultivation of the land. He is not always permitted even to accept the utmost that an eligible successor would be willing to pay for the tenant right. The landlord has an obvious interest in preventing this price from being too high. Too high a price might deprive the incoming tenant of the means of doing justice to the farm. Moreover, it might impose a moral obligation on the landlord not to raise the rent so high as he might otherwise do without prejudice to the customary tenant right allowed on his estate. Thus, suppose the customary value of the tenant right on an estate has been 77. an acre, but since the last settlement fixing the rate of rent the country has improved, or the price of agricultural produce has risen, so that it would be reasonable in a short time to make a new agreement with the tenants respecting the rents. In this case, if an incoming tenant, with the consent of the landlord, paid for the tenant right a price based on the calculation that the present amount of rent would not be altered for a considerable period, he would have a just cause of complaint if the landlord, by raising his rent, should disturb the arrangements, on the faith of which he had paid his money. If the selling tenant should say, have not I a right to sell my interest for the highest price I can get? the landlord might reply, have not I the same right? The selling tenant has no right to complain, if, when he sells his farm, he gets back the price which he originally paid, together with the value of all the improvements which he may have made in the meantime.

Fourthly, all arrears of rent must be paid before the transfer is completed. In a large and well-managed estate, the transaction proceeds in this manner :-John M'Garry holds a farm at the yearly rent of 30%. He

owes a year and a half's rent, and he wishes to sell his farm, in order to emigrate, or to set up a shop, or to pay his debts, or for any other purpose. Charles O'Neil agrees to give him 500l. for it. He asks the agent's consent, which is granted. They call on the agent at his office; all arrears of rent are paid, probably out of the 500%. An entry is made in the books, and the name of Charles O'Neil is entered as tenant in place of John M'Garry. The transaction is then complete, without any law expenses or any risk of bad title. It is true that as against the landlord it rests upon his honour, and upon public opinion; but as against the rest of the world, the title is perfect. No creditor, purchaser, mortgagee, or claimant under any former tenant can disturb the purchaser. A notice to quit by the landlord will protect him against every other claimant. It is no small advantage to be emancipated from all the complicated laws of landed property.

Thus in Ulster, free trade in land, as far as the right of occupation is concerned, prevails in the most perfect manner. Thus important property, to the value of several millions, may be bought and sold without risk, or trouble, or expense in reference to the title or conveyance as readily as a horse or a cow. Find a person in possession willing to sell, agree upon the value, and pay the price, and the thing is done the property is yours. It is true that this free trade affects only the permanent right of occupation, and does not extend to the absolute property in the soil; but this is enough, for it is the industry and capital of the occupier that makes the land the source of wealth.

I have alluded to the entry in the agent's books where the estate is large; but where the estate is small, and managed with less regularity, the same transaction is accomplished, without any formal entries in books, by a conversation with the landlord or his agent on the road, or at a fair or market, or any place where the parties meet each other.

There are some advantages attending the Ulster tenant right independent of the free trade in land which it

creates under this system the tenantry cannot be very poor. However, it may be said that this result is attained, not by giving property to the tenant, but by preventing any poor man from becoming a tenant. You cannot become a farmer unless you have capital sufficient not only to cultivate the land, but also to buy at a high price the interest of the tenant who is already in occupation.

To the manager of an estate the system is very agreeable. The rents are moderate, and paid with punctuality, and the agent is not subjected to the harassing labour and danger which attend the enforcement of rent in many parts of Ireland. There are no evictions by process of law; but if the tenant is not thriving, and finds it difficult to pay his rent, he is warned by the agent or by his own prudence, that he ought to sell his tenant right, and retire from his farm with a good sum in hand to emigrate or support him in some other pursuit, before he is totally ruined by remaining in a farm that he is unable to cultivate with profit. He is succeeded by a wealthier or more skilful tenant, and the landlord and the country at large gain by the change.

Under the Ulster system, the landlord appears to receive a smaller rent than he might reasonably demand, but I doubt if he is injured by it. He is less apt to live beyond his real income. His rent-roll does not present him with an extravagant view of his means. Owing to the quietness and industry of the people, the value of land improves rapidly. It is better to receive two-thirds of the value of an estate worth 6000l. a year than the entire value of an estate worth only 30007., and this is often the difference between an Ulster landlord and a landlord in those parts of Ireland where the system does not prevail. It is doubtful whether an Ulster landlord does not receive as much rent as a Connaught landlord would receive for an estate of the same natural productive powers.

But the system is not without its disadvantages. The tenant is too dependent on his landlord for the property for which he has paid the full value. Not only are his rights against the landlord not recognized by law, but even while dependent upon usage and honour, they are

incapable of being exactly defined. The important question, what ought to be the proportion between the value of the tenant's and the landlord's interest is not ascertained. It varies on different estates according to the wealth and liberality of the landlord, and even on the same estate it is liable to fluctuation.

When the value of land remains stationary, the matter is easily settled by letting the rent remain as it is; but when an improvement takes place gradually, a difficulty arises. It is not easy for some time to determine whether the change is temporary or is likely to be permanent. Every small increase in value, even if it is likely to be permanent, cannot be met by an immediate increase of rent. To make frequent, although small additions to the rent, would be a very unpopular course for the landlord to take. It would lead to frequent disputes, while it would alarm the tenantry, and diminish their confidence in the tenant right.

Thus, while an increase in the value of land is always gradual, and scarcely seen while it is going on, a rise in rent is a sharp change, and is immediately and unpleasantly felt. Take the case of a farmer who holds eighty acres at a rent of 120l. a year. The fair marketable value of the land is 17. 17s. an acre, so that he has a profit of seven shillings an acre in addition to the ordinary profits of his capital. For this tenant right he could readily get a price of 77. an acre, 5607. or more, if the people in the neighbourhood are prospering either in trade or agriculture. The country is improving, so that each year on an average adds three pence an acre to the value of the land. This goes on for twelve years, when the landlord thinks it right to make a new settlement of the rent, by adding three shillings an acre, leaving the customary seven shillings an acre tenant right. The tenant will certainly complain loudly. He will see that this increase of rent makes him worse off than he has been for several years past, and that nothing has occurred during the last three or four years to justify such an addition to his rent. He cannot remember accurately what was the general value of land twelve years ago,

while he has a very precise recollection of any improvements which he himself may have made in the meantime, and to such improvements, whether real or imaginary, he will attribute the increase of rent that has been imposed on him. He will complain all the more loudly, and feel a deeper sense of injury, because the justice of his complaint cannot be legally investigated. The legal power of the landlord to increase the rent is altogether independent of the circumstances by which his conduct may be justified.

Thus, whether by a gradual process or by starts at long intervals, the landlord finds it equally unpopular and disagreeable to increase the rents in proportion to the improvements, and in this manner the tenant right on large and liberally-managed estates has a constant tendency to increase in value. I believe it never was more valuable than it is now.

The right which the landlord has on the sale of a tenant right, to object to the purchaser or the price, is very rarely exercised. The ability to pay the purchase money may be taken as a fair proof that the incoming tenant will be able to cultivate the land and meet his engagements. As to the price, when the rent is all paid up, the incoming and outgoing tenant may make what bargain they like without the knowledge of the landlord, so that there is seldom an opportunity of objecting on this score.

So far everything seems to be in favour of the tenant. But if the value of land falls, the loss falls entirely upon him; and when the great depreciation of land took place in 1848, the state of parts of the counties of Armagh and Monahan was nearly as bad as in King's County or Tipperary. To those who wanted to part with their farms, the tenant right was valueless, as there were no purchasers. The tenants were unable to sell what they had bought at a very high price. They expected that good times would return if they could hold out for a short time, and were inclined, in defiance of the law, to resist every attempt to deprive them of their holdings, or to make them pay their rents.